Its not uncommon to hear professionals in our industry express concern about the bewildering labels on quarts, jugs and pails of lubricants. The myriad of specifications, codes and claims that appear there can overwhelm buyers with T.M.I. – too much information. This can blind consumers into making potentially harmful buying decisions because they think more is better when looking at claims.
By way of example, look at containers of tractor hydraulic fluid. Labels on these yellow buckets often include a laundry list of specifications, some of them obsolete (i.e., John Deere JD-303, JDM-20A and Quatrol).
The JD-303 specification, for starters, was dropped in the 1970s because it was based on sperm whale oil, and sperm oil since then has been illegal to use as a lubricant. Yet we still see THF in the market prominently labeled as 303 Fluid. The JDM-20A specification has been defunct since the early 1990s, but it continues to live on the labels of some THF buckets, too. In addition, these labels may reference as many as 14 farm-equipment manufacturers, and sometimes include language that could lead one to believe that even a THF with obsolete specifications is good to go in tractors minted in 2015.
And it doesnt end there. A similar situation is seen in passenger car engine oils. Whereas most PCEO in the North American market meets current American Petroleum Institute standards, its not hard to find products on the shelves that claim only to meet the API SA category. By definition, SA oils contain zero additives, and are unfit for use in vehicles built since 1930. While there may have been robust demand for such products in the 1920s by car owners wearing tweed English driving caps and vented leather gloves while tooling around in a Tin Lizzie, these oils have been obsolete for decades. Yet, there is still plenty of API SA on the shelves, and others meeting obsolete specifications.
Lets table discussion about THF and PCEO labeling, and move on to the core topic of this column: labels on heavy-duty engine oil. Some are so encrusted with arcane specifications that they absolutely defy comprehension.
The back label on a bottle of Wolfs Head SAE 15W-40 for example references 50 distinct performance specifications: API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4, CG-4, CF-4, CF-2, CF and API SN, SM, SL, SJ, SH. Mack EO-O Premium Plus 07, EO-N Premium Plus, EO-M Plus, EO-M. Volvo VDS-4, VDS-3, VDS-2. Deutz DDC 111-05. Cummins CES 20081, 20078, 20077, 20076. Renault RLD-3. Detroit Diesel DDC 93K218, 93K215, 214. Caterpillar ECF-3, ECF-1, TO-2. Global DHD-1. JASO DH-2. MB228.5, 228.3, 228.3/31, 228.1, 227.1. Man 3275. MTU Type I and II. Navistar Allison C4. ACEA E7-04, E4, E2, B3, A3. Mil-Prf 2104G. CID A-A-52306. In addition, the front label states the product is DPF Approved.
While it might be comforting for some to see 50 different performance specifications, the label does not state that the product has secured all these approvals. It says Recommended for all diesel/gasoline engines latest warranty requirements of manufacturers around the world, including, U.S., Japanese, Korean, and European manufacturers specifying such oils. This might leave some scratching their head wondering if the product is simply recommended by the oils manufacturer. Further, those with a strong technical background will question how this product can meet Cummins CES 20078 and CES 20081 when these specifications are mutually exclusive. And how can a product be DPF Approved when there are no industry standards for such approval?
Next read the label on a bottle of Cam2 SuperHD Premium Plus CJ-4/SN 15W-40 (07). It includes many of the same specifications, leaving one with the same question about CES 20078 and 20081. It also says it meets Mercedes Benz 228.3 and 228.5, and ACEA E5. This too is confusing since MB-Approval 228.5 requires Total Base Number of 12 or greater, and sulfated ash higher than 1.0 percent/wt., but not more than 2.0 %wt. As such, its mutually exclusive with API CJ-4 (sulfated ash limit: 1.0 %wt. or less), And while this product claims to meet ACEA E5, this specification was withdrawn and has been obsolete since 2006.
Even a leading oil major can raise eyebrows and questions with its HDEO labels. Although the back label on Shell Rotella T Triple Protection says the product meets API CI-4 PLUS (among other categories), API CI-4 PLUS is not displayed in the API donut on the label. Why not? And while it might be simply a typo, oversight or nit-picking, MB Approval 228.31 is incorrect; it should be MB-Approval 228.31. (Mercedes-Benz is a stickler about that hyphen.)
But who knows? Maybe these and other HDEO labeling issues are just oversights, typos and innocent errors. Fact is, its hard to tell due to the plethora and complexity of HDEO specifications and approval processes. Regardless, it means that consumers can easily make the wrong buying decisions. Further, it opens the door for unscrupulous players to game the system by taking advantage of buyers inability to decipher the hieroglyphics on labels that sometimes even confound and confuse industry insiders. And this situation will likely get worse, not better, with the next HDEO category upgrade.
Next month, a closer look at specifications and why less information can mean more when buying HDEO.
Tom Glenn is president of theconsulting firm Petroleum Trends International, the Petroleum Quality Institute of America, and Jobbers World newsletter. Phone: (732) 494-0405. E-mail: tom_glenn@petroleumtrends.com