Its unlikely that Rudolf Diesel or his rival Herbert Ackroyd Stuart had any idea that the diesel engine would develop into a $150 billion industry in automotive applications alone, transporting most of the goods we produce and consume, moving earth and building our structures.
Nor could they have expected that the simple need to reduce engine friction would beget nearly as many heavy-duty engine oil types and grades as there were moving parts in the first diesel engines made. If they had, they may have applied their genius to devising a system for labeling HDEO that buyers could easily understand and that assured drivers had the right oil for their diesel powered trucks and cars.
But it didnt play out that way.
HDEO specifications today are anything but easy for consumers to understand. In fact, many in the lubricants business themselves say its a challenge to keep current with all the specifications, categories and tests that define HDEO quality and performance. And there is little wonder why.
To start, inclusive of API CI-4 PLUS, there are 14 American Petroleum Institute C categories for diesel engine oil. They span the range from CA, CB, CC, on up to CJ-4. Ten of these categories are obsolete, and six are not suitable for use in most diesel-powered automotive engines, API cautions consumers. Yet we still see these obsolete specifications cited on product labels. Although the rare older truck might get by with such oils, fact is, the current specifications are backward compatible – so theres no need to refer to the earlier ones.
Adding to the complexity, many HDEO labels also display the current API SN Service Category (or API SM, its still-active predecessor category). This leaves many scratching their heads, since this is for gasoline engines. Furthermore, the 800 ppm maximum phosphorus allowed for API SN and SM is far below the levels required to meet heavy-duty oil categories. So to clear up – or add to – the confusion, let us look at Footnote F for the SN definition in API Document 1509. It says:
For all viscosity grades: If CH-4, CI-4 and/or CJ-4 categories precede the S category and there is no API Certification Mark, the S category limits for phosphorus, sulfur, and the TEOST MHT do not apply. However, the CJ-4 limits for phosphorus and sulfur do apply for CJ-4 oils. Note that these C category oils have been formulated primarily for diesel engines and may not provide all of the performance requirements consistent with vehicle manufacturers recommendations for gasoline-fueled engines.
Reading that, one has to wonder what diesel/gasoline engines were in mind to prompt the inclusion of Footnote F. Today, diesel engine manufacturers want to put an end to such universal oils, but how might our industry reconcile that? (Whereas today an oil can be licensed as API CJ-4/SN, tomorrow it cannot if it is labeled CK-4/SN or FA-4/SN?)
In addition, HDEO labels often reference European specifications. ACEA (which represents European auto manufacturers) is responsible for the continents motor oil classifications. These include ACEA A1/B1, A3/B3, A3/B4, A5/B5, C1, C2, C3, C4, (for light-duty gasoline and diesel vehicles), and E4, E6, E7 and E9 (for heavy-duty diesel engines). They also address the needs of highly rated diesel engines meeting Euro I through VI emission standards.
But wait, there is more. In addition to displaying API and ACEA specifications, HDEO labels typically include a list of original equipment manufacturers approvals. These are sometimes aligned with API and ACEA specifications, and sometimes not. Labels most commonly cite Caterpillar, Cummins, Detroit Diesel, Mercedes-Benz, Navistar, Renault and Volvo, and there are others. Similar to API, most OEMs have an ongoing series of specifications, both current and obsolete. Further, some OEMs have technical requirements that are mutually exclusive. Yet we still see oils claiming specifications that are outdated or in conflict with each other.
There is more. Take a close look at the wording on the bottles and jugs of HDEO in the market. Some say the product meets the requirements of the stated specifications; others say the product is suitable for such use. Whats the difference? According to formulators, the difference can be upwards of $6 million in testing and approvals to obtain the former. What a difference a word makes.
There are other examples, but the point has hopefully been made. Again, one has to wonder what Rudolf Diesel would be thinking if he were alive today and looking at diesel engine oils, and realizing that the specifications are on track to become even more complicated and confusing when the next API, ACEA and OEM upgrades are introduced.
Could a genius of Diesels caliber work to devise a simple, globally unified system of specifications that protects consumers, is easy to understand, and leaves room for blenders to compete on a level playing field with OEMs? Or would he work to build a system of OEM-specific engine oils?
As things stand, the U.S. Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act limits the OEMs ability to push demand for their own aftermarket oils. They may attain that goal anyway, if complexity and confusion in the market turn push demand into pull demand for OEM oils.
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