1999-2009 [Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
Yes, the current US mktg PDF has a date of 10/02. I have 3 sets of 10/02 PDFs, & an earlier 8/02 PDF, which all have slight differences in specs and wording. These four documents were printed out at approximately 1 month intervals of 19Sep02, 16Oct02, 11Nov02, & 23Jan03 (sorry, I must've been preoccupied around the end of December). The fact that 0W-40 is GF-3 rated makes perfect sense from a marketing standpoint. (BTW, it was Jason you were beating up about that.) Since there is no fuel economy requirement to get an ACEA A3 rating, you need some other way to say that your more protective oil is also fuel efficient. (Also, the fact that GF-3 requires less of an improvement than either of the A1/A5 specs doesn't hurt.) In my opinion, this is why it's the only one of the 12 currently GM-LL-A-025 approved oils which is not a 0W-30.
If, instead, you go to Mobil's Global documents, you'll see dates much older. However, I may have been a little premature in my claim of 7 yr old marketing info. I looked only at the PDF for the 0W-40 product. It has a published date of July 1996, but obviously you don't simultaneously compile & publish a document. Since we're 6 yrs & 7 mos past the published date, I simply allowed for 5 mos to assemble the documentation. That might've been too much, but even allowing only 2 mos puts us at 6 yrs & 9 mos. That's still pretty close to 7 yrs old from the latest iteration of the US PDF.
Where I really messed up was in not looking at the other Global Mobil 1 PDFs. They have published dates of May 1995, & again taking into account document compilation, that puts us just shy of 8 yrs prior to the current US info.
I'm not exactly sure what "pieces of information" you're referring to, but I both agree & disagree with the availability of A3 rated oils here in the US. If someone's only criteria were to use A3 rated oil, I think there are enough widely-available choices to be able to do that. However, if someone wants their favorite 0W-30 to also be A3 rated, then you're right, there's not much choice. (Actually, there's NO choice, is there?)
My feeling is that ACEA has a different agenda than API . If you go thru the ACEA specs, it's apparent that their grades divide oils into 2 catagories: Less-Protective-But-More-Fuel-Efficient (A1/A5) & More-Protective-But-Less-Fuel-Efficient (A2/A3). Going thru the API SL/ILSAC GF-3 specs, they're trying to cover everything all at once. Because of this, the standards aren't as high for either engine protection or fuel efficiency.
Which sort-of brings us to the new GM-LL oils. If we take a look at those 12 GM-LL oils, we find:
1) They're all European formulations.
2) They're all fully synthetic.
3) All but one are 0W-30.
4) 7 are also ACEA A3 rated.
5) Of the remaining 5, 2 are A5 rated, 2 are A1 rated, & 1 is not specified.
It seems as though the Europeans are better at producing API-style oils than we are! Without seeing the GM-LL spec, I can only guess that it's biased towards fuel economy & oil longevity (which does not necessarily equate to engine protection.) Unfortunately, this spec is still in "vapor-ware" status. I've contacted GM 5 times about getting something on it, & so far the most I've received is, "To better direct your question, we would appreciate it if you would take a moment to advise us of what purpose you have in seeking the specifications for GM-LL-A-025." (This was reply #3, in response to contact #4. Gosh, I didn't realize it was such a sensitive document!) Why require compliance to an unpublished spec which doesn't appear to be an improvement upon any existing specs? Like DexCool, I think it's mostly designed to earn GM more "ecological credits" when when they get fees tallied up by various countries.
I still think the marketing documentation is less important in Europe due to their acceptance of full syn oils allowing them to greatly extend their drain intervals while still protecting their engines. If everybody already accepts this, why bother putting the time & effort into restating it? The US view is different because we prefer to buy cheap, throw away, & buy again. We still need convincing that we can get that much protection for that length of time & miles. Also, "being green" is still relatively new to us as a society, so percieved environmental benefits are hailed as a breakthru instead of assumed as a requirement.
Sorry.
Who'da thunk a "dates" question would've turned into socio-economic treatise?
posted by 216.160.177...
, Thu, 6 Feb 2003 00:19:07
, Sun, 2 Feb 2003 02:07:41, Sun, 2 Feb 2003 14:41:10, Sun, 2 Feb 2003 02:37:16, Mon, 3 Feb 2003 14:56:52, Tue, 4 Feb 2003 00:33:52, Tue, 4 Feb 2003 14:25:52, Tue, 4 Feb 2003 00:30:27, Tue, 4 Feb 2003 14:15:30, Wed, 5 Feb 2003 01:54:15, Wed, 5 Feb 2003 01:34:57, Tue, 4 Feb 2003 01:46:13, Wed, 5 Feb 2003 07:28:31, Wed, 5 Feb 2003 07:31:50
No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
