LEGISLATION
Which is more important: ACEA lubricant standards vs OEM specifications?
David Wright, UKLA Director General
Think back twenty or even thirty years and the benchmarks for engine lubricants were SAE (the Society of Automotive Engineers) for viscosity grades and API (the American Petroleum Institute) for lubricant performance for both petrol and diesel vehicles.
Wind the clock forward to today and the European association of OEMs (ACEA) have long since developed their own standards for European passenger and heavy duty commercial vehicles, recognising that vehicles in the region require their own specific products.
Today motorists are faced with a wide range of technically-advanced products. With the average age of the European vehicle parc now standing at seven years, the owner’s manuals of yesteryear might still quote a lubricant standard that has long since been superseded.
Backwards compatibility is the mantra among lubricant manufacturers and OEMs. So even if today’s oil quotes the GM standard dexos2 rather than the previous GM LL A 025 (petrol) or GM LL B 025 (diesel), the oil should still be backwardly compatible and suitable for use.
Over previous decades ACEA became the ‘de facto’ benchmark for lubricant standards in Europe, informed by the technological developments in engine design which in turn responded to the European regulator’s requirements for lower emissions and advanced fuel economy. At the same time not forgetting the car owner’s desire for vehicle performance.
More recently we have seen ACEA become the starting point and not the end point for lubricant standards. Certainly a C3 5w30 is still an industry
28 LUBE MAGAZINE NO.151 JUNE 2019
mainstay but over time more and more manufacturers have stipulated a product variant so that on the shelves of many high street lubricant retailers we see a VW ACEA C3, a GM variant ACEA C3, a Ford ACEA C3 for example.
Rather than the end point for lubricant standards, instead ACEA has now become the starting position from which the OEMs develop their own product variant. This recognises that not all OEM engine technology is the same. Some OEMs might require more advanced protection against sludge, other OEMs might require more advanced protection against wear, fuel economy or exhaust after treatment device protection and so on.
This leads to an issue about stockholding in motor factors, garages and workshops if the after-market that sits alongside the franchised dealer network, has to cater for many OEM brands. Faced with a shortage of space for stockholding then the aftermarket might look to rationalise holding by seeking products which can cover many different OEM specifications in a single product, even if in reality a single product might not be suitable for all marques.
ACEA therefore becomes the point of entry for OEM engine lubricant standards and not the last word. In future the trend already set for more OEMs to require their own specific variant of, for example, an ACEA C3 looks set to continue as increasingly sophisticated engine technology is used to support product developments.
After all if the owner’s manual says to use a specific ACEA C3 product variant, then who is going to argue with that?
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48
