Lube-Tech PUBLISHED BY LUBE: THE EUROPEAN LUBRICANTS INDUSTRY MAGAZINE Wear protection
Engine oils contain anti-wear additives (e.g., ZDDP) and must pass strict wear tests such as the OM646LA Diesel test, Sequence IVB valvetrain test and Sequence X timing chain elongation test. Approved oils also meet High-Temperature High-Shear (HTHS) viscosity requirements, ensuring sufficient film strength under load. Some SFU oils may fail these criteria, as shown by VLS investigations revealing that some SFU oils exhibited significantly low HTHS viscosities, that may lead to increased or accelerated engine wear.1
Cold-start and low-temperature performance Proper cold-start lubrication depends on meeting SAE J300 standards, including Cold Cranking Simulator (CCS) and Mini Rotary Viscometer (MRV) tests. Oils must not exhibit yield stress, indicating gelation risks. Some SFU oils may sometimes fail these tests, risking oil starvation during cold starts. Our testing revealed that SFU oils exhibited inadequate oil flow at low temperatures.
Sludge, varnish, and deposit control Effective oils manage sludge and deposits, proven through rigorous testing (Sequence VH, M271 EVO Sludge Test, VW TDI3 and OEM In-House). OEM and ACEA-approved lubricants demonstrate consistent control, preventing piston ring sticking, blocked oil passages and engine failures. Some SFU oils which may lack formal validation, may risk insufficient performance leading to sludge buildup, particularly in extended drain interval scenarios, increasing the likelihood of serious engine damage.
Seals Compatibility
Oils must be compatible with engine elastomer seals, tested via ASTM D7216 or CEC L-112 standards to ensure appropriate swelling and hardness changes. OEM-approved oils are rigorously validated, while
1
Figure 4: This image demonstrates the results of seals testing conducted at Lubrizol’s test facility, comparing OEM-approved engine oil (left) with a SFU engine oil (right). The image is owned and protected by Lubrizol.
In summary, comparative performance of an SFU versus an approved oil can only be truly known by testing. A legitimately formulated SFU oil could perform just as well as an approved one, the trouble is distinguishing those from the sub-standard products. The evidence from some industry testing and Lubrizol’s internal testing suggests a non-trivial number of SFU claims do not fully meet the performance requirements. Through the testing we have conducted, Lubrizol has seen cases of too high phosphorus (risking catalytic converters), too low TBN (risking corrosive wear), failing pumpability, and insufficient HTHS in oils that were on sale to
https://ukla-vls.org.uk/latest-news/#:~:text=Case%20010203%C2%A0%E2%80%93%20Anonymous,only%20and%20the%20batch%20date
No.158 page 5
some SFU oils may assume compatibility without explicit testing, risking seals degradation, leaks and operational failures due to unexpected formulation incompatibilities.
The image below shows elastomers after performing CEC L-112 tests on an OEM approved oil compared to an oil claiming SFU for the same OEM specifications. It can be seen that the elastomers from the SFU oil are cracked, leading to reduced tensile strength. In an engine, this would result in break-down of the seals which would likely cause oil leaks.
LUBE MAGAZINE NO.187 JUNE 2025
37
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 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72
