This article highlights the key takeaways from our recent Are Suitable for Use Passenger Car Engine Lubricants Really Suitable?, part of our Lubrizol360 Webinar Series featuring Lubrizol experts discussing important industry trends.

The market for lower Sulphated Ash Phosphorus Sulphur (SAPS) lubricants is continuing to grow in response to governmental regulations, rapidly changing engine technology and consumer performance demands. As the market expands, more lubricants that are labeled Suitable for Use (SFU) are joining the market as lower-cost alternatives to original equipment manufacturer (OEM)-approved lubricants. But do SFU lubricants really protect passenger car engines from unnecessary wear and tear?

In this webinar, we provided background on SFU lubricants, examined some research on what effects they can have on your passenger car engine and offered insights into how we might think about SFU lubricants in the future.

Testing Matters

While all lubricants undergo testing before they are released on the market, not all tests are created equal. Typically, lubricants can be differentiated based on the robustness and thoroughness of the testing done.

• OEM Approved: The highest level of testing is done on lubricants that achieve full OEM approval. To earn that designation, the lubricants must go through full testing protocols and meet the highest possible standards. Though that can apply to OEM-branded lubricants, it is not limited to them—any brand can earn the OEM-approved designation, and earn a guarantee from the OEM that the fluid will protect that specific vehicle’s engine, if they select an approved formulation that has already undergone rigorous testing.
• Meets Performance: Below the highest level are lubricants that are labeled “meets performance.” Lubricants with that designation are supported by some testing, but generally don’t undergo the same level of testing as OEM-approved lubricants. As a result, they are not able to be approved by the OEM for use in their vehicles. Alternatively, a lubricant may have gone through the required testing, but due to the OEM’s processes, may not be given a formal approval. In the case of “meets performance” lubricants, it is important to understand what tests they are missing and whether that will materially affect their performance in the vehicle.
• Suitable for Use / Fit for Purpose: These lubricants undergo minimal or insufficient testing and have limited or no proof of real-world OEM performance. They are often formulated using judgments rather than testing and therefore are dependent on the expertise of the formulator to guarantee their performance.  Essentially, it is quite possible that these fluids have never seen an engine test.

What Can Go Wrong? 

For those lucky enough to own a passenger vehicle, they are often the second-largest investment people can make other than a home. Therefore, it makes sense to want to use the most effective lubricants to protect a vehicle’s engine completely. Using an unproven or untested lubricant, however, can sometimes lead to significant hardware failures in the engine, including:

• Piston deposits and turbocharger deposits, which can lead to operating issues
• Poor oxidation control, which leads to sludge buildup, blocked oil filters and blocked oil ways leading to increased wear on engine components
• Oil flow problems caused by winter temperatures which have resulted in oil starvation.
• Oil leakage and environmental contamination, potentially leading to oil starvation

All these hardware failures can, both individually and together, lead to engine failure. This leads to problems for the consumer, including the costs of refurbishing engine parts, replacement of the engine or, in the worst-case scenario, writing off the vehicle entirely. 

Under those circumstances, it’s important to realize that oil marketers own all aspects of liability for the fluids they supply to the market—and the damage to a brand’s reputation could be irreparable. After all, in today’s world of social media, forums and blogs, customers have easy access to these platforms to voice their feelings without necessarily offering proof or offering a chance for the companies to address the issues.

“Keyboard warriors” can significantly damage a brand’s reputation based on their own experience and opinion rather than relying on objective facts, and they are far more likely to voice negative experiences rather than positive ones. And it’s not just the oil marketer that is affected—the consumer could lose confidence in the vehicle manufacturer or the garage that changed the oil. Therefore, it’s important to bring lubricants to market that will perform properly.

How SFUs Perform

To see how well SFUs stand up against lubricants that have undergone rigorous testing protocols, we decided to test 11 SFU fluids that can generally be purchased at any garage or automotive shop today. We put them through the tests in key European Automobile Manufacturers' Association (ACEA) and OEM performance tests. Here’s what we found:

• 80% failed on basic lubricant parameters
• 50% showed failures on some of the major tests

With SFU lubricants, regardless of which tests they failed, we found nearly 10 times more deposits and significant levels of corrosion in comparison to other lubricants. As discussed earlier, deposits can lead to engine wear, filter blocking and component failure, and corrosion in the engine can result in the failure of mechanical components. Click here to view our animation which brings to life some of the failings found in off the shelf Suitable For Use lubricants.

All engine oils undergo conditions that can promote oxidation, which is accelerated when contaminated with biodiesel. SFU fluids showed excessive oxidation levels, which can lead to:

• Increased viscosity (loss of efficiency and low temperature performance)
• Sludge
• Deposits
• Corrosion

All those issues can also lead to engine failure. Certain SFU fluids have shown a 2,428% increase in oxidation over the ACEA-prescribed limit which significantly increases the risk of engine-related issues. In addition, SFU fluids increase the potential for oil starvation during cold startup, which can lead to excessive wear and potential engine damage. 

Our View

As the market for lower SAPS lubricants continues to grow, so will the number of SFU fluids on the market. While they may be less expensive than their approved counterparts, they create additional risk that outweighs the value of the money saved. 

As our research has shown, the risks posed by SFU fluids are real, and oil marketers bear the responsibility for the overall quality of the lubricants they are putting in the market. Promoting approved lubricants eliminates the risk because the rigorous testing protocols prove the quality and performance of the lubricants in question.

For more information about the differences between SFU lubricants and their approved counterparts, download the webinar slides here, or contact your Lubrizol representative today.