That would even be good in stationary generators.
Motor oil
- Thread starter Rick Fisher
- Start date
[
Did you ever purchase something and after it was all said and done you realized it wasn't worth it or felt you got ripped off? and then went back there again? No of course not(I hope)so we will never know why. But it certainly would be false advertising, deceptive practices, fraud and other offences to put something on a label that it's not. You better believe that with our governments war on oil they would file a suit asap. Remember the McD 1/4 pounder suit ?
Andrew Shadow
Site Supporter
That is the point exactly, by their own admission on their own label they are being misleading if not outright making a false claim.
The JASO MA specifications are not stand alone. They are in addition to and over and above the specifications that already existence and are used in the engine oil industry. JASO applies additional requirements over and above these existing specifications in order to meet the JASO MA standard.
In order to meet the specifications of JASO MA, an engine oil must first meet at least one of six API specifications, or one of three ILSAC specifications, or one of seven ACEA specifications. That is a broad range of 16 different engine oil specifications that are used world-wide and that qualify for JASO MA certification.
According to Shell's own label, and their own website, this oil does not meet any of those industry specifications. As such, even if this oil did meet the rest of the JASO requirements for combined engine/transmission operation, it does not meet the most basic and minimum requirement needed to be a JASO MA oil. Therefore it does not meet JASO MA requirements, yet they claim that it does. How is that circle squared? I have no idea.
Either they have at least one of those 16 specifications and have chosen not to list it on the label or in their literature, or they are making an unsubstantiated claim, a claim that can not be substantiated by JASO because it does not meet the JASO requirements.
No matter which of those two scenarios is true, both are the result of misleading statements and omissions at a minimum, and both cast doubt over their claims.
The entire purpose of certification protocols for anything in any industry is to remove doubt through a structured, verifiable and independent process. I find it hard to believe that Shell, or any other major oil company, would choose not to avail themselves of that opportunity if their oil qualified, if for no other reason than to be able to use this in their marketing, simply to save $318.00.
Some folks might find this a little misleading.....
Why misleading? Isn’t it JASO MA2?
“
Rotella T6 5w40:
API: CK-4, CJ-4, CI-4 PLUS, CI-4, CH-4 ACEA E9, JASO DH-2, Cummins CES 20086; Volvo VDS-4.5; Detroit Fluid Specification DDC (DFS) 93K222, Caterpillar ECF-2/ECF-3, MAN M3575, JASO MA/ MA2, Allison TES 439, MB-Approval 228.31
T6 15w40:
API, CK-4, CJ-4, ACEA E9, JASO DH-2, MA/MA 2; Caterpillar ECF-2, ECF-3; Cummins CES 20086; DDC DFS 93K222; MB-Approval 228.31; Volvo VDS-4.5; Ford WSS-M2C171-F1; Allison TES 439, MAN 3775; MACK EOS-4.5”
OK, it meets the performance requirements of JASO MA/MA2. But is not certified???
The question seems to be whether the claim can be relied upon to be accurate without the certification.
Like the THX qualification I mentioned earlier. "We could pass their test if we wanted to spend the money."
I use lucas 10w40 semi syn in all my bikes
Last edited:
Note the typical Harley rider straddling the center line.
Maybe he was in the act of passing when the picture was taken, but I doubt it. Very annoying when you come up on them from the other direction in a pickup truck and they act like you're supposed to move over for them.
Andrew Shadow
Site Supporter
It has been made clear by not only myself, but others who have taken the time to post exactly what the JASO MA certification mark and approval number looks like. It is very easy to differentiate between an oil that is actually certified to the JASO MA standard and an unverified self proclamation of adherence to it. Anyone who has come this far in this thread, and for whom this specification is important enough that they are actively looking for it, should be able to distinguish between the two. If not, have another read through.
How about asking a different way:
Does anyone know of an oil claiming to be able to meet JASO that actually would not?
Does anyone know of an oil claiming to be able to meet JASO that actually would not?
I wish I could find an emoji with an empty box of popcorn 
Andrew Shadow
Site Supporter
Rotella oils that we have been discussing.
You appear to be saying the Rotella cannot pass the JASO tests..
I apologize. I got that it was shown to be not certified, but I missed the part that it's incapable of meeting the standard.
Thanks for the info. I’m just going to stay with JASO MA2 certified oil. Like I said previously. There have been to many changes to keep up with lately.
Andrew Shadow
Site Supporter
I only know what I have read. Based on what I have read, Rotella can not even be submitted to JASO for consideration. If it can not meet the first and most basic requirement needed to qualify for submission, I don't see how it can be granted JASO MA certification.