Frequent fliers here may remember my opposition to the offhanded advice
to refer to the owners manual. In particular, I have pointed at the phrasing
of "For maximum fuel economy ..." as being weasel words.

This is addressed in a longer post:

https://www.jaguarforums.com/forum/g...luence-144787/

Further, the whole section in the vehicle care manual is less than enlightening.
Especially the completely useless viscosity/temperature chart.

The page is reproduced below:



But, better guidance from Jaguar actually exists. You just have to know where
to look and what to look for.

The page below can be found in the vehicle specifications booklet which is a
Jaguar download known to many readers.



The highlighting has been added for use in this post.

What we know is that there is no mechanical difference between Jaguars shipped
to the NAS and ROW markets. NAS is of course North American Specification and
ROW is Rest of World.

Notice that NAS V8's get API SJ/SL. Meanwhile, ROW V8's get ACEA A2/A3.

In particular, the SC versions get ACEA A3.

Jaguar WSS–M2C913–B is only mentioned for ROW markets and not NAS.

ACEA A3 is described as:

The ACEA sequence A2 is no longer published as of 2012.

When API SJ and ACEA A3 are compared, the A3 would
be the hands down winner.

European readers will know this well.

So why the discrepancy for North America?

Let's note that the ACEA sequences came into effect in 1996.

Let's note also that no oils claiming ACEA A3 compliance were
being widely marketed in North America until recently.

Certainly not at introduction of the XK in 1997 and the XJ in 1998.

It is both reasonable and likely that the API SJ recommendation in
the NAS vehicle care manual was a marketing convenience. It is
difficult to sell a car that requires oil changes using oil that is
unavailable in the local market. This marketing convenience is
about the same as the emergence of the sealed for life transmission
once it was decided to market with all service included during the
warranty period.

Also note that the opinion that "synthetic is not required" while
correct according to the information made available in the NAS
vehicle care booklet is in fact incorrect in practice.

It is generally acknowledged that it is almost impossible to meet
ACEA A3 in a conventional oil. All of the ACEA A3 compliant
oils that I know are synthetics.

the bottom line

Jaguar has specified ACEA A3 for the SC 4.0/4.2 and at least
ACEA A2 for the remaining 4.0/4.2 in the ROW markets.

These engines are identical in both ROW/NAS markets. There
is no reason to think that their lubrication requirements actually
differ just because they swam across the Atlantic.

ACEA A3 is the more stringent oil specification. This offers
superior characteristics in areas that truly address engine
protection as compared to other considerations such as
CAFE fuel averages and getting cars out of the showroom.

Given the choice between ACEA A3 and API SJ or even SN,
it should be a no brainer.

However, there will always be those who have publicly and
loudly voted for API SJ and cannot now stomach the prospect
of being less than well informed. They will neither retract nor
abandon their ways.

Such is life. Ignore them and look at the facts.

However, someone truly interested in oil quality would ensure
that the back of the bottle specifically claims ACEA A3 compliance.

Some oils meeting the spec that are most easily obtained in North
America are:

Castrol European formulas made in Belgium. Look at the label
on the back to make sure you aren't getting the US version.
This is the fabled German Castrol. Available as xW30 and xW40.

Pennzoil Platinum European formula. Available in xW30 and
xW40.

Boutique oils such as Motul, Total.

++

 

WOW!, did not know that the oils sold in America were inferior to those sold in the UK!

 

Why do I get the feeling this post is supposed to put an end to an argument I've missed out on completely?

So now the range of advice on this forum is from : "Put in any oil you like, it doesn't matter, it's all the same" to "anyone who doesn't use ACEA A3 is an idiot with his head in the sand", with just about everything else in between.

 

Thanks for the input. That is all very interesting! But... I would say that, contrary to your subject line, it most certainly IS NOT "definitive factory guidance". Quite the opposite, it seems like "factory mixed messages".

 

The Mobil 1 high mileage label claims it meets or exceeds ACEA A3/B3

 

One must remember that many markets still sold leaded fuel when the x308 was introduced. The american market is like no other -- we have wide availability of both quality fuel and oils.

Jaguars -- while made in the UK ... have always (since WWII) been built for the USA market -- we have been the largest market. The cars are fully tested and designed to function in the US market. The engines were designed for 5W-30 because that was the oil with the potential for max fuel and still delivering protection. We now have 0W oils.


The "sealed" transmission has only to do with when it was introduced. The transmissions were designed for 140k. in the mid to late 1990's that was the functional life of an automobile .... in fact it was more. Most were done at 125k. MB and ZF did not want outside servicing of the boxes .. as the fluid was not widely available and they understood it would most likely be incorrectly serviced.

I had a Jaguar when I lived in HongKong and a BMW when I lived in Munich -- You could not walk into an advanced auto store and take your pick form a wall of oil. Africa -- forget it.

 

No one outside can say what oil the manufacturer had in mind
at design time.

It is reasonable to infer that as the A3 spec first came into force in
1996, that it would be a good candidate. This is much the same as
domestic manufacturers having advance knowledge of API Sx coming
into force dates, and specifiying those on new models coinciding with
those dates. In fact, incremental API Sx versions are driven by the
future plans and requirements of the manufacturers themselves.

ACEA = Association des Constructeurs Européens d'Automobiles,
European Automobile Manufacturers Association

Membership aside, the ACEA A3 sequence is of value in defining oil quality.

For example, knowing an oil is ACEA A3 compliant means that HTHS is >= 3.5 cSt.

There are a multitude of engine performance tests that the vendor is deemed
to have satisfied by virtue of claiming ACEA A3 compliance.

Given a choice between ACEA A3 and some oil that was not, the former would
be a better choice on purely technical considerations.

Some people might still not bother, but at least the original post points out the
available published information that goes beyond the dumbed down NAS version
of the Vehicle Maintenance booklet. Seeing the ROW version might be interesting.

Anyone help there?

 

How can you infer that the NAS is "dumbed down"? It might be "smarted up"!

Or, you might be right. It might be an effort by JLR to cause untold engine failures in their biggest market leading to ????

 

Not quite.

Anyone can and should be able to use anything in their car
as they see fit. In fact, I am of the school that believes
plenty of dirty oil is preferable to a shortage of clean oil.

But, those dispensing advice ought to at least be accurate
and inclusive of all relevant facts.

Unfortunately, intelligent discourse on any number of subjects
on JF seems to attract a certain number of people who try to
close down discussion with their own and only version of the
gospel. One of the favoured techniques is to call any disliked
opinion a myth.

 

Again? Please stop overthinking the oil and filter thing. I used/use quaker State/Castrol regular motor oil. I have used mostly Fram with some WIX but mostly Fram filters. Out of the cars I've owned 68,69, and 70 Mercury Cougars, Chevy Camaro, Dodge pickup, 2000 Taraus, Corolla and a XJ8 using the above combinations I have gotten no fewer than 268000 miles with NO engine issues what so ever. I think people look fro reason to over think/bash certain products. results may vary I'm sure but I feel there's too much opinionated information as opposed to experience.

 

I don't think it really makes any difference but is that from the 09/2009 book or an earlier one?

It looks a bit different to the 09/2009. (BTW, I see for the 4.2 SC I have it says WSS-etc is preferred.)

In case a later one please can I have it

I have yet to have a car where oil seems to have been a real worry. Rust, yes. Crashed into by some idiot, definitely. On-going rising costs due to general wear and tear, yep that too.

 

Interesting discussion. Every forum I have ever joined has had oil boards. Bottom line, and my take away from Plum's discussion, is that fully synthetic 5-30 oils meet the ACEA 2 and 3 requirement. I notice my duty Valvoline can shows ACEA 1/5, which I take to mean it meets all ACEA 1 through 5.

But in retrospect, I, too, have never seen an issue due to bad oil (other than dirty oil when it has not been routinely changed). In 2 million miles of driving (237, 000 in Jaguar V8-sourced engines alone) only four engine failures - a 292 Thunderbird V8 due to too soft billet for the rockers arms, causing the oil galleries to solder over, a known issue; burned valve guide seals in a 352 Ford V8, I failed to change the main metering valve back to sea level from Rocky Mtn variant and overheated the seals; too soft camshaft billet in a 1600 BMW, known issue and repaired under warranty by BMW of Honolulu; collapsed valve seat (?) in a LR3, factory traded truck for another. None of these relate to poor lubrication due to bad oil.

Since 1976, I have used full synthetics exclusively once past the initial factory or dealer load. Lately, based on some research shown on the Range Rover Sport forum, Valvoline or Mobil 1. Although my AAA service center has been putting NAPA Fully Synthetic 05 - 30 in.

 

Synthetics have been getting cheaper, so there's very little to be saved these days by not using them. Walmart have any number of synthetics under $20 a gallon.

 

It probably means just ACEA A1 and A5. Both the ACEA A1 and A5 ratings specify an HTHS viscosity between 2.9 and 3.5 (normally provided by 30 weight oils), and the A3 rating specifies HTHS greater than 3.5 (normally provided by 40 weight and thicker oils). So a single oil can't satisfy all A1 through A5 ratings.

 

Plums:
Thank you for starting this discussion. I really know very little about oil specifications but have now been inspired to read some.
1) It seems to me that oil, like most things that have specifications, has a number of different characteristics that are rated, for comparison and for analysis for suitability for some purpose.
2) This thread has mentioned two of oil's specified characteristics, viscosity and HTHS.
Then, somehow, the leap was made to the statement that "The A3 would
be the hands down winner."
3) The fact that one oil has a Higher HTHS rating does not seem to mean that is is "better" for any application (by itself) if the application does not need or benefit from the characteristic.
4) As I understand it, HTHS rates oil's shear when used in a high load sliding application like conventional rocker arms (as used on my 351 Ford marine engine).
5) Since our Jaguars does not have such design elements as rockers, how is it that you can make a general statement that an oil designed for such is "better"? What about the oil's other characteristics, like stability, coking, temperature/viscosity relationships? Those would seem to be the ones most applicable when selecting an oil for a Jag V8.

When characteristics of anything are specified, it is important to make sure requirements are met and even exceeded to allow for variation, but after that, there is no value. If oil does not allow metal to metal contact in all operating conditions and does not build up impurities that cause corrosion or other harm, then what does the better shear value do for you?

I am especially interested in this because Jaguar specifies one specific Castrol oil for use in the MY 2012, and that oil is not available as specified. And yeah, I know the blather about that not being legal, but the fact is, my documentation came with specific notification that I had to use that oil. I will probably not choose to mount a legal battle against Jagur USA in case of a problem, so I will use oil that meets that spec, or whatever oil Jaguar is using to replace the specified oil.

 

We are in the X308 section. And the particular screenshot is from the 2002 US model year.

The spec generally extends to the 4.0L through 4.2L V8's with minor variations.

No idea what the specs for the 5.0L happen to be.

 

edit.
Re-read your answer. Yes, it would have to be A1 and A5 as opposed to A1 through A5

 

I'll observe that a major problem with oil threads is that it often
starts with "what is the best". The worst word to include
in such questions. It comes from a certain demographic being
used to going "the best five xxxx" type of sites.

I'll also add that I don't think the world will cave in using the
other than some annointed liquid gold. I simply think that it
is worth considering the quality objectively. I also think that
it is wrong that a forum have a few self appointed experts
who brook no disagreement or valid discussion.

Wandering around second guessing myself, I found the following
graphic from Lubrizol. It is their take on the relative strengths
of two mythical ACEA A3/B4 and API SN compliant oils.

The further a point lies from the center, the better the value.

As you can see, the ACEA A3/B4 appears to be superior in
predicted performance in most parameters.

BTW, the reason some ACEA A3/B4 oils cannot meet API SN
is that there are higher concentrations of some anti-wear
additives than allowed by API SN that are permitted or
called for in ACEA A3/B4.

pps. if you don't already know, Lubrizol is one of the big
three producers of the additive packs used in producing
engine oil.

 

Is the chart not speaking to "fuel economy"? Or, are the two oils essentially the same? Why would SN rating "not allow" wear components (assuming they were good things)?

BTW, even if you did not mean to characterize AC3 oil as "best" that sure is how the original post came off!

I have several X-308 engines that have close to or more than 200,000 miles. None use more than a quart between changes, or smoke except a small puff at startup for one of the XJRs. I change the oil at 10,000 miles or so per the manufacturer's recommendation and I believe from records that is what was done by the PO on the two I did not buy new.

I have had a head gasket failure, but no other internal engine problems. There was a "Patina", but NO sludge under the cam covers at 110,000 miles for the XJ8, nor for the AJRs at 150,000 miles or so. My point? There does not seem to be any reason to change oil at better than the manufacturer's recommendation, at least in my limited sample. And I have heard of no real data from anyone else that there is such an advantage.

Sure, run it low, don't change it, let it get contaminated; all will cause an engine failure. But I recognize that engine failure is unlikely to be the end of my satisfaction with a car. Does anyone know of valid data that shows an engine with oil replaced at 5,000 miles lasts longer than one with oil changes at 10,000?

 

Found this little gem a few minutes ago:

Of course that only applies to the US version of the owner's manual, and
not for example the UK owner's manual, or some other specification book.

It's the old rule of follow the money to figure out an action.