CLEVELAND, Ohio − Lubrizol, a global specialty chemicals leader, today released its latest whitepaper, The Importance of Testing: Analysing Quality, Validation Processes and Reliability. The paper uncovers stark performance gaps between self-declared “Suitable for Use” (SFU) engine oils and those that carry formal OEM approvals, urging the industry to prioritise verified performance over unproven label claims.

The Importance of Testing: Analysing Quality, Validation Processes and Reliability brings together Lubrizol’s in-house bench and engine testing with the latest activity from ACEA, Technical Association of the European Lubricants Industry (ATIEL), European Engine Lubricant Quality Management System (EELQMS) and industry bodies such as the UK’s Verification of Lubricant Specifications (VLS). It examines how SFU claims can mask a lack of validated performance compared with formally approved engine oils.

SFU vs OEM-approved engine oils: Self-declaration vs proven performance?

This whitepaper examines a growing trend in the European lubricants market: the increasing use of claim-based language such as “Suitable for Use”, “Meets requirements of”, and “Recommended for” in place of verified OEM approvals. It explains the important distinction between self-certified performance claims and formally approved specifications that require full test programmes and official manufacturer sign-off, including specifications such as Volkswagen VW 50400 / 50700 and Mercedes-Benz MB 229.52.

The paper also highlights enforcement and compliance realities. Since 2013, the UK’s Verified Lubricant Specification (VLS) scheme has investigated more than 120 lubricant cases, with “non-compliance with stated specifications” identified as the most common issue. This data underscores a compliance gap in the marketplace and raises important questions around product claims.

By bringing together market trends, regulatory insight, and real-world investigation data, the whitepaper provides clear guidance for marketers, blenders, distributors, and end users seeking to understand the risks and responsibilities associated with lubricant specification claims.

Transparency in terminology creates trust

The whitepaper highlights label terminology as a critical pressure point. If the term “Suitable for Use” is used, the paper argues it should be anchored in published data and defined test results; otherwise, marketers should use precise statements of approvals and performance levels that align with documentation and EELQMS/Services to Associations and Industry in the Lubricants sector (SAIL) declarations.

Luke Farrell, Engine Oils Product Manager at Lubrizol, commented: “In summary, the true comparative performance of “Suitable for Use” engine oils versus fully OEM-approved engine oils can only be established through proper testing. That distinction is vital for garages and workshops focused on protecting engines, warranties and customer trust, and equally important for marketers who must safeguard brand credibility in a market where lubricant claims are increasingly scrutinised and expected to be supported by robust data.”

The whitepaper is designed as a practical resource for oil marketers, distributors, OEMs, workshops and regulators who need a clear, engineering-led view of how SFU and OEM-approved engine oils compare and what can be done collectively to safeguard lubricant quality.

The Importance of Testing: Analysing Quality, Validation Processes and Reliability is available to download now from Lubrizol.

Lubrizol Whitepaper Highlights Critical Risks Behind "Suitable for Use" Engine Oils