It's just a rating, nothing more. They may require an independent lab (never said they didn't), but so what? I doubt that any of the testing, API, SAE, ILSAC, JASO or ACEA is done in-house, it's more cost-effective and unbiased to do the tests from an independent lab.
You're making out that AECA standards are the Holy Grail of motor oil definition and that's simply NOT the case. What about ILSAC (International Lubricant Standardization and Approval Committee), JASO (Japanese Automotive Standards Organization) in addition to API and SAE. All these organizations have well prepared and thought out standards and most modern oils will easily pass them all. Those that don't won't have missed by much and certainly any oil passing any of these standards will not be 'bad' for a car.
That doesn't even take into account all the independent specifications published from the car manufacturers too, such as the Volkswagen Group's VW50*.0* or Daimler Benz's MB22*.** , FORD's WSS and those from GM, Vauxhall, Saab, Volvo, BMW, PSA, Porsche and others. GM even has a separate standard specifically for the Corvette - spec #4718M. In fact, several of these standards were adopted by the AECA, including some from the API and SAE, rather than developing their own. Many european car mfgrs. make no reference to AECA in their owners manuals at all, only recommending their own standards (Porsche being one of them) with reference to compatibility with 'lesser' AECA grades should an
emergency top-up be required.
The fact that independent labs are 'required' is fairly meaningless today. Do you believe that major oil companies are going to outright lie about the capabilities of their product, or more specifically doctor or fake the test results? In today's litigant happy society? That's conspiratorial thinking and in no way precludes a company from bribing an independent lab to 'fudge' the results, so maybe there's some of that going on as well? Is that your inference?
If you look at the chart link I included, you'll see many respected brands of oil that are not AECA rated. That does not mean they're not good oils. But, what it does mean is not many of them are marketed in the EU. Then again, many, like Royal Purple and RedLine are.
Motor Oil is as much about marketing (perhaps more) as it is about performance. There is a
HUGE profit margin on motor oil, especially mineral oil which is essentially a left over by-product of fractional distillation of fuels - it's the 7 or so % leftover after extracting all the volatile elements - you can't have motor oil with a low flashpoint or you'll truly blow up the motor. For mineral oil, the packaging costs more than the actual oil. The same is true of synthetics, though to a slightly lesser degree. If it were in their interest to have AECA testing done, don't you think the few thousand bucks invested would pay off big time in advertising and sales? If so, why are they not doing it? RedLine and Royal Purple are available in the UK and presumably selling well enough to stay there. If AECA ratings were so important, why aren't their competitors sceaming it from the rooftops that these oils are inferior simply because they're not so rated?
Sorry, it's just a rating, a set of standards, which aren't even universally accepted by the world, or even the EU.
I stick to my belief that AECA standards are no more stringent or reliable than those from API or SAE at least in the practical sense. Any motor oil with these ratings (comparable ratings that is) are just as good as any other for a daily street driver so long as you observe the proper service intervals.
