OEM lubricant approval tracker: tests met and missing per spec

What is an OEM lubricant approval tracker for?

An OEM lubricant approval tracker is a log with one row per test that an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) specification requires, showing for each test whether a valid report exists, whether it meets the limit, and what is still needed. It is the working record behind an approval submission: a reviewer can see in one sheet which items are met, which are not met, which are missing and which reports do not count.

The tracker exists because a specification and an approval are different things. A specification defines the requirements on the lubricant, both physical and chemical properties, which the test procedures cover, while an OEM approval means the OEM approves the oil for use and has confirmed this in writing with the lubricant manufacturer or issued a licence number (FUCHS Finland, accessed 2026). A lubricant can meet every published limit and still not be approved.

Selection guides list "check for formal approvals or compliance with required standards" as one step in a lubricant review (Plant Engineering, CITGO, 2026), without saying how to record the test-by-test evidence. The tracker fills that gap. It does not run tests or decide approval; the OEM decides. The Excel log and a CSV version of the same columns are at the end of the page.

Who uses the OEM lubricant approval tracker, and when?

The OEM lubricant approval tracker is used by the lubricant maker's product or approvals manager, the laboratory lead who holds the test reports, and a distributor's technical staff who answer customers asking whether a product is approved for their equipment. Each updates different columns: the approvals manager owns the specification list and the approval status, the laboratory owns results and report references, and the distributor reads the approval evidence.

Typical points to open or update the OEM lubricant approval tracker:

1. Planning a first approval for a new formulation against one OEM specification.

2. Extending an existing approval to a new viscosity grade or a reformulated product.

3. An OEM publishes a new specification revision or a new approval procedure.

4. A customer or auditor asks for proof that a product is approved, not only that it meets a standard.

5. A raw material change, such as a new base oil or additive supplier, puts earlier reports in doubt.

OEM procedures change, and old listings can lapse with them. When Bosch Rexroth introduced its RDE 90235 rating, a trade report on one lubricant maker's new rating stated that "The previous approvals by Bosch Rexroth lose their validity and are replaced by the RDE 90235" (Professional Motor Mechanic, 2016). Updating the tracker at each OEM revision catches that kind of change before a customer does.

Which OEM specification tests should the lubricant approval tracker list?

The OEM lubricant approval tracker should list every test in the OEM's current specification as a separate row, in two layers: the industry minimum standard the OEM cites, and the OEM's own extra tests. Take both layers from the OEM's documents, not from a lubricant data sheet that summarizes them.

Bosch Rexroth shows the two layers. Its A10VSO pump data sheet states the pump is designed for HLP mineral oil according to DIN 51524-2, and that Rexroth rates fluids under data sheet 90235 (Bosch Rexroth, RE 92711, 2026). Its Fluid Rating brochure lists DIN 51524 parts 2 and 3, ISO 15380 and ISO 12922 among the minimum requirements, and adds that "Rexroth applies own extended requirements", including pump tests with defined Rexroth components (Bosch Rexroth, RE 98129, 2015). The closed-loop test RFT-APU-CL alone has three stages, a 10 h break-in, a 300 h swivel cycle test and a 200 h corner power test, each with its own pressure, speed and temperature (Bosch Rexroth, RE 98129, 2015), so it needs three rows.

Parker publishes its Denison fluid standards HF0 to HF6 and HF8 and a Parker Denison Fluid Ratings List on its hydraulic fluid evaluation page (Parker Hannifin, accessed 2026). Record the specification code, its revision date and the page or table each row comes from, so the list can be rebuilt when the OEM revises it.

What goes in each column of the OEM lubricant approval tracker?

Each column of the OEM lubricant approval tracker holds one fact needed to decide whether a test row is met, and the units sit in the column header so results stay comparable. The table below previews all 24 columns of the Excel log; example values are illustrative and describe no real product, report or approval.

The key row is "Test conditions": two reports with the same method name can answer different rows when temperature, duration or load stage differ.

The 24 columns of the OEM lubricant approval tracker fall into four groups that match the four sections of the answer above. Columns from Row ID to Limit are the specification test list and come only from the OEM document. Columns from Our result to Formulation code submitted describe the report and its state of evidence. State and Reason not counted mark the missing and non-counting tests. Approval status, Approval evidence, Action, Action owner and Due date carry the remediation and the approval position. Keeping the groups in this order means the requirement is always written down before a result is matched to it. The Instructions sheet also records the submission and its recipient OEM, the overall state (ready to submit or needs remediation) and the earliest submission date, outside the 24 columns.

How do you fill in the OEM lubricant approval tracker?

You fill in the OEM lubricant approval tracker from left to right in three passes: first the specification columns from the OEM document, then the report columns from the laboratory reports, then the state and action columns. Doing the passes in this order keeps the requirement fixed before any result is matched to it.

1. Specification pass: one row per test in the OEM's current revision. Fill OEM, specification code, revision, source, test item, method and edition, conditions and limit. Leave the result columns blank.

2. Report pass: for each row, find the report that names the same method, edition and conditions. Enter the result with its unit, report reference, report date, laboratory and the formulation code tested. A row without a matching report stays blank on the report side.

3. State pass: set the state for every row (met, not met, missing or not counted), fill the reason for every not counted row, and add the action, owner and due date for every row that is not met.

Use the pick lists in the Excel log for state, reason not counted and approval status, so the sheet can be filtered and counted. Before submission, have a second person repeat the report pass against the original reports, not against the tracker. Save the sheet as CSV when the records go into a system that does not read Excel files.

How do you record whether a lubricant test report counts toward an OEM approval?

You record whether a lubricant test report counts toward an OEM approval in two columns: "State", where a report that cannot answer the row is marked not counted, and "Reason not counted", which names the single condition it fails. A report counts only when method and edition, conditions, formulation, laboratory and validity all match the row.

Use six reasons in the pick list:

1. Conditions differ: a different temperature, duration, speed, pressure or load stage from the row.

2. Method edition differs: for example, a report to ISO 14635-1:2000 when the current edition is ISO 14635-1:2023 (ISO, 2023); compare the editions before counting it.

3. Other formulation: the report was run on a different formulation code or revision.

4. Laboratory not approved: Flender states that lubricant approval test results "are only accepted if the tests were done in qualified and approved laboratories" (Flender, 2021).

5. Past validity: the report or the laboratory approval has expired; a Flender laboratory approval is valid for 5 years unless withdrawn (Flender, 2021).

6. Contradicts another document: the report disagrees with another record on grade, lot or formulation.

Keep the reason even after the row is fixed, in the notes, so the history of why a report was rejected stays visible.

How do you track tests still missing for an OEM lubricant approval?

You track tests still missing for an OEM lubricant approval by filtering the tracker on the states missing, not met and not counted, and giving every such row an action, an owner and a due date. That filtered view is the gap list; the full sheet stays as the record of what was compared.

Set the action from the state and reason:

1. Missing, no report: plan the test at the row's method, edition and conditions.

2. Not counted, conditions or edition differ: rerun at the row's conditions, or compare editions and record why the old result still holds.

3. Not counted, other formulation: ask the OEM in writing whether the result carries over, and rerun if not.

4. Not counted, laboratory or validity: rerun at an approved laboratory, or get the OEM's written acceptance.

5. Not met: review the formulation before rerunning, because a repeat of the same oil will usually repeat the result.

Plan laboratory time early. Rexroth's closed-loop rating test adds up to 510 h of operating time across its three stages (Bosch Rexroth, RE 98129, 2015), and Flender may ask for randomly chosen in-house tests to be verified at a neutral laboratory (Flender, 2021). Put the longest open rig test at the top of the gap list, since its due date usually sets the earliest submission date.

How do you keep meets-the-spec claims apart from OEM approvals in the tracker?

You keep meets-the-spec claims apart from OEM approvals in the tracker with a separate "Approval status" column and an "Approval evidence" column: only a row backed by OEM evidence may carry the status OEM listed. All other rows read self-declared meets, submitted or not started, however good the results look.

The distinction is the source of the statement. A "recommended for use" claim is described as a "self-declaration by the lubricant manufacturer", while OEM approval is "official certification by the engine manufacturer based on actual testing" (FUCHS Spain, accessed 2026). The same source warns that a label saying "Complies" or "Meets" is not the same as "Approved" (FUCHS Spain, accessed 2026). For OEM evidence, record the OEM's written confirmation, a licence number, or the OEM list and its revision; for Rexroth, that list is data sheet 90245 (Bosch Rexroth, RE 92711, 2026).

Industry minimum standards follow their own rules. Engine oil claims against the ACEA Oil Sequences run under the ATIEL Code of Practice, whose 26th issue ATIEL published in December 2025 (ATIEL, 2025); a claim under that code is still not an OEM approval. In the Excel log, the approval status cell is a pick list, so nobody can type "approved" freehand, and the instructions sheet allows OEM listed only when the evidence cell names an OEM letter, licence number or OEM list revision.

What does a filled OEM approval tracker row look like (illustrative)?

A filled OEM approval tracker shows each specification test with its state; the four rows below are illustrative, for an invented hydraulic oil against an invented pump maker specification, and describe no real product, report or approval. Conditions for the pump test rows follow the published Rexroth RFT-APU-CL stages (Bosch Rexroth, RE 98129, 2015); everything else is invented.

The table below shows how the state and reason columns read in four typical rows (illustrative):

The corner power row in this illustrative example is the common trap: a report from the right pump test at a lower pressure looks like a pass on paper but does not answer a row that names 500 bar. Recording it as not counted, with the reason and a dated rerun, keeps the gap visible. The approval status for every row stays submitted or not started until the OEM issues its confirmation; the tracker never records the oil as OEM listed on the strength of these results alone.

Where does the OEM lubricant approval tracker not fit?

The OEM lubricant approval tracker does not fit decisions that are not test-by-test comparisons against one OEM's published specification. It is not a substitute for the OEM's own approval procedure, which decides what is tested, where, and how long a listing lasts; when the procedure and the tracker disagree, the procedure wins.

It does not fit engine oil performance claims run under industry codes. Claims against the ACEA Oil Sequences follow the ATIEL Code of Practice (ATIEL, 2025), with candidate data checklists of their own; track those with the code's own forms. It also does not cover equipment selection: whether a fluid category suits a machine is set by the equipment maker's data sheets, such as Rexroth's separate data sheets for mineral oils, environmentally acceptable fluids and fire-resistant fluids (Bosch Rexroth, RE 92711, 2026).

The tracker is only as current as its specification revision. DIN 51524-2:2017-06 is the current HLP minimum requirements edition (DIN Media, accessed 2026); a row built from an older revision of any cited standard needs checking before submission. Paid standards and confidential OEM documents should be referenced by number and revision in the tracker, not copied into it.

Lubinpla's submission document check compares an OEM approval listing with the OEM's published specification and separates the tests met from the tests still missing, in one cited document for the user to review.