229.3 or 229.5 for older Mercedes diesel engine

[BMWTurboDzl]

Originally Posted By: m37charlie

Yes, one can argue about the Fe/Al levels all day, but if you believe detergents are worth anything (why else would they put them in all oils?), isn't a starting TBN of 9.6 better than 6? And a drain TAN/TBN of 3.9/3.7 vs 4.8/1.5? With more miles on the Delvac 1 LE vs the 229.51/LL04 oil? Is there any definite reason why the ACEA "C" oils are BETTER than an established excellent 229.5 oil like M1 0W40 in an application that doesn't call for them? Charlie

What we don't know is the replacement additive that's used in Low SAPS. Just saying "less of X means more wear" is silly if X is being supplemented with better and more expensive Y. This is why it's silly to use UOA's to determined the "strength" of the add pack.

 

[Falcon_LS]

Originally Posted By: m37charlie

Originally Posted By: Falcon_LS

Even if you do not have a DPF, the oil you are currently using is an excellent oil. If it's not too expensive, I would continue to use it - especially with the quality of the fuel you are using.

I beg to differ. 229.51 are inevitable compromises due to the mandate for low SAPS. You will achieve longer OCI and possibly better protection with the higher SAPS 229.5 oil. The main "environmental advantage" would be longer OCI. There will be absolutely no difference in tailpipe emissions. Charlie

When talking about oil, I realize specifications and quality often go hand in hand, however - putting the 229.51 spec aside, Mobil 1 ESP 5W-30 certainly looks like a very stout oil on paper with the relatively recent VOA posted by one of our Russian members. Based on specs alone, it may appear to be on par with a Group III based C3 oil, but I reckon the properties alone speak volume.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: rhhsiao

But isn't the point of an UOA to check on levels of wear metals such as Fe and Al because that would tell us about the performance of an oil?

Not at all. The point of a UOA is to determine the condition of the lubricant itself, particularly to determine if it's suitable for continued use or needs replacement.

 

[rhhsiao]

Originally Posted By: Garak

Originally Posted By: rhhsiao

But isn't the point of an UOA to check on levels of wear metals such as Fe and Al because that would tell us about the performance of an oil?

Not at all. The point of a UOA is to determine the condition of the lubricant itself, particularly to determine if it's suitable for continued use or needs replacement.

So, what parts of an UOA would help make that determination?

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: rhhsiao

So, what parts of an UOA would help make that determination?

TBN, TAN, oxidation, nitration, insolubles, change in viscosity, etc.

 

[Mathson]

One should also take notice that oil manufacturers measure TBN using test method ASTM D2896 and report this in PDSs while for UOAs usually ASTM D4739 is used. AFAIK these values are not comparable.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Yes, ideally you would want to have a VOA performed by the same lab so that you could reliably compare the UOA to.

 

[Garak]

Yes, that is something that is forgotten way too often.