502.00 vs. "Modern" GM specifications

Joined
Aug 30, 2004
Messages
31,869
Location
CA
There has been a lot of recent commentary about using full-SAPS oils, especially in applications where a GF-6 or GM Dexos 1 Gen 3 oil is specified. Supposedly, the main benefit is the higher P/Zn content and arguably, higher levels of detergency in some products.

The full-SAPS 502.00 (and even 229.5) specifications were introduced in the early/mid 2000's. I recognize that in some situations, there is no replacement for P/Zn, but I am curious if we are getting too fixated on the higher P/Zn levels...when it isn't even needed or beneficial in most situations.

It seems odd to me that oils using an additive system based on a ~20 year old standard can still be "superior" to a modern Dexos 1/Gen 3 based product. Putting the P/Zn debacle aside, what other benefits do these older full-SAPS oils have that the more modern mid-SAPS oils do not?
 
There has been a lot of recent commentary about using full-SAPS oils, especially in applications where a GF-6 or GM Dexos 1 Gen 3 oil is specified. Supposedly, the main benefit is the higher P/Zn content and arguably, higher levels of detergency in some products.

The full-SAPS 502.00 (and even 229.5) specifications were introduced in the early/mid 2000's. I recognize that in some situations, there is no replacement for P/Zn, but I am curious if we are getting too fixated on the higher P/Zn levels...when it isn't even needed or beneficial in most situations.

It seems odd to me that oils using an additive system based on a ~20 year old standard can still be "superior" to a modern Dexos 1/Gen 3 based product. Putting the P/Zn debacle aside, what other benefits do these older full-SAPS oils have that the more modern mid-SAPS oils do not?
They're used in markets which haven't transitioned to ULSG and have operational parameters which necessitate a HTHS of 3.5 or more.

Sure the standard may have come into existence in the mid 2000's but the performance requirements have changed through the years hence the constant revisions. 229.50 (2019) requires better wear protection, deposit control, resistance to oxidative thickening, fuel economy vs the 2009 ver.
 
They're used in markets which haven't transitioned to ULSG and have operational parameters which necessitate a HTHS of 3.5 or more.

Sure the standard may have come into existence in the mid 2000's but the performance requirements have changed through the years hence the constant revisions. 229.50 (2019) requires better wear protection, deposit control, resistance to oxidative thickening, fuel economy vs the 2009 ver.
Let's take HT/HS out of the equation. There are a few blenders who are using "502.00 style" additive systems in grades that would not meet the 3.5 requirement.
 
They're used in markets which haven't transitioned to ULSG and have operational parameters which necessitate a HTHS of 3.5 or more.

Sure the standard may have come into existence in the mid 2000's but the performance requirements have changed through the years hence the constant revisions.
Yup, exactly. These tests and standards are regularly revised and updated.

With the API limits on phosphorous, you are forced to work within those limits, so you are making some necessary compromises. With A3/B4, phosphorous isn't constrained, so you can use a much as you want. This doesn't result in oils with 1,500ppm of phosphorous, the "sweet spot" seems to be around 900-1000ppm for optimal AW performance. This is lower than what we see with some HDEO's, but that's likely as a result of the FM chemistry which is synergistic with ZDDP.
 
Let's take HT/HS out of the equation. There are a few blenders who are using "502.00 style" additive systems in grades that would not meet the 3.5 requirement.

There's a niche small market for it. Some consumers simply want a product which will fulfill their goals* and are willing to pay a premium for it. Afterall, Amsoil and RedLine have survived in this changing market so the demand is there.

*Goals can be one or more in terms of cleanliness, wear protection, extended intervals, etc.
 
Last edited:
There has been a lot of recent commentary about using full-SAPS oils, especially in applications where a GF-6 or GM Dexos 1 Gen 3 oil is specified. Supposedly, the main benefit is the higher P/Zn content and arguably, higher levels of detergency in some products.

The full-SAPS 502.00 (and even 229.5) specifications were introduced in the early/mid 2000's. I recognize that in some situations, there is no replacement for P/Zn, but I am curious if we are getting too fixated on the higher P/Zn levels...when it isn't even needed or beneficial in most situations.

It seems odd to me that oils using an additive system based on a ~20 year old standard can still be "superior" to a modern Dexos 1/Gen 3 based product. Putting the P/Zn debacle aside, what other benefits do these older full-SAPS oils have that the more modern mid-SAPS oils do not?
MB229.5 is introduced in 2009. VW 502.00 I think in 1996. However, all those specifications, especially MB229.5, went through updates. Last MB229.5 update is 2020 I think. So, any MB229.5 oil now is as current.
 
Let's take HT/HS out of the equation. There are a few blenders who are using "502.00 style" additive systems in grades that would not meet the 3.5 requirement.
That makes it pretty hard to predict future performance since VW 502 00 approval is an integrated system of performance metrics.
 
That makes it pretty hard to predict future performance since VW 502 00 approval is an integrated system of performance metrics.
No disagreement, but are we certain that those performance metrics continue to exceed the benchmarks of GF-6/D1G3?


However, all those specifications, especially MB229.5, went through updates. Last MB229.5 update is 2020 I think. So, any MB229.5 oil now is as current.
Been trying to locate this info - where did you find this?
 
Where it gets tricky, even when using that LZ tool, is when you see that the full synthetics greatly exceed the GF-6/D1G3 benchmarks. So it's really hard to say.
At least one can compare performance requirements of various revisions within a specification.
 
At least one can compare performance requirements of various revisions within a specification.
And certainly not across, as is being done here. The website explains that is an invalid comparison.

Plus those are areas of emphasis and not absolute numbers even when used properly.
 
Could be. VW moved to VW511.00 in XW40 grade. Check when was A40 updated last time. They go hand in hand in XW40 grade.
@bobbydavro posted back in 2015 that the A40 test had been upgraded to use the TT 500HP engine (M9A1) and that it was an extremely demanding test that included hot shutdown for coking testing after running the on the 'ring.
 
So, is it safe to say that a full-saps add pack that was developed to pass the A40 and 229.5 tests is probably superior to one that was for 502.00 only?
 
So, is it safe to say that a full-saps add pack that was developed to pass the A40 and 229.5 tests is probably superior to one that was for 502.00 only?
Hard to say unless we define "superior". Then we'd have to have relative testing done on the same engines using all those specs to find out for certain. Even so, it would be splitting hairs that are relatively insignificant. I'd say take the most stringent, modern spec and run with it.

What I have seen using the comparison tool is that within a manufacturers spec, recently updated ones generally exceed older ones . It also seems even newer specs (ex. VW 504.00) are much "better" than the older standard (ex. VW 502.00) in all compared performance categories. So, if you can have your cake and eat it too.......
 
Hard to say unless we define "superior". Then we'd have to have relative testing done on the same engines using all those specs to find out for certain. Even so, it would be splitting hairs that are relatively insignificant. I'd say take the most stringent, modern spec and run with it.

What I have seen using the comparison tool is that within a manufacturers spec, recently updated ones generally exceed older ones . It also seems even newer specs (ex. VW 504.00) are much "better" than the older standard (ex. VW 502.00) in all compared performance categories. So, if you can have your cake and eat it too.......
Except that d1G3 actually has less wear protection than d1G2.
 
Back
Top