BMW LL17FE, BMW LL14FE, BMW factory oil

Btw I wanted to ask, what would be a good alternative to BMW LL FE oil. The manual states to use only either LL01FE or LL14FE+ ( LL17FE+) 0W20 or 0W30
This is a B46/B48 engine and the car is PZEV, so I do not think it is a good idea to use full-SAPS oils like PP Euro 5W40 or Castrol Euro 5W30 in order to protect the emission system of the car. Also I think those euro oils have high calcium, which is not good to prevent LSPI, as that engine is also affected.

I broke my head already, seems like there is no aftermarket alternative for now. BMW seems like does not like to either provide specs for LL FE approvals to the manufacturers, or the oil manufactures on the US market do not care about the approval. Either way there is something fishy
Golly, you haven't had this answered yet?
 
Btw I wanted to ask, what would be a good alternative to BMW LL FE oil. The manual states to use only either LL01FE or LL14FE+ ( LL17FE+) 0W20 or 0W30
This is a B46/B48 engine and the car is PZEV, so I do not think it is a good idea to use full-SAPS oils like PP Euro 5W40 or Castrol Euro 5W30 in order to protect the emission system of the car. Also I think those euro oils have high calcium, which is not good to prevent LSPI, as that engine is also affected.

I broke my head already, seems like there is no aftermarket alternative for now. BMW seems like does not like to either provide specs for LL FE approvals to the manufacturers, or the oil manufactures on the US market do not care about the approval. Either way there is something fishy
Use LL-04 oil if it bothers you, Pennzoil Euro L 5W-30 is not expensive and readily available.
 
Use LL-04 oil if it bothers you, Pennzoil Euro L 5W-30 is not expensive and readily available.
LL-04, nah
PP Euro L 5W30 LL-04 is SN and still has high level of calcium. Also it is not SP/gf-6a means no testing for chain wear, Low Speed Pre-Ignition, and deposit formation. Additionally, someone posted on one of the bimmer forums UOA, it started sheering badly just after 5K
I rather will go with PUP API SP, than PP Euro L
 
LL-04, nah
PP Euro L 5W30 LL-04 is SN and still has high level of calcium. Also it is not SP/gf-6a means no testing for chain wear, Low Speed Pre-Ignition, and deposit formation. Additionally, someone posted on one of the bimmer forums UOA, it started sheering badly just after 5K
I rather will go with PUP API SP, than PP Euro L
Euro L 5W-30 is also dexos licensed (dexos2) which includes a requirement to pass an LSPI test as well as high-temperature oxidation resistance, sludge formation, piston cleanliness and component wear.

It’s also ACEA C3 which has a stringent stay-in-grade requirement.
 
Last edited:
The TBN/TAN talk is moot. I do agree with BMWTurboDzl and others; you cannot just know a single TAN number in a test and assume you know everything; you have to know the TAN in the virgin oil prior to use, to judge the change in TAN.

Further, the crossover with TAN and TBN hasn't shown to mean much these days. Long gone are the fuels (espcially diesel) with high sulphur content. The contributors to fast acid buildup are gone. I've lost track of how many times I've seen TAN cross over TBN and absolutely nothing bad ever happened.

What matters are the wear metals. And those are decent in these UOAs. The Fe is just a tad over 1ppm/1k miles. The other metals are merely at noise levels. There's nothing but good wear rates here.

The TBN/TAN relationship is a precursor to a POTENTIAL change in wear. That's all. The values of TBN/TAN are NOT a reason to change oil; they are only a reason to monitor the oil closer for a possible shift in wear metals.

There are two reasons to change oil based on wear metals.
- the total accumulation of a metal is at/above a condemnation point (say for example, 100ppm of Fe)
- the rate of wear has exceeded some magnitude that is a condemation point (say for example, three successive UOAs where the "rate" increases ... 2.0ppm/1k miles, then 2.3ppm/1k miles, then 2.8ppm/1k miles). The increase in wear rate indicates that the oil is compromised and protection is diminished.

The recommendation to go 7.5k miles is a sound one by Blackstone. The wear is very "normal" here and no reason to expect it's going to shoot out of control anytime soon. If things look good at 7.5k miles, then 10k would not be out of the question by any means.
Well, yeah, I do believe you guys, thanks for the clear explanation
 
LL-04, nah
PP Euro L 5W30 LL-04 is SN and still has high level of calcium. Also it is not SP/gf-6a means no testing for chain wear, Low Speed Pre-Ignition, and deposit formation. Additionally, someone posted on one of the bimmer forums UOA, it started sheering badly just after 5K
I rather will go with PUP API SP, than PP Euro L
I think you may be attaching too much importance to API standards for a European engine and drawing wrong conclusions. PP Euro L 5W30 has Mercedes Benz 229.51 approval. MB have required timing chain wear tests for over a decade, LSPI tests for over 5 years and they have very high standards for wear, sludge, soot thickening etc.

I worked in the oilfield for over 30 years (not in lubricants) and API specifications are generally considered the lowest common denominator regarding the manufacture of oilfield equipment. It is not an independent standards body - it's trade body and the API steering committees consist of industry reps from the various manufacturers. The API standards therefore represent something that most members can already meet or meet with minimal investment and it is the auto manufacturers that pull up the API standard, not the other way around.

My Mini JCW has the B48 engine with a gas particulate filter and I run Shell Helix Ultra 0W30 ECT C3 (LL04). Not sure what the Pennzoil equivalent is, if any.
 
I think you may be attaching too much importance to API standards for a European engine and drawing wrong conclusions. PP Euro L 5W30 has Mercedes Benz 229.51 approval. MB have required timing chain wear tests for over a decade, LSPI tests for over 5 years and they have very high standards for wear, sludge, soot thickening etc.

I worked in the oilfield for over 30 years (not in lubricants) and API specifications are generally considered the lowest common denominator regarding the manufacture of oilfield equipment. It is not an independent standards body - it's trade body and the API steering committees consist of industry reps from the various manufacturers. The API standards therefore represent something that most members can already meet or meet with minimal investment and it is the auto manufacturers that pull up the API standard, not the other way around.

My Mini JCW has the B48 engine with a gas particulate filter and I run Shell Helix Ultra 0W30 ECT C3 (LL04). Not sure what the Pennzoil equivalent is, if any.
I should have said, I rather will go with PUP API SP, than PP Euro L in a worst-case scenario when nothing else is available as both oil are not recommended by BMW in North America. What I am just saying, both are not the best pick for the job. Not sure what is the approved oil specs in Ireland or Europe for B48, but here is the oil recommendation for US.

Pennzoil Ultra Platinum (PUP) is very good oil, even it is missing LL approval it has newer A1/B1-10, A1/B1-12 and might be about the same or close to Shell Ultra Helix European cousin. Both are not great choice for the application. But I know I know (OVERKILL ;;)) manufacture's approval outweighs everything else

Suitable engine oil types
Add engine oils that meet the following oil rating standards:
Oil rating
BMW Longlife-01 FE.
BMW Longlife-14 FE+.
Alternative engine oil types
If an engine oil suitable for continuous use is not available, up to 1 US quart/liter of an engine oil with the following oil rating can be added:
Oil rating
API SL.
API SM.
API SN.
Viscosity grades
Viscosity grades
SAE 0W-20.
SAE 0W-30.
 
All new BMWs / Minis sold in Europe are fitted with particulate filters, including petrol engines and even the high end M models. The oil requirements as per owners manual are therefore all low/mid SAPS C3 categories. The range of permitted grades is quite broad - 0W/5W - 20/30/40. The LL01 (&FE) approvals seem to be a thing of the past for new cars here in Europe as the higher SAPS limits (<1.6% or <1.3% for FE) are not compatible with the particulate filters.
 
All new BMWs / Minis sold in Europe are fitted with particulate filters, including petrol engines and even the high end M models. The oil requirements as per owners manual are therefore all low/mid SAPS C3 categories. The range of permitted grades is quite broad - 0W/5W - 20/30/40. The LL01 (&FE) approvals seem to be a thing of the past for new cars here in Europe as the higher SAPS limits (
Our PP Euro L 5W30 LL-04 is not that strong to last BMW recommended OCI or even 5K miles. I would not advise it for the BMW gasoline engines unless it changed every 3K miles.

As I mentioned earlier there is UOA post on bimmerpost, same engine as mine and mileage, and as it was claimed the car was not tracked. It sheared from 12.3 to 10.1 after just 5K miles, which is a horrific drop.
 
Our PP Euro L 5W30 LL-04 is not that strong to last BMW recommended OCI or even 5K miles. I would not advise it for the BMW gasoline engines unless it changed every 3K miles.

As I mentioned earlier there is UOA post on bimmerpost, same engine as mine and mileage, and as it was claimed the car was not tracked. It sheared from 12.3 to 10.1 after just 5K miles, which is a horrific drop.
Bimmer board posts are worth about as much as a discussion in Walmart. Longlife-04 is a long life oil approval.

You keep posting complete nonsense is all you're doing here. You really have no idea what you're talking about.
 
Bimmer board posts are worth about as much as a discussion in Walmart. Longlife-04 is a long life oil approval.

You keep posting complete nonsense is all you're doing here. You really have no idea what you're talking about.
There is no reason for the snob comments, could you explain why would such drop in the cST Viscosity 100C be not a very bad thing

Also I have been reading occasionally BTOG for almost decade and never positing my UOA/VOA because of some aggressive and impolite crowd in here, of course not all but some. And I know many people are doing same. I am appreciative most guys who replied to my posts, but not comments like that and certainly it does not help this message board.
If you think you an expert than why would not just help with better explanation. :confused:
 
It's always difficult to draw conclusions from viscosity loss figures without seeing the full UOA e.g. how much was due to fuel dilution? I recently posted a UOA from the Mini on the forum a few weeks ago - here is the same info (left column) with the VOA added (middle column). This 12,286 mile OCI was a bit longer than I had tentatively planned - it's not my primary car and a few other priorities kept me busy. You can see the KV100 has reduced from VOA of 11.4 to UOA of 9.6 so it's not far from being out of grade. Also note these tests were done at different labs which is not ideal. How much of this KV reduction is due to the 2% fuel dilution, I have no idea, and maybe some forum members can comment on this. The car is short tripped a lot and whilst it's handy having the service mechanic 3 miles up the road, with hindsight I should have taken it for a good 30-45 minute spirited drive before dropping it off for the oil change.

Mini JCW UOA & VOA.jpg
 
It's always difficult to draw conclusions from viscosity loss figures without seeing the full UOA e.g. how much was due to fuel dilution? I recently posted a UOA from the Mini on the forum a few weeks ago - here is the same info (left column) with the VOA added (middle column). This 12,286 mile OCI was a bit longer than I had tentatively planned - it's not my primary car and a few other priorities kept me busy. You can see the KV100 has reduced from VOA of 11.4 to UOA of 9.6 so it's not far from being out of grade. Also note these tests were done at different labs which is not ideal. How much of this KV reduction is due to the 2% fuel dilution, I have no idea, and maybe some forum members can comment on this. The car is short tripped a lot and whilst it's handy having the service mechanic 3 miles up the road, with hindsight I should have taken it for a good 30-45 minute spirited drive before dropping it off for the oil change.

View attachment 91864
Correct. Viscosity deviation can be due to other factors than mechanical shear or from a combination of factors. Unless the engine design is prone to shearing an oil then much of what is posted here as “shear” is not correct.
 
There is no reason for the snob comments, could you explain why would such drop in the cST Viscosity 100C be not a very bad thing

Also I have been reading occasionally BTOG for almost decade and never positing my UOA/VOA because of some aggressive and impolite crowd in here, of course not all but some. And I know many people are doing same. I am appreciative most guys who replied to my posts, but not comments like that and certainly it does not help this message board.
If you think you an expert than why would not just help with better explanation. :confused:
It’s also impolite to keep posting stuff that has been explained to you multiple times.
 
It's always difficult to draw conclusions from viscosity loss figures without seeing the full UOA e.g. how much was due to fuel dilution? I recently posted a UOA from the Mini on the forum a few weeks ago - here is the same info (left column) with the VOA added (middle column). This 12,286 mile OCI was a bit longer than I had tentatively planned - it's not my primary car and a few other priorities kept me busy. You can see the KV100 has reduced from VOA of 11.4 to UOA of 9.6 so it's not far from being out of grade. Also note these tests were done at different labs which is not ideal. How much of this KV reduction is due to the 2% fuel dilution, I have no idea, and maybe some forum members can comment on this. The car is short tripped a lot and whilst it's handy having the service mechanic 3 miles up the road, with hindsight I should have taken it for a good 30-45 minute spirited drive before dropping it off for the oil change.

View attachment 91864
thanks!
The test lab is BS.
As it was published on public internet just putting the link to the UOA . I do not see any fuel dilution, the VOA for the same oil and year can be found on BITOG and is around 12.3-12.4.

https://i.ibb.co/QKGRVdg/762-EB9-AF-1-F0-F-4-F74-A1-EC-B73-BB057-D80-E.jpg
 
That explains it. Blackstone is incapable of accurately measuring fuel dilution and have shown an inability to properly measure viscosity as well.
I would disagree to some extent. But only on the merit of your word choices.

I don't think Blackstone is "incapable". They make choices for certain equipment and costs, etc. The flash-cup method is not very accurate; I'll agree with that. Their viscosity equipment isn't sub-standard; it's reasonably accurate. They, however, don't use the formal vis ranges in their reports; they use their own ranges for vis (essentially an "should be around this" approach which can result in confusion, admittedly). I'm not a fan of that, but that does not mean they are incapable of accurately measuring vis.

What I learned of my tour at BS many years ago is that they are heavily dependent upon human interaction with the test methods. In gauge R&R speak, the "reproduceability" factor is probably not as robust as we'd all like it to be.

It's not that they aren't capable of being more accurate; it's a matter of the test processes being subject to human variability. I suspect that the inaccuracy you object to isn't a result of being "incapable", but more a factor of not being as precise due to factors involving humans. Poor performance isn't always a result of incapability but perhaps moresoe that of inattention, distraction, timing, low give-a-crap factor, etc.

The net effect may be wanting for more, admittedly. I'm just delineating the difference between capability and other reasons why accuracy may be less than desirable.

For someone like me, who really doesn't care about vis or FP much, those tests which are highly dependent upon human process interaction don't really affect my patronage. I care most about the wear metals and other elements, and the ICP process they use is reasonably trustworthy.

If vis and FP accuracy are paramount to one's lab choice, there are other labs that offer more suitable choices.
 
Last edited:
I would disagree to some extent. But only on the merit of your word choices.

I don't think Blackstone is "incapable". They make choices for certain equipment and costs, etc. The flash-cup method is not very accurate; I'll agree with that. Their viscosity equipment isn't sub-standard; it's reasonably accurate. They, however, don't use the formal vis ranges in their reports; they use their own ranges for vis (essentially an "should be around this" approach which can result in confusion, admittedly). I'm not a fan of that, but that does not mean they are incapable of accurately measuring vis.

What I learned of my tour at BS many years ago is that they are heavily dependent upon human interaction with the test methods. In gauge R&R speak, the "reproduceability" factor is probably not as robust as we'd all like it to be.

It's not that they aren't capable of being more accurate; it's a matter of the test processes being subject to human interaction variability. I suspect that the inaccuracy you object to isn't a result of being "incapable", but more a factor of not being as precise due to factors involving humans. Poor performance isn't always a result of incapability but perhaps moresoe that of inattention, distraction, timing, low give-a-crap factor, etc.

The net effect may be wanting for more, admittedly. I'm just delineating the difference between capability and other reasons why accuracy may be less than desirable.
Well I did use the word for a reason. As I noted, incapable of accurately measuring fuel dilution. The ASTM and ISO tests for flash point have inherently high repeatability values and then they are inferring and estimating a fuel dilution value on top of that. Blackstone is in fact incapable of being more accurate because they do not utilize a direct method of measuring dilution.

As for their inability to properly measure viscosity I said that because we have seen numerous UOA on here that give an out-of-grade measurement which on subsequent retest it falls within the limits. I'm not sure what is the problem there but a guess could be poor calibration and less than perfect adherence to the ASTM procedures. We've seen than with their spectrographic results as well.

I understand your reasoning but I'll stand with them being incapable of accurately measuring dilution. They've been shown to be wildly inaccurate many times and it's usually by grossly underestimating the true value.
 
It's always difficult to draw conclusions from viscosity loss figures without seeing the full UOA e.g. how much was due to fuel dilution? I recently posted a UOA from the Mini on the forum a few weeks ago - here is the same info (left column) with the VOA added (middle column). This 12,286 mile OCI was a bit longer than I had tentatively planned - it's not my primary car and a few other priorities kept me busy. You can see the KV100 has reduced from VOA of 11.4 to UOA of 9.6 so it's not far from being out of grade. Also note these tests were done at different labs which is not ideal. How much of this KV reduction is due to the 2% fuel dilution, I have no idea, and maybe some forum members can comment on this. The car is short tripped a lot and whilst it's handy having the service mechanic 3 miles up the road, with hindsight I should have taken it for a good 30-45 minute spirited drive before dropping it off for the oil change.

View attachment 91864
You can use a viscosity calculator like Widman's https://www.widman.biz/English/Calculators/Mixtures.html

to calculate it.

Gasoline is 0.6cSt according to this chart:

Plug those in and viscosity reduction by fuel puts us at 10.69cSt.
 
Instead of Pennzoil Euro L 5w30, why not Pennzoil Euro LX 0w30 in this engine? I understand the LX has better LSPI characteristics, has Mercedes 229.51, 229.52, VW 54/507, ACEA C2, C3.
 
Back
Top