Can i use this oil in my Mercedes ?

SR5

Messages
5,693
Location
Down Under
Originally Posted by M119
SR5, i never go any further than 8000 kms anyway and never went beyond 7000 with conventionnal oil, more like 5000.
You should be fine. The ACEA A3/B3 & A3/B4 specs have been updated quite a few times in the last 20 years, so I would take a modern SN & A3/B3 spec over a 22 year old MB oil spec.
 
Last edited:
Messages
8,995
Location
Virginia
Disagree there man... Those specs are straight forward and right to the point. Wear specs are what they are whether it be old or newer ones.. aka camshaft wear, bearing wear, ring wear etc etc...
 
Messages
4,037
Location
WA
Originally Posted by bbhero
Disagree there man... Those specs are straight forward and right to the point. Wear specs are what they are whether it be old or newer ones.. aka camshaft wear, bearing wear, ring wear etc etc...
Maybe he's suggesting that the performance spec's of the oil have changed (for the better) over time, not that wear rates have changed although one could argue they have changed due to tighter mfg tolerances and better performing oils?🤔
 
Messages
13,195
Location
Maricopa Arizona
Originally Posted by bbhero
Disagree there man... Those specs are straight forward and right to the point. Wear specs are what they are whether it be old or newer ones.. aka camshaft wear, bearing wear, ring wear etc etc...
How is currently wear specifications worse today compared to 22 years ago?
 

SR5

Messages
5,693
Location
Down Under
Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
Maybe he's suggesting that the performance spec's of the oil have changed (for the better) over time
Yes, that is what I'm trying to say. I believe ACEA was introduced in 1996 with input from all the major European manufacturers. As a central standard they could all use. It's still the base for all the modern Euro OEM standards, with a few individual tests thrown on top. You can't be MB or BMW without also being ACEA first. The ACEA sequences includes things like sludge tests, deposit tests, cam wear tests, cylinder wear tests, valve train scuffing wear tests, etc. (ACEA 2016 Sequences PDF) The big thing is that these sequences have been constantly updated as engines have developed, and the test requirements have been strengthened, requiring a better developed and formulated oil to pass the tougher requirements of the more modern sequences. The sequences were updated in 1998, 1999, 2002, 2004, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2016 and 2018. Given the OP has a 1998 Mercedes, but is looking at a modern API SN and ACEA A3/B3 oil, there has been a lot of updates to ACEA since MB printed that owners manual 22 years ago. That MB 229.1 would have been based on the 1998/1999 ACEA sequences.
 
Messages
8,995
Location
Virginia
Originally Posted by dave1251
Originally Posted by bbhero
Disagree there man... Those specs are straight forward and right to the point. Wear specs are what they are whether it be old or newer ones.. aka camshaft wear, bearing wear, ring wear etc etc...
How is currently wear specifications worse today compared to 22 years ago?
I'd bet a bit of money... That those specs were "tougher" to meet for a BMW back then... Wear, volatility, piston deposits for the BMW specs... Aka now equal to and even still harder than current API SN.... In other words.... Well ahead of their time... As compared to basic API SH...
 

M119

Thread starter
Messages
319
Location
Brittany, France
Thanks guys for your opinions. I think one thing to remember is that the M111 engine was released in 1992, this engine was developped 30 years ago.
 

M119

Thread starter
Messages
319
Location
Brittany, France
I always use 229.3 oil, either a cheap 5W40 full synthetic or Shell HX7 10W40 depending on the season as 229.5 oils are like 35€ for 5 liters instead of 20€ and i stick to a short OCI.
 
Messages
2,879
Location
Malaysia
Originally Posted by bbhero
Originally Posted by dave1251
Originally Posted by bbhero
Disagree there man... Those specs are straight forward and right to the point. Wear specs are what they are whether it be old or newer ones.. aka camshaft wear, bearing wear, ring wear etc etc...
How is currently wear specifications worse today compared to 22 years ago?
I'd bet a bit of money... That those specs were "tougher" to meet for a BMW back then... Wear, volatility, piston deposits for the BMW specs... Aka now equal to and even still harder than current API SN.... In other words.... Well ahead of their time... As compared to basic API SH...
I'm with Dave on this matter , more so with HX5 referenced by OP .
 

M119

Thread starter
Messages
319
Location
Brittany, France
Resurrecting my old thread but i think i found the answer and maybe it will help others. The lubrizol chart shows that the requirements of ACEA A3/B3 are even a little higher than the obsolete MB 229.1, especially on wear. Any engine calling for it should be ok with a modern A3/B3.
 
Messages
13,195
Location
Maricopa Arizona
Originally Posted by bbhero
Disagree there man... Those specs are straight forward and right to the point. Wear specs are what they are whether it be old or newer ones.. aka camshaft wear, bearing wear, ring wear etc etc...
And there are engines of this lineage and vintage with nothing but HDEO's used. Each one is running just fine and will run just as intended as long as maintenance is performed. The ability to critically think is often neglected on this site. The is the worst trend I've seen in the last decade in half.
 
Top