Difference between M1 0w30 afe and 0w30 esp?

[edyvw]

Here ya go

View attachment 125440

You still don’t understand how legal wording works.

 

[edyvw]

You don't understand what you're reading.

It's written in the Afton handbook as "Daimler LSPI Test In House". This was posted above by @OVERKILL.
I also posted directly from Lubrizol website which states that the applicable Mercedes spec contains a LSPI test.

This is tall order for him.

 

[Gokhan]

Eh, we have to be careful with the verbiage here.

API SP has an LSPI test as part of it, and that's what the quote from Mobil is in reference to. LSPI as an issue in North America came about as part of the reduction in ZDDP, which itself is an LSPI mitigator, this reduction (of phosphorous) was also part of the API mandate, starting with API SM, that capped phosphorous on certain thinner grades of oil. It was then determined that calcium promoted LSPI, but ZDDP counteracted that tendency. So, in oils with reduced ZDDP, calcium needed to be replaced with magnesium to reduce the event rate/likelihood of occurrence.

So, objectively, the API created this problem with the phosphorous limits. The Euro lubricants didn't have the same limits on phosphorous, so the higher levels worked to mitigate LSPI. Subsequently, the API had to work with the oil companies to figure out a method to reduce LSPI, which is how we ended up with SN Plus and now SP, utilizing a low calcium, higher magnesium additive package.

The ESP oils came about in Europe much earlier on, to deal with protecting DPF and GPF's (hence: Emissions System Protection). While there was also a reduction in SA and subsequently a reduction in phosphorous, it wasn't at the same level as we saw with the API. Euro marques also undertook LSPI mitigation as part of their testing protocol (which @edyvw noted with respect to Mercedes) based on what was being observed with API-market oils. You can see that in this specification breakdown by Afton:
View attachment 125201

Also, one thing we are noting with the recent Mobil reformulation is that they've bumped up phosphorous to basically the API limit across the board. This is likely due to the mitigation effect it has on LSPI.

This is not correct.

If you look carefully, it says TBD, which means "to be determined." That is because the spec and test did not exist at the time of the publication.

The idea there was to align the MB specs with the new API SP, ACEA A7/B7, and ACEA C6 specs, which have mixed calcium-magnesium detergent and hence LSPI protection.

Again, there is no such thing as an oil with a high-calcium detergent that protects against LSPI—that is only a Euro-oil fan's wishful thinking.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

This is not correct.

If you look carefully, it says TBD, which means "to be determined." That is because the spec and test did not exist at the time of the publication.

The idea there was to align the MB specs with the new API SP, ACEA A7/B7, and ACEA C6 specs, which have mixed calcium-magnesium detergent and hence LSPI protection.

Again, there is no such thing as an oil with a high-calcium detergent that protects against LSPI—that is only a Euro-oil fan's wishful thinking.

Per Lubrizol, as of 5/2020, MB 229.52 contains a LSPI test.

https://360.lubrizol.com/2020/Understanding-the-Daimler-MB-229,-d-,52-Specification

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

This is tall order for him.

He never responded to my post so at this point I think he's trolling.

 

[Gokhan]

Per Lubrizol 229.52 contains a LSPI test as of 5/2020.

https://360.lubrizol.com/2020/Understanding-the-Daimler-MB-229,-d-,52-Specification

That means all MB 229.52 oils approved to 2020 and later specs will have a mixed calcium–magnesium detergent and possibly carry an API SP approval as well.

No additive company like Lubrizol will try to make a preapproved additive package with a high-calcium detergent that is certified for LSPI protection. That simply would not work, at least in a graceful manner.

 

[bhvrdr]

You still don’t understand how legal wording works.

I understood the definition of mitigate where you didn't right?

I understand "M1 0w30 ESP is not an LSPI mitigating oil" from Mobil 1.

I understand reading actual lab values showing 1700 calcium and basically no magnesium meaning it literally can't be a lspi mitigating oil.

 

[Gokhan]

I understood the definition of mitigate where you didn't right?

I understand "M1 is not an LSPI mitigating oil" from Mobil 1.

I understand reading actual lab values showing 1700 calcium and basically no magnesium meaning it literally can't be a lspi mitigating oil.

You were correct, and they were wrong.

They missed the point that the Afton specification handbook was not referring to old and/or current specs but to not-yet-existing future specs (to be determined (TBD)).

You are also absolutely right in that the new LSPI-protecting specs all have a mixed calcium–magnesium detergent because that's what the additive companies formulate and test their new additive packages with for the LSPI-protecting industry and OEM specs.

 

[bhvrdr]

You were correct, and they were wrong.

They missed the point that the Afton specification handbook was not referring to old and/or current specs but to not-yet-existing future specs (to be determined (TBD)).

You are also absolutely right in that the new LSPI-protecting specs all have a mixed calcium–magnesium detergent because that's what the additive companies formulate and test their new additive packages with for the LSPI-protecting industry and OEM specs.

Thank you sir.

Yeah i remember running into this with alfa romeos with the 2.0l.


I was trying to help people understand it back in 2020

https://www.giuliaforums.com/thread...ications-sn-versus-sn-plus-and-ms13340.50969/

 

[edyvw]

I understood the definition of mitigate where you didn't right?

I understand "M1 0w30 ESP is not an LSPI mitigating oil" from Mobil 1.

I understand reading actual lab values showing 1700 calcium and basically no magnesium meaning it literally can't be a lspi mitigating oil.

It was already explained to you the relationship between calcium and ZDDP. Just because some oil has 1,700ppm does not mean anything looking strictly at that value. So, no you do not understand.

You can understand whatever you want about M1 ESP; Mobil1 gave you the ONLY answer they could possibly give you. I already explained why ESP is not advertised in that way.

You do not understand this topic, period.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

That means all MB 229.52 oils approved to 2020 and later specs will have a mixed calcium–magnesium detergent and possibly carry an API SP approval as well.

No additive company like Lubrizol will try to make a preapproved additive package with a high-calcium detergent that is certified for LSPI protection. That simply would not work, at least in a graceful manner.

M1 ESP 5w30 carries the 229.52 spec.

 

[Gokhan]

Thank you sir.

Yeah i remember running into this with alfa romeos with the 2.0l.


I was trying to help people understand it back in 2020

https://www.giuliaforums.com/thread...ications-sn-versus-sn-plus-and-ms13340.50969/

This is actually a very well known thing on BITOG, but some Euro oil fans here will keep coming and try to spread the falsehood that Euro oils have always had LSPI protection, which is absurd.

They base this falsehood in that the Euro oils contain higher ZDDP levels, which mitigate LSPI to some extent, or because they are not aware of any Euro TGDI engine that has blown up because of LSPI.

It is a well-known fact that the main culprit of LSPI is calcium, and that's why modern engine oils use a mixed calcium–magnesium detergent.

A mixed calcium–magnesium detergent also has the bonus benefit of increased TBN retention while still curbing TAN increase. So, it is a win–win situation if you are using these modern, updated oils with a mixed calcium–magnesium detergent.

 

[edyvw]

You were correct, and they were wrong.

They missed the point that the Afton specification handbook was not referring to old and/or current specs but to not-yet-existing future specs (to be determined (TBD)).

You are also absolutely right in that the new LSPI-protecting specs all have a mixed calcium–magnesium detergent because that's what the additive companies formulate and test their new additive packages with for the LSPI-protecting industry and OEM specs.

MB229.52 has LSPI test. There is nothing there about TBD.

 

[Gokhan]

M1 ESP 5w30 carries the 229.52 spec.

But which 229.52? 229.52 2014? 229.52 2016? There are many 229.52 specs, as it is updated almost every year. As you linked, 229.52 was only updated in 2020 to have LSPI protection.

 

[Gokhan]

MB229.52 has LSPI test. There is nothing there about TBD.

Only 229.52 2020 and later, not the earlier 229.52 specs.

 

[edyvw]

This is actually a very well known thing on BITOG, but some Euro oil fans here will keep coming and try to spread the falsehood that Euro oils have always had LSPI protection, which is absurd.

They base this falsehood in that the Euro oils contain higher ZDDP levels, which mitigate LSPI to some extent, or because they are not aware of any Euro TGDI engine that has blown up because of LSPI.

It is a well-known fact that the main culprit of LSPI is calcium, and that's why modern engine oils use a mixed calcium–magnesium detergent.

A mixed calcium–magnesium detergent also has the bonus benefit of increased TBN retention while still curbing TAN increase. So, it is a win–win situation if you are using these modern, updated oils with a mixed calcium–magnesium detergent.

The main culprit behind LSPI is a high boost at low rpms. Otherwise, EVERY engine with small displacement and small turbo would have that issue, and the majority of European engines do not have this issue. The main offender was an old VW 1.4 turbo/compressor engine.
Lower calcium can just lower the possibility of an event. It is a bandaid.

 

[edyvw]

Only 229.52 2020 and later, not the earlier 229.52 specs.

Which is renewed every two years.
So, we are talking about current oils being sold as MB229.52 having that test.
API SP LSPI test is done on Ford EcoBoost engine and then applied on pretty much any other engine requiring API SP. And it is being done one an engine that absolutely does not have any issues with LSPI. But it is API anything goes.
The same could be applied to ESP MB229.52. It is anyway far more stringent specification anyway.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

But which 229.52? 229.52 2014? 229.52 2016? There are many 229.52 specs, as it is updated almost every year. As you linked, 229.52 was only updated in 2020 to have LSPI protection.

Per Lubrizol the latest iteration of 229.52 is 2019.

That document is a publication date nothing more nothing less, but here we are in 2022 soon to be 2023.

 

[edyvw]

Per Lubrizol the only iteration of 229.52 circa 2019.

Renewed every two years.
And this notion that 1700ppm means something is absolutely ridiculous. So, what is the number where the LSPI problem starts? 2000? 1500? 1436? 3000? DOes it start in all engines at that number? That is the problem of API SP. It is applied to a broad number of engines. That is why European manufacturers have their own specific approvals.

 

[Gokhan]

So, we are talking about current oils being sold as MB229.52 having that test.

Do the formulations have to be retested every time MB 229.52 is updated? I doubt it. I would think they are only tested at the time when the oil is first approved for marketing.