Difference between M1 0w30 afe and 0w30 esp?

[02zx9r rev2]

Some people just can’t admit defeat or that they are wrong.

 

[bhvrdr]

And Mobil 1 ESP 0W-30 has also been updated to API SP with a mixed calcium–magnesium detergent and LSPI protection; so, everyone can rest easy now.

That sulfated ash (SA) on Mobil 1 ESP 0W-30 is a nice and low 0.6%, in principle eligible for low-SAPS categorization!

https://www.mobil.com/en/sap/our-products/products/mobil-1-esp-0w-30

Wow that's just last week. Heres the pds that they introduced in Europe a few weeks ago...

They rolled it out to usa apparently. Ill grab a voa on it. Im sure we'll see the same changes to it as all the others as far as calcium and magnesium

 

[edyvw]

How did it stay the same formulation but change viscosity and density?

View attachment 125508View attachment 125509

Ok, they changed formulation a bit. I actually have not seen current European version. It is not uncommon that oil is already meeting requirements of incoming specification. Blenders are informed about it well in advance.
Still, doesn’t mean it has anything to do with LSPI as old one already has a test.

 

[bhvrdr]

Ok, they changed formulation a bit. I actually have not seen current European version. It is not uncommon that oil is already meeting requirements of incoming specification. Blenders are informed about it well in advance.

Yeah i agree often m1 is one or two api certs ahead already but this lspi stuff has had all the traditional "euro" oils scrambling to change. Pretty soon we won't be able to tell them apart

 

[Gokhan]

Ok, they changed formulation a bit. I actually have not seen current European version. It is not uncommon that oil is already meeting requirements of incoming specification. Blenders are informed about it well in advance.
Still, doesn’t mean it has anything to do with LSPI as old one already has a test.

It has everything to do with LSPI, as they have updated to API SP with a mixed calcium–magnesium detergent. It is also changed not by just a bit but to an entirely new detergent, which makes the bulk of the additive package.

I am not sure if they ever did any LSPI tests for the previous, high-calcium formulations, but I doubt it, as the MB LSPI test seems to have been introduced only about two years ago.

I have updated the HTFS/VII table.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/htfsv-high-temperature-full-shear-viscosity.307409/

 

[edyvw]

It has everything to do with LSPI, as they have updated to API SP with a mixed calcium–magnesium detergent. It is also changed not by just a bit but to an entirely new detergent, which makes the bulk of the additive package.

I am not sure if they ever did any LSPI tests for the previous, high-calcium formulations, but I doubt it, as the MB LSPI test seems to have been introduced only about two years ago.

I have updated the HTFS/VII table.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/htfsv-high-temperature-full-shear-viscosity.307409/

I see where you going, but it has to do more with API SP than LSPI (as LSPI is just one of the tests). The current ESP on shelves is MB229.52 with LSPI test. Considering 2020 update has LSPI test, and Mobil1 would not develop an additive package without that in mind. They would have to approve it again. after. Think of Mobil1 0W40 FS. They dropped LL01 in 2015 knowing BMW will update LL01 in 2018 where 0W40 oils would be dropped and oxidation is anyway an issue with Mobil1 for BMW engines (not sure about these new updates).
So, ESP I have in VW has LSPI test. That formulation is probably not compatible with other SP parameters and limits, therefore update the formulation. Not that they did not update for other reasons too.

By the way,
2016 pds:
https://www.platinuminternational.com/externalpages/oilresults/download/151902.pdf

 

[OVERKILL]

Here ya go

View attachment 125440

This contractor clearly doesn't understand the European sequences.

The oil is MB 229.31, 229.51, 229.52. Every single one of those has the Daimler LSPI test:

It doesn't matter whether it's API SP or not (which uses a Ford engine for LSPI testing). It has to pass the Euro test for the same bloody thing.

 

[OVERKILL]

If a spec does not have an LSPI test, it does not have LSPI mitigation, period—no other ifs and buts.

It has the Daimler LSPI test instead Gokhan, not the API SP one.

 

[OVERKILL]

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.

That was 2016. The hadn't decided on the limits yet. As @BMWTurboDzl noted, those limits were established as of 2020, so the oil, currently, has passed the MB LSPI test for all three of the Mercedes approvals it carries.

 

[OVERKILL]

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.

I'm quite interested to see how much calcium is in M1 FS 0W-40 now that it's SP, lol.

 

[OVERKILL]

Wow that's just last week. Heres the pds that they introduced in Europe a few weeks ago...

View attachment 125516



They rolled it out to usa apparently. Ill grab a voa on it. Im sure we'll see the same changes to it as all the others as far as calcium and magnesium

So, this again points to the "contractor" being wrong. Not only did it have the Mercedes LSPI tests already, but it also has the freakin' API SP one.

 

[OVERKILL]

It has everything to do with LSPI, as they have updated to API SP with a mixed calcium–magnesium detergent. It is also changed not by just a bit but to an entirely new detergent, which makes the bulk of the additive package.

I am not sure if they ever did any LSPI tests for the previous, high-calcium formulations, but I doubt it, as the MB LSPI test seems to have been introduced only about two years ago.

I have updated the HTFS/VII table.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/htfsv-high-temperature-full-shear-viscosity.307409/

Well, as far as I'm aware, we are discussing the current formulation of the product, available right now, on the shelves at whatever your favourite retailer is, which I think we can agree at this point, has both the Mercedes LSPI test as well as the API one at this juncture.

 

[Big_B]

I'm quite interested to see how much calcium is in M1 FS 0W-40 now that it's SP, lol.

Me too

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

And m1 0w30 esp is not a low calcium oil and not lspi mitigatin
What are the test sequences for 229.52 currently? I assume you have them.


How much do you want to bet @edyvw @BMWTurboDzl @OVERKILL do not have the actual test sequences for the current 229.52.

Please tell me you are not relying on the only single public article on the internet that is a blog post from lubrizol not even the spec sheet for 229.52 to form your opinion on the current testing protocols of 229.52 and how m1 must list them on their bottles. Lubrizol doesnt even list 229.52...

https://360.lubrizol.com/Specifications/Daimler



https://www.oilspecifications.org/mercedes_mb.php

It's not relevant. What's relevant to the discussion is the the LSPI test exists. It's an in house teat w/Mercedes rather than the one required for API SP or SN±.

 

[Gokhan]

That was 2016. The hadn't decided on the limits yet. As @BMWTurboDzl noted, those limits were established as of 2020, so the oil, currently, has passed the MB LSPI test for all three of the Mercedes approvals it carries.

The API SP M1 ESP versions—aka mixed calcium–magnesium detergent versions—would definitely be subjected to the MB LSPI test.

However, I doubt the previous versions were ever subjected to the MB LSPI test, as the test was introduced circa 2020, and blenders get a grace period when OEM specs are updated. The older versions were very high in calcium and were formulated with no LSPI protection in mind, and I doubt they would have passed any strict LSPI test. Note that these are low-ZDDP oils as well; so, you don't get any help from ZDDP in mitigating LSPI.

One thing that everyone must understand is that LSPI protection and timing-chain-wear protection were championed by API and ILSAC, and ACEA and European OEMs followed suit several years later. Therefore, MB 229.52 LSPI test did not come to existence in thin air, but it was created in response to API SP and US OEM LSPI tests. In fact, the new ACEA A7/B7 and C6 categories use the same API ASTM D8291 and D8279 tests for LSPI and timing chain, respectively. Interestingly, the LSPI and timing-chain criteria for both API/ILSAC and ACEA specs are identical, showing that the API/ILSAC and ACEA additive packages have been converging to being identical now. US/Japanese oil specs have been ahead of European oil specs in these two respects; so, Europeans are playing catch-up now.

 

[Gokhan]

Yeah i agree often m1 is one or two api certs ahead already but this lspi stuff has had all the traditional "euro" oils scrambling to change. Pretty soon we won't be able to tell them apart

You are correct. API/ILSAC oils and ACEA oils have been converging to being identical. The main difference of ACEA oils was lower Noack, but with dexos1 and OEM synthetic-oil recommendations, this difference has mostly gone away. Europeans playing catch-up with LSPI and timing-chain-wear protection is forcing the additive companies to offer nearly identical (mixed calcium–magnesium detergent) packages for API/ILSAC/US OEMs and ACEA/European OEMs now, reducing the difference between the corresponding oils to being subtle and probably having no measurable actual performance difference. Perhaps a tad bit more ZDDP (like 100 ppm more phosphorus) could be all the remaining difference now.

 

[edyvw]

The API SP M1 ESP versions—aka mixed calcium–magnesium detergent versions—would definitely be subjected to the MB LSPI test.

However, I doubt the previous versions were ever subjected to the MB LSPI test, as the test was introduced circa 2020, and blenders get a grace period when OEM specs are updated. The older versions were very high in calcium and were formulated with no LSPI protection in mind, and I doubt they would have passed any strict LSPI test. Note that these are low-ZDDP oils as well; so, you don't get any help from ZDDP in mitigating LSPI.

One thing that everyone must understand is that LSPI protection and timing-chain-wear protection were championed by API and ILSAC, and ACEA and European OEMs followed suit several years later. Therefore, MB 229.52 LSPI test did not come to existence in thin air, but it was created in response to API SP and US OEM LSPI tests. In fact, the new ACEA A7/B7 and C6 categories use the same API ASTM D8291 and D8279 tests for LSPI and timing chain, respectively. Interestingly, the LSPI and timing-chain criteria for both API/ILSAC and ACEA specs are identical, showing that the API/ILSAC and ACEA additive packages have been converging to being identical now. US/Japanese oil specs have been ahead of European oil specs in these two respects; so, Europeans are playing catch-up now.

The PDS I posted has the same parameters as the current M1 ESP 0W30 SP, and this was 2016.
BMW announced a timing chain test in 2014 with the introduction of updated LL approvals in 2018. It was not championed by API.
Oil blenders have a grace period but cannot extend that long and must be renewed when the current one expires. Also, MB229.52 LSPI was in effect in 2020, but all blenders that do business with MB, knew it at least two years in advance. There is no way on this time sequence that the current ESP on the shelves is not LSPI tested.

 

[Gokhan]

The PDS I posted has the same parameters as the current M1 ESP 0W30 SP, and this was 2016.
BMW announced a timing chain test in 2014 with the introduction of updated LL approvals in 2018. It was not championed by API.
Oil blenders have a grace period but cannot extend that long and must be renewed when the current one expires. Also, MB229.52 LSPI was in effect in 2020, but all blenders that do business with MB, knew it at least two years in advance. There is no way on this time sequence that the current ESP on the shelves is not LSPI tested.

In that case, it must have been changed to a mixed calcium–magnesium detergent version back then, perhaps when MB gave them a heads-up.

I was looking at Mobil 1 ESP X1 0W-30, which had a high-calcium detergent, but that is apparently a different oil.

https://www.oil-club.ru/forum/topic/26456-mobil1-esp-x1-0w-30-svezhee/

 

[OVERKILL]

The PDS I posted has the same parameters as the current M1 ESP 0W30 SP, and this was 2016.
BMW announced a timing chain test in 2014 with the introduction of updated LL approvals in 2018. It was not championed by API.
Oil blenders have a grace period but cannot extend that long and must be renewed when the current one expires. Also, MB229.52 LSPI was in effect in 2020, but all blenders that do business with MB, knew it at least two years in advance. There is no way on this time sequence that the current ESP on the shelves is not LSPI tested.

I mean, this (LSPI by Mercedes) was being phased-in in 2016, so it's hardly new. They hadn't yet decided on the parameters/limits yet, but it was clearly already well under development.

I don't get the cynicism about the Euro approvals. API approvals have always, led by the oil industry, lagging behind ACEA and the Euro marques, which are led by the auto manufacturers.

 

[Gokhan]

I mean, this (LSPI by Mercedes) was being phased-in in 2016, so it's hardly new. They hadn't yet decided on the parameters/limits yet, but it was clearly already well under development.

I don't get the cynicism about the Euro approvals. API approvals have always, led by the oil industry, lagging behind ACEA and the Euro marques, which are led by the auto manufacturers.

It is the same with ILSAC. It is also lead by automotive OEMs.

https://360.lubrizol.com/Specifications/ILSAC