Difference between M1 0w30 afe and 0w30 esp?
- Thread starter 2MCHPSI
- Start date
- Status
hurt.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
The test was already under development in 2016, the date of the Lubrizol brochure that was pulled from. Given the amount of "heads up" the industry has, Mobil was, as they typically are, well ahead of the curve on that one.
But regardless, this thread is about current versions of the product and I think we've established that regardless of what some "contractor" answering e-mails for Mobil says, this oil is setup to mitigate LSPI, and it's likely been that case for several years now, at least.
That sounds like revisionist history, with all due respect. Mercedes 2009 from the Afton handbook, note the timing chain wear test:
LSPI testing was introduced by the API under SN Plus, in November of 2017. Yet Mercedes clearly already had an LSPI test under development in 2016. Noted under the 2017.1 revision, the test release was expected to be 01/03/2018:
There was also an LSPI test as part of PSA service ACEA C5 (2017):
So I'm not willing to entertain the idea that the Euro marques all had their heads up their posterior and had no knowledge of LSPI and didn't develop any test protocols until the API did it.
How? If Mercedes had it under development in 20-freakin-16, and SN Plus didn't come out until the end of 2017, how is it a response to SP if it existed before SP did?
I disagree vehemently. I'm not sure why you feel so necessarily invested in championing the API on this subject, but ACEA has typically been the one taking the lead because it is made up the auto manufacturers, who have a vested interest in protecting their product, unlike the API, which is comprised of the oil companies, who have a vested interest in making the most money selling the cheapest oil possible that passes the performance requirements. That's why XOM pimps their EHC Group II+ products for Dexos for example.
The Euro marques were the first to really push extended drains and stay-in-grade requirements. They developed extremely rigorous performance testing under very demanding conditions (like A40 for example) and the domestic marques are very much only recently catching up on that, with probably the biggest contributor being GM with dexos and its performance requirements. Ford's are all just extensions of existing API tests, same with FCA.
Edit to add: And this is all very good for the end user, who gets a better oil as a result. But, to ignore the leadership role ACEA and the Euro marques have historically played is to do a disservice to its significance IMHO. As I noted above, things really started to change on this side of the pond around when GM introduced dexos.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Yes, as an extension of the API and most of the tests are just the API test or extensions of them.
In all this, no one paid attention except @OVERKILL and @Gokhan that Mobil1 ESP 0W30 from 12/2015 is the same oil as Mobil1 ESP0W30 API SP.
So, we have oil in Europe that was basically just relabeled to include API SP.
Which means, back in 2016 this oil was LSPI ready.
Ine of the reasons why LSPI is not big discussion among Euro marquess is that generally probelms are very rare. VW had and addressed them where it should: engineering it properly. Same goes for others.
So, we have oil in Europe that was basically just relabeled to include API SP.
Which means, back in 2016 this oil was LSPI ready.
Ine of the reasons why LSPI is not big discussion among Euro marquess is that generally probelms are very rare. VW had and addressed them where it should: engineering it properly. Same goes for others.
That's not how the API/ILSAC specs are developed. It is a consortium of automotive OEMs and additive companies.
No, ILSAC's only purpose is not to add fuel-economy tests to the non-ILSAC-grade API tests as you claim. API and ILSAC have the same committee for oil development.
This is simply wrong. API SN PLUS and SP came before ACEA A7/B7 and C6. ILSAC oils switched to a mixed calcium–magnesium detergent long before ACEA oils did, which are still playing catch-up in LSPI protection.
That Peugeot spec seems to be regarding oil aging but not LSPI, and I don't know how the word LSPI got in there.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
I know the details of the tests, these are publicly available, but ultimately, the API is out for its best interest and the OEM's weighing in haven't done so with the same level of rigour as their European counterparts.
Probably the biggest chasm is the OEM approvals.
Historically, Japanese and American marques didn't have their own approvals (and most of the Japanese marques still don't), accepting the API stuff as it was, despite it being pretty milquetoast. Contrast this to the Euro approvals, the details of many we know through the Afton handbook, and the previous leaked version of the A40 testing protocols, and these are significant and substantial portfolios of performance requirements.
So, you look at a "Euro" oil and yes, you had your foundational ACEA approval, but then you also had a laundry list of manufacturer approvals as well. This was an extensive slate, meaning the oil had jumped through a tremendous amount of hoops.
When the American marques started phasing-in their own approvals (like Ford's WSS ones) these were very much just different "twists" on the existing API approvals. Change a limit here or there, extend a duration...etc. Nothing substantial.
There was a relative chasm between the hoops a Euro oil had to jump through and its API/ILSAC counterpart.
This of course began to change with the introduction of GM's dexos, which addressed a significant number of the API/ILSAC shortcomings and since API SN, we've seen some welcome improvements overall.
So, there's no denying for the last several decades, ACEA and the Euro marques have been well ahead of the API on driving improvement in lubrication performance.
ACEA doesn’t have to do anything for manufacturers to make their own approvals more stringent.
ACEA is just starting point. Manufacturers add slew of other test to it, including LSPI. That is why you have C3 oil that has LSPI test bcs. test is in MB229.52 approval.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Sweet Christ on a friggin' cracker Gokhan, there's more to LSPI than just calcium. You know full-well that ZDDP mitigates LSPI and the Euro oils have historically had higher levels of ZDDP.
It bothers me to no end when you say "this is simply wrong" and provide absolutely NOTHING substantiative to refute it, disagreeing with it only because it runs contrary to the narrative you've previously spun. You cannot deny that Mercedes was CLEARLY aware of LSPI and working on the limits for their testing protocol as of 2016.
Here's a wild idea: Perhaps the higher ZDDP levels in some of these oils provided enough LSPI mitigation that they didn't need to reduce calcium?
It's LSPI, even Fuchs notes that, like GM, PSA came up with their own LSPI test before the API implemented anything:
LSPI | FUCHS LUBRICANTES, S.A.U.
Low Speed Pre-Ignition or LSPI, describes unintentional and uncontrolled self-ignitions of the fuel-air mixture in the engine bevor the actual engine ignition
www.fuchs.com
Note that the excerpt from the Afton handbook notes B71 2010, which of course appears in the below table under PSA. This also handily notes that the MB test has been in use since 2018:
Wait for it, the usual forthcoming response after all of this is “of course I didn’t mean that…”Sweet Christ on a friggin' cracker Gokhan, there's more to LSPI than just calcium. You know full-well that ZDDP mitigates LSPI and the Euro oils have historically had higher levels of ZDDP.
It bothers me to no end when you say "this is simply wrong" and provide absolutely NOTHING substantiative to refute it, disagreeing with it only because it runs contrary to the narrative you've previously spun. You cannot deny that Mercedes was CLEARLY aware of LSPI and working on the limits for their testing protocol as of 2016.
Here's a wild idea: Perhaps the higher ZDDP levels in some of these oils provided enough LSPI mitigation that they didn't need to reduce calcium?
It's LSPI, even Fuchs notes that, like GM, PSA came up with their own LSPI test before the API implemented anything:
LSPI | FUCHS LUBRICANTES, S.A.U.
Low Speed Pre-Ignition or LSPI, describes unintentional and uncontrolled self-ignitions of the fuel-air mixture in the engine bevor the actual engine ignition
Note that the excerpt from the Afton handbook notes B71 2010, which of course appears in the below table under PSA. This also handily notes that the MB test has been in use since 2018:
View attachment 125564
Sweet Christ on friggin cracker?
I lived in the South for a long time, but haven’t heard that one
I lived in the South for a long time, but haven’t heard that one
You know well that ZDDP etc. are secondary effects.Sweet Christ on a friggin' cracker Gokhan, there's more to LSPI than just calcium. You know full-well that ZDDP mitigates LSPI and the Euro oils have historically had higher levels of ZDDP.
It bothers me to no end when you say "this is simply wrong" and provide absolutely NOTHING substantiative to refute it, disagreeing with it only because it runs contrary to the narrative you've previously spun. You cannot deny that Mercedes was CLEARLY aware of LSPI and working on the limits for their testing protocol as of 2016.
Here's a wild idea: Perhaps the higher ZDDP levels in some of these oils provided enough LSPI mitigation that they didn't need to reduce calcium?
It's LSPI, even Fuchs notes that, like GM, PSA came up with their own LSPI test before the API implemented anything:
LSPI | FUCHS LUBRICANTES, S.A.U.
Low Speed Pre-Ignition or LSPI, describes unintentional and uncontrolled self-ignitions of the fuel-air mixture in the engine bevor the actual engine ignition
Note that the excerpt from the Afton handbook notes B71 2010, which of course appears in the below table under PSA. This also handily notes that the MB test has been in use since 2018:
View attachment 125564
If what you're saying is true, you can easily prove it: Simply find a counter example to my claim: an all-calcium API-SP-rated oil. If you cannot find it, my thesis claiming that there is no such oil stands valid.
By the way, GM introduced dexos1 Gen 2 in 2015, which predated every Euro OEM's LSPI test. As I said, API/ILSAC spearheaded LSPI formulations. You can't find any non-LSPI API/ILSAC oil any more, but the majority of Euro oils are still non-LSPI.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
We know that calcium is an instigator, while ZDDP is a mitigator:
Thesis? Good grief. It's a bloody (ridiculous) BITOG discussion Harry Potter, I award your house no points! Why does it have to be SP rated? Why can't it just be one that has the PSA and/or Mercedes approval post 2018?
Let's veer ourselves back to the discussion at hand here for a moment. We are talking about DIFFERENT LSPI tests, not just API SP (or SN Plus for that matter). LSPI is LSPI, if it is being tested for, it's valid. That's the crux of the original argument in the context of mitigating LSPI when it was being stated, absolutely, that this all just appeared out of the ether with API SP and the counter was that no, that's bovine excrement, there have been OEM tests for it long before API SP.
Dude, I literally just said, in the text you quoted, that LIKE GM, PSA introduced their own test before the API had one.
I'm done, this conversation is making me angry and I hate that I'm wasting my time on it here playing whack-a-mole with your gotchas and tangents which ultimately serve me no purpose and just drive up my blood pressure.
Consider this my thread exit.
You have been trying to prove 2 + 2 = 3, but it hasn't been going anywhere. You are simply wrong on this. That grossly extrapolated plot that goes to a ridiculous 2,000-ppm phosphorus doesn't help with anything. You should also know that the acceptable number of LSPI events is more like zero, not 10 or 20 (regardless of the actual limit in the tests). Moreover, the only mainstream PCMOs with high ZDDP are ACEA A3/B4 oils, and they only go up to ~ 1,000-ppm phosphorus, which is not much higher than ILSAC oils. As you know, Castrol and Mobil 1 have both updated their A3/B4 oils to a mixed calcium–magnesium detergent now. Nobody will try to make an LSPI oil with an all-calcium detergent, as calcium is the main LSPI culprit in high-BMEP TGDI engines.
API SP is LSPI. Even ACEA uses the identical tests and and criteria as API SP for ACEA A7/B7 and C6. That should tell you something. OEMs can add more stringent LSPI tests, but if they are really more stringent, you won't be able to pass them with an all-calcium oil for sure.
Mobil 1 introduced their API SP LSPI (mixed calcium–magnesium detergent) ILSAC oils in 2010 at the dawn of API SN. (The formulation basically remained the same with API SN PLUS and SP.) That's because they knew GM dexos1 Gen 2 was coming no later than 2014–2015. They didn't introduce any LSPI Euro oils until many years later like mid-to-late 2010s. That tells you how far ILSAC was ahead of ACEA in LSPI.
If you can't find an all-calcium API-SP-rated oil, go ahead and look for an all-calcium ACEA-A7/B7-rated or ACEA-C6-rated oil. I will accept that, too, if you can find one. Even a Euro-OEM test is acceptable (assuming that the approval year for the OEM spec is recent). I am looking forward to you finding this holy grail of an all-calcium LSPI-certified oil. Till then.
Last edited:
API SP has LSPI test.
MB229.52 has LSPI test.
That is it.
Going back to original question, ESP is much better oil for slew of other reasons. Afe was always and still is “whatever “ oil. Shears down too fast etc. If going that type of oil M1 5W30EP would always be my choice over Afe.
That is where I am going to end my involvement.
On another note, maybe some of these Asian manufacturers should give consideration to design engines bit better.
MB229.52 has LSPI test.
That is it.
Going back to original question, ESP is much better oil for slew of other reasons. Afe was always and still is “whatever “ oil. Shears down too fast etc. If going that type of oil M1 5W30EP would always be my choice over Afe.
That is where I am going to end my involvement.
On another note, maybe some of these Asian manufacturers should give consideration to design engines bit better.
I've read the full Infineum paper on additive etc. effects on LSPI. The main culprit is calcium, and the only quencher seems to be ZDDP. There seem to be no other significant players according to Infineum. However, since any street-legal oil restricts ZDDP, you need to reduce calcium to be able to pass the LSPI tests.
The whole point I've been trying to make was that I believe no new oil that goes for any kind of LSPI certification—industry or OEM—will be formulated with an all-calcium detergent. That's simply because it would be unproductive for an additive company or blender to do so since calcium is the main LSPI culprit. ZDDP helps quench it, but you don't see strong effects until unreasonably high ZDDP levels. Since both API/ILSAC and ACEA (especially for the C category) restrict ZDDP, ZDDP becomes mostly a moot issue in any kind of street-legal oil. We don't see ZDDP levels above 1,000-ppm phosphorus these days even in full-SAPS ACEA A3/B4 oils.
I am guessing that the M1 ESP and M1 FS API-SP oils have a mixed calcium–magnesium detergent. I am looking forward to VOAs and/or UOAs for these API-SP Euro oils.
I have access to the Infineum paper through my library, but I doubt you could read it yourself unless you find a way of access.
www.jstor.org
Regarding the history, GM (who also owns Opel) seems to be the first OEM to license LSPI oils for sale in 2015 through GM dexos1 Gen 2, followed by MB and Peugeot in circa 2018. However, if we get into history arguments, they probably won't go anywhere.
The whole point I've been trying to make was that I believe no new oil that goes for any kind of LSPI certification—industry or OEM—will be formulated with an all-calcium detergent. That's simply because it would be unproductive for an additive company or blender to do so since calcium is the main LSPI culprit. ZDDP helps quench it, but you don't see strong effects until unreasonably high ZDDP levels. Since both API/ILSAC and ACEA (especially for the C category) restrict ZDDP, ZDDP becomes mostly a moot issue in any kind of street-legal oil. We don't see ZDDP levels above 1,000-ppm phosphorus these days even in full-SAPS ACEA A3/B4 oils.
I am guessing that the M1 ESP and M1 FS API-SP oils have a mixed calcium–magnesium detergent. I am looking forward to VOAs and/or UOAs for these API-SP Euro oils.
I have access to the Infineum paper through my library, but I doubt you could read it yourself unless you find a way of access.
Controlling Low-Speed Pre-Ignition in Modern Automotive Equipment Part 3 on JSTOR
Andrew Ritchie, Doyle Boese, Anne W. Young, Controlling Low-Speed Pre-Ignition in Modern Automotive Equipment Part 3, SAE International Journal of Engines, Vol. 9, No. 2 (June 2016), pp. 832-840
www.jstor.org
Regarding the history, GM (who also owns Opel) seems to be the first OEM to license LSPI oils for sale in 2015 through GM dexos1 Gen 2, followed by MB and Peugeot in circa 2018. However, if we get into history arguments, they probably won't go anywhere.
So, some guy in India is responsible for all those grossly messed-up, incomplete, and erroneous ExxonMobil PDSs and websites? That figures.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2022
- Messages
- 67
Just change your **** oil on time. JFC lol
Re: "Afe was always and still is “whatever “ oil. Here is evidence to the contrary: Ford, at least for its extremely popular Ecoboost 3.5 engine, requires its customers to use a 0W30 oil meeting its WSS-M2C963-A1 standard when the temperature is expected to drop below -20F. M1 AFE 0W30 is the only oil for sale in the US that claims to meet that standard, and it took Mobil four years to get certification after Ford published the requirement. So it appears to be a very hard standard to meet, and only M1 AFE meets it.
Unless they modified the M1 ESP formulation, it would hardly pass any LSPI test with 1,700 ppm calcium if at all.
I wonder which MB engine is used for the LSPI test. M139 has a crazy-high BMEP of 30+ bar. I wouldn't use any high-calcium oil in that engine—w/ or w/o approval.
- Status