Does BMW LL01 oil gives better protection than LL04 oil?

Messages
64
Location
Norway
Hi, i have a 2013 Bmw 750IX with the N63TU engine. Here in Norway these engines calls for LL04 spec oil, the same as diesels. I drive it on Shell Vpower fuel only.
As i understand LL04 oil in gasoline engines requires that gasoline is low or zero on sulfur because the sulfur is hard on the additives in the oil?

I dont care for longlife properties cause i do OC every 5000 miles so i guess the TBN will always be above 1.0 by a good margin . So my qustion is, is there any benefit in using LL01 over LL04 thinking of max engine protection? Is LL01 harder on the cats and may give more carbon buildup relative to LL04?

Thanks
Bjornar
 
Messages
4,601
Location
Kuwait
If you're still able to source a LongLife-01 oil in Norway, I don't see why you cannot use it. To the best of my understanding, LongLife-04 was designed around diesel engines with very sensitive emissions equipment, with lower levels of zinc and phosphorus than than of LongLife01.

About 10 years ago, LongLife-04 was deemed unsuitable for BMW gasoline engines outside of Europe, not only because of a lower starting TBN with higher sulfur fuel, but also due to the presence of ethanol in countries like the United States. Mercedes-Benz did the same thing, specifying MB Sheet 229.5 over 229.51 for vehicles exported outside of Europe. I'm not sure if this is still the case, someone with more information can chime in.
 

750IX

Thread starter
Messages
64
Location
Norway
Thats true, Ron 98 is without ethanol, where i live its Shell Vpower 98 and Esso Supreme 98, all other fuel is Ron 95 with 5% ethanol. The Amcar associations here have run a lobby to the goverments to keep Ron 98 without ethanol due to the fuel system on some older Amcars does not tolerate ethanol as well as new cars.
 
Messages
1,371
Location
NC
full-10688-33921-chart.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • full-10688-33921-chart.jpeg
    full-10688-33921-chart.jpeg
    33.6 KB · Views: 14
Messages
1,371
Location
NC
These lubrizol performance charts don't tell the whole story, IMO.

The peformance specs are met on pass/fail basis, so while both oils passed, we don't know if one passed with an A grade while the other just barely passed with a C-.

Then there is the question: will your engine care in the long run?
You're correct. But it's better than guessing. Also rating seems to be there (the 2/4/6/8/10 deal inside that "spider web" chart) so it does kinda imply on more than just a pass/fail.
 
Messages
40,825
Location
Great Lakes
Also rating seems to be there (the 2/4/6/8/10 deal inside that "spider web" chart) so it does kinda imply on more than just a pass/fail.
That's not what I was referring to. That 2/4/6/8/10 just refers to how stringent they believe a particular spec is on each of the performance criteria, but you still don't know if a particular oil just barely passed that spec or if it far exceeded it (in a good way).

Here is an example:
Let’s say that both LL-01 and LL-04 require that piston ring wear is no more than 5 μm at the end of the applicable test procedure. This means that oil A that produces 5 μm of ring wear gets a pass, and so does oil B that produces 2 μm or 1 μm of wear. But looking at the chart you can’t tell – they both passed.

Some years back, I had an exchange with an oil testing engineer on an MB forum. The discussion was related to MB specs (229.5 and 229.51). The MB 229.51 spec is a low-SAPS version of MB 229.5, similar to how BMW LL-04 is a low-SAPS version of BMW LL-01. His claim was that while both specs (229.5 and 229.51) had the same wear test to pass, the full-SAPS version would pass it with flying colors while the low-SAPS version would just barely pass. I then asked him, so what? Would this produce a meaningful difference in actual engine wear over the course of its life? He claimed that it would, after some 200K miles. Take it for what it’s worth. I’m just a messenger.
 
Messages
17,543
Location
Upper Midwest
Let’s say that both LL-01 and LL-04 require that piston ring wear is no more than 5 μm at the end of the applicable test procedure. This means that oil A that produces 5 μm of ring wear gets a pass, and so does oil B that produces 2 μm or 1 μm of wear. But looking at the chart you can’t tell – they both passed.
But do any manufacturers publish the exact results of their tests? If they did that would help to eliminate the often heard claim that one brand is better than another even though they carry the same approval or license. I haven't seen any that do.
 
Messages
4,601
Location
Kuwait
His claim was that while both specs (229.5 and 229.51) had the same wear test to pass, the full-SAPS version would pass it with flying colors while the low-SAPS version would just barely pass. I then asked him, so what? Would this produce a meaningful difference in actual engine wear over the course of its life? He claimed that it would, after some 200K miles. Take it for what it’s worth. I’m just a messenger.

I guess for someone not looking to keep a car that long, it won't matter. Those looking to keep a car well into the future would do well to stick with the older full SAPS spec.

That being said, I'm curious as to how much of a difference it would make to the service life of emissions equipment? Would they still meet the same specs at 200k miles with the low SAPS oil?
 

SR5

Messages
5,941
Location
Down Under
Some years back, I had an exchange with an oil testing engineer on an MB forum. The discussion was related to MB specs (229.5 and 229.51). The MB 229.51 spec is a low-SAPS version of MB 229.5, similar to how BMW LL-04 is a low-SAPS version of BMW LL-01. His claim was that while both specs (229.5 and 229.51) had the same wear test to pass, the full-SAPS version would pass it with flying colors while the low-SAPS version would just barely pass. I then asked him, so what? Would this produce a meaningful difference in actual engine wear over the course of its life? He claimed that it would, after some 200K miles. Take it for what it’s worth. I’m just a messenger.

I suspect you are correct which is why I still favour high-SAPS oils with high TBN and highish ZDDP levels. Say 10 and 1000ppm respectively.

However I also suspect that it will only be towards the end of the oil change interval that the differences will make themselves felt.

I believe something similar is happening with these two HDEOs in a recent thread (which seems to be very uninteresting to most, but it does contain real test data)

Anyway as most BITOGers change early, then less of a concern to most here. But, yes QP, I believe you.
 
Top