Euro vs American

[SonofJoe]

I can understand the confusion but it works like this...

MB 229.XX denotes MB's PCMO specs. MB 228.XX is for HDDO. However MB 229.XX oils have to be tested for BOTH gasoline and diesel performance.

MB 229.51 is a low SAPs oil designed to protect against DPF blockage on a diesel passenger car (hence its low TBN). However the same oil on a gasoline powered car might see that low TBN quickly depleted so you would be better off using a higher TBN 229.5 oil. So what QP said is quite correct.

 

[kschachn]

I think that the sulfur complexes adsorbed onto soot particles may impact the TBN, that may explain why diesel engines claim to get higher TBN retention from bypass filters. I spent several years of my life working on carbon black, and when it is formed there can be some very active sulfur complexes attached to the carbon which in the presence of water will form sulfuric acid.

How much soot gets into the oil on a gasoline engine I do not know. This is just what I saw with carbon black, I really don't know a lot about engines.

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
I've heard this theory before but I would be very surprised if such small differences in gasoline sulphur levels would impact TBN in this way.

Most of the 'acidity' that overbased detergents are added to deal with is generated from the oxidation of base oils; not by conversion of fuel sulphur to sulphurous acids. The great bulk of sulphur in fuel is burnt to gaseous SOx and exits the combustion chambers along with rest of the exhaust and is never neutralised (which is why exhaust pipes corrode with age). The thermal/oxidative breakdown of base oils to carboxylic acids does need to be neutralised because these acids have no easy way of leaving the crankcase. Obviously some SOx will condense with water (especially when the engine is cold) to put some weak acid in the sump and this will be neutralised but the amounts will be tiny.

Just to put this in some sort of perspective, it's still possible to find engine oils in EMEA that are primarily based on Group I base oils containing 1% sulphur and these have similar TBN requirements to sulphur-free Group II oils.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete

The main issue in the US was our gasoline quality. Our gasoline historically has not been Ultra Low Sulfur (ULS) like it is in Europe, although that is now changing.

An oil with weaker add pack designed to protect DPF (such as 229.51) could not make it in the US through the entire long OCI in Euro gasoline cars because the add pack was getting depleted too fast here due to sulfur in gasoline. That's why if you wanted to stick to factory recommended OCIs in your gasoline Euro engine in the US, you were better off running 229.5 oil instead of 229.51.


30 ppm sulfur (current standard) doesn't seem as extreme as it sounds. EPA wants down to 10 ppm this year, but nothing fully mandated. If we were talking about 500 ppm diesel (the previous standard before now) as opposed to 15 ppm diesel, now that would be a major deal. I don't buy the argument that U.S. gasoline sulfur levels are as extreme a problem as being made out.

You buy DI engine, run Low-SAPS oil for 10K, and then let us know how it worked.
I have not seen one UOA where Low-SAPS oil was used and that it was good. I did UOA using M1 5W30 ESP twice, and TBN was below 2 in 3K.
Only good UOA and Low-SAPS are coming from CA.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Ah, that figures. It's one of those meaningless 'accepted conventions' that the Germans have; like not drilling holes on a Sunday (true!).

Yeah, stupid Germans.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: SR5
Some of those German accepted conventions can be most excellent. Such as Beer = Food. I was in Bavaria and Swabia recently, and because you can eat on the train, you can also drink beer on the train. Because beer is a type of food !!! Most excellent.

Actually in most European countries when you import/export beer, it is classified by customs as food.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
A couple of additional comments..

I've possibly asked you before, but I'll do it again just to make sure.

What are your thoughts about the A5/B5 oils?

It's also interesting to note that in the 2016 ACEA sequence list, A1/B1 is discontinued and there appear to be a lot more biodiesel specific things, which fit nicely with Castrol's reasoning for A5/B5 disappearing, at least temporarily, from certain products.

 

[SR5]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
A couple of additional comments..

I've possibly asked you before, but I'll do it again just to make sure.

What are your thoughts about the A5/B5 oils?

Yes I too will be interested to hear what Joe thinks about A5/B5 oils.

They only need a TBN of 8 (not 10 like A3/B4) but as you can see from this Oz A5/B5 it's still possible to go higher.

Originally Posted By: SR5
The Castrol Australia web page now features Edge 10W-30, which wasn't there last time I looked.

This new Edge 10W-30 is an ILSAC oil, but their PDS sheet was very slim on details, so I rang Castrol up and asked them for HTHS & TBN, and they told me real numbers !!

Edge 10W-30 (API SN, ACEA A5/B5, ILSAC GF-5)
Vis 40C = 66.2
Vis 100C = 10.47
Pour Point = -36C
TBN = 11.2
HTHS = 3.2

 

[SonofJoe]

I never got to do anything that was A5/B5 when I want doing my time because anything less than 3.5 HTHS was still seen as 'a risk'. This obviously isn't the case today.

However, looking back, A5/B5 was always something of a strange beast. From a fuel economy/HTHS point of view it looked like A1/B1. From a TBN/Bosch shear point if view it looked like an A3/B3. From a VWTdi cleanliness & OM646 wear it was like A3/B4 and to top it off, it had to pass specific tests which were not imposed on any other category (extra stuff on the OM646 and oxidation in the presence of biodiesel). And now it's morphed again with the introduction of ACEA 2016.

For what it's worth, I'd say that an SN/A5/B5 oil might make more sense than the equivalent GF-5 oil. I'd point to the use of low SSI (less shearable) VII polymer. Also I'd expect the ACEA oil to contain more ashless dispersant which is more seal-friendly (needed for diesel soot but still desirable for gasoline). Third I'd argue that whilst not having to pass the API Sequence VID test means the A5/B5 oil is worse on fuel economy than a similar GF-5 oil, it actually makes for a better, more balanced oil; one with a lower Noack, a higher overall ratio of ashless to VII, a better base oil mix and a higher HTHS for a given KV100. Yes it will cost more but I suspect the A5/B5 oil would tolerate a longer OCI than the equivalent GF-5 oil.

Hope that helps...

 

[Garak]

Yes, thanks, that pretty much answered my questions, and confirmed some of my thinking about A5/B5 being a little bit of a strange beast. Here, if you do find an A5/B5 lubricant, it will be combined with SN/GF-5. Generally speaking, I don't think A5/B5 examples are tied to as many OEM specs as we see with A3/B4 or C3 or the like. You're not likely to find an A3/B4 example in North America that doesn't have at least one of the relevant BMW, MB, and VW/Audi specs. The same goes for the C3 stuff. Any E7, E9 HDEO will also have a boatload of builder approvals. An A5/B5 will maybe have dexos1 and the basic Ford and Chrysler specs, which are little more than SN/GF-5.

Similarly, while we don't see in North America any OEMs calling for A3/B4 in their manuals, you'll see some Asian examples calling for A5/B5. So, yes, things are a bit different.

The only readily available A5/B5 options right now here are Pennzoil Platinum and Ultra Platinum in 5w-30 SN/GF-5. Mobil 1 5w-30 SN/GF-5 options had it, as did the Castrol synthetic SN/GF-5 5w-30s, but they dropped them, with Mobil being silent on the issue, and Castrol stating it's the B5 side of things for biodiesel, probably all the new parameters that seem to have floated in with ACEA 2016, with things supposed to be fixed sometime down the road.

 

[SR5]

Thanks Joe,

Like Garak said, because A5//B5 isn't tied to a lot of OEM specs, it tends to fly under the radar. But if I had a choice between a SN/GF-5 oil, a Dexos1 oil and a A5/B5 oil, I would go the A5/B5 any day of the week.

I know you can get oils that are all four SN & GF-5 & Dexos1 & A5/B5, but I'm not convinced that having all the specs listed gives you the best A5/B5 possible. The Castrol Edge 10W30 A5/B5 above has too much SAPS & TBN to be a Dexos1 oil, and the wrong viscosity. But is this a bad thing ? I like high SAPS & high TBN oils that are over a narrow viscosity range and therefore low on VII dose. Also Valvoline make a SynPower FE 5W30 that is A5/B5 but only API SL due to elevated zinc levels, it also has a higher than average TBN. These are two great A5/B5 oils that use the full elbow room of the ACEA spec, ignoring the confinements of meeting multiple other specs.

 

[Garak]

Yep, here, they pretty much are all tied together. The ones that have A5/B5 are dexos1 and SN/GF-5, and the ones that did before certainly are SN/GF-5 and dexos1. I haven't seen any 10w-30 A5/B5 options here. Probably like the A3/B4 issue here, if an oil company is offering the ACEA specs on a PCMO, they tend to be the premium offerings, and the few examples calling for A5/B5 in North America are asking for a 5w-30 in the first place.

 

[leemajors]

Originally Posted By: Garak

The only readily available A5/B5 options right now here are Pennzoil Platinum and Ultra Platinum in 5w-30 SN/GF-5. Mobil 1 5w-30 SN/GF-5 options had it, as did the Castrol synthetic SN/GF-5 5w-30s, but they dropped them, with Mobil being silent on the issue, and Castrol stating it's the B5 side of things for biodiesel, probably all the new parameters that seem to have floated in with ACEA 2016, with things supposed to be fixed sometime down the road.


I didn't notice at first, but according to the PDS the Valvoline Full Synthetic Maxlife in 5w30 is A5/B5 as well.

 

[Garak]

Valvoline is playing silly games, though. They say it's A5/B5 but not to be used for diesel engines, including diesel engines calling for A5/B5. How can you claim A5/B5 but not be suitable for engines calling for A5/B5? Do they make a CJ-4 for gassers only, too? This is what I was alluding to above. When Castrol had problems with the B5 side of the specification (the diesel side), they yanked A5/B5, as is the correct thing to do, rather than claim A5 only, or A5/B5 for gassers only, because none of that is in accordance with ACEA rules.

The product is A5/B5 or it is not. Valvoline is clearly not A5/B5.

 

[bbhero]

Yeah they all seemingly are tied together when it comes down to it. Only ones I can think of that have them all is like you stated, Pennzoil Platinum, Pennzoil Ultra Platinum= not found anywhere, and Mobil 1. I like having the Dexos approval and HTO-06 approvals together. One testing new oil and the HTO-06 testing used motor oil. Only Quaker State, Havoline Pro DS and Mobil 1 claim those two together. Maybe Pennzoil Platinum does but I am not sure. A5/B5 oils are good ones to find. I like running them as well.

 

[Garak]

I'm hoping we see things straighten out on the A5/B5 side of things, especially if more Asian makes are going to be calling for them. And, there's no reason not to, if they want something a little more advanced without going to the dexos1 type regime. I'm sure things will straighten out a bit given a bit of time.

Sure, the B5 side is a pain in the butt for oil companies, particularly for North American applications, since B5 isn't a concern here at all. You're running a C3, an A3/B4, or a CJ-4, almost exclusively, on this side of the pond. But, the spec is A5/B5, so do it correctly.

 

[Wolf359]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
Care to comment on the difference between MB 229.5 and MB 229.51? I believe MB 229.51 is approved for both gas and diesel and 229.5 is just for gas. However if you just have a gas engine, which one would you prefer? I think MB 229.5 is preferred as you can get it in 0w40, but most 229.51 tend to be 5w40.

The main issue in the US was our gasoline quality. Our gasoline historically has not been Ultra Low Sulfur (ULS) like it is in Europe, although that is now changing.

An oil with weaker add pack designed to protect DPF (such as 229.51) could not make it in the US through the entire long OCI in Euro gasoline cars because the add pack was getting depleted too fast here due to sulfur in gasoline. That's why if you wanted to stick to factory recommended OCIs in your gasoline Euro engine in the US, you were better off running 229.5 oil instead of 229.51.


Thanks for that. I guess it was good that I didn't load up on MB 229.51 oils when it was on sale. I'm told that the dealers tend to use MB 229.51 oils in both gas and diesels so instead of getting a better oil change at the dealer, it's worse.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: Wolf359
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
Care to comment on the difference between MB 229.5 and MB 229.51? I believe MB 229.51 is approved for both gas and diesel and 229.5 is just for gas. However if you just have a gas engine, which one would you prefer? I think MB 229.5 is preferred as you can get it in 0w40, but most 229.51 tend to be 5w40.

The main issue in the US was our gasoline quality. Our gasoline historically has not been Ultra Low Sulfur (ULS) like it is in Europe, although that is now changing.

An oil with weaker add pack designed to protect DPF (such as 229.51) could not make it in the US through the entire long OCI in Euro gasoline cars because the add pack was getting depleted too fast here due to sulfur in gasoline. That's why if you wanted to stick to factory recommended OCIs in your gasoline Euro engine in the US, you were better off running 229.5 oil instead of 229.51.


Thanks for that. I guess it was good that I didn't load up on MB 229.51 oils when it was on sale. I'm told that the dealers tend to use MB 229.51 oils in both gas and diesels so instead of getting a better oil change at the dealer, it's worse.

Dealers are required to use MB 229.5 in MB gasoline engines. It would not surprise me if they use wrong oil though.

 

[SR5]

Originally Posted By: Garak
I'm hoping we see things straighten out on the A5/B5 side of things, especially if more Asian makes are going to be calling for them. And, there's no reason not to, if they want something a little more advanced without going to the dexos1 type regime.


I agree, it would be good for a few more Asian car manufacturers spec A5/B5 oils. It's a useful spec that should be used more. Did we really need GM Dexos1 and Ford WSS-M2C-913-D, C when they both could have been well served by ACEA A5/B5. To be honest, I suspect both were based on the existing Euro A5/B5.

 

[Ducman]

I think we need to be a little more cautious when comparing dexos1 with A5/B5.
I know it's easy to criticize the whole dexos1 concept and be skeptical in general about the validity of American car manufacturer motor oil specifications.
Let alone getting into a debate over who's prepared to pay whom a royalty and or a licensing fee.

I recently saw a spider graph comparison of A5/B5 with dexos1 superimposed over the top of it and dexos1 was superior by a good margin in key parameters and the same in others.
It certainly expanded my view of things.
Unless it's actually proven that a dexos1 certified oil formulation is compromised due to the dexos1 requirements, then I would happily choose a dexos1 oil over any A5/B5 offering.
IIRC the graph may have been posted by SonofJoe.

In summary from what I could see, any dexos1 oil will be compliant with A5/B5 but not all A5/B5 oils will be capable of compliance with the dexos1 spec.
To my way of thinking, it's divided into 2 clear camps.
If one is after an A3/B4 style of oil then it's hard to go past the European way of going about it.
If one is after a resource conserving style of oil with a HTHS <3.5 then it's likely the Americans are on top of that way of doing things. After all we can't blame them if they are held captive to CAFE and all that goes with it.

 

[SonofJoe]

Must have been someone else that posted the spider chart. First off, I've only ever posted one graph on BITOG and I managed to do that wrong. Second, I have a pathological hatred of spider charts!