GF-3 (vs) GF-5 or SL (vs) SN

[BritGerCarLuvr]

I prefer using the OW30 viscosity (GC) in my BMW over the M1 0W40 simply because of the "valvetrain noise" on initial startup on the Z4 (BMW).
When I used M1 0W40, the oil was much darker at oil change time (every 5000miles) than it is with GC.
Is there an advantage to using the GF-5/SN M1 0W40 over the GC 0W30 GF-3/SL inasfar as engine cleaning/ cleanliness is concerned? Will GC sludge up my engine more? Is M1 a better engine cleaner?
I keep my cars many years and logevity matters to me. Both GC and 0W40 result in good UOA'S.
So, what's better over the long run?

 

[Lead Shoes]

Yeah, the advantage is that M1 0w40 meets the required specs for your BMW, and AFAIK GC does not, use it exclusively as it is easy to find and relatively cheap...

I would bet m1 0w40 will be better for the engine in the long run.

 

[renegade_987]

Originally Posted By: Brenden


I would bet m1 0w40 will be better for the engine in the long run.


+1

 

[Falcon_LS]

I would not be using ILSAC rated oil in a BMW. If you cannot find BMW LongLife-01 rated oil, then a ACEA A3/B4-04 rated oil at the very least. That said, M1 0W-40 is a good oil and if you can source it at a decent price, there's no need to look elsewhere.

 

[pbm]

I believe that SL was the rating in 2004 when your Beemer was built. I also believe that GC is a BMW LL-01. GC is on the thicker side of the 30 weights.
I wouldn't hesitate to use it if you can get it.

 

[rjacket]

Originally Posted By: BritGerCarLuvr
Is there an advantage to using the GF-5/SN M1 0W40 over the GC 0W30 GF-3/SL inasfar as engine cleaning/ cleanliness is concerned? Will GC sludge up my engine more? Is M1 a better engine cleaner?
I keep my cars many years and logevity matters to me. Both GC and 0W40 result in good UOA'S.
So, what's better over the long run?


Does GF-5/SN M1 0W40 meet the BMW spec for your car? If not don't use it, at least not for the 1 year / 10,000 mile oil change. My understanding is that GF-5/SN is not the same as European Formula.

 

[BritGerCarLuvr]

My understanding is that GF-5/SN is not the same as European Formula. [/quote]


Mobil 1 0W40 meets both BMW LL-01 and MB 229.5 and, to my surprise also, it is an SN oil (vs) the GC SL who also meets BMW LL-01 and MB 229.5. They both meet the BMW and Benz specs for long life.

That is why I am asking the question. Since they both meet the proper specs, is the Mobil 1 SN oil a "higher cleaning" oil in comparison to the German Castrol SL oil.

 

[rjacket]

You are right. My last recollection was that it was still SL but it's SN.

I can't talk to whether it cleans better. If cleaning is an objective, then I think more frequent OCI would be a better approach. Perhaps for that purpose look at whether PU at 6 months / 5000 miles would be a better choice. AFAIK the reason we are looking for oils with MB, VW, BMW, Porsche approvals is solely for their long life - therefore other oils are compatible if changed more frequently, but I cannot say I am 100% certain about this.

 

[Garak]

Just a note for those stating that M1 0w-40 is SN/GF-5 - it is not. It is SN, but is not an ILSAC rated resource conserving oil, so it is decidedly not GF-5. Check the M1 home page.

 

[BritGerCarLuvr]

You are indeed correct.



Mobil 1 0W-40 meets or exceeds the requirements of:

API SN/SM/SL/SJ
ACEA A3/B3, A3/B4
Nissan GT-R

Mobil 1 0W-40 has the following builder approvals:

MB-Approval 229.3
MB-Approval 229.5
BMW LONGLIFE OIL 01
VW 502 00/505 00
PORSCHE A40

According to ExxonMobil, Mobil 1 0W40 is of the following quality:

API CF
SAAB
OPEL Long Life Service Fill GM-LL-A-025
OPEL Diesel Service Fill GM-LL-B-025
FIAT FIAT 9.55535 - M2
FIAT FIAT 9.55535 - N2
FIAT FIAT 9.55535 - Z2


Good Stuff indeed!

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: BritGerCarLuvr
You are indeed correct.


Maybe it's just me, but I do find it odd when an oil company upgrades a blend to SN, or even SM, for that matter, when they're not ILSAC rated at all. I have never seen a vehicle that requires only SM or SN oil. Every newish vehicle I've seen (aside from those with proprietary manufacturers' specifications) also requires the corresponding ILSAC rating. Heck, even my 1984 F-150's manual has a preference (thought not a requirement) for ILSAC rated oils.

So, is SN certification a waste of money for Exxon Mobil with respect to 0w-40? By definition, it cannot be ILSAC rated. Few, if any, new vehicles require an SN-only rated oil. What's the point? Are they just letting those of us who actually pay attention to specs that they are keeping the oil up to date? After all, GC has been criticized lately as obsolete. Would that be happening if they upgraded to SM or SN, even though it means nothing to their target market?

 

[rjacket]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: BritGerCarLuvr
You are indeed correct.


Maybe it's just me, but I do find it odd when an oil company upgrades a blend to SN, or even SM, for that matter, when they're not ILSAC rated at all. I have never seen a vehicle that requires only SM or SN oil. Every newish vehicle I've seen (aside from those with proprietary manufacturers' specifications) also requires the corresponding ILSAC rating. Heck, even my 1984 F-150's manual has a preference (thought not a requirement) for ILSAC rated oils.

So, is SN certification a waste of money for Exxon Mobil with respect to 0w-40? By definition, it cannot be ILSAC rated. Few, if any, new vehicles require an SN-only rated oil. What's the point? Are they just letting those of us who actually pay attention to specs that they are keeping the oil up to date? After all, GC has been criticized lately as obsolete. Would that be happening if they upgraded to SM or SN, even though it means nothing to their target market?


The point as I see it is that an SN rated oil is more energy conserving than an SM rated oil. It's progress. Engine manufacturers can begin to take advantage of what such an oil can do, and I would expect that you'll begin to see engines that require or recommend usage of SN.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: rjacket
The point as I see it is that an SN rated oil is more energy conserving than an SM rated oil. It's progress. Engine manufacturers can begin to take advantage of what such an oil can do, and I would expect that you'll begin to see engines that require or recommend usage of SN.


I don't dispute that point, but updating the formulation doesn't require them to actually go out and pay for a certification they don't require anyhow. There are plenty of quality oils out there that don't pay for the latest API specifications. I'm not complaining about SN/GF-5 at all. There will be engines that require that, I'm sure. I'm talking about SN in isolation, with no ILSAC certification. I'm also talking about an API specification for an oil whose target market is based upon manufacturers' specifications.

What engine out there is going to require SN only, and not a resource conserving ILSAC certification in conjunction with that? What engine out there is going to require a 0w-40 with an SN certification?

Just about all of the applications for M1 0w-40 list their own proprietary specs, without any mention of SM or SN. The GT-R, Benzes, VWs and Audis, and BMWs all have their own specifications. SM or SN is an extra specification that no one actually needs for that particular oil.

 

[GMorg]

Well, since I'm still working through my GC green stash, I clearly think that it is good stuff. I think that GC will be closer to a 40 weight at the end of an OCI than will M1 0W40. GC seems to be more shear stable than M! 0W40. I also think that you don't need to worry about sludge with GC nor M1.

 

[TJPark01]

Both are BMW LL-01 spec so either will work. I have a feeling that the oil used is going to be less important than other variables like how you drive, where you park and how often you extend your OCI's.
I don't subscribe to the 15k mile OCI's that BMW recommends. I cut them in half and change the oil myself.