Is it time? Hitting that 75K mark.

Personally, I think high mileage that what constitutes high mileage is going to vary by engine. 75k miles on a 4 cylinder probably isn’t the same as 75k on a 6 cylinder. 75k on a 6 cylinder isn’t going to be the same as 75k on an 8 cylinder.
Personally, I think it depends less on the engine size / configuration and more on how the vehicle is maintained, how it is driven/type of service, and the ambient conditions.
 
I'm surprised to see the apprehension against HM oils in this thread. According to any VOAs I've seen in the past, HM oils basically just have slightly more stout dispersant add packs. That doesn't sound like a negative to me.
I'm glad that people don't buy products that they don't really need. You can call it apprehension if you want to. Most non-HM oils have perfectly stout add packs for the intended use. Your statement sounds like "everyone should use HM oil because it's better."
 
I have never used HM motor oils. While they may have value,
I'm surprised to see the apprehension against HM oils in this thread. According to any VOAs I've seen in the past, HM oils basically just have slightly more stout dispersant add packs. That doesn't sound like a negative to me.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by apprehension. Nor do I see comments where some feel using HM oils is negative. There are many who doubt the need, or at least, the need to start using it as early as 75k miles.

From what I can see on MB approval website, HM isn't even available for MB 229.5 approved 0w-40, so it isn't even a choice. So it is hard to see the value.
 
HM oils are really not that effective like they used to be when engines had gaskets everywhere. Nowadays they use sealant in place of gaskets in many of the parts. Rear main seals are one place where a HM oil might work but from a recent discussion it depends on the material used for the RMG.

If you have a older vehicle then you might get results.
 
I'm glad that people don't buy products that they don't really need. You can call it apprehension if you want to. Most non-HM oils have perfectly stout add packs for the intended use. Your statement sounds like "everyone should use HM oil because it's better."
It is better. This is a forum that is obsessed with additive packs, and HM oils typically offer more dispersants (in the name of helping to fight against existing sludge build-up) and yet people here aren't interested? If you check Walmart's site right now, regular Mobil 1 and Mobil 1 High Mileage are both the exact same price at $24.47 per jug. Why would anybody  not want the high mileage version?
 
HM oils are really not that effective like they used to be when engines had gaskets everywhere. Nowadays they use sealant in place of gaskets in many of the parts. Rear main seals are one place where a HM oil might work but from a recent discussion it depends on the material used for the RMG.

If you have a older vehicle then you might get results.
Valve cover gaskets, oil pan gaskets, valve stem seals, variable valve timing solenoid gaskets, are all still a thing and still dry out and/or shrink with age. There are plenty of gaskets and seals (as opposed to sealant) in newer cars
 
I have never used HM motor oils. While they may have value,


I'm not sure I understand what you mean by apprehension. Nor do I see comments where some feel using HM oils is negative. There are many who doubt the need, or at least, the need to start using it as early as 75k miles.

From what I can see on MB approval website, HM isn't even available for MB 229.5 approved 0w-40, so it isn't even a choice. So it is hard to see the value.
Serious question, what's so special about MB 229.5 approval?
 
Switched back and forth depending on price. Currently using QS All Mileage cause I can't change my own and that's the cheapest Wally World OC. Got some QS syn non HM to top up cause it was on sale at Menards. Don't think it makes much difference. Would probably pay two bits extra a quart for HM.
 
Valve cover gaskets, oil pan gaskets, valve stem seals, variable valve timing solenoid gaskets, are all still a thing and still dry out and/or shrink with age. There are plenty of gaskets and seals (as opposed to sealant) in newer cars


We are on different pages then. I see sealant everywhere.
 
In my 50 years of driving I have never used a HM oil.
I've been driving since 1975 and have never used HM oil. Actually my first time using synthetic was on the last OC in the Versa. I put PP 10w30 in it last OC and for the first I had to top the oil off with 1/2 quart about 2/3 of the way through this interval. When it gets changed again I'm going back to using 15-20 year old Citgo Supergard 10w40 conventional.
 
Serious question, what's so special about MB 229.5 approval?
229.5 is the specification for multi-grade oils that are approved by Mercedes for use in the engine in my E350. It is similar to using Dexos in a GM product, or any of the other multitude of oil specifications from other engine manufacturers.

The advantage is that I am using oils that MB has tested and approved as meeting their minimum standards for my engine. The disadvantage is there is limited availability in the U.S. of oils that meet European specifications.
 
229.5 is the specification for multi-grade oils that are approved by Mercedes for use in the engine in my E350. It is similar to using Dexos in a GM product, or any of the other multitude of oil specifications from other engine manufacturers.

The advantage is that I am using oils that MB has tested and approved as meeting their minimum standards for my engine. The disadvantage is there is limited availability in the U.S. of oils that meet European specifications.
I know it's the Mercedes cert, but what does it actually entail?

Here's the thing. Just because Mobil 1 carries that cert on the bottle and maybe Valvoline for example doesn't, does not automatically mean that Valvoline (or whatever) is not good enough for your engine. It just means that ExxonMobil was willing to pay for the certification and other brands weren't, likely because their marketing department said it wasn't worth the return on investment. Is the criteria to meet the MB spec public information?
 
There is always that possibility that there are other products that may meet a specification, but has not been approved or licensed to it. That has constantly been an argument made by fuel companies, when asked why they aren't Top Tier.

But here's the thing. If I use motor oil that is MB Approved, then I know it meets the specification. Others may or may not. It would be a crap shoot to buy others, hoping they may meet 229.5. So why gamble?

And why wouldn't an oil company get approval? Although I can't speak with certainty, it is my understanding that most auto manufacturers make it fairly inexpensive to get approval/licensed, so as to not discourage motor oil producers from getting certified. The MB list of those that are approved to 229.5 is extensive, which would lead one to believe it must not be too difficult to get approved.

 
No apprehension here. Been using it in the Honda's and when the supply of LifeLong 5W30 dried up for a while, the 2020 Ranger got it, and now that I have about 6 boxes of it on hand, that will continue on my usual 5k schedule on the truck.
 
So what does MB 229.5 actually require of an oil? And what's different about the iron and aluminum parts inside a Mercedes engine versus any other engine?
 
What makes you say that? No matter how many piston rings their are, parts are still slowly wearing out and seals are still slowly hardening over time.
A 4 cylinder engine has less power than a 6 cylinder. Less power means that it has to work harder to gain/maintain set speeds, clime hills, etc. Working harder means more heat which is tougher on the engine.

Let’s say that you have the option to a used Chevrolet S-10. Both with 100k miles. Both with the same maintenance schedule and lubricants. Which, as a general rule, do you think has a better chance of making it to 200k without major attention?

For my money, I’m going to bet on the 6.
 
Back
Top