Is Mobil 1 0w40 still one of the best all around choices?

[Averroes]

Look at the ratings on the oil.

First off onus is on him for making the statement. Not me. It’s equivalent to me being in a debate and making a statement and not backing it up with factual information.

I already knew the ratings given. Both oils have MB 229.5 and 229.3, both oils have A40, and at this time none have the LL01 rating (Per Canadian websites). API and ACEA ratings are the same to.

What M1 has and Castrol doesn’t is the Nissan Performance rating. Not sure what tests they undertake but it’s the rating for their GTR engine. Both are good oils and UAOs show that but to say one is better then the other without providing solid info and facts? Ridiculous.

So I’ll ask again, elaborate. If he can’t do it and neither can you, then both of you better stop making such statements or back them up. As Joe Biden says “C’mon man”.

 

[OVERKILL]

Isn't the Castrol 0W-40 better?

No.

Both oils have basically an identical list of certifications and approvals, for for all intents and purposes, their performance is the same. That's how Porsche qualifies A40 (all oils in the A40 list should be interchangeable in terms of performance) and this is a very demanding spec, which both oils meet the performance requirements of.

 

[OVERKILL]

I guess I meant more Mercedes-Benz, and for the longest time 0w-40 carried the BMW spec too, I'm not sure why they dropped it, whether the oil isn't able to meet BMW's requirements or they just didn't want to pay the test setup fee or whatever.

All the 0w-40's lost LL-01 when the spec was updated, it was odd. Ravenol still recommends their SSL 0w-40 for LL-01, but it is no longer formally approved.

 

[OVERKILL]

Elaborate please.

He can't, it's baseless posit.

 

[OVERKILL]

First off onus is on him for making the statement. Not me. It’s equivalent to me being in a debate and making a statement and not backing it up with factual information.

I already knew the ratings given. Both oils have MB 229.5 and 229.3, both oils have A40, and at this time none have the LL01 rating (Per Canadian websites). API and ACEA ratings are the same to.

What M1 has and Castrol doesn’t is the Nissan Performance rating. Not sure what tests they undertake but it’s the rating for their GTR engine. Both are good oils and UAOs show that but to say one is better then the other without providing solid info and facts? Ridiculous.

So I’ll ask again, elaborate. If he can’t do it and neither can you, then both of you better stop making such statements or back them up. As Joe Biden says “C’mon man”.

I think wpod was agreeing with you, pointing out that both oils have, for the sake of this discussion, identical lists of certifications and approvals.

 

[Averroes]

I think wpod was agreeing with you, pointing out that both oils have, for the sake of this discussion, identical lists of certifications and approvals.

Yep. Overkill, wanted to ask, do you have any info or insight on the testing for the Genuine Nissan Performance approval?

 

[OVERKILL]

Yep. Overkill, wanted to ask, do you have any info or insight on the testing for the Genuine Nissan Performance approval?

Nope, Mobil was Nissan's development partner from what I recall, so it was the factory and service fill, but I'm not sure if anything with the lube changed. It was more about the engine being tested and validated with that oil IMHO.

 

[blufeb95]

All the 0w-40's lost LL-01 when the spec was updated, it was odd. Ravenol still recommends their SSL 0w-40 for LL-01, but it is no longer formally approved.

This was month's ago, I'm aware of that now, but I still wonder if Mobil doesn't play ball with BMW anymore, because they only have one product that claims BMW approval and it doesn't seem to be available anymore, and the Mobil1 ESP products meet MB229.52 yet don't have LL-04, I don't have the resources to compare the specs but I'm pretty sure any product with MB-Approval 229.52 should meet LL-04, i mean there's plenty of products meeting LL-04 that also meet MB-Approval 229.51, MB-Approval 229.52 is essentially a more stringent MB-Approval 229.51 with stricter oxidation requirements, so you'd think that an oil with MB-Approval 229.52 would meet LL-04.

 

[OVERKILL]

This was month's ago, I'm aware of that now, but I still wonder if Mobil doesn't play ball with BMW anymore, because they only have one product that claims BMW approval and it doesn't seem to be available anymore, and the Mobil1 ESP products meet MB229.52 yet don't have LL-04, I don't have the resources to compare the specs but I'm pretty sure any product with MB-Approval 229.52 should meet LL-04, i mean there's plenty of products meeting LL-04 that also meet MB-Approval 229.51, MB-Approval 229.52 is essentially a more stringent MB-Approval 229.51 with stricter oxidation requirements, so you'd think that an oil with MB-Approval 229.52 would meet LL-04.

Could be. I think Mobil was competing with SOPUS for the BMW contract some time back but SOPUS won. IIRC, BMW switched back to Castrol anyways, but, it could have been a motivator. They didn't carry the FCA approvals forever on any Mobil 1 product because Fiat dropped them as the supplier when they acquired the Chrysler brands, replacing them with SOPUS (who they already had a contract with).

 

[mikecz]

Don't BMW's long life OCIs go up to 30k km, while MB's OCIs go to less, like up to 20k km? I might be wrong.

 

[OVERKILL]

Don't BMW's long life OCIs go up to 30k km, while MB's OCIs go to less, like up to 20k km? I might be wrong.

It wouldn't have anything to do with that, they changed on of the test parameters or requirements for LL-01 and all the 0w-40's that previously carried it lost it. It was very odd. OCI length wasn't a part of that change, as LL-01 is a reasonably old spec at this point, despite the fact that BMW is still maintaining it.

 

[2EHA]

Don't BMW's long life OCIs go up to 30k km, while MB's OCIs go to less, like up to 20k km? I might be wrong.

porsche a40 = 2yr 20k mi rated in US and UK, 30k kilometers everywhere else. 229.5 was also 30k kilometers


all the 0w40s failed revised ll01 because of oxidation limits

 

[mikecz]

229.5 was also 30k kilometers

Didn't know, that's interesting. I guess that's with super duper low sulphur fuel, and easy driving only?
Why did BMW change the LL01 testing? Did they somehow come to the conclusion that previous LL01 oxidation limits were not sufficient for their OCIs, engines, etc? Or oil technology and formulations progressed so that it was possible to make cheaper oil that still passed (old) LL01, but actually caused problems in the engines?
Just wondering. I've heard of people saying that 30k km in BMW on any (even LL) oil was ridiculously too long (more like laughing tbh), but not sure if that's just them being silly, or BMW being overly optimistic.
FWIW, Peugeot 1.4 VTi, BMW/PSA Prince engine, specced 30k km and IIRC 2yr service/OCI interval, on 5W-30 C2 with PSA 2290 spec. Bonkers? CAFE meets Europe?

Sorry for the OT.

 

[OVERKILL]

porsche a40 = 2yr 20k mi rated in US and UK, 30k kilometers everywhere else. 229.5 was also 30k kilometers


all the 0w40s failed revised ll01 because of oxidation limits

It's odd, because that's not specifically spelled-out in the Afton spec handbook

This is 2018:

This is 2014:

In comparison, the Mercedes 226.5/226.51/229.1/229.3/229.31/229.5/229.51/229.52 approvals occupy 8 pages of detail.

 

[blufeb95]

It wouldn't have anything to do with that, they changed on of the test parameters or requirements for LL-01 and all the 0w-40's that previously carried it lost it. It was very odd. OCI length wasn't a part of that change, as LL-01 is a reasonably old spec at this point, despite the fact that BMW is still maintaining it.

Isn't LL-01 (and LL-01fe) still the current spec BMW uses for gasoline engines in North America, while VW has moved towards 504/507,509, and 511, BMW still uses full SAPS oil in gasoline engines, LL-04 is only spec'd for diesels in North America, although that'll probably change coming up to 2025 as GPFs become necessary to meet new emissions requirements.

 

[kschachn]

Isn't LL-01 (and LL-01fe) still the current spec BMW uses for gasoline engines in North America, while VW has moved towards 504/507,509, and 511, BMW still uses full SAPS oil in gasoline engines, LL-04 is only spec'd for diesels in North America, although that'll probably change coming up to 2025 as GPFs become necessary to meet new emissions requirements.

Yeah years ago BMW issued service information stating that Longlife-04 oil could be used instead of Longlife-01 in Europe. The reason for the European restriction was that at the time the US had not moved to low sulfur gasoline. AFIK BMW never re-released the service information for the US but clearly things have changed for this market.

As long as TBN retention isn't an issue Longlife-04 is more than fine.

 

[OVERKILL]

Isn't LL-01 (and LL-01fe) still the current spec BMW uses for gasoline engines in North America, while VW has moved towards 504/507,509, and 511, BMW still uses full SAPS oil in gasoline engines, LL-04 is only spec'd for diesels in North America, although that'll probably change coming up to 2025 as GPFs become necessary to meet new emissions requirements.

According to the Mobil oil selector:

So it looks like the I6 in the X5 calls for the LL-01FE oil at least, but the other stuff seems to, at least based on the few models I selected, call for LL-14FE+ or LL-17FE+.

 

[blufeb95]

According to the Mobil oil selector:
View attachment 70473
View attachment 70474
View attachment 70476
View attachment 70475

So it looks like the I6 in the X5 calls for the LL-01FE oil at least, but the other stuff seems to, at least based on the few models I selected, call for LL-14FE+ or LL-17FE+.

So just quickly looking it up, LL-14FE+ is like most Dexos1/ILSAC/API-RC 0W20 but with BMWs strignent requirements for extended drain intervals and LL-17FE is more similar to 508/509 which is based on ACEA C5?.

 

[OVERKILL]

So just quickly looking it up, LL-14FE+ is like most Dexos1/ILSAC/API-RC 0W20 but with BMWs strignent requirements for extended drain intervals and LL-17FE is more similar to 508/509 which is based on ACEA C5?.

According to Ravenol:

So it is ACEA C5-16 + all the engine tests listed.

Since it seems 17FE+ is applicable to all applications that specify 14FE+, I'd assume the protocols are similar, it's just older and probably less stringent.