M1 FS/EURO 0W-40 vs Pennzoil Platinum Euro 5W40 - which would you run?

[buster]

Mobil wanted the LL04 approval for ESP 5W-30, so oxidation has to be kept as low as possible.

Why is that? I've noticed some Euro oils, even HPL and Amsoil Euro, that have oxidation values of <12. ROC guys claim the higher ester oils lose their alkalinity fast. I don't understand that.

Red Line stuck with the high POE in their Euro oil.

 

[buster]

It has everything you'd want but ANs. Since the tri-syn days, Mobil rarely blends anything with both at the same time (like Delvac 1 5W-40 for example).

I remember when I first joined this site Amsoil said they moved on from the multiple synthetic base oil approach (referencing Mobil 1 TriSyn), which is kind of funny being they do use multiple base oils now lol.

 

[OVERKILL]

Thank you for the information. I don't mean to come across as argumentative, but I had a question regarding the ULSG (Ultra-Low Sulfur Gasoline) in North America. Wouldn't the presence of ULSG effectively make the MB 229.5 specification redundant?


From what I understand, most modern AMG engines use the M177 platform, and as far as I know, they are still running on 229.5-approved oils. My local dealers also mentioned that xW-40 viscosities are typically used in AMG or other V8 engines. If ULSG is indeed a factor, wouldn't these engines have already transitioned to newer specs like 229.52 or something more recent?


Regarding 229.52, I've noticed that many of the approved oils are currently on sale, including Mobil 1 ESP 0W-30. Unless I’m mistaken, wouldn’t M1 ESP 0W-30 be considered one of the best options within that spec?

As I noted earlier, there are are couple of parameters that 229.5 has that 229.52 doesn't have in terms of testing, like load carrying capacity relative to ring/liner. This is likely due to 229.52 being an ACEA C3 based approval (primarily diesel) vs 229.5 being ACEA A3/B4 (primarily petrol) and MB AMG may be of the opinion that this is more important in their application, particularly if the AMG vehicle isn't fitted with a GPF.

 

[OVERKILL]

Why is that? I've noticed some Euro oils, even HPL and Amsoil Euro, that have oxidation values of <12. ROC guys claim the higher ester oils lose their alkalinity fast. I don't understand that.

Red Line stuck with the high POE in their Euro oil.

From what I recall @edyvw posting on, BMW limits total oxidation (instead of relative oxidation) which limits base oil selection, perhaps unintentionally. So if you want that approval, you have to cater to that in your formulation.

 

[buster]

From what I recall @edyvw posting on, BMW limits total oxidation (instead of relative oxidation) which limits base oil selection, perhaps unintentionally. So if you want that approval, you have to cater to that in your formulation.

Ah ok thanks I never knew that. Interesting and strange at the same time.

 

[lakestone]

Thread 'Mobil 1 ESP possibly using diblock polymer'

Feb 18, 2025

https://www.infineuminsight.com/en-gb/articles/the-diblock-advantage/

On the ROC, they subjected M1 ESP 5w30 and M1 ESP 0w20 to the shear stability test. What they found was the viscosity went up after the test. This is likely due to the diblock polymers. Per ROC, they also claim there could be some mPAO in current SP M1 5w30 ESP.

"Both of these structures have good thickening efficiency and shear stability index. However, only the diblock is able to form self-assembled micelle structures when dissolved in base oil, which provides unique performance benefits in modern...

• buster
• Replies: 92
• Forum: European and Import Motor Oils

• 
• 
• 

I'm inclined to think the same is true for Mobil 1 ESP 0W-30. It seems like Mobil has an infinity capabality to formulate a lubricant however they want to. They have the R&D funds to for that as well, for sure.

 

[Glenda W.]

From what I recall @edyvw posting on, BMW limits total oxidation (instead of relative oxidation) which limits base oil selection, perhaps unintentionally. So if you want that approval, you have to cater to that in your formulation.

This was the best explanation I’ve heard when @edyvw posted it. Makes total sense.

 

[kschachn]

It's not shear unstable, it's by design. Mobil chose the VII type to use in this oil. More than likely it was engineered with some fuel economy gains in mind. Look up the LSJ video filmed at the HPL lab where they did a KRL20 on the latest formulation of M1 FS 0W-40. Pretty good stuff.

So in other words, ExxonMobil designed this particular oil with what amounts to inferior VM so that the viscosity would decrease over time to increase fuel economy? Does the EPA fuel economy test (and subsequent CAFE credits) account for this type of fuel consumption decrease? People on here have asserted it even falls out of grade, does the approval allow for this large of a viscosity loss?

If they do this for this oil, what about their other oils? If not, why not? CAFE credit is agnostic to manufacturer, why not use these "engineered shear prone" VM in every oil?

 

[4WD]

So in other words, ExxonMobil designed this particular oil with what amount to inferior VM so that the viscosity would decrease over time to increase fuel economy? Does the EPA fuel economy test (and subsequent CAFE credits) account for this type of fuel consumption decrease? People on here have asserted it even falls out of grade, does the approval allow for this large of a viscosity loss?

If they do this for this oil, what about their other oils? If not, why not? CAFE credit is agnostic to manufacturer, why not use these "engineered shear prone) VM in every oil?

There is
Smart VM+
Smart VM-

 

[edyvw]

From what I recall @edyvw posting on, BMW limits total oxidation (instead of relative oxidation) which limits base oil selection, perhaps unintentionally. So if you want that approval, you have to cater to that in your formulation.

That and gasket longevity. They still have gasket compatibility as an requirement.

 

[kschachn]

There is
Smart VM+
Smart VM-

Yes, so during engine operation the oil may not be providing the minimum HT/HS required by an approval as it has shear thinned to another value?

 

[4WD]

Yes, so during engine operation the oil may not be providing the minimum HT/HS required by an approval as it has shear thinned to another value?

The Smart VM+ kicks in …
(Unless it’s already a Smart Oxidation oil we read about here) …

 

[kschachn]

The Smart VM+ kicks in …
(Unless it’s already a Smart Oxidation oil we read about here) …

I do understand the VM that is being discussed, but I wonder where the operational credit for this is being obtained? Does the EPA fuel economy test have a long enough duration to account for the viscosity loss? If not then where is the improvement being credited? Marketing materials use the EPA test for economy.

 

[chris719]

That and gasket longevity. They still have gasket compatibility as an requirement.

Imagine BMW engines if the oils were less gasket compatible .

 

[lakestone]

I do understand the VM that is being discussed, but I wonder where the operational credit for this is being obtained? Does the EPA fuel economy test have a long enough duration to account for the viscosity loss? If not then where is the improvement being credited? Marketing materials use the EPA test for economy.

The entire system is faulty, and it seems like everyone, from the government to the manufacturers, are okay with things the way they are - well - up to a point: when it hurts the OEM's bottom line.

Who would've guessed that thicker oils protect better? Who would have guessed that it's better to have the bearings in hydrodynamic regime? Who would have guessed that a slightly thicker hydroelastic film is better for lifter rollers? The manufacturers, that's who. I mean, there are ways to use a full HTHS 0W-30 in pretty much any small engine, but OEMs are happier with pushing thinner oils because it leaves no margin of safety for the consumer, especially when the vehicle is out of warranty. People with bigger and easier to repair engines will choose to have them fixed, even if they have to get into debt and spend $5K on a repair for a vehicle that's probably worth the same. But there are more and more gas engines not worth fixing. GM is even pushing some engines like the 3.0L Duramax to be as disposable as a Diesel engine can be.

Sorry for the tangent. The EPA credits the fuel economy by vehicle class and the OEM by CAFE. This is just a barely informed opinion. If the environment and emissions truly mattered, then the EPA tests wouldn't be merely participation trophies. A good example of this is the Auto Start/Stop system.

 

[edyvw]

Thank you for the information. I don't mean to come across as argumentative, but I had a question regarding the ULSG (Ultra-Low Sulfur Gasoline) in North America. Wouldn't the presence of ULSG effectively make the MB 229.5 specification redundant?


From what I understand, most modern AMG engines use the M177 platform, and as far as I know, they are still running on 229.5-approved oils. My local dealers also mentioned that xW-40 viscosities are typically used in AMG or other V8 engines. If ULSG is indeed a factor, wouldn't these engines have already transitioned to newer specs like 229.52 or something more recent?


Regarding 229.52, I've noticed that many of the approved oils are currently on sale, including Mobil 1 ESP 0W-30. Unless I’m mistaken, wouldn’t M1 ESP 0W-30 be considered one of the best options within that spec?

There is no newer spec.
Both MB229.5 and MB229.51 are introduced in 2009 and since then updated numerous times. MB229.52 is just improvement on MB229.51 adding stricter cold performance requirements and LSPI.

Now, @OVERKILL posted some MB data where A3 oils had less wear than C3 oils. Another thing is that MB229.5 is just easier to find and plenty available in XW40 grade. Not until recently you could find MB229.52 in stores like Wal Mart. But, I would be really surprised if MB229.5 is recommended in EU. MB is using MB229.51 in EU since 2009 in gas engines once EU moved to ULSG.
Whatever you choose, you won’t make a mistake. If you can find Castrol Edge 0W30 for decent price, I would go that. It is MB229.5.

 

[OVERKILL]

From Lubrizol:

 

[tired]

I also wanted to add that I went to Walmart and also saw Supertech Euro 5W40 with 229.5 Spec for only 28.88 CAD. Technically based on approval's I could also run that but would rather have the peace of mind of running M1 or Pennzoil.

Lastly, I did not know Walmart Canada also stocked the M1 0W-40 for $36 CAD. The website did not label it nicely so I was not expecting it. They also had the PP 5W40 for $39.99 CAD

If you read closely, I do not think the Supertech has the approval. Instead I believe it says "meets specifications."

 

[chris719]

So in other words, ExxonMobil designed this particular oil with what amounts to inferior VM so that the viscosity would decrease over time to increase fuel economy? Does the EPA fuel economy test (and subsequent CAFE credits) account for this type of fuel consumption decrease? People on here have asserted it even falls out of grade, does the approval allow for this large of a viscosity loss?

If they do this for this oil, what about their other oils? If not, why not? CAFE credit is agnostic to manufacturer, why not use these "engineered shear prone" VM in every oil?

I agree and doubt it’s because of fuel economy alone. ESP X3 and X4 hold viscosity better and are under the same pressure for CAFE, although perhaps 911 oils are less sensitive due to lower sales volume offset by 0W-20 Macans. If anything the choice of VM is probably down to cost in FS which seems like a cheaper and higher volume product to them these days rather than a flagship oil.

Also, other than Nissan GT-R I don’t think there’s a single car sold new for many years with FS 0W-40 as a factory fill.

 

[Saturnguy]

Canadian Tire
0W-40
https://www.canadiantire.ca/en/pdp/...c-engine-motor-oil-5-l-0287963p.html?rq=0w-40
5W-40
https://www.canadiantire.ca/en/pdp/...c-engine-motor-oil-5-l-0288720p.html?rq=5w-40