The MB 229.5 extended drain (35,000 miles) spec for new Mercedes vehicles is arguably the most demanding of any manufacturer's performance requirements for motor oils. There are currently only six oils that meet this spec, and only one of those is readily available in the US: Mobil 1 0w40. Of the six oils that meet 229.5, all are PAO/ester based with the exception of one Group III oil: Shell Helix Ultra, which is made with XHVI.
MB 229.5 spec oils
- Thread starter G-MAN
- Start date
- Status
What's XHVI?
Waxy Raffinate, produced by hydroisomerisation and redistillation of waxy streams, yields a base oil of extremely high viscosity index and very low Noack volatility. After dewaxing, waxy raffinate produces a fully synthetic base oil Shell XHVI and the largest use is in top tier and premium tier automotive engine oils.
quote:I don't think it works that way. I think DaimlerChrysler released the spec to the oil companies and then the companies submitted the oils they wanted tested against the spec. Mobil 1 0w40 was the last oil to get 229.5. Fuchs Titan SuperSyn SL was the first. (For comparison, there are approximately 40 oils that meet the 229.3 spec, which is pretty tough.)
Originally posted by Terry: XHVI, How many oils did Benz submit to testing to arrive at those 6 ?
quote:That's intersting that M1 15w50 can't hang with M1 0w40. Why would that be? And why can't Redline 10w40 or Amsoil 10w40 meet the spec? Hmmm... Who on this site is willing to go 35,000 miles between oil changes? Don't be shy. Speak up
Originally posted by XHVI: The MB 229.5 extended drain (35,000 miles) spec for new Mercedes vehicles is arguably the most demanding of any manufacturer's performance requirements for motor oils. There are currently only six oils that meet this spec, and only one of those is readily available in the US: Mobil 1 0w40. Of the six oils that meet 229.5, all are PAO/ester based with the exception of one Group III oil: Shell Helix Ultra, which is made with XHVI.
quote:Shell has done some experimenting with using the SMDS (Fisher-Tropsch) produced waxy raffinate as the feedstock for XHVI, but the current feedstock for production XHVI used in the manufacture of Shell's premium synthetic motor oils (Helix and Rotella T) is slack wax derived from the MDU during typical solvent dewaxing.
Originally posted by sprintman: Waxy Raffinate, produced by hydroisomerisation and redistillation of waxy streams, yields a base oil of extremely high viscosity index and very low Noack volatility. After dewaxing, waxy raffinate produces a fully synthetic base oil Shell XHVI and the largest use is in top tier and premium tier automotive engine oils.
quote:229.5 has a prety stringent fuel economy requirement that the 15w50 couldn't meet. In fact, Mobil 1 0w40 is the only Xw40 oil on the 229.5 list. The rest are 5w30. And don't let the 35,000 mile interval mislead you. All that means is that under ideal conditions (which are determined by the FSS onboard computer of a Mercedes auto), a 229.5 oil must be capable of going 35,000 miles. Under more typical driving conditions, the computer will indicate a change is necessary in the 15,000 to 20,000 mile range. As for Amsoil, two of their oils are on the 229.3 list: 10w30 and the Series 3000 5w30. (And Schaeffer's Micron Moly and 7000 oils are 229.3 approved, too.) It will be interesting to see if any Amsoil oils eventually show up on the 229.5 list.
Originally posted by satterfi: [QUOTE]That's intersting that M1 15w50 can't hang with M1 0w40. Why would that be?
XHVI
Thanks for the info.
It sounds like the MB 229.5 spec doesn't match my requirements in a motor oil.
The satterfi 000.0 spec calls for maximum protection. No economy considerations are allowed. ![[Big Grin]](images/icons/grin.gif)
I do require a minimum of 7,500 miles between oil changes. That would be satterfi spec 000.1 ![[Smile]](images/icons/smile.gif)
I do require a minimum of 7,500 miles between oil changes. That would be satterfi spec 000.1 quote:The days of believing that low viscosity and "maximum protection" are mutually exclusive performance criteria for a motor oil are coming to an end. I'd put Mobil 1 0w40 up against 15w50 in any standardized test and be willing to bet that the 0w40 would match it or exceed it at every point.
Originally posted by satterfi: XHVI Thanks for the info. It sounds like the MB 229.5 spec doesn't match my requirements in a motor oil. The satterfi 000.0 spec calls for maximum protection. No economy considerations are allowed.
Terry,
When I talked to Amsoil tech services about this application several weeks ago, they recommended their CI-4/SL rated 10w-40, instead of the newer Series 2000, 0w-30 stuff. I thought that was interesting ....
The MB list of "Approved Oils" has always been more of a "buy in" than anything else - in the past you had to pay to get on this list. I don't give it any special significance, even though several Amsoil products are on the DB 229.3 list. You also have to keep in mind that even the MB V-6 engine holds 7.9 quarts of oil and the V-8s hold even more, so running long drains in these cases isn't very demanding. I'd bet that the garden variety Mobil 1, 10w-30 would last for at least 25,000 miles in these motors.
The primary reason why they are recommending 0w-40 instead of 5w-40/10w-40 is that the low temp pumpability tends to degrade faster than the high temp properties. So at the end of one of these long drains, the 0w-40 would test out to be approx a 15w-50 grade, due to oxidative thickening and nitration. Anybody who works in the industry understand that ....
TS
quote:Do you not give the MB spec "any special significance" because you assume an oil comapany can simply buy its way onto the list irrespective of whether or not the oil will pass the tests necessary to meet the spec? I'm sure the tests that DC runs are costly, so asking an oil company to fork over some cash in order to be MB approved is not unreasonable, IMO. I guess since Amsoil has such a vested interest in how its products come across, we shouldn't give any special significance to all their test result claims.
Originally posted by TooSlick: The MB list of "Approved Oils" has always been more of a "buy in" than anything else - in the past you had to pay to get on this list. I don't give it any special significance ...
![[Wink]](images/icons/wink.gif){kind=icon}
I agree...I think M-B is catching on to the U.S. thinking (esp. after aquiring Chrysler)....make the engine's bigger and try to cut back on fuel economy ratings anyway you can eg. thinner oil....
As far as the intervals....not sure about M-B, but BMW pays for all service in the first 3 yrs., so of course, the oil change intervals will be large...and larger....
quote:I think it has more to do with the European automotive community as a whole whose thinking is moving more and more toward fuel economy. The new ACEA A5 standards are a good example. And remember, gasoline costs the consumer a lot more in Europe than it does in the U.S.
Originally posted by Dr. T: I agree...I think M-B is catching on to the U.S. thinking (esp. after aquiring Chrysler)....make the engine's bigger and try to cut back on fuel economy ratings anyway you can eg. thinner oil....
XHVI,
Of course you should have to pass the tests ...it is the shakedown by Mercedes to pay $$$ to get on the list that I have problems with.
Do you honestly think this list contains all the synthetic lubes that could pass the DB 229.5 specification if tested? The fact that even a Group III "synthetic" passed this test should tell you it isn't very demanding in the first place. If you happen to have the DB 229.5 test matrix and can post it, perhaps we can discuss it sometime?
I'd be very interested to see what the actual test limits are and the test durations.
TooSlick
If you happen to have the DB 229.5 test matrix and can post it, perhaps we can discuss it sometime?
I'd be very interested to see what the actual test limits are and the test durations.
TooSlickSince we're on the topic... question about the ACEA certs. Mobil 1's data sheet page claims that the xw30 oils meet A1/B1 and A5/B5, whereas the 0w40 and 15w50 meet the A3/B3/B4-02.
I know there is difference in the levels of ACEA certs, but is the A5/B5/E5 certification kinda just a catch-all?
In other words is the A3/B3 a more stringent level than the 5s?
ferb!
Ferb,
The new ACEA, A5/B5 oils are low viscosity versions of the older ACEA, A3/B4 formulations for the most part. They have to pass all the same tests, with the same test limits as before. You will note that Mobil 1 is the only commonly available synlube in the $4.00-$5.00/qt range claiming ACEA A5/B5 performance, so it's pretty good stuff.
The Mobil 1, 0w-40 is ACEA A3/B4 rated simply due to being thicker than their 5w-30 and 10w-30, but the additive chemistry is very similiar.
TS
The main difference between A3 & A5 is
a) The 150°C high temp/high shear viscosity--A5 = 2.9 to 3.5, and A3 = > 3.5
b) Fuel economy--A5 2.5% or greater economy than the reference 15W-40 oil. A3 is not rated for fuel economy.
http://www.acea.be/ACEA/20020618PublicationsOilSequences.pdf
There are a few oils of < 40 wt. that are rated A3, A5, and ILSAC GF-3 Energy Conserving. Schaeffer #710 5W-30 and #703 10W-30 are two, and I've been told that the new bottles of some Amsoil oils have about the same ratings on the label. Mobil 1 xW-30 are rated A5 & ILSAC Energy Conserving; Mobil 0W-40 & 15W-50 are rated A3.
Ken
quote:Everytime someone wants to lump Shell's XHVI in with other Group III base oils, I'll be the first one to stand up and say "Wait a minute." The fact that the only oils that are on the list are PAO and XHVI based should tell you something about the performance capabilities of XHVI, not that "any ol' Group III could meet the spec." If that were the case, I'm sure you'd see Castrol on there, since Syntec is on the 229.1 list, and the "Syntec" 5w40 available only at MB, BMW, and VW dealers is 229.3 approved.
Originally posted by TooSlick: Do you honestly think this list contains all the synthetic lubes that could pass the DB 229.5 specification if tested? The fact that even a Group III "synthetic" passed this test should tell you it isn't very demanding in the first place.
- Status
