New GM "Long Life" oil spec?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well then, I'm not sure of the answer. I am willing to bet though meeting this spec. is not a big deal and that many other oils would meet it. Put it this way, I wouldn't let it bother you if Amsoil isn't on the list. I'm not surprised being how small of a company they are. It would be nice though to have a definitive and correct answer!
smile.gif


[ January 30, 2003, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: buster ]
 
quote:

Originally posted by buster:
Well then, I'm not sure of the answer. I am willing to bet though meeting this spec. is not a big deal and that many other oils would meet it. Put it this way, I wouldn't let it bother you if Amsoil isn't on the list. I'm not surprised being how small of a company they are. It would be nice though to have a definitive and correct answer!
smile.gif


Here is the text from an e-mail I got from MBNA back in November when I inquired about recommended oils for the North American market. Please note that with each of the oils they list, they also list the 229.3 spec. The 229.5 in brackets [] was added by me to indicate those oils that also meet this tougher spec. (I've removed my name and e-mail address.

Sender:
From:
To:
Subject: Re: SN 564055, Re: Other Comments & Questions (OCAQ)
Message-ID:
Reply-To:
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 16:44:10 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline

Dear Mr. _______:

Thank you for your recent internet query.

For vehicles with Flexible Service System, Mercedes-Benz recommends the following approved Synthetic Engine Oils:

Mobil 1 0W-40 229.3 [229.5]
Castrol Syntec 5W-40 229.3
Quaker State Full Synthetic European Formula 5W-40 229.3
Pennzoil Synthetic European Formula 5W-40 229.3
76 Pure Synthetic Motor Oil 5W-40 229.3
Kendall GT-1 Full Synthetic Motor Oil 5W-40 229.3
Shell Helix Ultra 5W-30 229.3 [229.5]
Shell Helix Ultra 5W-40 229.3
 
Thats fine, but what does this tell us? Not much in my opinion. Are you questioning Amsoil's ability based on these specs? I can't tell you one way or another why Amsoil isn't on the list. I can only give you my opinion, as I did above. I will say Amsoil's oils are as good as they get IMO regardless of there horrible marketing and ridiculous drain recommendations or MB specs. MB isn't the end all be all for specs. or a reason not to buy or buy an oil.
smile.gif


[ January 30, 2003, 08:53 PM: Message edited by: buster ]
 
quote:

Originally posted by buster:
Thats fine, but what does this tell us? Not much in my opinion. Are you questioning Amsoil's ability based on these specs? I can't tell you one way or another why Amsoil isn't on the list. I can only give you my opinion, as I did above. I will say Amsoil's oils are as good as they get IMO regardless of there horrible marketing and ridiculous drain recommendations or MB specs. MB isn't the end all be all for specs. or a reason not to buy or buy an oil.
smile.gif


Yeah, and Amsoil isn't the be-all and end-all of motor oils, either.
grin.gif
(Despite their ridiculous marketing claims.) BTW, according to this web site, two grades of Amsoil do meet the 229.3 spec.
 
I agree.....
smile.gif
Tooslick, can you chime in on this? He might know the answer....
smile.gif


[ January 30, 2003, 09:13 PM: Message edited by: buster ]
 
G-man my sincere apologies. You didn't post a web page, Ken2 did. In fact I shouldn't have typed that last sentence. It was way to emotional.

I'm not at home right now, so I won't know what the Amsoil response is for another 8-10 hours. It's strange that he wrote that - but I have obviously never layed eyes on those specs. Have you? Has anyone here actually seen the specs?

[ January 30, 2003, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: Pablo ]
 
quote:

Originally posted by Pablo:
G-man my sincere apologies. You didn't post a web page, Ken2 did. In fact I shouldn't have typed that last sentence. It was way to emotional.

I'm not at home right now, so I won't know what the Amsoil response is for another 8-10 hours. It's strange that he wrote that - but I have obviously never layed eyes on those specs. Have you? Has anyone here actually seen the specs?


No, I've never seen the actual MB 22x.xx spec sheets. However, as a former MB owner, I can safely say that it's common knowledge that Daimler-Benz (now DaimlerChrysler) has for many, many years issued "lists" of approved oils that have been tested by them for use in their vehicles. The latest (and toughest) spec is 229.5 and involves what one would expect when it comes to testing the performance of motor oils for a European car, namely, the same performance catergories that the ACEA uses. The baseline is A3/B3, so one could infer that the 229.5 spec is more stringent in all categories than the baseline.

[ January 30, 2003, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: G-Man II ]
 
The thing that stands out to me is that most of the oils meeting the A3/A5 and 229.3/229.5 specs are 40 weight oils. 0W-40 and 5W-40. A few 30's yes but mostly 40's. This says to me that oil will not hold grade for long intervals so start with a heavier oil if you want it to go over 15k or 20k miles. Or that 40 weight oil is just plain better at protecting engines than 30 weight.
 
Good point. I'd like to know what tensile strength and elongation actually tells you. Is this something that doesn't apply to API standards? What you said makes sense and that a 40wt. over longer drains might hold up better. This would also suggest it is better for an oil to thicken rather then thin out over the course of it's life.
smile.gif
 
quote:

Originally posted by chasgood:
The thing that stands out to me is that most of the oils meeting the A3/A5 and 229.3/229.5 specs are 40 weight oils. 0W-40 and 5W-40.

This is not quite correct. The toughest MB spec is 229.5 and of the six oils that meet that spec, FIVE of them are 5w30. Mobil 1 is the only Xw40 weight oil on the 229.5 list.

As for 229.3, roughly 40% of the oils on that list are Xw30 oils.
 
Doesn't MB 229.5 consist of ACEA A3 plus longer drain intervals than 229.3 and at least 1.8% fuel savings over A3? The fuel savings part shoots down most 40 wts.

And MB 229.3 consists of ACEA A3, drain interval of 25,000 miles in MB tests, and at least 1% fuel savings?


Ken
 
I'm starting to think the manufacturers' specs carry LESS weight than the oil associations' specs. When I dug into the oils meeting the new GM spec, I found:
1) They're all fully synthetic (at this point)
2) They're all European-made (at this point)
3) All but one were 0W-30
4) Of the 12 meeting the GM spec, seven were also rated at ACEA A3, two were rated at A5, two were rated at A1, & one didn't say.

Obviously, if they're basing the new spec on any previously-established specs, it's a pretty low/outdated one. Like the DexCool fiasco, I'm beginning to think the only advantage to this new spec is to earn GM more "ecological credits" when they get fees tallied up by various countries.
 
quote:

Originally posted by mkosem:
wow, it must be tough. 30,000km intervals it prety long for an oil to be required to last.

--Matt


Hi,

That's why Saab fully synthetic 0W-30 has TBN
of 17.5

Even if you discount this value due to test
method used by Blackstone, it's still around
15. That's pretty darned high.

Saab 0W-30 costs around $4/quart. That's
a good alternative for a PAO oil which meets
ACEA A5/B5 and has TBN of 15 to 17.5

cheers.gif


Jae
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top