Quote
I took at look at both the PDS for 5w40 and 0w40. You're right that only the 0w40 has the MB 229.5 but is it much different from the 229.3 (which both have)? Other than that, they both meet the same approvals.
I found this from another forum:
Quote
MB sheet 229.3 approved oils for passenger cars with gas and diesel engines with extended drain interval indicator FSS up to 20,000 km, or 40,000 km - 25,000 mi, current minimum spec for 1998+ MB engines, min. 1.0% fuel saving compared to 229.1, based on ACEA A3 B4. For gas engine of the M100 series, gas engines of the M200 series and diesel engines of the OM600 series (not models with Euro 4 diesel particle filters).
Quote
MB sheet 229.5 approved oils; "MB Longlife Service Oils" for passenger cars with gas and diesel engines with extended drain intervals beyond 229.3 oils, to 30,000 km, min 1.8% fuel saving, first oils introduced summer 2002. ACEA A3 B4. For gas engines of the M100 series, gas engines of the M200 series and diesel engines of the OM600 series (not models with Euro 4 diesel particle filters). 229.5 engine oils must be used with fleece oil filter designed for use with 229.5 engine oils.
MB 229.5 has NOACK limit at 10%, MB229.3 has it at 13%. NOACK limit is pretty important when it comes to CBU.
You can also compare it here:
https://online.lubrizol.com/relperftool/pc.html
But, regardless how "more" stringent is MB229.5 over 229.3, even is it is just a little bit, both are same price in Wal Mart, so why not getting better oil? Or Mobil1 0W40 FS?