Shrinking gap between 229.5 and 229.51 spec

Messages
40,825
Location
Great Lakes
While looking at the Lubrizol spiderweb diagrams for the n-th time, I noticed that the "aftertreatment compatibility" gap between 229.5 and 229.51 specs has shrunk in the most recent versions. Below are the diagrams for 2009 as well as 2012 versions of these specs. Somewhat strange actually that the latest 229.5 spec has improved in aftertreatment compatibility even though it's still basically a full SAPS spec with the same limits on sulfated ash, phosphorus, etc. as back in 2009. So then, what has changed for 2012 that caused the 229.5 spec to become so much more emissions equipment friendly? Or are these Lubrizol diagrams just not reliable? 2009 version on left. 2012 version on right.
 
Messages
154
Location
Scotland
I guess the 2009 graph may be wrong or the 2009 spec did not take into account the actual quality of the oils supplied by the blenders with respect to after treatment. eddie
 

Quattro Pete

Thread starter
Messages
40,825
Location
Great Lakes
I always thought that aftertreatment compatibility was directly related to the amount of additives. Another words, if you wanted better aftertreatment compatibility, you had to reduce additive levels/SA content. But again, the max limits on SA and phosphorus haven't changed from 2009 to 2012 in this particular spec. And I've looked at a more detailed breakdown of this spec in the Afton book, and it is still not apparent to me what makes the 229.5 (2012) more aftertreatment compatible. But it's possible I'm just not reading it right...
 
Messages
5,702
Location
Atlanta,GA
Perhaps additives technology is catching up. It not a question of "more of X" is better but whether to substitute X for Y. This is why people shouldn't use the additives levels in a UOA report as a basis for choosing a A3/B4 over a C3.
 
Last edited:

Quattro Pete

Thread starter
Messages
40,825
Location
Great Lakes
Originally Posted By: BMWTurboDzl
Perhaps additives technology is catching up. It not a question of "more of X" is better but whether to substitute X for Y.
Right, but wouldn't the spec then need to be explicit about the types of additives that the oil should use? I am looking through the details of 229.5 spec in Afton Handbook, and can't see anything on the subject, but maybe I'm just missing it. I also don't see anything specifically related to "aftertreatment compatibility", so I don't really know how Lubrizol comes up with these spider graphs and determines that a particular spec went from 0 to 4 in aftertreatment compatibility. Unless the underlying methodology is known, these Lubrizol graphs are not of much use, I'm afraid.
 

lim

Messages
40
Location
Hampshire
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
While looking at the Lubrizol spiderweb diagrams for the n-th time, I noticed that the "aftertreatment compatibility" gap between 229.5 and 229.51 specs has shrunk in the most recent versions.[/img]
QP, You will be interested to learn that the Lubrizol Relative Performance Tool has changed markedly very recently. As well as a tweaked display, there are updated and revised specifications as well as new one's for M-B and VW. Have a look! Regards, lim
 

Quattro Pete

Thread starter
Messages
40,825
Location
Great Lakes
Thanks, lim. I did see the new tool a few days ago, but it wasn't loading for me. Now it finally is. So, according to the new tool, there is no difference in aftertreatment compatibility between 229.5 (2009) and 229.5 (2012) - they're both at 0. This makes more sense, so one can only deduce that the previous tool had an error.
 
Top