4WD
$50 site donor 2025
What is it? 40% of the chatter on BITOG over 2% of the vehicle market …
What exactly is LL-01?
- Thread starter camrydriver111
- Start date
- Status
edyvw
$50 site donor 2025
Originally Posted By: camrydriver111
Maybe it's a marketing campaign to get people talking about M1 0W40.
Then when they bring it back it will be like Coke Classic.
Yeah, I bet that is it.
Maybe it's a marketing campaign to get people talking about M1 0W40.
Then when they bring it back it will be like Coke Classic.
Yeah, I bet that is it.
Do you guys really think that Exxon-Mobil couldn't pay the extremely trivial amount to BMW for certification?
Or do you think it's more likely that the M1 0W40 that we get in the US isn't great and maybe BMW was the first one to re-test it?
Or do you think it's more likely that the M1 0W40 that we get in the US isn't great and maybe BMW was the first one to re-test it?
Every new formulation has to be re-tested AFAIK -- not just for BMW, but for any OE approval. If a decline in quality were the reason for losing LL-01, it'd be hard to explain how the oil retained all its other approvals, many of which seem to be tougher than LL-01.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Every new formulation has to be re-tested AFAIK -- not just for BMW, but for any OE approval. If a decline in quality were the reason for losing LL-01, it'd be hard to explain how the oil retained all its other approvals, many of which seem to be tougher than LL-01.
Exactly. It has Porsche A40 for example.
Every new formulation has to be re-tested AFAIK -- not just for BMW, but for any OE approval. If a decline in quality were the reason for losing LL-01, it'd be hard to explain how the oil retained all its other approvals, many of which seem to be tougher than LL-01.
Exactly. It has Porsche A40 for example.
Can you show me where it says every formulation must be re-tested and they actually do it? I’m extremely pessimistic. Working in the corporate world, I’m much more inclined to believe a company claim one product line has a non-official certification (as in non gov) and continue to release product with the same claims even if changes were made, it’s pretty common. The only way to counter that is to send a cease and desist if you had the forethought to actively retest new formulations across hundreds of different oils.
Lets say they just released M1 0w40, new product, new barrage of tests... if they reformulated it maybe even slightly year to year, do you think they will retest it every year or just take their word for it that the differences are trivial until maybe one manufacturer actually does include it as part of an internal audit.
For a company the size of Exxon Mobil, thinking that a couple thousand dollar cost is the reason to not have the words BMW on your label is feasible is unbelievable.
Lets say they just released M1 0w40, new product, new barrage of tests... if they reformulated it maybe even slightly year to year, do you think they will retest it every year or just take their word for it that the differences are trivial until maybe one manufacturer actually does include it as part of an internal audit.
For a company the size of Exxon Mobil, thinking that a couple thousand dollar cost is the reason to not have the words BMW on your label is feasible is unbelievable.
Last edited:
Companies can "recommend" their product for, or say it "meets the requirements of", any spec they want. That's what doesn't require re-testing. Or even testing in the first place. It just requires some confidence/cojones.
If they want to claim approval for those specs, the oil has to be... approved. That means they have to pay for it.
We seem to agree that dropping LL-01 was likely no accident for Mobil 1 FS 0w-40. There had to be a reason. But to say it must therefore be a "worse" product when it still has approvals like MB 229.5 and Porsche A40 is a bit absurd. It's no longer explicitly approved for BMW LL-01. BFD. Neither is Motul 300V, or TGMO 0w-20, or Mobil 1 5w30. Those are all fine oils for their intended applications, just as Mobil 1 FS 0w-40 is still a fine oil for applications requiring the approvals it still carries.
If they want to claim approval for those specs, the oil has to be... approved. That means they have to pay for it.
We seem to agree that dropping LL-01 was likely no accident for Mobil 1 FS 0w-40. There had to be a reason. But to say it must therefore be a "worse" product when it still has approvals like MB 229.5 and Porsche A40 is a bit absurd. It's no longer explicitly approved for BMW LL-01. BFD. Neither is Motul 300V, or TGMO 0w-20, or Mobil 1 5w30. Those are all fine oils for their intended applications, just as Mobil 1 FS 0w-40 is still a fine oil for applications requiring the approvals it still carries.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: FlyPenFly
For a company the size of Exxon Mobil, thinking that a couple thousand dollar cost is the reason to not have the words BMW on your label is feasible is unbelievable.
No, but thinking they didn't pursue the approval because they didn't get the oil contract (they were vying for the BMW contract and lost out to SOPUS) is entirely plausible, which is similar to why they have no Chrysler approvals on their flagship product line as well (they lost that contract to SOPUS thanks to the FIAT acquisition).
For a company the size of Exxon Mobil, thinking that a couple thousand dollar cost is the reason to not have the words BMW on your label is feasible is unbelievable.
No, but thinking they didn't pursue the approval because they didn't get the oil contract (they were vying for the BMW contract and lost out to SOPUS) is entirely plausible, which is similar to why they have no Chrysler approvals on their flagship product line as well (they lost that contract to SOPUS thanks to the FIAT acquisition).
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: FlyPenFly
For a company the size of Exxon Mobil, thinking that a couple thousand dollar cost is the reason to not have the words BMW on your label is feasible is unbelievable.
No, but thinking they didn't pursue the approval because they didn't get the oil contract (they were vying for the BMW contract and lost out to SOPUS) is entirely plausible, which is similar to why they have no Chrysler approvals on their flagship product line as well (they lost that contract to SOPUS thanks to the FIAT acquisition).
Come on, so because the oil cap doesn't say "XXXXX Recommend Mobil1" they decided not to get certification?
Originally Posted By: FlyPenFly
For a company the size of Exxon Mobil, thinking that a couple thousand dollar cost is the reason to not have the words BMW on your label is feasible is unbelievable.
No, but thinking they didn't pursue the approval because they didn't get the oil contract (they were vying for the BMW contract and lost out to SOPUS) is entirely plausible, which is similar to why they have no Chrysler approvals on their flagship product line as well (they lost that contract to SOPUS thanks to the FIAT acquisition).
Come on, so because the oil cap doesn't say "XXXXX Recommend Mobil1" they decided not to get certification?
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Companies can "recommend" their product for, or say it "meets the requirements of", any spec they want. That's what doesn't require re-testing. Or even testing in the first place. It just requires some confidence/cojones.
If they want to claim approval for those specs, the oil has to be... approved. That means they have to pay for it.
We seem to agree that dropping LL-01 was likely no accident for Mobil 1 FS 0w-40. There had to be a reason. But to say it must therefore be a "worse" product when it still has approvals like MB 229.5 and Porsche A40 is a bit absurd. It's no longer explicitly approved for BMW LL-01. BFD. Neither is Motul 300V, or TGMO 0w-20, or Mobil 1 5w30. Those are all fine oils for their intended applications, just as Mobil 1 FS 0w-40 is still a fine oil for applications requiring the approvals it still carries.
What I'm saying is, I highly doubt that each new reformulation is recertified across every test, they probably only do that when they have a brand new product. That's just how non-official commercial certifications usually work...
For example, Klipsch makes a new set of headphones that are THX certified. They change the foam padding or slightly tweak the materials of the housing from one product year to another, don't change the model number, they're not going to get it recertified THX, they can just recarry that branding. THX is certifying hundreds if not thousands of products, they're not going to notice that the same product that they certified last year isn't exactly the same. Now keep doing that several revisions and after a few reformulations you go from a great first product to a much cheaper worse product (Just like how M1 0w40 used to be a great base oil)...
Companies can "recommend" their product for, or say it "meets the requirements of", any spec they want. That's what doesn't require re-testing. Or even testing in the first place. It just requires some confidence/cojones.
If they want to claim approval for those specs, the oil has to be... approved. That means they have to pay for it.
We seem to agree that dropping LL-01 was likely no accident for Mobil 1 FS 0w-40. There had to be a reason. But to say it must therefore be a "worse" product when it still has approvals like MB 229.5 and Porsche A40 is a bit absurd. It's no longer explicitly approved for BMW LL-01. BFD. Neither is Motul 300V, or TGMO 0w-20, or Mobil 1 5w30. Those are all fine oils for their intended applications, just as Mobil 1 FS 0w-40 is still a fine oil for applications requiring the approvals it still carries.
What I'm saying is, I highly doubt that each new reformulation is recertified across every test, they probably only do that when they have a brand new product. That's just how non-official commercial certifications usually work...
For example, Klipsch makes a new set of headphones that are THX certified. They change the foam padding or slightly tweak the materials of the housing from one product year to another, don't change the model number, they're not going to get it recertified THX, they can just recarry that branding. THX is certifying hundreds if not thousands of products, they're not going to notice that the same product that they certified last year isn't exactly the same. Now keep doing that several revisions and after a few reformulations you go from a great first product to a much cheaper worse product (Just like how M1 0w40 used to be a great base oil)...
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: FlyPenFly
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: FlyPenFly
For a company the size of Exxon Mobil, thinking that a couple thousand dollar cost is the reason to not have the words BMW on your label is feasible is unbelievable.
No, but thinking they didn't pursue the approval because they didn't get the oil contract (they were vying for the BMW contract and lost out to SOPUS) is entirely plausible, which is similar to why they have no Chrysler approvals on their flagship product line as well (they lost that contract to SOPUS thanks to the FIAT acquisition).
Come on, so because the oil cap doesn't say "XXXXX Recommend Mobil1" they decided not to get certification?
Pretty much. Seemed to be the case for Chrysler.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: FlyPenFly
For a company the size of Exxon Mobil, thinking that a couple thousand dollar cost is the reason to not have the words BMW on your label is feasible is unbelievable.
No, but thinking they didn't pursue the approval because they didn't get the oil contract (they were vying for the BMW contract and lost out to SOPUS) is entirely plausible, which is similar to why they have no Chrysler approvals on their flagship product line as well (they lost that contract to SOPUS thanks to the FIAT acquisition).
Come on, so because the oil cap doesn't say "XXXXX Recommend Mobil1" they decided not to get certification?
Pretty much. Seemed to be the case for Chrysler.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: FlyPenFly
What I'm saying is, I highly doubt that each new reformulation is recertified across every test, they probably only do that when they have a brand new product. That's just how non-official commercial certifications usually work...
There are guidelines for reformulation that allow a certain amount of change without requiring recertification. The reformulation of M1 0w-40 for the "FS" version was significant enough that it obviously prompted a recertification, since the previous version had LL-01 and this version doesn't. The base oil was swapped from a PAO/VISOM blend to GTL and there were some rather major changes in viscosity. The actual label changed (FS) which identified it as a different product in their PDS/MSDS system and likely in the various approval systems as well, if we had access to that side of it.
Ergo, it is quite easy to subsequently conclude that the product was successfully approved for all the approvals it currently carries and was either not able to pass LL-01 or Mobil chose not to pursue it.
I'm personally leaning towards them not pursing it because of what they did when they lost the Chrysler contract, but that is purely speculation on my part.
What we DO know is that it is formally approved for the certifications we see on the PDS and bottle, if it wasn't, those approvals wouldn't be there. Subsequently, we know it passes the performance parameters of those tests such as Porsche A40.
Did it fail LL-01? We don't know.
Could it pass LL-01? We also don't know.
Did Mobil simply choose not to pursue LL-01? Again, we don't know.
The only fact about LL-01 that we have is that the product is not approved for it.
What I'm saying is, I highly doubt that each new reformulation is recertified across every test, they probably only do that when they have a brand new product. That's just how non-official commercial certifications usually work...
There are guidelines for reformulation that allow a certain amount of change without requiring recertification. The reformulation of M1 0w-40 for the "FS" version was significant enough that it obviously prompted a recertification, since the previous version had LL-01 and this version doesn't. The base oil was swapped from a PAO/VISOM blend to GTL and there were some rather major changes in viscosity. The actual label changed (FS) which identified it as a different product in their PDS/MSDS system and likely in the various approval systems as well, if we had access to that side of it.
Ergo, it is quite easy to subsequently conclude that the product was successfully approved for all the approvals it currently carries and was either not able to pass LL-01 or Mobil chose not to pursue it.
I'm personally leaning towards them not pursing it because of what they did when they lost the Chrysler contract, but that is purely speculation on my part.
What we DO know is that it is formally approved for the certifications we see on the PDS and bottle, if it wasn't, those approvals wouldn't be there. Subsequently, we know it passes the performance parameters of those tests such as Porsche A40.
Did it fail LL-01? We don't know.
Could it pass LL-01? We also don't know.
Did Mobil simply choose not to pursue LL-01? Again, we don't know.
The only fact about LL-01 that we have is that the product is not approved for it.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Did it fail LL-01? We don't know.
Could it pass LL-01? We also don't know.
Did Mobil simply choose not to pursue LL-01? Again, we don't know.
The only fact about LL-01 that we have is that the product is not approved for it.
Good summary of all we know on the subject. The rest is pure speculation.
Did it fail LL-01? We don't know.
Could it pass LL-01? We also don't know.
Did Mobil simply choose not to pursue LL-01? Again, we don't know.
The only fact about LL-01 that we have is that the product is not approved for it.
Good summary of all we know on the subject. The rest is pure speculation.
Originally Posted By: FlyPenFly
Or do you think it's more likely that the M1 0W40 that we get in the US isn't great and maybe BMW was the first one to re-test it?
Or, they've chosen not to. XOM still has an LL-01 product, that's not nearly as impressive, but only available in bulk quantities.
Or do you think it's more likely that the M1 0W40 that we get in the US isn't great and maybe BMW was the first one to re-test it?
Or, they've chosen not to. XOM still has an LL-01 product, that's not nearly as impressive, but only available in bulk quantities.
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Did it fail LL-01? We don't know.
Could it pass LL-01? We also don't know.
Did Mobil simply choose not to pursue LL-01? Again, we don't know.
The only fact about LL-01 that we have is that the product is not approved for it.
Good summary of all we know on the subject. The rest is pure speculation.
Well like Overkill mentioned, the other thing we do know is that it still carries all the other specifications that it did before the change.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Did it fail LL-01? We don't know.
Could it pass LL-01? We also don't know.
Did Mobil simply choose not to pursue LL-01? Again, we don't know.
The only fact about LL-01 that we have is that the product is not approved for it.
Good summary of all we know on the subject. The rest is pure speculation.
Well like Overkill mentioned, the other thing we do know is that it still carries all the other specifications that it did before the change.
Originally Posted By: FlyPenFly
What I'm saying is, I highly doubt that each new reformulation is recertified across every test, they probably only do that when they have a brand new product. That's just how non-official commercial certifications usually work...
For example, Klipsch makes a new set of headphones that are THX certified. They change the foam padding or slightly tweak the materials of the housing from one product year to another, don't change the model number, they're not going to get it recertified THX, they can just recarry that branding. THX is certifying hundreds if not thousands of products, they're not going to notice that the same product that they certified last year isn't exactly the same. Now keep doing that several revisions and after a few reformulations you go from a great first product to a much cheaper worse product (Just like how M1 0w40 used to be a great base oil)...
You may know something about headphones but you don't know anything about how motor oil certifications work.
What I'm saying is, I highly doubt that each new reformulation is recertified across every test, they probably only do that when they have a brand new product. That's just how non-official commercial certifications usually work...
For example, Klipsch makes a new set of headphones that are THX certified. They change the foam padding or slightly tweak the materials of the housing from one product year to another, don't change the model number, they're not going to get it recertified THX, they can just recarry that branding. THX is certifying hundreds if not thousands of products, they're not going to notice that the same product that they certified last year isn't exactly the same. Now keep doing that several revisions and after a few reformulations you go from a great first product to a much cheaper worse product (Just like how M1 0w40 used to be a great base oil)...
You may know something about headphones but you don't know anything about how motor oil certifications work.
- Status