BMW Longlife Approval Requirements?

[jpr]

Thanks again to Carmudgeon for posting that link.

Looking at the product data sheets, the Shell/Pennzoil Platinum European Formulation series of products presents a neat little microcosm of the BMW Longlife specs -

LL-98 - Platinum European Formulation 5W-40
** Kv100 of 14.5
** Looks to be same product as the "Q European Formulation"

LL-01 - Platinum European Formulation Ultra 5W-30
** Kv100 of 11.7
** Does not appear to have any direct equivalent under a different name

LL-04 - Platinum European Formulation Ultra Diesel 5W-30
** Kv100 of 12.0
** appears to basically be a low-SAPS version of the LL-01 "Ultra" product
** Looks to be the same product as the "Q European Formulation Ultra Diesel"

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Also, with the acquisition of Pennzoil/QS by Shell, aren't these PP Euro grades just some repackaged Shell product?

Some probably are, but I don't think all of them are. I remember seeing slight differences when I tried to compare specs for similar PP, QS, and Shell products.

That said, I'd say it's a sure bet that they're all XHVI and very likely that they use similar chemistries.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: jpr
LL-01 - Platinum European Formulation Ultra 5W-30
** Kv100 of 11.7

That seems borderline thin to me. I almost had oil pressure issues in my car with a 12.0 Kv100 oil on the hottest summer days. GC (Kv100 = 12.2) gave me no such problems. ICBW.

VI is 173, though, which isn't bad.

 

[jpr]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: jpr
LL-01 - Platinum European Formulation Ultra 5W-30
** Kv100 of 11.7

That seems borderline thin to me. I almost had oil pressure issues in my car with a 12.0 Kv100 oil on the hottest summer days. GC (Kv100 = 12.2) gave me no such problems. ICBW.

VI is 173, though, which isn't bad.
Seems thin to me too. From a practical standpoint, I think the important distinction to be made is between the M52TU and earlier engines and the M54 and later engines. The LL-01 spec, with its lighter viscosity, was introduced at basically the same time as the latter engines. And those latter engines are quite specifically not approved to use the LL-98 oils.

From your sig, it looks like you've got an S50 engine which was likely orginally intended to run with an oil in the SAE 40 range.

 

[jaj]

The development sequence of BMW oil specs works like this:

ACEA A3/B3 => Special Oil => LL-98 => LL01 => LL-04

The one common factor is HTHS >= 3.5 in all specs.

The factor that differs is the length of the OCI - ranging from short to long. I think it's safe to say that the spec changes were about longevity, not performance. BMW engines are strong and have big bearings - you have to abuse them to break them. So long as you run fresh oil that meets spec, there's no magic.

There was another thread here on TWS - why such a high viscosity? Well, again BMW "S" engines (in "M" cars) are different. ALL the "S" sixes have cast-iron blocks, including the S54. They have large bearings and they are built to last a long time even with the high revs they turn. The reason for TWS? Simple - the engineers trust it to deliver, and that's that. The engines could run on other oils just fine, but BMW wants to remove that variable from the reliability equation, so they spec that one fluid. Is it better? Probably. Does it work? Absolutely! If something breaks, can we blame it on the oil? Absolutely not! And that's that.

 

[jpr]

It's my understanding that the ACEA A3 and BMW "Special Oils" designations were introduced concurrently in 1996. As such, it's not really a development chain as implied above. Of course one might argue that the latter was an outgrowth of the former, as BMW is a member of ACEA and was a member of its predecessor organization, the CCMC.

Also, as a minor note to complete the sequence, is the BMW LL-01 FE designation, which is an A1/B1. This oil is spec'd as an option, but not a requirement, for the "N" series engines. Standard LL-01 and LL-04 oils are also approved for these engines.

 

[jaj]

Originally Posted By: jpr
It's my understanding that the ACEA A3 and BMW "Special Oils" designations were introduced concurrently in 1996. As such, it's not really a development chain as implied above. Of course one might argue that the latter was an outgrowth of the former, as BMW is a member of ACEA and was a member of its predecessor organization, the CCMC.

Also, as a minor note to complete the sequence, is the BMW LL-01 FE designation, which is an A1/B1. This oil is spec'd as an option, but not a requirement, for the "N" series engines. Standard LL-01 and LL-04 oils are also approved for these engines.


Did any of the "N" engines make it to North America? I was never clear on which engines those were.

As to specs, my sense is that they were feeling their way along in the 90's - knowing that they'd have to issue their own oil spec if they wanted to extend the OCI, but taking their time sorting out the real requirements from the nice-to-haves. A3/B3 oils were easy for the oil manufacturers because they already existed and were tested against generic specs. BMW probably had a few tense moments when they issued the Special oil spec. However, oil formulators deliverd the results they wanted and BMW got some experience in specs and testing, so that they had it pretty much figured out when they released the first LL oil spec for 1998. After that, they were addicted and just kept pumping them out - if the sequence is 98-01-04 shouldn't there be an LL-07 out there somewhere?

 

[gtx510]

yeah, we got the N52, N54, N62, and N73
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:BMW_engines

hmmm, LL-07? maybe if LL-04 doesn't work well in the N54?

 

[jpr]

Originally Posted By: jaj
As to specs, my sense is that they were feeling their way along in the 90's - knowing that they'd have to issue their own oil spec if they wanted to extend the OCI, but taking their time sorting out the real requirements from the nice-to-haves. A3/B3 oils were easy for the oil manufacturers because they already existed and were tested against generic specs. BMW probably had a few tense moments when they issued the Special oil spec. However, oil formulators deliverd the results they wanted and BMW got some experience in specs and testing, so that they had it pretty much figured out when they released the first LL oil spec for 1998. After that, they were addicted and just kept pumping them out - if the sequence is 98-01-04 shouldn't there be an LL-07 out there somewhere?

I wouldn't be surprised as even ACEA and API seem to update their standards every 2~3 years.

With the ACEA for example, the intial standard was issued in 1996, and it was then updated in 1998, 1999, 2002, 2004, and 2007. Of course not everything changes with every issue, but there does seem to be a regular review and reissue process.

API has been on a similar track in recent years. SH was 1993, SJ in 1996, SL in 2001, and SM in 2004. Which means we are probably due for a SN to be issued soon.

 

[shortyb]

You will see a new LL rating very soon. Actually, it may be 2 separate ratings. They have been busy evaluating a battery of tests and criteria for the new turbo engines, N54 and N6"X" (new twin turbo 4.4 V8 in the X6) and also the soon to be released diesels.

LL-01 FE was aimed at European customers primarily. There was a big stink raised when LL-01 was introduced and the prices shot through the roof for "approved" oil. In response to customer demand, they "dumbed down" LL-01 a bit to allow less expensive oils to be used albeit at different OCI intervals. These parameters are built into the non-US market cars ECM and any dealer (again, non-US) can decifer and determine proper OCI based on this info. That is, as long as the vehicle was serviced at the dealer and the oil type (standard or FE) was protocalled.

 

[JAG]

Do you know any details on the requirements of the upcoming turbo engine LL oil spec? How soon is "very soon"? Thanks.

 

[gtx510]

Have you guys tried comparing w/ MB or GM oils/tests? http://www.whnet.com/4x4/oil.html
Other GF-3 oils?
Going by Castrol's Syntec datasheet
LL-01 and LL-98 are ILSAC GF-3, ACEA: A3, B3, B4
5W40 - LL-98 = MB 229.3, 229.1; VW 505 00, 502 00
0W30 - LL-01 = MB 229.1, 229.3, 229.5; GM-LLA-025, GM-LL-B-025; VW 502 00, 505 00, 503 01

Amsoil Euro "surpasses" LL-04; MB 229.51, 229.31; VW 502.00, 505.00, 505.01; DaimlerChrysler MS-10725

 

[jpr]

I haven't looked at the GM specs, but I did look in to the MB specs.

MB 229.1 is their most basic spec with a 15k to 30k km service, or about 1 - 2 years

MB 229.3 oils have the same service interval of 15k to 30k km service, or about 1 - 2 years, but it has to meet much more stringent criteria in terms of chlorine content, wear, oil thickening, and fuel economy.

MB 229.5 test requirements are very similar to the 229.3 tests, but a little bit longer and tighter, and they also introduce a series of bench test criteria. MB rates the 229.5 oils for 25k to 50k km service, or about 1 - 3 years.

MB 229.51 seems to basically be the mid SAPs version of the 229.5, much as LL-04 is to LL-01.

My view is that unless you've got an engine that specifically needs the LL-04 or 229.51 qualities, you may be better off without them.

As for the Amsoil 5W-40 in particular, I think that is a very interesting example of the benefits of UOA's. Their 5W-40 begins life at the highish end of the BMW viscosity range with a Kv100 of 13.7. The highest known approved LL-01 is 14.1 and the highest LL-04 is 14.5.

I've found two VOA reports on this oil, one gives the Kv100 as 13.6, the other as 15. In 3 UOA's though at 9000 to 11000 miles, the Kv100's are reported as 15.8, 16.0, and a whopping 21.1. So it appears that this oil thickens during use. Consequently, even though it starts out within the BMW approved range, it doesn't seem to stay there.

As aside, I think this is also one of those cases where you have to pay attention to fine print of the claim. I believe they state that the oil meets the requirements, but do not claim that it has actually been submitted, tested, and approved.

I do think Amsoil has some fine products, it just seems to me that none of them are particularly good matches for the modern BMW engines.

 

[shortyb]

Originally Posted By: JAG
Do you know any details on the requirements of the upcoming turbo engine LL oil spec? How soon is "very soon"? Thanks.


One detail has to do with fuel dilution. Forced induction + Direct Injection are making for some concerns (!). Another is for the diesel crowd and how to deal with sulphur, even the newer
ULS diesel recently introduced here.

How soon? Well its anybody's guess at this point but I would say sometime after the ACEA tweaks it's rating standards sometime this year. LL-XX will follow lock-step with the changes just as it did with LL-01. Partly a cost saving effort, partly to have a compatible standard. Stay tuned.

 

[srl1104]

Originally Posted By: jpr


I do think Amsoil has some fine products, it just seems to me that none of them are particularly good matches for the modern BMW engines.


I agree. I really like Amsoil and would like to run it in my M54. I was curious about their Series 3000 HDD 5W-30. It's KV100 is 11.4 which is maybe a little too thin but on the other hand it is spec'd for vehicles requiring 15W-40 and seems to do pretty good. From what you said, Amsoil tends to thicken over time, so maybe thats a good starting point for a long OCI?

 

[jpr]

I hadn't really looked at that one before, only the SSO, AFL, and ASL because that's what the amsoil "online product application guide" spit out as options.

Looking at the specs of the HDD, it seems like you've got the exact opposite problem as the AFL. In this case, the oils starts out at the extreme low end of the scale with the Kv100 of 11.4 and Kv40 of 64.6. The mimumums I've seen for any known approved oils are 11.3 and 63.6. The problem of being at the extreme low end like that is you've got little in the way of buffer in case that oil thins instead of thickens.

Also, by way of general principle, I wouldn't feel comfortable depending upon an oil to thicken as I tend to think of in service viscosity changes as a bug rather than a feature. After all, how often have you seen people or manufacturer's make the claim that their oil is better because it thickens (or thins) during use?

It may very well be a fine oil and perfectly satisfactory for use in the M54, but with so many other known good options out there, why take a chance?