Mort

I bought some MB Branded oil labelled Passenger Car Synthetic Engine Oil MB 229.5. The part number on the invoice is 000-989-83-01-CAA6 description 5W40 229.5. I was told by the parts person that it was a Shell-Petronas product. I was thinking I might use it so I sent away a sample for analysis including TBN (total base number). Now after seeing the results I am not so sure. Here is a copy of the VOA. Let me know what you think of this new offering by MB.

Jasonoff

http://jasonoff.iroque.com/C63AMG/MO...0114_PWP-1.pdf

Mort

Thanks for the edit Jason.

Jasonoff

NP

I'm interested to hear what Diabolis thinks about the results.

bhamg

The add pack looks fine but it's a "thin" 40 weight @100ºC, as thin as you're likely to find in the world of 229.5 oils. Is M-B trying to tell us something? I'd go with the M1 0W-40 instead.

Mort

Haha....me too but I think I already know.

Mort

"The add pack looks fine but it's a "thin" 40 weight @100ºC, as thin as you're likely to find in the world of 229.5 oils. Is M-B trying to tell us something? I'd go with the M1 0W-40 instead."

That is what I noticed as well and wondered at first if it was even a 40 weight. I checked the chart and at 100*C it is a 40 weight, but just, as you mentioned. I also wonder how long it will last as a 40 weight in use before it drops to a 30 weight oil.

I don't think M1 0W-40 lasts very long as a 40 weight in use before it drops to a 30 weight either. Maybe both these oils should be considered to be 30W oils to begin with.

bhamg

Yeah, between that and the unimpressive TBN one has to wonder about the advisability of using this oil for extended change intervals. Thanks for getting the test done, good info.

Diabolis

Assuming that the lab's machines are properly calibrated and accurate - it's not a very impressive or oustanding oil in any way. Looks similar to other low-SAPS 229.5 oils like the non-ESP Formula M with the higher zinc and phosphorus content. I don't see a sulfated ash % on the VOA, but with a TBN of 7.5 it's got to be pretty low. The 12.7 hot viscosity is what bugs me the most though - they're obviously going for a thinner, more fuel efficient and environmentally friendly base stock and adding some ZDDP to get the engine protection, but additives wear out over time. The Formula M 5W40 had a 13.2 hot viscosty; M1 0W40 has a 13.5 hot and 75 cold (so thinner when needed), plus a TBN of 11.8. Can't beat it. It's still the only fully synthetic that exceeds 229.5 by a mile.

And, I am somewhat confused by the "developed by Shell and Petronas" statement. Aside from a joint agreement for oil extraction from two offshore rigs off Sarawak and Sabah in Malaysia, AFAIK the two companies have nothing to do with each other. Why the two of them would collaborate on producing a semi-synthetic lubricant is a complete mystery assuming that it's true, especially seeing as they both have their own 229.5 oil that's roughly in the same category as this.

Stick with M1 0W40. You'll burn a litte more of it at startup and have to top it up more often, but at the end of the day a thinner oil when cold is a good thing for your motor.

QWKSNKE

Just to be clear, this analysis is based on a brand new quart of oil, correct? I wonder if you picked up another 2 qts and sent a sample from each, if the results would be the same or if there are a lot of variances between containers.

What is rating range of the hot cst of a 30w? 10-12?

QWKSNKE

Diabolis,
Although I have never personally done this, would mixing oils gain anything in regards to increasing the viscosity?
Say, you are limited to what 229.5 oils you can obtain in your region and you are stuck with a oil such as this that the viscosity is on the low range of a 40 weight. Could you (in theory) customize your oil with 5 qts of this low viscosity and 4 qts of a oil rated at a little higher viscosity (13.5-14.0) to bring up the total a bit?

Diabolis

Yup - Mort sent out a fresh sample so it's a VOA (Virgin Oil Analysis) as opposed to UOA (Used Oil Analysis).

There would be no measurable sample-to-sample variations between two batches of oil unless the manufacturer changes the oil spec on purpose. Any differences you may see between samples would be due to the error of the analyzer at the lab, not the oil itself. The analyzers are not always properly calibrated - I've seen as much as 20% difference in some of the measured values from the same sample sent to two different labs. If you use the same lab for a VOA and then a UOA though, the results are going to be consistent unless they change their equipment in the meantime.

30-weight oil is going be somewhere from 9.5 - 12 cSt at 100 C.

Diabolis

It depends on many factors, but mixing it at the end-user level is actually a bad idea for a number of reasons. See http://www.machinerylubrication.com/...bricating-oils for a much more thorough explanation. That's not to say that if you're down a quart or two and you get a low oil warning that you shouldn't top it up with something else (the damage to your motor due to insufficient oil will be much greter than from mixing two different kinds of oil), but once you do mix them, the resulting mixture usually ends up performing WORSE than either one would on its own. This is particularly true if you mix a pure synthetic with something that may contian mineral base stock, as the mineral base stock oxidizes faster than the synthetic and produces byproducts that act as catalysts and cause the sythetic to break down, which in turn creates byproducts that are even more acidic than either oil could ever be on its own. In other words, mixing, say, M1 0W30 (which AFAIK does contain some hydrocracked mineral base stock) with M1 0W40 (pure synthetic stock) may over time make the resulting mixture much worse than either oil would be on its own. There have been "synthetic" oils in the past known to eat soft metals, so this is definitley somethign to keep in mind. If you end up topping up the oil with something OTHER than what is already in the crankcase, to be on the safe side you need to change the oil within a thousand miles or so as it may turn too acidic after that. So - don't mix your own brew.

And, keep in mind that most modern engines are designed to work with thinner oils. M1 0W40 has a cSt of 13.5 at 100 C, which is about as thick as you'd ever want to go in an M156 motor. A higher hot viscosity (thicker) oil will not flow as easily and thus properly lubricate and cool the engine internals.

jvanbrecht

I change my oil somewhat regularly, I might try this new crap and then send in for analysis.. problem is, I am going around 100 miles or less weekly, so it would be a while before I get to the 5k mark where I usually change oil. (parked at the airport 4 or 5 days a week, and then using wifes car on weekends for family anything)

stratman

Mort, Thanks for posting this. Is this the oil that supposedly is replacing the M1 5w-40w that the dealerships used but is now unavailable?


Diabolis, great explanation as to why mixing oils is no Bueno. However, would topping up with M1 0w-40w when the last oil change used M1 5w-40w result in the same issues? Reason I ask is that the M1 0w-40w is all I can find at the parts store and after your explanation I don't want to mix with the "new" oil from the dealership.

Mort

Yes this is the MB Branded 5W40 that MB now sells under spec 229.5 and is listed in Bevo http://bevo.mercedes-benz.com/bevoli...nt_action=show. M1 5W40 Formula M is no longer available but M1 0W40 is still available.

Diabolis

I can't say for sure, but it would stand to reason that M1 would use the same PAO & ester synthetic base stock formulations for all of the xW40 oils and then add some degree of group III hydrocracked mineral base stock to some of the formulations (engineered so that it doesn't break down their own PAO & ester molecules), so adding M1 0W40 would probably be the safest option if you currently have Formula M 5W40 in your car.

Diabolis

I am curious about that 0W40 AMG High Performance Engine Oil listed on BEVO. Anyone ever seen that stuff on their dealer shelves?

Mort

I used the MB 229.5 5W40 oil for an interval in our GLK 350. Here is a UOA for that interval. It is the top line of the report. The other lines are all for Total Quartz 9000 5W40.

The raw data all seems to be reasonable and the engine seems to be protected from wear. The oil suffers from viscosity breakdown as did the Total Quartz and Fuel % in the oil remains a problem. It looks like the Total Quartz may fair a little better in regards to viscosity breakdown. These 5W40 oils seem to break down to a 0W30 in relatively short time and distance. Not really experienced enough to rate this oil's performance but it looks pretty average to me.




Here is an UOA from another lab on the factory fill on the GLK which is Mobil 1 0W40 as far as I know.

BLKROKT

V@100C looks similar to the M1, no?

Calcium is off the charts and Magnesium is next to nothing. Don't know if I like that.

Diabolis to chime in at any time now...

Diabolis

First chart - viscosity breakdown on the M1 5W-40 is about normal or perhaps slightly better than average. What sets it apart from the Total is the high Moly content, so in terms of anti-wear characteristics it is better than the Total and you can see a corresponding decrease in the contaminants and wear metals present (Al, Fe and Cu are the main ones you should be looking at seeing as most engine bits these days are made of aluminum alloys, steel or brass). VI breakdown is about average for M1 5W-40 as it contains some group III base stocks.

If the bottom chart is in fact M1 0W-40 (it certainly isn't 15W-40 as labelled - and if it was factory fill on the GLK 350, I suspect it's 5W-30 in which case the viscosity numbers aren't off), either the lab equipment calibration is off (cold / hot of 63 / 11.5 cSt is as low as I've ever seen for M1 0W40 - it normally stays around 70 / 12 even well past 10K miles in a reasonably healthy engine), or has dropped that low because of excessive fuel dilution by a sick engine, which incidentally appears to be the case here as the Fe and especially Cu content are both very high for a healthy motor. I've only seen that much copper with early batches of Royal Purple that became known for eating brass sleeves and synchro rings. And, the 290 F flash point also seems to point to an engine problem - it should be somewhere in the 375-425 F range and stay there, whereas this particular batch has been severely diluted by something a lot more combustible like gasoline.

If the car that the second UOA came from is yours, I would suggest that the time to trade it in is now.

Mort

Thanks Diabolis. The car was a leased 2011 GLK 350. We turned it back to MB recently for a 2015 GLA 250. Will see how we make out with it. My experience with Mobil 1 never has seemed to live up to your respect for it. Also the guy that I used to work with on evaluating my UOAs was not a fan of Mobil 1. I am going to use the MB Spec 229.5 for a while to see how I do with it. At least it is approved by MB. Finding anything but run of the mill oil here is difficult and ends up costing a lot to source and ship in.

Diabolis

Hi Mort,

I am only a fan of the M1 0W-40 and specifically as it pertains to the needs of the M156 engine. The rest of Exxon Mobil's oils are not really any better than the competition.

The first UOA appears to be from a healthy car, and while Exxon Mobil does use more Moly across their range, it has other issues (like degrading to a lower viscosity which is characteristic of everything that uses a fair bit of group III hydrocracked base stock).

The second car appears to have some issues. There's way too much engine wear, and an oil on which the flashpoint has been reduced to 290 F (143 C) is IMHO certainly a reason for concern (seeing as C63s for example ofteen see OVERALL oil temps in the 260 F degree range and there are hotter hot spots inside the engine itself; and just imagine if the car in question was a turbo of some sort and that oil also had to lubricate the turbo bearing) - that mixture can spontaneously combust. It's not a reflection of the oil itself but rather the state of the engine. Glad you traded it in.

Cheers,
Doug

layzie12g

Your on some next level stuff with the oil analysis. It was good reading.

zibby43

I just had my Service B completed today. I'm fortunate in the sense that my Service Adviser is also a genuine enthusiast. The service department employees, including the technicians, understand that I meticulously maintain my cars so they're very honest and transparent whenever it comes to service. The Service B can get a little pricey but since my HVAC filter and brake fluid were in outstanding condition, I only had to pony up for the oil change (the general, multi-point inspection was complimentary).

For my Service B oil/filter change, the dealer used the "new" MB 5W-40 (Spec 229.5) oil. My '13 C63 has roughly 8,100 miles on it. Last oil change was a year ago (Service A; car had roughly 4,000 miles). I'll have to look at my paperwork but I believe I received the same MB-branded oil during my last change as well. For the 4k miles I utilized it, the car ran great and my oil temps were stable.

I'm not running my oil for extended intervals (obviously) but so far, the MB oil has performed adequately.

That said, I'd be happy to send a sample to Blackstone Labs in Ft. Wayne in order to contribute additional data for the community.