When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
In the text it says euro car formula (NA only) protection rest of world
As was said euro formula is a NA marketing thing
It is the base mobil 1 0w40 and complies with 229.3 and .5
Imho hard to find better
Yeah, it just din't specify in the 229.3 list. I guess safe to assume any Mobil 1 0W40 is the same formula across the board.
This solution for the "ticking" issue (oil draining off components) was suggested by AMG in the PL --> (click for the post).
Originally Posted by AMG Information
Dear Jerryvan,
Thank you very much for your post. This occurs as the automotive fluid standards have changed in the meantime (in May 2008).
In general, the following fluids should be used for AMG engines :
- Mobil 1 5W-40 for M156 engine (63er models)
- Mobil 1 0W-40 all other AMG engines (as well the AMG diesel engines that was used for the C 30 AMG)
- Mobil 1 5W-50 SLR engine
Before that change, the Mobil 1 0W-40 was used for the 63 models as well.
In case you missed the part of the sentece that reads "This occurs as the automotive fluid standards have changed in the meantime" - what they are saying is "we can now get away with using more environmentaly friendly oils in the M156 (because of API and Euro efficiency and emissions requirements), not "the 5W40 is somehow better for the M156 motor than a 0W40". Yes, you will burn less oil at startup with the 5W40 that the 0W40, but do you really want to save $8 or whatever a quart/litre costs every 1500 miles or so at the expense of more wear on the engine?
And, no pupose built track car that I know of has ever used a 5W40 oil, simply because it is both too thin at the top (with a low HTHS) and because I have never seen a 5W40 that has the SAPS content required by a racing motor.
In case you missed the part of the sentece that reads "This occurs as the automotive fluid standards have changed in the meantime" - what they are saying is "we can now get away with using more environmentaly friendly oils in the M156 (because of API and Euro efficiency and emissions requirements), not "the 5W40 is somehow better for the M156 motor than a 0W40". Yes, you will burn less oil at startup with the 5W40 that the 0W40, but do you really want to save $8 or whatever a quart/litre costs every 1500 miles or so at the expense of more wear on the engine?
And, no pupose built track car that I know of has ever used a 5W40 oil, simply because it is both too thin at the top (with a low HTHS) and because I have never seen a 5W40 that has the SAPS content required by a racing motor.
The recommendation to use 5W40 came out as a solution to the occasional valve bucket ticking. Not about burning less oil on startup.
The recommendation to use 5W40 came out as a solution to the occasional valve bucket ticking. Not about burning less oil on startup.
... which only masks the symptoms with the worn valve buckets / lifters / cams. It would tick even less if you put 15W50 in it. The MB engineers made a small oversight by using flat tappets iin the original design of the engine, so the purpose of the thicker oil is to mask the excessive wear symptoms while the cars are still under warranty so MB doesn't have to service the heads out of their own pocket. On the engines that were serviced under warranty, MB ended up putting in the M159 (SLS) buckets, which now superseed the oringinal parts.
Last edited by Diabolis; Nov 12, 2014 at 03:58 PM.
Also to add no one mentioned the oil was being used in a purpose built track car
Just standard AMG models that are being used on MB Brooklands purpose built track is what was said
My apologies - it appears that I misinterpreted your post. The AMG Driving Academy here in Canda uses Mobil 1 0W40. And, keep in mind that your gas (petrol) is a LOT cleaner than the crud that comes out of our pumps here, so you have a lot less garbage to neutralize in the sump.
The recommendation to use 5W40 came out as a solution to the occasional valve bucket ticking. Not about burning less oil on startup.
And anecdotally 5W-40 seems to solve that problem from what I have read here. Logically, maybe it really shouldn't but as long as it does definitely use it IMO. In the end personally I'm not particularly dogmatic about what I use in this motor because looking at the list of 229.5-approved oils there are probably 6-8 on that list that I wouldn't hesitate to use. I prefer a oil of German/French origin because of the "100% synthetic" (Group IV & V) vs "synthetic technology" (Group III blend) differentiation used there, but I'm using PU Euro in a BMW M and would have no problem whatsoever using it in the M156.
And anecdotally 5W-40 seems to solve that problem from what I have read here. Logically, maybe it really shouldn't but as long as it does definitely use it IMO. In the end personally I'm not particularly dogmatic about what I use in this motor because looking at the list of 229.5-approved oils there are probably 6-8 on that list that I wouldn't hesitate to use. I prefer a oil of German/French origin because of the "100% synthetic" (Group IV & V) vs "synthetic technology" (Group III blend) differentiation used there, but I'm using PU Euro in a BMW M and would have no problem whatsoever using it in the M156.
Read my second last post (two up from yours). What the 5W40 solves is MB's cash flow problem if they have to replace the valves / lifters / buckets under warranty.
The Pennzoil Ultra 5W40 is one of the better oils for the M156 and I would certainly recommend it - if you never have to start your motor at -30C. If you do, then a M1 0W40 is a better choice. They're both full SAPS oils and also meet the earlier MB 229.3 "better-protection-for-your-engine" spec as well as the current 229.5.
The beter the oil, the HIGHER the VI - not the other way around. And, IIRC Castrol was the first company to try to sneak one past everyone by calling their oil synthetic when it was in fact 100% hydrocracked dino juice. Things made from gasoline usually ignite at lower temperatures hence the lower flashpoint. Castrol has made some pretty good oils in the past, prior to the BP takeover - like the TWS 10W60 (now that was about as good as oils could get) - but since then it has IMHO gone downhill.
P.S. The 40C viscosity of 82.6 and a -42C pour point means it's almost like Vaseline at low temperatures (in fact, if you live in certian parts of Saskatchewan or Alberta, it WILL become just like Vaseline - petroleum jelly for the uninititated). Low flash point and very thick when cold. What does that tell you about the base stock?
Anyway... I too am done comparing spec sheets. May you all use whatever brand it is you like in good health for many, many trouble-free miles.
Last edited by Diabolis; Nov 12, 2014 at 08:06 PM.
The beter the oil, the HIGHER the VI - not the other way around. And, IIRC Castrol was the first company to try to sneak one past everyone by calling their oil synthetic when it was in fact 100% hydrocracked dino juice. Things made from gasoline usually ignite at lower temperatures hence the lower flashpoint. Castrol has made some pretty good oils in the past, prior to the BP takeover - like the TWS 10W60 (now that was about as good as oils could get) - but since then it has IMHO gone downhill.
Was this comment for my edification? I made a point of not commenting on anything but tested ZDDP levels and API certification. But I agree since we're now on the topic, that the chances are very high that this uses a Group III base stock.
Was this comment for my edification? I made a point of not commenting on anything but tested ZDDP levels and API certification. But I agree since we're now on the topic, that the chances are very high that this uses a Group III base stock.
Broke my promise already.
Nope - it was Jasonoff that was asking about the Castrol. Broke my promise too.
Sure - back in 2007, as an answer to the question "why did the dealership put Formula M 5W40 in my car when the manual says use 0W40". The official's answer was because "the automotive fluid standards have changed in the meantime" as I pointed out earlier. Those would be the automotive fluid standards as imposed by the ACEA in Europe and the API in the US. Read the thread you linked in your post. It has nothing to do with what is better for the engine but rather the environment, with the added benefit that the oil is thicker when cold so it doesn't burn off as much. No other official has ever gone on the record stating anythign of the sort. Furthermore, if we are to believe everything various "officials" say as gospel, then the MB dealerships here in North America are putting unapproved oil in the cars they sell. You keep beating a dead horse here.
P.S. Sorry - that's 2008, not 2007. And, you will also notice that he is specifically talking about the dealerships putting in Mobil 1 oil, not *ALL* 5W40 oils. As for the ACEA 2008 standars, the following three paragraphs are taken from an oil producer's paper:
ACEA 2008: Will you have the right oils?
Changes in the ACEA Oil Sequences typically follow changes in
European emissions legislation. The most recent example of this
was the introduction of requirements for catalyst-compatible
engine oils with ACEA 2004. This followed a change in
emissions legislation (Euro 4 for passenger cars and Euro IV for
heavy-duty vehicles) that required such large reductions in the
permitted tailpipe emissions that it triggered the introduction of
new, advanced after-treatment systems. In response, new OEM
specifications and ACEA oil sequences were introduced that
significantly restricted the levels of sulphated ash, phosphorus
and sulphur (SAPS) that could be present in engine oil. The
result was a fundamental change in engine oil formulation: the
development of high-performance, lower SAPS oils.
Why ACEA 2008?
Although in 2007 we saw a slight upgrade to ACEA’s
requirements, it does not compare to the far greater
upgrade expected in 2008. Not only is new emissions
legislation coming into force (Euro 5/Euro V), but also
the fuel used by vehicles is changing as biofuel usage
increases throughout Europe. With over 70% of vehicles
on the road in Europe less than 10 years old and
meeting Euro 3/Euro III or newer, ACEA’s 2008 performance
baseline will be increased to ensure that the right oils are
available for these older vehicles.
ACEA 2008 is expected to demand higher performance from
passenger car and light- and heavy-duty vehicle engine oils in
such areas as after-treatment protection, fuel economy and
durability.
So - does this conclusively explain what those "2008 automotive fluid standards" are and what those changes are? It's about emissions and fuel efficiency, not what offers better protection for your engine.
Last edited by Diabolis; Nov 13, 2014 at 12:10 AM.
There is a very cool interactive site at http://www.lubrizol.com/apps/relperftool/pc.html where you can select any of the particular ACEA, API and manufacturer oil specs (yes, they even have all of the MB oil specs like 229.3, .5, .51, .52) and see how they compare on a 7-axis graph with items like Piston Deposits, Sludge, Wear, Aftertreatment Compatibility (that would be tailpipe emissions), Fuel Economy, etc. as well as the HTHS, S, A and PS (the SAPS additives) that are allowed. It is certainly a very interesting tool if you want to compare the different oil standards and what they are really about. The following graphs compares the the Porsche A40 requirement (which the Mobil 1 0W40 exceeds) vs. the 2009 MB 229.51 requrement (that would be the Formula M 5W40 that the AMG official was talking about in the PL post):
Which spec looks better to you in terms of engine wear? The oil that meets the Porsche P40 spec or the one that meets the MB 229.51 spec?
I wish someone could compile all the data for various specific oils and do exatly the same, in which case we would not be having this discussion - and would likely put 80% of the engine oil manufactureres out of business if you could objectively compare specific oils in all of those areas instead of the specific standards. Keep in mind that the comparisons are relative, not absolute - in other words, it shows how much importance the standard places on engine wear vs. fuel economy for example, Now, can someone find me an oil that meets the old VW 503.01 spec (unfortunately now superseded by the VW 502/505 garbage) and MB 229.5 and is 0W40 or 5W40 in North America?
Last edited by Diabolis; Nov 13, 2014 at 01:26 AM.
Did you take a look at the list of approved oils on the A40 list? Over 90% of them are 5w40 (vs ~9% 0w40). Just saying.
The 5w40 isn't a bandaid on an old wound (older cars with worn lifters), as you're suggesting. I picked up my '12 coupe new (Euro Delivery). I had the oil changed early to get rid of any "sediment" that May have accumulated during break in. I forget if I had it done at the same time as the differential fluid (~2k miles) or later, around 3k. Anyways, directly after the oil change I was getting the lifter tick. I read on here about the change to 5w40 and how it resolves the "tick". Called the dealer, they used 0w40. I took it back and they put in 5w40 (and noted their techs error in using the 0w40). No tick with 5w40.
My lifters weren't "old and worn", the car only had a couple thousand miles on it, and the tick had never happened until the 0w40 oil change.
Even the guys at Weistec have acknowledged 5w40 as the fix.
Regarding Mobil 1 5w40 ESP M, Mobil's site says it's been discontinued and being replaced by a 0w30.
I'm running RP 5w40. Thinking of trying Redline 0w40 next go around. It's got higher viscosity at 40C than M1 0w (closer to M1 5w), higher at 100C, higher FP, greater VI, etc.
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Slideshow: A one-of-one U.S.-spec Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren Roadster became even rarer after a factory-backed transformation at McLaren's headquarters.
