lkchris

Oh great, a WalMart solution for a Mercedes!

Bottom line is if 229.51 or 229.52 is not PRINTED ON THE BOTTLE, the oil is not suitable for the OM642.

Things that Fiat Chrysler does are irrelevant to Mercedes.

kombifan

daniel Allen

I just noticed my case of “Genuine Mercedes”. which is about a year old says.52. And yet the last oil change I did I put the ESP O-30. .51. It is a nagging little issue. Glad I found this article. TY

alx

This is not an official mb- approved statement, but you guys are clutching at straws it really doesn’t matter what you run as long as it loosely fits in the 5-40 viscosity bracket and is low ash. I have yet to see a failure that was traced to the engine oil quality. Just my two kitchen cents

DennisG01

Hey, I'm not even allowed in the kitchen... so I have no money to offer!

Sveina

Here we have alot of uncertain information about motor oils.

To correct it:
Mercedes-Benz approval 229.3 is a longlife full-SAPs, high-HTHS-viscosity oil for petrol engines without GPF and old diesel engines without DPF.
Mercedes-Benz approval 229.31 is a longlife medium-SAPs, high-HTHS-viscosity oil for diesel engines with DPF and petrol engines with GPF.
Mercedes-Benz approval 229.5 is a longlife full-SAPs, high-HTHS-viscosity oil for petrol engines without GPF and old diesel engines without DPF, with higher demands than in 229.3, and can be used instead of 229.3
Mercedes-Benz approval 229.51 is a longlife medium-SAPs, high-HTHS-viscosity oil for diesel engines with DPF and petrol engines with GPF, with higher demands than in 229.31, and can be used instead of 229.31, but can't be used instead of 229.52.
Mercedes-Benz approval 229.52 is a longlife medium-SAPs, high-HTHS-viscosity oil for diesel engines with DPF and petrol engines with GPF, with some stricter parameters on a couple of points (not many) than 229.51. Nearly the same. 229.52 is better for LSPI prone direct-injection petrol turbo engines, with high BMEP. Can be used instead of 229.51.
Mercedes-Benz approval 229.6 and higher decimal is medium-HTHS-viscosity oils, and can't be used instead of 229.5 229.51 or 229.52.
Mercedes-Benz approval 229.71 and higher decimal is low-to-medium-HTHS-viscosity oils, and can't be used instead of 229.5 229.51 or 229.52.
226.51 and 228.31 is not for GL's engines. Better options exist.

Note that I define low-, medium-, and full SAPs oils as ACEA defines them. Low SAP's is under 0,5, while most 229.51 oils is in the 0,7-0,8 range. It is hard to make an <0,5 SAPs oil good in wear and in the same time last for a longlife interval.

There is no need to look at kinematic viscosity grade of the oil you are using, as long as it has a correct Mercedes-Benz approval and correct number for your car, the viscosity is then right for what MB speced.

The correct way to write an Mercedes Benz-approval is the way I wrote above. MB 229.51 or just 229.51 for example means it is not approved by MB. All approved oils is to be found on MBs BeVo list.

gone gone gone

Castrol Edge C3, Castrol Edge LL, and Pennzoil Platinum L are cheap at Walmart and on the official MB approval list at
https://bevo.mercedes-benz.com/bevolistenmain.php?navigation_path=bevolisten&lang uage_id=1&blatt=228.51&content_action=show&mark=au to&suchbegriff=auto

No need to pay boutique prices for good oil that is officially recognized. The BEVO list has so many brands it is dizzying. Yeah, my engine sticker says MB recommends Mobil 1, but the original BEVO list, still available at US FCC.Gov states that Fuchs Titan was the original factory fill. And in the UK dealers are using Castrol and Shell. Petronis and LUK in other parts of Europe, and even Chinese Sinopec oil in Asia. MB tested, MB approved.
I want to try Astro Boy X-PRO G from Hong Kong just to say I have it in my car. It is MB approved!!!

DennisGo1,
Your 2008 GL, like my 2008 E320, was spec'd for 228.51, 229.31, and 229.51. 229.52 was introduced with the ADBLUE fluid later. MB says you can run the spec in the manual when your car was made, or use 229,52 if you want.

lkchris

Gee guy, 228.51 is not the same as 229.52.

https://www.mbdirectparts.com/oem-pa...0989800211bmeu

228.51 is not approved for USA OM642

https://bevo.mercedes-benz.com/d/d/en/Spec_223_2.pdf

gone gone gone

229.51 is approved for everything but the the ML owners who never change their oil.

lkchris

229.51 is now obsolete, replaced by 229.52

228.51 is not approved for USA OM642

gone gone gone

Reread the link you yourself posted. You are passing false information. Or perhaps you don't understand the codes.

348SStb

This is an excellent post. Thanks!

A few questions in consideration of my 2017 AMG SL63 (model R231, engine M157 twin turbo):

1) When mentioning 229.51, you do not say if it can be used to replace 229.5. Is the 229.51 compatible with this AMG gasoline twin-turbo engine requiring 229.5?
2) If yes to (1), is the 229.51 a better choice?
3) With regard to 229.52, same questions: (a) Is 229.52 compatible with engines requiring 229.5? (b) Would 229.52 be a better choice than 229.51 on this AMG gasoline twin-turbo engine requiring 229.5?

3) In my 2017 AMG SL63, I have been using the Mercedes-brand Mobil1 5w-40 229.5-spec here in the USA. The car has 27k miles now without any engine issues, smoke, etc — but the engine drinks the Mobil1 oil and I’m tired of it. Excessive oil consumption. I’ve put together a list of brands available here that carry the 229.5 spec. Some of these brands also carry 229.51 in a different variant. Does any of these brands (perhaps more than one) jump out at you as having a lower volatility — e.g., less susceptible to vapor rising and causing the need to add oil?

1) Castrol
2) Fuchs/Pento*
3) Liqui Moly*#
4) Motul*#
5) Pennzoil
6) Quaker State
7) Shell
8) Valvoline

* denotes the brand also offers 229.51 variant
# denotes the brand also offers 229.52 variant

(AMSOIL and Kendall carry the 229.51 but do not offer a 229.5 oil)

Max Blast

Nothing better than a zombie oil thread

BlownV8

This one is not so bad. I like the ones where someone lists something for sale like 10 years ago and someone asks if it is still available.

eric_in_sd

Sveina

1.
There is not much difference between 229.5 and 229.51. The big difference is the lower amount of calcium and magnesium which is required in 229.51. That makes the TBN (Total Base Number) lower in the oil than 229.5. A higher start-TBN does not always mean better TBN retention during the oil change interval time. Living in Florida these days, you will have ultra low sulfur gasoline available, alltho some batches can be over the limit, it would not be a problem. That mean that your TBN probably will not suffer greatly. For very long oil change intervals, 229.5 would the be the preferred choice, but for normal intervals that 229.51 will suffice. So I wouldn't consider 229.51 to be out of the question because of TBN. Magnesium and calcium will also act as detergent/dispersant, and it would be a lower amount of it in the 229.51 than 229.5, but it is unlikely that it would have a big negative impact on your car, specially in not-long-oil-change-intervals. Extended interval for me would be >20.000 km. Normal like 10.000 km.

Another significant difference between 229.5 and 229.51 is the ash level in the oil. 229.5 do have high ash levels, while 229.51 have medium (per ACEA definitions). That means that 229.51 could have half the ash level as 229.5 can have. This is mainly a concern for a particulate filter, which I am sure you don't have in that SL. Wear levels can increase with low ash levels, but that would first be significant when the ash level is half (0,4) of the usual 229.51 oil, which is near 0,8 usually. I wouldn't consider this as a problem either.

229.51 can also have a little bit less phosphorous than 229.5. That also can increase wear, but not significantly. Lower P will be better for your catalytic converter tho.

Conclusion I would run a 229.51 or even better 229.52 oil in your SL, in your case, with a low to normal oil change interval. 229.51 is not normally a replacement for 229.5, but I think it could be in your case. That doesn't mean others reading this should do it without a further educated assessment of it.

2.
It the 229.51 a better choice than 229.5. In your case, I would not think so, no. The only real upside is the lower amount of P, and you say that your car uses oil, which will fill up the catalytic converter faster, making you need to replace them faster. If that happens at 200.000 miles with 229.5 and 250.000 miles with 229.51, I wouldn't know, but I would not weight in the little lower amount of P to say 229.51 is better for your engine.

3.
Is 229.52 better than 229.51? Yes it is! It replaces the 229.51, and is even more stringent. Low speed pre ignition (LSPI) test included, and it is made to withstand ethanol in the fuel more. No real downsides. Is 229.52 better than 229.5 for your car? -Hard to say. I would not think either 229.51 or 229.52 is a bad choice for you, maybe equal in real life to 229.5 at not-extended drain intervals. I would take 229.52 over 229.51 tho.

Your last question about oil consumption.
How much oil does it use, on a 1000 km interval? What is much? All MB approved 229.5 oils should have <10% NOACK volatility, and 10% is a very good number. All MB approved 229.5 oils should also have a High Temp High Viscosity (HTHS) of minimum 3,5 cP, which is on the high side. No approval og spec require more. That mean it is a thick oil under load in the engine, HTHS represent the dynamic viscosity of temporary shear rates in the engine which is equal to what the rod and main cap bearings encounter. And a 5W-40 is on the thicker side of the 229.5 spec in kinematic viscosity.

M1 5W-40 is by some considered to be a less oil than M1 FS 0W-40, if you look at the ingredients from the API groups. But the 0W can have a higher NOACK and a lower HTHS than a 5W, if they are created with the same ingredients. To lower the NOACK to well under 10% you have to look at oils which have more API group 4 and 5 in them, as opposed to group 3 229.5 oils which will have NOACK nearer to 10%. And if looking at the all theoretical-not-possible-to-measure-with-todays-equipment HTFS (full shear) number, it is often favored oils with a low kinematic viscosity number at 100 degrees C when they have high HTHS. That would mean that a 5W-30 3,7 cP HTHS 229.5 oil is stouter than a 5W-40 3,5 cP 229.5 oil, even if the 5W-40 was a 3,7 cP oil. To achieve this usually needed is a lot more API group 4 oil, poly alpha olefin (PAO) – the real synthetic oil.

In USA I would guess that Red line Performance (not professional) and Amsoil signature series is readily available as heavy on group 4 and 5. Shell is usually heavy on the group 3+ GTL base. Motul I would guess is a high priced boutiqe oil in the US? I personally use Ravenol REP, but that is probably also higher in price in the US, even tho I hear some of the big online shops sells a lot of it in the US. I myself order straight from the Ravenol factory, so I am sure I don't get any counterfeit oil. I am not connected to Ravenol, just my preferrence. And the Ravenol REP 5W-30 has a higher HTFS than most (if not all) 5W-30s and 0W-40s. The full shear happens in cylinder liners, against the rings. M157 engine is known for scratches in the liners, which will cause oil consumption. So I would think a high HTFS oil would be good for reducing liner scratches. HTFS is not included in any MB approval. Only downside to a high HTFS oil would be the possibility of higher internal drag in the engine due to higher viscosity alone, so your fuel consumption can increase like 1-2%, but even that is not certain, as that could be lowered again with additional additives like titanium, boron, molybdenum disulfide, and tungsten to mention some of the non-organic ones.

Max Blast

It’s impressive how much marketing jargon has been spun on top of basic chemistry so that when I want to go by oil, I have to read through 38 reasons why the hydrocarbon Y is better than brand X hydrocarbon for your 225,000 mile engine on palliative care.

Sveina

You haven't, you just look up the approval sheet in your owners manual and go by that. Now when that doesn't work out, and 348SStb seems to have excessive oil consumption, science and additional knowledge is required to try to remedy problems. It is not marketing jargon, it is parameters from tests used in the approvals by MB themselves, to make the chosen motor oil suit best all things considered, to the specific engine. Feel free to not read posts that is not relevant for you.

eric_in_sd

I am grateful we have an expert on Science and Additional Knowledge in our midst.