Mine is just under 750

 

Found an old pic of the dash. This was the idle after tune.

 

This looks same as mine after delete, but mine RPM before delete was lower.

BEFORE DELETE:


AFTER DELETE:

 

One more thing. When I start the car I have correct RPM. But once I rev, or start moving the rpm will increase and never come back to normal until I restart the car.
See video below:

 

^^Exactly the same as mine! I just got into the habit of revving it right after I start it. Kinda sounds better at 750RPM.. Sounds like a truck.

 

Hey Guys,

I have two questions (think on this topic):
1. I have been looking for a diesel GL for a bit, and have been focusing on the CDI models only because I want that spare tire! With the removal of the bluetec components, are you able to add the spare in the trunk like in the CDI? That would certainly expand my horizons and allow me to get a more feature rich car.

2. Does Canada follow a similar "bin" rating on emissions? would I be shooting myself in the foot if I got, say a 2011-2012 GL and removed this?
I see someone from Montreal did this, I am on the other side of the country in Victoria. My buddy told me that he knows someone that can do the mods locally.

 

Funny, you want to keep your spare, I've been running without on purpose since 2006 on all my vehicles except my FJ Cruiser. And that's simply because of the awesome look of an over-sized spare hanging off my tailgate. I like to leave the space empty for a toolbox, booster battery and a mag-fed shotty...

On my ML, deleting the Adblue has no effect on trunk subfloor room. Matter of fact, I believe our truck had a spare and jack which I took outta there from the start. The Adblue tank hangs on the outside. Might be different for a GL though....

 

Huh, my buddy had 2009 ML bluetec and he was missing the spare. I am pretty sure he told me that it was because there is no space due to the adblue.
Maybe I am silly, but I like to know that if i get a flat out on the logging roads, I can make it back to civilization (maybe there is a better way?). Of course your idea of booster battery is good too. I do not ride around with a gun under normal circumstances, and when I do, it is just in my trunk or back seat.... why put it under subfloor?

Anyway, if someone can confirm that they have a spare on a bluetec GL, that would be grand. Like I said, that would widen my search.

 

I just did the tune/delete on my GL a month ago and will be removing all hardware associated with it so will be able to answer the spare tire question. Most definetely the spare wheel room is taken by the AdBlue tank but from the way it looks like now removing the tank doesn't just give you space because the tank is actually plugging a hole in the floor of the vehicle...someone can correct me if I'm wrong but it looks like taking the tank out right now will just open a big hole in my trunk floor that will need to be plugged with something...

what are people doing about the exhaust though? I really don't feel like paying $1k for the delete downpipe so I was trying to figure out if a non-bluetec downpipe will be plug and play if I took out the bluetec hardware? I do want to to keep a cat converter but the DPF can go now that it's no longer being cleaned out...the alternative is to have somebody make a pipe from scratch but I lost my good exhaust guy last year

 

I had somebody remove the DPF, and remove all the innards and put it back in. took about 4 hours, and had to buy a couple of new exhaust clamps. First time doing it so had to figure out how to get it out etc.. 2nd time would probably shave an hour or more off that time.

 

Hey, i'm also removing DPF on my 09GL320 Bluetec (which seems to be the same to 10 GL350) sometime next month. Looks like delete pipe is gonna run $800 which is kinda pricey. So i was thinking of cutting the DPF open and removing all the guts myself. I was told different things about how to do it right. From what i understood there's a cat and DPF stuck together in one "can" is that right? Someone suggested to just remove the DPF cartridge and leave the cat cartridge alone and also remove all the guts from scr pipe. Any thoughts?

 

I have to add this information just because there isn’t a lot out there.

I own a 2013 w212 om642 e350 250xxxkm and did the same thing you did. Mine didn’t start off as well as yours did and I had ecuprogram out of Calgary help me out to tune the car over obd2 which bricked my ecu. No big deal after sending them the ecu a couple times we got the car running again and pretty much tuned (returned my money for the obd tuner and bench flashed the ecu instead). I got the swirl flaps turned off which gave the car a much smoother idle and turned off the egr (left installed/unplugged) scr system (removed all fuses and never had the count down) and the dpf (so I thought). First start was rough but that’s fine it happens and like you said when driving the transmission hates it but after a couple dozen starts and a disconnection of the battery a couple times it seems to be fine, probably relearning itself. I currently have a check engine light which is a few egr codes which need to be removed but no big deal. Over the holidays I decided to chop the exhaust and straight pipe it which means I removed the resonators, scr pipe, dpf, and the cat which was not fun. Now that the dpf is fully removed I unplugged the differential pressure sensor which should have turned off the regen but still does after about 20 mins of driving. The exhaust note is great it’s a little louder then stock with no drone but you can really hear the vgt turbo when driving at low speeds. When it regens it smokes and smells like raw fuel (no **** right) and the exhaust note deepens but I hope to send the ecu back to get the cel egr codes deleted and regen removed. When it’s not in regen and acting like it should it smells like an old 7.3 Ford it’s not bad but noticeable. After that everything should be fine I wish I had done this a long time ago. I recommend having a back up car for a while if you run into issues like I did and just send them the ecu its a lot easier.

I have a video of the exhaust sound and picture of the exhaust if anyone wants to see it. The exhaust isn’t special just steel welded to stainless with a mig and painted so it won’t rust.

 

My 2010 gl350 is getting the same treatment. Just sent off my ecu for malone tuning to delete the dpf, adblue, egr and swirl flaps
​​​​
I have a question as to what needs to be disconnected exactly. I still have to remove the dpf and hollow it out.

So, afaik, scr needs to be unplugged. Apparently some fuses removed for it as well.?

The sensors and lines on the dpf have to be removed.

Does the egr have to be unplugged as well? Does the swirl flap motor plug have to be unplugged as well?

So far, i only have a check engine light because my swirl flap motor failed. I installed a 4.7 ohm resistor, but my engine light remains for the position sensor codes i guess. At least its out of limp mode.

Thanks

 

My stuff is all still on the truck but disconnected. Again, if I had to do it all again, I would have asked the shop to gut the DPF rather than use my flanges. Maybe a bit more work, but nothing is evident from under the truck which is better.

 

As of now I haven’t removed any sensor or anything from the exhaust why? because what if one day I want to sell it I can’t cut out my pipes and weld all the emissions back in. Things I had to unplug egr which is in the back driver side of engine bay, scr stuff which is located in the trunk passenger side under the plastic paneling. There are 4 fuses and big lever style plug you must unplug. After the dpf is deleted I had to unplug the differential pressure sensor which is on the back of motor passenger side. That in theory should have turned off my regen which it didn’t so I’m sending it back. The swirl flaps I didn’t have to do anything they fail open so you can leave them plugged or or remove them. I hope to take the heads off one day and fully remove them.

If your getting someone to hollow out your cat/dpf/scr they must have a welder get them to cut the section out and keep it or scrap it they’re big $$$. Then get them to weld a new section in its 2.5” exhaust.

 

Thanks for the reply! That helps a bit.

So ill be undoing the scr stuff, egr and the swirl flap plug.

What else though? I found this page on a sprinter thread. Is this all true for my gl350?

I really wish they actually showed you the locations of everything!

 

I really just want to know exactly what and the location of everything that needs to be unplugged/removed.

ive been google searching for hours but theres a lot of different info, or incomplete info
​​​


is this the pressure sensor? It was behind the airbox.

Which harness plug has to be undone?

 

All of you are on the right track in getting rid of the DEF, I just want to throw something out there that might save you thousands that I just lost, My GL350 seized at 164K miles, be aware that if you ever get an injector issue and it has to do with injector leak down when vehicle is off, and it happens to go down the cylinder walls and into the crankcase, a simple oil change might not be enough, especially when Mercedes has destined this vehicle for failure with the suggested 10K mile oil change intervals.And by any means do not try engine flushes, that can be catastrophic if there is sludge already in there. I got mine with 120K on it and was always serviced at the dealer, at 10K mile of course, when I got it I started changing the oil at 5K miles, life was good, but I noticed that it never took the full 9 liters of oil it was supposed to take to fill, another sign of the devil lurking within, long story short after 7K in repairs consisting of both fuel pumps, and 2 sets of failed injectors from Autohaus Arizona, new injectors from Turkey bosh plant, RUN FROM THESE AS FAST AS YOU CAN!!!!! after finally replacing them with rebuilt injectors from the mercedes dealer, the problem was solved and car ran great for 250 miles, until I had to gun it to get out of a lunatics way coming out of a driveway, the pump sucked in some of the sludge that the diesel fuel loosened and I felt a slight hesitation like the engine was trying to quit, but it continued to run, the second time I gunned it, it was curtains for the engine, it seized, mechanic changed the oil and got it to turn once more after replacing battery and starter, but 20 seconds later froze again, the culprit was the dreaded front main bearing spun and seized the engine. sorry for the long post, but to anyone that loves these cars as much as I loved mine, and has done the oil changes at 10K miles, I strongly suggest dropping the oil pan and cleaning out the sludge before it cleans out your wallet.

 

Scary for sure. I just did an oil change and i think mine took about 8 liters of oil. I thought it looked like a bit less but im not sure.

It was dealer serviced all its life, and just looking from the oil cap, it looks a bit dirtier than my ml320 cdi which had its oil religiously changed at 5000kms.

I DO NOT believe in 10k miles, thats just insane. 5000-7000kms or less for me, even if synthetic.

Just did an oil change with 5w30 castrol with 229.51 spec. But after the deletes, im switiching to 5w40 shell rotella t6.

I was debating an engine flush, but decided against it.

​​​​​

 

​​​​​​

And what's special about the 5W40 Shell Rotella T6 ?

 

Nothing at all "special" about it. Ive been doing A LOT of research trying to find the best options for my 164.

Looked at oil types after doing the deletes. Lot of the jeep guys with our engine are running rotella.

Seems like a decent oil so thats what ill be using. Not that im picky.

 

That Rotella is a mediocre 40% film strength oil !

I go by manufacturer spec for better performance profile not brand or marketing on the packaging .

I use VW 504.00 507.00 .




anti wear is more to do with film strength and additive package than ZDDP and 507.00 gets it's film strength over 505.01 from actually having real synthetic group basestocks
4, PAO and 5, Esters , plus a higher concentration additive package .

And enough sacrificial zinc in there to last the distance as it's also a LongLife oil .


I've heard so much of late especially from America with DPF deletes giving the freedom of choosing a 'better' oil with more zinc .

And remembering a certain level of high zinc really messes things up suggesting more isn't better .

Also this noise about Shell Rottella...not !

Shame it's a bit old 2012 and hasn't that European oil list we're familiar with , but busts some misconceptions that is the world of oil and it's marketing .





"The amount of misinformation and misunderstanding about motor oil is absolutely mind boggling, even though the basic technology of motor oil is NOT Rocket Science. It is simply unbelievable how much COMPLETELY WRONG information is out there on the Internet and on the various Forums.

And of course once wrong information has been repeated countless times, it becomes fact as far as most people know, even though it is completely worthless. But, you really can't blame folks for not knowing any better. Because in addition to a ton of bad information being out there, motor oil advertising hype is often misleading or downright false, almost no one ever tests anything to know for sure what is true and what is not, aftermarket companies sell bogus oil additive products, including zinc additives, that only wreck an oil’s chemical properties, and any test data outside of the oil companies themselves, is virtually impossible to find ANYWHERE……………until now.

If you are interested in seeing the FACTS from real world independent and unbiased Engineering Test Data on motor oil, then the information below is for you. At the end of this write-up, I’ve also included a motor oil “Wear Test” ranking sheet for anyone to use, who might be interested. You can choose any oil from that list, and know exactly how it compares to other oils in terms of wear protection.

“THE” single most common misunderstanding about motor oil is that higher zinc levels provide better wear protection. That has been repeated over and over again so many times over the years, that people just assume it is correct. But the fact is, that thinking is COMPLETELY FALSE.

Zinc is used/sacrificed in very small quantities at time, so the total amount present in your oil does not change how much wear protection the oil provides, as long as you don't run out of zinc. “Lab Testing” and “Wear Testing” analysis proves/confirms that more zinc provides LONGER wear protection, NOT MORE wear protection.

An analogy for the zinc level in motor oil would be the amount of gas in your tank. Gas is also used in very small quantities at a time. So, if you have a quarter of a tank or a full tank, it does NOT change how much power your engine makes, as long as you don't run out of gas. More gas provides LONGER running time, NOT more power. It’s the same type of idea regarding the amount of zinc in motor oil.

Zinc is used as an extreme pressure, anti-wear additive. But, zinc “DOES NOT” build-up over time like some type of plating process. For those who have actually taken an engine apart that has been running high zinc oil, you know that you don’t find a build-up of zinc that looks like some sort of coating or sludge build-up. Zinc does NOT work that way. And zinc is not even a lubricant until heat and load are applied. Zinc is only used when there is actual metal to metal contact in the engine. At that point zinc must react with the heat and load to create the sacrificial film that allows it to protect flat-tappet camshafts and other highly loaded engine parts.

So, with zinc being sacrificial, it will become depleted over time as it is used up. This has been proven/confirmed by analysis of new and used oil lab test results. On top of that, earlier oil industry testing has found that above .14% or 1,400 ppm, ZDDP INCREASED long term wear, even though break-in wear was reduced. And it was also found that .20% or 2,000 ppm ZDDP started attacking the grain boundaries in the iron, resulting in camshaft spalling. There is such a thing as "too much of a good thing".

So, you really don’t want or need a ton of zinc. You simply need “enough” so that you don’t run out of it with your particular application, that’s all. And this is precisely the reason why the motor oil “wear testing” I’ve been performing, has ALWAYS shown that the level of zinc does NOT affect how well an oil can provide wear protection. I’ve had many HIGH zinc oils, as well as many modern LOW zinc oils, produce outstanding results in the wear testing. I’ve also had HIGH zinc oils as well as LOW zinc oils that produced only modest results in the wear testing.

And this brings us to the second most common misunderstanding about motor oil, which is that modern API certified motor oils cannot provide adequate wear protection for flat tappet cam lobe/lifter interfaces. This has also been repeated over and over again so many times over the years, that people just assume it is correct. But the fact is, that thinking is also COMPLETELY FALSE.

Wear protection is determined only by the base oil and its additive package “as a whole”, and NOT just by how much zinc is present. There is nothing magical or sacred about zinc. It is just one of a number of motor oil additive package components that can be used for extreme pressure anti-wear purposes. The other components that are typically Oil Company proprietary secrets, can be added to, or used in place of zinc. And most modern API SM and SN certified oils have shown in my wear testing to be quite good when it comes to providing wear protection, and have even EXCEEDED the protection provided by many high zinc oils.

So, modern low zinc oils CAN BE USED SAFELY with flat tappet cam setups, even in engines with radical cams and high spring pressures. Simply choose from the higher ranked oils on the list at the end of this write-up, and you'll be good to go. I know people who've been using modern low zinc oils in High Performance flat tappet set-ups for a long time, and they've had no issue at all.

Just looking at an oil’s spec sheet to see how much zinc is present, tells you ABOLUTLELY NOTHING about how well that oil can provide wear protection. To only look at the zinc level to try and predict an oil’s wear protection capability would be much like looking at your gas gauge to predict how much power your engine will make. That kind of thinking simply makes no sense at all. So, throw away that useless motor oil zinc quantity reference list. In other words, forget about zinc. The ONLY THING that matters, and the ONLY WAY to tell how well an oil can prevent wear, is to perform some type of dynamic WEAR TESTING that is done at representative temperatures. And that is exactly what I’ve done here.

The test equipment used here to perform this kind of testing, focuses on an oil’s “load carrying capacity or film strength”, and for good reason. THE single most CRITICAL capability of any motor oil is its film strength. Everything else it does for your engine comes AFTER that. Here’s why. When oil is down to a very thin film, it is the last line of defense against metal to metal contact and subsequent wear or damage. And oil film strength capability DIRECTLY APPLIES to flat tappet lobe/lifter interfaces, cam gear/distributor gear interfaces, mechanical fuel pump pushrod tip/cam eccentric interfaces and other highly loaded engine component interfaces. The higher an oil’s film strength, the better your engine is protected in these areas.

Oil film strength capability also DIRECTLY APPLIES to cold start-up conditions. In this case, only an oil film remains on most internal engine components, because most of the oil drained off after hot shut down. And it’s no secret that nearly all wear occurs during start-up when there can be a couple of seconds or even more, depending on the oil viscosity being used and the ambient air temperature, before a flow of oil reaches all the components. Before oil flow reaches the components, all you have saving your engine from wear or damage, is the remaining oil’s film strength. That makes it another very important reason why an excellent film strength is highly desirable.

When Amsoil refers to wear scar size comparisons on their website, they are referencing oil film strength test data. A couple of years or so ago, when Castrol Edge and Valvoline SynPower ads talked about their oils providing better wear protection than Mobil 1, they were referencing oil film strength test data. Pennzoil Ultra currently advertises that no leading synthetic oil provides better wear protection, and they also reference oil film strength test data. The bottom line is that oil film strength testing and the resulting data, is the “Gold Standard” in the motor oil industry, regarding wear protection.

There is no additional value to performing more “comprehensive” oil testing related to wear prevention. Because when an oil is thicker than a mere film, it becomes LIQUID oil. And LIQUIDS are INCOMPRESSIBLE, which of course is how hydraulics work. But, that refers to 100% PURE LIQUID with no air bubbles what so ever. And the nature of liquids being “incompressible”, is a basic FACT of Physics.

So, since liquid oil CANNOT be compressed, there can be NO metal to metal contact, THUS NO WEAR OR DAMAGE. This means that ALL oils when in “incompressible liquid form”, provide the SAME level of wear protection. And it does not matter if they cost one dollar per quart, or twenty dollars per quart. Nor does it matter how much zinc/phos is present.

For example, the normal flow of oil between the crank journals and rod or main bearings, is "liquid" oil. And the "liquid" oil in that hydrodynamic wedge is incompressible, just like any liquid is. For a crank journal to ever touch the bearings, the oil has to be reduced to only a film, and that film has to be PENETRATED. Because of course, to achieve metal to metal contact, and thus wear/damage, you have to go THROUGH the oil’s film strength to get there.

If conditions cause a flow of liquid oil to be squeezed out of the way, you are right back to being left with only an oil film, and the need for good film strength. And this is PRECISELY why we perform OIL FILM STRENGTH testing. The ONLY thing that separates one oil from another oil, in terms of wear prevention, is the DIFFERENCE between their film strength capabilities. So, if an oil has sufficient film strength capability, then you are good to go when it comes to wear protection, no matter how much zinc is present.

The tester used here, was never intended to reflect exactly what goes on inside a running engine. It was designed to test “oil against oil”, nothing else. So, the whole point of my “wear testing” was to test oils directly against each other, head to head, back to back, at a representative operating temperature. Then see how they stacked up against each other.

For example, if oil "A" has a 110,000 psi “load carrying capacity/film strength” (no matter how much zinc is present) in this test, and oil "B" has only a 65,000 psi “load carrying capacity/film strength” (no matter how much zinc is present) in this test, it’s not hard to understand the fact that oil "A" with its WHOPPING 70% HIGHER CAPABILITY, will provide a MUCH HIGHER level of reserve wear protection in a running engine as well (no matter how much zinc is present).

My testing performs severe torture testing on motor oil, which is much harder on the oil, than what the oil will ever experience inside any running engine. This is a dynamic friction test under load, and the test results are determined by the size of the wear scar. And how good an oil is at preventing wear, high zinc or low zinc, is determined in a fair and straight forward manner. The numbers come out how they come out, depending on the capability of the oil.

All of the oils are tested at a representative normal operating oil temperature of 230*F, to make the comparison meaningful. By testing in this manner, it absolutely shows which oils are better at preventing wear than others. This real world test comparison allows you to test a large number of oils EXACTLY THE SAME, under controlled and repeatable conditions, which you simply cannot do in a running engine. And you can see how they compare right away, without having to wait for 100,000 miles to find out what happened. With this testing methodology, you can quickly and easily distinguish between outstanding oils and merely ordinary oils.

The whole thing simply comes down to what is called "margin of safety" or extra reserve protection capability. Let's say the lowest ranked oil has a 20% margin of safety relative to your engine's needs, which means that the oil’s capability "exceeds" your engine's needs by 20%. So, you are in good shape and you will never see a problem. But, if something bad happens like an overheating condition, or an oiling condition, or a loading condition, or some parts heading south, or whatever, and your oil protection requirements increase to say 50% above your engine’s typical needs. Now you've just exceeded the oil’s capability by a whopping 30%, and your engine is junk. But, what if you'd been running an oil that had a whopping 70% margin of safety to begin with? In this case, when your engine’s needs went up 50%, but you still have another 20% capability above that. So, your engine would still live to fight another day.

So, in the end, it just depends on how much margin of safety an individual is comfortable with for his particular engine combo. I'm one of those guys who runs a block, crank, pistons, rods, etc, that are capable of handling WAY more power than my weenie 800ish HP, 540 BBC will ever make. I simply feel better about having a LARGE margin of safety everywhere I can. And I'm the same way when it comes to the oil I run. So, I've chosen the oil with the highest wear protection capability, even though the oil with the lowest capability might work well enough under most circumstances. And that's whole point of all my oil testing, having the data to make an informed choice when it comes to choosing the best motor oil.

I did this testing only for my own knowledge, because there is so much misinformation and misunderstanding about motor oil. But, I do NOT sell oil, and I do NOT get paid by any oil company. So, it doesn't matter to me what oil people buy, or why they buy, the oil they buy. That being the case, I have absolutely no reason to try to make one oil seem better than another. On the contrary, I'm only interested in seeing how they TRULY differ.

So, there is no Snake Oil pitch going on here. And I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, I'm only sharing my test data results. People can embrace my data or ignore it. That of course is totally up to them. So, run whatever oil you like, but now you’ll have the data to see how oils rank, relative to each other.


NOW, ON WITH THE BREAK-IN OIL TEST DATA:

Let’s take a look at Lucas, Edelbrock, Royal Purple and Comp Cams Break-In oils. If you look at the marketing hype on the bottles, they generally say similar things. But, the two main points that stand out are along the lines of:

1. Ideal formulation for the break-in of rings, flat tappet lobe/lifters, etc.
2. Extra zinc for outstanding wear protection.

So, what’s wrong with these claims?

Break-In by definition means some level of initial wear, however small that may be, so that the parts can seat-in, run-in, or break-in, whichever term you prefer. Of course the desired end result is that critical components have nicely mated/matched contact interfaces. The hype for these oils, claims that they are formulated to facilitate that initial break-in wear, which means modest or low "load carrying capacity/film strength".

But then, the hype also claims that they provide outstanding wear protection that would PREVENT proper initial break-in wear, which means that they would have good or outstanding "load carrying capacity/film strength". These contradictory claims don't make any sense, because an oil cannot ALLOW wear and PREVENT wear at the same time. In fact, it is an oxymoron to claim that they can do BOTH things at the SAME time.

Oxymoron = A figure of speech which produces an incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory effect, as in “cruel kindness” or “to make haste slowly.”

The bottom line is that they are claiming their oils are “wear preventing break-in oils”. It has to be one or the other, but NOT both. They need to pick a side, or better yet, just tell the truth about their products. But, apparently the Marketing/Advertising Departments/Agencies and/or the Oil Companies' tech folks themselves, have no problem misrepresenting their products.

A couple of other motor oils that come to mind that WAY overstated their capabilities, is the Kendall GT-1 High Performance oil and the Torco TR-1 Racing oil. Motor Oil claims seem to be among the worst when it comes to false advertising. So, one would be wise to never believe anything related to motor oil claims on the bottle or the website. Instead look for any independent test data that you can find. And this was one of the reasons why I decided to perform all the oil testing I've been doing this year, so that I can get to the truth about motor oil.

Back to the Break-In Oil.
On one hand, we want to prevent undue wear on flat tappet lobe/lifter interfaces, as well as numerous other areas, while on the other hand, allowing enough wear to quickly seat the rings. No oil can simultaneously allow wear "AND" prevent wear. Remember that rings are forced out against the cylinder walls by combustion pressure. So, can “any oil” no matter how well it prevents wear, actually "prevent" rings from seating promptly, considering the tiny contact area brand new rings have against the bores, and the resulting incredibly high contact area psi when the engine is running? And do we really "want" to prevent wear at the flat tappet lobe/lifter interface? Don't we want those surfaces to microscopically mate perfectly to each other? Of course there needs to be a bit of wear taking place to do that.

Should a so-called Break-In Oil be high zinc or low zinc? Does it even matter? Do people even have a clue what is in the Break-In oil they buy? Should it have a high "Load carrying capacity/film strength", or should it have a low value? Do you even need a so-called Break-In oil at all, or can regular oils work just fine for Break-In? Should we use conventional dino oil, or is synthetic also fine? Does that even matter?

From Professional engine builders all the way down to one-time-only shade-tree engine builders, everyone who fires an engine up for the very first time thinks they know what oil should be used for break-in. Of course people do not think the same, nor does everyone have the same level of experience, so a wide variety of oils end up getting used for break-in. Everything from traditional high performance high zinc conventional and synthetic oils, to diesel oils, to modern low zinc oils with and without aftermarket zinc added, to store-bought break-in oils, to oils with EOS, STP Oil Treatment, or Lucas Oil Treatment added, and every imaginable oil in between are used. Are some people right about what oil should be used, while the rest of the people are wrong? Or is it possible that everyone is right, because it just isn’t as critical as many people think? All these questions come up in a discussion about breaking-in an engine and the oil that should be used to do that.

Now, let’s take a look at component quantities of these Break-In Oils, from the Lab Tests performed by ALS Tribology in Sparks, Nevada.

Lucas 30 wt Break-In Oil, conventional
zinc = 4483 ppm
phos = 3660 ppm
moly = 3 ppm
total detergent/dispersant/anti-deposit build-up/anti-sludge = 1104 ppm
TBN = 5.9
This oil has by far, the highest level of zinc/phos I have ever come across. It has way more than twice the amount of zinc that begins to CAUSE wear/damage. Because of that, the extremely low level of TBN, and the extremely low level of detergent, this oil should be used for only a very short time, as a Break-In oil would suggest.

Comp Cams 10W30 Break-In Oil, conventional
zinc = 3004 ppm
phos = 2613 ppm
moly = 180 ppm
total detergent/dispersant/anti-deposit build-up/anti-sludge = 4234 ppm
TBN = 14.7
This oil also has by far, way too much zinc/phos. It has way more than enough zinc to begin causing wear/damage, rather than prevent it. Because of that, this oil also should be used for only a very short time, as a Break-In oil would suggest.

Edelbrock 30 wt Break-In Oil, conventional
zinc = 1545 ppm
phos = 1465 ppm
moly = 4 ppm
total detergent/dispersant/anti-deposit build-up/anti-sludge = 3452 ppm
TBN = 10.6
This oil is manufactured for Edelbrock by Torco.


Royal Purple 10W30 Break-In Oil, conventional
zinc = 1170 ppm
phos = 1039 ppm
moly = 0 ppm
total detergent/dispersant/anti-deposit build-up/anti-sludge = 3184 ppm
TBN = 9.8

As you can see above, there is absolutely no consistency at all, between the Break-In oils that these various Oil Companies blended. These oils are all over that place and bouncing off the walls. We see zinc from 1170 ppm to 4483 ppm. We see phos from 1039 ppm to 3660 ppm. We see detergent levels from 1104 ppm to 4234 ppm. And we see TBN values from 5.9 to 14.7. WOW!!! These oils couldn’t be much more different, and yet they are all aimed at the EXACT SAME Break-In oil market.

So, let’s take a look at the wear protection these oils actually provide, and see how they rank according to their “Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength". And this will tell us once and for all, what the Oil Companies would not, and that is, whether the oils are formulated for wear protection or to facilitate initial break-in wear.

*** The higher the psi result, the higher the “Load carrying capacity/Film strength”, and the better the oil is at preventing wear. The psi value is determined by the testing “load” being applied over the “area” of the wear scar that is created on the test specimen, as the test is being performed. So, you end up with “pounds” of force being applied over the wear scar area in “square inches”. Or in other words, pounds per square inch, which of course is just shortened to psi.

*** All oils were tested at 230* F (representative of actual running temperature).

*** Multiple tests were performed on each oil, and those results were averaged to arrive at each oil's final value shown below. The repeat test results of each of these oils had the closest re-test values of any group of oils I've tested to date. All the oil's psi values were within 2.4% or less, of their previous tests.

*** Test Result differences between oils of less than 10%, are not significant, and oils within that range can be considered approximately equivalent.

*** All oil bottles were thoroughly shaken before the samples were taken. This ensured that all the additive package components were distributed uniformly throughout all the oil in the bottle, and not settled to the bottom.

1. Edelbrock 30 wt Break-In Oil, conventional
“Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength” = 69,160 psi
zinc = 1545 ppm

2. Royal Purple 10W30 Break-In Oil, conventional
“Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength” = 62,931 psi
zinc = 1170 ppm

3. Comp Cams 10W30 Break-In Oil, conventional
“Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength” = 51,749 psi
zinc = 3004 ppm

4. Lucas 30 wt Break-In Oil, conventional
“Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength” = 49,455 psi
zinc = 4483 ppm

Anyone who has followed my previous oil tests, knows that the wear protection capability psi values produced by these Break-In oils is quite low overall. Only the Edelbrock and Royal Purple oils made it into the MODEST PROTECTION category (60,000 to 75,000 psi), while the Comp Cams and Lucas oils managed only the UNDESIRABLE PROTECTION category (below 60,000 psi). In comparison, the highest wear protection capability oil I've ever tested is the 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, API SM, which has a "Load carrying capacity/Film strength" of 115,612 psi. That Pennzoil provides a whopping 67% greater wear protection capability than the top ranked Edelbrock Break-In oil here.

But, now we finally know that because of their low wear protection capabilities, these Break-In oils are formulated only to facilitate initial break-in wear, and are NOT formulated to provide a high level of wear protection. Of course it was impossible for them to be capable of both things at the same time, in spite of their advertising claims. And without the type of dynamic wear testing performed here, we would have never known what these Break-In oils were truly formulated for.

Every oil test I've done this year, proved time and time again that the level of zinc has nothing to do with an oil's wear protection capability, nor its ranking against other oils. And we've seen it yet again here, that high zinc levels do NOT provide better wear protection. In fact, the super high zinc Lucas oil, ended up in last place in wear protection capability for this group, and overall it also ended up in last place by ranking 64th out of the 64 oils I've wear tested so far. Motor oil wear protection capability is determined by the base oil and its additive package "as a whole", and NOT by how much zinc is present.

And no one can complain that my test equipment and test procedure do not allow high zinc oils to perform at their highest level. Because here are some high zinc (over 1100 ppm) conventional, semi-synthetic, and full synthetic oils that I’ve tested previously. And they all had test results over 90,000 psi, which put them all in the “OUTSTANDING PROTECTION” category.


10W30 Lucas Racing Only, full synthetic = 106,505 psi
zinc = 2642 ppm
phos = 3489 ppm
moly = 1764 ppm


10W30 Valvoline NSL (Not Street Legal) Conventional Racing Oil = 103,846 psi
zinc = 1669 ppm
phos = 1518 ppm
moly = 784 ppm


10W30 Valvoline VR1 Conventional Racing Oil (silver bottle) = 103,505 psi
zinc = 1472 ppm
phos = 1544 ppm
moly = 3 ppm


10W30 Valvoline VR1 Synthetic Racing Oil, API SL (black bottle) = 101,139 psi
zinc = 1180 ppm
phos = 1112 ppm
moly = 162 ppm


30 wt Red Line Race Oil, full synthetic = 96,470 psi
zinc = 2207 ppm
phos = 2052 ppm
moly = 1235 ppm


10W30 Amsoil Z-Rod Oil, full synthetic = 95,360 psi
zinc = 1431 ppm
phos = 1441 ppm
moly = 52 ppm


10W30 Quaker State Defy, API SL (semi-synthetic) = 90,226 psi
zinc = 1221 ppm
phos = 955 ppm
moly = 99 ppm

 

In the end its always a tough choice. I am sure any off the shelf bottle that meets benz spec is fine. Like i said, i change my oil religiously at 5k kms.

But, the only concern/question i DID have was now that i dont need to worry about low ash oil for the dpf, what oil is a better alternative. Or is the 229.51 low ash oil fine.

And also, 5w30 or 5w40 better for this engine?

Those are my curiosities.


​​​​​

 

as long as that sludge stays put where it lies, you will probably ever have an issue, but from what you are saying, where is the missing liter, that's quite a bit of oil to be not fitting in the space that is suppose to occupy, knowing what I know now, if it was my vehicle, the oil pan would come off tomorrow, and the oil pickup from the pump cleaned or replaced. for me its too late, but 20/20 hindsight,scary is an understatement

 

My engine looks dayum clean inside, from the cap anyways. No sign of any sludge or varnish buildup. And it actually did take about 8.5 liters of oil, which is the required level. I had 2 jugs of castrol 5w30 c3 and there was about 1.5 liters left. My dipstick is showing about half so i could probably fill er some more.