[F32Fleet]

Is it just me or have others noticed that the LL-04 spec primarily consists of Group III or a combination of Group III/IV oils? This makes me wonder if Group III oils are better at keeping soot in suspension when compared to Group IV oil which can be found with the (LL-01, LL-98) specification.

I've researched
Motul
Pentosin
Lubro Moly
Mobil 1
Castrol

[742]

Group III+ base stock does seem to be the hot new thing. But I am not a chemist, which is why all I can go by is the approvals.

[Turkeybaster115]

Originally Posted by Socom

Is it just me or have others noticed that the LL-04 spec primarily consists of Group III or a combination of Group III/IV oils? This makes me wonder if Group III oils are better at keeping soot in suspension when compared to Group IV oil which can be found with the (LL-01, LL-98) specification.
I've researched
Motul
Pentosin
Lubro Moly
Mobil 1
Castrol

Total INEO MC3 is LLO4, and a pao based, group 4 synthetic, per the MSDS.

[Turkeybaster115]

Originally Posted by TrackRat

Car makers do not specify what base stock oil must be used because it's the actual oil performance with the additive package that determines the lubrication properties.

However, I think that oil longevity and resistance to sheer is a function of the base oil+additive package, which is why group IV's tend to do better than group III's.

[F32Fleet]

Originally Posted by Turkeybaster115

Total INEO MC3 is LLO4, and a pao based, group 4 synthetic, per the MSDS.

I forgot about them. Strange how it doesn't meet VW 507.00

[Gooby]

I use the Total/quartz INEO MC3 oil and I love it. It was recommended to me by a friend who is a audi/vw tech who drives a r32. I did some research did an oil change and i will never use any other oil. Several "noises" that i had before are now gone..smooth acceleration and just a very different drive is attained.

Turkeybaster I also did a drain/fill on my tranny using pentosin... i swear the trans shifts smoother than ever i cant even feel it...buttery smooth. I didn't replace the pan as i plan to do another drain/fill at 100k.

[Turkeybaster115]

Originally Posted by Socom

I forgot about them. Strange how it doesn't meet VW 507.00

It probably hasn't been tested by VW yet.

[Turkeybaster115]

Originally Posted by Gooby

I use the Total/quartz INEO MC3 oil and I love it. It was recommended to me by a friend who is a audi/vw tech who drives a r32. I did some research did an oil change and i will never use any other oil. Several "noises" that i had before are now gone..smooth acceleration and just a very different drive is attained.

Turkeybaster I also did a drain/fill on my tranny using pentosin... i swear the trans shifts smoother than ever i cant even feel it...buttery smooth. I didn't replace the pan as i plan to do another drain/fill at 100k.

you rock dude! two awsome products that are lubricating my car right now!

[F32Fleet]

Originally Posted by Turkeybaster115

It probably hasn't been tested by VW yet.

Yea..They have a VW 507 oil which is almost the same. Probably a minor additive difference.

[Turkeybaster115]

Originally Posted by TrackRat

For an oil to meet any of the major Euro / ACEA oil specs it must stay-in-grade for the entire test sequence so shear of all the approved oils meets the oil specs. While group IV/V oils might have lower shear that in itself does not mean that provide better lubrication properties. The group IV/V oils might allow you to extend the OCI to 15K+ but only testing would tell for sure. I don't use or recommend longer the 15K OCIs for anyone.

I think you should read up on some technical facts about the chemistry behind pao vs mineral based fluids. This book provides some great information: Synthetics, mineral oil, and biobased lubricants: chemistry and technology. Available on line here: http://books.google.com/books?id=g3v...0fluid&f=false

There are scientific tests, sited, that were done on atf, gear, and engine oils. Pao based fluids show greater thermal and oxidative stability

[jimk]

^^^

What about ester based like Red Line and Motul?

[jimk]

Originally Posted by TrackRat

Greater thermal and oxidation stability is only an advantage if you can use it. Let me give you an example.

Someone in a forum read that a K&N air filter flowed up to 150% more air than the OE BMW air filter. When a BMW owner installed it and saw no power increase he was surprised. The person asked why no power increase if the air filter can actually flow up to 150% more air. The reason why there was no power increase is because the engine only draws in the amount of air it needs to fill the cylinder. The K&N or other filter could flow 10,000 % more air but if the OE BMW air filter is not restricting the engine from drawing in enough air to completely fill the cylinders, (i.e. 100% V.E.), then the super wazzoo air filter does not improve power at all because the OE filter was not a restriction.

The same applies to oil base stocks. If an oil has better thermal stability and less oxidation but you change all LL-04 or LL-01 oils while they are still stable and within the proper oxidation range, then you don't obtain any advantage by using a group IV/V oil in regards to stability or oxidation. That's why I said that group IV/V oils may be an advantage for 15+K OCIs, but that I don't recommend longer OCIs than 15K.

I'm not saying that PAOs aren't good, stable base stocks that maintain these characteristics longer than lower grade base oil stocks but that's not an advantage if your OCI for all the oils is while they are all in spec. or if you have no severe operating conditions. Base stock simply does not determine the overall lubrication properties of an oil. MSDS sheets are not a proper or suitable basis for determining the lubrication properties of an engine oil.

As an example the BMW LL-01 oil test sequence data shows that the LL-01 approved oils ALL meet the engine requirements for your BMW gas engine. Under severe operating conditions PAOs may show an advantage but you don't know without conducting tests relative to your specific engine as each engine has different demands under severe operating conditions and you'd need to define "severe" for test purposes. As an example severe to one person might be an engine that idles for long periods of time like a taxi. To another person it might be an engine that is run in -20 F temps six months per year. To another person it might be an engine that is run at the track at 270 F for 1/2 hour. A higher quality base stock oil might be an advantage here but you simply do not know without testing of the specific engine/vehicle/oil in question.

There are advantages to PAO base stock oils but that does not necessarily mean that they offer better lubrication properties on their own over other LL-04 or LL-01 approved oils. It's the total formulation that counts, not the base stock oil alone. You can have an average quality PAO oil formulation that does not meet the LL-04 or LL-01 specs or other industry specs and a good group III formulation that has better lubrication properties in your engine than the PAO and it in fact does meet the LL-04 or LL-01 specs. Thus using the base stock oil as a means to determine the true lubrication properties is simply not appropriate.

Esters are known to have excellent engine cleaning properties and affinity for metal at high temps compared to other oils.

Great input. Thanks!

For me, my driving style and my will to keep the vehicle for a long time, (I'm thinking 200K mi) and taking the high temps of an N54 engine in consideration, I have chosen the ester based Red Line 5W-40 as the oil of choice, even if it's not officially LL-01 certified. Blackstone analysis will be done soon, in 500 miles, (5000 miles OCI) to gauge wear at the 5000 miles interval. If satisfactory and TBN shows good levels, I'll increase OCIs to 7500 miles and so on.

[jimk]

Originally Posted by TrackRat

A couple notes. A UOA tells you if the oil is still serviceable, not how well it lubricates your engine. Second, non BMW approved oils can void you engine warranty - if that is important to you. An OCI is excellent for determining the appropriate OCI.

I was under the impression that UOAs will indicate how well an oil lubricates based on the metal content found in the sample. The more Iron or Aluminum found for example, the more wear->less oil protection. I though the TBN level was the indicator of how much additive was left in the oil to determine serviceability.

[F32Fleet]

Originally Posted by TrackRat

Esters are known to have excellent engine cleaning properties and affinity for metal at high temps compared to other oils.

Could you expand on that?

[Turkeybaster115]

Originally Posted by TrackRat

Greater thermal and oxidation stability is only an advantage if you can use it. Let me give you an example. Someone in a forum read that a K&N air filter flowed up to 150% more air than the OE BMW air filter.....

Irrelevant argument

Originally Posted by TrackRat

The same applies to oil base stocks. If an oil has better thermal stability and less oxidation but you change all LL-04 or LL-01 oils while they are still stable and within the proper oxidation range, then you don't obtain any advantage by using a group IV/V oil in regards to stability or oxidation. That's why I said that group IV/V oils may be an advantage for 15+K OCIs, but that I don't recommend longer OCIs than 15K.

You simply didn't read the academic literature. There are established scientific tests for oil durability. In one test of pao vs mineral oil based synthetics, the chemists measured the Kinetic viscosity of both oils at 100C. They used oils that had the same Kv at this temperature. They then heated the oils to 200C for 250 hours. A retest was performed, and it showed that the pao based samples had virtually the same viscosity at 100C, but that all the mineral oil based samples kv at 100C had changed radically, by as much as 500%. For an engine like the N54, where its normal operating temperature is 115C-121C, you can definitely see how it is would be safer to stick to pao based engine oils.

Originally Posted by TrackRat

I'm not saying that PAOs aren't good, stable base stocks that maintain these characteristics longer than lower grade base oil stocks but that's not an advantage if your OCI for all the oils is while they are all in spec. or if you have no severe operating conditions.

Yes, I partially agree. Engines who's normal operating temp range exceeds 100C, need pao based engine oils. e.g: M engines, and turbo engines, like the N54

Originally Posted by TrackRat

Base stock simply does not determine the overall lubrication properties of an oil. MSDS sheets are not a proper or suitable basis for determining the lubrication properties of an engine oil.

Again, based on scientifc tests by chemists, the type of base oil, is directly related to thermal, and oxidative stability. MSDS sheets are legally required documents, that tell us the lubricants true chemical composition

Originally Posted by TrackRat

As an example the BMW LL-01 oil test sequence data shows that the LL-01 approved oils ALL meet the engine requirements for your BMW gas engine.

Let me address BMW LL certification. Post 2001, BMW LL certification only means that the engine oil is suitable for BMW engines with double vanos (Variable Valve Timing). Rumor has it that BMW LL01+ certification involved testing the oil at redline in an M5 engine. But this is unconfirmed. BMW LL testing is done by bmw engineers. They do not manufacture or test lubricants in the lab, to determine chemical characteristics, like phD chemists do.

Originally Posted by TrackRat

Under severe operating conditions PAOs may show an advantage but you don't know without conducting tests relative to your specific engine as each engine has different demands under severe operating conditions and you'd need to define "severe" for test purposes. As an example severe to one person might be an engine that idles for long periods of time like a taxi. To another person it might be an engine that is run in -20 F temps six months per year. To another person it might be an engine that is run at the track at 270 F for 1/2 hour. A higher quality base stock oil might be an advantage here but you simply do not know without testing of the specific engine/vehicle/oil in question.

The standard scientific test for severe operating conditions is a baseline chemical analysis at 212F, then a repeat analysis after 250 hours at 392F.

Originally Posted by TrackRat

There are advantages to PAO base stock oils but that does not necessarily mean that they offer better lubrication properties on their own over other LL-04 or LL-01 approved oils. It's the total formulation that counts, not the base stock oil alone. You can have an average quality PAO oil formulation that does not meet the LL-04 or LL-01 specs or other industry specs and a good group III formulation that has better lubrication properties in your engine than the PAO and it in fact does meet the LL-04 or LL-01 specs. Thus using the base stock oil as a means to determine the true lubrication properties is simply not appropriate.

Scientists (people with degrees in chemistry) beg to differ from this arguement. The standard laboratory tests for thermal and oxidative analysis is the only method, that can give us clues to what will happens to a lubricant, outside standardized normal operating temperatures (40C-100C).

[Turkeybaster115]

Originally Posted by TrackRat

You seem to have missed the point. If an oil has a high anti-oxidation or shear stability factor but your engine doesn't require or can't use that extra anti-oxidation or thermal stability, there is no gain or advantage. Auto maker tribologists and lubrication engineers who study engine lubrication for a living do not agree with your perspective. If they did agree with your view then they would specify exactly what base stock oil is required and they don't do that because the base oil does not determine the overall lubrication properties of the oil.

read the book (link to electronic copy provided).

[F32Fleet]

Originally Posted by TrackRat

You seem to have missed the point. If an oil has a high anti-oxidation or shear stability factor but your engine doesn't require or can't use that extra anti-oxidation or thermal stability, there is no gain or advantage. Auto maker tribologists and lubrication engineers who study engine lubrication for a living do not agree with your perspective. If they did agree with your view then they would specify exactly what base stock oil is required and they don't do that because the base oil does not determine the overall lubrication properties of the oil.

Let me give you an example you might understand. If two oils, A and B have identical chemistry except oil "B" has a greater quantity of an anti-oxidant than oil "A", so that oil "B" can meet the extended drain interval oil specifications, the two oils should perform the same up to a given mileage, let's say 7,500 miles. If you run oil "A" past the 7,500 mile mark and it no longer has sufficient anti-oxidant additive, it will deteriorate and tend to leave sludge build-up. If you run oil "B" to 10,000 miles and it still has sufficient anti-oxidant levels all is good. If however you change both engine oils at 7,500 miles then oil "B" doesn't provide any advantage over oil "A".

Reminds me of AMSOIL bench test where it and other brands were tested for shear with fuel dilutions of 2% and 4% and ran the test for twice the amount of hours. AMSOIL still held viscosity even at 4% but who the in hell would ignore 4% fuel dilution running 20k miles OCI's?

This also confirms what I've always believed when people pay top dollar for synthetic oil because they think their car runs harder than normal and then change it every 5k miles. If you're not tracking the vehicle regularly your car doesn't run any harder in day-to-day traffic than anyone elses regardless of tune.

[Turkeybaster115]

Originally Posted by Socom

This also confirms what I've always believed when people pay top dollar for synthetic oil because they think their car runs harder than normal and then change it every 5k miles. If you're not tracking the vehicle regularly your car doesn't run any harder in day-to-day traffic than anyone elses regardless of tune.

so, using your logic, a 325I runing day to day, will see the same operating temperature range as a 335I, or audi RS4?

[Turkeybaster115]

Originally Posted by TrackRat

You keep trying to use inappropriate information to support your perception.

Young man, you probably haven't even heard of Organic Chemistry! These people have phD's.

Originally Posted by TrackRat

Typical auto engine oil doesn't operate at 392 F / 200 C temps. If the engine doesn't operate at that temp in doesn't make any difference how good the oil is at 392 F when the engine operates at 250 F. The oxidation in the operating range is what is important.

err....no, running your test outside "normal" operating temperature range is the only way to simulate viscosity changes with time, as would occur at a daily 250F.

Originally Posted by TrackRat

TW, this is exactly like the Wazoo air filter example I used that you didn't like. If the engine oil runs at 250 F then testing at 392 F is pointless and of no value if the oil never sees that temp.

It is not pointless, it is standard procedure for all products manufactured to test their limits. Its like saying why do extreme hot (midddle east) or cold (Alaska) weather testing on vehicles, when most users will typically never see those extreme conditions. Vehicle manufacturers like BMW, who test their components way past the limit, seem to make the best products.

Originally Posted by TrackRat

For reference BMW actually dials back the power and accessory loads if the engine oil reachs 302 F. So testing at 392 F is great for accelerated oxidation information but it's not what the engine actually sees unless you drive it with no engine cooling until the engine seizes at which point it's all moot and the best oil in the world won't save the engine from terminal damage.

ok, so go perform the said tests at 302 F or whatever you like and stun the clearly derainged chemical engineering world. I doubt you'd be recieving a degree anytime soon. In fact its even doubtful you've had any type of college chemistry, because most of the lab tests, would seem "irrelevant" to you

Originally Posted by TrackRat

In addition transmission oil tests do not accurately reflect engine operation oil lubrication requirements. That is why they use engine oil tests to determine the suitability of an oil for engine use. You wouldn't use engine oil tests to determine the best trans oil either.

The link takes you to half way down the book. Scroll back up for engine oil testing Information. This just proves that you haven't read the book like I said, you just clicked and peeked.

Originally Posted by TrackRat

As I said earlier, group IV/V oils have a place, but it's important to understand where they provide value and where they don't. I fully support the use of quality synthetic oils but you need to understand what the benefits actually are.

Funny you should mention value, cuz the real world is ruled by perception, and the laws of supply and demand. There are several hyped Group III+additives out there that are priced way more than their group IV/V competitiors. This proves that perception is more powerful than facts, to the masses.

[F32Fleet]

Originally Posted by Turkeybaster115

so, using your logic, a 325I runing day to day, will see the same operating temperature range as a 335I, or audi RS4?

No what I'm saying is a tuned 335i will operate within same temp range as a stock 335i in day-to-day driving.

[F32Fleet]

Originally Posted by Turkeybaster115

It is not pointless, it is standard procedure for all products manufactured to test their limits. Its like saying why do extreme hot (midddle east) or cold (Alaska) weather testing on vehicles, when most users will typically never see those extreme conditions. Vehicle manufacturers like BMW, who test their components way past the limit, seem to make the best products.

This comment just made his point Turkey.

Just because a product can perform past the limit doesn't make it any better than a product which also performs at the limit when both products are never asked to exceed it.

Now this is different if the product which meets the limit doesn't actually perform well at the limit. In the case of engine oil I suspect that would be measured in viscosity(shear) and TBN.

[Turkeybaster115]

Originally Posted by Socom

Just because a product can perform past the limit doesn't make it any better than a product which also performs at the limit when both products are never asked to exceed it.

Yes, the standard of variable valve timing (Double Vanos). Welcome to 2001!