For gas engines, what is the most stringent oil specification nowadays? I have heard LL-01 is now more difficult to pass with the new N20 engine test. What about Porsche A40? MB? Links to actual sources or people "in-the-know" would be great. -Chase
What is the most stringent Euro specification now?
- Thread starter 1JZ_E46
- Start date
- Status
https://online.lubrizol.com/relperftool/pc.html
I don't think they've included the latest revision to the LL-01 spec yet. I don't even know what exactly that revision entails. I tried asking BMW corporate, and all I got was dead silence.
I don't think they've included the latest revision to the LL-01 spec yet. I don't even know what exactly that revision entails. I tried asking BMW corporate, and all I got was dead silence.
Yes, and if you do find out what exactly this new LL-01 spec entails, please do let us know.
My VW diesels use an LL03 oil (VW 507).
Originally Posted By: 1JZ_E46
Thanks. I have used that tool before, but it hasn't changed in a while. The fact that M1 0W-40 "FS" passes A40 but fails LL-01 leads me to believe LL-01 is now a more (if not the most) stringent test.
"Fails" or "is no longer tested to" LL-01? I suspect the latter is probable. It might fail it, but we don't know what we don't know. And XOM probably isn't telling, either.
Thanks. I have used that tool before, but it hasn't changed in a while. The fact that M1 0W-40 "FS" passes A40 but fails LL-01 leads me to believe LL-01 is now a more (if not the most) stringent test.
"Fails" or "is no longer tested to" LL-01? I suspect the latter is probable. It might fail it, but we don't know what we don't know. And XOM probably isn't telling, either.
Just look for A3/B3-B4 spec. Can't get any tougher than this
Originally Posted By: deven
Just look for A3/B3-B4 spec. Can't get any tougher than this
Yes you certainly can.
Just look for A3/B3-B4 spec. Can't get any tougher than this
Yes you certainly can.
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: 1JZ_E46
Thanks. I have used that tool before, but it hasn't changed in a while. The fact that M1 0W-40 "FS" passes A40 but fails LL-01 leads me to believe LL-01 is now a more (if not the most) stringent test.
"Fails" or "is no longer tested to" LL-01? I suspect the latter is probable. It might fail it, but we don't know what we don't know. And XOM probably isn't telling, either.
Why would XOM opt to not have one of (if not the most) popular euro oils tested for LL-01? Think about it. Also, XOM has said (email to member here) that they do not meet the new LL-01 spec.
Originally Posted By: 1JZ_E46
Thanks. I have used that tool before, but it hasn't changed in a while. The fact that M1 0W-40 "FS" passes A40 but fails LL-01 leads me to believe LL-01 is now a more (if not the most) stringent test.
"Fails" or "is no longer tested to" LL-01? I suspect the latter is probable. It might fail it, but we don't know what we don't know. And XOM probably isn't telling, either.
Why would XOM opt to not have one of (if not the most) popular euro oils tested for LL-01? Think about it. Also, XOM has said (email to member here) that they do not meet the new LL-01 spec.
Last edited:
I would caution against thinking that a better specified oil is the same thing as a 'better' oil in the broader sense of the word.
It puts me in mind of those times back in the '60s when The Cousins made great improvements in ballistic missile accuracy and would claim they could place a nuke on the steps of The Kremlin. You could honestly claim that the missile's 'specification' had greatly improved until you realise it's a multi megaton thermonuclear device with a ten mile kill radius and that a few yards difference in where it lands makes not one jot of difference!
It puts me in mind of those times back in the '60s when The Cousins made great improvements in ballistic missile accuracy and would claim they could place a nuke on the steps of The Kremlin. You could honestly claim that the missile's 'specification' had greatly improved until you realise it's a multi megaton thermonuclear device with a ten mile kill radius and that a few yards difference in where it lands makes not one jot of difference!
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Yes, and if you do find out what exactly this new LL-01 spec entails, please do let us know.
Here is some of the information you are looking for:
Originally Posted By: BMW Release Procedures
For differentiation purposes, the oil specifications are designated according to the year in which they were first used as:
"BMW Longlife-01, -01 FE" (2001),
"BMW Longlife-04" (2004),
"BMW Longlife-12 FE" (2012)
and "BMW Longlife-14 FE+" (2014).
The categories "BMW Longlife-01", "BMW Longlife-01 FE" and "BMW Longlife-14 FE+" as well as "BMW Longlife-04," and "BMW Longlife-12 FE" are qualitatively comparable but differ with regard to minimum viscosity at high oil temperatures (HTHS viscosity).
BMW Longlife-01 / -01 FE / -14 FE+ oils are only suitable for gasoline engines, while BMW Longlife-04 / -12 FE oils are suitable for diesel engines with
particulate filters, due to the reduced sulphate ash content.
LL-01 (ACEA A3/B4 base) requires the N20 performance test, N20 Aeration test and N42 Valvetronic RNT test
LL-01 FE (ACEA A5/B5 base) requires all the LL-01 tests plus the N20 Fuel Economy Test and has lower limits on HTHS and specifies a minimum KV100 of 10.0 and a minimum TBN of 10.0
LL-04 (ACEA C3 base) requires the same testing as LL-01
LL-12 FE (ACEA C2 base) requires all the same tests as LL-01 FE plus the N47 AATL carbonisation test and the N47 Fuel economy test. It also has even lower limits on HTHS and requires a minimum KV100 of 8.8 and a minimum TBN of 6.0
LL-14 FE+ (ACEA A1/B1 base) requires all the same testing of LL-01 FE but at minimums of HTHS 2.6, KV 7.8 and TBN 9.5
Yes, and if you do find out what exactly this new LL-01 spec entails, please do let us know.
Here is some of the information you are looking for:
Originally Posted By: BMW Release Procedures
For differentiation purposes, the oil specifications are designated according to the year in which they were first used as:
"BMW Longlife-01, -01 FE" (2001),
"BMW Longlife-04" (2004),
"BMW Longlife-12 FE" (2012)
and "BMW Longlife-14 FE+" (2014).
The categories "BMW Longlife-01", "BMW Longlife-01 FE" and "BMW Longlife-14 FE+" as well as "BMW Longlife-04," and "BMW Longlife-12 FE" are qualitatively comparable but differ with regard to minimum viscosity at high oil temperatures (HTHS viscosity).
BMW Longlife-01 / -01 FE / -14 FE+ oils are only suitable for gasoline engines, while BMW Longlife-04 / -12 FE oils are suitable for diesel engines with
particulate filters, due to the reduced sulphate ash content.
LL-01 (ACEA A3/B4 base) requires the N20 performance test, N20 Aeration test and N42 Valvetronic RNT test
LL-01 FE (ACEA A5/B5 base) requires all the LL-01 tests plus the N20 Fuel Economy Test and has lower limits on HTHS and specifies a minimum KV100 of 10.0 and a minimum TBN of 10.0
LL-04 (ACEA C3 base) requires the same testing as LL-01
LL-12 FE (ACEA C2 base) requires all the same tests as LL-01 FE plus the N47 AATL carbonisation test and the N47 Fuel economy test. It also has even lower limits on HTHS and requires a minimum KV100 of 8.8 and a minimum TBN of 6.0
LL-14 FE+ (ACEA A1/B1 base) requires all the same testing of LL-01 FE but at minimums of HTHS 2.6, KV 7.8 and TBN 9.5
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
I would caution against thinking that a better specified oil is the same thing as a 'better' oil in the broader sense of the word.
It puts me in mind of those times back in the '60s when The Cousins made great improvements in ballistic missile accuracy and would claim they could place a nuke on the steps of The Kremlin. You could honestly claim that the missile's 'specification' had greatly improved until you realise it's a multi megaton thermonuclear device with a ten mile kill radius and that a few yards difference in where it lands makes not one jot of difference!
I totally agree. Use the oil that is specified for your vehicle.
I would caution against thinking that a better specified oil is the same thing as a 'better' oil in the broader sense of the word.
It puts me in mind of those times back in the '60s when The Cousins made great improvements in ballistic missile accuracy and would claim they could place a nuke on the steps of The Kremlin. You could honestly claim that the missile's 'specification' had greatly improved until you realise it's a multi megaton thermonuclear device with a ten mile kill radius and that a few yards difference in where it lands makes not one jot of difference!
I totally agree. Use the oil that is specified for your vehicle.
Originally Posted By: Solarent
LL-01 (ACEA A3/B4 base) requires the N20 performance test, N20 Aeration test and N42 Valvetronic RNT test
Thanks. That much I know. That N20 test was introduced in 2012. Yet, M1 0w-40 stopped claiming the LL-01 approval only in late 2015. So what's changed within the last year?
LL-01 (ACEA A3/B4 base) requires the N20 performance test, N20 Aeration test and N42 Valvetronic RNT test
Thanks. That much I know. That N20 test was introduced in 2012. Yet, M1 0w-40 stopped claiming the LL-01 approval only in late 2015. So what's changed within the last year?
Is Porsche A40 a really tough specification?
There are MB 229.3 "only" oils that have the A40 spec
There are MB 229.3 "only" oils that have the A40 spec
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: Solarent
LL-01 (ACEA A3/B4 base) requires the N20 performance test, N20 Aeration test and N42 Valvetronic RNT test
Thanks. That much I know. That N20 test was introduced in 2012. Yet, M1 0w-40 stopped claiming the LL-01 approval only in late 2015. So what's changed within the last year?
Nothing has changed at BMW that I am aware of...
Is this the one you are talking about?
Or this one?
As near as I can tell there shouldn't be an issue with M1FS 0W40 meeting LL-01, it has the right base, high enough HTHS and it's not like the registrations fees are too crazy (expensive but not a big deal for someone like Mobil) maybe they let their release lapse and haven't renewed yet?
Originally Posted By: Solarent
LL-01 (ACEA A3/B4 base) requires the N20 performance test, N20 Aeration test and N42 Valvetronic RNT test
Thanks. That much I know. That N20 test was introduced in 2012. Yet, M1 0w-40 stopped claiming the LL-01 approval only in late 2015. So what's changed within the last year?
Nothing has changed at BMW that I am aware of...
Is this the one you are talking about?
Or this one?
As near as I can tell there shouldn't be an issue with M1FS 0W40 meeting LL-01, it has the right base, high enough HTHS and it's not like the registrations fees are too crazy (expensive but not a big deal for someone like Mobil) maybe they let their release lapse and haven't renewed yet?
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Solarent
LL-01 (ACEA A3/B4 base) requires the N20 performance test, N20 Aeration test and N42 Valvetronic RNT test
LL-01 FE (ACEA A5/B5 base) requires all the LL-01 tests plus the N20 Fuel Economy Test and has lower limits on HTHS and specifies a minimum KV100 of 10.0 and a minimum TBN of 10.0
LL-04 (ACEA C3 base) requires the same testing as LL-01
LL-12 FE (ACEA C2 base) requires all the same tests as LL-01 FE plus the N47 AATL carbonisation test and the N47 Fuel economy test. It also has even lower limits on HTHS and requires a minimum KV100 of 8.8 and a minimum TBN of 6.0
LL-14 FE+ (ACEA A1/B1 base) requires all the same testing of LL-01 FE but at minimums of HTHS 2.6, KV 7.8 and TBN 9.5
Thank you for that. Very useful information.
If I am understanding this right, LL-04 is also subject to the N20 performance, N20 aeration, and N42 valvetronic tests?
Edit: Also, do you know how the LL-01 test stacks up against A40 and MB 229.5?
LL-01 (ACEA A3/B4 base) requires the N20 performance test, N20 Aeration test and N42 Valvetronic RNT test
LL-01 FE (ACEA A5/B5 base) requires all the LL-01 tests plus the N20 Fuel Economy Test and has lower limits on HTHS and specifies a minimum KV100 of 10.0 and a minimum TBN of 10.0
LL-04 (ACEA C3 base) requires the same testing as LL-01
LL-12 FE (ACEA C2 base) requires all the same tests as LL-01 FE plus the N47 AATL carbonisation test and the N47 Fuel economy test. It also has even lower limits on HTHS and requires a minimum KV100 of 8.8 and a minimum TBN of 6.0
LL-14 FE+ (ACEA A1/B1 base) requires all the same testing of LL-01 FE but at minimums of HTHS 2.6, KV 7.8 and TBN 9.5
Thank you for that. Very useful information.
If I am understanding this right, LL-04 is also subject to the N20 performance, N20 aeration, and N42 valvetronic tests?
Edit: Also, do you know how the LL-01 test stacks up against A40 and MB 229.5?
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: 1JZ_E46
Thank you for that. Very useful information.
No problem.
Originally Posted By: 1JZ_E46
If I am understanding this right, LL-04 is also subject to the N20 performance, N20 aeration, and N42 valvetronic tests?
Yes that is correct.
Originally Posted By: 1JZ_E46
Also, do you know how the LL-01 test stacks up against A40 and MB 229.5?
For this I would go to the European spec comparison tool linked to above. I don't happen to have those specs in front of me so I would have to see if I can find them. If I do I will post a synopsis.
Thank you for that. Very useful information.
No problem.
Originally Posted By: 1JZ_E46
If I am understanding this right, LL-04 is also subject to the N20 performance, N20 aeration, and N42 valvetronic tests?
Yes that is correct.
Originally Posted By: 1JZ_E46
Also, do you know how the LL-01 test stacks up against A40 and MB 229.5?
For this I would go to the European spec comparison tool linked to above. I don't happen to have those specs in front of me so I would have to see if I can find them. If I do I will post a synopsis.
Originally Posted By: Solarent
As near as I can tell there shouldn't be an issue with M1FS 0W40 meeting LL-01, it has the right base, high enough HTHS and it's not like the registrations fees are too crazy (expensive but not a big deal for someone like Mobil) maybe they let their release lapse and haven't renewed yet?
According to responses from XOM customer service, they claim there was a recent change in LL-01 specification and that's why they no longer meet it. But it's strange that they only dropped the LL-01 approval when they introduced the FS variant.
As near as I can tell there shouldn't be an issue with M1FS 0W40 meeting LL-01, it has the right base, high enough HTHS and it's not like the registrations fees are too crazy (expensive but not a big deal for someone like Mobil) maybe they let their release lapse and haven't renewed yet?
According to responses from XOM customer service, they claim there was a recent change in LL-01 specification and that's why they no longer meet it. But it's strange that they only dropped the LL-01 approval when they introduced the FS variant.
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: Solarent
As near as I can tell there shouldn't be an issue with M1FS 0W40 meeting LL-01, it has the right base, high enough HTHS and it's not like the registrations fees are too crazy (expensive but not a big deal for someone like Mobil) maybe they let their release lapse and haven't renewed yet?
According to responses from XOM customer service, they claim there was a recent change in LL-01 specification and that's why they no longer meet it. But it's strange that they only dropped the LL-01 approval when they introduced the FS variant.
Yes that is weird. I'm pretty confident nothing has changed here except that they made the approval process available online, it is a little more rigorous and requires an audit of the manufacturing facility's quality program and samples to be sent to BMW for testing. Maybe the with the process change, the fee's also changed and Mobil wasn't happy about it? But it's really not that bad - comparable to Dexos1 or other similar OEM registrations - no where near what Cummins charges... maybe they want to push BMW owners to ESP as it has LL-04? Maybe they think that LL-01 is now close to 15 years old and not worth it?
Originally Posted By: Solarent
As near as I can tell there shouldn't be an issue with M1FS 0W40 meeting LL-01, it has the right base, high enough HTHS and it's not like the registrations fees are too crazy (expensive but not a big deal for someone like Mobil) maybe they let their release lapse and haven't renewed yet?
According to responses from XOM customer service, they claim there was a recent change in LL-01 specification and that's why they no longer meet it. But it's strange that they only dropped the LL-01 approval when they introduced the FS variant.
Yes that is weird. I'm pretty confident nothing has changed here except that they made the approval process available online, it is a little more rigorous and requires an audit of the manufacturing facility's quality program and samples to be sent to BMW for testing. Maybe the with the process change, the fee's also changed and Mobil wasn't happy about it? But it's really not that bad - comparable to Dexos1 or other similar OEM registrations - no where near what Cummins charges... maybe they want to push BMW owners to ESP as it has LL-04? Maybe they think that LL-01 is now close to 15 years old and not worth it?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked