0W30 with MB 229.52 and VW 507 for Canadians

Messages
807
Location
Vancouver
Originally Posted by geeman789
Hmmm ... This looks VERY SIMILAR to Pennzoil Euro LX 0W30.
Also QSUD Euro LX, which according to the data sheet, is identical to the Pennzoil. I would be surprised if this Motomaster was any different.
 
Messages
56
Location
WI
Wait, this whole "meets or exceeds" language: does that mean these oils are approved by those manufacturers or just that the oil company strives to meet the spec but may not necessarily be approved by MB or VW et al? It seems to me that "meets or exceeds" is different from "approved for use in ....." Am I missing the forest for the trees?
 
Messages
14,564
Location
Upper Midwest
If you're asking about the Motomaster product, the Mercedes Benz approvals are likely actual given they are worded properly in accordance with MB requirements. However they do not show up on the most current BeVo listing so there is no way to easily verify it. The VW approvals are not on the current Audi listing, but not all VW approvals are on that list nor is the listing as current as the MB one. The Pennzoil Platinum product is listed on BeVo for the Mercedes Benz approvals shown.
 
Messages
3,405
Location
Slovenia EU
I think that there is the catch if oil is "re-bottled"....then it only meets those requirements... When in ORIGINAL (shell) package it has approvals... Its the same with my Tech9 5w30 in a sig...I am pretty sure that it is just re-bottled Shell oil...but since it is re-bottled it only meets those approvals...
 
Messages
640
Location
Colorado
Approvals are supposed to be specific to the label, yet this Motomaster re-bottled Shell Helix Pennzoil stuff never got the memo on that. Both say "Made in Germany".
 
Messages
14,564
Location
Upper Midwest
Originally Posted by paoester
Approvals are supposed to be specific to the label, yet this Motomaster re-bottled Shell Helix Pennzoil stuff never got the memo on that. Both say "Made in Germany".
They aren't just supposed to be, they are. Of course the lists may just need to be updated which is what I'm guessing. Motomaster wouldn't fudge approvals like that, would they?
 
Messages
807
Location
Vancouver
Well, it does say recommended for. So if the original Shell Helix Ultra C2/C3 is the one with the actual approval, I can see how the Pennzoil, QS and MM versions don't specifically state it.
 
Messages
14,564
Location
Upper Midwest
Originally Posted by Jimmy_Russells
Well, it does say recommended for. So if the original Shell Helix Ultra C2/C3 is the one with the actual approval, I can see how the Pennzoil, QS and MM versions don't specifically state it.
For me the issue would be with the Mercedes Benz approvals. Those are worded the way they are supposed to be for actual approvals, not recommendations.
 
Messages
807
Location
Vancouver
Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by Jimmy_Russells
Well, it does say recommended for. So if the original Shell Helix Ultra C2/C3 is the one with the actual approval, I can see how the Pennzoil, QS and MM versions don't specifically state it.
For me the issue would be with the Mercedes Benz approvals. Those are worded the way they are supposed to be for actual approvals, not recommendations.
The bottle says ''formulated to meet or exceed,'' it doesn't say they are formal approvals. The wording is largely irrelevant at that point.
 
Messages
14,564
Location
Upper Midwest
No actually it isn't irrelevant, formal Mercedes Benz approvals are worded in a specific fashion as shown on the label. If that is not an actual approval then it should not be listed that way.
 
Messages
807
Location
Vancouver
Originally Posted by kschachn
No actually it isn't irrelevant, formal Mercedes Benz approvals are worded in a specific fashion as shown on the label. If that is not an actual approval then it should not be listed that way.
The other approvals are worded in the way they would be if they were actual approvals as well... This is nothing new, lots of oils they are not clear whether they are actually approved or not. Hence why I didn't use this particular oil (the Pennzoil version) for my last OCI.
 
Messages
14,564
Location
Upper Midwest
Originally Posted by Jimmy_Russells
The other approvals are worded in the way they would be if they were actual approvals as well... This is nothing new, lots of oils they are not clear whether they are actually approved or not. Hence why I didn't use this particular oil (the Pennzoil version) for my last OCI.
No that's not true, as far as I know Mercedes Benz is the only automaker I know that gives specific wording or phrasing for actual approvals as opposed to recommendations. The way it is worded on that label is for actual approvals and not "suitable for" or recommended. Motomaster has been unclear in the past on their approvals so yes, this may not be anything new. As far as I know the previous iteration of Motomaster 0W-40 had no approvals at all despite listing several on their label. The whole thing may be a non-issue if there is just a delay in getting the BeVo list updated.
 
Messages
807
Location
Vancouver
Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by Jimmy_Russells
The other approvals are worded in the way they would be if they were actual approvals as well... This is nothing new, lots of oils they are not clear whether they are actually approved or not. Hence why I didn't use this particular oil (the Pennzoil version) for my last OCI.
No that's not true, as far as I know Mercedes Benz is the only automaker I know that gives specific wording or phrasing for actual approvals as opposed to recommendations. The way it is worded on that label is for actual approvals and not "suitable for" or recommended. Motomaster has been unclear in the past on their approvals so yes, this may not be anything new. As far as I know the previous iteration of Motomaster 0W-40 had no approvals at all despite listing several on their label. The whole thing may be a non-issue if there is just a delay in getting the BeVo list updated.
I realize MB states it must be worded correctly. Saying MB229.51 for example, is simply incorrect. However if a company says "meets requirements of Mercedes-Benz 229.51" and uses the right terminology, even if the oil is not actually approved, they aren't really doing anything technically wrong. There will also be some actual approved oils that will say something like "Approvals: MB229.51". So yes it is confusing.
 
Messages
14,564
Location
Upper Midwest
But they are using "MB-Approval 229.31" which is intended to designate actual approval. If it is not approved then that is the ultimate in deceptive language. What you state above is more common, I have never seen a non-approved oil use the correct wording for approvals.
 
Top