Ravenol 5w30 REP vs VMS vs VMP

Messages
56
Location
WI
Thread starter
Gents, In search of a Euro oil for my Bluetec OM651, I came across the above 3 flavors of Ravenol. Besides the price and specs (229.51/.52), can anyone help shed some light on what would be the advantage of the "Racing" formula? I haven't tried Ravenol yet, but if there's some magic elixir in the Racing version to improve longevity and performance in my Bluetec, I would surely be interested. Currently at 106,xxx miles and no issues (DPF or otherwise) to report with current oil choice (yes, I read the whole 12-pg LM overrated thread, and that's what I've been using). Thoughts please?
 
Which one meets the specs for your engine? If all of them, pick based on your next criteria... if they all meet the specs and one is 3x the cost of the other, there's no real way to justify the increased cost IMO unless you really just want to have a "racing" oil. I'd use Ravenol's oil finder and go with that recommendation...
 
Messages
56
Location
WI
Thread starter
Quote
Which one meets the specs for your engine?
They all meet either 229.51 or 229.52 which are spec'd for my DPF-equipped diesel.
Quote
no real way to justify the increased cost IMO unless you really just want to have a "racing" oil
Therein lies my inquiry: what else besides the label makes the REP a "racing" oil?
Quote
I'd use Ravenol's oil finder and go with that recommendation
Doing so omits the Racing oil altogether frown
 
Messages
640
Location
Colorado
VMS is the worst one in that list, no USVO or tungsten, and the pourpoint indicates lower quality base oil. REP and VMP are full PAO and USVO, and REP has tungsten which makes it slightly different and possibly better. Both have great pourpoints due to the PAO. My pick is REP if you want the best of the three. VMP is almost as good.
 
Messages
640
Location
Colorado
Just about any 229.51/52 oil can be used in "racing" depending on the application. Very tough spec. I think "Racing" is put on REP's label as Ravenol's way of saying its their best effort. The tungsten in REP might lower friction horsepower losses more than the other oils, making it possibly more suitable for racing, reducing heat and freeing up more power a bit.
 
Last edited:
Messages
56
Location
WI
Thread starter
Quote
REP and VMP are full PAO and USVO, and REP has tungsten which makes it slightly different and possibly better. Both have great pourpoints due to the PAO.
Thanks, this is the kind of info I need. Could you elaborate on the tungsten and why it may be better? Answered above, thanks paoester. Agreed on pourpoints due to PAO. I will admit, it's pricey stuff when I can easily get Pennzoil Euro LX 5w30 or Valvoline MST Synpower 5w30 much cheaper ($5.39/qt for the MST locally). Opinions on whether the REP flavor would result in any meaningful, noticeable difference in my application vs the two domestics above? Edit: found this on tungsten. Interesting stuff, I wonder where might one get this unobtainium from? Found the answer to this as well, now for long reading...
 
Last edited:
Messages
640
Location
Colorado
Tungsten acts a lot like moly (reduces friction, both bond with sulphur in various compounds). Most oil makers skip the tungsten and just use moly. I'm not sure which is better. Ravenol has both tungsten and moly, maybe to reduce friction more than just the typical moly alone. Google terms are: WS2 oil additive and some aftermarket additves of questionable value pop up. Ravenol carefully blends their oils which is better than having 3rd party additives poured in.
 
Originally Posted by andreigbs
Opinions on whether the REP flavor would result in any meaningful, noticeable difference in my application vs the two domestics above?
Not trying to rain on your parade by any means, because you'll obviously do whatever suits you anyways. But to save you lots of time and effort, to paraphrase a good bit of "simple answer" from dnewton3, no, there is no magical oil that will result in any meaningful, noticeable difference between others. A given engine type will have a range of "normal" wear, and even further one specific engine (yours in this case) will have its own specific wear patterns. The most important thing to do is actually change your oil on a reasonable schedule; your engine will occasionally see small blips and variance in wear metals in a UOA, but when trended over a period of time, your engine is almost assuredly going to fall into line with the universal averages for that engine type. Short OCIs, boutique oils, etc etc all play a very very small part in overall wear. Use good filtration and change the oil when recommended and that's about 99% of all you can do to maximize the life of any given ICE. It has also been stated, sometimes not fervently enough, that an engine's air filter is actually the best oil filter, since dirt ingress through the intake tract is much more damaging than things normally inside your engine. So don't skimp out on a good air filter and tight intake tract! The inherent engine design plays an infinitely more weighty part in its lifetime than what oil you use.
 
Messages
640
Location
Colorado
Originally Posted by andreigbs
Opinions on whether the REP flavor would result in any meaningful, noticeable difference in my application vs the two domestics above?.
Probably not noticeable. A full-PAO oil like REP should leave less piston deposits over time which is something nobody would notice unless the rings start sticking at well over 200,000 miles. The WS2 (tungsten) and molyDTC in REP is expected to protect bearings a small amount better, very possibly. I can't be sure since Ravenol's other components affect that result too.
 
Messages
11,808
Location
PA
welcome to BITOG! The whole point of a spec like MB 229.51/229.52 is that, as long as the vehicle is being operated as designed, any differences among oils that meet it will be minor at best. Given that all the oils you've mentioned meet the spec your car calls for, you can be sure your engine won't care which one you run. In other words, it might be true that one of those Ravenol oils might be better than your other options, but it's HIGHLY unlikely that the difference will be big enough to be noticeable -- let alone worth the massive price difference vs. the locally available options. On some of the specific points brought up in this thread: A better pour point could be due to more PAO content, or it could be due to pour point depressant additives. I'm pretty sure esters tend to have higher pour points; that'd suggest that a lower pour point might also indicate less ester content. Either way, more PAO doesn't necessarily mean it's a better oil.
 
Messages
11,808
Location
PA
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
A given engine type will have a range of "normal" wear, and even further one specific engine (yours in this case) will have its own specific wear patterns. The most important thing to do is actually change your oil on a reasonable schedule; your engine will occasionally see small blips and variance in wear metals in a UOA, but when trended over a period of time, your engine is almost assuredly going to fall into line with the universal averages for that engine type. Short OCIs, boutique oils, etc etc all play a very very small part in overall wear. Use good filtration and change the oil when recommended and that's about 99% of all you can do to maximize the life of any given ICE. It has also been stated, sometimes not fervently enough, that an engine's air filter is actually the best oil filter, since dirt ingress through the intake tract is much more damaging than things normally inside your engine. So don't skimp out on a good air filter and tight intake tract! The inherent engine design plays an infinitely more weighty part in its lifetime than what oil you use.
approved
 
Messages
56
Location
WI
Thread starter
Quote
Not trying to rain on your parade by any means, because you'll obviously do whatever suits you anyways.
No rain in the forecast, you're good there smile And I'm always up for enlightened debate using facts and logic. Saving a buck is great, but maintaining expensive equipment takes precedence.
Quote
Given that all the oils you've mentioned meet the spec your car calls for, you can be sure your engine won't care which one you run.
Quite possibly, however there is a difference even between those two specs otherwise MB wouldn't have bothered with them. As I understand it, the 229.52 supersedes 229.51 and results in increased fuel economy. Or at least that's partly the goal, besides DPF protection. But to your point, if both specs cost the same (but they don't...) then I'd run the one that nets me extra fuel economy without sacrificing engine internals protection.
Quote
an engine's air filter is actually the best oil filter
Agreed! And once I replace my air filters, I don't touch them for at least the recommended interval. I do all my own maintenance, so no Iffy Lube gorillas will be touching it (apologies to gorillas everywhere).
Quote
Has ester along with approval for your spec
Tasty! Hadn't seen that one, and Blauparts doesn't stock it anymore. Although I do wonder what, if any, fuel economy penalty there may be between the Xw30 vs Xw40. Thank you gents, great info just as I was expecting to receive. I think for my next OCI, I will give the Ravenol REP a try. My climate makes the 5w30 viscosity the most ideal choice. Any other opinions and thoughts are welcome.
 
Last edited:
Messages
640
Location
Colorado
Originally Posted by andreigbs
Quite possibly, however there is a difference even between those two specs otherwise MB wouldn't have bothered with them. As I understand it, the 229.52 supersedes 229.51 and results in increased fuel economy. Or at least that's partly the goal, besides DPF protection. But to your point, if both specs cost the same (but they don't...) then I'd run the one that nets me extra fuel economy without sacrificing engine internals protection.
https://online.lubrizol.com/relperftool/pc.html informs us 229.51 isn't much different than 229.52. The .52 does give better anti-oxidation performance, cool that, and it does provide better fuel economy while being about the same in HTHS as 229.51, which means the .52 must use more friction reducers. 229.51 was introduced around 2009 or before, not sure when exactly, while 229.52 was created in 2012 and revised in 2016. 229.51 was also updated in 2016 so Mercedes considers it current for some engines and not superseded yet. 229.52 is better though. Notice RUP 5w40 is too thick (HTHS 3.9) to pass 229.52's friction reduction requirements, while REP 5w30 achieves 229.52 with a lower HTHS 3.7 and a load of tungsten & moly. Yeah REP wins, even for racing.
 
Messages
541
Location
Tennessee
Originally Posted by andreigbs
Gents, In search of a Euro oil for my Bluetec OM651, I came across the above 3 flavors of Ravenol. Besides the price and specs (229.51/.52), can anyone help shed some light on what would be the advantage of the "Racing" formula? I haven't tried Ravenol yet, but if there's some magic elixir in the Racing version to improve longevity and performance in my Bluetec, I would surely be interested. Currently at 106,xxx miles and no issues (DPF or otherwise) to report with current oil choice (yes, I read the whole 12-pg LM overrated thread, and that's what I've been using). Thoughts please?
I also looked at the Ravenol REP 5W30. Based on the product data sheet data given, my best guess was REP was considered slightly better product than VMP. (I know the difference is splitting hairs). I noted the REP had the slightly higher flashpoint. In addition, I noted that 5W30 REP has a HTHS of 3.7. To my knowledge, this is the highest HTHS you will find for a 5W30. In my vehicle, GM recommends that I use a 5W30 Dexos2 motor oil - which REP, has. In my case, other diesel engines, using 5W30 from the same manufacturer (VM Motori) had numerous engine failures under heavy towing conditions. (Ram EcoDiesel, I am talking to you). Ram's current motor oil recommendation is to use a 5W40 motor oil. Hopefully, I have a greater safety margin here under severe conditions, while still meeting the 5W30 Dexos2 requirement. As the old saying goes, changing engine oil, is a lot cheaper than replacing diesel engine parts. As a result, I bought 3 - 5L jugs for $111 for my 2016 Chevy Colorado Pickup (2.8L VM Motori diesel engine). When that is used up, I will go back to using Mobil 1 Formula ESP 5W30. Which has a 254C Flash point, 3.58 HTHS and Dexos2 approvals.
 
Messages
56
Location
WI
Thread starter
Quote
229.51 was also updated in 2016 so Mercedes considers it current for some engines and not superseded yet.
I stand corrected, thank you. To me though it appears that 229.52 is a slightly (arguably) better spec, however, which puts it at the top of my list. It is interesting that the Ravenol REP meets both MB specs. In other words, if it meets 229.52 then it has already surpassed (therefore also meets) 229.51.
Quote
Yeah REP wins, even for racing.
It does look good on paper, we'd just have to see in the crankcase. To make this more complicated, I noted that the VMP meets the VW507 spec in addition to 229.51. If we compare them using the Lubrizol tool, the 507 spec calls for better wear protection (10 vs 8) and better aftertreatment compatibility (8 vs 6) compared to 229.51. It's interesting that VMP can meet both, and there are of course several other brands and flavors that do the same. LM comes to mind, as that's what I'm using currently. I suppose in the interest of having to buy and stock one oil for both TDI and Bluetec, one could stock a combo spec oil such as this. I just wonder if I'd be missing out on anything by not using 229.52 in the Bluetec.
 
Messages
809
Location
Vancouver
I would just buy the cheaper one myself, it's really splitting hairs. They usually have the VMP on a decent price in the 20 qt box, although admittedly I haven't checked the REP.
 
Messages
56
Location
WI
Thread starter
Trouble is, once you start losing hair it's nearly impossible NOT to split hairs, ie overanalyze everything frown I'm trying to decide if I want a combo oil or the "best" oil for each individual application, and if I'll be able to differentiate between the two from a performance/longevity/fuel economy perspective more than just price alone.
 
Messages
809
Location
Vancouver
Originally Posted by andreigbs
Trouble is, once you start losing hair it's nearly impossible NOT to split hairs, ie overanalyze everything frown I'm trying to decide if I want a combo oil or the "best" oil for each individual application, and if I'll be able to differentiate between the two from a performance/longevity/fuel economy perspective more than just price alone.
I hear you - Analysis paralysis, I think most of us have the same problem. Truthfully though, it's a waste of time. The approval is all that matters. If the engines last 5k shorter because you chose the "wrong" approved oil, it's probably still not even worth the aggravation. Most of us don't even run our vehicles into the ground anyway.
 
Last edited:
Messages
56
Location
WI
Thread starter
Almost all of my previous dozen cars were diesels, nearly all were bought somewhat used (except one '14 Golf TDI that I bought new) with decent histories and to date I haven't had a single oil-related failure. So in a sense, I'm definitely overthinking it smirk OTOH, I want to ensure my vehicles perform as best as possible because I do tend to keep them 6-8 years on average, putting about 20k miles annually usually. The highest mileage vehicle I drove daily without a hiccup was a '97 TDI with 316k miles, original turbo and internals. That's the type of service I expect from my diesels, and if using a better oil increases that longevity margin then that's what I'd like to do. And speaking of trying to decide: I'm way out past the warranty on the Bluetec; what would be your opinions on switching to a HD fully synth oil like Delvac or Delo? Is a 0.02% difference in SA really going to be noticeable to my DPF and Bluetec system? If they act up, I plan on hitting a good-sized pothole and have the whole system fall off anyway.
 
Last edited:
Top