LL 98 vs LL04 oil

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
1
Location
Europe
Hi.

I have a very tricky question, at least for me, about oils, of course
grin.gif


I have a diesel BMW (Europe) and have access to buy Liqui Moly oil at a very good price.
My doubt is what could be the best option:
  • Synthoil High Tech 5W-40 100% Synthetic LL98
  • Top Tec 4100 5W-40 Synthetic Technology LL04 (think is hydrocracked)

My car is a BMW e46 Diesel without diesel particulate filters (DPF) and really don't know if use LL04 even been hydrocracked could have any benefit over the Synth LL98.
33.gif

Hope here I can find some answers from the experts.

Thanks for your help.
 
Welcome to BITOG.
smile.gif


The LongLife-98 specification is obsolete, and the reason Liqui-Moly puts it on their labeling is because they recommend the product for certain older cars requiring that specification. Synthoil High Tech 5W-40 officially meets ACEA A3/B4-04, whilst being recommended for LongLife-98, Porsche A40, MB-Sheet 229.3 and VW 502/505. That said, LongLife-98 is pretty much the same as the ACEA A3/B3-02 specification, so an oil meeting ACEA A3/B4-04 automatically meets it anyway.

The LongLife-04 on the other hand is a low SAPS (sulphated ash, phosphorus, sulphur) specification for newer European vehicles equipped with diesel particulate filters, as you have mentioned. There is no problem using this oil, especially when sulphur levels are as low as 10 ppm in European fuels. But if you don't have a DPF, then you really don't need to use it unless it's your only choice.

That said, I would look for a LongLife-01 rated oil for your particular application. Liqui-Moly Leichtlauf High Tech 5W-40 meets this specification, as well as many others like MB-Sheet 229.5.

As a final word, do not worry about the base oil. It is the complete package (base oil AND additive package) that matters. Base oils matter little in automotive applications, and Group III lubricants are now widespread in Europe. They can perform just as good as Group IV based products.
 
Originally Posted By: 229
BMW LL01 or better yet MB 229.5
Cheers


Based upon what?
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: 229
BMW LL01 or better yet MB 229.5
Cheers


Based upon what?


One place you can check the spec charts is lubrizol.com
 
Originally Posted By: 229
One place you can check the spec charts is lubrizol.com

Those aren't "the spec charts." They are just graphical representations of loose approximations of a few key aspects of engine oil performance. They don't cover everything, and they are far from exact.
 
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: 229
One place you can check the spec charts is lubrizol.com

Those aren't "the spec charts." They are just graphical representations of loose approximations of a few key aspects of engine oil performance. They don't cover everything, and they are far from exact.


How do you compare spec. numbers?
It seems the oils get progressively better with later alphanumeric characters at least up to low-saps oils.
 
If I were using that Lubrizol tool, I would compare LL-98 to LL-01, 229.3 to 229.5, 229.31 to 229.51, etc. I wouldn't compare across manufacturers or third parties (e.g. BMW to MB, VW to ACEA, etc.), or across different kinds of specs (e.g. high-SAPS and low-SAPS as you indicated).
 
Originally Posted By: 229
OK, thanks. BTW, does your name have a cryptic meaning?


It's "dude food" so I'm gonna guess pizza and beer?
 
Originally Posted By: BobFout
Originally Posted By: 229
OK, thanks. BTW, does your name have a cryptic meaning?


It's "dude food" so I'm gonna guess pizza and beer?


dood = Nonstandard spelling of dude · Dutch: dead ... Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
 
BobFout's translation is correct, and the pizza and beer thing is close.

I started college around 11 years ago, only a couple of years after my friends and I had discovered instant messenger programs. We thought it was cool to substitute numbers for letters in our online conversations.

One of my college friends and I met for lunch almost every day. We would discuss these meetings online, usually over AOL Instant Messenger. A typical online conversation would start roughly like this:

Me: "d00d!!!"
Friend: "y0"
Me: "f00d???"

Imagine having that exchange almost every day, at least once each day, for months. It was almost muscle memory after a while.

Hence, "d00df00d."
 
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
If I were using that Lubrizol tool, I would compare LL-98 to LL-01, 229.3 to 229.5, 229.31 to 229.51, etc. I wouldn't compare across manufacturers or third parties (e.g. BMW to MB, VW to ACEA, etc.), or across different kinds of specs (e.g. high-SAPS and low-SAPS as you indicated).


"Disclaimer-The relative performance diagrams represent an interpretation made by The Lubrizol Corporation of various rules and specifications. They are not a literal translation of a performance specification and should not be used as a replacement for evaluating engine oil performance in accordance with the relevant vehicle manufacturer's requirements."

Some engine tests were changed for the later classifications so you can not compare apples to apples. Hopefully progressions reflect improvements or why else to update a classification?
When the time line of specs crossed over into fuel efficient (lower HTHS) and emmisions after treatment devices protection (low SAPS) oils it seems like a different world.
The latest specs may not represent the best engine protection. Some do not feel there is a replacement for sacrificial ZDDP and certainly not in the same price bracket.
Are the Euro specs better because of their higher HTHS than the USA's lower viscosity API classification oils? Thicker oils do provide more cushion but an engines machining tolerances dictate the oil viscosity recommendations.
Tribologists have a difficult occupation.
If all of this is not confusing enough we have deceptive marketing practices with all this meets/exceeds jumbo instead of just telling us the manufacturers certifications and not lying about it. I applaude GMC for their Dexos licensing and fees for compliance verification. Most are baulking at this because their products are not good enough and passing the excuse they do not want to pay the fees to help the public. Only a few passed GM4718M.
This novel is getting too long for this type of forum so I will not get started on antifreeze/coolant specifications.
 
I wouldn't automatically assume that LL-01 is better than LL-98, or LL-04 is better than LL-01, it really depends on your engine. I have a a year 2000, BMW e46 330, the M54 engine, bought at 46k miles and now at 150k miles. My own oil reports, which i uploaded here showed that BMW LL-98 provided the best protection for wear, especially when compared to LL-04. When i bought the car in 2006, i just assumed the latest spec Castrol Edge (LL-04) would be the best, but i was wrong, it had the worst wear characteristics for my engine (iron and lead).

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/1252886/1

I'm a believer of using the spec of oil that most closely matches the year of your cars production, unless someone shows categorically that a newer spec oil works better. The more modern specs of oils are designed to prioritize reducing emissions relative to protection.

I change my oil every 7500 miles usually with BMW LL-98, sometimes LL-01, NEVER LL-04 and the engine runs sweet. I haven't sent any oil samples since about 80k miles, but since stumbling across this thread i may send some off for curiosity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top