Am I right? or am I wrong?

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: edyvw
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: edyvw
Base stock? You have VW 504.00 that are mainly Group III and have 502.00 that are 100% PAO (Motul) or very high content of PAO (GC is not 100% combination of PAO and Ester).
M1 0W30 ESP is not VW504.00 compliant at all!

There is so much misinformation here.

M1 0W-30 ESP is VW 504 00 compliant: Reference
VW 504 00 specifies better base stock (11% NOACK) than VW 502 00 (13% NOACK): Reference (see page 146)
NOACK determines the base-stock quality for a given cold-start viscosity: Reference

Last but not least, actual base stocks used in an oil are neither known nor a certain base stock is required by an OEM/API/ACEA/ILSAC spec. OEMs/API/ACEA/ILSAC only specify the NOACK, not the base-stock type.


That is Mobil1 5W30 ESP NOT 0W30!
I have M1 5W30 ESP in my car now.
NOACK is important, but 11% is not very good value. MB 229.5 and 229.51 are much better reference.
Redline has NOACK of 6%, GC has below 10%, PU Euro 5W40 and L version should have below 10% because 5W40 meets MB 229.5 and L meets 229.51. And yes, base stock does not mean oil cannot meet OEM spec, and you have some very good GroupIII oils such as Pentosin or M1 0W40.

That was just a typo of course -- there is no such thing as Mobil 1 0W-30 ESP and Mobil 1 0W-30 AFE has an HTHS viscosity of only 3.0 cP (being a fuel-efficient oil) as opposed to 3.5 cP minimum of any VW spec (for more wear protection in more demanding driving conditions at the cost of fuel economy).

Yes, you can always have higher-quality base stocks, PAO and GTL being the highest quality. However, it's important to note that the NOACK comparisons should always be made taking the cold-cranking viscosity (CCS) into account. For a given base stock, if CCS gets higher, NOACK will get lower. You can't compare NOACK of 20W-50 to 0W-50 and claim that they use the same base stock. Likewise, certain oils for a given x of xW-** grade might have very low CCS (for better cold cranking), resulting in higher NOACK.

Also, usually some mix of base stocks is needed to overcome some negative attributes of a given base stock. For example PAO (Group IV) usually needs to be mixed with some Group V to overcome its certain undesired properties.

 

[bobbydavro]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: bobbydavro
You should read page147 and 148. That will show you the real difference with VW specs - the oils that carry them are proven in VWs engine tests.

No CJ4 oil will be capable of VW as it doesn't meet any of the PCO ACEA specs for a start.

There's far more to oil that just looking at Virgin oil analysis and making some conclusions based on additive ppm!

Of course, I had read the entire specs. I am the one who was familiar with this somewhat hidden reference and posted it here. You didn't understand what I posted at all and missed the entire point I was trying to make, which is actually understanding what these specs mean. It has nothing to do with ppms or VOAs.

VW 50x specs (except 504 00 and 507 00) will be met by any synthetic oil with the proper HTHS viscosity. There is nothing else more stringent about them than API or ACEA other the NOACK volatility.


This kind of proves my point, you have looked at one value and completely ignored the fact a 504 507 oil needs to pass 7 core engine tests and then Type performance in VW specified engines. Its not a case of just meeting the physical chemical specs.

Also that 11% NOACK is in there. This was original to do with oil consumption, however no real correlation as base oil effects are greater than just noack. Noack also has no correlation with inlet value deposist, this is why VW 504 507 oils have to pass the VW FSi test, this assess the performance of the oil rather than just going by the physcial chemical limits of the spec.

The ash limit is 1.5% but no oil will pass the VW DPF test at that level ash, hence 0.7% ash is more typicaly due to the performance requirements of the spec.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: edyvw
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: edyvw
Base stock? You have VW 504.00 that are mainly Group III and have 502.00 that are 100% PAO (Motul) or very high content of PAO (GC is not 100% combination of PAO and Ester).
M1 0W30 ESP is not VW504.00 compliant at all!

There is so much misinformation here.

M1 0W-30 ESP is VW 504 00 compliant: Reference
VW 504 00 specifies better base stock (11% NOACK) than VW 502 00 (13% NOACK): Reference (see page 146)
NOACK determines the base-stock quality for a given cold-start viscosity: Reference

Last but not least, actual base stocks used in an oil are neither known nor a certain base stock is required by an OEM/API/ACEA/ILSAC spec. OEMs/API/ACEA/ILSAC only specify the NOACK, not the base-stock type.


That is Mobil1 5W30 ESP NOT 0W30!
I have M1 5W30 ESP in my car now.
NOACK is important, but 11% is not very good value. MB 229.5 and 229.51 are much better reference.
Redline has NOACK of 6%, GC has below 10%, PU Euro 5W40 and L version should have below 10% because 5W40 meets MB 229.5 and L meets 229.51. And yes, base stock does not mean oil cannot meet OEM spec, and you have some very good GroupIII oils such as Pentosin or M1 0W40.

That was just a typo of course -- there is no such thing as Mobil 1 0W-30 ESP and Mobil 1 0W-30 AFE has an HTHS viscosity of only 3.0 cP (being a fuel-efficient oil) as opposed to 3.5 cP minimum of any VW spec (for more wear protection in more demanding driving conditions at the cost of fuel economy).

Yes, you can always have higher-quality base stocks, PAO and GTL being the highest quality. However, it's important to note that the NOACK comparisons should always be made taking the cold-cranking viscosity (CCS) into account. For a given base stock, if CCS gets higher, NOACK will get lower. You can't compare NOACK of 20W-50 to 0W-50 and claim that they use the same base stock. Likewise, certain oils for a given x of xW-** grade might have very low CCS (for better cold cranking), resulting in higher NOACK.

Also, usually some mix of base stocks is needed to overcome some negative attributes of a given base stock. For example PAO (Group IV) usually needs to be mixed with some Group V to overcome its certain undesired properties.

Who is comparing 0W50 with 20W50?
I am talking about 502.00, 229.5, 504.00/507.00 oils.
You have many oils that are 502.00 and less volatile then 504.00/507.00.
Only advantage, ONLY, advantage of 504.00/507.00 over oils like PU Euro 5W40, M1 0W40 or GC is lower sulfated ash etc, which leaves less deposits. From lubrication standpoint, many 502.00 are better oils then many 504.00, and vice versa.

 

[Gokhan]

0W-50 to 20W-50 comparison was a general comment to educate about the rather important relationship between NOACK and CCS. For a given base oil, the two are inversely proportional. See pages 8 and 9 of this reference (PDF link). Lower NOACK results in better high-temperature and turbo performance (less deposits) and lower CCS results in better cold cranking. Since cold cranking is roughly indicated by the x in xW-y, usually NOACK alone is taken as the measure of quality of the base stock for a given SAE viscosity grade xW-y.

Regarding the low-SAPS, let's make a clarification once and for all. The only low-SAPS VW category is VW 505 01, and that's for diesel particulate filters. These are the specs (see pages 146 - 148 of this reference [PDF link]):

All except VW 505 01 -- diesel engines with diesel particulate filters (DPFs) -- have 1.5% max sulphated ash. VW 505 01 has 0.8% sulphated ash for the protection of DPFs.

The valve deposits have to do more with NOACK than the ash content -- that's the reason for lower NOACK in VW 504 00.

If an oil is being sold as ESP, it's because it satisfies VW 505 01 as well. The oil manufacturers make the oils multispec to decrease the costs.

Besides, these days, there is hardly such a thing as high-SAPS oil other than the ACEA A3/B3/B4 and A5/B5 oils, which have high initial TBN for extended oil-change intervals (OCIs). Such high initial TBNs require more detergents, hence higher ash content. One such example is Mobil 1 0W-40.

All other oils sold today usually have sulphated ash around 0.8% and hardly ever more than 1.0%. If an oil fails to satisfy VW 504 00, it's not because of the sulphated ash but the strict 11% limit on the NOACK, which requires PAO/GTL base oils in the mix. If a VW 504 00 oil is explicitly sold as low-SAPS, ESP, etc., it's not because of the VW 504 00 spec but the dual VW 505 01 spec on the bottle.

Regarding wear, it's not true at all that high-SAPS oil will offer more wear protection. In fact, on the contrary, high-SAPS oils can increase wear because of high detergent content. Detergents fight for surfaces against antiwear additives, decreasing their effectiveness. The only reason why they make high-SAPS oils is to provide higher initial TBN (thanks to more detergents) for extended oil-change inetervals in excess of 15,000 miles (25,000 kilometers). You don't need high TBN to fight the acids -- it's sufficient for the decreasing TBN to only stay above a minimum (1 or 2) until the end of the oil-change interval.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
The valve deposits have to do more with NOACK than the ash content -- that's the reason for lower NOACK in VW 504 00.

Not sure about that. Low SAPS oils certainly do help reduce DI engine deposit formation in a meaningful way...

http://www.lubrizol.com/EngineOilAdditives/ACEA/ConferencePapers/LowerSAPS.pdf

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
The valve deposits have to do more with NOACK than the ash content -- that's the reason for lower NOACK in VW 504 00.

Not sure about that. Low SAPS oils certainly do help reduce DI engine deposit formation in a meaningful way...

http://www.lubrizol.com/EngineOilAdditives/ACEA/ConferencePapers/LowerSAPS.pdf

Thanks for the link. In the picture on page 19, they look more like base-oil deposits (shiny-black) to me than ash deposits, which would be matte-gray. It seems that the tests are a little massaged by comparing to a lower-quality oil.

Besides, these days, there is hardly such thing as a high-SAPS oil. Even Mobil 1 0W-40, a high-initial-TBN oil, has only 1.3% sulphated ash. Most oils have around 0.8% sulphated ash.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
0W-50 to 20W-50 comparison was a general comment to educate about the rather important relationship between NOACK and CCS. For a given base oil, the two are inversely proportional. See pages 8 and 9 of this reference (PDF link). Lower NOACK results in better high-temperature and turbo performance (less deposits) and lower CCS results in better cold cranking. Since cold cranking is roughly indicated by the x in xW-y, usually NOACK alone is taken as the measure of quality of the base stock for a given SAE viscosity grade xW-y.

Regarding the low-SAPS, let's make a clarification once and for all. The only low-SAPS VW category is VW 505 01, and that's for diesel particulate filters. These are the specs (see pages 146 - 148 of this reference [PDF link]):

All except VW 505 01 -- diesel engines with diesel particulate filters (DPFs) -- have 1.5% max sulphated ash. VW 505 01 has 0.8% sulphated ash for the protection of DPFs.

The valve deposits have to do more with NOACK than the ash content -- that's the reason for lower NOACK in VW 504 00.

If an oil is being sold as ESP, it's because it satisfies VW 505 01 as well. The oil manufacturers make the oils multispec to decrease the costs.

Besides, these days, there is hardly such a thing as high-SAPS oil other than the ACEA A3/B3/B4 and A5/B5 oils, which have high initial TBN for extended oil-change intervals (OCIs). Such high initial TBNs require more detergents, hence higher ash content. One such example is Mobil 1 0W-40.

All other oils sold today usually have sulphated ash around 0.8% and hardly ever more than 1.0%. If an oil fails to satisfy VW 504 00, it's not because of the sulphated ash but the strict 11% limit on the NOACK, which requires PAO/GTL base oils in the mix. If a VW 504 00 oil is explicitly sold as low-SAPS, ESP, etc., it's not because of the VW 504 00 spec but the dual VW 505 01 spec on the bottle.

Regarding wear, it's not true at all that high-SAPS oil will offer more wear protection. In fact, on the contrary, high-SAPS oils can increase wear because of high detergent content. Detergents fight for surfaces against antiwear additives, decreasing their effectiveness. The only reason why they make high-SAPS oils is to provide higher initial TBN (thanks to more detergents) for extended oil-change inetervals in excess of 15,000 miles (25,000 kilometers). You don't need high TBN to fight the acids -- it's sufficient for the decreasing TBN to only stay above a minimum (1 or 2) until the end of the oil-change interval.


I do not know where to start, seriously.
1. VW 505.01 is Mid-SAPS oil, and not suitable for latest VW diesel engines (Common-Rail engines).
2. Long drain oils are Low-SAPS oils. In Europe ONLY, and ONLY Low-SAPS oils VW 504.00/507.00 are considered as Long-Drain for VW (or ACEA C2/C3, BMW-LL04, MB 229.51 which in case of MB and BMW are Mid-SAPS). How I know? I own a car in Europe that is on fixed interval and a car that is on long drain interval. One is using VW 505.01 (1.9TDI PD engine with 105hp), another is with 2.0TDI CR engine (using VW 504.00/507.00).
3. VW504.00/507.00 are not designed with American market in mind, but primarily with the EU market in mind. We in the U.S. get only 2.0TSi, 2.0TDi, and recently 1.4TSI (Jetta Hybrid) and 1.8TSI (Passat). In Europe you have wide range of engines that mostly require Low-SAPS oils (VW504.00/507.00, ACEA C3).
Look how Motul classify their oils when it comes to SAPS and looks at specs:
For example, Motul VW504.00/507.00 Sulfated ash is 0.6%, not as you said 1.5% (which would never get VW504.00 approval if it was 1.5%).
Motul VW-504.00/507.00
As you can see, Motul CLEARLY specify their VW505.01 oil as Mid-SAPS oil, with sulfated ash of 0.79%:
Motul VW505.01

And as you can see, sulfated ash of 1.1% is in the Motul X-Cess 5W40 or High-SAPS oil:
Motul X-Cess

And one more example of Mid-SAPS oil , where it is clearly stated that it is Mid-SAPS (not Low-SAPS as you claim) and VW505.01 is Motul X-Clean 5W40:

Motul X-Clean

And to finish this discussion, please pay attention on the page 16 of this PDF released by API, signed by Dr. Sven-Oliver Kossmehl from Volkswagen AG:

VW Diesel engine and oil testing and requirements

 

[edyvw]

The last link, I made mistake.
Here is right link:
VW Diesel engine and oil testing and requirements

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: edyvw
I do not know where to start, seriously.
1. VW 505.01 is Mid-SAPS oil, and not suitable for latest VW diesel engines (Common-Rail engines).
2. Long drain oils are Low-SAPS oils. In Europe ONLY, and ONLY Low-SAPS oils VW 504.00/507.00 are considered as Long-Drain for VW (or ACEA C2/C3, BMW-LL04, MB 229.51 which in case of MB and BMW are Mid-SAPS). How I know? I own a car in Europe that is on fixed interval and a car that is on long drain interval. One is using VW 505.01 (1.9TDI PD engine with 105hp), another is with 2.0TDI CR engine (using VW 504.00/507.00).
3. VW504.00/507.00 are not designed with American market in mind, but primarily with the EU market in mind. We in the U.S. get only 2.0TSi, 2.0TDi, and recently 1.4TSI (Jetta Hybrid) and 1.8TSI (Passat). In Europe you have wide range of engines that mostly require Low-SAPS oils (VW504.00/507.00, ACEA C3).
Look how Motul classify their oils when it comes to SAPS and looks at specs:
For example, Motul VW504.00/507.00 Sulfated ash is 0.6%, not as you said 1.5% (which would never get VW504.00 approval if it was 1.5%).
Motul VW-504.00/507.00
As you can see, Motul CLEARLY specify their VW505.01 oil as Mid-SAPS oil, with sulfated ash of 0.79%:
Motul VW505.01

And as you can see, sulfated ash of 1.1% is in the Motul X-Cess 5W40 or High-SAPS oil:
Motul X-Cess

And one more example of Mid-SAPS oil , where it is clearly stated that it is Mid-SAPS (not Low-SAPS as you claim) and VW505.01 is Motul X-Clean 5W40:

Motul X-Clean

You have been nothing but argumentative and haven't brought anything positive to this discussion. I honestly don't even know what you're arguing about.

You keep giving examples about random oils and random OEM recommendations. We get it that there is a whole zoo of oils out there and all the OEM recommendations about oil drains, oil viscosity, specs, etc. are all over the place. So what? This isn't even the point of this thread and it's also completely opposite of the entire point I have been trying to make since my first post here: It's more important to understand what a particular spec means than why an OEM recommends one particular spec instead of another. How have your argumentative posts giving random examples and counterexamples contributed to this understanding?

You don't even understand the specs. For example, regarding your nomenclature of "low"- vs. "mid"-SAPS, etc., ACEA C1 and C4 max limit on sulphated ash is 0.5% vs. the ACEA C2 and C3 max limit of 0.8%, which clearly contradicts your claims (see the ACEA tables [PDF link]).

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: edyvw
I do not know where to start, seriously.
1. VW 505.01 is Mid-SAPS oil, and not suitable for latest VW diesel engines (Common-Rail engines).
2. Long drain oils are Low-SAPS oils. In Europe ONLY, and ONLY Low-SAPS oils VW 504.00/507.00 are considered as Long-Drain for VW (or ACEA C2/C3, BMW-LL04, MB 229.51 which in case of MB and BMW are Mid-SAPS). How I know? I own a car in Europe that is on fixed interval and a car that is on long drain interval. One is using VW 505.01 (1.9TDI PD engine with 105hp), another is with 2.0TDI CR engine (using VW 504.00/507.00).
3. VW504.00/507.00 are not designed with American market in mind, but primarily with the EU market in mind. We in the U.S. get only 2.0TSi, 2.0TDi, and recently 1.4TSI (Jetta Hybrid) and 1.8TSI (Passat). In Europe you have wide range of engines that mostly require Low-SAPS oils (VW504.00/507.00, ACEA C3).
Look how Motul classify their oils when it comes to SAPS and looks at specs:
For example, Motul VW504.00/507.00 Sulfated ash is 0.6%, not as you said 1.5% (which would never get VW504.00 approval if it was 1.5%).
Motul VW-504.00/507.00
As you can see, Motul CLEARLY specify their VW505.01 oil as Mid-SAPS oil, with sulfated ash of 0.79%:
Motul VW505.01

And as you can see, sulfated ash of 1.1% is in the Motul X-Cess 5W40 or High-SAPS oil:
Motul X-Cess

And one more example of Mid-SAPS oil , where it is clearly stated that it is Mid-SAPS (not Low-SAPS as you claim) and VW505.01 is Motul X-Clean 5W40:

Motul X-Clean

You have been nothing but argumentative and haven't brought anything positive to this discussion. I honestly don't even know what you're arguing about.

You keep giving examples about random oils and random OEM recommendations. We get it that there is a whole zoo of oils out there and all the OEM recommendations about oil drains, oil viscosity, specs, etc. are all over the place. So what? This isn't even the point of this thread and it's also completely opposite of the entire point I have been trying to make since my first post here: It's more important to understand what a particular spec means than why an OEM recommends one particular spec instead of another. How have your argumentative posts giving random examples and counterexamples contributed to this understanding?

You don't even understand the specs. For example, regarding your nomenclature of "low"- vs. "mid"-SAPS, etc., ACEA C1 and C4 max limit on sulphated ash is 0.5% vs. the ACEA C2 and C3 max limit of 0.8%, which clearly contradicts your claims (see the ACEA tables [PDF link]).


You are trying to get out of what you said!
You said, VW 505.01 is Low-SAPS oil. I provided you link signed by VW engineer that clarifies issue when it comes to Low-SAPS and their use.
Also, on page 16 you can see that VW504.00/507.00 can be Group III, IV or V base stock oil. Also on that page you can see range of sulfated ash, so you claim (or whoever claims that) that sulfated ash is of max 1.5% is bogus, because VW pdf obviously clearly states what is Low-SAPS and what is Mid-SAPS oil.
I gave you example of Motul because Motul clearly states what is their Low-SAPS and Mid-SAPS. But you can disregard that, since last PDF from VW CLEARLY explains why VW-504.0/507.00 are used and for what purpose.
On that note, Motul oils are NOT recommended, they are APPROVED! That means that if Motul says it is Low-SAPS, VW and all other manufacturers on their list also approved that oil as Low-SAPS. If Motul says it is Mid-SAPS, that means VW and other APPROVED NOT RECOMMENDED as Mid-SAPS.
Now if you expected that we are just going to confirm what you saying, you came to the wrong place. If you want that, open a blog or create web site.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: edyvw
You are trying to get out of what you said!
You said, VW 505.01 is Low-SAPS oil. I provided you link signed by VW engineer that clarifies issue when it comes to Low-SAPS and their use.
Also, on page 16 you can see that VW504.00/507.00 can be Group III, IV or V base stock oil.
I gave you example of Motul because Motul clearly states what is their Low-SAPS and Mid-SAPS. But you can disregard that, since last PDF from VW CLEARLY explains why VW-504.0/507.00 are used and for what purpose.
On that note, Motul oils are NOT recommended, they are APPROVED! That means that if Motul says it is Low-SAPS, VW and all other manufacturers on their list also approved that oil as Low-SAPS. If Motul says it is Mid-SAPS, that means VW and other APPROVED NOT RECOMMENDED as Mid-SAPS.
Now if you expected that we are just going to confirm what you saying, you came to the wrong place. If you want that, open a blog or create web site.

That's not true at all that I am trying to get out of what I said.

Thanks for the your last reference -- it' useful.

However, you still refuse to understand oil basics but prefer to wrap yourself around the OEM specs and what oil they sell out there. I repeat for the last time: It's more important to understand what a spec means and how the oil works than what spec is recommended.

Most oils, in fact almost all new oils, these days are low-SAPS. So, let's just stop this thing about low-SAPS. There are few oils that would be considered high-SAPS today. I was telling you that the C1 and C4 categories are explicitly the lowest SAPS out there, with only 0.5% max sulphated ash.

Regarding base oils, it's hard to meet the 11% NOACK with Group III alone for a low 5W- CCS (cold-cranking) viscosity. Perhaps you can meet it for a borderline (on the high side) 5W- CCS but that's not desirable. So, it would be preferable to have Group IV (PAO) or GTL in the mix.

The bottom line is that 502 00 is simply an old spec and the new 504 00 replaces it in all respects. This was the original poster's main question. It's not true at all that 502 00 offers more wear protection. This would be like saying API SL or SM offer more wear protection than SN or API SN offers more wear protection than GM dexos1, which is not true. The main "explicitly required" difference between 504 00 and 502 00 is the base-oil quality, with 504 00 requiring higher-quality base oil (lower NOACK, which means higher-quality base oil). If there is some older 502 00 oil with a lower NOACK out there, that doesn't mean anything -- oils within a given spec obviously still come and are sold in many quality levels. Regarding low-SAPS, more or less all new oils should be low-SAPS, for 502 00 as well, unless they are ACEA A3/B4 oils with high initial TBNs for extended service intervals.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: edyvw
You are trying to get out of what you said!
You said, VW 505.01 is Low-SAPS oil. I provided you link signed by VW engineer that clarifies issue when it comes to Low-SAPS and their use.
Also, on page 16 you can see that VW504.00/507.00 can be Group III, IV or V base stock oil.
I gave you example of Motul because Motul clearly states what is their Low-SAPS and Mid-SAPS. But you can disregard that, since last PDF from VW CLEARLY explains why VW-504.0/507.00 are used and for what purpose.
On that note, Motul oils are NOT recommended, they are APPROVED! That means that if Motul says it is Low-SAPS, VW and all other manufacturers on their list also approved that oil as Low-SAPS. If Motul says it is Mid-SAPS, that means VW and other APPROVED NOT RECOMMENDED as Mid-SAPS.
Now if you expected that we are just going to confirm what you saying, you came to the wrong place. If you want that, open a blog or create web site.

That's not true at all that I am trying to get out of what I said.

Thanks for the your last reference -- it' useful.

However, you still refuse to understand oil basics and prefer to wrap yourself around the OEM specs and what oil they sell out there. I repeat for the last time: It's more important to understand what a spec means and how the oil works than what spec is recommended.

Most oils, in fact almost all new oils, these days are low-SAPS. So, let's just stop this thing about low-SAPS. There are few oils that would be considered high-SAPS today. I was telling you that the C1 and C4 categories are explicitly the lowest SAPS out there, with only 0.5% max sulphated ash.

Regarding base oils, it's hard to meet the 11% NOACK with Group III alone for a low 5W- CCS (cold-cranking) viscosity. Perhaps you can meet it for a borderline (on the high side) 5W- CCS but that's not desirable. So, it would be preferable to have Group IV (PAO) or GTL in the mix.

The bottom line is that 502 00 is simply an old spec and the new 504 00 replaces it in all respects. This was the original poster's main question. It's not true at all that 502 00 offers more wear protection. This would be like saying API SL or SM offer more wear protection than SN or API SN offers more wear protection than GM dexos1, which is not true. The main "explicitly required" difference between 504 00 and 502 00 is the base-oil quality, with 504 00 requiring higher-quality base oil (lower NOACK, which means higher-quality base oil). If there is some older 502 00 oil with a lower NOACK out there, that doesn't mean anything -- oils within a given spec obviously still come and are sold in many quality levels. Regarding low-SAPS, more or less all new oils should be low-SAPS, for 502 00 as well, unless they are ACEA A3/B4 oils with high initial TBNs for extended service intervals.

OMG.
As far as I know, ALL VW 502.00 are ACEA A3/B4. Let me know when you see VW502.00 that is not ACEA A3/B4.
Low-SAPS oils work as intended on the EU market. In the U.S. if you follow manufacturer OCI (for example VW or BMW) you need to use VW502.00 (High-SAPS) or in BMW case LL-01 which are ACEA A3/B4 because both manufacturers are founders of ACEA and are actively involved in ACEA requirement developments.
How you know that VW502.00 is not offering more protection? Mb229.5 is more stringent specification then ACEA A3/b4 and especially more stringent then API SL/SM or SN. So how you know that M1 0W40 (which is Porsche A40 approved and Nissan GT-R approved) or Pennzoil Ultra 5W40 (which is used in Ferrari, that means Shell) are of less lubrication quality then Mobil1 ESP or PU Euro L or Castrol LL-03? All those oils have lower HTHS then M1 0W40 or PU 5W40, all those Low-SAPS oils have lower cranking capability then M1 or GC.
So who said here that manufacturers use ONLY Group III? Probably they all mix Group IV and Group V, but you or I do not know that. If it is predominantly Group III, then it is HC oil, and it is sold as HC oil in Germany, because law requires manufacturer to display whether it is Fully Synthetic (Group IV or V) or Synthetic Technology or HC technology (Group III).
So of oils that have VERY low NOACK and are HC or Group III oils are: M1 0W40 (NOACK 8.7%), M1 ESP 5W30 (which has also PAO and Easter, but not in sufficient amounts to be sold as Fully Synthetic in Germany) has NOACK 5.7% (that is questionable and it is based on VOA by Blackstone). Redline has NOACK of 6% in both VW 502.00 and VW 504.00 oils. Pennzoil Ultra Euro 5W40 has NOACK of 6.8%, and it is sold as HC oil in Germany (Shell Helix).
So having VW504.00/507.00 does not mean higher quality base stock (you are referring to cold start, well PU Euro L has pour point of -39c, and it is VW504.00/507.00, M1 ESP has -45c, while Pentosin Pento II has -42c and it is HC oil, while PU Ultra Euro 5W40 has also -45c. So pour point of VW502.00 PU Euro is better then PU Euro VW504.00), but means less deposits (which is clearly explained in VW pdf), better protection and preservation of DPF (also clearly stated in VW pdf). Also, pdf says VW504.00/507.00 could be all three groups. For VW505.01 they just said it could be GIII, which is minimum requirement, since Motul VW505.01 is 100% synthetic based or GroupIV and has VW approval. What VW did, IMO, is that with VW504.00/507.00 they just clarified issues more, saying this is acceptable and end of story.
Now, VW504.00/507.00, BMW-LL04 or MB229.51 are not developed because of better lubrication. MB 229.5 or High-SAPS oil, is most stringent requirement, much more stringent then ACEA A3 or not to mention API SM or SL. They developed those oils because of EURO emission norms which required car manufacturers to put DPF in the cars. However, High-SAPS oils were damaging to DPF or three-way catalytic converters in gas engines, and they produced more carbon deposits on intake valves. So when we talk about Low-SAPS oils, we have to understand that they are not developed because of better lubrication, but because of preservation of emission system components and deposits. So NOACK is not the one that is critical when it come sot intake valves deposits. Does it helps? Probably, but Low-SAPS is key in low deposits. By that premise then PU Euro 5W40 with NOACK of 6.8% is great choice for direct injection engines. But, you have tree where there was practical testing on Audi 3.2FSI where M1 ESP left least amount of deposits on intake valves. Also, Lubrizol did testing where VW504.00 oil left 47% less deposits then VW502.00.
So how would you know whether VW502.00 lubricates better or VW504.00/507.00 lubricates better? You cannot, because lubrication properties are not the one that pushed VW, BMW, MB etc, to require Low-SAPS oils.

 

[bobbydavro]

Edyvw you are bang on the money my friend. I seem to have my posts regarding engine tests ignored, however everything you say I completely agree with q I have limited information I can share in public regarding what DI engines respond to.

There is no such thing as newest or oldest VW specs. Sure some are obsolete, but 504 and 502 exist together. Eg Russia is a 502 country only due to fuel quality. Base oil has little impact in a VW5o4 develop earn as it's more about the additives.

Look at most 502/505, 502 / 505 01, 504/507 oils. They all carry MB229.5 or MB229.51 which has a Noack limit of 10%. Achievable on most all group III oils. The real driver for Base oil is the Fuel economy test for 504/507, ever thought VW may have relaxed the noack limit from 10% to allow thinner base oil and better fuel economy?

 

[Gokhan]

Again, I am not even sure what you are arguing about here. In your last sentence, you finally seem to have given up on the claim than VW 502 00 actually provides more wear protection than VW 504 00.

The claim that when new specs replace old specs, the wear protection is sacrificed for emissions durability makes little sense. For example API CJ-4 is explicitly for emissions protection (call it mid-SAPS if you like) but yet it offers more wear protection than API CI-4 Plus. The goal of the oil industry and OEMs is to keep the wear protection at least the same while they improve the emissions protection.

 

[bobbydavro]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Again, I am not even sure what you are arguing about here. In your last sentence, you finally seem to have given up on the claim than VW 502 00 actually provides more wear protection than VW 504 00.

The claim that when new specs replace old specs, the wear protection is sacrificed for emissions durability makes little sense. For example API CJ-4 is explicitly for emissions protection (call it mid-SAPS if you like) but yet it offers more wear protection than API CI-4 Plus. The goal of the oil industry and OEMs is to keep the wear protection at least the same while they improve the emissions protection.


You can't compare 502 to 504 for wear performance as no VW tests are the same.

The goal for the industry is to reduce fuel consumption without impacting engine robustness. Hence many European OEMs are developing 0W-20s specs

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Again, I am not even sure what you are arguing about here. In your last sentence, you finally seem to have given up on the claim than VW 502 00 actually provides more wear protection than VW 504 00.

The claim that when new specs replace old specs, the wear protection is sacrificed for emissions durability makes little sense. For example API CJ-4 is explicitly for emissions protection (call it mid-SAPS if you like) but yet it offers more wear protection than API CI-4 Plus. The goal of the oil industry and OEMs is to keep the wear protection at least the same while they improve the emissions protection.

First, I said that VW504.00/507.00 is not guarantee that they provide better lubrication. I said: VW 502.00 can provide better lubrication then VW 504.00/507.00 or vice versa (vice versa means that also certain VW504.00/507.00 could provide better lubrication then certain VW502.00, depending what oils we compare). However, this web site does not allow me to draw pictures, that might be easier to understand.
Also, how is that VW504.00/507.00 is not Porsche approved if offers better lubrication, but many VW502.00 oils are also Porsche A40 approved? Porsche A40 is probably most stringent requirement when it comes to lubrication, or protection of key components in engine such as: camshaft, crankshaft etc? There is no ONE VW504.00/507.00 oil that meets A40 requirement.
As I will say again, VW504.00/507.00 are developed primarily for emission protection. That does not mean that if you develop oil for better emission protection it will impact lubrication properties. VW504.00/507.00 could have SAME base stocks as VW505.01 or VW502.00 or BMW-LL04 or BMW-LL01. Many of these oil manufacturers get same base stock, but additive package is different or sulfated ash content is different.
What makes you think that M1 0W40 MB229.5 has different base stock then MB229.51 (Low-SAPS)? It is additive package that is different and probably both oils are of same lubrication quality.
The difference is that M1 0W40 ESP will protect emission system better, and because EU gas has lower sulphur content, it is more suitable for that market then for the US market where you get M1 0W40 Full SAPS oil.
The difference is that High-SAPS oils will do better when it comes to oxidation of oil in environment where gas has high sulphur content (U.S., Russia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Canada, Brazil etc), which can lead to sludge etc. in the environment where there is low sulphur content (EU, japan), Low-SAPS oils could be used because lower TBN cannot be depleted that fast as in environment with high sulphur content in gas.
Also, what makes you think that todays VW502.00 or MB229.5 or BMW LL-01 oils do not lubricate better then 10yrs ago? Just because it is old spec, does not mean that lubrication quality is same like 10yrs ago.

 

[bobbydavro]

To add to the above. The specs are also constantly changing as time goes on, the consumer won't see a different but limits and engine tests are always changing, asking more of the oil.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: bobbydavro
To add to the above. The specs are also constantly changing as time goes on, the consumer won't see a different but limits and engine tests are always changing, asking more of the oil.


Agree! That is why on that PDF from VW says: Approval worth for 3yrs!

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: edyvw
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Again, I am not even sure what you are arguing about here. In your last sentence, you finally seem to have given up on the claim than VW 502 00 actually provides more wear protection than VW 504 00.

The claim that when new specs replace old specs, the wear protection is sacrificed for emissions durability makes little sense. For example API CJ-4 is explicitly for emissions protection (call it mid-SAPS if you like) but yet it offers more wear protection than API CI-4 Plus. The goal of the oil industry and OEMs is to keep the wear protection at least the same while they improve the emissions protection.

First, I said that VW504.00/507.00 is not guarantee that they provide better lubrication. I said: VW 502.00 can provide better lubrication then VW 504.00/507.00 or vice versa (vice versa means that also certain VW504.00/507.00 could provide better lubrication then certain VW502.00, depending what oils we compare). However, this web site does not allow me to draw pictures, that might be easier to understand.
Also, how is that VW504.00/507.00 is not Porsche approved if offers better lubrication, but many VW502.00 oils are also Porsche A40 approved? Porsche A40 is probably most stringent requirement when it comes to lubrication, or protection of key components in engine such as: camshaft, crankshaft etc? There is no ONE VW504.00/507.00 oil that meets A40 requirement.
As I will say again, VW504.00/507.00 are developed primarily for emission protection. That does not mean that if you develop oil for better emission protection it will impact lubrication properties. VW504.00/507.00 could have SAME base stocks as VW505.01 or VW502.00 or BMW-LL04 or BMW-LL01. Many of these oil manufacturers get same base stock, but additive package is different or sulfated ash content is different.
What makes you think that M1 0W40 MB229.5 has different base stock then MB229.51 (Low-SAPS)? It is additive package that is different and probably both oils are of same lubrication quality.
The difference is that M1 0W40 ESP will protect emission system better, and because EU gas has lower sulphur content, it is more suitable for that market then for the US market where you get M1 0W40 Full SAPS oil.
The difference is that High-SAPS oils will do better when it comes to oxidation of oil in environment where gas has high sulphur content (U.S., Russia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Canada, Brazil etc), which can lead to sludge etc. in the environment where there is low sulphur content (EU, japan), Low-SAPS oils could be used because lower TBN cannot be depleted that fast as in environment with high sulphur content in gas.
Also, what makes you think that todays VW502.00 or MB229.5 or BMW LL-01 oils do not lubricate better then 10yrs ago? Just because it is old spec, does not mean that lubrication quality is same like 10yrs ago.

I don't think we're disagreeing here much.

Don't all VW 504 00 oils also satisfy VW 502 00? So, that means any VW 504 00 oil is already automatically certified for the Porsche if Porsche is recommending VW 502 00.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: edyvw
Also, how is that VW504.00/507.00 is not Porsche approved if offers better lubrication, but many VW502.00 oils are also Porsche A40 approved? Porsche A40 is probably most stringent requirement when it comes to lubrication, or protection of key components in engine such as: camshaft, crankshaft etc? There is no ONE VW504.00/507.00 oil that meets A40 requirement.

This is very simple. VW 504.00/507.00 oils must be in Xw-30 grade. On the other hand a Porsche A40 oil must be in Xw-40 or Xw-50 grade. Hence, you can't have one oil that meets both specs.