MB 229.3 in 229.5 application

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 3, 2017
Messages
1,180
Location
WA
So what exactly is gonna happen if I'll pour some 229.3 oil in my MB that's specs 229.5?
I can buy some Castrol Edge 5w40 on sale and wonder what will be the consequences of using it
 
Originally Posted by oldhp
Looking back at past posts on this 229.3 / 229.5 thing...........nothing.


I couldn't find a definitive answer here on bitog
 
229.5 enables 30,000 km oci with fleece filter with 1-2 % fuel saving over 229.3 by specifications .
Whilst 229.3 would reduce oci to say 15,000 - 20,000 km.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by SlavaB
So what exactly is gonna happen if I'll pour some 229.3 oil in my MB that's specs 229.5?
I can buy some Castrol Edge 5w40 on sale and wonder what will be the consequences of using it

What is application?
MB229.3 has less stringent demands across the board, deposits, NOACK, wear etc. It could be totally irrelevant, but also relevant. What engine is in question?
 
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by SlavaB
So what exactly is gonna happen if I'll pour some 229.3 oil in my MB that's specs 229.5?
I can buy some Castrol Edge 5w40 on sale and wonder what will be the consequences of using it

What is application?
MB229.3 has less stringent demands across the board, deposits, NOACK, wear etc. It could be totally irrelevant, but also relevant. What engine is in question?


2.0T on my 2015 GLA250
 
Originally Posted by DrDanger
While not a big deal, provided a reasonable OCI, the fuel savings alone will pay for the more expensive oil.


229.5 is not a more expensive oil here in the states. What makes you believe that 229.3 will lead to a worse fuel economy?
 
So, you are talking about using up some oil you already have and not putting 100% 229.3 in the sump?
 
Originally Posted by SlavaB
Originally Posted by DrDanger
While not a big deal, provided a reasonable OCI, the fuel savings alone will pay for the more expensive oil.


229.5 is not a more expensive oil here in the states. What makes you believe that 229.3 will lead to a worse fuel economy?


It's in the specs that the oil has to meet to receive its approval. 229.5 should save a little fuel over 229.3 as per that spec. Otherwise it would not be certified/approved.
 
Originally Posted by DrDanger
Originally Posted by SlavaB
Originally Posted by DrDanger
While not a big deal, provided a reasonable OCI, the fuel savings alone will pay for the more expensive oil.


229.5 is not a more expensive oil here in the states. What makes you believe that 229.3 will lead to a worse fuel economy?


It's in the specs that the oil has to meet to receive its approval. 229.5 should save a little fuel over 229.3 as per that spec. Otherwise it would not be certified/approved.

Both are HTHS above 3.5cp.
 
Originally Posted by SlavaB
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by SlavaB
So what exactly is gonna happen if I'll pour some 229.3 oil in my MB that's specs 229.5?
I can buy some Castrol Edge 5w40 on sale and wonder what will be the consequences of using it

What is application?
MB229.3 has less stringent demands across the board, deposits, NOACK, wear etc. It could be totally irrelevant, but also relevant. What engine is in question?


2.0T on my 2015 GLA250

You will be fine. Just cut OCI. That Castrol is mediocre oil by all means. I used it few time in my Passat B5.5 and always developed knock after 4k.
 
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by SlavaB
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by SlavaB
So what exactly is gonna happen if I'll pour some 229.3 oil in my MB that's specs 229.5?
I can buy some Castrol Edge 5w40 on sale and wonder what will be the consequences of using it

What is application?
MB229.3 has less stringent demands across the board, deposits, NOACK, wear etc. It could be totally irrelevant, but also relevant. What engine is in question?


2.0T on my 2015 GLA250

You will be fine. Just cut OCI. That Castrol is mediocre oil by all means. I used it few time in my Passat B5.5 and always developed knock after 4k.


Thx! Just have a $20 off coupon for AAP and thought to try out some Castrol. Will stick to M1 then
 
Originally Posted by DrDanger
Originally Posted by SlavaB
Originally Posted by DrDanger
While not a big deal, provided a reasonable OCI, the fuel savings alone will pay for the more expensive oil.


229.5 is not a more expensive oil here in the states. What makes you believe that 229.3 will lead to a worse fuel economy?


It's in the specs that the oil has to meet to receive its approval. 229.5 should save a little fuel over 229.3 as per that spec. Otherwise it would not be certified/approved.

Exactly.
To be precise, the 229.5 specs requires at least 1.8% fuel saving.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by zeng

Exactly.
To be precise, the 229.5 specs requires at least 1.8% fuel saving.


Sounds interesting, can you share the source of this information?
 
Originally Posted by SlavaB
Originally Posted by zeng

Exactly.
To be precise, the 229.5 specs requires at least 1.8% fuel saving.


Sounds interesting, can you share the source of this information?

MB229.5 has a bit of higher fuel economy demenads. However, if you ahve both oils with HTHS of 3.7, that is hypothetical laboratory saving.
 
Originally Posted by SlavaB
Originally Posted by zeng

Exactly.
To be precise, the 229.5 specs requires at least 1.8% fuel saving.


Sounds interesting, can you share the source of this information?

Has read it in the wild wild world of internet ..
not sure if this helps,


0229.5 1.8% fuel savings.png
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by zeng
Exactly.
To be precise, the 229.5 specs requires at least 1.8% fuel saving.

Since we're being precise, I have no idea where this 1.8% number came from? The MB229.5 spec requires testing in the M111FE, with different minimum limits for xW-30 and xW-40. Neither limit is 1.8%. Furthermore there is also an M111FE limit for MB229.3, but it is lower than for MB229.5. MB229.5 also requires testing in a chassis dyno FE test, whereas MB229.3 doesn't.

Source? Well, MB don't publish their specs publicly, but you can get an idea here. It's a bit old and the MB spec have been updated since then, but they are similar to this.
 
Originally Posted by weasley
I have no idea where this 1.8% number came from?
Maybe, because it can be 5W-50 with 229.3, but not with 229.5? I can imagine, than between thikest 5W-50 and thinny 0W-40, we can achieve 1.8% savings
whistle.gif


"Its a trap!"
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted by weasley
Originally Posted by zeng
Exactly.
To be precise, the 229.5 specs requires at least 1.8% fuel saving.

Since we're being precise, I have no idea where this 1.8% number came from? The MB229.5 spec requires testing in the M111FE, with different minimum limits for xW-30 and xW-40. Neither limit is 1.8%. Furthermore there is also an M111FE limit for MB229.3, but it is lower than for MB229.5. MB229.5 also requires testing in a chassis dyno FE test, whereas MB229.3 doesn't.

Source? Well, MB don't publish their specs publicly, but you can get an idea here. It's a bit old and the MB spec have been updated since then, but they are similar to this.


Now that is some good info. Rare these days. Thank you for that!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top