Recent Topics
Snapon
by P10crew - 02/17/20 06:51 PM
Conventional or Synthetic
by charmer37 - 02/17/20 06:49 PM
Jeep Wrangler 3.0L Diesel
by HighbrowHillbill - 02/17/20 06:36 PM
94 B4000 overheat Eureka
by HyundaiAbuser - 02/17/20 05:48 PM
PP Euro 5w40 SN Plus formulation VOA
by BurntMusic - 02/17/20 04:35 PM
Bicycle Shops
by CourierDriver - 02/17/20 04:26 PM
EBC Brakes
by hatt - 02/17/20 04:17 PM
Dream Car
by MrQuackers - 02/17/20 04:06 PM
What are people using now for outdoor antennas?
by BAJA_05 - 02/17/20 02:49 PM
3.0L TDI
by Shorthorn - 02/17/20 02:48 PM
Mountain Bike Whee/Tire Sizes!
by jcartwright99 - 02/17/20 02:21 PM
Found this old Fram XG8A on eBay
by blufeb95 - 02/17/20 01:54 PM
2005 Civic Horn Replacement
by cb450sc - 02/17/20 01:51 PM
QS Conv vs. QS HM vs. PYB
by Fordiesel69 - 02/17/20 01:09 PM
Kia Proceed?
by WhyMe - 02/17/20 12:44 PM
RIP Donald Stratton
by 02SE - 02/17/20 12:41 PM
WIX 51393 C&P
by FordBroncoVWJeta - 02/17/20 12:09 PM
Newest Members
Predator35001819, Markapuu, jds59, JimMorrison, bjfangjd
70727 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
125 registered members (2002 Maxima SE, 2009Caraman, 2013ecof150, 53' Stude, aquariuscsm, AandPDan, 14 invisible), 2,220 guests, and 23 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums67
Topics301,583
Posts5,198,471
Members70,727
Most Online4,538
Jan 20th, 2020
Donate to BITOG
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Re: MB 229.3 in 229.5 application [Re: SlavaB] #5210577 09/11/19 10:18 PM
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 9,044
E
edyvw Online Content
Online Content
E
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 9,044
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.


11' BMW 328i xDrive 6MT (BMW TPT 5W30+OE filter)
11' VW Tiguan 2.0T (Castrol 0W30+OE filter)
15' Toyota Sienna AWD (Mobil1 5W30 EP+OEM filter).
Re: MB 229.3 in 229.5 application [Re: SlavaB] #5210598 09/12/19 12:07 AM
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,788
Z
zeng Offline
Offline
Z
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,788
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 by zeng; 09/12/19 12:12 AM.
Re: MB 229.3 in 229.5 application [Re: zeng] #5210634 09/12/19 03:00 AM
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 952
W
weasley Offline
Offline
W
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 952
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.


2017 SEAT Leon 1.4 EcoTSI 150 FR Technology DSG
2018 Volvo XC60 D4
2011 KTM 990 SMT
Re: MB 229.3 in 229.5 application [Re: weasley] #5210656 09/12/19 04:54 AM
Joined: Sep 2019
Posts: 219
L
Lowflyer Offline
Offline
L
Joined: Sep 2019
Posts: 219
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

"Its a trap!" wink

Re: MB 229.3 in 229.5 application [Re: weasley] #5211557 09/13/19 08:11 AM
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 123
D
DrDanger Offline
Offline
D
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 123
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!

Page 2 of 2 1 2
Previous Thread
Index
Next Thread

BOB IS THE OIL GUY® Powered by UBB.threads™