Longlife III | Posts 32+

So, it seems that all Longlife III oils are now at the same level again. Hmm. And that basically means it doesn't really matter what you put in.

Hi,

You can't just say that everyone is the same. Even if all LL-III oils were to have the exact same base oil (and I mean truly identical, not just the same base oil technology), they can still differ significantly in terms of performance.

You're right: A full synthetic oil would also be preferable for me, not least because of the turbocharger. "If only the Mobil 1 0W-40 Turbo Diesel had a 50501 approval..."

Regards,
Sure, here is the translation of the text from German to English:

"Micha"

Well, what does one do as an end customer? *indieröhreguck*

Hi,

As an end customer, you are happy that LL-III exists and that you can finally replace the 506 01 oil with a better one.
Furthermore, you're probably annoyed that some managers continue to pocket exorbitant salaries and measure their success based on the company's profits. It's only a matter of time before someone sells their company at the end of the year and proudly announces: "We won't have any expenses starting in January." "Nevertheless, the revenue in December amounted to 100 trillion dollars." The shareholders are certainly stupid enough to believe that the stock price will continue to rise for another half year .

Regards,
Sure, here is the translation of the text from German to English:

"Micha"

Mephisto wrote:

... that you can finally replace the 506 01 oil with a better one. ....

I strongly doubt that!

I was told by my parts supplier that LM Top Tec 4200 is the ultimate product. After 4000 km, the 5-liter can was empty (although only 3.5 liters were used during the oil change), and my engine was running rougher than ever before.
I then switched back to the LM Longtime plus and regained my usual running smoothness and oil consumption.

Hi,

Quote:

After 4000 km, the 5-liter can was empty (but only 3.5 liters were used during the oil change), and my engine was running rougher than ever before

.
That doesn't really reflect well on LM Top Tec 4200. Therefore, it is wrong to demonize all oils that meet the VW 507 00 specification.
The HTHS value clearly favors oils that meet the 507 00 specification. And I can't say that my AXR engine runs worse with Mobil 1 507 00 than it does with LM Longtime Plus.
LM offers quite a few contradictions: On the one hand, they have truly excellent oils in their range (e.g., 5-40 full synthetic), on the other hand, they still have MoS2 oils .


Regards,
Sure, here is the translation of the text from German to English:

"Micha"

Well, the LL² oil is fully synthetic, while the LL³ oil is only partially synthetic.

Julian wrote:

Well, the LL² oil is fully synthetic, while the LL³ oil is only partially synthetic.

That's where the problem lies!
Some of the partial synthetic oil is likely to burn inside the turbocharger.

By the way, a colleague made the same observation with Castrol LL3.

Quote:

... on the other hand, they still have MoS2 oils

.

What's wrong with that?

Have you ever thought about vehicles that are older than 25 years?

When you drive cars with full synthetic oil, everything seems to be happening around you very quickly. The engines are usually not designed for that.
LM is the only manufacturer that still supplies decent oils for these "old classics."

That's where the problem lies!
Some of the partial synthetic oil is likely to burn inside the turbocharger.

By the way, a colleague made the same observation with Castrol LL3.


Hmm, I thought it would be more about preventing 'oil burning due to LL³ oil' in order to make the exhaust cleaner.
What do you think about the HTHS values?

Hi,

When it comes to genuine classic cars, modern oil has no place in the engine unless it contains components that are incompatible with the non-ferrous metals used in the engine. This is because certain additives in the oil can corrode these metals. That has nothing to do with whether it's fully synthetic, HC (hydrocarbon), or mineral-based, but solely with the additives used.

Quote:

With the part-synthetic oil, quite a bit might burn inside the turbocharger.

It all depends on the oil. For semi-synthetic oils, this only applies to the non-fully synthetic component, and only if that component is of poor quality.
I would completely agree with you regarding a gasoline turbo engine: I would definitely use a high-quality, full synthetic oil for that, especially given the turbocharger. However, since diesel turbochargers don't get as hot, a high-carbon content in the oil isn't a major issue. A full synthetic oil would be better in that case, but not if it has a high HTHS (High-Temperature High-Shear) value.

Quote:

What is bad about it (MoS2)?

What benefits are ceramic particles supposed to provide in an engine? MoS2 might be suitable as a lubricant in ultra-high vacuum environments because it exhibits virtually no outgassing, but it doesn't actually lubricate very well (compared to a good, non-alloyed oil).

Regards,
Micha

Julian wrote:

Hm, I thought it would be more about preventing "oil combustion caused by LL³ oil" so that the exhaust becomes cleaner.

At least, in theory, that's how it should be.
... or they burn so cleanly that a deterioration in exhaust emissions is not to be expected ... :d gone in a flash:

I believe these oils are still in their early stages of development. I'll definitely try it again in a year (during the next oil change).

Mephisto wrote:

... If it were a gasoline turbo engine, I would completely agree with you: In that case, I would definitely use a good, full synthetic oil because of the turbo. Since the diesel turbochargers do not get as hot, an HC component in the oil is not a major problem. ...

... Yes, that's correct. I hadn't thought about the lower exhaust temperature of diesel engines... sorry!


Okay, please provide the German text you would like me to translate.

Mephisto wrote:

... when it comes to genuine classic cars: Modern oil has no place in the engine unless it contains components that are harmful to non-ferrous metals. This is because certain additives in the oil can corrode these metals. That, however, has nothing to do with being fully synthetic, HC (High-Cut), or mineral-based, but solely with the additives used.

... that's precisely why the classic car specialists recommend an MoS2 oil.
The problem with older engines is often the impossible heat distribution (poor efficiency). In such cases, a lubricant that doesn't burn and offers good running properties is important. That's probably why MOS2 oils are marketed for classic cars.

Modern engines are so well-designed in terms of heat distribution and efficiency that MOS2 is likely complete nonsense.

Okay, I understand. Please provide the German text you would like me to translate into English. I will only provide the translation.

Okay, enough off-topic conversation, we were talking about LL3 .

Hi Bertil,

I hope you don't take the following comments as "nitpicking."

Here, I'd like to quote someone I greatly admire, who is a true expert in the field of lubricants:
"Therefore, if anything, MoS2 belongs in a grease or lubricating oil. Teflon goes in the frying pan. And ceramic goes on the stovetop. But not in the engine or..." Gear oil, because its main effect is primarily to contaminate the engine (especially the valve stems and the areas of the piston ring grooves).

She recommends using a non-additive oil (i.e., an oil without additives) for classic cars.

Regarding oil combustion, etc., in LL-III oils: The advantage of LL-III oils is that they have a low sulfated ash content, which reduces the load on the DPF (Diesel Particulate Filter). That's all there is to it. (Although it's crucial for vehicles with DPFs.)

Regards,
Sure, here is the translation of the text from German to English:

"Micha"

Regarding oil combustion, etc., in LL-III oils: The advantage of LL-III oils is that they have a low sulfated ash content, which reduces the load on the DPF (Diesel Particulate Filter). That's all there is to it. (Although it's crucial for vehicles with DPFs.)


Okay, so my current conclusion is that LL³ is not worth it for vehicles without a DPF, as it requires switching from fully synthetic to semi-synthetic oil. I haven't found any conclusive evidence regarding the HTHS values either, because it probably doesn't make much of a difference if the HTHS value is between 3.0 and 3.58 mPa*s.

I'll wait for the next oil analysis during the next service to see how the BP Visco 7000 0W-30 performs and to get an idea of the wear and tear on my engine. Especially since LL² oil is considerably cheaper.

A low (or 0%) sulfur content in diesel fuel would have a greater impact than in oil.

Mephisto wrote:

"MOS2, therefore, belongs, if at all, to a grease or lubricating oil... but not to a motor oil." Transmission oil, because its main function is primarily to prevent the engine from becoming dirty.

Hi Micha,

I used to add MoS2 to my oil until recently, because I was particularly concerned about a few seconds of improved performance in the winter. The number of cold starts it takes for the engine to reach full oil pressure, after which the viscous oil has been pumped everywhere, even though 0W or 5W oil lubricates the engine faster than, for example, mineral oil with a viscosity of 15W.

Does the molybdenum disulfide (MoS2) cold start wear protection system still offer any benefit today?

Mephisto wrote:

... I hope you don't take the following comments as "nitpicking" or "harsh criticism."

Okay, that's fine.

Ceramic, Teflon, and MOS2 additives in motor oil are a highly divisive topic among specialists. This has always been the case. Therefore, I will refrain from demonizing either of them.
I can only report on the positive effects of these additives in various classic and vintage racing cars owned by people I know.
Especially in the area of older turbo vehicles (such as the BMW 2002 turbo or the Ford Sierra Cosworth), temperatures in the bearings can occur that are impossible to control with other materials. There's a frying pan versus a refrigerator.
Contamination on the injectors and valves was not visible on any of these engines.

For "normal" vehicles, these additives are largely useless.

Hi,

@Ulf
For modern engine oils, solid particles act as contaminants, and they also hinder the effectiveness of the additives. In particular, high-pressure, anti-wear, corrosion protection additives, as well as friction modifiers, are affected. These additives are, incidentally, included in all high-quality oils.

You can't simply instruct a solid particle not to burn or adhere to valve faces or ring grooves, but rather to react only in a targeted manner on the friction surfaces. In contrast, modern synthetic extreme pressure (EP) and anti-wear (AW) additives, as well as friction modifiers, are surface-active. This means that they only react at the contact surfaces and only when necessary – that is, when there is metal-to-metal contact, in cases where the oil itself cannot completely separate the friction surfaces at a particular point.

Where such contact occurs, a higher temperature is generated compared to the surrounding environment. Modern EP/AW additives react to this, and specifically at this point: they separate the friction surfaces from each other and form a thin, yet very durable and highly lubricating protective layer precisely at this location. If needed again, these protective layers are also constantly renewed (until all the contained additives are used up).

However, MoS2, PTFE, and ceramic particles cannot do that! Instead of being dispersed, they might simply accumulate somewhere in the engine (unless they have already been neutralized by dispersants, meaning they have been captured and encapsulated).

In summary, additives containing solid particles, especially when used with modern oils, not only have no positive effect, but actually diminish the oil's performance. Therefore, any car manufacturer (and especially DC) would reject any warranty or goodwill claims if traces of such substances were found in an oil sample (or in the engine) in the event of an engine failure.

How are your MoS2 particles supposed to reach the areas where you want them to be during a cold start? When you turn off the engine, they flow back into the oil pan with the oil. When you start the engine, they are only transported through the engine again with the oil. By the time they could potentially take effect (which they don't), engine oil is already there.

@Julian:

Quote:

I haven't found any conclusive evidence regarding the HTHS values either, because it probably doesn't play a significant role.

VW itself provides evidence of this by only approving oils with a reduced HTHS value for specific engines: They can only be used from a certain model year onwards, and not after a certain year. As soon as the service booklet specifies oil according to the 507.00 standard, oil according to the 506.01 standard is no longer permitted. And it's not just because of the DPF!
Don't be fooled: There's a huge difference between oils with an HTHS of 3.0 and oils with an HTHS of 3.5.

The main concern with oil is its ash content. The DPF (Diesel Particulate Filter) cannot regenerate from ash, so the DPF needs to be replaced if it contains a significant amount of ash. To reiterate: the soot in the DPF is periodically burned off, which produces ash. Therefore, the amount of ash in the DPF increases with each combustion cycle of the soot particles. When the DPF is "full" of ash, it needs to be replaced. Therefore, it is important for engine oils to minimize the amount of ash that deposits on the DPF.

Quote:

A low (or 0%) sulfur content in diesel would have a greater impact than in oil

.
Yes, but perhaps in a different way: The further reduced lubricity would likely cause high-pressure pumps and particulate diesel engine (PDE) systems to fail sooner, rather than extending the life of the diesel particulate filter (DPF).

Regards,
Micha.
[/quote]