FYI: MB228.x vs. 229.x
 

I have always been curious as to the difference between the MB228.x and the 229.x oil specs. I wasnt quite sure of the differences, although Ive been told that the 228 is a HD spec adn the 229 is a LD passenger car spec.

I got my hands on the spec sheet info, and have compiled it (from http://www.ethyl.com/products/la/handbook/Crankcase.pdf). I have put them into a formatted worksheet for direct comparisson. Looking over everything, it appears that it took the 229.3 spec to match that which was the necessary requirements for 228.3, and 229.5 matches up exactly with the 228.5 spec.

It seems to me that the 229.x specs are kind of like a lesser or weaker set of the 228.x specs. The 228.x oils will be more robust in every way than their 229 counterparts. Besides the sulphur, chlorine, ash and ACEA prerequisite requirements, and the fact that the 229.x specs were also tested on an M111 engine for sludge and fuel economy improvement, I dont see any difference. I dont think that it even matters that the oils are synthetic or not, as my sources seem to point out that in other parts of the world, synthetic oil is not necessary (although in designing a lube oil, meeting the prerequisite ACEA A3 is really hard if not impossible to meet in a lower 0,5 or 10w- oil without a synthetic basestock).

My worksheet is as follows, although it doesnt show up properly, and I cant paste a pic of it because the picture is too wide/long). It is pretty straightforward, oil spec is listed across, and there are five data sets for most every criteria. I have taken out some other data with the specs of other test engines, etc. Feel free to email me directly for the excel file if you have further interest:


SHEET NUMBER: 228.3 OM602 228.5 OM602 229.1 OM602A 229.3 OM602A 229.5 OM602A
Piston Cleanliness (No ring sticking): 24 min. 26 min. 20 min. 24 min. 26 min.
Bore Polishing, %. (23mm): 4.5 max. 3.0 max. 7.0 max. 4.5 max. 3.0 max.
Cylinder Wear, avg. µm. (new/old): 15.0/10.0 max. 15.0/10.0 max. 20.0/12.0 max. 15.0 max. 15.0/10.0 max.
Cam Wear, avg. µm. (new/old): 45.0/28.0 max. 45.0/28.0 max. 50.0/30.0 max. 45.0/10.0 max. 45.0/28.0 max.
Oil Consumption, kg.: 10.0 max. 10.0 max. 10.0 max. 10.0 max. 10.0 max.
Viscosity Increase, 40°C. %: 70 max. 60 max. 90 max. 70 max. 60.0 max.
Engine Sludge, avg.: 8.9 min. 9.0 min. 8.8 min. 8.9 min 9.0 min.
Ring Sticking, ASF OM441LA: 1.0 max. OM441LA: 1.0 max.

Do you still have that PDF file? The link appears to not work.

Also, would you say that this page is a good set of recommendations?
http://www.whnet.com/4x4/oil.html

I'm looking for a cold weather oil for my 190D 2.5 (no turbo).

Just reviving an old thread that's of interest to me....perhaps to others. I'm intrigued by the suggestion that the 228.5 standard is more robust than the 229.5 standard. Thoughts?

Well remember that 228.x is really a commercial/HD spec, while 229.x is really for passenger cars.

Diesels still aren't common, but there are lots more options now than there were when I wrote that ten years ago. Back then our diesels were coming back in popularity with the vegoil craze and whatnot. So the discussion of what oil is best, always a "religious" debate, was as popular as ever. But synthetics were less popular/common, and there were a lot of general unknowns as to the robustness of oils in north america. Nowadays any late model diesel will use its manufacturer spec oil and be fine. Back then, what we had was to use inferior passenger car oil, optimized for spark engines in North America, or else API "C" heavy duty diesel oil. The HDEOs often carry MB 228.x sheet certifications.

Thanks for chiming in on your old thread. I use M1 5w40 TDT, which is 228.5 spec'd. Causes me no concern whatsoever, but I know some point out that it's not 229.5 so therefore shouldn't be used.

Thing is, you could argue that for new diesels. And if emissions controls come into play with th newest, it's a necessity. But the hd oils overall have a better overall design for old type IDI diesels. So it is the best bet.