No more Castrol in 2015?

[gatorfast]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Well one failure and one noisy engine out of an incredibly small number of M1 users hardly bodes well for the future.
As for being "one of the biggest proponents of sticking with TWS" I would say that I am a proponent of common sense and the balance of probabilities. The chances that a handful of internet "experts" could correctly pick a better weight of oil with essentially no data but working on the principle that high bearing wear will be ameliorated by a thinner oil weight or an enlarged bearing clearance verges on zero. If the people with all the data and all the experience with this engine say that a 10W60 is the grade to go with then the likelihood is that it will be the best weight to use.
I have had several conversations with Castrol Advanced Technical Support but have no affiliation with them. Interestingly the last time I talked to a guy there I mentioned that I had been logging the failures in an attempt to find some sort of trend and his first question was "do the failures occur more in hot climates" which in they fact do.
The trouble is that once people lined up behind the idea that the accelerated bearing is an oil/clearance issue they are reluctant to consider any other possibilities...its human nature.

The one failure occurred in a motor that spent the beginning part of its life running TWS and someone claiming their engine is noisy is hardly unusual or cause for concern. I also wouldn't call the number of M1 users incredibly small. Perhaps small in comparison to the overall M3 population but not small compared to the users on this site.

Also, no one, not even the "experts" are claiming that a thinner oil will solve the bearing issue. The purported issue is too small a clearance which does not go away when you switch oil grades. The issue can however be exacerbated by using an overly thick oil. The theory is that perhaps using a thinner grade will allow the oil to flow into these small clearances and do its job. I would say this is evidenced by the improved wear metal readings we see in the UOAs posted.

It seems as if your only real argument is that BMW recommends TWS and nothing else matters. While a manufacturer recommendation certainly holds a lot of weight (pun) it's naive to think it is the only weight that can be used safely and ignore the other information presented.

[///M Power-Belgium]

Had today a phone call with my BMW/Dealer and the answer about replacing Castrol with Shell in January 2015 was.......
Whattttttttt ?!?!

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by gatorfast

The one failure occurred in a motor that spent the beginning part of its life running TWS and someone claiming their engine is noisy is hardly unusual or cause for concern. I also wouldn't call the number of M1 users incredibly small. Perhaps small in comparison to the overall M3 population but not small compared to the users on this site.

Also, no one, not even the "experts" are claiming that a thinner oil will solve the bearing issue. The purported issue is too small a clearance which does not go away when you switch oil grades. The issue can however be exacerbated by using an overly thick oil. The theory is that perhaps using a thinner grade will allow the oil to flow into these small clearances and do its job. I would say this is evidenced by the improved wear metal readings we see in the UOAs posted.

It seems as if your only real argument is that BMW recommends TWS and nothing else matters. While a manufacturer recommendation certainly holds a lot of weight (pun) it's naive to think it is the only weight that can be used safely and ignore the other information presented.

The very small drop in lead is often matched by an equal rise in Fe....plenty of praise for the drop in lead of a couple of PPM while the rise in Fe is dismissed. Its normal - people want to believe what they want and ignore what doesn't suit them.
The number of M1 users is minute against the number of TWS users so any contrary indication is important. If M1 was the magic bullet then no user should see a failure. If thinner oil was a benefit you would expect to see above the average failure rate in the cooler NE USA not under. The engine failure data indicates that neither thinner oil or a greater bearing clearance will prove a benefit so the data must be wrong.
Maybe its a cultural difference...folks in the USA seem quite happy to try all sorts of different oil makes and weights while in the UK (and I suspect the rest of northern Europe) we tend to stick to the recommendations of the manufacturer. People can spend their $$ any way they like, but the logical contortions performed to justify their actions are sometimes quite amazing.

[gatorfast]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

The very small drop in lead is often matched by an equal rise in Fe....plenty of praise for the drop in lead of a couple of PPM while the rise in Fe is dismissed. Its normal - people want to believe what they want and ignore what doesn't suit them.
The number of M1 users is minute against the number of TWS users so any contrary indication is important. If M1 was the magic bullet then no user should see a failure. If thinner oil was a benefit you would expect to see above the average failure rate in the cooler NE USA not under. The engine failure data indicates that neither thinner oil or a greater bearing clearance will prove a benefit so the data must be wrong.
Maybe its a cultural difference...folks in the USA seem quite happy to try all sorts of different oil makes and weights while in the UK (and I suspect the rest of northern Europe) we tend to stick to the recommendations of the manufacturer. People can spend their $$ any way they like, but the logical contortions performed to justify their actions are sometimes quite amazing.

This response makes no sense based on what I just posted. Like I said previously, I can see both sides of the argument and am interested in new information presented. You seem to have your heals dug into one side and any notion to the contrary is dismissed. Users on this site can read for themselves the information presented and decide who is contorting the facts to justify their stance...

[V1.47fan]

From Blackstone

Which Viscosity to Use?
Engine owners often stray from manufacturers' recommendations regarding viscosity of oils. The engine builders dyno-test their engines using a specific viscosity oil, so when you use the viscosity they recommend, you are working with a known result. Going to another viscosity is an experiment, but it's usually a harmless one. For the sake of efficiency you want to run the lightest grade oil in your engine possible, within limits. We are seeing that trend for newer engines, for which the recommended grade is getting progressively lighter. The common 10W/30 has become a 5W/30, and some manufacturers even recommend 5W/20 oil. On the other hand, we can't see (in oil analysis) where it hurts anything to run heavier 10W/30s or even 10W/40s in modern automotive engines. The heavier oils provide more bearing film, and that's important at the lower end. If your oil is too light, the bearing metals can increase. If the oil is too heavy, the upper end metals can increase. The trick is to find the right viscosity for your particular engine, which is why we suggest following the manufacturer's recommendation.

[m3ray]

Originally Posted by ///M Power-Belgium

Had today a phone call with my BMW/Dealer and the answer about replacing Castrol with Shell in January 2015 was.......
Whattttttttt ?!?!

No one knows less about these cars than BMW dealers.

[mxa121]

Originally Posted by gatorfast

The one failure occurred in a motor that spent the beginning part of its life running TWS and someone claiming their engine is noisy is hardly unusual or cause for concern. I also wouldn't call the number of M1 users incredibly small. Perhaps small in comparison to the overall M3 population but not small compared to the users on this site.

Also, no one, not even the "experts" are claiming that a thinner oil will solve the bearing issue. The purported issue is too small a clearance which does not go away when you switch oil grades. The issue can however be exacerbated by using an overly thick oil. The theory is that perhaps using a thinner grade will allow the oil to flow into these small clearances and do its job. I would say this is evidenced by the improved wear metal readings we see in the UOAs posted.

It seems as if your only real argument is that BMW recommends TWS and nothing else matters. While a manufacturer recommendation certainly holds a lot of weight (pun) it's naive to think it is the only weight that can be used safely and ignore the other information presented.

This is a good post. Unbiased. SenorFunkyPants is strongly against any oil variance from TWS and is very vocal about it. His concerns are not invalid. There is limited data for M1 and some generalizations exist, both for and against TWS.

I am open to using lighter weights, depending on my UOAs over the next two changes (my first two) with TWS. If I see normal lead levels, I will stick with TWS. If I see abnormally high lead levels, I will make the switch and monitor everything closely for two changes. If lead levels reduce and iron levels are not excessive, I will likely stay with M1. If lead levels do not reduce, then I will continue to use TWS and sell the car... This is empirical and not subjective.
I would rather switch oil to potentially save a bearing failure and risk higher iron wear rather than doing nothing and having an engine go boom (or preventative $3k bearing swap).

[///M Power-Belgium]

Originally Posted by m3ray

No one knows less about these cars than BMW dealers.

Exactly my friend !
For example...
The Mini from my wife was needing new brake pads , and I was asking about harder brake pads because after braking 20-25 times the wheels where covered in black brake dust ,cause is brake pads are to soft but need to say that the little car brakes just perfect .
So I was asking after harder brake pads and the answer was...
What harder brake pads ?

[G80indy]

Originally Posted by V1.47fan

From Blackstone
Which Viscosity to Use?
Engine owners often stray from manufacturers' recommendations regarding viscosity of oils. The engine builders dyno-test their engines using a specific viscosity oil, so when you use the viscosity they recommend, you are working with a known result. Going to another viscosity is an experiment, but it's usually a harmless one. For the sake of efficiency you want to run the lightest grade oil in your engine possible, within limits. We are seeing that trend for newer engines, for which the recommended grade is getting progressively lighter. The common 10W/30 has become a 5W/30, and some manufacturers even recommend 5W/20 oil. On the other hand, we can't see (in oil analysis) where it hurts anything to run heavier 10W/30s or even 10W/40s in modern automotive engines. The heavier oils provide more bearing film, and that's important at the lower end. If your oil is too light, the bearing metals can increase. If the oil is too heavy, the upper end metals can increase. The trick is to find the right viscosity for your particular engine, which is why we suggest following the manufacturer's recommendation.

As posted from zpost
Now that Shell is in bed with BMW, and may provide BMW a dedicated GTL 10w-60 oil, (all speculation), there will likely be gnashing of teeth that boutique TWS is no longer the exclusive fluid for M cars.
I find it interesting the TWS formula changed, with pour point less extreme. Wasn't it -51F ? Perhaps less ester base?
Also that Redline has changed over the last couple years from 6.7 to 5.8 HTHS. That is interesting--- less extreme for a 10w-60.
It's relevant, since we do not know how exceptional for M engines that Shell product will turn out to be, at least in view of the peanut gallery (forums)
The M1 0w-40 trials will rear their ugly head sooner or later. If it was the secret sauce the bulletins would already be out from BMW.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by gatorfast

Like I said previously, I can see both sides of the argument and am interested in new information presented. You seem to have your heals dug into one side and any notion to the contrary is dismissed. Users on this site can read for themselves the information presented and decide who is contorting the facts to justify their stance...

You say you can see both sides of the argument (as if you are the only one), so how do you think this all played out at BMW AG?
BMW M engineers sitting around a table for years saying: "you'd think with all our experience, having designed, built and tested the S85 and the S65, with all our R&R data, having all the break down reports on failed engines from the S85 and S65 we could come up with a fix for this excessive rod bearing wear problem. You know something simple, low cost that would save up millions of $$ in engine replacements, there must be something.?? No? you guys got nothing?"
Seriously you don't think that BMW wouldn't spec an oil weight change if it promised an improvement in rod bearing reliability (with no other negative consequence) and save them $$millions? Or do you really think they too stupid not to have thought of that or changing the bearing clearance for that matter.
I swear to God some of these oil threads are logic black holes where common sense gets sucked in and disappears forever.

[gatorfast]

^ thats a fair point and basically goes back to the only real argument you have which is BMW exclusively recommends this oil so I am sticking to it. As I said previously, its understandable why you would accept this and not even consider anything else. Obviously BMWs endorsement is a strong one.

But it still doesn't explain why people are seeing improved UOAs when running lighter oils. I know I know you will bring up the increase in iron which is fair and something to be considered, but I have yet to see iron out of the universal averages while I have seen lead drop from above the average to well below. While UOAs certainly do not tell the whole story of engine health I would think that any serious damage caused by running an oil which is too thin would show up. Also numerous people have documented oil pressures remaining consistent between M1 and TWS. Basically you are implying that using anything other than TWS will cause serious harm to your engine which has no basis other than your gut feeling.

I don't know why you are getting upset and implying I am incapable of applying logic. Ironically, it seems as if the pot is calling the kettle black...

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by gatorfast

Basically you are implying that using anything other than TWS will cause serious harm to your engine which has no basis other than your gut feeling.

There is no point arguing with that mentality.

[///M Power-Belgium]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

There is no point arguing with that mentality.

Not sure if you saw this , here is for the moment the mentality the reality !
Remember my PM..... =>http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthr...786615&page=38

[Thurman Murch]

The secret is BMW wanted to introduce the S55 in 2007 but couldn't because of the RS4 and C63 going to the V8. So what BMW did to ensure that you would buy the F8x is have the S6/85 run a thicker oil that would shear down to a 5-10W-40 over the interval while maintaining commensurate protection because of the higher compression ratios. Using a lighter oil in the S6/85 significantly increased the power. BMW knew they could only safely extract around the same power and more tq w the S55 so they had to artificially introduce power reduction and rod bearing issues to ensure that they could still sell the new car w the inline 6 and still command the M premium. I don't think you will see a 6 in a Mercedes AMG performance car or Audi RS for a while. But come on, the TWS looks like liquid gold and had pretty good film strength. I am a big fan of the the new penn ultras. My suped up German turbo'd hatchback would eat through every oil to include M1 0W-40. Guess which one it didn't? Penn platinum 5W-40. Guess which one stayed honey looking for 5k hard miles? PU 5W-40. No wonder it's the standard fill on the 458. The tolerances are so tight on the S65 that some engines just end up eating the bearings - more data is still needed.