OK thanks for the info. There still seems to be a lot of emotion arguining for and against failure being a big issue or there being a clearance issue. What's wrong with some discussion? Most of us aren't engine builders and I was new to the thread and instead of helping me understand you seem to be frustrated. I thought it was a great point someone brought up about the tws via multiple factors including sheering down grade quickly, and the inherently more heat tws as a thicker oil doesn't transfer as easily, in my mind, given tws is already a very light 60, would speak to with all the factors, the tws invivo behaves as a heavier 40 or light 50 when all said and done.
.the difference in oil flow betweena heavy 0w40 like nobil 1 and a light 50weight like sheared and temp retaining oil would be a much smaller flow difference than 0w40 and lubromoly for example which is really normal to heavy 60.
I was only trying to throw uunbias thoughts so I apologize if they are silly but thanks for your input! You've done amazing work with this thread and all are grateful
QUOTE=regular guy;15369909]Or the choice could have been driven by oil sponsorship. We already had one person in here mention that with oil sponsorship, Castrol pays for some certain percent of all engine failures to BMW. I don't remember the exact perfectage, but I seem to remember it was quite a large percentage.
This thread has always been about NA engines over supercharged engines; and it was never about engine failures...but about clearances and measurements and trying to understand why BONE STOCK motors were failing.[/quote]