Anyone running Mobil 1 5W50??

[s85e90]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

I've never used liquid moly or know much about it...Its probably a fine oil.
I know it seems like I'm some sort of massive Castrol fan but I'm not, I just feel that if people are going to recommend other M3 owners to move away from the OEM oil weight they should have a compelling case to support it.
It will really stir things up if BMW suggest a different oil weight for the S65 when the new Shell contract starts!!...I have a feeling that they will stick with the Castrol 10W60 though.
Nice Blackstone report BTW.

Why would they not recommend the Shell 1060? I don't get why everyone seems befuddled by a business prop w/ a new company. Whoever pays the most $$$ usually gets the manufacturs reco.. Now it is shell. And shell has a 1060

[Harpua]

Originally Posted by Killerfish2012

...M1 0W40 became popular on the forums when seveal people running 10W60 did numerous oil analysis showing lead levels between 25-50. After switching to M1 0W40 those same exact cars showed lead levels of 5 and below. Also if you read the early threads on bearing wear, the aftermarket bearing manufactures pointed to oil weight as a big reason why they think this was occurring. Going so far as to state that 5W40 wouldn't see these same wear patterns...

Actually, what instigated many M3 owners switching to Mobil 1 0W40 was when BMW NA released a bulletin stating that certain grades of LL01 approved oils (including 0W40) were now permitted to use in the S65 engine. This info in addition to the increase in bearing issues thought to be worsened by the heavy 10W60 oil, caused many to switch to a high quality LL01 approved alternative

This bulletin has since been taken down, and there was some debate as to the grammar within said bulletin. Of course, it wouldn't be a true BMW issue if there wasn't some form of controversy or debate

[s85e90]

Originally Posted by Harpua

Actually, what instigated many M3 owners switching to Mobil 1 0W40 was when BMW NA released a bulletin stating that certain grades of LL01 approved oils (including 0W40) were now permitted to use in the S65 engine. This info in addition to the increase in bearing issues thought to be worsened by the heavy 10W60 oil, caused many to switch to a high quality LL01 approved alternative

This bulletin has since been taken down, and there was some debate as to the grammar within said bulletin. Of course, it wouldn't be a true BMW issue if there wasn't some form of controversy or debate

Yeah the issue was reading comprehension If I remember correctly. The approved oil (I think it said 5w30) was for the turbo M cars. BMW has never changed the recommendation of 10w60 for the s85/s65 and s54 since the whole rod bearing debacle of the e46.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by s85e90

Why would they not recommend the Shell 1060? I don't get why everyone seems befuddled by a business prop w/ a new company. Whoever pays the most $$$ usually gets the manufacturs reco.. Now it is shell. And shell has a 1060

They may well switch recommendation to Shell's 10W60 (or some other weight). But then maybe Shell might not want to associate its oil with a car that has a bearing reliability issue.
I would not be at all surprised if Castrols contract contained clauses concerning support for some legacy engine oils for a set number of years. I guess it will depend on whether BMW's engineering department want to take risk that an oil make swap might make things worse. Better the devil you know....

[cbrf23]

Originally Posted by s85e90

Yeah the issue was reading comprehension If I remember correctly. The approved oil (I think it said 5w30) was for the turbo M cars. BMW has never changed the recommendation of 10w60 for the s85/s65 and s54 since the whole rod bearing debacle of the e46.

Yes - this sums it up. I do remember this, and I remember reading the spec and wondering why some people were misinterpreting it. Still, I thought this was cleared up a while back so if people are running Mobil 1 0W40 becasue they think it is approved, it is not.