Official S65 Bearing Specification/Clearance Wiki

[whats77inaname]

When I think about how much all of this is going to cost to fix correctly and what my plans are for this car, I'm half ass tempted to sell and do a FI LSx into a E39 and be done with it. :-\

[aussiem3]

Originally Posted by kawasaki00

I have noticed this before also. The last time I changed the tws I only had 3k miles on it and it came out very black and smelled really bad. Couple thoughts I have are it is the high Ester package in the oil that breaks down pretty quick and turns black or maybe there is more to the rod side clearance thing and it really is baking the oil inside the rod bearings. The evidence is all over the place that they are cavitating. I am still looking into it.
Here is a little teaser pic of a rod bearing I have been working on...I have multiple bearings that I am hardness testing and doing some processes that we do to our race bearings.

It will be interesting to see what Mobil 1 0w-40 looks like after a few miles/km. That will confirm a few more things and whether Mobil 1 holds up better within S65 compared to TWS.

I just hope people using Mobile 1 will report back.

[MWM3]

Does this mean I should be expecting my car to blow up in the near future?

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by thekurgan

The thicker bearing just giving you longer until it wears, could accelerate wear in some situations.

As kawasaki mentioned, these thicker bearings are for cranks that have been presumably damaged and reground down in size.

[swamp2]

Wow, interesting thread. I've been spending too much time over at the new M4 forum section recently...

To me it would be very interesting and relevant to know what the real failure rate is, even just an order of magnitude estimate. Let me give that a go...

It seems like about 25 failures are mentioned in the aforementioned "registry thread" not counting the "many more" ones on youtube.

The production numbers are:

~26k units (E90, E92 and E92) US and Canada
~58k units worldwide

We have the exact production numbers for E90 and E92 just the E93 had not quite wrapped up final production at the time we got the other numbers. So these numbers with rounding are correct/exact, not guesses.

I would guess the 25 in the registry thread are almost all in NA (US and Canada). That makes the NA "internet reported" failure rate 1/1000 or 0.1%. Pretty high considering that maybe this is perhaps 1/2 or 1/3 of all of the cases (not all cases end up here nor on youtube or anywhere else online). Let's say there are another 50% more cases known by forum members here but not reported. Let's also go with the 1/3 estimate above. This is admittedly pretty crude, but I have no idea how to get a better estimate. That gives about 100 failures (113 to be exact but again this is order of magnitude work). That then gives us a 0.4% failure rate to date in NA. For nice easy rounding let's say it's a nice even 1/2 of 1%, 0.5%. Said another way 1/200 cars have failed. Extrapolating this to world wide would mean about 300 cars total. Again this is an order of magnitude estimate. Maybe that number is 100 or 200, maybe 500, however it is certainly not just 50 and probably not 1000 either!

Some other key questions then are:

1. What percentage of these have been modified (most interesting what % were supercharged or had other major mods making power output changes)?
2. What percentage followed BMWs oil change recommendations?
3. What percentage exceeded BMWs oil change recommendations?
4. What percentage were driven on the track (strip or road coarse)? Of course not saying that the cars should not take that kind of use and come through shinning...

Is 0.5% of cars a real problem? I don't really have an answer for that question either. It is somewhat subjective. It's certainly not a huge problem in my evaluation. It becomes an even smaller problem when the cases with very early mileage problems covered by warranty and those cases with red flag answers to the above four question are eliminated. Heck we don't even know for what mileage/lifetime (mean time to failure, MTTF, specifically) BMW M intended for this engine.

The next question then is about design intent vs. manufacturing errors vs. manufacturing tolerance stack up. These are in order a systematic problems, random or systematic problem and lastly random. Sure, I respect the expertise of the quoted engine builders and other experts here posting on this topic but we simply cannot discount the engine engineering expertise at the OEMs, BMW M in particular (obviously...). In general I would rate them as more up to date, access to better testing and measurement equipment, more capability for simulation, immensely larger budgets, better contacts into academia, etc. I can only believe that BMW M had good reasons for the clearances and oil combination they selected, regardless of a differing opinion from the other experts here. I also can't see that they did not observe the same exact emperical bearing and rod heat/wear/lubrication issues which are being pointed out here. It is without doubt that they ran many engines very hard in the real world and on testing machines and subsequently torn those engines down and went through them with a FINE TOOTHED COMB. If a simple doubling of a few key clearances would have completely eliminated this "problem" how in the world could BMW M not also be aware of that? If the bearing suppliers have/had certain recommendations and they are more "in the know" than BMW M engineers wouldn't they have almost demanded BMW M use different clearances?

The problem inherently seems more like a variation issue rather than one of a fundamental design issue (i.e. a random issue). Although also a bit speculative, the belief stated prior that if a car makes it past some key mileage like 10-20k, then it won't fail also indicates a random problem rather than a systematic one. That would also support the idea of an improper control over manufacturing variations (some might commonly call this a tolerance stack up issue but that is really a different issue).

Similarly there is the (already partly discussed) fact the the S85 in the prior M5 and M6 engine was designed in the 2003-2004 time frame, has an "identical" bottom end (less one cylinder bank) and we are lead to believe that BMW have learned nothing from any design issues there. Is it reasonable that they did not know anything about "premature" failures in that engine? Could it be they did know and also made absolutely no changes in the S65?

Well, in short, I think this issue is far from settled...

[Yellow Snow]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Wow, interesting thread. I've been spending too much time over at the new M4 forum section recently...

To me it would be very interesting and relevant to know what the real failure rate is, even just an order of magnitude estimate. Let me give that a go...

It seems like about 25 failures are mentioned in the aforementioned "registry thread" not counting the "many more" ones on youtube.

The production numbers are:

~26k units (E90, E92 and E92) US and Canada
~58k units worldwide

We have the exact production numbers for E90 and E92 just the E93 had not quite wrapped up final production at the time we got the other numbers. So these numbers with rounding are correct/exact, not guesses.

I would guess the 25 in the registry thread are almost all in NA (US and Canada). That makes the NA "internet reported" failure rate 1/1000 or 0.1%. Pretty high considering that maybe this is perhaps 1/2 or 1/3 of all of the cases (not all cases end up here nor on youtube or anywhere else online). Let's say there are another 50% more cases known by forum members here but not reported. Let's also go with the 1/3 estimate above. This is admittedly pretty crude, but I have no idea how to get a better estimate. That gives about 100 failures (113 to be exact but again this is order of magnitude work). That then gives us a 0.4% failure rate to date in NA. For nice easy rounding let's say it's a nice even 1/2 of 1%, 0.5%. Said another way 1/200 cars have failed. Extrapolating this to world wide would mean about 300 cars total. Again this is an order of magnitude estimate. Maybe that number is 100 or 200, maybe 500, however it is certainly not just 50 and probably not 1000 either!

Some other key questions then are:

1. What percentage of these have been modified (most interesting what % were supercharged or had other major mods making power output changes)?
2. What percentage followed BMWs oil change recommendations?
3. What percentage exceeded BMWs oil change recommendations?
4. What percentage were driven on the track (strip or road coarse)? Of course not saying that the cars should not take that kind of use and come through shinning...

Is 0.5% of cars a real problem? I don't really have an answer for that question either. It is somewhat subjective. It's certainly not a huge problem in my evaluation. It becomes an even smaller problem when the cases with very early mileage problems covered by warranty and those cases with red flag answers to the above four question are eliminated. Heck we don't even know for what mileage/lifetime (mean time to failure, MTTF, specifically) BMW M intended for this engine.

The next question then is about design intent vs. manufacturing errors vs. manufacturing tolerance stack up. These are in order a systematic problems, random or systematic problem and lastly random. Sure, I respect the expertise of the quoted engine builders and other experts here posting on this topic but we simply cannot discount the engine engineering expertise at the OEMs, BMW M in particular (obviously...). In general I would rate them as more up to date, access to better testing and measurement equipment, more capability for simulation, immensely larger budgets, better contacts into academia, etc. I can only believe that BMW M had good reasons for the clearances and oil combination they selected, regardless of a differing opinion from the other experts here. I also can't see that they did not observe the same exact emperical bearing and rod heat/wear/lubrication issues which are being pointed out here. It is without doubt that they ran many engines very hard in the real world and on testing machines and subsequently torn those engines down and went through them with a FINE TOOTHED COMB. If a simple doubling of a few key clearances would have completely eliminated this "problem" how in the world could BMW M not also be aware of that? If the bearing suppliers have/had certain recommendations and they are more "in the know" than BMW M engineers wouldn't they have almost demanded BMW M use different clearances?

The problem inherently seems more like a variation issue rather than one of a fundamental design issue (i.e. a random issue). Although also a bit speculative, the belief stated prior that if a car makes it past some key mileage like 10-20k, then it won't fail also indicates a random problem rather than a systematic one. That would also support the idea of an improper control over manufacturing variations (some might commonly call this a tolerance stack up issue but that is really a different issue).

Similarly there is the (already partly discussed) fact the the S85 in the prior M5 and M6 engine was designed in the 2003-2004 time frame, has an "identical" bottom end (less one cylinder bank) and we are lead to believe that BMW have learned nothing from any design issues there. Is it reasonable that they did not know anything about "premature" failures in that engine? Could it be they did know and also made absolutely no changes in the S65?

Well, in short, I think this issue is far from settled...

Excellent post

[0-60Motorsports]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Wow, interesting thread. I've been spending too much time over at the new M4 forum section recently...

To me it would be very interesting and relevant to know what the real failure rate is, even just an order of magnitude estimate. Let me give that a go...

It seems like about 25 failures are mentioned in the aforementioned "registry thread" not counting the "many more" ones on youtube.

The production numbers are:

~26k units (E90, E92 and E92) US and Canada
~58k units worldwide

We have the exact production numbers for E90 and E92 just the E93 had not quite wrapped up final production at the time we got the other numbers. So these numbers with rounding are correct/exact, not guesses.

I would guess the 25 in the registry thread are almost all in NA (US and Canada). That makes the NA "internet reported" failure rate 1/1000 or 0.1%. Pretty high considering that maybe this is perhaps 1/2 or 1/3 of all of the cases (not all cases end up here nor on youtube or anywhere else online). Let's say there are another 50% more cases known by forum members here but not reported. Let's also go with the 1/3 estimate above. This is admittedly pretty crude, but I have no idea how to get a better estimate. That gives about 100 failures (113 to be exact but again this is order of magnitude work). That then gives us a 0.4% failure rate to date in NA. For nice easy rounding let's say it's a nice even 1/2 of 1%, 0.5%. Said another way 1/200 cars have failed. Extrapolating this to world wide would mean about 300 cars total. Again this is an order of magnitude estimate. Maybe that number is 100 or 200, maybe 500, however it is certainly not just 50 and probably not 1000 either!

Some other key questions then are:

1. What percentage of these have been modified (most interesting what % were supercharged or had other major mods making power output changes)?
2. What percentage followed BMWs oil change recommendations?
3. What percentage exceeded BMWs oil change recommendations?
4. What percentage were driven on the track (strip or road coarse)? Of course not saying that the cars should not take that kind of use and come through shinning...

Is 0.5% of cars a real problem? I don't really have an answer for that question either. It is somewhat subjective. It's certainly not a huge problem in my evaluation. It becomes an even smaller problem when the cases with very early mileage problems covered by warranty and those cases with red flag answers to the above four question are eliminated. Heck we don't even know for what mileage/lifetime (mean time to failure, MTTF, specifically) BMW M intended for this engine.

The next question then is about design intent vs. manufacturing errors vs. manufacturing tolerance stack up. These are in order a systematic problems, random or systematic problem and lastly random. Sure, I respect the expertise of the quoted engine builders and other experts here posting on this topic but we simply cannot discount the engine engineering expertise at the OEMs, BMW M in particular (obviously...). In general I would rate them as more up to date, access to better testing and measurement equipment, more capability for simulation, immensely larger budgets, better contacts into academia, etc. I can only believe that BMW M had good reasons for the clearances and oil combination they selected, regardless of a differing opinion from the other experts here. I also can't see that they did not observe the same exact emperical bearing and rod heat/wear/lubrication issues which are being pointed out here. It is without doubt that they ran many engines very hard in the real world and on testing machines and subsequently torn those engines down and went through them with a FINE TOOTHED COMB. If a simple doubling of a few key clearances would have completely eliminated this "problem" how in the world could BMW M not also be aware of that? If the bearing suppliers have/had certain recommendations and they are more "in the know" than BMW M engineers wouldn't they have almost demanded BMW M use different clearances?

The problem inherently seems more like a variation issue rather than one of a fundamental design issue (i.e. a random issue). Although also a bit speculative, the belief stated prior that if a car makes it past some key mileage like 10-20k, then it won't fail also indicates a random problem rather than a systematic one. That would also support the idea of an improper control over manufacturing variations (some might commonly call this a tolerance stack up issue but that is really a different issue).

Similarly there is the (already partly discussed) fact the the S85 in the prior M5 and M6 engine was designed in the 2003-2004 time frame, has an "identical" bottom end (less one cylinder bank) and we are lead to believe that BMW have learned nothing from any design issues there. Is it reasonable that they did not know anything about "premature" failures in that engine? Could it be they did know and also made absolutely no changes in the S65?

Well, in short, I think this issue is far from settled...

excellent post and makes sense. I am starting to think of the new m3 instead of going for an E90 M3 though. Just because it'll be my DD and I don't want to have major issues like engines blowing up.

[L4ces]

Yeah, BMW would love to have us think that way. Everyone dump the old and purchase those new M3s with trade ins!

Yes, I am being facetious.

[thekurgan]

Originally Posted by regular guy

As kawasaki mentioned, these thicker bearings are for cranks that have been presumably damaged and reground down in size.

Agree, and probably why their price is higher.

[aus]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Wow, interesting thread. I've been spending too much time over at the new M4 forum section recently...

To me it would be very interesting and relevant to know what the real failure rate is, even just an order of magnitude estimate. Let me give that a go...

It seems like about 25 failures are mentioned in the aforementioned "registry thread" not counting the "many more" ones on youtube.

The production numbers are:

~26k units (E90, E92 and E92) US and Canada
~58k units worldwide

We have the exact production numbers for E90 and E92 just the E93 had not quite wrapped up final production at the time we got the other numbers. So these numbers with rounding are correct/exact, not guesses.

I would guess the 25 in the registry thread are almost all in NA (US and Canada). That makes the NA "internet reported" failure rate 1/1000 or 0.1%. Pretty high considering that maybe this is perhaps 1/2 or 1/3 of all of the cases (not all cases end up here nor on youtube or anywhere else online). Let's say there are another 50% more cases known by forum members here but not reported. Let's also go with the 1/3 estimate above. This is admittedly pretty crude, but I have no idea how to get a better estimate. That gives about 100 failures (113 to be exact but again this is order of magnitude work). That then gives us a 0.4% failure rate to date in NA. For nice easy rounding let's say it's a nice even 1/2 of 1%, 0.5%. Said another way 1/200 cars have failed. Extrapolating this to world wide would mean about 300 cars total. Again this is an order of magnitude estimate. Maybe that number is 100 or 200, maybe 500, however it is certainly not just 50 and probably not 1000 either!

Some other key questions then are:

1. What percentage of these have been modified (most interesting what % were supercharged or had other major mods making power output changes)?
2. What percentage followed BMWs oil change recommendations?
3. What percentage exceeded BMWs oil change recommendations?
4. What percentage were driven on the track (strip or road coarse)? Of course not saying that the cars should not take that kind of use and come through shinning...

Is 0.5% of cars a real problem? I don't really have an answer for that question either. It is somewhat subjective. It's certainly not a huge problem in my evaluation. It becomes an even smaller problem when the cases with very early mileage problems covered by warranty and those cases with red flag answers to the above four question are eliminated. Heck we don't even know for what mileage/lifetime (mean time to failure, MTTF, specifically) BMW M intended for this engine.

The next question then is about design intent vs. manufacturing errors vs. manufacturing tolerance stack up. These are in order a systematic problems, random or systematic problem and lastly random. Sure, I respect the expertise of the quoted engine builders and other experts here posting on this topic but we simply cannot discount the engine engineering expertise at the OEMs, BMW M in particular (obviously...). In general I would rate them as more up to date, access to better testing and measurement equipment, more capability for simulation, immensely larger budgets, better contacts into academia, etc. I can only believe that BMW M had good reasons for the clearances and oil combination they selected, regardless of a differing opinion from the other experts here. I also can't see that they did not observe the same exact emperical bearing and rod heat/wear/lubrication issues which are being pointed out here. It is without doubt that they ran many engines very hard in the real world and on testing machines and subsequently torn those engines down and went through them with a FINE TOOTHED COMB. If a simple doubling of a few key clearances would have completely eliminated this "problem" how in the world could BMW M not also be aware of that? If the bearing suppliers have/had certain recommendations and they are more "in the know" than BMW M engineers wouldn't they have almost demanded BMW M use different clearances?

The problem inherently seems more like a variation issue rather than one of a fundamental design issue (i.e. a random issue). Although also a bit speculative, the belief stated prior that if a car makes it past some key mileage like 10-20k, then it won't fail also indicates a random problem rather than a systematic one. That would also support the idea of an improper control over manufacturing variations (some might commonly call this a tolerance stack up issue but that is really a different issue).

Similarly there is the (already partly discussed) fact the the S85 in the prior M5 and M6 engine was designed in the 2003-2004 time frame, has an "identical" bottom end (less one cylinder bank) and we are lead to believe that BMW have learned nothing from any design issues there. Is it reasonable that they did not know anything about "premature" failures in that engine? Could it be they did know and also made absolutely no changes in the S65?

Well, in short, I think this issue is far from settled...

Good post.
Also keep in mind, that the registry only includes blown engines, mostly on this board. There have been a LOT more engines with worn bearings in the other 2-3 threads here with pictures showing worn bearings. There have also been a few members here with high lead and copper levels on oil analysis, so those are problem engines too; just like all the youtube vids with ticking noises. Even then, I think it's still a small fraction of all the failed engines out there. Only BMW knows for sure.
Now add all the s85 engines with worn bearings or that have actually failed and the numbers start to ge pretty significant, and suggestive there's an engine design issue here. What's really shocking to me is, BMW already KNEW there was a severe bearing problem in the S54, and STILL designed such tight engines (S85 and S64)???
On the flip side, BMW tried to blame their bearing suppliers for the S54 engines blowing up but they seem to still be blowing up after the recall.

.

[aussiem3]

Originally Posted by aus

Good post.
Also keep in mind, that the registry only includes blown engines, mostly on this board. There have been a LOT more engines with worn bearings in the other 2-3 threads here with pictures showing worn bearings. There have also been a few members here with high lead and copper levels on oil analysis, so those are problem engines too; just like all the youtube vids with ticking noises. Even then, I think it's still a small fraction of all the failed engines out there. Only BMW knows for sure.
Now add all the s85 engines with worn bearings or that have actually failed and the numbers start to ge pretty significant, and suggestive there's an engine design issue here. What's really shocking to me is, BMW already KNEW there was a severe bearing problem in the S54, and STILL designed such tight engines (S85 and S64)???
On the flip side, BMW tried to blame their bearing suppliers for the S54 engines blowing up but they seem to still be blowing up after the recall.

.

But the problem is there will not be a fix from BMW when the engine hasn't blown. If you are one of the unfortunate ones and lucky, BMW my look at your case favourably. The car is out of production and superseded by a new model, so BMW will not rush for a fix. Class action is a different story, and given the % we are talking about worldwide there is no hope whatsoever. Let's hope the engine we have is good.

I just hope someone will re-engineer the bearing for this car. A lot of money is spent on developing SC kits and other mods.

[dreamspeed]

I have read through quite a few of these threads and am still not sure of

1. So this bearing issue can happen on any MY?

2. This bearing issue can happen at any mileage?

3. What is the best way to detect this issue in the early stages without pulling the motor apart?

Thanks

[Leonardo629]

BMW just updated their recommended oil list in August, now either BMW 5W30 LL-01 or TWS 10W60 is okay for M cars. I'm gonna stick to M1 0W40 since it's BMW LL-01.

check it out: http://cache.bmwusa.com/Pdf_59436a7e...2-e40e9ca36785

[aussiem3]

Originally Posted by Leonardo629

BMW just updated their recommended oil list in August, now either BMW 5W30 LL-01 or TWS 10W60 is okay for M cars. I'm gonna stick to M1 0W40 since it's BMW LL-01.

check it out: http://cache.bmwusa.com/Pdf_59436a7e...2-e40e9ca36785

Kawasaki, Regular Guy and BMRLVR are fully vindicated with what they have been saying from the time this bearing issues came up. Well Done!

I just changed my oil last weekend. But I will change it after contacting BMW Australia on Monday. I am sure this is a global communique from BMW M, and just not BMW North America.

The interesting part will be to find out, since this release. whether the dealers gave the owners the option to choose between the two oils - TWS 10w-60 or 5w-30 LL-01. But I guess, until the dealers exhaust the TWS stock they might not communicate this to the customers, and those customers who are oblivious to what's happening in the world of bearings, and treat the dealers word as gospel, will continue to be filled with TWS and pay a high price in terms of $$$s and engine.

So there is no harm in using a thinner oil after all. Well done to all those who stood by the argument and blamed some of the bearing issue on the thicker oil. This is a major win.

[Leonardo629]

I just noticed too BMW does not recommend the BMW 5W30 for M cars, but the Castrol Edge Professional 5W30 is okay....

[aussiem3]

Originally Posted by Leonardo629

I just noticed too BMW does not recommend the BMW 5W30 for M cars, but the Castrol Edge Professional 5W30 is okay....

Sorry, I didn't acknowledge you before. Thank you very much for posting this invaluable information.

I think it is the following oil which conforms to A3/B3 specs. Interesting, it says for "engines operating with tighter tolerances".

http://castroledge.com.au/oils/5w-30-a3/b4

The other Castrol 5w-30 is the magnatec range.

[Moxie]

Originally Posted by Leonardo629

BMW just updated their recommended oil list in August, now either BMW 5W30 LL-01 or TWS 10W60 is okay for M cars. I'm gonna stick to M1 0W40 since it's BMW LL-01.

check it out: http://cache.bmwusa.com/Pdf_59436a7e...2-e40e9ca36785

Part # 07 51 0 037 195 is LL04 & not LL01. It's the same oil I run in the 335d.....the recommended oil list BMW put out listing it as LL01 is confusing.

From the manual - The 335d’s engine oil is different than for BMW gasoline engines. Use only “low-ash” fully synthetic oils meeting BMW’s long-life rating LL-04. One such oil is Castrol SLX Professional OE SAE 5W-30 (Castrol #06070). This oil is also available at BMW Centers under BMW part number 07 51 0 037 195.

http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Conte...ngineOils.aspx

[GIdriver]

Originally Posted by Leonardo629

BMW just updated their recommended oil list in August, now either BMW 5W30 LL-01 or TWS 10W60 is okay for M cars. I'm gonna stick to M1 0W40 since it's BMW LL-01.

check it out: http://cache.bmwusa.com/Pdf_59436a7e...2-e40e9ca36785

This is incredible! They knew and know what's going on and will do nothing other than suggest another oil!!!

My hat's off again to Regular Guy, Kawasaki and BMRLVR.

[GIdriver]

Originally Posted by Moxie

Part # 07 51 0 037 195 is LL04 & not LL01. It's the same oil I run in the 335d.....the recommended oil list BMW put out listing it as LL01 is confusing.

From the manual - The 335d’s engine oil is different than for BMW gasoline engines. Use only “low-ash” fully synthetic oils meeting BMW’s long-life rating LL-04. One such oil is Castrol SLX Professional OE SAE 5W-30 (Castrol #06070). This oil is also available at BMW Centers under BMW part number 07 51 0 037 195.

http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Conte...ngineOils.aspx

I'm in no way an oil expert, but found this where Mobil suggests that the Mobil 1 0w-40 is BMW LL01 approved (not sure if it applies to M engines, indeed confusing):

http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/...il_to_Use.aspx

[dreamspeed]

So to clarify, BMW is now saying regular old 5w30 oil like Castrol Edge or Mobil 1 is ok to use now?

That makes oil changes like a 3rd to a 4th of the cost as before with the TWS

So what would be the best oil to use? Reading through this post it seems like Mobil 1 0-40? Thanks

[thekurgan]

Originally Posted by Leonardo629

BMW just updated their recommended oil list in August, now either BMW 5W30 LL-01 or TWS 10W60 is okay for M cars. I'm gonna stick to M1 0W40 since it's BMW LL-01.

check it out: http://cache.bmwusa.com/Pdf_59436a7e...2-e40e9ca36785

New M cars are turbocharged; falls in line with the new M5's oil recommendation as well. Could be the new M cars are no longer shooting for north of 8k rpm, so the need for TWS is less.

[thekurgan]

Originally Posted by Leonardo629

I just noticed too BMW does not recommend the BMW 5W30 for M cars, but the Castrol Edge Professional 5W30 is okay....

You're still running the 0w-40? I'm curious if your oil temp is lower on average with this oil as well. I read your posts on BITOG, very good UOA. I'm considering the 0w-40 for the colder weather as well.

Sorry, no threadjack, PM me to keep it off this excellent post.