Using 0W40 = more oil flow is false

[M3-S65]

informative and interesting...however, has BMW come out with an official statement saying it is recommended that all M3 owners change/use the "thinner" oil?
Because if BMW has not ...wont they have the option to use this against you when your bearings go out anyways or some other component in the engine grenades...
Just sayin....

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by M3-S65

informative and interesting...however, has BMW come out with an official statement saying it is recommended that all M3 owners change/use the "thinner" oil?
Because if BMW has not ...wont they have the option to use this against you when your bearings go out anyways or some other component in the engine grenades...
Just sayin....

That topic has been discussed to death already in a bunch of threads. In a nutshell, BMW-US put a notice on their web site last year saying that LL01 oils were now approved for the S65 M3. LL01 oils include 0W30, 5W30, and 0W40. The same notice did not appear on non BMW-US web sites however. My local dealership was aware of the notice, and said their default use was 10W60, but would use LL01 at the owner's request.

Most members here were not planning to change away from 10W60 until their warranty expired anyways.

[///M Power-Belgium]

Originally Posted by M3-S65

informative and interesting...however, has BMW come out with an official statement saying it is recommended that all M3 owners change/use the "thinner" oil?
Because if BMW has not ...wont they have the option to use this against you when your bearings go out anyways or some other component in the engine grenades...
Just sayin....

Originally Posted by regular guy

That topic has been discussed to death already in a bunch of threads. In a nutshell, BMW-US put a notice on their web site last year saying that LL01 oils were now approved for the S65 M3. LL01 oils include 0W30, 5W30, and 0W40. The same notice did not appear on non BMW-US web sites however. My local dealership was aware of the notice, and said their default use was 10W60, but would use LL01 at the owner's request.

Most members here were not planning to change away from 10W60 until their warranty expired anyways.

About this damn oil ...what to do or not ?
Best thing to do should be.. ask BMW/Germany (when possible ?)
They should and must know it ?!?! Ones and for all.......

[chris719]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I don't see the point of any skepticism of this claim by SFP. BMW clearly did some optimization work (arrived at a true global optimum across all or even many variables, probably not) in the oil system and they did so using the specified 10W-60 oil. The statement is almost a tautology...

Just like that optimization work they performed with the E46 M3 which left the factory with 5W-30? Only to be panic-switched to 10W-60 when they started blowing up, then only after they continued to blow up did they perform a recall of course.

Just saying, not every decision BMW makes is direct from engineering or has the right motivation. They might even make mistakes!

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by regular guy

Well then I'll ask you the same question I asked him. Do you have any data to back that up? And can you describe what those optimizations might be (with data to prove it)? I hope so or else your other dings for people who lack evidence rings hollow.

One really needs some foundational knowledge and to accept what is painfully obvious.

Anytime anyone demands proof positive about things that happen behind closed doors at a fairly secretive organization it is a discussion ender. We just aren't given that kind of access and I think you know that.

Try a google search for "SAE engine oil system optimization" (SAE I think you know if the largest publisher of automotive research and engineering papers). Want to guess how many hits you find - 916,000. Now please, tell me again you don't think BMW M did ANY of this type of work with their highest reving and highest tech NA engine ever... If you think that it's really time for a reality check.

If you don't believe that any part of the entire oil lubrication system had some theoretical (i.e. numerical, i.e. CFD), system based engineering (simplified differential equation based) or plain old trial and error experimental optimization, then we probably really can't have much more of a discussion on this point.

Believing otherwise seems typical for you and some in your camp on the overall state of automotive engineering and what actually goes into designing an engine let alone a whole vehicle.

How about crash testing, can you find proof positive from BMW that they did crash testing on the M3? It's trivial to find the 3rd party private/governmental testing but not the factory testing. Wouldn't it be quite foolish to believe that they didn't also do a significant amount of engineering optimization of many parts of the crash system of the car. The only answer is yes.

Can I prove it right now, nope. Would I bet $100k on it, instantly.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by chris719

Just like that optimization work they performed with the E46 M3 which left the factory with 5W-30? Only to be panic-switched to 10W-60 when they started blowing up, then only after they continued to blow up did they perform a recall of course.

Just saying, not every decision BMW makes is direct from engineering or has the right motivation. They might even make mistakes!

I did not say that 10W-60 was the optimum oil. Of course there is really no such thing as single optimal choice for something like and oil. What would be optimal on a summer race track in Arizona is certainly not the optimal oil for a winter commute in Alaska. What I and SFP did say is that when BMW did optimization work on various components and the entire system, it is quite obvious that they did so with 10W-60 oil and its properties.

[BMRLVR]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I did not say that 10W-60 was the optimum oil. Of course there is really no such thing as single optimal choice for something like and oil. What would be optimal on a summer race track in Arizona is certainly not the optimal oil for a winter commute in Alaska. What I and SFP did say is that when BMW did optimization work on various components and the entire system, it is quite obvious that they did so with 10W-60 oil and its properties.

You are very funny swamp! You fail to see the obvious and over think even the simplest of things. BMW screwed up royally on the S54, S65 & S85 bearings. The history proves it. Please reference a case where any of those engines were taken apart and the bearings looked great! A lighter engine oil would not in itself be a fix, but it would be a step in the right direction

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by swamp2

One really needs some foundational knowledge and to accept what is painfully obvious.

Anytime anyone demands proof positive about things that happen behind closed doors at a fairly secretive organization it is a discussion ender. We just aren't given that kind of access and I think you know that.

Try a google search for "SAE engine oil system optimization" (SAE I think you know if the largest publisher of automotive research and engineering papers). Want to guess how many hits you find - 916,000. Now please, tell me again you don't think BMW M did ANY of this type of work with their highest reving and highest tech NA engine ever... If you think that it's really time for a reality check.

If you don't believe that any part of the entire oil lubrication system had some theoretical (i.e. numerical, i.e. CFD), system based engineering (simplified differential equation based) or plain old trial and error experimental optimization, then we probably really can't have much more of a discussion on this point.

Believing otherwise seems typical for you and some in your camp on the overall state of automotive engineering and what actually goes into designing an engine let alone a whole vehicle.

How about crash testing, can you find proof positive from BMW that they did crash testing on the M3? It's trivial to find the 3rd party private/governmental testing but not the factory testing. Wouldn't it be quite foolish to believe that they didn't also do a significant amount of engineering optimization of many parts of the crash system of the car. The only answer is yes.

Can I prove it right now, nope. Would I bet $100k on it, instantly.

Earlier today I read you taking two different people with two different opinions and conflating them together as if they were one single person and one single opinion (me and kawasaki). By the time I read your comments, I couldn't tell who you were talking to because I could see how you did it, but didn't know who you were addressing. If you weren't conflating two different people and opinions, then you were pulling pieces of your comments out of thin air...just like above. Above you seem to continue down that same approach and continue to put words into my mouth that were never said nor implied. I don't want to hear a bunch of mumbo jumbo, we get enough of that on this forum already. I just want to know how the oil system was optimized for 10W60 and how that "optimization" changes when you introduce 0W40. That's all...lay it on me. I'd propose a better way to end the discussion than a mere disagreement. The moment one person has to make something up to prove their point, that's when the discussion is really over.

Oh, and BTW, anytime you call somebody a fanboy, yes that is flame baiting.

[coloradoe92m3]

Originally Posted by BMRLVR

You are very funny swamp! You fail to see the obvious and over think even the simplest of things. BMW screwed up royally on the S54, S65 & S85 bearings. The history proves it. Please reference a case where any of those engines were taken apart and the bearings looked great! A lighter engine oil would not in itself be a fix, but it would be a step in the right direction

I read whole long bearing thread and I thought the s65 bearings were within clevite standards or very close? How is the 50k M3 cars driving around with no issues screwing up royally?

[Sered]

Originally Posted by coloradoe92m3

I read whole long bearing thread and I thought the s65 bearings were within clevite standards or very close? How is the 50k M3 cars driving around with no issues screwing up royally?

But they do have issues. They have increased bearing wear. Sure it may not be an immediate problem; but I'd say rolling around in a ticking timebomb is a problem of some sort. Do you disagree?

There's been no evidence of a ~50k mile S65/S85 with proper bearing wear, but tons of evidence of them with bad bearing wear. That's pretty tough to refute.

[MilehighM3]

Originally Posted by Sered

They have increased bearing wear. Sure it may not be an immediate problem; but I'd say rolling around in a ticking timebomb is a problem of some sort. Do you disagree?

There's been no evidence of a ~50k mile S65/S85 with proper bearing wear, but tons of evidence of them with bad bearing wear. That's pretty tough to refute.

There is also no evidence that running thinner oil changes anything. Do you disagree? What's the failure rate on bearings? I'm not talking about wear here, only bearing failures. .01% of production vehicles? Did the owners of the failed components follow BMWs break in properly? Did they warm up the engine properly and completely prior to doing any spirited driving? Likely not. In that case, we're talking about misuse or abuse, not a problem.

Now, is this really a problem? I think not.

[gatorfast]

Originally Posted by MilehighM3

There is also no evidence that running thinner oil changes anything. Do you disagree? .

There are multiple UOAs posted by users running a lighter oil which show significant reduction in wear metals. This is the best evidence we have for now since no one has inspected bearings for wear after a significant period of time running 10w60 and subsequently a lighter oil.

On another note, the topic of bearing wear and oil weight seems to be nearly as polarizing as republican or democrat.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by BMRLVR

You are very funny swamp! You fail to see the obvious and over think even the simplest of things. BMW screwed up royally on the S54, S65 & S85 bearings. The history proves it. Please reference a case where any of those engines were taken apart and the bearings looked great! A lighter engine oil would not in itself be a fix, but it would be a step in the right direction

Although I disagree with this, purely based on the very small quantities of failures and based on the obvious fact that those "checking" on their bearings have already modded or are in the process of modding more, my point here is not that 10W-60 is the right or the best oil, only to mention that is was the oil that BMW used to develop and optimize the engine.

Obviously neither of us know exactly what the entire population of bearings actually look like...

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by regular guy

Earlier today I read you taking two different people with two different opinions and conflating them together as if they were one single person and one single opinion (me and kawasaki). By the time I read your comments, I couldn't tell who you were talking to because I could see how you did it, but didn't know who you were addressing. If you weren't conflating two different people and opinions, then you were pulling pieces of your comments out of thin air...just like above. Above you seem to continue down that same approach and continue to put words into my mouth that were never said nor implied.

Wow, holy irrelevance Batman... Talk about meta-post BS....

Originally Posted by regular guy

I don't want to hear a bunch of mumbo jumbo, we get enough of that on this forum already. I just want to know how the oil system was optimized for 10W60 and how that "optimization" changes when you introduce 0W40. That's all...lay it on me. I'd propose a better way to end the discussion than a mere disagreement. The moment one person has to make something up to prove their point, that's when the discussion is really over.

You've basically completely refused to address a well presented post giving an example of the obvious limitations we face getting information from an obviously secretive organization. You will end all discussions asking for proof where you know darn well that proof can not be obtained. Regardless of how likely or unlikely a given contention is.

Lastly, I've already pointed out that I don't believe the system won't be highly robust to relatively small changes in oil viscosity, pertty well all oil systems from the most basic to the more advanced are in fact robust to such changes. My only point was again (beating the dead horse). The system has has significant optimization and 10W-60 was used during development and optimization.

I honestly think you disagree with those points, it's really some massive denial solely for the point of disagreeing with SFP.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by gatorfast

There are multiple UOAs posted by users running a lighter oil which show significant reduction in wear metals.

I don't believe I've seen such a reduction attributed exclusively to a known change from 10W-60 to 0W-40 (or similar). Please post the report with adequate evidence. Now that being said I have seen large changes in wear metals for no particular reason...

And just to be clear, I have personally switched to 0W-40. There appears to be no downsides, cost is great and some basic engineering principles indicate it might help with wear.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by MilehighM3

There is also no evidence that running thinner oil changes anything.

Absolutely. A HUGE problem with this entire bearing thing is the lack of controlled data or even loosely controlled data. Specifically with regards to making changes and observing the results, oil and treated bearings being the most important.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Wow, holy irrelevance Batman... Talk about meta-post BS....



You've basically completely refused to address a well presented post giving an example of the obvious limitations we face getting information from an obviously secretive organization. You will end all discussions asking for proof where you know darn well that proof can not be obtained. Regardless of how likely or unlikely a given contention is.

Lastly, I've already pointed out that I don't believe the system won't be highly robust to relatively small changes in oil viscosity, pertty well all oil systems from the most basic to the more advanced are in fact robust to such changes. My only point was again (beating the dead horse). The system has has significant optimization and 10W-60 was used during development and optimization.

I honestly think you disagree with those points, it's really some massive denial solely for the point of disagreeing with SFP.

As I mentioned before, I don't like to waste air and typing for things I agree with. Regardless, I'm not asking for proof from BMW, I'm asking you for examples -- even from a theoretical point of view. Go back to that list of SAE articles you talked about. There's one link in the top-5 that will give you a catalog of all related SAE articles. Go down that list and give me the titles and links to at least five articles that you think are relevant to this discussion. I did that, and only found one (and I didn't exactly think the title and synopsis were in your favor).

So give me theoretical examples how the S65 oil system was optimized for 10W60 and tell me what those types of optimizations might be. Then switch the discussion to 0W40 and tell me how those optimizations will change. I would highly suggest you look at an oil schematic of the S65 before you do this. The oil schematic is published in some BMW documents that are publicly available through TIS (I can't post them here because BMW got real pissy when I did that once before). Look in that schematic and tell me which components are optimized for 10W60 and what those optimizations might be. I don't think you're naive enough to suggest that these optimizations are things like bore size of the oil galleys -- and that's why I'm suggesting you look at the actual components and (seeing how few there really are) tell me how those components are optimized for 10W60 and how their design would change if the oil switched to 0W40.

That's all I'm asking. Now go for it and stop all this other chest beating nonsense.

My disagreement with SFP is because what he's saying doesn't make sense to me. I think it would be foolish to think the bore diameters of oil galleys are these "comprehensive optimizations" you and SFP are talking about. The pump design itself can't be what you're talking about. The VANOS runs off pressure which will be maintained by the pump's overkill design. That leads us back to bearing clearances -- which if they're really optimized for 10W60, you'll have to argue need to be even smaller if you switch to 0W40. So have at it, talk about actual S65, not 918,000 theoretical SAE articles that have no relevance to the actual discussion at hand.

[BMRLVR]

Originally Posted by regular guy

As I mentioned before, I don't like to waste air and typing for things I agree with. Regardless, I'm not asking for proof from BMW, I'm asking you for examples -- even from a theoretical point of view. Go back to that list of SAE articles you talked about. There's one link in the top-5 that will give you a catalog of all related SAE articles. Go down that list and give me the titles and links to at least five articles that you think are relevant to this discussion. I did that, and only found one (and I didn't exactly think the title and synopsis were in your favor).

So give me theoretical examples how the S65 oil system was optimized for 10W60 and tell me what those types of optimizations might be. Then switch the discussion to 0W40 and tell me how those optimizations will change. I would highly suggest you look at an oil schematic of the S65 before you do this. The oil schematic is published in some BMW documents that are publicly available through TIS (I can't post them here because BMW got real pissy when I did that once before). Look in that schematic and tell me which components are optimized for 10W60 and what those optimizations might be. I don't think you're naive enough to suggest that these optimizations are things like bore size of the oil galleys -- and that's why I'm suggesting you look at the actual components and (seeing how few there really are) tell me how those components are optimized for 10W60 and how their design would change if the oil switched to 0W40.

That's all I'm asking. Now go for it and stop all this other chest beating nonsense.

My disagreement with SFP is because what he's saying doesn't make sense to me. I think it would be foolish to think the bore diameters of oil galleys are these "comprehensive optimizations" you and SFP are talking about. The pump design itself can't be what you're talking about. The VANOS runs off pressure which will be maintained by the pump's overkill design. That leads us back to bearing clearances -- which if they're really optimized for 10W60, you'll have to argue need to be even smaller if you switch to 0W40. So have at it, talk about actual S65, not 918,000 theoretical SAE articles that have no relevance to the actual discussion at hand.

+100000000

Most engines are based on previous designs, but have differences due to refinements, and design changes. As for an engine optimized to use a specific oil grade that is laughable.

Engine designers pick oils that suit the specifications, operating parameters, desired oil drain interval and climate where the engine will be used. The TWS/Edge 10w60 was around for lots of years with it's base stock and additive pack basically unchanged....... So swamp or SFP, tell me why BMW would design their new cutting edge engine around an old oil? The only reason I could see is a marketing agreement!? Anyone who has half a clue about engines and oil knows that there are many oils on the market that fit the bill much better in the S65 than the OE TWS/Edge!!!!!

[gatorfast]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I don't believe I've seen such a reduction attributed exclusively to a known change from 10W-60 to 0W-40 (or similar). Please post the report with adequate evidence. Now that being said I have seen large changes in wear metals for no particular reason...

And just to be clear, I have personally switched to 0W-40. There appears to be no downsides, cost is great and some basic engineering principles indicate it might help with wear.

Look in the oil analysis thread in the maintenance section. And I guess since you have made the switch you will soon see firsthand if this rings true assuming you do a UOA.

[M3-S65]

Originally Posted by regular guy

I don't want to hear a bunch of mumbo jumbo, we get enough of that on this forum already.

This summarizes all these bearing and oil threads.
This is like my industry...stock analysis/stock market.
The smartest and brightest guys have all the evidence in the world on why the market is going up, and some even smarter guys think the exact opposite. In the end allot of it has to do with chance..and neither is right all the time...
Lets face it, this argument rages on because no one really knows, not even BMW...but they hold the trump card ...and its called your warranty.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by M3-S65

This summarizes all these bearing and oil threads.
This is like my industry...stock analysis/stock market.
The smartest and brightest guys have all the evidence in the world on why the market is going up, and some even smarter guys think the exact opposite. In the end allot of it has to do with chance..and neither is right all the time...
Lets face it, this argument rages on because no one really knows, not even BMW...but they hold the trump card ...and its called your warranty.

I like that!

[swamp2]

Let me preface this by repeating, now I think for the 3rd time. Was the oil system in the S65 optimized TO USE 10W-60, certainly not. Is the system very robust to viscosity changes, obviously yes, since those normally occur across both engine operating and external temperature changes. But again.... Was the engine DESIGNED, TESTED, SIMULATED and had some oil components optimized USING THE KNOWN PROPERTIES OF 10W-60 AT A NOMINAL TEMPERATURE AND VISCOSITY, yes, I'd say that is pretty well obvious, but is further established below.

Originally Posted by regular guy

give me the titles and links to at least five articles that you think are relevant to this discussion.

Best one first, took all of about 5 minutes.

1. "Robust Optimization of Engine Lubrication System", SAE 2007-01-1568
2. "Oil Distribution Optimization for Friction Reduction in a High-speed Racing Engine (CART)", SAE 2003-01-1993
3. "Engine Lubrication System for Oil Flow Reduction" SAE 2011-36-0205
4. "Articulated Piston Cooling Optimization", SAE 930276
5. "Numerical Optimization of Ring-Pack Behavior", SAE 1999-01-1521

Originally Posted by regular guy

So give me theoretical examples how the S65 oil system was optimized for 10W60 and tell me what those types of optimizations might be. Then switch the discussion to 0W40 and tell me how those optimizations will change. I would highly suggest you look at an oil schematic of the S65 before you do this. The oil schematic is published in some BMW documents that are publicly available through TIS (I can't post them here because BMW got real pissy when I did that once before). Look in that schematic and tell me which components are optimized for 10W60 and what those optimizations might be. I don't think you're naive enough to suggest that these optimizations are things like bore size of the oil galleys -- and that's why I'm suggesting you look at the actual components and (seeing how few there really are) tell me how those components are optimized for 10W60 and how their design would change if the oil switched to 0W40.

Again, please read my opening statement, since you keep missing it over and over again. That being said the following quote from the first paper answers your question fairly directly,

One of the first steps in designing a high efficiency lubrication system is selecting an adequate oil pump. For most engines, oil pump capacity is oversized, which causes unnecessary power losses due to the high driving torque. In addition, the high flow rate produced in the cylinder head by oversized pump causes oil drainback problems and generating high aeration in the oil pan. Routinely, the lubricating oil pump is designed based on empirical data and design engineer experience. Since the actual volume defined as the volume required to assure the oil pressure necessary for rod bearings has not yet been reliably assessed, oversized oil pumps are frequently used and pressure relief valves are selected on the basis of considerable reserves of safety. The simulation models should be continually updated to reflect ongoing design changes during the engine development cycle. Design parameter studies must be conducted for various clearances, engine speeds, aeration levels, and oil temperatures to obtain an optimized combination of design variables. The pressure and oil flow, diameter of drainback passes, oil pump capacity, and gasket orifices can then be determined to significantly reduce or eliminate unnecessary work.

That's just from one paper...

Originally Posted by regular guy

My disagreement with SFP is because what he's saying doesn't make sense to me. I think it would be foolish to think the bore diameters of oil galleys are these "comprehensive optimizations" you and SFP are talking about. The pump design itself can't be what you're talking about. The VANOS runs off pressure which will be maintained by the pump's overkill design. That leads us back to bearing clearances -- which if they're really optimized for 10W60, you'll have to argue need to be even smaller if you switch to 0W40.

I only was critical of your belief that BMW hadn't done ANY optimization whatsoever across the entire oil lubrication system. Again to me it's painfully obvious because almost all parts of a car have some sort of optimization done on them and the lubrication system is an important one with many different ways of lubricating many different components. Viscosity goes into those calculations and is part of most simulation or optimization efforts.

And again, no I can't provide the papers and proof the BMW has done so. One must appeal to common sense and some foundational knowledge of the immense, detailed and diverse simulation and optimization that goes into just about all modern vehicles. This is directly related to my profession as well. We provide the software tools to just about all of the automotive OEMs for simulation of an enormous range of different physics. The diversity of their work with our tools is unbelievable. That perspective just makes me continually giggle a bit inside when such naive BS is posted as this:

Originally Posted by BMRLVR

Most engines are based on previous designs, but have differences due to refinements, and design changes. As for an engine optimized to use a specific oil grade that is laughable.

Engine designers pick oils that suit the specifications, operating parameters, desired oil drain interval and climate where the engine will be used. The TWS/Edge 10w60 was around for lots of years with it's base stock and additive pack basically unchanged.......

Yeah, you're right, there is no innovation any longer taking place. All good designs have already been done. All an engineer does, it think about something for a few minutes, rip apart a prior or competitive design, throw up the good ol' blueprints and send them over to the casting team and machining team. Bam - cutting edge, modern, award winning engine.

Sometimes one can benefit from just a touch more humility and to know just a small speck of what they don't know...

Perhaps next we can debate whether simulation and optimization is done on the entire flow path of air and fuel through the entire intake/valve/head/DI injectors/exhaust system and also how in the combustion chamber chemical reactions and kinetics are fully simulated along with flame fronts and predicting knock and various pollutant levels... Nah, Billy Bob out there in the shop just looked at that old Hemi head and sketched the S65 one right up.

Not my company but still representative...