Oil Analysis Reports

[FRFNUGN]

Originally Posted by thekurgan

Roundabouts as in g forces possibly causing some starvation? (reaching far here on stock tires/suspension assumption)

Stock suspension, but 275/35/18 S-04s on Apex wheels all around, so pretty sticky. The roundabouts here are single lane and not very big, no more sustained G's than any turn on any track or auto cross course I've ever been on (not in the M, but just in general). I'd say starvation would not be the issue, at least I'd hope not if they tested these cars on the ol Ring with the karussell!

Originally Posted by gatorfast

Seems like most who are using 0w40 shorten the change interval to 4-5k miles.

But even at double that interval, that report above does not look normal.

As for being too long on one change - I had to add 3.5 quarts (1 every 2500 or so, somewhat replenishing the protection package), and there was plenty of additive remaining according to TBN. In terms of viscosity, it was still at ~34 weight while the Castrol lost almost 15wt over the previous change spans.

The reason I went so long was that:
a) I wanted to see what it would look like and
b) wanted to change just before cold weather so I could keep it in all winter when it will be seeing sub-zero temps and 10W-60 is quite poor at those startup temps.

I'll be changing now at ~5k miles to check again, but will probably stick with 0W-40 for the winter since it will hardly ever be above 32F for 4 months. My plan was to get on a rotation of Castrol for summer and Mobil for winter, but we'll see what the coming miles bring.

As a final note, just for information, my CPO warranty expired just a few weeks ago in mid-August this year...

[White 13]

Originally Posted by VtecforV8

Has anyone taken a blackstone sample without doing a full oil change? I'm coming up on a change and would like to see how things look before determining what oil to go with. Any recommendations on the best way to approach this? Presumably, I'd just drain a bit from the rear bolt after everything is up to temp, though I understand that the first few ounces aren't great for testing and may lead to flawed results.

I have used the front drain. From what I have heard only a limited amount of oil will come out even if you can't get the plug back in while it is draining.

Mike sure you have the correct size wrench (allen head I believe) and it is seated all the way in to before breaking it loose.

[SenorFunkyPants]

The rise in oil consumption (that seems quite common with the switch to M1) would worry me the most.

[Harpua]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

The rise in oil consumption (that seems quite common with the switch to M1) would worry me the most.

I would avoid sweeping assumptions like this. For example, my engine has required less top-ups since my switch to Mobil 1 0w40.

Also, a few people are propagating the notion that iron wear rises with 0w40 as well, and I have yet to witness significant proof. It very well might happen, but association does not equal causation.

The problem here (and with the bearing issue as a whole) is that the sample size is very under-powered and the variables too numerous for any specific conclusions.

It would seem on this discussion board, if ideas are repeated enough times, they become accepted wisdom and treated as fact. Tread carefully.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by Harpua

I would avoid sweeping assumptions like this. For example, my engine has required less top-ups since my switch to Mobil 1 0w40.
Also, a few people are propagating the notion that iron wear rises with 0w40 as well, and I have yet to witness significant proof. It very well might happen, but association does not equal causation.
The problem here (and with the bearing issue as a whole) is that the sample size is very under-powered and the variables too numerous for any specific conclusions.
It would seem on this discussion board, if ideas are repeated enough times, they become accepted wisdom and treated as fact. Tread carefully.

I totally agree...I log and chart all the engine failures to provide some sort of perspective to that issue and still get flak when the results don't agree with what some people want to believe.
I have seen plenty of reports of increased oil consumption with M1 but its not definitive. It requires someone to collate all the UOAs for M1 and TWS and look for trends as well as cross check for reports of higher oil consumption. Its no small enterprise and I certainly can't be bothered.

[gatorfast]

Originally Posted by Harpua

Also, a few people are propagating the notion that iron wear rises with 0w40 as well, and I have yet to witness significant proof. It very well might happen, but association does not equal causation.

If you look back through this thread you will notice that virtually every M1 0w40 report shows an increase in iron ppm compared to previous TWS reports. To the contrary, these reports typically show a significant decrease in lead/copper ppm. I think enough reports have been posted to establish a trend.

As for what the rise in iron may mean and if it is potentially a problem, I have no idea.

But I am still very curious about the 0w40 report posted a few posts back. Those sharp increase in lead and iron seem way out of the ordinary.

[FRFNUGN]

Originally Posted by gatorfast

If you look back through this thread you will notice that virtually every M1 0w40 report shows an increase in iron ppm compared to previous TWS reports. To the contrary, these reports typically show a significant decrease in lead/copper ppm. I think enough reports have been posted to establish a trend.

As for what the rise in iron may mean and if it is potentially a problem, I have no idea.

But I am still very curious about the 0w40 report posted a few posts back. Those sharp increase in lead and iron seem way out of the ordinary.

I agree, iron/lead do seem a tad high compared to others using M1 0W-40, but maybe it was just an initial spike at the beginning of the change... When switching from 10W-60 to 0W-40, maybe there's a small/short running-in period with the lighter oil that causes high initial wear while the thinner oil film is in there, then it settles shortly after to a happy medium. Just a thought, maybe way off.

As for oil consumption, when first switched, it seemed at a higher rate (1qt/1500 miles) then tapered off as the oil aged. For reference, here's how it went down:
Mileage-- Added (qts)--Interval
62170----Fresh--------na
62795----0.5-----------625
63508----0.5-----------713
65744----1-------------2236
67680----1-------------1936
70900----0.6-----------3220
71870----Change------970

[dparm]

Originally Posted by gatorfast

If you look back through this thread you will notice that virtually every M1 0w40 report shows an increase in iron ppm compared to previous TWS reports. To the contrary, these reports typically show a significant decrease in lead/copper ppm. I think enough reports have been posted to establish a trend.

As for what the rise in iron may mean and if it is potentially a problem, I have no idea.

But I am still very curious about the 0w40 report posted a few posts back. Those sharp increase in lead and iron seem way out of the ordinary.

A small increase in particulate matter isn't really that telling. Blackstone will even tell you that people are way too quick to panic when there's a minute increase. Mine went from 8ppm to 11ppm. I lost zero sleep over it.

[gatorfast]

Originally Posted by dparm

A small increase in particulate matter isn't really that telling. Blackstone will even tell you that people are way too quick to panic when there's a minute increase. Mine went from 8ppm to 11ppm. I lost zero sleep over it.

I'm not at all saying there is anything to panic about. Just pointing out that enough reports have been posted showing an increase in iron to consider it a "trend" of running 0w40. At the same time it can also be considered a trend that bearing metals decreased when running the lighter grade.

[Flea7]

Here is my second analysis. This one is with M1 0W/40.

[imstimpy]

First report. I purchased the car used at 26k and have run been running Castrol 10w60.

[Leonardo629]

Until we have seen enough xW40 UOA sample, we really can't conclude the increase in iron count is harmful to the engine, but the lower copper/lead count is definitely helping!

I know it's not apple to apple, but my 2013 Accord K24W1 motor wears very similar to most S65 engines running M1 0W40, around 6ppm of aluminum and around 8~10ppm of iron. It's pretty much universal knowledge that Honda K series motors wear very well running 0W20 oil, and the motors generally will outlast the rest of the vehicle.

[dparm]

Originally Posted by Flea7

Here is my second analysis. This one is with M1 0W/40.

Looks fine, but pay for TBN and TAN next time so you can establish a proper change interval.

[dparm]

Originally Posted by imstimpy

First report. I purchased the car used at 26k and have run been running Castrol 10w60.

Pay for TBN and TAN next time -- this will help you settle on the proper interval. I think 10k might be a bit much for your particular motor and driving habits. Try 7.5k this time and get the TBN/TAN to see if you need to dial it back further.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by Leonardo629

Until we have seen enough xW40 UOA sample, we really can't conclude the increase in iron count is harmful to the engine, but the lower copper/lead count is definitely helping!

Surely it works both ways?
If you can't conclude anything from the small rise in iron then you can't conclude anything from the small drop in lead.
From the minute pool of M1 users there has already been one engine bearing failure from a long term user so its certainly not the magic bullet that some would have you believe.

[dparm]

See also: particle streaking

(call Blackstone, it's a legitimate issue they see in testing that can cause temporary spikes, hence my insistence that people look at trends and not at a single report in isolation)

[Gossypiboma]

My latest report. Lowish miles on the oil change but I wanted to see how the liqui moly was doing. Looks perfect. I may just dump the TWS completely.

[Sinful]

Originally Posted by gatorfast

If you look back through this thread you will notice that virtually every M1 0w40 report shows an increase in iron ppm compared to previous TWS reports. To the contrary, these reports typically show a significant decrease in lead/copper ppm. I think enough reports have been posted to establish a trend.

As for what the rise in iron may mean and if it is potentially a problem, I have no idea.

But I am still very curious about the 0w40 report posted a few posts back. Those sharp increase in lead and iron seem way out of the ordinary.

BMW tech told me that M1 is a shot in the dark, that it may help with the bearing clearance but who knows what wear on other engine parts it will produce.
I sure hope that these reports are not indicating he is right. I however, am sticking with the TWS.

[gatorfast]

Originally Posted by SinfulM3

BMW tech told me that M1 is a shot in the dark, that it may help with the bearing clearance but who knows what wear on other engine parts it will produce.
I sure hope that these reports are not indicating he is right. I however, am sticking with the TWS.

I guess it is unknown as 100% fact that using 0-40 will not have any unintended consequences. However, I think the chances of that are very remote. What we do know is that based on UOAs posted (which of course are not 100% reliable), bearing metals have been seen to decrease from well above universal average to at universal averages or in many cases below. Iron has been seen to increase but still within universal averages.

Like I said, UOAs are certainly not the bible on engine health but unless you open the engine and inspect every part, it's the best info we have. It's understandable why some people would be skeptical on moving away from the factory recommended oil, but it seems to be based on fear and not evidence.

[dparm]

Originally Posted by BigBoosting

My latest report. Lowish miles on the oil change but I wanted to see how the liqui moly was doing. Looks perfect. I may just dump the TWS completely.

Without paying for TBN and TAN, you're making a very vague guess.

[Sinful]

Originally Posted by gatorfast

I guess it is unknown as 100% fact that using 0-40 will not have any unintended consequences. However, I think the chances of that are very remote. What we do know is that based on UOAs posted (which of course are not 100% reliable), bearing metals have been seen to decrease from well above universal average to at universal averages or in many cases below. Iron has been seen to increase but still within universal averages.

Like I said, UOAs are certainly not the bible on engine health but unless you open the engine and inspect every part, it's the best info we have. It's understandable why some people would be skeptical on moving away from the factory recommended oil, but it seems to be based on fear and not evidence.

I wouldn't say I am afraid more like scared. However, seems like one could stick with TWS until the blackstones start to show problems then move to the M1. Otherwise if your engine is fine with the TWS you may be causing other problems with the M1. The thing I like about the bearings is that it is problem that we can monitor while the wear of the M1 is unknown.

[gatorfast]

Originally Posted by SinfulM3

I wouldn't say I am afraid more like scared. However, seems like one could stick with TWS until the blackstones start to show problems then move to the M1. Otherwise if your engine is fine with the TWS you may be causing other problems with the M1. The thing I like about the bearings is that it is problem that we can monitor while the wear of the M1 is unknown.

Not sure what you mean by the last sentence. Unless you are saying there is some hidden damage the M1 could cause that would not appear on a UOA. Don't know what that would be though.

But anyway, I agree with your assessment that if TWS reports are coming back with no signs of above average wear then I would stick with it. Strange thing is, there are many UOAs posted on here with TWS showing acceptable wear metals but then there are many others showing very high bearing wear metals. Perhaps, as others have stated, it could simply be related to variability in factory tolerances.