Using 0W40 = more oil flow is false

[BMRLVR]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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,

That's just from one paper...

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:

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...

The S65 is not Cutting edge....... It is a damn good engine, no actually it is a great engine......... There is no technology in it that haven't been done before! In Fact the S65 was largely developed many years before as the S85.

The cylinder heads, pistons, rods, crank, journal diameters, bearings, throttle bodies, knock control system etc are all exactly the same in design.

Please stop being childish, and actually read what I said, to develop a brand new engine to us an oil that is almost 10 years old is silly. The TWS in M cars is a result of BMW's agreement with Castrol, heck it even says "BMW recommends Castrol" on their oil caps!

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by BMRLVR

The TWS in M cars is a result of BMW's agreement with Castrol, heck it even says "BMW recommends Castrol" on their oil caps!

The agreement is not specifically for TWS: "The BMW Group recommends Castrol in their service literature, driver handbooks and marketing communications, as well as on the vehicles' engine blocks."
The Castrol TWS (recently reformulated and rebadged as Edge professional) is very much a niche oil, this weight is mostly only used by a few high performance cars.....it is a low volume oil with a high cost to produce.
It is a commercial disadvantage for Castol to waste its "Exclusive approval for M engines" on a10W60 oil which has no wide scale application when the halo effect of M engine approval would far better help "sell" a more mainstream weight such as their 0W40.
As Castrol 10W60 is a more expensive oil than say Castrol's 0W40, it is a higher cost to BMW when supplied as part of the free maintenance program.
So Castrol would rather BMW didn't use 10W60 for its M engines.
BMW bean counters would rather not use 10W60 for its M engines.
You guys would have everyone believe that a lighter oil would do a better job.
Using a suboptimal oil would cost more in warranty engine replacements....So why does the M division insist on using it?
Could it be that the M engineers who have access to all the data know what they are doing or could they barely find their arse in the dark with a torch and both hands?

[kawasaki00]

[bigtracing]

Kawi or RG. I remember somewhere ein one of these threads there's a million of them. Someone talked about Mobil one 0-50 race formula i think it was. I remember it having the highest zinc content and needing to go catless. I'm planning on going catless already so is the 0-50 worth going with or should I stay with the 0-40w m1. I'm planning on doing a few track days a year and I drive fairly hard.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by 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.



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

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,



That's just from one paper...



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:



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...

Let's recap.

• SFP says the S65 is optimized FOR 10W60 in post-45.
• RG takes issue with that and asks for proof -- even theoretical proof.
• Swamp takes issue with RG for taking issue with SFP.
• Swamp says "(he doesn't) see the point of any skepticism of this claim by SFP."
• So RG asks swamp the same question RG asked SFP and asks swamp for the same type of proof.
• Swamp doesn't like the question and immediately reframes it. The question changes from S65 optimized FOR 10W60 to S65 optimized WITH 10W60.
• In doing so, swamp agrees with RG but starts an argument to show that we are in violent agreement that SFP's comments don't make sense that the S65 being optimized FOR 10W60.
• Swamp proclaims the S65 oil system is robust enough to tolerate thinner oil viscosities.
• Swamp announces he has switched to 0W40 oil.

If I got that wrong, I'm sure I'll get corrected...and that correction will look like a disagreement even if it isn't.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by regular guy

Let's recap.
[LIST][*]SFP says the S65 is optimized FOR 10W60 in post-45.

And wrong at the first point, Post 45 says:
"Firstly I think it can be fairly assumed that the volume flow-controlled hinged-valve oil pump and the whole lubrication system has been optimized for a 10W60 oil"
That is not the same as "the S65 is optimized FOR 10W60"
But with the M engineers having legandary arse finding problems they probably just sent the work experience kid down to the stores to pick up any old oil pump and pressure regulating valve.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

And wrong at the first point, Post 45 says:
"Firstly I think it can be fairly assumed that the volume flow-controlled hinged-valve oil pump and the whole lubrication system has been optimized for a 10W60 oil"
That is not the same as "the S65 is optimized FOR 10W60"
But with the M engineers having arse finding problems they probably just sent the work experience kid down to the stores to pick up any old oil pump and pressure regulating valve.

Look closer...right out of your own quote above:

"the whole lubrication system has been optimized for a 10W60 oil"

Ok, so now let's rewind...and repeat all of my same exact questions for "whole lubrication system." Same questions apply. What does that mean? And since we're talking about the S65, I think we can reasonably conclude without this nonsense discussion that we're still talking about the subsystem of the S65 called the "lubrication system." It's the same exact thing as what I said above.

Like I said, I'm sure somebody will point out a disagreement under the guise of saying the same exact thing. Give me a break! Back to Stan Getz now...much more pleasurable.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Jeez it is national obtuse week again already?
The S65 is optimised for 10W60 IS NOT THE SAME AS the lubrication system was optimised for 10W60.
The S65 came with the same oil pathways as the S85 block it was derived from. The VANOS was redesigned (from a high pressure system to a low pressure system) and so was the lubrication system.
To suggest that BMW made no attempt to optimise the lubrication system in the new design for the oil they knew they were going to use is idiotic.
As is the suggestion that I should supply data to prove that the M division aren't stupid.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Jeez it is national obtuse week again already?

I like that. That made me smile.

The S65 is optimised for 10W60 IS NOT THE SAME AS the lubrication system was optimised for 10W60.

At the end of the day, you and I are talking about the same exact thing but for some reason, you don't want to agree that we're talking about the same exact thing. I'm obviously not talking about the Alucil block when I say "S65" -- I'm talking about the lubrication system. So yes, it must be national obtuse week.

To me, the statement still doesn't make sense. What does it mean to optimize the "lubrication system" for 10W60 and what changes would be required to change to 0W40?

[kawasaki00]

Originally Posted by bigtracing

Kawi or RG. I remember somewhere ein one of these threads there's a million of them. Someone talked about Mobil one 0-50 race formula i think it was. I remember it having the highest zinc content and needing to go catless. I'm planning on going catless already so is the 0-50 worth going with or should I stay with the 0-40w m1. I'm planning on doing a few track days a year and I drive fairly hard.

The 0-50 is awesome. It is very high in add pack. If it were not so expensive I would run it if catless. The secondary cats are not so bad but with the restrictive primary I would not run it.
If you are tracking and don't mind the cost of it I think the cheapest place to get it is amazon.

[coloradoe92m3]

Originally Posted by kawasaki00

The 0-50 is awesome. It is very high in add pack. If it were not so expensive I would run it if catless. The secondary cats are not so bad but with the restrictive primary I would not run it.
If you are tracking and don't mind the cost of it I think the cheapest place to get it is amazon.

I've used 0w50 several times buts its actually thinner than. M1 0w40. Even though stated figures are a little high viscosity, I found several baseline and uses oil reports showing a lower viscosity than 0w40. Has ton more zddp but it really should not be classified as 60 weight but rather a average weight 0w40.

Its costly and given its very similar in viscosity to 0w40 I saw no benefit in using it over 0w40. Especially if changing oil often.

If you had solid lifters the zddp would be helpful but not sure our engine even benefits from zddp past a certain level.

Stuff was water thin out of bottle. Can't imagine what their 0w30 race is like

[Vic311]

I see this thread has gone exactly as expected.

[bigtracing]

Amazon has it for $16.50 a quart which is a lot! but not to much more then tws. I think I'll try both and get reports for each. car should be done soon! planning on pulling the oil pan during next winter to check the bearings to see if the thinner oil is actually helping. thanks for the help guys.

[BMRLVR]

Swamp, you stated that you personally changed to 0W40 and also stated that it had no downsides and that it might "help". What would it "help" with? You have stated many times that there is no issue with the bearings/clearances in the S65, and that RG, Kawasaki, and myself were blowing this out of proportion!

Why did you switch, are you admitting that the hands on guys might have a clue even though they aren't automotive engineers?

Please do tell!!!!

[M3-S65]

Originally Posted by regular guy

Let's recap.

• SFP says the S65 is optimized FOR 10W60 in post-45.
• RG takes issue with that and asks for proof -- even theoretical proof.
• Swamp takes issue with RG for taking issue with SFP.
• Swamp says "(he doesn't) see the point of any skepticism of this claim by SFP."
• So RG asks swamp the same question RG asked SFP and asks swamp for the same type of proof.
• Swamp doesn't like the question and immediately reframes it. The question changes from S65 optimized FOR 10W60 to S65 optimized WITH 10W60.
• In doing so, swamp agrees with RG but starts an argument to show that we are in violent agreement that SFP's comments don't make sense that the S65 being optimized FOR 10W60.
• Swamp proclaims the S65 oil system is robust enough to tolerate thinner oil viscosities.
• Swamp announces he has switched to 0W40 oil.

If I got that wrong, I'm sure I'll get corrected...and that correction will look like a disagreement even if it isn't.

I got lost in the sea of egos and inconsistent variables...thanks for the recap...

[OM VT3]

Originally Posted by kawasaki00

The 0-50 is awesome. It is very high in add pack. If it were not so expensive I would run it if catless. The secondary cats are not so bad but with the restrictive primary I would not run it.
If you are tracking and don't mind the cost of it I think the cheapest place to get it is amazon.

I'm supercharged should I run the 0-40 or 0-50

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by leigh

I'm supercharged should I run the 0-40 or 0-50

0-40 or 0-50 is kind of slow don't you think? Shouldn't you be running 0-300 kmh?

[DLSJ5]

Originally Posted by leigh

I'm supercharged should I run the 0-40 or 0-50

Some FBO and 1000WHP GTR's are running 0W40, I think you'd be fine with that.

[OM VT3]

Originally Posted by regular guy

0-40 or 0-50 is kind of slow don't you think? Shouldn't you be running 0-300 kmh?

Haha I've only done that once when I was na

[OM VT3]

Originally Posted by DLSJ5

Some FBO and 1000WHP GTR's are running 0W40, I think you'd be fine with that.

What are you running in the built motor?

[dparm]

Originally Posted by leigh

I'm supercharged should I run the 0-40 or 0-50

If the 0w40 allows you to maintain sufficient oil pressure, use that.

Also, M1R 0w50 is not safe for a DD. I do not recommend using it.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by kawasaki00

It's clearly only a real troll who falsely thows that accusation at other respectable forum members who are discussing/debating politely and in good faith. Shame on you, regardless of if you were pointing your finger at me or at SFP.