liqui moly to OEM Shell

[e90///M3]

Just did my oil change, I ran liqui moly for 7500 miles and wanted to try OEM Shell (both 10w-60). what I noticed right away was it warms up way faster and oil temp seems a bit higher (although the recent heat might of contributed). For those who used both oils, does this seem pretty accurate?

[dparm]

Probably just placebo effect. Unless you timed it under identical circumstances each time, it's going to be indistinguishable.

[e90///M3]

Originally Posted by dparm

Probably just placebo effect. Unless you timed it under identical circumstances each time, it's going to be indistinguishable.

I see what you are saying but I warm up my car the same time every morning. Also when temps are colder, it shifts later in auto mode if that makes sense. And the slight increase in oil temp is because anything slightly above the 210 tick, it grabs my attention.
Not worried, just an observation

[dparm]

Originally Posted by e90///M3

I see what you are saying but I warm up my car the same time every morning. Also when temps are colder, it shifts later in auto mode if that makes sense. And the slight increase in oil temp is because anything slightly above the 210 tick, it grabs my attention.
Not worried, just an observation

The S65 is a water-cooled engine, not oil-cooled. The oil temps will be held fairly constant....and that gauge on the dash is not terribly accurate.

Glad to hear you are liking the oil. If you like the perceived changes (however small they might be), keep using that oil with confidence.

[Z K]

Liqui moly 10w60 is known to be thicker than the OEM Shell or TWS oil. That is the effect you're feeling. The engine should warm up quicker, rev a bit faster and be more responsive as well with the thinner oil.

For those people that follow the rod bearing issues threads, it's not advisable to use a thicker oil than OEM.

For comparison, TWS vs Liqui moly:

Castrol TWS 10w 60
Density @ 15˚C, Relative ASTM D4052 g/ml 0.853
Viscosity, Kinematic 100˚C ASTM D445 mm²/s 22.7
Viscosity, CCS -25˚C (10W) ASTM D5293 mPa.s (cP) 4879
Viscosity, Kinematic 40˚C ASTM D445 mm²/s 160
Viscosity Index ASTM D2270 None 173
Pour Point ASTM D97 °C -39
Flash Point, PMCC ASTM D93 °C >200
Ash, Sulphated ASTM D874 % wt 1.29

Liquid Moly 10W 60
Basis : Synthetic oil/additives
Viscosity class : 10W-60
ASTM colour : 3.5
Density at 15 °C : 0.855 g/cm³
Viscosity at 40 °C : 155 mm²/s
Viscosity at 100 °C : 23,8 mm²/s
Viscosity index : 185
Flash point : 240 °C
Pour point : -30 °C
Evaporation loss : 6.9 %

[e90///M3]

Originally Posted by Z K

Liqui moly 10w60 is known to be thicker than the OEM Shell or TWS oil. That is the effect you're feeling. The engine should warm up quicker, rev a bit faster and be more responsive as well with the thinner oil.

For those people that follow the rod bearing issues threads, it's not advisable to use a thicker oil than OEM.

For comparison, TWS vs Liqui moly:

Castrol TWS 10w 60
Density @ 15˚C, Relative ASTM D4052 g/ml 0.853
Viscosity, Kinematic 100˚C ASTM D445 mm²/s 22.7
Viscosity, CCS -25˚C (10W) ASTM D5293 mPa.s (cP) 4879
Viscosity, Kinematic 40˚C ASTM D445 mm²/s 160
Viscosity Index ASTM D2270 None 173
Pour Point ASTM D97 °C -39
Flash Point, PMCC ASTM D93 °C >200
Ash, Sulphated ASTM D874 % wt 1.29

Liquid Moly 10W 60
Basis : Synthetic oil/additives
Viscosity class : 10W-60
ASTM colour : 3.5
Density at 15 °C : 0.855 g/cm³
Viscosity at 40 °C : 155 mm²/s
Viscosity at 100 °C : 23,8 mm²/s
Viscosity index : 185
Flash point : 240 °C
Pour point : -30 °C
Evaporation loss : 6.9 %

I knew I wasn't going crazy lol

[e90///M3]

Originally Posted by Z K

Liqui moly 10w60 is known to be thicker than the OEM Shell or TWS oil. That is the effect you're feeling. The engine should warm up quicker, rev a bit faster and be more responsive as well with the thinner oil.

For those people that follow the rod bearing issues threads, it's not advisable to use a thicker oil than OEM.

For comparison, TWS vs Liqui moly:

Castrol TWS 10w 60
Density @ 15˚C, Relative ASTM D4052 g/ml 0.853
Viscosity, Kinematic 100˚C ASTM D445 mm²/s 22.7
Viscosity, CCS -25˚C (10W) ASTM D5293 mPa.s (cP) 4879
Viscosity, Kinematic 40˚C ASTM D445 mm²/s 160
Viscosity Index ASTM D2270 None 173
Pour Point ASTM D97 °C -39
Flash Point, PMCC ASTM D93 °C >200
Ash, Sulphated ASTM D874 % wt 1.29

Liquid Moly 10W 60
Basis : Synthetic oil/additives
Viscosity class : 10W-60
ASTM colour : 3.5
Density at 15 °C : 0.855 g/cm³
Viscosity at 40 °C : 155 mm²/s
Viscosity at 100 °C : 23,8 mm²/s
Viscosity index : 185
Flash point : 240 °C
Pour point : -30 °C
Evaporation loss : 6.9 %

Thanks for the comparison

[Z K]

Originally Posted by e90///M3

Thanks for the comparison

No Problem! I ran Liqui Moly 10w60 once and I hated it. I drained it after a few thousand miles and went back to the TWS oil. Same experience with Redline 10w60 as well.

Some people swear by the Liqui Moly... I think it may be beneficial on a race track at high temps but definitely not in every day driving.

[dparm]

Originally Posted by Z K

Liqui moly 10w60 is known to be thicker than the OEM Shell or TWS oil. That is the effect you're feeling. The engine should warm up quicker, rev a bit faster and be more responsive as well with the thinner oil.

For those people that follow the rod bearing issues threads, it's not advisable to use a thicker oil than OEM.

One of the biggest gaps is that HTHSV data is rarely available for oils. Lubro-Moly doesn't publish the HTHSV spec for their 10w60 so we have no clue what its true operational viscosity is.

TWS is around 5.3/5.4 based on anecdotal information. If you proceed under the assumption that the Shell-blended & BMW-branded stuff is actually Pennzoil Platinum Racing, that HTHSV is also unavailable. It's probably 5.4 because the Pennzoil Ultra Racing stuff is also 5.4.

That being said, most 10w60s have an HTHSV of right around 5.4. A few are higher, however: Red Line is 5.8 (7% thicker than TWS), M1 Extended Life is 5.7 (5% thicker than TWS), Renewable Lube is 5.5 (2% thicker than TWS) and Millers CFS NT is 5.85 (8% thicker than TWS). The common thread with these thicker-than-average 10w60s is they are likely using more esters and group V base oils.

The KV @ 40 & KV @ 100 values are very close on TWS & Lubro-Moly, and due to normal blending variances, you can basically consider them equivalent. The KV @ 40 value isn't terribly useful since the sump isn't spending much time at that temperature anyway, and the KV @ 100 values are within 5% of each other.

tl;dr: I still think it's mostly placebo. Go harass Lubro-Moly and other blenders to actually publish the HTHSV data according to ASTM rules.

[Z K]

Originally Posted by dparm

One of the biggest gaps is that HTHSV data is rarely available for oils. Lubro-Moly doesn't publish the HTHSV spec for their 10w60 so we have no clue what its true operational viscosity is.

TWS is around 5.3/5.4 based on anecdotal information. If you proceed under the assumption that the Shell-blended & BMW-branded stuff is actually Pennzoil Platinum Racing, that HTHSV is also unavailable. It's probably 5.4 because the Pennzoil Ultra Racing stuff is also 5.4.

That being said, most 10w60s have an HTHSV of right around 5.4. A few are higher, however: Red Line is 5.8 (7% thicker than TWS), M1 Extended Life is 5.7 (5% thicker than TWS), Renewable Lube is 5.5 (2% thicker than TWS) and Millers CFS NT is 5.85 (8% thicker than TWS). The common thread with these thicker-than-average 10w60s is they are likely using more esters and group V base oils.

The KV @ 40 & KV @ 100 values are very close on TWS & Lubro-Moly, and due to normal blending variances, you can basically consider them equivalent. The KV @ 40 value isn't terribly useful since the sump isn't spending much time at that temperature anyway, and the KV @ 100 values are within 5% of each other.

tl;dr: I still think it's mostly placebo. Go harass Lubro-Moly and other blenders to actually publish the HTHSV data according to ASTM rules.

There is no data on the Shell oil but from what people have said, it looks to be slightly thinner than TWS.

But Liqui moly is definitely thicker than TWS and noticeable. I ran it back to back with only a couple thousand miles on the LM. I did a similar experiment with Redline which felt even worse.

I'm using a mix of 0w40 and 10w60 now. Works pretty good on and off track.

[roastbeef]

Originally Posted by dparm

that gauge on the dash is not terribly accurate.

i have been told the opposite by reputable members- that it is very accurate and isn't a dummy gauge.

these cars are cold blooded and ambient air temps have a lot of influence on warm-up times.

[dparm]

Originally Posted by roastbeef

i have been told the opposite by reputable members- that it is very accurate and isn't a dummy gauge.

these cars are cold blooded and ambient air temps have a lot of influence on warm-up times.

I should have worded it differently -- I don't consider that gauge very accurate for measuring precise differences in temperature. You would need a good sender and some sort of digital display for that level of detail and then you're just splitting hairs.

[e92m3jb]

Has anyone tried the new motul 8100 10w60 xpower?

[dparm]

Originally Posted by e92m3jb

Has anyone tried the new motul 8100 10w60 xpower?

You don't need to ask this question multiple times.

[e92m3jb]

Originally Posted by dparm

You don't need to ask this question multiple times.

Check which thread i asked first. Obviously no one answered this one