Whos running Mobil 1 0w-40?

[///M Power-Belgium]

Originally Posted by aussiem3

Phil, you're absolutely correct. It comes down to the initial set up of the bearing ... which means oil is not a factor in the failure.

Exactly !
There were winners and losers (S65's) who left the German factory .
And the only thing we can hope is that we have winners ...And only the future will tell .
In other words... and like I said before..."It's actually a German lottery"

[bigjae1976]

Agreed...I think in most cases a bearing issue will show up 30k ish miles...roughly speaking.

I think a 0w-40 will be fine for most M3 owners. You may run into issues when in hot temps and running the car hard WITH grippy tires (R-comps, NT01s, etc). Grippy tires will increase your tire temps significantly.

Oil analysis is 90% useless, it will only tell you if your engine is about to die. Oil pressure must be maintained. If the oil gets to thin you will lose oil pressure. This will accelerate wear. To run 0w-40 on the track in a wide range of conditions, you will need a significant amount of cooling beyond stock.

I've said this before...I've seen a quite a few S54s run over 50k track miles without an issue running TWS which is changed very often (every 2-3 weekends). In my mind...this is enough proof for me to say that TWS is the right oil for the S54/S65. Other than the BMW engineers saying it is the right oil.

[buddalun]

Originally Posted by bigjae1976

Agreed...I think in most cases a bearing issue will show up 30k ish miles...roughly speaking.

I think a 0w-40 will be fine for most M3 owners. You may run into issues when in hot temps and running the car hard WITH grippy tires (R-comps, NT01s, etc). Grippy tires will increase your tire temps significantly.

Oil analysis is 90% useless, it will only tell you if your engine is about to die. Oil pressure must be maintained. If the oil gets to thin you will lose oil pressure. This will accelerate wear. To run 0w-40 on the track in a wide range of conditions, you will need a significant amount of cooling beyond stock.

I've said this before...I've seen a quite a few S54s run over 50k track miles without an issue running TWS which is changed very often (every 2-3 weekends). In my mind...this is enough proof for me to say that TWS is the right oil for the S54/S65. Other than the BMW engineers saying it is the right oil.

BigJae,

I tend to agree with you.

Do you think that the new 10-60 (twin power turbo/BMW branded) the dealer is using for our S65s is adequate? Or is TWS still preferred? TIA

[bigjae1976]

I'm sure the new oil will be fine. Not sure about how it compares to TWS though. Time will tell.

[javarithms]

Just changed to M1 0W-40. Engine feels smoother and there is less vibration during startup...curious to see how it holds up during the summer.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by bigjae1976

I'm sure the new oil will be fine. Not sure about how it compares to TWS though. Time will tell.

By rebranding the Shell oil as a BMW oil it does give Shell the ability to change the additive pack and reformulate their 10W60 to mimic the Castrol 10W60 if BMW requested it....without affecting Shells retail version.

[aussiem3]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

By rebranding the Shell oil as a BMW oil it does give Shell the ability to change the additive pack and reformulate their 10W60 to mimic the Castrol 10W60 if BMW requested it....without affecting Shells retail version.

Why would Shell want to go through R&D when none of the engines that use 10w-60 carry BMW factory warranty anymore? Given how BMW have treated the bearing failure on certain markets, do you think they really care to look after us, when they no longer have any obligations in terms of warranty?

I don't know whether Mobil do a 10w-60, but do you think if BMW had a contract with Mobil, they would have developed a 10w-60 for the /// cars, or made use of the best Mobil oil that is already in production? I think because Castrol had 10w-60 it was more of a convenience to go with that. I am sure when the E46 M3 first came out in 2001, the oil that was used was 5w-30 or something. I cannot remember. Only after the bearing recall, it was swapped to 10w-60.

Just my 2c.

[SenorFunkyPants]

I don't know if Shell reformulated or not...just saying that the rebranding gives them the option.
The Castrol 10W60 that you bought from BMW parts remained in Castrol labelled containers (at least in the UK) and was the same as the retail version (apart from an extra filtration process and the identifier dye). Shells 10W60 is already in use by Ferrari (IIRC) so they can't reformulate it without their agreement...the logical reason for rebranding it as BMW Twin turbo would be to change the add pack...else other why bother? Its a marketing opportunity lost for Shell by not having their name on the bottle.

[bigjae1976]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

I don't know if Shell reformulated or not...just saying that the rebranding gives them the option.
The Castrol 10W60 that you bought from BMW parts remained in Castrol labelled containers (at least in the UK) and was the same as the retail version (apart from an extra filtration process and the identifier dye). Shells 10W60 is already in use by Ferrari (IIRC) so they can't reformulate it without their agreement...the logical reason for rebranding it as BMW Twin turbo would be to change the add pack...else other why bother? Its a marketing opportunity lost for Shell by not having their name on the bottle.

Let's not forget...cost probably played a big factor. Probably much more than being able to spec additive packages.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by bigjae1976

Let's not forget...cost probably played a big factor. Probably much more than being able to spec additive packages.

Definitely...when you are chasing taking the supply business from a competitor its pretty much all about being cheaper.
Which means BMW has all the cards - they can virtually ask Shell for whatever they want.
It will be interesting to see if Shells retail 10W60 gets a simple "meets the requirements of BMW M engines" or the rather more coveted "BMW M engines approval".

[tech2351]

As an outsider looking in, and a new owner of an e90 m3, I would like to comment on the issue at hand after reading this thread in its entirety, and my first post...

Observations:

1. The bearing tolerance spec for the rod bearings, while slightly on the tight side per the .00075" - .001" recommendation, isn't really all that tight when compared to other high revving , race proven, engines. For example, (how dare I compare a honda to bmw, but sorry, ITR's and the like dont just spin rod bearings) Honda ITR motor, B18C5 uses .0013" to .0020" clearance on the rod bearings, and even .0009" to .0017" on mains, it rev's high rpm up to 8400rpm. This motor uses 5w-30........I can assure you, oil pressure and flow is no problem with those tight clearances @ 8400.. And the S2000 F20c engine, while uses a 10w30 , was designed before 5w-30's became more advanced in their shear stability.

Honda has designed some of first, and highest revving n/a engines , s2000 9,000 rpm, gsr 8200, ITR 8400, etc..They don't spin rod bearings like these engines, and use 5w-30 to 10w-30 for the s2k., so how much does all the hype over shear really matter between a 60 and a 30 weight oil at high rpm and temperatures?

2. I think where BMW went wrong was trying to achieve a "balance" of race proven oil, and Long life intervals. Or even worse, money..The contractual agreement between castrol and BMW , pure speculation, but i digress..

I believe the choice to run 10w-60 is flawed due to viscosity of 10w-60 at cold starts. Sure 10-60 is great for track use, but how do we know that it is great for the s65? The only way we would know is to see what the oil pressure is at track oil temps, over 250degrees. I would opt to use the lowest weight oil possible to achieve around 80 or so psi which is plenty, @ 8000 rpm.

At high temperatures, you need a heavier weight oil to keep the viscosity up due to extreme heat. However, the bearing clearances as we know, are already fairly on the tight side, the restriction or "resistance" caused by the smaller tolerances, increases pressure to begin with, so does the s65 really need a 60 weight oil to achieve proper pressure and flow, (volume) through such small clearances at higher temperatures?

I believe that this engine, as a daily driver, could even use a 30 weight oil to achieve proper lubrication during high revs and 0w oil during cold starting.

It seems as if most of the rod bearing failures are from cylinders 6-8, per pictures that iv'e seen anyway. Those cylinders are furthest away from the oil pump, coupled with too heavy of an oil at cold start, and the possibility of people not letting the oil reach temperature before driving, could result in the outcomes we are seeing, overtime.

For everyday usage and occasional high rpm driving coupled with the clearances of this motor, and the anecdotal evidence we have with the 0w-40 results, could prove that lighter weight oil is the proper option for the s65.

Now if you plan on tracking the car all day, a heavier weight oil could be the option, BUT, what oil pressures are we achieving with 60 weight, at race temperatures? Is the oil pump constantly on it's relief or whatever means the s65 has to control oil pressure? only someone with a pressure gauge can tell us that....

Lastly, it would be nice to see what tolerances the GTR's and the like are running on their rods, coupled with their oil recommendations of 0w-40, if the tolerances are around the same as our s65's , then why 10w-60 weight? For pure shear tolerance? Is it correct that some 30-40 weight synthetics have just as good shear protection?

I feel as if the 0w-40 option is actually quite correct. I wouldn't go as far as 0w-20 of course...

So that's my opinion.. feel free to flame and correct. HAHAHAHA

[javarithms]

Originally Posted by tech2351

As an outsider looking in, and a new owner of an e90 m3, I would like to comment on the issue at hand after reading this thread in its entirety, and my first post...

Observations:

1. The bearing tolerance spec for the rod bearings, while slightly on the tight side per the .00075" - .001" recommendation, isn't really all that tight when compared to other high revving , race proven, engines. For example, (how dare I compare a honda to bmw, but sorry, ITR's and the like dont just spin rod bearings) Honda ITR motor, B18C5 uses .0013" to .0020" clearance on the rod bearings, and even .0009" to .0017" on mains, it rev's high rpm up to 8400rpm. This motor uses 5w-30........I can assure you, oil pressure and flow is no problem with those tight clearances @ 8400.. And the S2000 F20c engine, while uses a 10w30 , was designed before 5w-30's became more advanced in their shear stability.

Honda has designed some of first, and highest revving n/a engines , s2000 9,000 rpm, gsr 8200, ITR 8400, etc..They don't spin rod bearings like these engines, and use 5w-30 to 10w-30 for the s2k., so how much does all the hype over shear really matter between a 60 and a 30 weight oil at high rpm and temperatures?

2. I think where BMW went wrong was trying to achieve a "balance" of race proven oil, and Long life intervals. Or even worse, money..The contractual agreement between castrol and BMW , pure speculation, but i digress..

I believe the choice to run 10w-60 is flawed due to viscosity of 10w-60 at cold starts. Sure 10-60 is great for track use, but how do we know that it is great for the s65? The only way we would know is to see what the oil pressure is at track oil temps, over 250degrees. I would opt to use the lowest weight oil possible to achieve around 80 or so psi which is plenty, @ 8000 rpm.

At high temperatures, you need a heavier weight oil to keep the viscosity up due to extreme heat. However, the bearing clearances as we know, are already fairly on the tight side, the restriction or "resistance" caused by the smaller tolerances, increases pressure to begin with, so does the s65 really need a 60 weight oil to achieve proper pressure and flow, (volume) through such small clearances at higher temperatures?

I believe that this engine, as a daily driver, could even use a 30 weight oil to achieve proper lubrication during high revs and 0w oil during cold starting.

It seems as if most of the rod bearing failures are from cylinders 6-8, per pictures that iv'e seen anyway. Those cylinders are furthest away from the oil pump, coupled with too heavy of an oil at cold start, and the possibility of people not letting the oil reach temperature before driving, could result in the outcomes we are seeing, overtime.

For everyday usage and occasional high rpm driving coupled with the clearances of this motor, and the anecdotal evidence we have with the 0w-40 results, could prove that lighter weight oil is the proper option for the s65.

Now if you plan on tracking the car all day, a heavier weight oil could be the option, BUT, what oil pressures are we achieving with 60 weight, at race temperatures? only someone with a pressure gauge can tell us that....

Lastly, it would be nice to see what tolerances the GTR's and the like are running on their rods, coupled with their oil recommendations of 0w-40, if the tolerances are around the same as our s65's , then why 10w-60 weight? For pure shear tolerance? Is it correct that some 30-40 weight synthetics have just as good shear protection?

I feel as if the 0w-40 option is actually quite correct. I wouldn't go as far as 0w-20 of course...

So that's my opinion.. feel free to flame and correct. HAHAHAHA

That's an astute observation. To me it seems like Castrol 10w-60 is a jack of all trades, master of none.

[thekurgan]

Originally Posted by tech2351

then why 10w-60 weight? For pure shear tolerance? Is it correct that some 30-40 weight synthetics have just as good shear protection?

I feel as if the 0w-40 option is actually quite correct. I wouldn't go as far as 0w-20 of course...

So that's my opinion.. feel free to flame and correct. HAHAHAHA

There might be a system-wide lubrication issue yet undiscovered and the TWS is a band aid for those areas, allowing the more serviceable rod bearings get beat up.

[aussiem3]

Originally Posted by thekurgan

There might be a system-wide lubrication issue yet undiscovered and the TWS is a band aid for those areas, allowing the more serviceable rod bearings get beat up.

Did you mean to say M1?

[aussiem3]

My main concern with the M1 right now is what effect it will have on vanos. I don't know the true operations and the mechanicals of the unit but wondering whether a thinner oil like M1 0w-40 will lead to vanos failure later on.

[tech2351]

Originally Posted by aussiem3

Did you mean to say M1?

I actually believe what he is trying to say is that BMW simply chose TWS as a cover up for a pre-existing design flaw?

That would be comical.

[thekurgan]

Originally Posted by aussiem3

Did you mean to say M1?

Nope.

[thekurgan]

Originally Posted by tech2351

I actually believe what he is trying to say is that BMW simply chose TWS as a cover up for a pre-existing design flaw?

That would be comical.

Yup.

[javarithms]

Originally Posted by aussiem3

My main concern with the M1 right now is what effect it will have on vanos. I don't know the true operations and the mechanicals of the unit but wondering whether a thinner oil like M1 0w-40 will lead to vanos failure later on.

Do you save the bearings or vanos....decisions....decisions.....

[bigjae1976]

I really think BMW knows all of this and deems it acceptable despite our opinions.

[Flying Ace]

Originally Posted by aussiem3

Why would Shell want to go through R&D when none of the engines that use 10w-60 carry BMW factory warranty anymore? Given how BMW have treated the bearing failure on certain markets, do you think they really care to look after us, when they no longer have any obligations in terms of warranty?

I don't know whether Mobil do a 10w-60, but do you think if BMW had a contract with Mobil, they would have developed a 10w-60 for the /// cars, or made use of the best Mobil oil that is already in production? I think because Castrol had 10w-60 it was more of a convenience to go with that. I am sure when the E46 M3 first came out in 2001, the oil that was used was 5w-30 or something. I cannot remember. Only after the bearing recall, it was swapped to 10w-60.

Just my 2c.

not quite sure what you mean by this, but there was a mid-cycle reformulation of TWS in 2012 (or was it 2013?) that added more/different friction reducing additives. I conducted an oil analysis on the older TWS and new Edge Pro (new TWS) and it those new additives showed up and showed reduced wear in my engine.

my assumption is, Shell likely would have worked with BMW to develop an acceptable additive package for the new oil, we won't know, until someone sends in samples of the new oil to analyze.

finally, BMW still has an obligation to all the S65 engines out there. There are still 2010-2012's out there in the USA on BMW Extended Warranty and Extended Maintenance plans. Pretty sure the oil being dumped into those motors at the BMW dealership is the new Shell TwinPower oil.

[squartus]

Has anyone tried Motul 300V POWER 5W40 or 0W40? Top tier fully synthetic, its pricy but if you order it by case its not so bad.
They also have a 15w50 and a 20w60 but dont see that helping with cold starts any lol.