2015 BMW N20 X1 UOA 5K MILES NON-EURO OIL: ROUND 2

Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
326
Location
ARIZONA
Screenshot 2022-07-16 at 7.41.17 AM.jpg


This is a resurrection of a previous thread that was closed, for no apparent reason. Would love to know why sometime. Mods?

Here is previous thread:


I thought this sample was lost in the mail, and lo and behold it showed up. I also have an OA sample of the same fill to post as soon as I can get them to post it to my portal. So, there will be more fodder for discussion on this, once I put it up.

Have at it, gents!
 
385F on the flashpoint definitely shows more than "trace" fuel. I'd suggest using OAI next time, they'll give you a real fuel reading. Some viscosity loss, but not as much as last time. Could point to some oxidative thickening out-pacing the fuel dilution and shear.
 
No, not really. You're still running the wrong oil in that engine. Try Mobil 1 FS 5W-40 or QS FS Euro 5W-40, run that for a couple of OCIs and sample it.
Agreed but at the same time no cheap spectrographic analysis is going to show that. A UOA is not the tool for comparing one oil against another nor for quality comparisons in determining how well it “did”.

Seems to me to have been the genesis for the earlier locked thread as well.
 
385F on the flashpoint definitely shows more than "trace" fuel. I'd suggest using OAI next time, they'll give you a real fuel reading. Some viscosity loss, but not as much as last time. Could point to some oxidative thickening out-pacing the fuel dilution and shear.
The OA report of the same sample is on the way, hopefully. You really think this oil is oxidizing to that extent over this interval?
 
Agreed but at the same time no cheap spectrographic analysis is going to show that. A UOA is not the tool for comparing one oil against another nor for quality comparisons in determining how well it “did”.

Seems to me to have been the genesis for the earlier locked thread as well.
The metals don't matter then? If the test was expensive, that would make the difference?

And I think someone's feelings got hurt. That's why it got locked.
 
The metals don't matter then? If the test was expensive, that would make the difference?
That’s not how it works. A UOA is full of many uncontrolled variables, and even if it wasn’t it still would not be the proper tool for measuring comparative wear between oils. Yes that kind of test is very expensive and very difficult to perform. But there’s a reason for that. You get statistically significant results that are accurate. With a UOA there are many things that influence the “metals” in the sample which completely obscure the differences that one might see between the oils. You’re not even on the same planet here in that regard.

As far as hurt feelings go, yes people sometimes get hurt feelings when they are told the truth.
 
Agreed but at the same time no cheap spectrographic analysis is going to show that.
I know, and you're right, but considering how the OP keeps posting nearly identical UOAs expencting different results in the form of praise to what he's doing, well, it was the simplest suggestion I could have made.
 
The OA report of the same sample is on the way, hopefully. You really think this oil is oxidizing to that extent over this interval?
OK, perfect.

This is why having data with real fuel is valuable.

Viscosity loss comes from both fuel and shear. So, you have two things driving down viscosity. You don't have control over how much shear takes place, it's pretty much a constant, but fuel dilution varies depending on how the vehicle is driven and this is something that can readily be tracked with GC. So, if fuel goes up but viscosity doesn't go down, then something is pushing it the other way, and that would be oxidation.

As I said in our previous exchange, while I don't condone what you are doing, I follow it with interest, so I'm glad you continue to provide these reports.

Oxidative thickening isn't unusual, but it would be surprising to see it at such low mileage. Some formulators (perhaps most) when dealing with inexpensive commercial (typical) VII polymers will try and balance shear with oxidative thickening so that the viscosity is relatively stable. @High Performance Lubricants has talked about how that doesn't happen with their oils because they use very expensive VII's that don't shear, so oxidation tends to drive up viscosity with long OCI's, but that's not what happens with your typical commercial oils. The wildcard then in this scenario is fuel, which will still drive viscosity down overall.

So, in the case of your two reports we have two similar mileage OCI's in the same engine. We assume shear is going to be roughly the same between the two; identical for the sake of this comparison, because the mechanicals are a constant. Both have fuel in them. However, the most recent has both more fuel and higher viscosity than the previous run. What would be the driver behind this? Oxidation, which also may be a result of the fuel dilution that, when combined with heat, degrades the oil more quickly.

Any idea on the ETA of your report from OAI?
 
OK, perfect.

This is why having data with real fuel is valuable.

Viscosity loss comes from both fuel and shear. So, you have two things driving down viscosity. You don't have control over how much shear takes place, it's pretty much a constant, but fuel dilution varies depending on how the vehicle is driven and this is something that can readily be tracked with GC. So, if fuel goes up but viscosity doesn't go down, then something is pushing it the other way, and that would be oxidation.

As I said in our previous exchange, while I don't condone what you are doing, I follow it with interest, so I'm glad you continue to provide these reports.

Oxidative thickening isn't unusual, but it would be surprising to see it at such low mileage. Some formulators (perhaps most) when dealing with inexpensive commercial (typical) VII polymers will try and balance shear with oxidative thickening so that the viscosity is relatively stable. @High Performance Lubricants has talked about how that doesn't happen with their oils because they use very expensive VII's that don't shear, so oxidation tends to drive up viscosity with long OCI's, but that's not what happens with your typical commercial oils. The wildcard then in this scenario is fuel, which will still drive viscosity down overall.

So, in the case of your two reports we have two similar mileage OCI's in the same engine. We assume shear is going to be roughly the same between the two; identical for the sake of this comparison, because the mechanicals are a constant. Both have fuel in them. However, the most recent has both more fuel and higher viscosity than the previous run. What would be the driver behind this? Oxidation, which also may be a result of the fuel dilution that, when combined with heat, degrades the oil more quickly.

Any idea on the ETA of your report from OAI?
Hopefully this coming Monday. This operation has been fraught since day 1. I mailed off the Blackstone bottle over 3 months ago, I thought for sure it was gone forever. The report showed up yesterday. The OA portal has not shown any results, and there have been issues getting the account set up. The have the sample, and have had it for many months.

The drive time to get this sample was short, but not short enough, I thought, to be an issue. Its about 10ish miles.

This sample had much more mixed use than the first. The first was very short trip, stop and go almost exclusively.

BTW, the next change is due soon, and will have roughly 7000+ miles on it, not by choice. I will send to both labs on that one also.

I had the TAN done also, to get some handle on degradation, but I am not sure if it was helpful as it doesn't point to anything glaringly obvious, Maybe someone with more experience can chime in on that.
 
Hopefully this coming Monday. This operation has been fraught since day 1. I mailed off the Blackstone bottle over 3 months ago, I thought for sure it was gone forever. The report showed up yesterday. The OA portal has not shown any results, and there have been issues getting the account set up. The have the sample, and have had it for many months.

The drive time to get this sample was short, but not short enough, I thought, to be an issue. Its about 10ish miles.

This sample had much more mixed use than the first. The first was very short trip, stop and go almost exclusively.

BTW, the next change is due soon, and will have roughly 7000+ miles on it, not by choice. I will send to both labs on that one also.

I had the TAN done also, to get some handle on degradation, but I am not sure if it was helpful as it doesn't point to anything glaringly obvious, Maybe someone with more experience can chime in on that.
TAN crossed TBN. Historically, that was a trigger for an oil change, but with some of the more modern chemistries, it isn't that cut and dry anymore. You have to look at oxidation, nitration...etc to determine if things are really going south. We'll know more once we have your OAI report :)
 
BTW, the next change is due soon, and will have roughly 7000+ miles on it, not by choice. I will send to both labs on that one also.
What's your endgame with this experiment? What are you trying to prove?
 
So, in the case of your two reports we have two similar mileage OCI's in the same engine. We assume shear is going to be roughly the same between the two; identical for the sake of this comparison, because the mechanicals are a constant. Both have fuel in them. However, the most recent has both more fuel and higher viscosity than the previous run. What would be the driver behind this? Oxidation, which also may be a result of the fuel dilution that, when combined with heat, degrades the oil more quickly.
Although unlikely, it's also possible if the oil used in each sample was from a different batch, that we're seeing manufacturing variability. I have seen several VOAs that hint of this possibility. Think of M1 EP 0W20 phosphorus and zinc levels. Multiple VOAs from different labs showing these levels all over the place -- from absurdly low to almost matching M1's spec sheet. We've also seen VOAs where the viscosity in the VOA is significantly different than manufacturer specs. For example, M1 AFE 0W30, QS FS 5W30, and Valvoline EP 5W30 all have VOAs floating around on here with viscosities 5-10% lower than manufacturer specs.

M1 AFE 0W30 spec'd at 11.5, VOA shows 11.0
QS FS 5W30 spec'd at 11.6, VOA shows 10.4
Valvoline EP 5W30 spec'd at 10.7, VOA shows 9.7

edit: not just manufacturing variability, analysis lab variability. Impossible to even tell who is off, because either can...

Here's another example:
Castrol Edge 0W20 (black bottle)
mfg specs (cSt): 8.18
Blackstone (01/22/22): 8.12
PQIA (03/31/22): 8.60
 
Last edited:
M1 AFE 0W30 spec'd at 11.5, VOA shows 11.0
QS FS 5W30 spec'd at 11.6, VOA shows 10.4
Valvoline EP 5W30 spec'd at 10.7, VOA shows 9.7
Blackstone's inability to accurately measure is legendary. On the flip side, every manufacturer has a disclaimer saying that typical properties may change, as in, from batch to batch.
 
Blackstone's inability to accurately measure is legendary. On the flip side, every manufacturer has a disclaimer saying that typical properties may change, as in, from batch to batch.
Let's not start the inflammatory Blackstone Bashing again. You'll just set off a debate that gets this thread locked too.

Any oil analysis lab will have some variation and error, just like the oil can vary from batch to batch. It just so happens that BS gets used more often, so they are under the spotlight more. That doesn't make them any more or less "inaccurate" than another lab for spectral analysis.

We already proved this once when Mobil 1 ran an oil analysis on their virgin EP 0W20 that showed critically low phosphorus and zinc levels. Previously, everyone was blaming Blackstone's "inaccuracy" for low Ph/Zn in EP 0W20. Then M1 did a VOA on their own oil and came up with similar results. ;)

There's also this: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/t...-by-three-different-test-laboratories.344857/
 
Last edited:
TAN crossed TBN. Historically, that was a trigger for an oil change, but with some of the more modern chemistries, it isn't that cut and dry anymore. You have to look at oxidation, nitration...etc to determine if things are really going south. We'll know more once we have your OAI report :)
OK, thanks for that.
 
Let's not start the inflammatory Blackstone Bashing again. You'll just set off a debate that gets this thread locked too.

Any oil analysis lab will have some variation and error, just like the oil can vary from batch to batch. It just so happens that BS gets used more often, so they are under the spotlight more. That doesn't make them any more or less "inaccurate" than another lab for spectral analysis.

We already proved this once when Mobil 1 ran an oil analysis on their virgin EP 0W20 that showed critically low phosphorus and zinc levels. Previously, everyone was blaming Blackstone's "inaccuracy" for low Ph/Zn in EP 0W20. Then M1 did a VOA on their own oil and came up with similar results. ;)

There's also this: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/t...-by-three-different-test-laboratories.344857/
Actually let’s not start the baseless Blackstone defense. Their fuel dilution measurement is not accurate and this has been demonstrated on here many times. It’s only half their fault though since it is an inherently inaccurate method of measuring dilution.
 
Actually let’s not start the baseless Blackstone defense. Their fuel dilution measurement is not accurate and this has been demonstrated on here many times. It’s only half their fault though since it is an inherently inaccurate method of measuring dilution.
We are I am talking about spectral analysis and viscosity, not fuel dilution. I've publicly agreed here that BS's fuel dilution method is less accurate than GC. But let's not incite people into believing that because the method they use is less accurate than GC, that the rest of their results are inaccurate. The link I provided above with three labs testing the same samples of three different oils, along with Mobil 1's own oil analysis of their EP 0W20 provide plenty of support that BS's spectral analysis is as accurate as any other lab.
 
Back
Top