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

[Deleted member 89374]

N20/26 used in EU LL04. Difference between LL01 and LL04 is emissions system compatibility.

I understand. It's the technology stack BMW chose to be emissions compliant in that part of the world.

As mentioned above, Mobil1 has approved oils in Europe. I really don’t want to spend time thinking why Mobil1 has LL oils sold in Europe and not here (for years they sold 0W40 x3 in Europe and not here) but I still stand by my thinking that you are reading too much into this trying to find some conspiracy theory.

Far from it, however, maybe I didn't word it correctly. I was talking about it from a business point of view. Though Mobil not being interested in pursuing the BMW NA market makes just as much sense. There is probably no point in discussing this any further.

Back to the topic and how this all started: I was trying to tell the OP that he has plenty of lubrication choices, good choices, I might add, for his son's BMW engine. It looks like running a widely available oil like Pennzoil Euro L 5W-30 might also be a good option, and it's within the same price range as what the OP is running.

Conclusively, I fail to see the point of the "experiment" that @KEVINK0000 is running and what he's trying to accomplish. I'd be more interested in answering these questions than debating the merits of Mobil 1 getting BMW approvals for lubricants sold in the North American market.

 

[UG_Passat]

Conclusively, I fail to see the point of the "experiment" that @KEVINK0000 is running and what he's trying to accomplish. I'd be more interested in answering these questions than debating the merits of Mobil 1 getting BMW approvals for lubricants sold in the North American market.

It's called patience.

2 UOA's with QS 5w30 isn't enough to draw a conclusion, vs fear mongering.

 

[Deleted member 89374]

It's called patience.

2 UOA's with QS 5w30 isn't enough to draw a conclusion, vs fear mongering.

The excerpt above is from an article that @Doug Hillary wrote. You can find the full article on the front page of BITOG: https://bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis/.

There is a reason why engine manufacturers make motor oil recommendations. Many of us here on BITOG tend to run motor oil over-specified for our application, like @OVERKILL. The OP is running a lubricant that is under-specified for his application. If he wanted a fuel economy oil, then he could have chosen a BMW LL-01 FE approved lubricant, or if he wanted to "experiment", choosing something in the same class would have also made sense.

If his aim is to prove that an under-specified lubricant will successfully work in his application, then he will ultimately fail at that, because BMW engineers came to this conclusion a long time ago, otherwise they wouldn't have created BMW-specific approvals that include stringent testing requirements.

No matter how many UOAs he does, those UOAs will not be able to offer conclusive information if Quaker State 5W-30 is a suitable lubricant for the N20 engine.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

View attachment 108879

The excerpt above is from an article that @Doug Hillary wrote. You can find the full article on the front page of BITOG: https://bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis/.

There is a reason why engine manufacturers make motor oil recommendations. Many of us here on BITOG tend to run motor oil over-specified for our application, like @OVERKILL. The OP is running a lubricant that is under-specified for his application. If he wanted a fuel economy oil, then he could have chosen a BMW LL-01 FE approved lubricant, or if he wanted to "experiment", choosing something in the same class would have also made sense.

If his aim is to prove that an under-specified lubricant will successfully work in his application, then he will ultimately fail at that, because BMW engineers came to this conclusion a long time ago, otherwise they wouldn't have created BMW-specific approvals that include stringent testing requirements.

No matter how many UOAs he does, those UOAs will not be able to offer conclusive information if Quaker State 5W-30 is a suitable lubricant for the N20 engine.

Is the OP really though with such a short OCI? Remember so far the OP is adhering to a significantly shorter OCI than what is recommend by the automaker and the Euro certs are based on long drain intervals.

 

[DuckRyder]

...

Conclusively, I fail to see the point of the "experiment" that @KEVINK0000 is running and what he's trying to accomplish. I'd be more interested in answering these questions than debating the merits of Mobil 1 getting BMW approvals for lubricants sold in the North American market.

It's called patience.

2 UOA's with QS 5w30 isn't enough to draw a conclusion, vs fear mongering.

Trying to understand the point of this exercise is not fear mongering, I see this as having potential to turn out like the old 1.8t run on bulk oil, that didn't turn out well,

Further since more appropriate oil are available for similar price it that much harder to understand.

From these two UOA's i believe the oil is thickening substantially in a reasonable mileage run. (I note several others agree with me.) That does not bode well for the experiment.

 

[UG_Passat]

View attachment 108879

The excerpt above is from an article that @Doug Hillary wrote. You can find the full article on the front page of BITOG: https://bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis/.

There is a reason why engine manufacturers make motor oil recommendations. Many of us here on BITOG tend to run motor oil over-specified for our application, like @OVERKILL. The OP is running a lubricant that is under-specified for his application. If he wanted a fuel economy oil, then he could have chosen a BMW LL-01 FE approved lubricant, or if he wanted to "experiment", choosing something in the same class would have also made sense.

If his aim is to prove that an under-specified lubricant will successfully work in his application, then he will ultimately fail at that, because BMW engineers came to this conclusion a long time ago, otherwise they wouldn't have created BMW-specific approvals that include stringent testing requirements.

No matter how many UOAs he does, those UOAs will not be able to offer conclusive information if Quaker State 5W-30 is a suitable lubricant for the N20 engine.

OK Mr. Scientific Method. Science also requires an open mind. Since you come in with a closed mind, the scientific method does not work for you.

Plus, the lubrizol relative performance tool is not designed to draw the conclusion you drew, since you have missed the fine print on it, that says (paraphrasing) the tool is only designed to be used within a industry specification. It's not to be used to compare different industry specifications.

Translation: You can compare API SP to SN to SN-Plus, ACEA C1 to C2, to C3, BMW LL01 to LL01-FE, to LL04, etc. It is not designed to compare BMW to API to ACEA, to MB, to VW, etc.

 

[UG_Passat]

Trying to understand the point of this exercise is not fear mongering, I see this as having potential to turn out like the old 1.8t run on bulk oil, that didn't turn out well,

Further since more appropriate oil are available for similar price it that much harder to understand.

From these two UOA's i believe the oil is thickening substantially in a reasonable mileage run. (I note several others agree with me.) That does not bode well for the experiment.

The 1.8T sludge reference, when you put context to it, the issue was only with longitudinal 1.8T's. Castrol GTX 5w30 didn't have issues with transverse 1.8T's due to increased sump capacity. So, the sludge campaign only applied to longitudinal 1.8T owners, namely the B5/5.5 Passat & Audi A4 owners. Golf/GTI/Jetta/TT owners did not apply

 

[Deleted member 89374]

OK Mr. Scientific Method. Science also requires an open mind. Since you come in with a closed mind, the scientific method does not work for you.

What I wrote has nothing to do with the conclusion that you've drawn in your reply.

Plus, the lubrizol relative performance tool is not designed to draw the conclusion you drew, since you have missed the fine print on it, that says (paraphrasing) the tool is only designed to be used within a industry specification. It's not to be used to compare different industry specifications.

Translation: You can compare API SP to SN to SN-Plus, ACEA C1 to C2, to C3, BMW LL01 to LL01-FE, to LL04, etc. It is not designed to compare BMW to API to ACEA, to MB, to VW, etc.

When you say such things, you need to point out where I used it wrong and the appropriate context showing why I used it wrong. I used the tool twice in this thread. The one time, I used it wrong on purpose and explained why I did so.

 

[UG_Passat]

Full SAPS actually does a pretty good job preventing LSPI because ZDDP acts as a mitigator. When ZDDP levels are reduced, then you have to reduce calcium, because calcium promotes LSPI, and that's what has led to these different formulations with magnesium replacing calcium.

However, Full SAPS does increase the production of intake valve deposits, leading to what can be pricey mechanical cleaning of the intake valves (you better have a mechanic that has cheap labor rates, since it's majority manual labor).

So you have to pick your evil.

 

[Deleted member 89374]

However, Full SAPS does increase the production of intake valve deposits, leading to what can be pricey mechanical cleaning of the intake valves (you better have a mechanic that has cheap labor rates, since it's majority manual labor).

Proof?

 

[UG_Passat]

What I wrote has nothing to do with the conclusion that you've drawn in your reply.


When you say such things, you need to point out where I used it wrong and the appropriate context showing why I used it wrong. I used the tool twice in this thread. The one time, I used it wrong on purpose and explained why I did so.

When you come in with a closed mind, and do not accept anything else but your biases, you miss out on opportunities for new conclusions. I do this for a living with product design, analysis, and manufacturing.

You used the tool, and the tool, has the fine print, that you specifically missed the fine print. It goes back to using the right tool for the job. You used to wrong tool to support your bias, as stated by the people that created the tool themselves.

 

[Deleted member 89374]

When you come in with a closed mind, and do not accept anything else but your biases, you miss out on opportunities for new conclusions. I do this for a living with product design, analysis, and manufacturing.

You used the tool, and the tool, has the fine print, that you specifically missed the fine print. It goes back to using the right tool for the job. You used to wrong tool to support your bias, as stated by the people that created the tool themselves.

View attachment 108883

Nope, you're just making stuff up. I acknowledged that I used the tool wrong in post #82. Here is what I said:

You really can't make anything more out of this, or add anything new to it. However, if you insist, have at it...

 

[DuckRyder]

Wait this thing is back spec'ed to 0/20? Amsoil says yes, FCP euro appears to give a pretty wide open set of choices? It holds either 5.3 or 5.8 QTS depending on if it is X Drive or not.

 

[Deleted member 89374]

Wait this thing is back spec'ed to 0/20? Amsoil says yes, FCP euro appears to give a pretty wide open set of choices? It holds either 5.3 or 5.8 QTS depending on if it is X Drive or not.

That's a pretty small sump for a turbo-charged Euro engine. The N20 engine may have been back specked, but I doubt his vehicle model/year was.

 

[edyvw]

Proof?

Long time ago, in far galaxy called European Oil Forum we discussed to death Lubrizol study where VW502.00 oils left 167% more IVD than VW504.00/507.00.

 

[Deleted member 89374]

Long time ago, in far galaxy called European Oil Forum we discussed to death Lubrizol study where VW502.00 oils left 167% more IVD than VW504.00/507.00.

Link?

 

[TiGeo]

Long time ago, in far galaxy called European Oil Forum we discussed to death Lubrizol study where VW502.00 oils left 167% more IVD than VW504.00/507.00.

I know this data but my experience in the VW engines is it really doesn't seem to matter but of course that isn't a controlled study. I think about the "humble mechanic" with his Golf R running 504 (youtuber) that showed his intake valves at 10K to have some deposits which was suprising b/c like you state, I understood the lower SAPS oils to be better in this regard. Then compared to mine at ~70K all with 502 oils that looked "ok" not sure it really matters in these engines at least but the PCV system etc. come into play.

 

[edyvw]

Link?

I would use the same technique as you to find it, so go at it.

 

[edyvw]

I know this data but my experience in the VW engines is it really doesn't seem to matter but of course that isn't a controlled study. I think about the "humble mechanic" with his Golf R running 504 (youtuber) that showed his intake valves at 10K to have some deposits which was suprising b/c like you state, I understood the lower SAPS oils to be better in this regard. Then compared to mine at ~70K all with 502 oils that looked "ok" not sure it really matters in these engines at least but the PCV system etc. come into play.

Well, the study says less, not to prevent.
Also, you use your car on the track. It works harder. For example, BMW M57 engines had big CBU issues in 335d models. In X5 they did not. The reason was a 1,500lbs difference that the engine has to work on.

 

[Deleted member 89374]

I would use the same technique as you to find it, so go at it.

When I try to make an argument, I also provide supporting information in the form of a link and at least one screenshot. Otherwise, I make sure to specify that I'm just speculating. I'd say that's fair. So, in all fairness, please do one or the other.