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

[bulwnkl]

Forgive me my bemusement that you began the list of VW ‘engine’ tests with a large table of duplicative bench tests, and ended it with a table of diesel-only tests.
(-:

The reason one can and should eliminate diesel engine tests from an evaluation of gasoline engine oils (and vice versa) is that they’re not applicable. Well… that was the argument or justification made on here years ago when ‘all-fleet’ oils were being phased out. I don’t have old bookmarks now, and in any event I believe the various forum changes broke them all, but a key point made over and over was that certain diesel requirements created less-optimal outcomes for gasoline engines, and vice versa. Perhaps the euros disagree, and instead prefer the convenience of non-specialized, do-it-all fluids. That would logically lead, though, to a comparison of (at least some of) the euro oils to what remaining all-fleet oils there are in N. America, not to gasoline-only fluids.

Opacity of testing and performance requirements for a lube is not and should never be a selling point. We know from long experience that such is often an artificial barrier to competition rather than a genuine, demonstrable performance improvement.

I’m curious to see how this turns out for OP. I have done conceptually similar testing (purposely going off-spec and watching what happened) in the past, both in personal vehicles and the fleets I managed, and was sometimes surprised by the results, but rarely or never in a ‘wow that really messed things up’ kind of a way.

 

[edyvw]

BMW doesn't publish a list of their tests. We know the N20 is used to test for chain wear. It could be similar to the test for chain wear under SP. BTW the ACEA certs categorized by HTHS and SAPS.

It cannot be similar if two different engines are used, and they are. On top of that, API uses the Toyota engine without known chain issues. N20 has timing chain guides issues.

 

[bulwnkl]

It cannot be similar if two different engines are used, and they are.

It is _similar_ because it tests timing chain wear. It is not _the same_ if the chain is different.

 

[edyvw]

It is _similar_ because it tests timing chain wear. It is not _the same_ if the chain is different.

And chain in the Toyota naturally aspirated engine is same as in BMW turbo engine?
Also, we don't know the test sequence of BMW.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

It cannot be similar if two different engines are used, and they are. On top of that, API uses the Toyota engine without known chain issues. N20 has timing chain guides issues.

I could be wrong but as I understand it the timing chain wear test under SP is a Ford I4 Ecoboot with modified ring gap in order to allow more blow-by (ie. soot). I obviously don't know but wouldn't be surprised if BMW made a similar soot-introducing modification for the N20 test bed.

https://www.swri.org/sites/default/files/sequence-x-test.pdf

 

[OVERKILL]

Forgive me my bemusement that you began the list of VW ‘engine’ tests with a large table of duplicative bench tests, and ended it with a table of diesel-only tests.
(-:

I just posted the whole VW section from the Afton handbook. The first page is basically just limits/specs, 2nd page is two engine tests, 3rd page, 5 engine tests, 4th page, an engine test and DPF test. Yes, that's a significant number of engine tests.

The reason one can and should eliminate diesel engine tests from an evaluation of gasoline engine oils (and vice versa) is that they’re not applicable. Well… that was the argument or justification made on here years ago when ‘all-fleet’ oils were being phased out. I don’t have old bookmarks now, and in any event I believe the various forum changes broke them all, but a key point made over and over was that certain diesel requirements created less-optimal outcomes for gasoline engines, and vice versa.

Eh, I don't buy that argument. I think things just went in two different directions on the emissions front. The limits for conventional AW additives in diesel lubes continue to be well above those for petrol PCMO's and I think that drove the change. In the case of a discussion about Euro specs, such as this one, you can't divorce the diesel tests because many of these approvals are for both gas and diesel engines. That's particularly true for the marque we are presently discussing. LL-04 for example, was designed to be DPF compatible, and developed with diesels in mind but also for use in petrol engines, so it was also appropriate for anywhere LL-01 and LL-01FE oil were called for.

This, from Ravenol, touches on the details of LL-17 FE+, you'll note that again, it references both petrol and diesel engines, AND, it requires ACEA C5-16 (diesel) as foundational.

Perhaps the euros disagree, and instead prefer the convenience of non-specialized, do-it-all fluids. That would logically lead, though, to a comparison of (at least some of) the euro oils to what remaining all-fleet oils there are in N. America, not to gasoline-only fluids.

Not really. Most of those all-fleet oils are designed for HDEO applications (OTR diesels) which have completely different approval processes, and test engines, than what the Euros are doing here with higher RPM light diesels. The Euros are just forcing the lubes to jump through hoops for both gas and diesel applications.

Opacity of testing and performance requirements for a lube is not and should never be a selling point. We know from long experience that such is often an artificial barrier to competition rather than a genuine, demonstrable performance improvement.

I don't think anybody here is clapping like a seal that BMW isn't more open/transparent with their testing protocols.

I’m curious to see how this turns out for OP. I have done conceptually similar testing (purposely going off-spec and watching what happened) in the past, both in personal vehicles and the fleets I managed, and was sometimes surprised by the results, but rarely or never in a ‘wow that really messed things up’ kind of a way.

Yes, I'm curious as well. Currently the only big red flag was the very significant viscosity loss.

 

[Deleted member 89374]

I think the OP should, at least once, try Red Line HP 5W-30 in his BMW.

 

[bulwnkl]

In the case of a discussion about Euro specs, such as this one, you can't divorce the diesel tests because many of these approvals are for both gas and diesel engines. That's particularly true for the marque we are presently discussing. LL-04 for example, was designed to be DPF compatible, and developed with diesels in mind but also for use in petrol engines, so it was also appropriate for anywhere LL-01 and LL-01FE oil were called for.

One can separate the relevant from the irrelevant for a given application. Or if one can’t, there’s a problem either with lack of transparency or lack of understanding of what’s relevant to the application and what’s not. I don’t object to a person saying ‘I’m not really sure which aspects of this are relevant to me and which aren’t, so I’ll just use what they said even though I know it includes lots of stuff that’s not pertinent to my vehicle.’ I’ve done that, and it’s fine. That’s inherently different, though, from claiming that a spec is _better_ for a specific, individual application simply because of the inclusion of multiple known-irrelevant (or at least not-shown-to-be-relevant) tests.
I also believe we are both acquainted with the fact that LL is prompted by Europe’s regulatory structure’s method of encouraging reduced consumption, rather than being about engine durability outside of that framework. It’s roughly analogous to CAFE standards and the carbon credit trade. It doesn’t make the oil ‘better’ unless you’re operating within those constraints, which OP is not.

Most of those all-fleet oils are designed for HDEO applications (OTR diesels) which have completely different approval processes, and test engines, than what the Euros are doing here with higher RPM light diesels. The Euros are just forcing the lubes to jump through hoops for both gas and diesel applications.

I feel like we just said the same thing: The euros require a a broad-spectrum, multi-purpose oil to cover both diesel and gasoline engines. That is very much an ‘all-fleet’ fluid. Is there solid reason to believe that the diesel-specific tests or requirements in an all-fleet lube make it better for a gasoline engine? If there is, why are they only part of the diesel and all-fleet lube specs, but not part of gasoline-specific specs.

I’d be very happy for the actual experts (no pejorative marks used) referred to previously to present the complete test list and criteria for the vehicle in OP. I’d also be pleased if they’d show the relevance of diesel-specific tests to gasoline engines (and vice versa), and then explain how come those beneficial tests (assuming they are) are only included in all-fleet or diesel-specific certifications.
Absent that, the diesel-specific portions of the cert are irrelevant to the gasoline engine in OP.

I applaud members who try things out and see what happens. That is how I think of the genesis of this forum, even well before I chose to sign up, and the absence thereof is a significant factor in why I visit so infrequently now.

 

[edyvw]

I could be wrong but as I understand it the timing chain wear test under SP is a Ford I4 Ecoboot with modified ring gap in order to allow more blow-by (ie. soot). I obviously don't know but wouldn't be surprised if BMW made a similar soot-introducing modification for the N20 test bed.

https://www.swri.org/sites/default/files/sequence-x-test.pdf

My understanding that Ecoboost is used for LSPI testing. Really did not dwell too much into it. Not that interested in API testing.

 

[edyvw]

One can separate the relevant from the irrelevant for a given application. Or if one can’t, there’s a problem either with lack of transparency or lack of understanding of what’s relevant to the application and what’s not. I don’t object to a person saying ‘I’m not really sure which aspects of this are relevant to me and which aren’t, so I’ll just use what they said even though I know it includes lots of stuff that’s not pertinent to my vehicle.’ I’ve done that, and it’s fine. That’s inherently different, though, from claiming that a spec is _better_ for a specific, individual application simply because of the inclusion of multiple known-irrelevant (or at least not-shown-to-be-relevant) tests.
I also believe we are both acquainted with the fact that LL is prompted by Europe’s regulatory structure’s method of encouraging reduced consumption, rather than being about engine durability outside of that framework. It’s roughly analogous to CAFE standards and the carbon credit trade. It doesn’t make the oil ‘better’ unless you’re operating within those constraints, which OP is not.


I feel like we just said the same thing: The euros require a a broad-spectrum, multi-purpose oil to cover both diesel and gasoline engines. That is very much an ‘all-fleet’ fluid. Is there solid reason to believe that the diesel-specific tests or requirements in an all-fleet lube make it better for a gasoline engine? If there is, why are they only part of the diesel and all-fleet lube specs, but not part of gasoline-specific specs.

I’d be very happy for the actual experts (no pejorative marks used) referred to previously to present the complete test list and criteria for the vehicle in OP. I’d also be pleased if they’d show the relevance of diesel-specific tests to gasoline engines (and vice versa), and then explain how come those beneficial tests (assuming they are) are only included in all-fleet or diesel-specific certifications.
Absent that, the diesel-specific portions of the cert are irrelevant to the gasoline engine in OP.

I applaud members who try things out and see what happens. That is how I think of the genesis of this forum, even well before I chose to sign up, and the absence thereof is a significant factor in why I visit so infrequently now.

ABSOLUTELY NOT true!
Euro norms are calculated differently than CAFE. They do not have anything in common. Euro norms calculate grams of Co2 of each vehicle not the average mpg of the fleet.

The LL specifications are introduced in mid 1990's as API was seriously falling behind the advancement of engines. Do not forget, API and ACEA are different agencies and who they represent. API is basically the lobbying arm of oil industry, ACEA i basically the lobbying arm of car manufacturers. The engine advancements in Europe and downsizing trends were not closely followed by API, hence ACEA introduced its specification. That was further improved by many manufacturers on their own as they needed more robust oils to follow the turbo diesel craze in Europe in 90s.

No LL was FE specific until CAFE here in the US got really stringent. In Europe, N20 engines are still specified for LL04 or LL17FE. In EU basically, they do not care about it. Actually, if you go to www.castrol.de they will recommend the ACEA C3 category of oils with LL04 approval for this engine.

LL approvals are first and foremost about engine durability under stress, same as other approvals. Porsche has a Nordschelife simulation test for their A40 and C40 oils.

 

[OVERKILL]

One can separate the relevant from the irrelevant for a given application. Or if one can’t, there’s a problem either with lack of transparency or lack of understanding of what’s relevant to the application and what’s not. I don’t object to a person saying ‘I’m not really sure which aspects of this are relevant to me and which aren’t, so I’ll just use what they said even though I know it includes lots of stuff that’s not pertinent to my vehicle.’ I’ve done that, and it’s fine. That’s inherently different, though, from claiming that a spec is _better_ for a specific, individual application simply because of the inclusion of multiple known-irrelevant (or at least not-shown-to-be-relevant) tests.
I also believe we are both acquainted with the fact that LL is prompted by Europe’s regulatory structure’s method of encouraging reduced consumption, rather than being about engine durability outside of that framework. It’s roughly analogous to CAFE standards and the carbon credit trade. It doesn’t make the oil ‘better’ unless you’re operating within those constraints, which OP is not.


I feel like we just said the same thing: The euros require a a broad-spectrum, multi-purpose oil to cover both diesel and gasoline engines. That is very much an ‘all-fleet’ fluid. Is there solid reason to believe that the diesel-specific tests or requirements in an all-fleet lube make it better for a gasoline engine? If there is, why are they only part of the diesel and all-fleet lube specs, but not part of gasoline-specific specs.

I’d be very happy for the actual experts (no pejorative marks used) referred to previously to present the complete test list and criteria for the vehicle in OP. I’d also be pleased if they’d show the relevance of diesel-specific tests to gasoline engines (and vice versa), and then explain how come those beneficial tests (assuming they are) are only included in all-fleet or diesel-specific certifications.
Absent that, the diesel-specific portions of the cert are irrelevant to the gasoline engine in OP.

I applaud members who try things out and see what happens. That is how I think of the genesis of this forum, even well before I chose to sign up, and the absence thereof is a significant factor in why I visit so infrequently now.

I don't think we have anything more to discuss then.