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

[OVERKILL]

I did not say 405f when I asked to you imagine 5% fuel. I just asked to imagine if this was 5% fuel. How would it look to you then?

But that's the implication, because your UOA has a 405f flashpoint.

If the viscosity loss was due to fuel; if we were seeing a 350f flashpoint, this would be a different discussion, because it would be one about fuel. But, at present, that's not the case, despite being a DI engine, fuel looks extremely low to non-existent, so the viscosity loss appears to be from the shearing of VII polymers.

I think it does matter, with many complex qualifications, when compared to other UOAs. Why are we even here then?

To discuss technical things. If you haven't read Doug Hillary's excellent article on the use of UOA's, I highly suggest doing so:
https://bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis/

It's a great starting point to understand their usefulness, and limitations.

When I posted this UOA, I knew there would be a lot of different opinions and pushback, that is why the first post was somewhat tongue in cheek.

Yes, the note from the RAT blog was clear that this thread wasn't meant to be overly serious

Nobody yet has seen my point in doing so, however. Its pretty plain at this point if you read the thread and all the responses all the way through. I am not playing games, just trying to inspire some thought and conversation.

I understand WHY you are doing it (to experiment, which you feel is safe) but many valid points have been raised as to the reason the Euro marques are such sticklers on lubricant performance and why their testing protocols are so exhaustive in nature. The "domestic" (SN GF-5, now SP GF-6) geared oils have always been pretty weak in comparison. Typically lower levels of AW additives, cheaper VII polymers, cheaper base oils, this is because the testing simply isn't as demanding. Most of the Japanese marques don't require anything beyond just API SN or SP at present, but their products are developed, and the intervals dictated, with that in mind.

The Porsche A40 test for example, is far, FAR more than what anything developed for this side of the pond has to go through. That sets the bar extremely high, and typically your BMW LL-01 oils will also have A40 (just as an example) along with the Mercedes and VAG approvals, which all have their own unique requirements. So you end up with a product that has had to pass an incredible amount of testing, which guarantees that the minimum level of performance is set impressively high.

I'm not trying to change your mind, just give you some stuff to think about.

Maybe have your wife, significant other, or other non-gearhead read through. They might have a different perspective. This statement applies to everyone here, not singling out Overkill, who is taking the time to help, without snark.

But, let me say this, I take what you all have said seriously, and if this oil has indeed mechanically sheared significantly, I will consider that.

I don't take people's word for it when I hold a differing view. I differ, you differ, so we discuss.

I will take your word for it on which lab to use next time, since I have no opinion of my own.

And THAT's the point of this forum I look forward to seeing the report from OAI.

 

[edyvw]

No it doesn’t change anything.
In opening post you stated that you did a lot of short trips.
There is nothing to imagine here. It is UOA, a scientific analysis of oil, not Pepa Pig where characters pretend doing stuff and my 2 1/2 yr old gets worked up over that.
So it is what it is.
It doesn’t point to fuel dilution and it points to engine beating the loving s… out of oil.
You can experiment as much as you want, and that is perfectly fine. But, when you experiment you have to be ready to accept results as they are and not as you wish they are. I do experimenting for living. And sometimes I have potential grants depending on results. But, facts are facts, and I move on in direction results take me. I can’t wish different reality.

 

[KEVINK0000]

But that's the implication, because your UOA has a 405f flashpoint.

If the viscosity loss was due to fuel; if we were seeing a 350f flashpoint, this would be a different discussion, because it would be one about fuel. But, at present, that's not the case, despite being a DI engine, fuel looks extremely low to non-existent, so the viscosity loss appears to be from the shearing of VII polymers.

To discuss technical things. If you haven't read Doug Hillary's excellent article on the use of UOA's, I highly suggest doing so:
https://bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis/

It's a great starting point to understand their usefulness, and limitations.

Yes, the note from the RAT blog was clear that this thread wasn't meant to be overly serious

I understand WHY you are doing it (to experiment, which you feel is safe) but many valid points have been raised as to the reason the Euro marques are such sticklers on lubricant performance and why their testing protocols are so exhaustive in nature. The "domestic" (SN GF-5, now SP GF-6) geared oils have always been pretty weak in comparison. Typically lower levels of AW additives, cheaper VII polymers, cheaper base oils, this is because the testing simply isn't as demanding. Most of the Japanese marques don't require anything beyond just API SN or SP at present, but their products are developed, and the intervals dictated, with that in mind.

The Porsche A40 test for example, is far, FAR more than what anything developed for this side of the pond has to go through. That sets the bar extremely high, and typically your BMW LL-01 oils will also have A40 (just as an example) along with the Mercedes and VAG approvals, which all have their own unique requirements. So you end up with a product that has had to pass an incredible amount of testing, which guarantees that the minimum level of performance is set impressively high.

I'm not trying to change your mind, just give you some stuff to think about.

And THAT's the point of this forum I look forward to seeing the report from OAI.

Overkill,

Thanks for the reply. It might come as a surprise, but I am familiar with Euro oil specs. Not as much as some on here, but its not a new concept to me as some have inferred. This also the 7th BMW/Mini in the family that I work on, with 4 currently owned and on the road. In all the others I use some form of Euro oil.

I also understand the limits of oil analysis, but disagree with some of the accepted knowledge on here about them. Even Blackstone's own statements in my opinion are broad-brush, and need to be so.

Nobody has commented on the low wear metals in this sample, even under conditions that most here say (except me) mechanically sheared this oil to a great measure. Is the consensus here that it is a meaningless data point?

 

[KEVINK0000]

No it doesn’t change anything.
In opening post you stated that you did a lot of short trips.
There is nothing to imagine here. It is UOA, a scientific analysis of oil, not Pepa Pig where characters pretend doing stuff and my 2 1/2 yr old gets worked up over that.
So it is what it is.
It doesn’t point to fuel dilution and it points to engine beating the loving s… out of oil.
You can experiment as much as you want, and that is perfectly fine. But, when you experiment you have to be ready to accept results as they are and not as you wish they are. I do experimenting for living. And sometimes I have potential grants depending on results. But, facts are facts, and I move on in direction results take me. I can’t wish different reality.

Thanks for the response, but I differ. I am not imagining anything. Who is Pepa Pig? Does she work for Blackstone? JK.

 

[Deleted member 89374]

Nobody has commented on the low wear metals in this sample, even under conditions that most here say (except me) mechanically sheared this oil to a great measure. Is the consensus here that it is a meaningless data point?

You can't infer wear from a UOA. You would have to do a teardown to measure wear. The only time you might conclude there is a problem is when wear metals spike into the triple digits, and that's when you established a trend already.

Blackstone, like any business, wants to make money. You might as well save the money and learn how to read Tarot cards, as the results will be just as reliable. Of course, they will practice some guerilla marketing and imply how valuable their UOAs are for deciphering how well an engine wears.

Check out this video to get a glimpse at how motor oils are developed and engine wear measured:

 

[OVERKILL]

Overkill,

Thanks for the reply. It might come as a surprise, but I am familiar with Euro oil specs. Not as much as some on here, but its not a new concept to me as some have inferred. This also the 7th BMW/Mini in the family that I work on, with 4 currently owned and on the road. In all the others I use some form of Euro oil.

You are quite welcome. That's fine, and if you understand the Euro specs, then you can see why the difference in robustness and testing protocols raise some red flags.

I also understand the limits of oil analysis, but disagree with some of the accepted knowledge on here about them. Even Blackstone's own statements in my opinion are broad-brush, and need to be so.

Well, Doug is an expert on oil analysis and used it as part of his fleet testing protocol for ExxonMobil, so I take his position on the matter as gospel. He has far more experience using it than anyone else here, and did so while coupling it with tear-down testing, because of his knowledge of its limitations. He's one of the very few people that have used both UOA's and teardowns on this board to gauge actual performance in service, the only other member I can think of worked for a racing team.

Nobody has commented on the low wear metals in this sample, even under conditions that most here say (except me) mechanically sheared this oil to a great measure. Is the consensus here that it is a meaningless data point?

Yes, it's a basically meaningless data point. The metals are primarily valuable in identifying anomalies and large changes in concentration, and even then, those changes can be indicative of something as minor as a particle streak or something major like a bearing failure. But we've seen UOA's not hint at a failing camshaft or rod bearings down to the copper (BuickGN, former member here) because the narrow range sampled doesn't sufficiently cover rapid failures.

Also, more aggressive additive chemistries can chelate metals from materials inside the engine, that will then show up in UOA's. We've seen that famously with copper. This isn't wear, but it is indistinguishable from wear in UOA's. I this case you can have a more robust product produce a "worse" UOA even if it is in fact providing better protection.

This is why tear-downs are the only real way to measure wear.

 

[edyvw]

Thanks for the response, but I differ. I am not imagining anything. Who is Pepa Pig? Does she work for Blackstone? JK.

Differ? N20 is not known as fuel dilution engine. It is DI engine, but one of the one that dilutes the least. No BMW DI engine is having issues with fuel dilution short of faulty injectors. You have strong flash point. So, check another laboratory.

 

[edyvw]

You can't infer wear from a UOA. You would have to do a teardown to measure wear. The only time you might conclude there is a problem is when wear metals spike into the triple digits, and that's when you established a trend already.

Blackstone, like any business, wants to make money. You might as well save the money and learn how to read Tarot cards, as the results will be just as reliable. Of course, they will practice some guerilla marketing and imply how valuable their UOAs are for deciphering how well an engine wears.

Check out this video to get a glimpse at how motor oils are developed and engine wear measured:

It is astonishing how many people think UOA is designed to measure wear.

 

[edyvw]

You are quite welcome. That's fine, and if you understand the Euro specs, then you can see why the difference in robustness and testing protocols raise some red flags.

Well, Doug is an expert on oil analysis and used it as part of his fleet testing protocol for ExxonMobil, so I take his position on the matter as gospel. He has far more experience using it than anyone else here, and did so while coupling it with tear-down testing, because of his knowledge of its limitations. He's one of the very few people that have used both UOA's and teardowns on this board to gauge actual performance in service, the only other member I can think of worked for a racing team.

Yes, it's a basically meaningless data point. The metals are primarily valuable in identifying anomalies and large changes in concentration, and even then, those changes can be indicative of something as minor as a particle streak or something major like a bearing failure. But we've seen UOA's not hint at a failing camshaft or rod bearings down to the copper (BuickGN, former member here) because the narrow range sampled doesn't sufficiently cover rapid failures.

Also, more aggressive additive chemistries can chelate metals from materials inside the engine, that will then show up in UOA's. We've seen that famously with copper. This isn't wear, but it is indistinguishable from wear in UOA's. I this case you can have a more robust product produce a "worse" UOA even if it is in fact providing better protection.

This is why tear-downs are the only real way to measure wear.

When I worked for oil company as test driver, they would drain oil to do laboratory testing, and engines would immediately be teared down before analysis is even done.

 

[KEVINK0000]

It is astonishing how many people think UOA is designed to measure wear.

Who thinks that? I don't.

The UOAs we look at on here show metal content, hopefully accurately measured in used oil. They cannot be used to "measure" wear.

But, who hasn't seen a fresh rebuild break in oil UOA loaded with metal? (I say fresh rebuild, because all factory fill is at least the second oil fill in that engine. It really doesn't apply in this case). Is that not more wear than normal running would elicit? Is that additional wear not reflected in the wear metal content?

Stock(ish) engines used in racing also slough off more metal than when street driven. Is that not additional wear reflected in the UOA?

Also, how many of us who do fairly regular UOA, with a favored brand, and then try another that gave more evidence of elevated metals, could avoid the temptation to switch back? Numbers are meaningless, right?


This sample of oil, if beaten up so brutally, had some low wear metal content, didn't it? Yes or no?

 

[KEVINK0000]

You can't infer wear from a UOA. You would have to do a teardown to measure wear. The only time you might conclude there is a problem is when wear metals spike into the triple digits, and that's when you established a trend already.

Blackstone, like any business, wants to make money. You might as well save the money and learn how to read Tarot cards, as the results will be just as reliable. Of course, they will practice some guerilla marketing and imply how valuable their UOAs are for deciphering how well an engine wears.

Check out this video to get a glimpse at how motor oils are developed and engine wear measured:

Thanks for that. I understand how engine wear is actually measured. I have rebuilt some in my time. I was impressed with how the video has this frame:

 

[edyvw]

Who thinks that? I don't.

The UOAs we look at on here show metal content, hopefully accurately measured in used oil. They cannot be used to "measure" wear.

But, who hasn't seen a fresh rebuild break in oil UOA loaded with metal? (I say fresh rebuild, because all factory fill is at least the second oil fill in that engine. It really doesn't apply in this case). Is that not more wear than normal running would elicit? Is that additional wear not reflected in the wear metal content?

Stock(ish) engines used in racing also slough off more metal than when street driven. Is that not additional wear reflected in the UOA?


This sample of oil, if beaten up so brutally, had some low wear metal content, didn't it?

My latest UOA from VW had wear 31. But it is VW, it always shows high iron numbers.
You need 4-5 UOA to say: yes it is ok. But iron numbers are dependent on engine itself too. Some show high, some show low.
My N52 has same wear numbers on track oil sample 5k long, and off track season. Exactly same. Also 5k.
But I established trend, so if there is spike, then we can talk potential issues.

 

[Deleted member 89374]

Thanks for that. I understand how engine wear is actually measured. I have rebuilt some in my time. I was impressed with how the video has this frame:

Okay.

 

[KEVINK0000]

My latest UOA from VW had wear 31. But it is VW, it always shows high iron numbers.
You need 4-5 UOA to say: yes it is ok. But iron numbers are dependent on engine itself too. Some show high, some show low.
My N52 has same wear numbers on track oil sample 5k long, and off track season. Exactly same. Also 5k.
But I established trend, so if there is spike, then we can talk potential issues.

Agreed on all points, but track days are different than strictly race use, which is what I was talking about.

 

[Deleted member 89374]

Agreed on all points, but track days are different than race use, which is what I was talking about.

The so-called "wear metals" you see in UOAs are extremely small particles that come loose from metal surfaces in the engine. The reactivity of the lubricant can have an impact on the amounts of these "wear metals." For example, due to higher ester content Red Line Oil shows higher amounts of Fe and Cu in UOAs. Based on that information, would conclude that Red Lined Oil is a bad product?

 

[edyvw]

Agreed on all points, but track days are different than strictly race use, which is what I was talking about.

I wasn’t actually referring to your racing point.
I was trying to say that even though I had 5k on engine that did track days including 1 1/2hrs session, wear metals stayed same as 5k without track time.
Racing also involves different oils and a lot of other stuff.

 

[OVERKILL]

Thanks for that. I understand how engine wear is actually measured. I have rebuilt some in my time. I was impressed with how the video has this frame:

View attachment 85423

Bearing wear is something you shouldn't see trends of in UOA's. Copper is an interesting measure here, as it clearly wasn't coming from the bearings, and most engines produced in the last two decades have used bimetal bearings with no copper in them anyways. This may have been leaching from the oil cooler lines, like we see on other vehicles with copper core oil coolers.

As the UOA trends show, iron tracks with mileage, it also shows that the break-in period was significant for this particular engine with iron trending down, despite the consistent intervals, for the duration of the test really, but most significantly over the first 60,000 miles.

What we don't see are any wild spikes, just consistent trends with the same lubricant. It is this trend that needs to be established and then we can be alerted by breaks from it: spikes in certain metals, signs of coolant, silicon...etc that point to something being "off".

In the case of this slide, the tear-down supported what the UOA's showed, which was nothing unusual.

 

[KEVINK0000]

Yes, it was recently "updated" by BMW to use 20w. That is not shear in my opinion, its fuel. The flashpoint on that oil from QS spec sheet is 453. Blackstone's test for fuel is always questioned here. The N20 is known for fuel dilution, and I know there were short trips on this fill. The 100c vis is 11.6, this UOA shows 8.36. The timing chain has already been done. I like oil analysis, since I like to nerd out on this stuff. I know what statistics say, and what Blackstone has said about them. But I firmly believe you can derive useful information about wear patterns for your engine from these tests. And I know there have been decent UOA right before catastrophic failure. Like most things these days, you have to make your own decisions, and not simply rely on what statistics, or experts say.

I would like to know which mod took my quotation marks around the word experts away in this post, in the last sentence, and why that was done. It originally read "experts". I did not remove it.

 

[Deleted member 89374]

I would like to know which mod took my quotation marks around the word experts away in this post, in the last sentence, and why that was done. It originally read "experts". I did not remove it.

Rest assured, as we do have genuine experts on this forum.

 

[KEVINK0000]

r