BMW B58 0W-12?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Alien said:
My "they" and "them" refered to oil companies. They need to prove themselves to people like me in order to sell their products.
Click to expand...
And how would “they” “prove” anything to you?

Honest question. What would constitute “proof”?

Next question, how much business do you represent?

So, how much do you expect them to spend developing proof in return for the amount money they’re going to receive from your business?
 
Alien said:
Some people will say "@edyvw, an annonimous contributor on BITOG, says that any oil meeting LL17 standards also meets API SP and ILSAC GF-6A standards. That's good enough for me." Others will say "If they meet the API and ILSAC standards, let them prove it by doing the tests and getting certified. I will give preference to those that are able to prove themselves by getting certified." I'm in the latter group.
Click to expand...
I'm in the first group.
 
@edyvw, I don't know why you are in such a huff about my posting a factual statement from a respected oil company and stating my own buying preferences and how I arrive at those preferences. But your criticism is now becoming circular with no new content, so I am exiting this conversation.

Adios, Amigos!
 
Alien said:
Also, as Gokhan reported from some recent ACEA meeting notes: “ACEA decided to adopt API valvetrain and timing-chain wear tests in their ACEA-2021 specification, but it turned out that 50% of the existing ACEA oils failed the API valvetrain test, and another 50% of the existing ACEA oils failed the API timing-chain wear test! Note that most of these oils that failed the API wear tests would carry the "strict" Euro-OEM approvals as well." It is possible that the 50% that flunked the API tests also flunked the LL17 tests, which would make your statement correct. But how do you know?
Click to expand...
ACEA is starting point. All manufacturers have MORE stringent tests than ACEA. You need to go back and read what actually ACEA is and how it works. Gokhan makes a lot of assumptions about a lot of stuff.
 
Alien said:
@edyvw, I don't know why you are in such a huff about my posting a factual statement from a respected oil company and stating my own buying preferences and how I arrive at those preferences. But your criticism is now becoming circular with no new content, so I am exiting this conversation.

Adios, Amigos!
Click to expand...
Bcs. someone else is going to read what you wrote. As I said, you can use olive oil as far as I am concerned.
 
Alien said:
@edyvw, I don't know why you are in such a huff about my posting a factual statement from a respected oil company and stating my own buying preferences and how I arrive at those preferences. But your criticism is now becoming circular with no new content, so I am exiting this conversation.

Adios, Amigos!
Click to expand...
Astro14 asked you a few questions besides edyvw, you can stay and address those rather than leaving.
 
kschachn said:
Astro14 asked you a few questions besides edyvw, you can stay and address those rather than leaving.
Click to expand...
Sure, I would be happy to. (I missed that the questions were from @Astro14, rather than rhetorical questions from @edyvw, probably because of the similar looking icons they use). Thanks for pointing this out. Here are the Q & A's:

Q: And how would “they” “prove” anything to you? A: By actually testing their product against API/ILSAC standards and getting certification.

Q: Honest question. What would constitute “proof”? A: A starburst on the front of their bottles would be best. I look for that because companies such as Ford have told me to in their user's manual. Failing that, at least a claim on the bottles of "meeting or exceeding" or have shown "performance" against the standards.

Q: Next question, how much business do you represent? A: Directly, hardly anything. Indirectly, probably a significant number of people who think the way I do.

Q: So, how much do you expect them to spend developing proof in return for the amount money they’re going to receive from your business? A: I am not a business, just an individual car enthusiast. I stated that early on in this conversation. If I am the only one asking for this, it would obviously not be worth the cost. But if I represent a significant market who thinks the same way, then it may be worth it. Motul, Castrol, and Liqui Moly apparently think there are a sufficient number of people who think like me, and that is why they went to the trouble and cost on at least one of their LL17 FE ++ compliant products.
 
Alien said:
Sure, I would be happy to. (I missed that the questions were from @Astro14, rather than rhetorical questions from @edyvw, probably because of the similar looking icons they use). Thanks for pointing this out. Here are the Q & A's:

Q: And how would “they” “prove” anything to you? A: By actually testing their product against API/ILSAC standards and getting certification.

Q: Honest question. What would constitute “proof”? A: A starburst on the front of their bottles would be best. I look for that because companies such as Ford have told me to in their user's manual. Failing that, at least a claim on the bottles of "meeting or exceeding" or have shown "performance" against the standards.

Q: Next question, how much business do you represent? A: Directly, hardly anything. Indirectly, probably a significant number of people who think the way I do.

Q: So, how much do you expect them to spend developing proof in return for the amount money they’re going to receive from your business? A: I am not a business, just an individual car enthusiast. I stated that early on in this conversation. If I am the only one asking for this, it would obviously not be worth the cost. But if I represent a significant market who thinks the same way, then it may be worth it. Motul, Castrol, and Liqui Moly apparently think there are a sufficient number of people who think like me, and that is why they went to the trouble and cost on at least one of their LL17 FE ++ compliant products.
Click to expand...
Ford and BMW are not same company.
I have told you, to understand why ILSAC is absolutely irrelevant or API you need to go back and read why European manufacturers parted way from API in the beginning of 90’s. I don’t plan to give you run down, you can research yourself.
API and ILSAC are not specific standards. They are “one size fits all.” They cover Ford and Hyundai/KIA and Toyota etc. Standards like that are not as stringent. Fir example, API LSPI test is done on the engine( Ford ecoboost) that doesn’t have LSPI issues. BMW TPT oils are specifically made for BMW , and that is all that matters for BMW owner. Of course, if you researched a bit you would fond test of BMW TPT 5W30 far exceeds anything API.
There are a lot of BMW owners using ILSAC oils. There are a lot of BMW owners with VANOS issues too. You draw conclusion, as enthusiast.
 
Alien said:
Well, let's have a look at the Motul PDS that I posted previously. It says: "The ILSAC GF-6a specification also ensures perfect engine protection when gasoline containing up to 85% Ethanol is used (E85)."

My understanding is that ACEA sequences do not test for the impact of ethanol, since it is not a factor in European gas. To bring the oil up to ILSAC GF-6a standards, Motul had to pass tests involving gasohol. Since the gas I use here contains up to 10% ethanol, that is important to me, and I see that as an advantage.
Click to expand...
E85 is only to be used in engines that say they are safe for E85. ACEA C3 B71 (PSA) does have an ethanol (E10 aging and cokefaction test). Some OEM tests, that we don't have the details of, may do more. BMW is not very open about what their testing involves.

Also, keep in mind that Supertech/Amazon Basics are API SP. The bar probably isn't set as high as you perceive it to be here.
 
Alien said:
Also, as Gokhan reported from some recent ACEA meeting notes: “ACEA decided to adopt API valvetrain and timing-chain wear tests in their ACEA-2021 specification, but it turned out that 50% of the existing ACEA oils failed the API valvetrain test, and another 50% of the existing ACEA oils failed the API timing-chain wear test! Note that most of these oils that failed the API wear tests would carry the "strict" Euro-OEM approvals as well." It is possible that the 50% that flunked the API tests also flunked the LL17 tests, which would make your statement correct. But how do you know?
Click to expand...

This is important because it infers that atleast some euro certs are not as stringent as the LSPI and TGDI chain wear test sequences under API SP. Unfortunately we as consumers will never know which euro oils couldn't pass SP.

It's also worth mentioning that ACEA had to create another class for SP rather than adding these tests to existing ACEA classes.

The TGDI chain wear testbed is designed to load the oil with a lot of soot which a normal engine should never experience. We know this for a fact. We don't know what modifications euro automakers made on their testbed for chain wear. We only know which engine is tested and maybe the result.. The automakers choose to keep that information proprietary.
 
Last edited:
OVERKILL said:
E85 is only to be used in engines that say they are safe for E85. ACEA C3 B71 (PSA) does have an ethanol (E10 aging and cokefaction test). Some OEM tests, that we don't have the details of, may do more. BMW is not very open about what their testing involves.

Also, keep in mind that Supertech/Amazon Basics are API SP. The bar probably isn't set as high as you perceive it to be here.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your insights, @OVERKILL. Re: Supertech/Amazon Basic, they are at the opposite end of the spectrum of oils I would consider. I know that they are probably designed to just squeak by the API tests, and that is not what I am looking for. But do you see anything wrong with for a modern BMW application in favoring oils that are SP/GF6 certified in addition to being LL17 FE ++ certified?
 
Alien said:
Thanks for your insights, @OVERKILL. Re: Supertech/Amazon Basic, they are at the opposite end of the spectrum of oils I would consider. I know that they are probably designed to just squeak by the API tests, and that is not what I am looking for. But do you see anything wrong with for a modern BMW application in favoring oils that are SP/GF6 certified in addition to being LL17 FE ++ certified?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't go out of my way to find one that has it. I do note that many of the majors don't make a LL17 FE++ oil (Mobil, Castrol).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F
LL17FE+ oil help
Replies
8
Views
608
BMWTurboDzl
F
What makes Euro oils different?
5 6 7
Replies
139
Views
16K
tired
C
B58 Supra Oil for hot/humid climate
Replies
13
Views
2K
FlyingTexan
TasBMW
  • Locked
BMW LL04 and LL12FE in Australia with high sulphur content in fuel?
7 8 9
Replies
169
Views
11K
Retirednow
C
High Mileage 2018 BMW 330i (B46) Recommendation
2
Replies
21
Views
725
svenson
Back
Top Bottom