Here is a uoa (done by Polaris Labs) of the factory fill from a 2013 BMW M3. BMW requires the oil on M cars to be changed at the first 1200 mi. Thereafter the factory oci is 15k mi. The service fill for the M3 is Castrol Edge TWS 10w60, an oil made exclusively for some M cars. For comparison sake, the voa of the service fill is here: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2989167#Post2989167.
I did the 1200 mi uoa primarily to dispel what I believe is the myth of the need to "wash out" wear metals during the break-in. The fact that BMW requires a 1200 mi drain of the factory fill on M cars has led many owners of other non-M BMWs to believe that it is necessary/prudent to likewise drain the factory fill at 1200 mi, even tho BMW does not require it.
Here's the data (elements reported in the uoa as 0 are omitted):
iron 19 ppm
aluminum 4 ppm
copper 47 ppm
tin 3 ppm
silicon 6 ppm
sodium 7 ppm
potassium 8 ppm
moly 4 ppm
manganese 2 ppm
boron 4 ppm
magnesium 882 ppm
calcium 1151 ppm
barium 2 ppm
phosphorous 859 ppm
zinc 902 ppm
fuel dilution 1.5 %
vis at 100 C 11.4
TBN 8.54
oxidation 7 abs/cm
nitration 9 abs/cm
Polaris flagged copper as abnormal and viscosity as critical.
My own comments:
First, I think it is a mistake to assume that the factory fill is identical to the service fill. In some cases the factory fill may be made by an entirely different lube mfr (e.g. FUCHS "The factory fill specialist"). If you compare this uoa to the TWS voa, it seems to be a different formulation, for whatever that's worth. I can't tell if the factory fill is some sort of special break-in oil or not. I expected that the anti-wear pack in the uoa would be stronger. I have read that the AW pack in some break-in oils is made of "fast burn" zddp that is more volatile and activates faster to lay down the protective film of phosphates. The downside is that the fast burn zddp goes out the tailpipe faster. Would that account for the relatively low zddp in this uoa?
As far as wear metals are concerned, I believe the metals of most concern in this or any uoa would be iron and silicon (if from dirt). They are both hard elements that in high concentrations could make the oil abrasive and cause abnormal wear of the softer metals such as lead - - and thus justify an early drain . The wear metals in the report are well within limits (lead is 0) - - with the possible exception of copper. But every uoa from a BMW that I've ever seen has shown relatively high copper, even as the engine ages. I believe that much of it is from the oil cooler, which on the M3 is quite large - - about three or four times the size of the oil coolers even on the turbo BMW inline sixes.
The thing that really surprised me is the viscosity at 100 degrees C of 11.4, which is a thick 30 weight. That would be abnormal or critical IF the factory fill was the normal TWS, but I don't think the factory fill was originally a 10w60. Even with the fuel dilution (which is within limits), I don't think a 60 weight would thin out to that degree in just 1200 miles.
I did the 1200 mi uoa primarily to dispel what I believe is the myth of the need to "wash out" wear metals during the break-in. The fact that BMW requires a 1200 mi drain of the factory fill on M cars has led many owners of other non-M BMWs to believe that it is necessary/prudent to likewise drain the factory fill at 1200 mi, even tho BMW does not require it.
Here's the data (elements reported in the uoa as 0 are omitted):
iron 19 ppm
aluminum 4 ppm
copper 47 ppm
tin 3 ppm
silicon 6 ppm
sodium 7 ppm
potassium 8 ppm
moly 4 ppm
manganese 2 ppm
boron 4 ppm
magnesium 882 ppm
calcium 1151 ppm
barium 2 ppm
phosphorous 859 ppm
zinc 902 ppm
fuel dilution 1.5 %
vis at 100 C 11.4
TBN 8.54
oxidation 7 abs/cm
nitration 9 abs/cm
Polaris flagged copper as abnormal and viscosity as critical.
My own comments:
First, I think it is a mistake to assume that the factory fill is identical to the service fill. In some cases the factory fill may be made by an entirely different lube mfr (e.g. FUCHS "The factory fill specialist"). If you compare this uoa to the TWS voa, it seems to be a different formulation, for whatever that's worth. I can't tell if the factory fill is some sort of special break-in oil or not. I expected that the anti-wear pack in the uoa would be stronger. I have read that the AW pack in some break-in oils is made of "fast burn" zddp that is more volatile and activates faster to lay down the protective film of phosphates. The downside is that the fast burn zddp goes out the tailpipe faster. Would that account for the relatively low zddp in this uoa?
As far as wear metals are concerned, I believe the metals of most concern in this or any uoa would be iron and silicon (if from dirt). They are both hard elements that in high concentrations could make the oil abrasive and cause abnormal wear of the softer metals such as lead - - and thus justify an early drain . The wear metals in the report are well within limits (lead is 0) - - with the possible exception of copper. But every uoa from a BMW that I've ever seen has shown relatively high copper, even as the engine ages. I believe that much of it is from the oil cooler, which on the M3 is quite large - - about three or four times the size of the oil coolers even on the turbo BMW inline sixes.
The thing that really surprised me is the viscosity at 100 degrees C of 11.4, which is a thick 30 weight. That would be abnormal or critical IF the factory fill was the normal TWS, but I don't think the factory fill was originally a 10w60. Even with the fuel dilution (which is within limits), I don't think a 60 weight would thin out to that degree in just 1200 miles.
