Castrol TWS 10W60

Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
2,593
Location
United States
I had a 2000 BMW M5 with a 4.9L V8 engine that called for this stuff. Not a particularly jaw dropping motor but can get out of its own way.

I would hop on other parts of the big bimmer forums and see that the 3.3L six in the M3 and the big formula 1 V10 in the newer M5 really like to shred rod bearings and some people blamed it on this stuff. both those engines like to go vroom vroom a lot.

the lazy V8 in my old M5 didn’t behave anything like the above but a lot of the early ones liked to slurp a quart every 2 or 3k.

What exactly was this stuff originally made for? Is it obsolete or ideal for any use?
 
The E39 M5 is arguably one of the best cars BMW ever made. I had a 2001 and absolutely loved it but it had expensive taste in driveline parts and I offloaded it when it decided it wanted a driveshaft and a few other things that frustrated me at the time. That was a mistake.

Anyways, there have been a variety of BMW engines over the years that have called for the infamous TWS lube and the E39 pre 03/2000 was one of them. This engine was NOT originally spec'd for this oil. The early years of the S62 had low tension rings and a propensity to drink oil and so the spec'ing of TWS was used as a bandaid to try and reduce consumption. One of the cars I looked at when I was shopping was a late 1999 IIRC and it consumed like 1L/1,500km or something ridiculous. Mine, being post 03/2000 had the revised regular tension rings and in Canada and the rest of the world outside of the United States, those cars had an insert in the manual that indicated that they required only an oil carrying LL-01. I ran M1 0w-40 in it and consumption was extremely low.

On the S62, there have indeed been cases of rod bearing failure. On the other hand, there's some guy on M5board that has like 400,000 miles on his original ones and I believe he runs M1 0w-40 in his too. It seems the cars that are tracked frequently are more susceptible, which makes sense, and I know one of the theories revolves around the solenoids fitted to the semi-dry sump oil pan that are supposed to activate under heavy G loads and redirect the oil pickup, preventing starvation. If they fail, that function would cease to occur and thus starvation for the duration of the high G event would be quite possible, causing bearing damage.

IIRC, the oil was developed as a streetable motorsport oil that found its way into the sumps of certain M-cars, the M3 most notably.
 
It was speced for the S85 in my M6. I prefer and use Redline 10w60. No problems despite the internet telling me it's a ticking timebomb. It sees redline pretty much every time it gets driven. Of course not before the engine reaches operating temp.
 
Was this one of their cars that had that silly 15-20,000 mile oil change spec (I cant remember the exact range)? I couldn't imagine leaving oil that long in such a high end expensive car. I'd think that would be the cause of engine probs, not the oil or engine itself.
 
Was this one of their cars that had that silly 15-20,000 mile oil change spec (I cant remember the exact range)?
Don’t know about the M5 but the regular 5 series was 15k for sure. A lot of manufacturers were already at 7,500-10k on dino oil. Maybe the original PAO German Castrol blends were just barely capable of doing these intervals?

This engine was NOT originally spec'd for this oil. The early years of the S62 had low tension rings and a propensity to drink oil and so the spec'ing of TWS was used as a bandaid to try and reduce consumption. One of the cars I looked at when I was shopping was a late 1999 IIRC and it consumed like 1L/1,500km or something ridiculous. Mine, being post 03/2000 had the revised regular tension rings and in Canada and the rest of the world outside of the United States, those cars had an insert in the manual that indicated that they required only an oil carrying LL-01. I ran M1 0w-40 in it and consumption was extremely low.
Mine ate flex discs for breakfast, can definitely relate.

My owner’s manual said to use 10w60 unless it was freezing cold out and to drop to 5w30 if so. My bud’s 2003 calls for 5w30 or 5w40 synthetic with zero mention of this stuff and I think it has that sticker. Even with this 60wt maple syrup in the sump it could still take a drink. I guess in late 99 when they decided to roll out the car they already knew about oil consumption issues?

Anyways what benefits on the track or hard driving does the BMW specific version of 10w60 or 10w60 in general have to offer in high revving and tight clearance motors like the S54 S65 S85 and Aston Martin’s version of the Jag V8? What can it accomplish that for example a modern 5W50 can’t?
 
Last edited:
Don’t know about the M5 but the regular 5 series was 15k for sure. A lot of manufacturers were already at 7,500-10k on dino oil. Maybe the original PAO German Castrol blends were just barely capable of doing these intervals?


Mine ate flex discs for breakfast, can definitely relate.

My owner’s manual said to use 10w60 unless it was freezing cold out and to drop to 5w30 if so. My bud’s 2003 calls for 5w30 or 5w40 synthetic with zero mention of this stuff and I think it has that sticker. Even with this 60wt maple syrup in the sump it could still take a drink. I guess in late 99 when they decided to roll out the car they already knew about oil consumption issues?

Anyways what benefits on the track or hard driving does the BMW specific version of 10w60 or 10w60 in general have to offer in high revving and tight clearance motors like the S54 S65 S85 and Aston Martin’s version of the Jag V8? What can it accomplish that for example a modern 5W50 can’t?

Yes, mine at the guibo, clutch, rear main seal. Then it needed a driveshaft, since the CV joints weren't replaceable, the hangar bearing and I can't remember what else but it was on the hoist when I was offered a wicked deal on a 2014 SRT Charger that had been in the showroom for quite a stint and that's when I traded the car. Ultimately, I didn't end up holding onto the Charger, so should have just parked the bimmer and gone the route I ended up going with the Jeep for my daily.

The TWS is a very robust formula that was developed for BMW by Castrol or as a partnership, I'm not really super clear on the details, but there's a history there. This is why it became the "defacto" performance lube for many of the M cars. What does it offer over a 5w-50? Probably a slightly heavier base oil blend, beyond that, perhaps not much, we don't really know.
 
I had a 2002 M Coupe with the 3.3 liter S54. Oil spec was the TWS 10W-60. Drove it mostly on the highway while touring
At 55,000 miles I sent in an oil sample...LEAD & COPPER!!! Rod bearings were BAD. $2000 fixed it up for the next guy.
 
Doug Hillary who use to post here was involved in its development, he comments on the linked thread

In the 90’s and 2000’s I was a big fan of this oil and ran it almost exclusively in almost everything. It started as Castrol R or Formula-R then turned into Castrol Edge. For me this was my first synthetic oil, and the 10W60 viscosity grade existed (at my local retail level) years before the 0W40 appeared.
 
Doug Hillary who use to post here was involved in its development, he comments on the linked thread

In the 90’s and 2000’s I was a big fan of this oil and ran it almost exclusively in almost everything. It started as Castrol R or Formula-R then turned into Castrol Edge. For me this was my first synthetic oil, and the 10W60 viscosity grade existed (at my local retail level) years before the 0W40 appeared.
Has anyone heard from Doug lately?
 
Back
Top