M1 0W-40 FS SP 4k mi; BMW 2011 328I 240k mi

[KEVINK0000]

Himemsys is correct in better expressing my thoughts.

Edy's experience with tracking vs street on this same engine and seeing no real change in wear metals goes to my point also.

 

[FZ1]

Not happy with this, these are the two worst reports I have gotten for this engine. Even if you ignore the wear particles, as many do here, (I don't) the oil itself does not hold up as well as I would have expected. Could not imagine this oil going 10k or more in this application, like the old formulation would do. This is not an engine that is rough on oil in my opinion. Perhaps there is an issue with the engine now that didn't exist in previous reports, that directly coincided with the M1 usage, but I doubt that.

Report# 2 and 3 are M1 0-40 FS Euro SP, #1 was QS Euro 5w-40. Ignore the product information field on the report.

I am going to try something else.

Previous reports below with QSFS 5w-30 ILSAC and Castrol Belgian 0w-40.



View attachment 256110



QSFS 5W30 ILSAC SP below:

First change after Castrol 0w-40 became NLA, no flush, and the the rest is the same oil, QSFS 5w-30. You can see the titanium from the Castrol slowly leaving the party.

BL is a VOA of that oil.

View attachment 256116


View attachment 256117

Nuthin' wrong here. Maybe, it wants more moly.

 

[edyvw]

Himemsys is correct in better expressing my thoughts.

Edy's experience with tracking vs street on this same engine and seeing no real change in wear metals goes to my point also.

It really does not. You care about wear metals. Fine. The problem is your methodology. You are comparing different oils with different exploitation services.
Here is report, 5,000mls is 0W40 and 4,600mls is 0W30.

The 0W40 went through brutal track period, where I did several sessions 1 1/2hrs long (sometimes I would be alone on track as it was too hot). The wear is what it is.
0W30 is strictly winter driving, and not any winter driving, but at least 60-70% was HWY. Spirited, but nothing compared to track. However, that also means some super cold starts (some were -30 and below). My point is that other external factors influence wear.

Here is UOA I did with SOPUS when I was doing some project with them:

Motul X-Cess Gen2 5W40:

Here is Pennzoil Platinum Euro 5W40:

Both have track time, but PPE also has winter time. PPE has a bit of Motul 300V from the oil cooler that was left behind hence the high Zinc. Is that 3ppm difference indicative of something? Who knows! It is 3ppm, it could be just background noise. It is a different lab from Castrol one and shows different wear results, or maybe not. Could those 3ppm came from winter usage? Possibly! What matters is that oils held well.
Now, if FE ppm was 40, I would be wondering what it is. But 3-4ppm or 7ppm compared to Castrol? Absolutely irrelevant!

 

[TiGeo]

I woudn't worry so much about the grade drop, almost every 40 grade Euro oil I've used will end up below 12.5 cSt on a normal OCI. VIIs to get your the 0 winter rating and the 40 grade will do that. These are typically on the lighter side of the 40 grade range so not much to move it below. The wear metal rates (Fe)/1K miles are interesting as they more than doubled which would concern me/be worth a look. Lake Speed Jr. has a video talking about 5 ppm/1K miles being a benchmark. Maybe go back to what you were using (QS 30?) that produced the lower wear values - what made you move away from that oil? Unless you are really after the most protection for hard use (track, towing, etc.) no reason to need to run a 40 vs. 30 here. Maybe Rat540 was right...QS 30 FTW!

 

[fantastic]

Mileage is getting higher on this car. Further testing to see how long this change sticks around.

 

[OVERKILL]

I woudn't worry so much about the grade drop, almost every 40 grade Euro oil I've used will end up below 12.5 cSt on a normal OCI. VIIs to get your the 0 winter rating and the 40 grade will do that. These are typically on the lighter side of the 40 grade range so not much to move it below. The wear metal rates (Fe)/1K miles are interesting as they more than doubled which would concern me/be worth a look. Lake Speed Jr. has a video talking about 5 ppm/1K miles being a benchmark. Maybe go back to what you were using (QS 30?) that produced the lower wear values - what made you move away from that oil? Unless you are really after the most protection for hard use (track, towing, etc.) no reason to need to run a 40 vs. 30 here. Maybe Rat540 was right...QS 30 FTW!

It was not an approved oil, it's a non-Euro oil, which I believe is why he switched to using a full-SAPS Euro oil. Of course the full-SAPS oil has a more robust additive package, so edy's point about chelation and metals uptake (which may not actually be wear) begs mention here.

The question really is:

Should the uptick in iron PPM with the switch from an ISLAC formula to a full-SAPS Euro formula be construed as an increase in actual mechanical wear?

The answer is no, that conclusion cannot be readily drawn from UOA data, as these figures are derived from a process that does not differentiate on the sources of particles being analyzed and skews toward smaller particles with larger particles not being picked-up. This is at the core of the faulty logic that was historically employed by folks chasing their tails on trying to find the "best oil" (lowest wear rate) with Blackstone UOA's on here and, thankfully, for the most part, we've managed to get away from.

 

[OilStainedNapkin]

All looks good to me! I’d personally run it longer.

 

[KEVINK0000]

Edy, Overkill, etc.

Again I think I have tried to express my view previously that wear metals on UOA do matter. How much and why is the question. I was not able to adequately articulate this, and keep getting the same responses.

Edy, if this was a 2-3 ppm Fe change, I would count it as noise. I remember your early BS report, and this is what I was referring to. I had also seen the same kind of robustness of results in this engine regardless of usage pattern (or oil) or weather in previous reports. No track time like yours, which goes to my point even more.

I believe this is not just noise in my case. I would like to find out what, if anything, besides the oil has changed.

 

[himemsys]

Edy, if this was a 2-3 ppm Fe change, I would count it as noise.

I was trying to articulate this when I said it tripled over a year. My words were to the effect of "it went from 1ppm per 1000 miles to 3ppm per 1000 miles." It seems like edy interpreted that as 1ppm vs 3ppm (not per 1000 miles, but the full OCI) because he said that's nothing! What we're actually talking about for the full OCI is 5ppm iron vs 15ppm iron. He still seemed to think it was noise?

 

[edyvw]

I was trying to articulate this when I said it tripled over a year. My words were to the effect of "it went from 1ppm per 1000 miles to 3ppm per 1000 miles." It seems like edy interpreted that as 1ppm vs 3ppm (not per 1000 miles, but the full OCI) because he said that's nothing! What we're actually talking about for the full OCI is 5ppm iron vs 15ppm iron. He still seemed to think it was noise?

5 vs. 15ppm is still noise, because of different oils and different exploitation. 15ppm in these engines is nothing.
What OP needs to do, if he wants to get to the bottom of it, is use one oil over 4-5 OCI, and try to control external factors, like similar exploitation.
Again, this is UOA, not an analysis of the used engine. If there was a jump to 15ppm of copper, lead, tin, whatever, I would say something is up, or 40-50ppm of iron.

 

[KEVINK0000]

Edy,

The same lab has been used for the last 6 UOA on this engine. Thinking you may not have seen the earlier reports inline in original post.
??

 

[Bryanccfshr]

I see no reason to draw any conclusions. Certainly can run this longer.

 

[chris719]

I think the tin numbers are coming from the add pack, because cooper and lead (both present in bearing material of BMWs) are stable. Look at the sample's antimony level, none in the QS. But both M1s showed 1ppm. Antimony could be an add in the same regard as zinc. Fuel is #1 problem with visc. drop. Was it colder for sample #2?

A 2011 BMW engine has lead-free bearings, so the tin is most likely from the bearings.

 

[shortyb]

A 2011 BMW engine has lead-free bearings, so the tin is most likely from the bearings.

Forgot about that. The change to harder aluminum/tin happened around that time IIRC. If they fail, or become compromised, they could possibly cause damage to the crank that may manifest in a rise of ferrous material in a UOA. But I would think it would be a much more dramatic increase in Fe if that were to happen. Dunno.

 

[chris719]

Forgot about that. The change to harder aluminum/tin happened around that time IIRC. If they fail, or become compromised, they could possibly cause damage to the crank that may manifest in a rise of ferrous material in a UOA. But I would think it would be a much more dramatic increase in Fe if that were to happen. Dunno.

Crank will not be damaged until you get rod knock, so no, I don’t think you’ll see Fe rise until you spin a bearing.

 

[CoachRoss07]

Not real sure what the problem is here? I have seen worse UOA's than that using boutique oils (not that it was a problem then, either) lol. Only problem here is you did not run it longer...

 

[edyvw]

Edy,

The same lab has been used for the last 6 UOA on this engine. Thinking you may not have seen the earlier reports inline in original post.
??

I know, but you are changing oils. Different oils, different metal leaching. Also, is exploitation the same? I posted above those two UOAs were heavily tracked. Castrol had the same wear as Castrol used in winter and no track.

 

[edyvw]

Crank will not be damaged until you get rod knock, so no, I don’t think you’ll see Fe rise until you spin a bearing.

At that point, metals will be much higher.

 

[himemsys]

I know, but you are changing oils. Different oils, different metal leaching. Also, is exploitation the same? I posted above those two UOAs were heavily tracked. Castrol had the same wear as Castrol used in winter and no track.

Same oil used 3x from 11/22 to 05/23. Same oil used 2x from 09/24 to 11/24.

02/24/20: Castrol Edge Euro 0W40 6ppm Fe 5100mi 1.2ppm/1000mi

11/21/22: QSFS 5W30 5ppm Fe 5400mi 0.9ppm/1000mi
02/05/23: QSFS 5W30 5ppm Fe 5000mi 1.0ppm/1000mi
05/01/23: QSFS 5W30 6ppm Fe 5000mi 1.2ppm/1000mi

12/01/23: QS Euro 5W40 12ppm Fe 4900mi 2.4ppm/1000mi

09/16/24: M1 Euro 0W40 21ppm Fe 6100mi 3.4ppm/1000mi
11/28/24: M1Euro 0W40 14ppm Fe 4000mi 3.5ppm/1000mi

You could say the doubling of the wear rate at 12/01/23 could be related to changing oils. But a case could also be made that the Fe wear rate is increasing consistently with each UOA over the past 2 years. I don't think it's clear either way. If OP stays with M1 0W40 for another few OCIs and the wear rate continues to climb consistently, then it's not the oil. If it stays around 3.5ppm/1000mi or drops back to 1-2ppm per 1000mi, then it was the oil.

 

[Jetronic]

Same oil used 3x from 11/22 to 05/23. Same oil used 2x from 09/24 to 11/24.

02/24/20: Castrol Edge Euro 0W40 6ppm Fe 5100mi 1.2ppm/1000mi

11/21/22: QSFS 5W30 5ppm Fe 5400mi 0.9ppm/1000mi
02/05/23: QSFS 5W30 5ppm Fe 5000mi 1.0ppm/1000mi
05/01/23: QSFS 5W30 6ppm Fe 5000mi 1.2ppm/1000mi

12/01/23: QS Euro 5W40 12ppm Fe 4900mi 2.4ppm/1000mi

09/16/24: M1 Euro 0W40 21ppm Fe 6100mi 3.4ppm/1000mi
11/28/24: M1Euro 0W40 14ppm Fe 4000mi 3.5ppm/1000mi

You could say the doubling of the wear rate at 12/01/23 could be related to changing oils. But a case could also be made that the Fe wear rate is increasing consistently with each UOA over the past 2 years. I don't think it's clear either way. If OP stays with M1 0W40 for another few OCIs and the wear rate continues to climb consistently, then it's not the oil. If it stays around 3.5ppm/1000mi or drops back to 1-2ppm per 1000mi, then it was the oil.

and it may mean wear is decreasing. The problem is the UOA can't see particles bigger than 5µ. If another oil reduces the bigger particles to something below 5µ they will suddenly appear. 3.5 ppm of <5µ particles versus 1 ppm of <5µ and 2.5 ppm >5µ can paint a wrong picture.

I would not pay much attention to those particle counts myself.