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

[KEVINK0000]

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.

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.

 

[Astro14]

So, it sheared just a bit out of grade. Emphasis on just a bit. Which is to be expected.

But you are worried about 3 ppm of Tin? Three? That’s almost statistical noise...

They may say it’s not a good report just because it sheared out of grade, but honestly, it is only a tiny bit out of grade, and more importantly, I’m not seeing that much in the way of wear metals. The iron and aluminum, which are far more significant, are about the same as your previous run of a different brand .

I think the oil is doing fine

 

[JavierH19]

I don't think it's that bad, tbn is fine and 11 cst is still serviceable but metals are a tad higher. You could do half m1 15w-50 and half something else if you want.

 

[himemsys]

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

Any changes to your driving pattern?

 

[KEVINK0000]

No changes, especially compared to the early Castrol and QSFS reports. The interim QSFS reports were where the car was used for more mileage on a weekly basis. That has changed back to the suage pattern of the earlier reports.

I expected better from both the QS Euro, and especially the M1, with regard to wear metals especially. Maybe I have an engine problem, but I am doubting it.

 

[shortyb]

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?

 

[Astro14]

No changes, especially compared to the early Castrol and QSFS reports. The interim QSFS reports were where the car was used for more mileage on a weekly basis. That has changed back to the suage pattern of the earlier reports.

I expected better from both the QS Euro, and especially the M1, with regard to wear metals especially. Maybe I have an engine problem, but I am doubting it.

If you look through the UOAs of the M1 0W40, you will see that almost every one of them sheared very slightly out of grade. Since it starts at 12.5, getting below 12 doesn’t take much.

There is not a huge difference, in fact there’s really no difference, between 12.5, where Mobil says it starts, and 11.7 where it was tested in your UOA.

I don’t think you have a problem with your oil, or your engine.

 

[himemsys]

I can see why you're upset. Wear metal rate has more than doubled in the past 3 samples compared to the earlier UOAs. Have you considered going back to one of the oils you used earlier?

 

[KEVINK0000]

I'm not upset, just marveling at the fact that these are the worst wear numbers I've seen for an N52, and previous numbers on the same engine, with different (and some unapproved) oils were among the best.

The oil is not as impressive as it once was. I don't see it as an extended drain oil in this application, and probably not a light duty track oil either, as the old formula was.

 

[Astro14]

I can see why you're upset. Wear metal rate has more than doubled in the past 3 samples compared to the earlier UOAs. Have you considered going back to one of the oils you used earlier?

How has “it” doubled?

Iron has gone down. AL is steady. Lead is zero. Those are the big ones.

3 PPM of Tin is a statistical anomaly, contamination, or a scratch, but nothing to worry about.

Wear metals are about the same as the previous sample.

FE
12 - 4900 miles
21 - 6100 miles
14 - 4000 miles

AL - between 4 and 6. Very low.

Wear metals often fluctuate when you change brands. But the amount of wear in this latest sample is low, and in line with the first sample that you’re pleased with.

1 PPM is a statistical error. It is a part per million. Million.

Stop reading so much into a tiny change.

 

[edyvw]

I

How has “it” doubled?

Iron has gone down. AL is steady. Lead is zero. Those are the big ones.

3 PPM of Tin is a statistical anomaly, contamination, or a scratch, but nothing to worry about.

Wear metals are about the same as the previous sample.

FE
12 - 4900 miles
21 - 6100 miles
14 - 4000 miles

AL - between 4 and 6. Very low.

Wear metals often fluctuate when you change brands. But the amount of wear in this latest sample is low, and in line with the first sample that you’re pleased with.

1 PPM is a statistical error. It is a part per million. Million.

Stop reading so much into a tiny change.

This is the key!
Please, folks, look at the mileage of the oil before comparing FE.
12 or 14? Even if they had exactly the same mileage, it is statistically irrelevant.

 

[burbguy82]

So, it sheared just a bit out of grade. Emphasis on just a bit. Which is to be expected.

But you are worried about 3 ppm of Tin? Three? That’s almost statistical noise...

They may say it’s not a good report just because it sheared out of grade, but honestly, it is only a tiny bit out of grade, and more importantly, I’m not seeing that much in the way of wear metals. The iron and aluminum, which are far more significant, are about the same as your previous run of a different brand .

I think the oil is doing fine

Is 5ppm of wear metals the "standard" per 1000 miles? Assuming a broken in, mechanically sound motor? It would seem that this example shows below that.

 

[himemsys]

Stop reading so much into a tiny change.

Please, folks, look at the mileage of the oil before comparing FE.

Whoa. Maybe you two should ask for clarification before you assume. I said:

Wear metal rate has more than doubled in the past 3 samples compared to the earlier UOAs.

Let's take a look at those earlier UOAs:
The Blackstone UOA from Feb. '20 is a total of 10ppm metals in 5100 miles. 10/5.1=1.96ppm per 1000 miles.
The three QSFS 5W30 UOAs from Nov. '22 to May '23:
10ppm total metals in 5400 miles. 10/5.4=1.85ppm per 1000 miles.
12ppm total metals in 5000 miles. 12/5.0=2.4ppm per 1000 miles.
10ppm total metals in 5000 miles. 10/5.0=2.0ppm per 1000 miles.

Now let's look at the more recent UOAs from Dec. '23 through Nov. '24:
20ppm total metals in 4900 miles. 20/4.9=4.08ppm per 1000 miles.
32ppm total metals in 6100 miles. 32/6.1=5.25ppm per 1000 miles.
22ppm total metals in 4000 miles. 22/4.0=5.5ppm per 1000 miles.

 

[edyvw]

Whoa. Maybe you two should ask for clarification before you assume. I said:

Let's take a look at those earlier UOAs:
The Blackstone UOA from Feb. '20 is a total of 10ppm metals in 5100 miles. 10/5.1=1.96ppm per 1000 miles.
The three QSFS 5W30 UOAs from Nov. '22 to May '23:
10ppm total metals in 5400 miles. 10/5.4=1.85ppm per 1000 miles.
12ppm total metals in 5000 miles. 12/5.0=2.4ppm per 1000 miles.
10ppm total metals in 5000 miles. 10/5.0=2.0ppm per 1000 miles.

Now let's look at the more recent UOAs from Dec. '23 through Nov. '24:
20ppm total metals in 4900 miles. 20/4.9=4.08ppm per 1000 miles.
32ppm total metals in 6100 miles. 32/6.1=5.25ppm per 1000 miles.
22ppm total metals in 4000 miles. 22/4.0=5.5ppm per 1000 miles.

1. At the end ypu are confirming what we are saying.
2. Only comparison I am interested in is the one from same laboratory. I do Blackstone mostly, but I did also some testing with SOPUS, and wear metals are only consistent between samples in the SAME lab!
His UOA is consistent between samples in the same lab!

 

[himemsys]

Only comparison I am interested in is the one from same laboratory. I do Blackstone mostly, but I did also some testing with SOPUS, and wear metals are only consistent between samples in the SAME lab!

In that case,

The three QSFS 5W30 UOAs from Nov. '22 to May '23:
10ppm total metals in 5400 miles. 10/5.4=1.85ppm per 1000 miles.
12ppm total metals in 5000 miles. 12/5.0=2.4ppm per 1000 miles.
10ppm total metals in 5000 miles. 10/5.0=2.0ppm per 1000 miles.

These three samples are from the same lab as

Now let's look at the more recent UOAs from Dec. '23 through Nov. '24:
20ppm total metals in 4900 miles. 20/4.9=4.08ppm per 1000 miles.
32ppm total metals in 6100 miles. 32/6.1=5.25ppm per 1000 miles.
22ppm total metals in 4000 miles. 22/4.0=5.5ppm per 1000 miles.

The first three are averaging about 2.1ppm metals per 1000 miles. The second three are averaging 4.9ppm metals per 1000 miles.

From the same lab.

4.9 is more than double 2.1.

 

[himemsys]

If you just want to focus on Fe, then the three samples from late 2022 to May 2023 are averaging 1.04ppm per 1000 miles. The three samples from Dec. 2023 to Nov. 2024 are averaging 3.13ppm per 1000 miles.

That's 3x higher Fe on same car from previous year to current year.

I don't understand why I'm having to spell this out. I thought OPs comments and the UOAs he posted made it clear.

 

[edyvw]

In that case,

These three samples are from the same lab as

The first three are averaging about 2.1ppm metals per 1000 miles. The second three are averaging 4.9ppm metals per 1000 miles.

From the same lab.

4.9 is more than double 2.1.

Driving patterns? More city less hwy? Summer vs. Winter?
My two samples between summer with heavy track use and winter, with no track use in the same engine, show exactly same wear! And track usage had sessions as long as 1 1/2hrs long with no pit stop at 5,100ft altitude and 101f ambient temperature.
Unless it is dramatic departure, from 6 to 40ppm, tgere is no issue. That is why it is called Used oil analysis not used engine analysis.
Oil is fine! Engine too.

 

[edyvw]

If you just want to focus on Fe, then the three samples from late 2022 to May 2023 are averaging 1.04ppm per 1000 miles. The three samples from Dec. 2023 to Nov. 2024 are averaging 3.13ppm per 1000 miles.

That's 3x higher Fe on same car from previous year to current year.

I don't understand why I'm having to spell this out. I thought OPs comments and the UOAs he posted made it clear.

That is nothing! If his wear metals jump from 6ppm to 40, we can have conversation. That difference can be due to numerous variables outside his control. Cold weather, more city miles, etc, etc.
If this ends up being something like 30ppm next year, from same laboratory, then there is an issue.

 

[himemsys]

That is nothing! If his wear metals jump from 6ppm to 40, we can have conversation.

Then we will agree to disagree. Personally, if my iron averaged 5 over 3 OCIs in one year, then jumped to 15 the next year, I'd be wondering why. In OPs own words,

Not happy with this, these are the two worst reports I have gotten for this engine.

 

[edyvw]

Then we will agree to disagree. Personally, if my iron averaged 5 over 3 OCIs in one year, then jumped to 15 the next year, I'd be wondering why. In OPs own words,

Oh by the way, I forgot different oils leach metals differently.
He needs to stick to one oil and one lab. If one wants to investigate potential issue, let’s say potentially engine issue, then other variables must be controlled. And basic methodology rule is same oil and lab.
That comment about difference between Castrol 0W40 and M1 is absolutely irrelevant as UOA is done by different labs.

I would pick one oil, and one lab, and do then 3-4 UOA, if OP suspects issue.