non LL-01 in BMW?

Pennzoil motor oil
Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: fokvoort
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Originally Posted By: fokvoort
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Well, SynPower 5w30 isn't approved, so...
Wrong, so...

http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Content/Owner/SyntheticEngineOils.aspx


It's nice to be so strongly contradicted when I'm right.

As-if an OEM never made an error...

I guess it's a lot to expect a customer/poster to know that the oem is incorrect, but I'd expect a new member here to be a bit more polite and simply ask a sr member to clarify something for them. Maybe my expectations are too high.
Perfectly fair to take an OEM claim over that of a poster's, regardless of their post count.

And you weren't right; SynPower 5w30 is approved, in the MST variant. If you knew that, why not post it?

I'll agree, it's sometimes asking a bit extra for a consumer to know when an OEM dropped the ball.

It's certainly not asking much to expect politeness between all members of a forum, which is why I was surprised when you closed your post with "so...", which written or spoken is rude when left to hang at the end of a curt, not-elborated-upon incorrect correction.

I'd expect a veteran member here to be a bit more polite and simply clarify something for a new member. Maybe my expectations are too high.

For someone with only 27 posts, you would think you would tread a tad more lightly.
Respect takes time.
 
Originally Posted By: andrewg
For someone with only 27 posts, you would think you would tread a tad more lightly.
Respect takes time.
Seriously, it's a two-way street and has nothing to do with number of posts.

The only people who trot out seniority to excuse rudeness are ones who haven't got anything legitimate to turn to.

I think Audi Junkie is well capable of handling his own business. As I suggested in another thread veering off topic, if you'd like to continue in PM with me, please do.
 
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
When authoritatively declaring to use only an "approved oil", it's best to actually be correct with the info you are trying to pass along to other members.
Completely agreed. And it's perfectly reasonable to believe that BMW would have the correct list posted to their website. It's so happens they don't regarding one particular oil.

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
I'm not sure how much effort I'm supposed to put into that, other than to make the correction.
I'd say enough effort to make it better than half a correction; again SuperSyn 5w30 -- in the MST variant -- is the correct oil.

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
There is a search function available for any other grey areas you may encounter.
You have a fine sense of understatement and I can't deny cracking a smile.

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=search
That link, however, goes to a sign-in page, even when one is already signed in.

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
or like I said, you could have just asked.
Or, like I already asked, if you knew that SuperSyn 5w30 MST was the correct oil, why not post it?

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
For the record, I'm the person who originally caught the error, and confirmed it with a helpful Valvoline Tech. So, yeah, old news and not too exciting for me to make a long post about. Sorry about that.
How long a post is needed to say "x" isn't approved, "x MST" is?
 
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Originally Posted By: fokvoort
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Well, SynPower 5w30 isn't approved, so...
Wrong, so...

http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Content/Owner/SyntheticEngineOils.aspx


You must have known I said that for a reason, right?

Instead of double checking or asking, you told me I was ~wrong~.

Now we are all on the same page, finally.
Yes, I knew you said it for a reason. And since BMW's official list contradicted you, and you didn't explain yourself beyond a brief, incomplete post that added a little attitude at the end, I figured your reason was being wrong.

But BMW was wrong, and therefore so was I.

Instead of necessitating double-checking or following up with you, why not add the extra sentence that enlightens the reader from the get-go?

Same page still?
 
Originally Posted By: fokvoort
Originally Posted By: andrewg
For someone with only 27 posts, you would think you would tread a tad more lightly.
Respect takes time.
Seriously, it's a two-way street and has nothing to do with number of posts.

The only people who trot out seniority to excuse rudeness are ones who haven't got anything legitimate to turn to.

I think Audi Junkie is well capable of handling his own business. As I suggested in another thread veering off topic, if you'd like to continue in PM with me, please do.

Pardon me, didn't mean to 'handle' Audi Junkie's business at all. Merely pointing out that I've never encountered somebody like you on this forum before. You make bold and arrogant statements as though only YOU are right. You certainly are entitled to an opinion.....we all are. But when giving one it is probably best to be clear that these are YOUR OPINIONS and others that view things differently aren't simply 'wrong' or need 'correction' (as in other thread) because you say so. I'm not even saying that I don't agree with you....but seriously, you are like a bull in a china shop. In under 30 posts it seems apparent (in my opinion) that you enjoy ruffling feathers.....has nothing to do with seniority.
 
Originally Posted By: andrewg
Pardon me, didn't mean to 'handle' Audi Junkie's business at all. Merely pointing out that I've never encountered somebody like you on this forum before. You make bold and arrogant statements as though only YOU are right. You certainly are entitled to an opinion.....we all are. But when giving one it is probably best to be clear that these are YOUR OPINIONS and others that view things differently aren't simply 'wrong' or need 'correction' (as in other thread) because you say so. I'm not even saying that I don't agree with you....but seriously, you are like a bull in a china shop. In under 30 posts it seems apparent (in my opinion) that you enjoy ruffling feathers.....has nothing to do with seniority.
It's too bad you're carrying this across threads. PM exists for a reason.

You're also obsessed with post size, but so be it.

You've gotten me entirely wrong: I don't like ruffling feathers, at all really. I particularly don't enjoy ongoing, off-topic rotten exchanges.

But I also, like most, really don't like having my feathers ruffled -- and before any of my pointed posts, I'll direct you to an abrasive post that preceded it.

I've accounted for where I was mistaken in this thread and why. You can't say the same for yourself in the other thread to which you refer, so consider your observations as they apply to you, and the implications that has for taking your own advice.
 
Ok, we could have ended this LONG ago.

Let's just place the blame on me for my overly sensitive detector.

Our new friend's contentions only make sense if he was either correct or polite, and he was neither.

Much of what's gained from being at Bob's is learning not to [censored]ume anything. Guys who have been around a while would know there's a reason someone would contradict a mfg approval sheet. I would at least assert that I've been here long enough to know that sheets can be wrong, *that's* where the seniority thing comes in.
 
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Ok, we could have ended this LONG ago.

Let's just place the blame on me for my overly sensitive detector.

Our new friend's contentions only make sense if he was either correct or polite, and he was neither.

Much of what's gained from being at Bob's is learning not to [censored]ume anything. Guys who have been around a while would know there's a reason someone would contradict a mfg approval sheet. I would at least assert that I've been here long enough to know that sheets can be wrong, *that's* where the seniority thing comes in.

Well said. I apologize for taking this thread off topic in any way. I should just keep my trap shut...lol.
 
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Ok, we could have ended this LONG ago.

Let's just place the blame on me for my overly sensitive detector.

Our new friend's contentions only make sense if he was either correct or polite, and he was neither.

Much of what's gained from being at Bob's is learning not to [censored]ume anything. Guys who have been around a while would know there's a reason someone would contradict a mfg approval sheet. I would at least assert that I've been here long enough to know that sheets can be wrong, *that's* where the seniority thing comes in.
Apparently being around a while makes you feel comfortable leading with impoliteness, which is how I interpret your initial post replying to me. Apparently being around a while also leads you to feel affronted when someone responds to your rudeness in kind, which is what I did.

Taking blame for an overly sensitive detector isn't taking any blame at all.

My contentions make sense if you consider there was reasonable cause to believe I was correct, which there was, and that nobody likes being spoken down to apropos of nothing, which you did.

I failed in assuming BMW's sheets were right. I accept that. But your contentions make sense only if you were either complete or polite -- you were neither.
 
Not really.

You said to use an approved oil, and listed one that wasn't actually approved. I corrected that error, and contracted my caution against using it down to a series of three periods, which you found offensive...for some reason.

So, now I'll reverse myself and say maybe it was YOUR detector that was overly sensitive. You failed to pick up on the clear direction I gave on the matter, and arrogantly demanded a full and complete explanation, when the error was on your part.

So, if you must know (and at this point I think you need to hear it) that's the fact of the matter.

Part of the reason I'm a bit fatigued is from the frequent disbelief many newer people express when I tell them this or that oil is thicker or thinner at whatever temp. Noone seems ready to believe that a 0w oil can be thicker than a 5w and so on and so on. Believe me, I employ the tools and data here to great effect.

Personally, I'm a little shocked that new people can read the words of someone who's experienced here, and then flat-out tell them that they know better. When I came to this forum, it was full of experts, whom I would not contradict. This was the case until I well knew a thing or two about the subject.

Honestly, if you can't get past a little issue like being wrong about a spec sheet, you may have a rough ride here. My guess if it wasn't for the spec sheet issue, you'd be arguing with me that no other oil then the old LL-01 spec is acceptable for your precious BMW. I've been around the block a few times, trust me when I state facts.
 
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Not really.

You said to use an approved oil, and listed one that wasn't actually approved. I corrected that error, and contracted my caution against using it down to a series of three periods, which you found offensive...for some reason.

I've made clear what offended me. If you can't consider that you might have posted something a reasonable individual might interpret as needlessly insulting, there's nothing to discuss.

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
So, now I'll reverse myself and say maybe it was YOUR detector that was overly sensitive. You failed to pick up on the clear direction I gave on the matter, and arrogantly demanded a full and complete explanation, when the error was on your part.

So, if you must know (and at this point I think you need to hear it) that's the fact of the matter.
Technically speaking, if a detector is overly sensitive, by definition it doesn't fail to pick up on things. Your logic's delaminating. As to your point, I didn't fail to pick up on a clear direction, a clear direction was contradicted by an otherwise superior source that should have been correct but happened not to be.

No matter the high opinion you hold of yourself, earned or not, I'll go with the car manufacturer over the screen name any day, and usually be right. The race isn't always to the swift nor the battle to the strongest, but that's the way to bet. This was the rare case it wasn't, which I have already (and repeatedly) acknowledged.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "arrogantly demanding a full and complete explanation," but if you mean my asking why, after stating that SynPower 5w30 wasn't an approved oil, you didn't further clarify that however SynPower 5w30 MST was, the question is perfectly fair. Over several posts you've intimated that you knew not only which oil wasn't approved, but which one was; not to include that in your "corrective" post makes you seem obnoxiously coy.

Unless, otherwise, you didn't know that the MST variant was approved but won't acknowledge it, which is what I suspect.

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Part of the reason I'm a bit fatigued is from the frequent disbelief many newer people express when I tell them this or that oil is thicker or thinner at whatever temp. Noone seems ready to believe that a 0w oil can be thicker than a 5w and so on and so on. Believe me, I employ the tools and data here to great effect.
I don't doubt that you do, but what you're referring to here has nothing to do with me and I don't care to be the repository for your unrelated frustration. Again, it was perfectly reasonable for me to assume BMW knew better about their engines than you. Guess what? They do. However, some [censored] data processor somewhere failed to finish typing "MST" onto a BMW document and here what are going rounds over it.

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Personally, I'm a little shocked that new people can read the words of someone who's experienced here, and then flat-out tell them that they know better.
Please see statement above. I do not think I know more than you about oil. Apparently you feel others you have encountered do. That's your issue with them. I think BMW knows more about their engines than you, just not more about translating that knowledge accurately and completely to one specific document. We clear here?

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
When I came to this forum, it was full of experts, whom I would not contradict. This was the case until I well knew a thing or two about the subject.
Please see last two statements.

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Honestly, if you can't get past a little issue like being wrong about a spec sheet, you may have a rough ride here.
How exactly does that statement make any sense when I've acknowledged the spec sheet being wrong, BMW being wrong, and my being wrong for going by it, repeatedly prior to this post?

If you can't deal with the issues presented -- namely why something you originally posted might have had something to do with the response you got -- but instead return repeatedly to lesser points already conceded, I presume the rough ride is for anyone who has to deal with you in a substantive way.

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
My guess if it wasn't for the spec sheet issue, you'd be arguing with me that no other oil then the old LL-01 spec is acceptable for your precious BMW.
You'd guess wrong; I took exception to an attitude, not a spec sheet. And your use of "your precious BMW" indicates dimensions brought to this argument that are outside its scope.

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
I've been around the block a few times, trust me when I state facts.
Do get over yourself -- there's always a little more block to go around. But I'll gladly trust what you have to say about oil, because I can see you know a lot.

I'll also acknowledge I took offense where it appears you meant none.

But I'll be taking it on the kind of faith you suggest I take when you state facts, because I haven't seen it.
 
Originally Posted By: fokvoort

No matter the high opinion you hold of yourself, earned or not, I'll go with the car manufacturer over the screen name any day, and usually be right.


Today isn't that day.
33.gif
 
Originally Posted By: faranks

"Audi Junkie", I think in CH 1, paragraph 4, it implies you are confused by telling me the oil is too thin. All 30 grade oil has a thickness of 10 at 212F .


Sorry about the distraction. As you probably determined by now, the SAE grading system is a range of approx 9-something to 12-something. I suppose a little bit of difference in visc matters because some of the thicker range oils can meet the 3.5cP HT/HS (+150c visc) of the Euro specs, while the 10cSt at +100c 30 weights fall under 3cP at +150c. The HT/HS is an important spec, but often the thinner 30 (USA-blend, like SynPower 5w30) oils work fine due to the reduced operating temps compared to the Autobahn-style testing of Euro specs.

The best advice coming from this would be to say to change viscs for seasons, as 5w-40 spec oil (14cSt) can end up twice as thick as the thin 5w30s just below freezing.

I hope that helps not only answer your question, but explains the whole situation as well.
 
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
I feel I need to address all this cold startup noise since "90% of engine wear occurs on startup".


The 90% of wear that occurs at start up is a marketing exploitation of SAE's nomenclature of the first 20 minutes of driving. It's the warm up phase to 'steady state". Essentially it's when the engine is thermally saturated. The wear is totally unavoidable and is made up of a mix of ill fitment of parts, additives that don't like to work when cold, and corrosive components of combustion byproducts coupled with inherent moisture contained in the combustion process. You could eliminate some of it by trumping the fuel enrichment process with a block warmer. Even if doubled or halved, that 90% of that wear, in most climates, with contemporary fuel management systems, doesn't enter the realm of "significant" in engine life.


That certainly sounds intelligent and I hope it is true, but if you heard all this noise on startup you would wonder. This motor has 130k and runs great, but has always made me cringe on cold startup. BITOG makes this 90% claim about startup wear, anyone else agree/disagree?
 
Originally Posted By: faranks

"Audi Junkie", I think in CH 1, paragraph 4, it implies you are confused by telling me the oil is too thin. All 30 grade oil has a thickness of 10 at 212F .

Hey sorry if you took offense to this, I meant none, (or were you offended by Fokvoort)? Anyways, appreciate your last post, sorry you two got into it.

Anyways, I was hoping to stay within the facts presented by BITOG's homepage, and questioning if I was interpreting correctly. No one seemed to answer in reference to that.

More confusing is that "Bob" states in Ch.1, "please forget about those numbers on the can", but then that's all he talks about. He references AW-M, BW-N, CW-P as being more important, but that's the last you see of those??

I used to be a motorcycle roadracer/engine builder and have dyno/track tested many oils in racing conditions. I may not have a chemical engineering background, but have witnessed in person, bearing/cylinder wall/camshaft wear differences between oils. 15,000 RPM sustained will make things happen.
 
I'll have to look at it, but the homepage is kind of dated.

In regards to start-up wear, all you want to do is minimise it, not eliminate it or sacrifice other parameters in favour of it. This is why I mention thin 10cSt 30 weight oils. They will offer the lowest possible starting visc (for you) and are not so thin when heated that it will cause excess wear *after* warm-up.

I don't think we see huge differences in wear based on visc alone. The idea should be to optimise oil choice, not to expect miracles from any one product.

In your climate, cold start is a non-issue. Try ANY 10w30, do a used oil analysis and compare to a thicker oil. I don't think you will see any reduced wear and you will see reduced mpg. With a 5w30, only the slightest of gain in any area vs 10w30.

If you are into it, check out this visc comparo graphic calc. You can lower the temp range and see how different oils compare. Also you are able to enter the data from any oils you want for comparison.

http://www.widman.biz/English/Calculators/Graph.html


Bottom line is that the service you practice itself is more important than any visc choices. That is, don't go 15k to prove a point nor out of ignorance. I say to decide on a set number times a year you WANT to change oil and then do it with with an oil quality that lets you go the miles you anticipate in that time. Then you can tweek the visc for seasons.

So, if you drive 15k a year, you can either do 2 changes of synthetic or 3, maybe 4 of dino. See?
 
When I say "cold start" I'm talking about an engine that hasn't ran in a while and sounds like there are parts that are oil starved for a second or so. I'm not talking about ambient temp, it doesn't get cold here.

I'm gonna run this 0w30 to see if what I am hearing gets any better. If not, I'll drain it. If so then I'll take it out in a few thousand miles and do a used oil analysis.

Thanks for all the info
 
If you are not going to use LL01 oil, at least use ACEA A3,B3 oil as stated in the owners manual. Mobil 1 0W40 is readily available, why not use it as Mobil 1 0W30 is to thin and the HTHS is to low?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
LL-01 0w-30 recommendation
2
Replies
33
Views
21K
Ibrahim
L
  • Locked
LL-01 oil...
Replies
8
Views
2K
Littlebear
C
  • Locked
Can benz and bmw use ACDelco motor oil?
Replies
19
Views
10K
PandaBear
H
  • Locked
Is BMW LL-01 an indication of Group 3 and Group 4/5 synthetic?
Replies
16
Views
10K
hungdynasty
B
  • Locked
BMW LL Certified Oils?
Replies
18
Views
8K
jpr
Back
Top Bottom