The issue with Euro cars in North America and oils

Status
Not open for further replies.
I assumed that since the service bulletin has changed the oil spec from TWS to 5w-30 LL01 that TWS was the original oil spec for the S62 engine.

By the way....what do BMW e90/92 M3 owners use in Canada in winter?
 
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: felixthecat
If the person who designed your engine recommended TWS, would you use it?


If the actual team of engineers that designed the S62 said to use TWS, yes. However, from what I recall, TWS came into existence for the M3 engines (which had a rod bearing problem), NOT the S62. It was then just later spec'd for the S62.
just want to add that the engine in question was the S54 and the rod bearing spoken about was due to mismatched bearing tolerances which affected only a finite number of E46 M3.
 
Originally Posted By: BMWTurboDzl
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: felixthecat
If the person who designed your engine recommended TWS, would you use it?


If the actual team of engineers that designed the S62 said to use TWS, yes. However, from what I recall, TWS came into existence for the M3 engines (which had a rod bearing problem), NOT the S62. It was then just later spec'd for the S62.
just want to add that the engine in question was the S54 and the rod bearing spoken about was due to mismatched bearing tolerances which affected only a finite number of E46 M3.


That's the one! And TWS was basically a "band-aid" (at the time) that was supposed to provide enough cushion to prevent failure IIRC.

But because of the development/collaboration that was involved, TWS was then spec'd pretty much across the board, which included the S62, which, IIRC, was originally designed around the defacto (at the time) BMW 5w30.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
That's the one! And TWS was basically a "band-aid" (at the time) that was supposed to provide enough cushion to prevent failure IIRC.

All we know for sure is that TWS was introduced before the other fixes. It may have been a band-aid, it may have been necessary for the later fixes they released, or it may have been in the pipeline to be released anyway and just released early to make people feel like BMW was taking action.
 
[quote
That's the one! And TWS was basically a "band-aid" (at the time) that was supposed to provide enough cushion to prevent failure IIRC.

But because of the development/collaboration that was involved, TWS was then spec'd pretty much across the board, which included the S62 .... [/quote]

Do you have any info to back up this statement?
What happened for you to have such an opinion on TWS since this post?
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2303576&page=1
 
Originally Posted By: felixthecat
Quote:

That's the one! And TWS was basically a "band-aid" (at the time) that was supposed to provide enough cushion to prevent failure IIRC.

But because of the development/collaboration that was involved, TWS was then spec'd pretty much across the board, which included the S62 ....


Do you have any info to back up this statement?
What happened for you to have such an opinion on TWS since this post?
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2303576&page=1


A lot of reading on m5board, LOL! I'm glad you brought that up however.

That thread was when I was considering a 2000, instead of the 2001 that I purchased that doesn't "require" the TWS.

Though interesting note:

There are guys on M5board with 03/00 and earlier cars deviating from TWS as well......


A quote from Doug Hillary:

Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
As Castrol and BMW have a very serious Technical liaison now that goes back many years I believe that BP-Castrol created a special formulation version of the 10W-60. This was to solve some "issues" for BMW and to ensure a unique FF lubricant. I can't confirm the details but IIRC this occurred about the time of the BP takeover of Castrol when all Contracts were up for grabs

This type of thing is not uncommon. It happens with FF lubricants were extra chemical dosing is needed for specific reasons which include the metallurgy in a certain engine family - and even in gearboxes and etc as you will be very aware of"


Which is from this thread:

http://m3forum.net/m3forum/showthread.php?t=295656

And is in reference to the S54
 
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: BMWTurboDzl
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: felixthecat
If the person who designed your engine recommended TWS, would you use it?


If the actual team of engineers that designed the S62 said to use TWS, yes. However, from what I recall, TWS came into existence for the M3 engines (which had a rod bearing problem), NOT the S62. It was then just later spec'd for the S62.
just want to add that the engine in question was the S54 and the rod bearing spoken about was due to mismatched bearing tolerances which affected only a finite number of E46 M3.
I remember reading the bulletin regarding spun bearings for the E46M3 and I don't remember TWS being suggested as a remedy (IIRC it was a situation were a dept didn't get the memo literally.). Perhaps BMW saw need to make th change to TWS because sp many M3s were getting tracked?
l

That's the one! And TWS was basically a "band-aid" (at the time) that was supposed to provide enough cushion to prevent failure IIRC.

But because of the development/collaboration that was involved, TWS was then spec'd pretty much across the board, which included the S62, which, IIRC, was originally designed around the defacto (at the time) BMW 5w30.
 
Originally Posted By: felixthecat
I must say from all the reading I make a different conclusion.


Feel free to read the oil threads on m5board. Draw your own conclusions based on that sir, not just the little thread on the M3 forum I mentioned above. This is a very heated topic.

Though I do find it rather funny that the guy with the most miles doesn't use TWS, LOL!

Oh, and we've now thoroughly derailed this thread! LOL!

BTW, my oil temps have never even hit 100C. They've gotten close, and I'm sure on the track I could get them up there, but I apparently can't drive it hard enough on the street to get them that high.
 
There's also the issue of 10W vs. 0W as if the viscosity difference isn't already large enough to be of concern in winter. Below 0F, 10W and 5W oils diverge (even more, in this case) very dramatically in viscosity. Almost all engine mfr's recommend to use 0W/5W below 0F. I feel bad for the M3 guys that are forced to run this oil year-round. Considering TWS shears so quickly, I'd probably run a 5W50 that can maintain grade as an alternative in winter.

http://www.zddplus.com/TechBrief13 - Oil Viscosity.pdf
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: felixthecat
I must say from all the reading I make a different conclusion.


Feel free to read the oil threads on m5board. Draw your own conclusions based on that sir, not just the little thread on the M3 forum I mentioned above. This is a very heated topic.

Though I do find it rather funny that the guy with the most miles doesn't use TWS, LOL!


Oh, and we've now thoroughly derailed this thread! LOL!

BTW, my oil temps have never even hit 100C. They've gotten close, and I'm sure on the track I could get them up there, but I apparently can't drive it hard enough on the street to get them that high.



It is only a heated topic because no one knows the whole story and the people who have the answers do not frequent the forums.
Your temperature stays below 100C in summer sitting in traffic?
 
What im saying is that we can see a significant
engine failure frequensy increase on engines that runs
2000-3000 mil oci´S (12,5 kmiles-18,75 kmiles) compared
to those who follow the once or twice a year rule.
As for the acea classification i dunno- i simply looks for the API classification and since i uses HDEO i dont bother for
longlivety or other things- if it´s good enough for an
timber hauling scania v8 its good enough for me
 
Originally Posted By: felixthecat
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: felixthecat
I must say from all the reading I make a different conclusion.


Feel free to read the oil threads on m5board. Draw your own conclusions based on that sir, not just the little thread on the M3 forum I mentioned above. This is a very heated topic.

Though I do find it rather funny that the guy with the most miles doesn't use TWS, LOL!


Oh, and we've now thoroughly derailed this thread! LOL!

BTW, my oil temps have never even hit 100C. They've gotten close, and I'm sure on the track I could get them up there, but I apparently can't drive it hard enough on the street to get them that high.



It is only a heated topic because no one knows the whole story and the people who have the answers do not frequent the forums.
Your temperature stays below 100C in summer sitting in traffic?


That's exactly it
grin.gif


Nobody really knows. BMW had a spec, changed the spec, put a date on the spec, and that, combined with the history of the development of the lube in question leaves you with a lot of ???? and no solid answers
grin.gif


And of course we don't have S62's failing left,right and centre. And I am one of MANY who aren't using TWS in it.

And yes, sitting in traffic, my oil temps have never hit 100C. Even on a 30+ degree day here.
 
I would like to say that just because an Auto manufacturer hasn't TESTED a particular brand or oil weight for their engines, does not mean it isnt suitable.

For instance, M1 15w-50 and 5w-30 probably are just as long lasting oil as the M1 0w-40 but BMW NA likely picked the 0w-40 as the best choice. They likely thought: "15w-50 is too thick to be recommended for all weather and driving conditions."

However, 15w-50 is probably a much better choice than 0w-40 for someone who uses their BMW in warm weather for high performance driving or road course conditions, and would be ignorant to choose an oil based only on whether it has LL-01 approval
 
Originally Posted By: EricJRoy
For instance, M1 15w-50 and 5w-30 probably are just as long lasting oil as the M1 0w-40 but BMW NA likely picked the 0w-40 as the best choice.

M1 5w-30 would fail the BMW LL-01 certification for the simple reason that it doesn't have sufficient enough HT/HS.

M1 15w-50 might work since it meets the requirements of ACEA A3 which is the basis for the BMW LL spec.
 
M1 0w40 has a TBN of 11.8

They don't list the TBN for the other two. And without that information, determining how long the oil will last will require a series of UOA's.

And whether the 15w50 is a "better" choice or not is going to completely depend on oil temperature.

Now, that being said, if their 15w50 is a "better" choice, then why is their 0w40 the oil of choice for LeMans, Daytona and other high performance racing events in Porsche and Mercedes vehicles?
 
Originally Posted By: EricJRoy
I would like to say that just because an Auto manufacturer hasn't TESTED a particular brand or oil weight for their engines, does not mean it isnt suitable.

Correct. What it means is that there's no way to know in advance whether it's suitable.


Originally Posted By: EricJRoy
For instance, M1 15w-50 and 5w-30 probably are just as long lasting oil as the M1 0w-40 but BMW NA likely picked the 0w-40 as the best choice. They likely thought: "15w-50 is too thick to be recommended for all weather and driving conditions."

However, 15w-50 is probably a much better choice than 0w-40 for someone who uses their BMW in warm weather for high performance driving or road course conditions,

You say this based on what?
 
Originally Posted By: EricJRoy
I would like to say that just because an Auto manufacturer hasn't TESTED a particular brand or oil weight for their engines, does not mean it isnt suitable.


But what it does mean is that it would never be used by me.

Being the test vehicle isn't for me.
 
Last edited:
I said "I would like to say.." not I would like to explain what I said. I think people are too afraid to make a decision for themselves based on facts, so they follow, thats all.
 
Hi,
The issue of why BMW chose to use a specific 10w-60 lubricant in certain engines has been well and accurately covered in here already. The collaboration between a specific Lubricant supplier and an engine (vehicle) Manufacturer is well known too. In the case of Euro Manufacturers the liaison with lubricant suppliers goes back nearly 100 years!

BMW has been experimenting with low viscosity lubricants for several years and their recommendations over the last decade or so are the product of extensive in-house and third party testing and results analysis. They are valid and IMO should be followed with confidence!

Lubricants have been variously used by vehicle Manufacturers to solve in-service “issues” that cannot be rectified immediately “on line”. Perhaps the first volume example of this was in 1958-9 with the the Austin/Morris “Mini” and the 20W-50 lubricant (the first wide range multigrade) developed by Duckhams for use in its combined engine/gearbox shared lubrication! Others followed over time and at some point specific lubricants have had their place in engines, gearboxes, auto transmissions and differentials – in cars through to heavy trucks

The Internet Forums and some “specialist” Service providers can be the source of serious misinformation!! Take the example of a Porsche “specialist” in Sydney Australia. He advised Owners to use a 25W-70 (70-IIRC) mineral lubricant in their V8 Porsche 928s (16V and 32V, both versions hydraulically adjusted) to solve “low oil pressure at idle”. Early 16V 928s had the oil pump modified to correct this. He maintained he had been advised to do this years earlier when an employee at a Porsche Dealership. He also proclaimed that serious cam wear resulted from using synthetic lubricants in these engines! A thorough search of Factory Spec sheets, TSBs and Handbooks showed that this lubricant viscosity had never ever been mentioned let alone been approved by the Factory Access to Parts supply and Warranty information (and the TSBs) showed NO evidence of any cam wear issues! The Factory had advised using a 5W-40 synthetic (and some other viscosities for example – 0W-40 and 10W-40) years earlier. These engines (32V) have a typical coolant temp around 93C with the intercooled bulk oil temp only a few degrees higher – even at high ambient temps. An Owner brought this issue to me when experiencing slow starts at -5C in Australia’s Snowy Mountains, when using the 25W-70 lubricant. Subsequent dyno tests in the US showed that these engines were on OP relief (5bar IIRC) at 4k RPM on M1 15W-50 at 100C - and this lubricant has great hot flow characteristics! In this example of misinformation from an “expert” it’s worth noting that these engines feel “constipated” when using viscosities above 5W and SAE40 - due to the valve control mechanisms and other lubrication system restrictions. A 5W-40 synthetic “liberates” them!!

My previously quoted comments about BP, Castrol and the 10W-60 lubricants are relevant and accurate. Castrol introduced these lubricants around 1977 as Formula R Synthetic 15W-50 – red in colour - and with a characteristic castor based lubricant’s exhaust odour too. I assisted in the development of this lubricant over several years in many engine families – Euro, Japanese and NA - from motorbikes to light high speed diesel engines. In light high speed Japanese diesel engines it achieved OCIs of up to 3500hrs (est 280kkms). I used it as my base lubricant for nearly two decades in many engine families.

The two modern current variants are excellent lubricants and perform very well where a 10W-60 synthetic is specified. In my opinion they should only be used where prescribed and not used when a lighter viscosity lubricant is specified for the application

As suggested earlier BMW Owners will ultimately get the best results if they follow BMW’s recommendations regarding lubricant specifications – including viscosities – for their specific application
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

W
  • Locked
Castrol Euro Oil Changes
2
Replies
24
Views
3K
dogememe
V
Highest viscosity euro 40wt oils
Replies
13
Views
757
FCD
H
2024 Jetta Oil
3 4 5
Replies
85
Views
5K
TiGeo
roninsoldier83
Recommended time based oil change on BMW N52?
2
Replies
26
Views
520
Kantaro
E
Seeking Advice! OCI on 2013 BMW 328i N52 (with Under Cover pics)
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
svenson
Back
Top