0W-40 vs 10W-60

[swamp2]

No idea why the other thread got closed, perhaps useless insults while I was away... Anyway, just can't resist the immense falsities so here goes an attempt at a civil continuation.

regular_guy said

That's correct swamp, I'm not an academic and I don't pretend to be; so I'm obviously naive and uninformed when it comes to academic issues and discussions. I spend as much time telling people that I'm not an expert and asking legitimate questions as time you spend telling people about your five master's degrees and pretending to be an expert on everything. So there's quite a bit of irony here in being accused of thinking more highly about myself than is warranted.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, no if's and's or but's. The papers I have refered to are INDUSTRIAL TECHNICAL papers not academic. The primary difference being the level of technical content and originality along with the missing peer review process. SAE papers though definitely represent a good cross section of much of the engineering work done in the automotive segment, world wide.

I never boast about my degrees. However, both that experience along with my experience as a professional mechanical engineer obviously inform my disposition, skepticism and appreciation for the things I do not know. I too have readily admitted my lack of formal experience in automotive engineering. My approach rather than being an expert on everything is acknowledging the good and relevant work done my other engineers. Things you and other clearly don't seem to want to acknowledge or even admit exist.

But I see from above that you still can't answer without changing and reframing the question from something it's not into something you want it to be for your own agenda. Once again you missed the forest through the trees. And I see you can't even do that without fabricating a false story line and false premise to go along with it. If you're trying to be a teacher, it's not working.

None of my questions were answered. Big surprise.

I don't have an agenda except reaching a true understanding of the issues surrounding the small number of bearing failures. That being said I certainly do have an agenda of fighting unfounded or clear BS positions. If the wealth of information, links and posts in my prior post gave you absolutely no new perspective on engine oil systems and optimization then you are basically unteachable. Not my fault. Talk about pig-headed. Unreal. I learn something in just about any paper I read on automotive engineering. You could too.

And just to remind you, your points to SFP were discussed and addressed one after the other, clearly demonstrating how various lubrication system components are optimized and how the viscosity of the oil is a relevant parameter that clearly affects the design. It's really too bad if you don't understand "optimized WITH" vs. "optimized FOR". It's not that subtle. As I stated before the nominal oil viscosity, at operating temperature goes directly into the calculations, equations, simulations, optimizations, testing, etc. for all of these lubrication components and systems. The resulting design decisions (i.e. actual component shapes/sizes) therefore depend on the particular value of the viscosity. Change the viscosity and in most cases slightly different parts would result. I really don't see how much more clear that can be.

[swamp2]

Well then there is BMRLVR who is so adept at misrepresenting what I have said....

BMRLVR said,

Let's see where swamp has gone with the oil/rod bearing discussion

First: 10W60 is the only oil one should use in the S65. There is no bearing issue, BMW engineered it this way for a reason.

Nope, sorry categorically false, I never said that and don't believe it. Stop putting words in my mouth. Others certainly seem to have said as much and I haven't agreed with them. However, as to the last but after the comma, absolutely correct.

Second: 0W40 would be ok but I would not use it. Engine was designed around 10W60.

Again, nope, never said it. You have me completely confused with someone else.

Third: I have switched to 0W40 and feel it may help with the issue (first there was no issue?)

Well since I don't really believe there is a big issue my personal change was exactly as described which I will repeat again for the 4th or 5th time. Try as you might you can't twist my words and opinions to your agenda.

Again....There are quite small differences between these oil choices. The lower viscosity oil should offer some simplistically justified (perhaps over simplified...) benefits if there are cold start or running starvation issues. Although it probably will admit some minor disadvantages it seems like cheap insurance just in case these issue are more widespread than the DATA indicate. That being said, I also doubt that something as minor as this change will offer complete nor guaranteed protection against all instances of bearing wear.

PERIOD, PERIOD, PERIOD. Not some part of that, not some twisted version of it. That and that alone is MY point of view.

Fourth: The lubrication system is good to handle other viscosities....... But there are both pluses and minuses from using the 0W40.

Yes. Correct.

Are you dizzy? I know my head is spinning!!!

It's only tough to follow when you can't handle the least bit of nuance. It's really not that challenging, just read it again and try to either quote it or restate it accurately with your next attempt at making me appear wishy-washy.

It is quite obvious that you have no idea what to think about the oil and bearing discussions with the S65...... If you did you wouldn't change your mind like I change my socks!

I've not changed my mind at all. You inability to follow a thought process is quote astounding. But then again since you have such a strict point of view and agenda that BMW engineers are incompetent idiots and generations of BMW engines are totally screwed up, I guess the slight subtlety of a more nuanced point of view shouldn't be too surprising nor unexpected.

[1MOREMOD]

What we really need is an expert like LW!

[swamp2]

^ Come on guys, don't get my thread in an attempt at civil and meaningful discussion/debate get closed. Please stay on topic.

[SenorFunkyPants]

When I said that the new lubrication system for the S65 would be optimised for the weight of oil it intended to use, it seemed like a given.
But anyway, lets say we have a cut down S85 block on the table and our remit is to design a new lubrication system and a new low pressure VANOS system.
Firstly we need a target oil flow rate, something along the lines of:
W gallons/min @ X degrees temp @ Y bar oil pressure @ Z engine rpm.
Temp is going to be around 100C and pressure around 4 - 6 bar.
Lets say that the Goldilocks flow rate W is 10 gallons/min.
To achieve this target we can adjust:
The oil pump drive speed - decides several factors including the flow rate at low rpms.
The oil pump output flow rate - has to be high enough that even with elevated temps (and some loss of viscosity due to oil shear) it would always supply oil at a rate above the oil pressure regulating valve setting to ensure the correct oil pressure is supplied to the VANOS system (not necessary at low rpm where the VANOS remains in the default position).
The pressure regulating valve setting - this has to be within an acceptable range for the new low pressure VANOS system as well as the oil.
The oil viscosity - which is in this case going to be 10W60.

So here again was my point, having adjusted the above to produce the desired flow rate of 10 gall/min with Castrol 10W60 what would be the effect of using Mobil1 0W40 instead.
Given that Blackstone reports give a viscosity for used oil of:
0W40 ~ 13.0 cSt @ 100C
10W60 ~17.5 cSt @ 100C
Would the new flow rate be in the region of 10 x 17.5/13? (13.46 galls/min).
ie no longer the ideal flow rate.

[jjw2331]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

When I said that the new lubrication system for the S65 would be optimised for the weight of oil it intended to use, it seemed like a given.
But anyway, lets say we have a cut down S85 block on the table and our remit is to design a new lubrication system and a new low pressure VANOS system.
Firstly we need a target oil flow rate, something along the lines of:
W gallons/min @ X degrees temp @ Y bar oil pressure @ Z engine rpm.
Temp is going to be around 100C and pressure around 4 - 6 bar.
Lets say that the Goldilocks flow rate W is 10 gallons/min.
To achieve this target we can adjust:
The oil pump drive speed - decides several factors including the flow rate at tick over.
The oil pump output flow rate.
The pressure regulating valve setting - this has to be within an acceptable range for the new low pressure VANOS system as well as the oil.
The oil viscosity - which is in this case going to be 10W60.

So here again was my point, having adjusted the above to produce the desired flow rate of 10 gall/min with Castrol 10W60 what would be the effect of using Mobil1 0W40.
Given that Blackstone reports give a viscosity for used oil of:
0W40 ~ 13.0 cSt @ 100C
10W60 ~17.5 cSt @ 100C
Would the new flow rate be in the region of 10 x 17.5/13? (13.46 galls/min).
ie no longer the ideal flow rate.

I'm not trying to argue as I don't know much about oil systems and oil viscosities. I just want to understand this.

From what I've been reading in oil reports, the 10W-60 shears down to 40-50 weight oil. How does an optimized oil system, for one viscosity of oil, compensate for this phenomenon?

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by jjw2331

From what I've been reading in oil reports, the 10W-60 shears down to 40-50 weight oil. How does an optimized oil system, for one viscosity of oil, compensate for this phenomenon?

The 10W60 does indeed shear down quite quickly to ~ 50 weight and then remains very stable. If you look at the all the UOAs for this oil it remains in the range 17 to 18.5 cSt @ 100c over a wide spread of mileages. So I would guess that you would need to optimise for a 50 weight oil in this case (bear in mind that the Mobil 1 0W40 will also shear down to a lighter weight oil). As swamp has noted the system would need to be quite robust to changes in viscosity but nevertheless you can't get away from the fact that *if* the Mobil 0W40 is indeed about a third "thinner" then the flow rate will never be as optimum as if you used a 10W60.

[jjw2331]

so could there be a happy medium? I know there is a 5w-50 out there but I read there is too much zinc in that one. If I remember correctly, too much zinc is bad for our cats? Are there any other 5w-50 oils we can run that hasn't been mentioned? Or is it a rare species of oil?

[G80indy]

Redline has a myriad of oil weight/viscosity options ---- all premium

[Rupes]

Someone mentioned on my oil analysis that it, "looked like I was using the new TWS 10W/60 which is a lighter weight than the old product." Can anyone confirm if Castrol switched up the formula recently? I imagine this would have an impact on those wanting to switch to M1 due to the lighter nature of the oil.

I'm really torn on which to use next!

[dparm]

Originally Posted by Rupes

Someone mentioned on my oil analysis that it, "looked like I was using the new TWS 10W/60 which is a lighter weight than the old product." Can anyone confirm if Castrol switched up the formula recently? I imagine this would have an impact on those wanting to switch to M1 due to the lighter nature of the oil.

I'm really torn on which to use next!

A while back it was updated to be "Castrol Edge Professional TWS" (only thing the dealers carry now). The old stuff was called "Castrol TWS Motorsport". Here's some more info: http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=404920

[Rupes]

Originally Posted by dparm

A while back it was updated to be "Castrol Edge Professional TWS" (only thing the dealers carry now). The old stuff was called "Castrol TWS Motorsport".

I remember this, but I didn't know the formula changed?

[Billj747]

Originally Posted by Rupes

I remember this, but I didn't know the formula changed?

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=926080

[Rupes]

Originally Posted by Billj747

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=926080

Thanks, looks like about a 8% weight reduction. Interesting they can continue to market the products as a 10w/60 with these changes.

[Z K]

Not to point fingers but it looks like BMW knew there was an issue with the regular TWS being too thick and changed the TWS oil formulation because of it.

[Rupes]

That's what I'm wondering. Does this lighter oil change the narrative that M1 0W-40 is necessary anymore?

[DLSJ5]

Is it this thread? If so it was not deleted, just moved to this section.

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthr...=966429&page=6

[dparm]

Originally Posted by Rupes

Thanks, looks like about a 8% weight reduction. Interesting they can continue to market the products as a 10w/60 with these changes.

Why wouldn't they label it as 10w60? The SAE has defined ranges for the viscosities, so the oil could be lightened slightly and still be a 10w60.

[gatorfast]

Originally Posted by Rupes

That's what I'm wondering. Does this lighter oil change the narrative that M1 0W-40 is necessary anymore?

It's the 0w vs 10w where most of the benefit lies. The 50/60 vs 40 hot viscosity is not as much of a factor.

[JRV]

I feel like we just got up and moved conference rooms and then carried on.

[Brooklyn Mark]

Originally Posted by JRV

I feel like we just got up and moved conference rooms and then carried on.

[dparm]

Originally Posted by JRV

I feel like we just got up and moved conference rooms and then carried on.

Yep. Like I wrote in the other threads, these discussions make my head hurt. I'm flabbergasted.