BMW M5 Forum and M6 Forums banner

1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
158 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Well, I thought some data might be useful to support some of the discussions going on in the 10W-60 v. 5W-30 Thread. I had an oil sample analyzed by Blackstone Labs in April 2005.

2/2000 M5; 57,250 total miles at time of oil change; 6,100 miles on the oil; .75 liter oil added during interval with weekly checks.

Air temperature range (in SC) during the interval was probably 85F to 35F, but the average air temp while operating is probably around 50F to 60F. I usually run trips of less than 10 miles under light duty conditions. Minimal Highway miles as a % of the whole. Weekly "fun drives" in the rural/mountain areas provide a rigorous work out for the engine routinely.

Key Points of the Results:
1) TBN was 2.0 - so additive package still OK
2) Aluminum - 9ppm (midly high relative to their data set avg. of 5ppm*)
3) Lead - 7ppm (midly high relative to their data set avg. of 4ppm*)
4) SUS Viscosity @ 210F - 86.3 (values should be 87-98 according to Blackstone)
5) Flashpoint - 355 (values should be >375 according to Blackstone)
6) Fuel % - 1.0% (values should be <1.0 according to Blackstone)

*Average oil sample for this type of engine had 3,500 miles on it in Blackstone's data. Their reporting does not compensate for my sample's 6,100 mile interval from the average 3,500 mile interval, so direct comparisons of wear metals by ppm are suspect)

My take aways were that I might need to reduce the oil change interval to manage what seems to be a fair amount of fuel making it into the oil. This may be the primary factor adversely affecting viscosity. If the % fuel in oil is a problem, I'm not sure if the cause for that was lower temps in the winter on short trips, or just the short, light-duty trips. I guess we'll see at my next change this summer.

:cheers:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,226 Posts
OldRanger said:
Well, I thought some data might be useful to support some of the discussions going on in the 10W-60 v. 5W-30 Thread. I had an oil sample analyzed by Blackstone Labs in April 2005.

2/2000 M5; 57,250 total miles at time of oil change; 6,100 miles on the oil; .75 liter oil added during interval with weekly checks.

Air temperature range (in SC) during the interval was probably 85F to 35F, but the average air temp while operating is probably around 50F to 60F. I usually run trips of less than 10 miles under light duty conditions. Minimal Highway miles as a % of the whole. Weekly "fun drives" in the rural/mountain areas provide a rigorous work out for the engine routinely.

Key Points of the Results:
1) TBN was 2.0 - so additive package still OK
2) Aluminum - 9ppm (midly high relative to their data set avg. of 5ppm*)
3) Lead - 7ppm (midly high relative to their data set avg. of 4ppm*)
4) SUS Viscosity @ 210F - 86.3 (values should be 87-98 according to Blackstone)
5) Flashpoint - 355 (values should be >375 according to Blackstone)
6) Fuel % - 1.0% (values should be <1.0 according to Blackstone)

*Average oil sample for this type of engine had 3,500 miles on it in Blackstone's data. Their reporting does not compensate for the sample's variance from the universal averages, so direct comparisons are suspect)

My take aways were that I might need to reduce the oil change interval to manage what seems to be a fair amount of fuel making it into the oil. This may be the primary factor adversely affecting viscosity. If the % fuel in oil is a problem, I'm not sure if the cause for that was lower temps in the winter on short trips, or just the short, light-duty trips. I guess we'll see at my next change this summer.

:cheers:
You will have to forgive me but how does fuel get into the oil?

Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
158 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
MAH said:
You will have to forgive me but how does fuel get into the oil?

Mark
Generally speaking, it's called "blow-by" and it occurs when fuel vapors pass by the 2 compression rings and oil control ring on the pistons.

I know a lot more about how/why is occurs on diesel engines, and when it is most extreme...but I'm not really familiar with the design of the S62.

I would assume at colder engine block and piston temperatures, the space between the cylinder walls and the piston are at its greatest, and therefore cold engine temperature operation would be associated with higher amounts of blow-by making it into the crankcase. There is actually a crankcase ventilation system on the S62 designed to manage these blow-by vapors and separate the oil condensates from the "other" vapors in order to return the oil to the front timing case covers.

Someone else will have to chime in on what types of operating conditions affect blow-by on gas engines, I'm not quite sure about that.

Andy
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
10,458 Posts
nice info. THis seems consistant with other 10/60 reports, need to change it frequently. Perhaps this was some of the motivation for bmwna to switch their suggestion to their longlife 5/30. It might be a better oil for the "typical" bmw owner who goes by the SII,
Mike
 

·
Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
2,977 Posts
Hello,

Thanks for posting! Sounds like you operate the engine in a severe duty mode with lots of short trips, this is probably why you have a low flame point and low viscosity.

If the Aluminium normally is 5 ppm at 3500 miles, and you run at 9 ppm at 6000 miles, you are right at the average Al/mile wear.

What other wear indicating elements did they test for?

How much did the test cost?

How big is their database of S62 samples?

Web-link?

Best Regs,

David
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,398 Posts
DavidS said:
Hello,

Thanks for posting! Sounds like you operate the engine in a severe duty mode with lots of short trips, this is probably why you have a low flame point and low viscosity.

If the Aluminium normally is 5 ppm at 3500 miles, and you run at 9 ppm at 6000 miles, you are right at the average Al/mile wear.

What other wear indicating elements did they test for?

How much did the test cost?

How big is their database of S62 samples?

Web-link?

Best Regs,

David

http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=50880&highlight=uoa

Blackstone Labs. US$20 per test. Add expert reading and recommendations by Terry Dyson if you want for a few $ more.

http://www.blackstone-labs.com/

I don't think Blackstone's database is specific to S62. Terry Dyson is doing work on several M5s here, so he is pretty familiar with the engines.

I will add the following statement/question:

If one is seeking to move away from the oil on the engine's sticker, for whatever reason, wouldn't a UOA be (1) a great way to validate and assess that decision, and (2) excellent data to protect yourself in the even something catastrophic occurred and BMW got pissy?

A
 

·
Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
2,977 Posts
I had Blacklstone perform an analysis on new from the bottle Castrol TWS 10W60 oil.

This is their report.

Coments:
DAVID: This sample of virgin Castrol TWS 10W60 oil had a viscosity that was fine for 10W/60 oil. The
TBN registered 8.0 indicating plenty of active additive to start with. (Those additive elements are listed
in the bottom of the column.) No insolubles were present, which is becoming increasingly rare in virgin
oil samples. We often find a trace of insolubles, possibly from tanks used during transfer. In any case,
things look good here. This oil should work well for you.

TWS 10W60

Universal avg for TWS 10W60
Interval [miles] 0 0
Make-up added [qt] 0 0

ALUMINUM 2 1
CHROMIUM 0 0
IRON 1 2
COPPER 0 0
LEAD 0 0
TIN 0 0
MOLYBDENUM 0 1
NICKEL 0 0
MANGANESE 0 0
SILVER 0 0
TITANIUM 0 0
POTASSIUM 0 0
BORON 112 124
SILICON 5 5
SODIUM 1 2
CALCIUM 1288 1382
MAGNESIUM 506 549
PHOSPHORUS 698 777
ZINC 803 911
BARIUM 0 0

TBN 8


SUS VISC 210F 115,6 Should be: 103 - 117
Flashpoint [F] 450 Should be: > 375

Fuel [%] 0 Should be: < 1.0
Antifreeze [%] 0 Should be: 0
Water [%] 0 Should be: 0
Insolubles [%] 0 Should be: < 0.6
 

·
Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
2,977 Posts
OldRanger said:
4) SUS Viscosity @ 210F - 86.3 (values should be 87-98 according to Blackstone)
5) Flashpoint - 355 (values should be >375 according to Blackstone)
6) Fuel % - 1.0% (values should be <1.0 according to Blackstone)

*Average oil sample for this type of engine had 3,500 miles on it in Blackstone's data. Their reporting does not compensate for my sample's 6,100 mile interval from the average 3,500 mile interval, so direct comparisons of wear metals by ppm are suspect)

My take aways were that I might need to reduce the oil change interval to manage what seems to be a fair amount of fuel making it into the oil. This may be the primary factor adversely affecting viscosity. If the % fuel in oil is a problem, I'm not sure if the cause for that was lower temps in the winter on short trips, or just the short, light-duty trips. I guess we'll see at my next change this summer.

:cheers:
You sent a sample of TWS 10W60, right?

The measurement of SUS Visc @ 210 is 86.3 in your sample. Blackstone says it should be 87-98.

I sent a sample of TWS 10W60, and Blackstone says SUS Visc @ 210 F should be 103-117.

That is strange...

David
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
626 Posts
DavidS

I have used Blackstone labs for analysis - they explained to me that they adjust the TWS "expected viscosity" range depending on whether the oil is new or used. TWS shears to a 50 wt oil very quickly (within 1000 miles) after installation, so they compensate for that in the "expected viscosity".

It seems to be quite stable after that, though, out to about 5,000 miles it didn't change much.

Cheers
JJ
 

·
Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
2,977 Posts
This is weird. I posted two oil reports yesterday: one for new oil and one for old oil. Now the one for old oil is gone. Did a moderator possibly mistake it for a double post?

Anyway, here is the report for used TWS 10W60:
Car is a March 2000 M5 with 52768 miles total, 11581 miles on the oil.

Comments:
DAVID: The universal averages column shows typical wear from this type of engine after 3700 miles
on the oil. Your oil was in use 11,581 miles and it shows it in the higher iron and copper. These metals
can show bearing wear, or wear at a bronze part or bronze/steel interface. We don't think they show a
problem -- just that the long oil change is causing more wear than average. The TBN was 1.8, little
active additive remaining (1.0 is too low). No fuel, water or coolant found. We suggest dropping back
to 5000 miles to flush metals. Check back to monitor.

Interval [miles] 11581 3700
Make-up added [qt] 2

ALUMINUM 9 5
CHROMIUM 1 1
IRON 35 12
COPPER 21 4
LEAD 4 4
TIN 1 2
MOLYBDENUM 0 28
NICKEL 0 3
MANGANESE 0 1
SILVER 0 0
TITANIUM 0 0
POTASSIUM 0 1
BORON 38 79
SILICON 10 6
SODIUM 2 8
CALCIUM 1358 1921
MAGNESIUM 522 471
PHOSPHORUS 736 848
ZINC 836 993
BARIUM 0 0

TBN 1,8

SUS VISC 210F 97,6 103 - 117
Flashpoint [F] 405 > 375

Fuel [%] 0,5 < 1.0
Antifreeze [%] 0 0
Water [%] 0 0
Insolubles [%] 0,5 < 0.6

David
 

·
Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
2,977 Posts
jaj said:
DavidS

I have used Blackstone labs for analysis - they explained to me that they adjust the TWS "expected viscosity" range depending on whether the oil is new or used. TWS shears to a 50 wt oil very quickly (within 1000 miles) after installation, so they compensate for that in the "expected viscosity".

It seems to be quite stable after that, though, out to about 5,000 miles it didn't change much.

Cheers
JJ
The expected shear you mentioned makes sense, however
in the report I received of the analysis of the used engine oil, Blackstone also listed SUS Visc @ 210 F should be 103 - 117. The actual value was 97.6.

It seems Blackstone is not consistent in its policy for "expected values".

David
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,398 Posts
I THOUGH I WAS GOING GRAZY...

I'd remembered the two posts, the second around 11k miles, and the fact that the expected SUS viscosity was unchanged.

Then there was a few replies, and then the post was gone!

Now the curious fact is this:

Ranger's expected viscosity, which is 'derated' for 6100 miles is lower than yours at 11,000 miles- and yours is identical to virgin.

Shoot Blackstone an email- I've received erroneous reports in the past- a typo in a Ca reading that was off my 10x... They may have pulled the wrong value from a pull down table, or maybe just used the prior report for from your virgin sample and forgot to change it.

I'm marginally curious as to what happened to the post though...

A
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
626 Posts
DavidS

BK shows a target range of 87 to 98 SUS on my two UOA reports and on the VOA report.

The comments section of the new oil report says the following about viscosity:

"When checked @ 210ºF, this oil read in the SAE 60W range. This is the way it should read. Our Values Should Be parameters are based on this type oil after use."

Cheers
JJ
 

·
Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
2,977 Posts
ard said:
I THOUGH I WAS GOING GRAZY...

I'd remembered the two posts, the second around 11k miles, and the fact that the expected SUS viscosity was unchanged.

Then there was a few replies, and then the post was gone!

Now the curious fact is this:

Ranger's expected viscosity, which is 'derated' for 6100 miles is lower than yours at 11,000 miles- and yours is identical to virgin.

Shoot Blackstone an email- I've received erroneous reports in the past- a typo in a Ca reading that was off my 10x... They may have pulled the wrong value from a pull down table, or maybe just used the prior report for from your virgin sample and forgot to change it.

I'm marginally curious as to what happened to the post though...

A
It is a matter of perspective: should a 10W60 oil always have a target viscosity the same as for that weight oil when unused, or should the "should be" values reflect the degradation?

I´m happy to see the viscosity held up fairly ok, and fuel contamination as low as it is. My car gets fairly much short-distance driving, so I had expected things too look far worse.

David
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,398 Posts
Ah, I misread the 'columns' your inteval is only 3700 miles, and rangers is just over 6k. For some reason I'd recalled your interval to be 11k- which I think is total miles.

They may derate the extpected values in 'bins' (say 0 to 4k has no 'expected degredation', 4k to 7k has some, etc,etc)

I think that derating the expected values is helpful, as long as it is somewhat accurate and predictable: it tells you where your oil is on a relative curve, and if your driving is harder on the oil than other similar applications- input that you can use to refine change intervals.

A

PS Don't we ALL wish <tabs> would actually post as tabs!
 

·
Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
2,977 Posts
ard said:
Ah, I misread the 'columns' your inteval is only 3700 miles, and rangers is just over 6k. For some reason I'd recalled your interval to be 11k- which I think is total miles.

They may derate the extpected values in 'bins' (say 0 to 4k has no 'expected degredation', 4k to 7k has some, etc,etc)

I think that derating the expected values is helpful, as long as it is somewhat accurate and predictable: it tells you where your oil is on a relative curve, and if your driving is harder on the oil than other similar applications- input that you can use to refine change intervals.

A

PS Don't we ALL wish <tabs> would actually post as tabs!
Nope, the oil I sent had 11000 miles on it, so your memory serves you well. The Blackstone average oil has 3700 miles on it.

I do agree about tabs. Or at least spaces that don´t disappear when you put several in a row.

David
 

·
Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
5,150 Posts
DavidS said:
This is weird. I posted two oil reports yesterday: one for new oil and one for old oil. Now the one for old oil is gone. Did a moderator possibly mistake it for a double post?
Was deleted by another moderator by mistake as a duplicate. Can be undelete if you want, but since you posted the same information again, I'll leave it deleted... :p
 

·
Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
2,977 Posts
Thanks for sorting it out, Tfung. I was a bit concerned there might be a bug in the database system.

Everything ok as it is.

Best Regs,

David
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top