I did a oil change today on my wife's S3 today and since the first change I have used Mobil 0w40 in it. This time I used the Castrol 0w40 and the engine was noticeably quieter. I know it doesn't really mean much but there is a night and day difference in engine sound at idle.
Mobil 0W40 vs Castrol 0W40
- Thread starter Fasttimez
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Rendezvous
I did a oil change today on my wife's S3 today and since the first change I have used Mobil 0w40 in it. This time I used the Castrol 0w40 and the engine was noticeably quieter. I know it doesn't really mean much but there is a night and day difference in engine sound at idle.
Yeah, Castrol 0W40 is noticeable quieter, especially above 4500rpm. Also, what I have noticed, much better cold start.
For those attributes I loved good ole GC 0W30, but I think 0W40 is equally good (I believe it is just "beefed up" 0W30).
I did a oil change today on my wife's S3 today and since the first change I have used Mobil 0w40 in it. This time I used the Castrol 0w40 and the engine was noticeably quieter. I know it doesn't really mean much but there is a night and day difference in engine sound at idle.
Yeah, Castrol 0W40 is noticeable quieter, especially above 4500rpm. Also, what I have noticed, much better cold start.
For those attributes I loved good ole GC 0W30, but I think 0W40 is equally good (I believe it is just "beefed up" 0W30).
Originally Posted By: Rendezvous
I did a oil change today on my wife's S3 today and since the first change I have used Mobil 0w40 in it. This time I used the Castrol 0w40 and the engine was noticeably quieter. I know it doesn't really mean much but there is a night and day difference in engine sound at idle.
What are you reporting is probably something subjective and it's not clear whether it's a good thing or bad thing. We are talking about two oils with very similar viscosities. I know M1 0W-40 SN is full of friction modifiers (FM); so, would that mean that Castrol 0W-40 has less FM, which produces less noise somewhat? Also, it's not clear whether this is a cold-engine or hot-engine effect. Are the base oils somewhat drastically different?
I did a oil change today on my wife's S3 today and since the first change I have used Mobil 0w40 in it. This time I used the Castrol 0w40 and the engine was noticeably quieter. I know it doesn't really mean much but there is a night and day difference in engine sound at idle.
What are you reporting is probably something subjective and it's not clear whether it's a good thing or bad thing. We are talking about two oils with very similar viscosities. I know M1 0W-40 SN is full of friction modifiers (FM); so, would that mean that Castrol 0W-40 has less FM, which produces less noise somewhat? Also, it's not clear whether this is a cold-engine or hot-engine effect. Are the base oils somewhat drastically different?
Originally Posted By: edyvw
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Mobil 1 0W-40 SN VOA (link)
And in my case, all that TBN went to 2.3 after 5K.
Well, it could be bad gas (high sulfur), worn piston rings, poorly maintained engine, driving conditions, or a combination.
You are not reporting the TAN. What really matters is TBN - TAN, not TBN or TAN themselves.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Mobil 1 0W-40 SN VOA (link)
And in my case, all that TBN went to 2.3 after 5K.
Well, it could be bad gas (high sulfur), worn piston rings, poorly maintained engine, driving conditions, or a combination.
You are not reporting the TAN. What really matters is TBN - TAN, not TBN or TAN themselves.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: edyvw
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Mobil 1 0W-40 SN VOA (link)
And in my case, all that TBN went to 2.3 after 5K.
Well, it could be bad gas (high sulfur), worn piston rings, poorly maintained engine, driving conditions, or a combination.
You are not reporting the TAN. What really matters is TBN - TAN, not TBN or TAN themselves.
Seriously? Poorly maintained engine?
There is UOA, and TAN was OK, but TBN was really depleted. Less then 0.5% of fuel in oil, meaning no traceable fuel.
Always premium, always Shell V-Power.
I drove at least 30K on M1, started car at 124 degrees (CA desert) and on -37 degrees (CO mountains). Same did with castrol 0W30 and 0W40. No one is saying M1 is bad oil. Also, M1 is moving to PAO, and probably there is a reason why they are abandoning VISOM.
Stop assuming that we do not have a clue.
Originally Posted By: edyvw
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Mobil 1 0W-40 SN VOA (link)
And in my case, all that TBN went to 2.3 after 5K.
Well, it could be bad gas (high sulfur), worn piston rings, poorly maintained engine, driving conditions, or a combination.
You are not reporting the TAN. What really matters is TBN - TAN, not TBN or TAN themselves.
Seriously? Poorly maintained engine?
There is UOA, and TAN was OK, but TBN was really depleted. Less then 0.5% of fuel in oil, meaning no traceable fuel.
Always premium, always Shell V-Power.
I drove at least 30K on M1, started car at 124 degrees (CA desert) and on -37 degrees (CO mountains). Same did with castrol 0W30 and 0W40. No one is saying M1 is bad oil. Also, M1 is moving to PAO, and probably there is a reason why they are abandoning VISOM.
Stop assuming that we do not have a clue.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: Rendezvous
I did a oil change today on my wife's S3 today and since the first change I have used Mobil 0w40 in it. This time I used the Castrol 0w40 and the engine was noticeably quieter. I know it doesn't really mean much but there is a night and day difference in engine sound at idle.
What are you reporting is probably something subjective and it's not clear whether it's a good thing or bad thing. We are talking about two oils with very similar viscosities. I know M1 0W-40 SN is full of friction modifiers (FM); so, would that mean that Castrol 0W-40 has less FM, which produces less noise somewhat? Also, it's not clear whether this is a cold-engine or hot-engine effect. Are the base oils somewhat drastically different?
Castrol is PAO, M1 is VISOM base stock, I would assume based on your writings you know that.
Originally Posted By: Rendezvous
I did a oil change today on my wife's S3 today and since the first change I have used Mobil 0w40 in it. This time I used the Castrol 0w40 and the engine was noticeably quieter. I know it doesn't really mean much but there is a night and day difference in engine sound at idle.
What are you reporting is probably something subjective and it's not clear whether it's a good thing or bad thing. We are talking about two oils with very similar viscosities. I know M1 0W-40 SN is full of friction modifiers (FM); so, would that mean that Castrol 0W-40 has less FM, which produces less noise somewhat? Also, it's not clear whether this is a cold-engine or hot-engine effect. Are the base oils somewhat drastically different?
Castrol is PAO, M1 is VISOM base stock, I would assume based on your writings you know that.
In any case, if the TBN is going down too fast, it's either high-sulfur gas or poor engine design.
There is nothing special about M1's Ca detergent. There is nothing special about Castrol's Mg detergent. If TBN is going down slower with Castrol, all it means is that Mg detergent is not doing its job and there is acid buildup in the engine. Your TAN is increasing faster. So, you are not better off.
M1 0W-40 uses a combination of Visom, PAO, and ester. They vary it according to the supply. I heard people mentioning that the recent batches have more PAO but I am not sure if they could know that.
German spec sheet for Castrol has different values than the US spec sheet. So, I don't know if the US formula is fully PAO-based even though it's German-made. However, their older spec sheet is in line with the US spec sheet. It's selling for only $22.97 at Walmart. According to ExxonMobil, their SN formula performs better than their old PAO-based SM formula overall; so, having a fully PAO-based oil is not necessarily the end of the story.
There is nothing special about M1's Ca detergent. There is nothing special about Castrol's Mg detergent. If TBN is going down slower with Castrol, all it means is that Mg detergent is not doing its job and there is acid buildup in the engine. Your TAN is increasing faster. So, you are not better off.
M1 0W-40 uses a combination of Visom, PAO, and ester. They vary it according to the supply. I heard people mentioning that the recent batches have more PAO but I am not sure if they could know that.
German spec sheet for Castrol has different values than the US spec sheet. So, I don't know if the US formula is fully PAO-based even though it's German-made. However, their older spec sheet is in line with the US spec sheet. It's selling for only $22.97 at Walmart. According to ExxonMobil, their SN formula performs better than their old PAO-based SM formula overall; so, having a fully PAO-based oil is not necessarily the end of the story.
Guess my assumption was wrong. The 0w-40 VOA above suggests that even after eliminating the 760 ppm Mg, they beefed up the Ca by over 1800 ppm (>3000 total). That's some serious Ca! About 5200 ppm total additives...or about 50% more than in the 5w-30. Even the typical 5w-30 brands don't exceed 4000 ppm total. Though the Pennzoil PP/PUP 5w-30 is in the 4500-4600 total ppm range. The M1 5w-50 race oil is well over 5500 ppm total. I get the trend now.
Just surfed through a 50 page BMW M3 blog post on Mobil 1 0w-40 vs. the BMW recommended 10w-60 TWS. That was quite a read. Some neat stuff in there.
BMW M3
Just surfed through a 50 page BMW M3 blog post on Mobil 1 0w-40 vs. the BMW recommended 10w-60 TWS. That was quite a read. Some neat stuff in there.
BMW M3
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
In any case, if the TBN is going down too fast, it's either high-sulfur gas or poor engine design.
There is nothing special about M1's Ca detergent. There is nothing special about Castrol's Mg detergent. If TBN is going down slower with Castrol, all it means is that Mg detergent is not doing its job and there is acid buildup in the engine. Your TAN is increasing faster. So, you are not better off.
M1 0W-40 uses a combination of Visom, PAO, and ester. They vary it according to the supply. I heard people mentioning that the recent batches have more PAO but I am not sure if they could know that.
German spec sheet for Castrol has different values than the US spec sheet. So, I don't know if the US formula is fully PAO-based even though it's German-made. However, their older spec sheet is in line with the US spec sheet. It's selling for only $22.97 at Walmart. According to ExxonMobil, their SN formula performs better than their old PAO-based SM formula overall; so, having a fully PAO-based oil is not necessarily the end of the story.
Yep, culprit must be in engine design, maintenance, driving, gas, etc, because it is just impossible to be up to M1.
Formula is same for EU market, and Castrol uses ester too, like many other oils, but in order to be sold in Germany as fully synthetic (which it is, unlike M1 0W40) it has to have more then 50% of PAO or Ester. In this case, it is PAO.
So, since I tried many oils, and did UOA's, I know what fits needs of my car in this case.
Like I said many times before, if I could not find Castrol 0W40, I would get M1 0W40.
You are constantly assuming that TAN is going up, which it does not. TAN can go up because of Ester in oils, but with Castrol it does not. Same like M1, except that Castrol retains TBN longer. Many UOA on this site that you can check.
These two oils are superb oils, and each has its own advantages, but to say that either is superior to other is nonsense. So, maybe you should try Castrol 0W40, and some other oils and we can exchange opinions.
In any case, if the TBN is going down too fast, it's either high-sulfur gas or poor engine design.
There is nothing special about M1's Ca detergent. There is nothing special about Castrol's Mg detergent. If TBN is going down slower with Castrol, all it means is that Mg detergent is not doing its job and there is acid buildup in the engine. Your TAN is increasing faster. So, you are not better off.
M1 0W-40 uses a combination of Visom, PAO, and ester. They vary it according to the supply. I heard people mentioning that the recent batches have more PAO but I am not sure if they could know that.
German spec sheet for Castrol has different values than the US spec sheet. So, I don't know if the US formula is fully PAO-based even though it's German-made. However, their older spec sheet is in line with the US spec sheet. It's selling for only $22.97 at Walmart. According to ExxonMobil, their SN formula performs better than their old PAO-based SM formula overall; so, having a fully PAO-based oil is not necessarily the end of the story.
Yep, culprit must be in engine design, maintenance, driving, gas, etc, because it is just impossible to be up to M1.
Formula is same for EU market, and Castrol uses ester too, like many other oils, but in order to be sold in Germany as fully synthetic (which it is, unlike M1 0W40) it has to have more then 50% of PAO or Ester. In this case, it is PAO.
So, since I tried many oils, and did UOA's, I know what fits needs of my car in this case.
Like I said many times before, if I could not find Castrol 0W40, I would get M1 0W40.
You are constantly assuming that TAN is going up, which it does not. TAN can go up because of Ester in oils, but with Castrol it does not. Same like M1, except that Castrol retains TBN longer. Many UOA on this site that you can check.
These two oils are superb oils, and each has its own advantages, but to say that either is superior to other is nonsense. So, maybe you should try Castrol 0W40, and some other oils and we can exchange opinions.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
Just surfed through a 50 page BMW M3 blog post on Mobil 1 0w-40 vs. the BMW recommended 10w-60 TWS. That was quite a read. Some neat stuff in there.
BMW M3
Note the consistently decreased lead numbers in the UOAs when people switched to Mobil 1. This is supporting my conclusion that:
M1 0W-40 SN = calcium detergent package = better detergent = detergent doing its job = TBN being depleted normally as it should = less acid buildup in the engine (TAN rising slower) = less bearing corrosion
Castrol = magnesium detergent package = worse detergent = detergent not doing its job = TBN not being depleted normally as it should = more acid buildup in the engine (TAN rising faster) = more bearing corrosion
Slightly higher iron with M1 0W-40 is normal because it's a lot thinner than the Castrol 10W-60 TWS, meaning less oil-film strength in the boundary and mixed lubrication regimes (valvetrain and parts of pistons and rings). Few people need an xW-60 oil though; so, this is not really a concern.
Just surfed through a 50 page BMW M3 blog post on Mobil 1 0w-40 vs. the BMW recommended 10w-60 TWS. That was quite a read. Some neat stuff in there.
BMW M3
Note the consistently decreased lead numbers in the UOAs when people switched to Mobil 1. This is supporting my conclusion that:
M1 0W-40 SN = calcium detergent package = better detergent = detergent doing its job = TBN being depleted normally as it should = less acid buildup in the engine (TAN rising slower) = less bearing corrosion
Castrol = magnesium detergent package = worse detergent = detergent not doing its job = TBN not being depleted normally as it should = more acid buildup in the engine (TAN rising faster) = more bearing corrosion
Slightly higher iron with M1 0W-40 is normal because it's a lot thinner than the Castrol 10W-60 TWS, meaning less oil-film strength in the boundary and mixed lubrication regimes (valvetrain and parts of pistons and rings). Few people need an xW-60 oil though; so, this is not really a concern.
Originally Posted By: edyvw
These two oils are superb oils, and each has its own advantages, but to say that either is superior to other is nonsense. So, maybe you should try Castrol 0W40, and some other oils and we can exchange opinions.
If you are getting good UOAs with Castrol, it's good for your application, as with any oil.
I am not putting enough mileage on my car these days to test various oils. I am looking forward to my first 0W-40 UOA but it won't be until at least about a year as I just changed the oil. It will be interesting to see how it compares to 0W-20 though.
These two oils are superb oils, and each has its own advantages, but to say that either is superior to other is nonsense. So, maybe you should try Castrol 0W40, and some other oils and we can exchange opinions.
If you are getting good UOAs with Castrol, it's good for your application, as with any oil.
I am not putting enough mileage on my car these days to test various oils. I am looking forward to my first 0W-40 UOA but it won't be until at least about a year as I just changed the oil. It will be interesting to see how it compares to 0W-20 though.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
Just surfed through a 50 page BMW M3 blog post on Mobil 1 0w-40 vs. the BMW recommended 10w-60 TWS. That was quite a read. Some neat stuff in there.
BMW M3
Note the consistently decreased lead numbers in the UOAs when people switched to Mobil 1. This is supporting my conclusion that:
M1 0W-40 SN = calcium detergent package = better detergent = detergent doing its job = TBN being depleted normally as it should = less acid buildup in the engine (TAN rising slower) = less bearing corrosion
Castrol = magnesium detergent package = worse detergent = detergent not doing its job = TBN not being depleted normally as it should = more acid buildup in the engine (TAN rising faster) = more bearing corrosion
Slightly higher iron with M1 0W-40 is normal because it's a lot thinner than the Castrol 10W-60 TWS, meaning less oil-film strength in the boundary and mixed lubrication regimes (valvetrain and parts of pistons and rings). Few people need an xW-60 oil though; so, this is not really a concern.
Maybe I am missing your point which is why I am asking but the decreasing lead numbers are from switching to a thinner oil with the tight tolerances of the S65 engine. Using the thinner M1 0w40 in these engines is creating less lead because there isn't as much bearing wear. I have used both 10w60 Castrol and M1/ Motul 0w40 in my S65 M3 and had low lead numbers with both. So are you saying the reason the lead numbers are less with M1 is because of the additive package causing less corrosion?
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
Just surfed through a 50 page BMW M3 blog post on Mobil 1 0w-40 vs. the BMW recommended 10w-60 TWS. That was quite a read. Some neat stuff in there.
BMW M3
Note the consistently decreased lead numbers in the UOAs when people switched to Mobil 1. This is supporting my conclusion that:
M1 0W-40 SN = calcium detergent package = better detergent = detergent doing its job = TBN being depleted normally as it should = less acid buildup in the engine (TAN rising slower) = less bearing corrosion
Castrol = magnesium detergent package = worse detergent = detergent not doing its job = TBN not being depleted normally as it should = more acid buildup in the engine (TAN rising faster) = more bearing corrosion
Slightly higher iron with M1 0W-40 is normal because it's a lot thinner than the Castrol 10W-60 TWS, meaning less oil-film strength in the boundary and mixed lubrication regimes (valvetrain and parts of pistons and rings). Few people need an xW-60 oil though; so, this is not really a concern.
Maybe I am missing your point which is why I am asking but the decreasing lead numbers are from switching to a thinner oil with the tight tolerances of the S65 engine. Using the thinner M1 0w40 in these engines is creating less lead because there isn't as much bearing wear. I have used both 10w60 Castrol and M1/ Motul 0w40 in my S65 M3 and had low lead numbers with both. So are you saying the reason the lead numbers are less with M1 is because of the additive package causing less corrosion?
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: edyvw
These two oils are superb oils, and each has its own advantages, but to say that either is superior to other is nonsense. So, maybe you should try Castrol 0W40, and some other oils and we can exchange opinions.
If you are getting good UOAs with Castrol, it's good for your application, as with any oil.
I am not putting enough mileage on my car these days to test various oils. I am looking forward to my first 0W-40 UOA but it won't be until at least about a year as I just changed the oil. It will be interesting to see how it compares to 0W-20 though.
You seriously having issues accepting that anything could be better then M1 0W40, and that is ONLY because you decided to use it, for the first time.
I used M1 last 10 years, in Mazda (5W30) in VW Passat 1.8T (0W40) and now both CC and Tiguan. I used also Pennzoil, Pentosin, M1 5W30 ESP, Motul, Castrol 5W40, 0W30, 0W40. of all oils by far, the best performance was with 0W30 Castrol, and now 0W40. Smoother engine starts (never rattling noise in cold, really cold start), smoother when I take it to Pikes Peak, smoother at stop light, when cold on low rpms, when hot at low rpms and when hot especially at high rpms. Does that mean that M1 is providing less lubrication? No, I am confident that M1 will protect engine to the fullest. But, is it the best oil out there? Not sure. I am traditional driver, and I like when oil has smooth cold starts, and runs smoother. Since I generally do not trust any big corporations, I take numbers by M1 and especially Castrol, as good read, and that is it. Unless I am satisfied how my engine sounds, I am not using it.
Originally Posted By: edyvw
These two oils are superb oils, and each has its own advantages, but to say that either is superior to other is nonsense. So, maybe you should try Castrol 0W40, and some other oils and we can exchange opinions.
If you are getting good UOAs with Castrol, it's good for your application, as with any oil.
I am not putting enough mileage on my car these days to test various oils. I am looking forward to my first 0W-40 UOA but it won't be until at least about a year as I just changed the oil. It will be interesting to see how it compares to 0W-20 though.
You seriously having issues accepting that anything could be better then M1 0W40, and that is ONLY because you decided to use it, for the first time.
I used M1 last 10 years, in Mazda (5W30) in VW Passat 1.8T (0W40) and now both CC and Tiguan. I used also Pennzoil, Pentosin, M1 5W30 ESP, Motul, Castrol 5W40, 0W30, 0W40. of all oils by far, the best performance was with 0W30 Castrol, and now 0W40. Smoother engine starts (never rattling noise in cold, really cold start), smoother when I take it to Pikes Peak, smoother at stop light, when cold on low rpms, when hot at low rpms and when hot especially at high rpms. Does that mean that M1 is providing less lubrication? No, I am confident that M1 will protect engine to the fullest. But, is it the best oil out there? Not sure. I am traditional driver, and I like when oil has smooth cold starts, and runs smoother. Since I generally do not trust any big corporations, I take numbers by M1 and especially Castrol, as good read, and that is it. Unless I am satisfied how my engine sounds, I am not using it.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Rendezvous
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
Just surfed through a 50 page BMW M3 blog post on Mobil 1 0w-40 vs. the BMW recommended 10w-60 TWS. That was quite a read. Some neat stuff in there.
BMW M3
Note the consistently decreased lead numbers in the UOAs when people switched to Mobil 1. This is supporting my conclusion that:
M1 0W-40 SN = calcium detergent package = better detergent = detergent doing its job = TBN being depleted normally as it should = less acid buildup in the engine (TAN rising slower) = less bearing corrosion
Castrol = magnesium detergent package = worse detergent = detergent not doing its job = TBN not being depleted normally as it should = more acid buildup in the engine (TAN rising faster) = more bearing corrosion
Slightly higher iron with M1 0W-40 is normal because it's a lot thinner than the Castrol 10W-60 TWS, meaning less oil-film strength in the boundary and mixed lubrication regimes (valvetrain and parts of pistons and rings). Few people need an xW-60 oil though; so, this is not really a concern.
Maybe I am missing your point which is why I am asking but the decreasing lead numbers are from switching to a thinner oil with the tight tolerances of the S65 engine. Using the thinner M1 0w40 in these engines is creating less lead because there isn't as much bearing wear. I have used both 10w60 Castrol and M1/ Motul 0w40 in my S65 M3 and had low lead numbers with both. So are you saying the reason the lead numbers are less with M1 is because of the additive package causing less corrosion?
Actually lead corrosion due to acid buildup/TBN fall/TAN rise is the leading cause of bearing wear. See this classic article by Chevron Oronite (PDF link). Detergent package is crucial in determining lead-based-bearing wear. If the detergent package is not doing its job in stopping the acid buildup, you will see increased lead and increased bearing wear.
My 85 Corolla 4A-LC engine specifies 10W-30 to 20W-50 and has the following standard bearing clearances for new bearings:
Main bearing: 12 - 49 micron
Connecting bearing: 20 - 51 micron
Main journal diameter: 48.0 mm
For BMW S65:
Main bearing: 31 - 51 micron
Connecting bearing: 15 - 53, 29 - 51, 20 - 36, 38 - 55, 41 - 56 micron (depending on the bearing type)
Main journal diameter: 60.0 mm
So, the bearing clearance for S65 is not small at all. I believe the flow rate goes as the square of the area of the clearance. So, S65 should be able to tolerate a lot thicker oil than my 4A-LC, which specifies and can run fine with 20W-50. S65 bearing clearances are simply not tight at all.
Therefore, I doubt the bearing clearance and oil viscosity is the issue here. Besides, thicker oil normally results in less bearing wear because of thicker oil film. Saying that thicker oil is resulting in more bearing wear goes against basic lubrication principles. I am not saying that there couldn't be a strange viscosity effect here but I really doubt it.
The thread only compares M1 0W-40 to Castrol 10W-60. There are no other xW-40, xW-50, or xW-60 oils with UOAs. Therefore, we can't really reach a definite conclusion. However, I saw one German Castrol 0W-30 on a BMW 5-series with dismal lead values. It's funny that they attributed the bearing wear in that case to German Castrol 0W-30 being too thin, which is actually almost as thick as M1 0W-40 as it's an ACEA A3/B4 oil as well (therefore a "0W-35" [nonofficial term by me]).
My main suspect here is still the magnesium-detergent package of Castrol 10W-60 that seems to be causing lead corrosion because it's unable to prevent acid buildup.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
Just surfed through a 50 page BMW M3 blog post on Mobil 1 0w-40 vs. the BMW recommended 10w-60 TWS. That was quite a read. Some neat stuff in there.
BMW M3
Note the consistently decreased lead numbers in the UOAs when people switched to Mobil 1. This is supporting my conclusion that:
M1 0W-40 SN = calcium detergent package = better detergent = detergent doing its job = TBN being depleted normally as it should = less acid buildup in the engine (TAN rising slower) = less bearing corrosion
Castrol = magnesium detergent package = worse detergent = detergent not doing its job = TBN not being depleted normally as it should = more acid buildup in the engine (TAN rising faster) = more bearing corrosion
Slightly higher iron with M1 0W-40 is normal because it's a lot thinner than the Castrol 10W-60 TWS, meaning less oil-film strength in the boundary and mixed lubrication regimes (valvetrain and parts of pistons and rings). Few people need an xW-60 oil though; so, this is not really a concern.
Maybe I am missing your point which is why I am asking but the decreasing lead numbers are from switching to a thinner oil with the tight tolerances of the S65 engine. Using the thinner M1 0w40 in these engines is creating less lead because there isn't as much bearing wear. I have used both 10w60 Castrol and M1/ Motul 0w40 in my S65 M3 and had low lead numbers with both. So are you saying the reason the lead numbers are less with M1 is because of the additive package causing less corrosion?
Actually lead corrosion due to acid buildup/TBN fall/TAN rise is the leading cause of bearing wear. See this classic article by Chevron Oronite (PDF link). Detergent package is crucial in determining lead-based-bearing wear. If the detergent package is not doing its job in stopping the acid buildup, you will see increased lead and increased bearing wear.
My 85 Corolla 4A-LC engine specifies 10W-30 to 20W-50 and has the following standard bearing clearances for new bearings:
Main bearing: 12 - 49 micron
Connecting bearing: 20 - 51 micron
Main journal diameter: 48.0 mm
For BMW S65:
Main bearing: 31 - 51 micron
Connecting bearing: 15 - 53, 29 - 51, 20 - 36, 38 - 55, 41 - 56 micron (depending on the bearing type)
Main journal diameter: 60.0 mm
So, the bearing clearance for S65 is not small at all. I believe the flow rate goes as the square of the area of the clearance. So, S65 should be able to tolerate a lot thicker oil than my 4A-LC, which specifies and can run fine with 20W-50. S65 bearing clearances are simply not tight at all.
Therefore, I doubt the bearing clearance and oil viscosity is the issue here. Besides, thicker oil normally results in less bearing wear because of thicker oil film. Saying that thicker oil is resulting in more bearing wear goes against basic lubrication principles. I am not saying that there couldn't be a strange viscosity effect here but I really doubt it.
The thread only compares M1 0W-40 to Castrol 10W-60. There are no other xW-40, xW-50, or xW-60 oils with UOAs. Therefore, we can't really reach a definite conclusion. However, I saw one German Castrol 0W-30 on a BMW 5-series with dismal lead values. It's funny that they attributed the bearing wear in that case to German Castrol 0W-30 being too thin, which is actually almost as thick as M1 0W-40 as it's an ACEA A3/B4 oil as well (therefore a "0W-35" [nonofficial term by me]).
My main suspect here is still the magnesium-detergent package of Castrol 10W-60 that seems to be causing lead corrosion because it's unable to prevent acid buildup.
Originally Posted By: edyvw
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: edyvw
These two oils are superb oils, and each has its own advantages, but to say that either is superior to other is nonsense. So, maybe you should try Castrol 0W40, and some other oils and we can exchange opinions.
If you are getting good UOAs with Castrol, it's good for your application, as with any oil.
I am not putting enough mileage on my car these days to test various oils. I am looking forward to my first 0W-40 UOA but it won't be until at least about a year as I just changed the oil. It will be interesting to see how it compares to 0W-20 though.
You seriously having issues accepting that anything could be better then M1 0W40, and that is ONLY because you decided to use it, for the first time.
I used M1 last 10 years, in Mazda (5W30) in VW Passat 1.8T (0W40) and now both CC and Tiguan. I used also Pennzoil, Pentosin, M1 5W30 ESP, Motul, Castrol 5W40, 0W30, 0W40. of all oils by far, the best performance was with 0W30 Castrol, and now 0W40. Smoother engine starts (never rattling noise in cold, really cold start), smoother when I take it to Pikes Peak, smoother at stop light, when cold on low rpms, when hot at low rpms and when hot especially at high rpms. Does that mean that M1 is providing less lubrication? No, I am confident that M1 will protect engine to the fullest. But, is it the best oil out there? Not sure. I am traditional driver, and I like when oil has smooth cold starts, and runs smoother. Since I generally do not trust any big corporations, I take numbers by M1 and especially Castrol, as good read, and that is it. Unless I am satisfied how my engine sounds, I am not using it.
Thanks for the comprehensive feedback.
I used to run Mobil Super 1300 15W-40 CJ-4/SM years ago but unfortunately I messed up the only UOA sample I was taking.
Comparing M1 0W-40 SN to the TGMO 0W-20 SN that was replaced, there seem to be less vibrations on the engine on the freeway; so, thicker oil may actually be benefiting it wear-wise. Downsides: Perhaps some loss in low-to-mid-range horsepower, some increase in engine temperature, and some increase in low-speed preignition (LSPI). These are really hard-to-observe though; so, I can't be sure. Now, I sample for the UOA with a pump (and I believe everyone should do it that way) and I will decide whether or not to keep Mobil 1 0W-40 SN after that UOA.
If the Mg detergent package in Castrol is indeed leading to lead-based-bearing wear, you probably have not much too worry as your bearings are probably lead-free.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: edyvw
These two oils are superb oils, and each has its own advantages, but to say that either is superior to other is nonsense. So, maybe you should try Castrol 0W40, and some other oils and we can exchange opinions.
If you are getting good UOAs with Castrol, it's good for your application, as with any oil.
I am not putting enough mileage on my car these days to test various oils. I am looking forward to my first 0W-40 UOA but it won't be until at least about a year as I just changed the oil. It will be interesting to see how it compares to 0W-20 though.
You seriously having issues accepting that anything could be better then M1 0W40, and that is ONLY because you decided to use it, for the first time.
I used M1 last 10 years, in Mazda (5W30) in VW Passat 1.8T (0W40) and now both CC and Tiguan. I used also Pennzoil, Pentosin, M1 5W30 ESP, Motul, Castrol 5W40, 0W30, 0W40. of all oils by far, the best performance was with 0W30 Castrol, and now 0W40. Smoother engine starts (never rattling noise in cold, really cold start), smoother when I take it to Pikes Peak, smoother at stop light, when cold on low rpms, when hot at low rpms and when hot especially at high rpms. Does that mean that M1 is providing less lubrication? No, I am confident that M1 will protect engine to the fullest. But, is it the best oil out there? Not sure. I am traditional driver, and I like when oil has smooth cold starts, and runs smoother. Since I generally do not trust any big corporations, I take numbers by M1 and especially Castrol, as good read, and that is it. Unless I am satisfied how my engine sounds, I am not using it.
Thanks for the comprehensive feedback.
I used to run Mobil Super 1300 15W-40 CJ-4/SM years ago but unfortunately I messed up the only UOA sample I was taking.
Comparing M1 0W-40 SN to the TGMO 0W-20 SN that was replaced, there seem to be less vibrations on the engine on the freeway; so, thicker oil may actually be benefiting it wear-wise. Downsides: Perhaps some loss in low-to-mid-range horsepower, some increase in engine temperature, and some increase in low-speed preignition (LSPI). These are really hard-to-observe though; so, I can't be sure. Now, I sample for the UOA with a pump (and I believe everyone should do it that way) and I will decide whether or not to keep Mobil 1 0W-40 SN after that UOA.
If the Mg detergent package in Castrol is indeed leading to lead-based-bearing wear, you probably have not much too worry as your bearings are probably lead-free.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: edyvw
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: edyvw
These two oils are superb oils, and each has its own advantages, but to say that either is superior to other is nonsense. So, maybe you should try Castrol 0W40, and some other oils and we can exchange opinions.
If you are getting good UOAs with Castrol, it's good for your application, as with any oil.
I am not putting enough mileage on my car these days to test various oils. I am looking forward to my first 0W-40 UOA but it won't be until at least about a year as I just changed the oil. It will be interesting to see how it compares to 0W-20 though.
You seriously having issues accepting that anything could be better then M1 0W40, and that is ONLY because you decided to use it, for the first time.
I used M1 last 10 years, in Mazda (5W30) in VW Passat 1.8T (0W40) and now both CC and Tiguan. I used also Pennzoil, Pentosin, M1 5W30 ESP, Motul, Castrol 5W40, 0W30, 0W40. of all oils by far, the best performance was with 0W30 Castrol, and now 0W40. Smoother engine starts (never rattling noise in cold, really cold start), smoother when I take it to Pikes Peak, smoother at stop light, when cold on low rpms, when hot at low rpms and when hot especially at high rpms. Does that mean that M1 is providing less lubrication? No, I am confident that M1 will protect engine to the fullest. But, is it the best oil out there? Not sure. I am traditional driver, and I like when oil has smooth cold starts, and runs smoother. Since I generally do not trust any big corporations, I take numbers by M1 and especially Castrol, as good read, and that is it. Unless I am satisfied how my engine sounds, I am not using it.
Thanks for the comprehensive feedback.
I used to run Mobil Super 1300 15W-40 CJ-4/SM years ago but unfortunately I messed up the only UOA sample I was taking.
Comparing M1 0W-40 SN to the TGMO 0W-20 SN that was replaced, there seem to be less vibrations on the engine on the freeway; so, thicker oil may actually be benefiting it wear-wise. Downsides: Perhaps some loss in low-to-mid-range horsepower, some increase in engine temperature, and some increase in low-speed preignition (LSPI). These are really hard-to-observe though; so, I can't be sure. Now, I sample for the UOA with a pump (and I believe everyone should do it that way) and I will decide whether or not to keep Mobil 1 0W-40 SN after that UOA.
If the Mg detergent package in Castrol is indeed leading to lead-based-bearing wear, you probably have not much too worry as your bearings are probably lead-free.
Considering that your Corolla does not require thick oil, but you want one, I would go with Castrol 0W30. But then, 0W30 is some $9 per quart.
Originally Posted By: edyvw
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: edyvw
These two oils are superb oils, and each has its own advantages, but to say that either is superior to other is nonsense. So, maybe you should try Castrol 0W40, and some other oils and we can exchange opinions.
If you are getting good UOAs with Castrol, it's good for your application, as with any oil.
I am not putting enough mileage on my car these days to test various oils. I am looking forward to my first 0W-40 UOA but it won't be until at least about a year as I just changed the oil. It will be interesting to see how it compares to 0W-20 though.
You seriously having issues accepting that anything could be better then M1 0W40, and that is ONLY because you decided to use it, for the first time.
I used M1 last 10 years, in Mazda (5W30) in VW Passat 1.8T (0W40) and now both CC and Tiguan. I used also Pennzoil, Pentosin, M1 5W30 ESP, Motul, Castrol 5W40, 0W30, 0W40. of all oils by far, the best performance was with 0W30 Castrol, and now 0W40. Smoother engine starts (never rattling noise in cold, really cold start), smoother when I take it to Pikes Peak, smoother at stop light, when cold on low rpms, when hot at low rpms and when hot especially at high rpms. Does that mean that M1 is providing less lubrication? No, I am confident that M1 will protect engine to the fullest. But, is it the best oil out there? Not sure. I am traditional driver, and I like when oil has smooth cold starts, and runs smoother. Since I generally do not trust any big corporations, I take numbers by M1 and especially Castrol, as good read, and that is it. Unless I am satisfied how my engine sounds, I am not using it.
Thanks for the comprehensive feedback.
I used to run Mobil Super 1300 15W-40 CJ-4/SM years ago but unfortunately I messed up the only UOA sample I was taking.
Comparing M1 0W-40 SN to the TGMO 0W-20 SN that was replaced, there seem to be less vibrations on the engine on the freeway; so, thicker oil may actually be benefiting it wear-wise. Downsides: Perhaps some loss in low-to-mid-range horsepower, some increase in engine temperature, and some increase in low-speed preignition (LSPI). These are really hard-to-observe though; so, I can't be sure. Now, I sample for the UOA with a pump (and I believe everyone should do it that way) and I will decide whether or not to keep Mobil 1 0W-40 SN after that UOA.
If the Mg detergent package in Castrol is indeed leading to lead-based-bearing wear, you probably have not much too worry as your bearings are probably lead-free.
Considering that your Corolla does not require thick oil, but you want one, I would go with Castrol 0W30. But then, 0W30 is some $9 per quart.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: Rendezvous
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
Just surfed through a 50 page BMW M3 blog post on Mobil 1 0w-40 vs. the BMW recommended 10w-60 TWS. That was quite a read. Some neat stuff in there.
BMW M3
Note the consistently decreased lead numbers in the UOAs when people switched to Mobil 1. This is supporting my conclusion that:
M1 0W-40 SN = calcium detergent package = better detergent = detergent doing its job = TBN being depleted normally as it should = less acid buildup in the engine (TAN rising slower) = less bearing corrosion
Castrol = magnesium detergent package = worse detergent = detergent not doing its job = TBN not being depleted normally as it should = more acid buildup in the engine (TAN rising faster) = more bearing corrosion
Slightly higher iron with M1 0W-40 is normal because it's a lot thinner than the Castrol 10W-60 TWS, meaning less oil-film strength in the boundary and mixed lubrication regimes (valvetrain and parts of pistons and rings). Few people need an xW-60 oil though; so, this is not really a concern.
Maybe I am missing your point which is why I am asking but the decreasing lead numbers are from switching to a thinner oil with the tight tolerances of the S65 engine. Using the thinner M1 0w40 in these engines is creating less lead because there isn't as much bearing wear. I have used both 10w60 Castrol and M1/ Motul 0w40 in my S65 M3 and had low lead numbers with both. So are you saying the reason the lead numbers are less with M1 is because of the additive package causing less corrosion?
Actually lead corrosion due to acid buildup/TBN fall/TAN rise is the leading cause of bearing wear. See this classic article by Chevron Oronite (PDF link). Detergent package is crucial in determining lead-based-bearing wear. If the detergent package is not doing its job in stopping the acid buildup, you will see increased lead and increased bearing wear.
My 85 Corolla 4A-LC engine specifies 10W-30 to 20W-50 and has the following standard bearing clearances for new bearings:
Main bearing: 12 - 49 micron
Connecting bearing: 20 - 51 micron
Main journal diameter: 48.0 mm
For BMW S65:
Main bearing: 31 - 51 micron
Connecting bearing: 15 - 53, 29 - 51, 20 - 36, 38 - 55, 41 - 56 micron (depending on the bearing type)
Main journal diameter: 60.0 mm
So, the bearing clearance for S65 is not small at all. I believe the flow rate goes as the square of the area of the clearance. So, S65 should be able to tolerate a lot thicker oil than my 4A-LC, which specifies and can run fine with 20W-50. S65 bearing clearances are simply not tight at all.
Therefore, I doubt the bearing clearance and oil viscosity is the issue here. Besides, thicker oil normally results in less bearing wear because of thicker oil film. Saying that thicker oil is resulting in more bearing wear goes against basic lubrication principles. I am not saying that there couldn't be a strange viscosity effect here but I really doubt it.
The thread only compares M1 0W-40 to Castrol 10W-60. There are no other xW-40, xW-50, or xW-60 oils with UOAs. Therefore, we can't really reach a definite conclusion. However, I saw one German Castrol 0W-30 on a BMW 5-series with dismal lead values. It's funny that they attributed the bearing wear in that case to German Castrol 0W-30 being too thin, which is actually almost as thick as M1 0W-40 as it's an ACEA A3/B4 oil as well (therefore a "0W-35" [nonofficial term by me]).
My main suspect here is still the magnesium-detergent package of Castrol 10W-60 that seems to be causing lead corrosion because it's unable to prevent acid buildup.
There are plenty of people including myself who actually own these cars and know about the engine that would disagree with you. The clearance to journal ratio best practice rule that factory and racing engine builders have followed for a long time would say different also. Clevite who made the oem bearing for some of these engines recommends the same clearance ratio. The S65 clearance ratio is smaller than this minimum recommended best practice value. The many failed S65 engines that people have had that were inspected by machine shops and engine builders have said most were from too little bearing oil clearance. Most of these engines also had very tight rod side clearance causing damage to the rod's and crankshaft. There are plenty of documented bearing failures out there that you can research and find yourself. Also the bearing clearances you are talking about for the S65 and toyota engine don't prove any point without mention journal diameters. Without that information their clearance specifications don't mean very much.
Originally Posted By: Rendezvous
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
Just surfed through a 50 page BMW M3 blog post on Mobil 1 0w-40 vs. the BMW recommended 10w-60 TWS. That was quite a read. Some neat stuff in there.
BMW M3
Note the consistently decreased lead numbers in the UOAs when people switched to Mobil 1. This is supporting my conclusion that:
M1 0W-40 SN = calcium detergent package = better detergent = detergent doing its job = TBN being depleted normally as it should = less acid buildup in the engine (TAN rising slower) = less bearing corrosion
Castrol = magnesium detergent package = worse detergent = detergent not doing its job = TBN not being depleted normally as it should = more acid buildup in the engine (TAN rising faster) = more bearing corrosion
Slightly higher iron with M1 0W-40 is normal because it's a lot thinner than the Castrol 10W-60 TWS, meaning less oil-film strength in the boundary and mixed lubrication regimes (valvetrain and parts of pistons and rings). Few people need an xW-60 oil though; so, this is not really a concern.
Maybe I am missing your point which is why I am asking but the decreasing lead numbers are from switching to a thinner oil with the tight tolerances of the S65 engine. Using the thinner M1 0w40 in these engines is creating less lead because there isn't as much bearing wear. I have used both 10w60 Castrol and M1/ Motul 0w40 in my S65 M3 and had low lead numbers with both. So are you saying the reason the lead numbers are less with M1 is because of the additive package causing less corrosion?
Actually lead corrosion due to acid buildup/TBN fall/TAN rise is the leading cause of bearing wear. See this classic article by Chevron Oronite (PDF link). Detergent package is crucial in determining lead-based-bearing wear. If the detergent package is not doing its job in stopping the acid buildup, you will see increased lead and increased bearing wear.
My 85 Corolla 4A-LC engine specifies 10W-30 to 20W-50 and has the following standard bearing clearances for new bearings:
Main bearing: 12 - 49 micron
Connecting bearing: 20 - 51 micron
Main journal diameter: 48.0 mm
For BMW S65:
Main bearing: 31 - 51 micron
Connecting bearing: 15 - 53, 29 - 51, 20 - 36, 38 - 55, 41 - 56 micron (depending on the bearing type)
Main journal diameter: 60.0 mm
So, the bearing clearance for S65 is not small at all. I believe the flow rate goes as the square of the area of the clearance. So, S65 should be able to tolerate a lot thicker oil than my 4A-LC, which specifies and can run fine with 20W-50. S65 bearing clearances are simply not tight at all.
Therefore, I doubt the bearing clearance and oil viscosity is the issue here. Besides, thicker oil normally results in less bearing wear because of thicker oil film. Saying that thicker oil is resulting in more bearing wear goes against basic lubrication principles. I am not saying that there couldn't be a strange viscosity effect here but I really doubt it.
The thread only compares M1 0W-40 to Castrol 10W-60. There are no other xW-40, xW-50, or xW-60 oils with UOAs. Therefore, we can't really reach a definite conclusion. However, I saw one German Castrol 0W-30 on a BMW 5-series with dismal lead values. It's funny that they attributed the bearing wear in that case to German Castrol 0W-30 being too thin, which is actually almost as thick as M1 0W-40 as it's an ACEA A3/B4 oil as well (therefore a "0W-35" [nonofficial term by me]).
My main suspect here is still the magnesium-detergent package of Castrol 10W-60 that seems to be causing lead corrosion because it's unable to prevent acid buildup.
There are plenty of people including myself who actually own these cars and know about the engine that would disagree with you. The clearance to journal ratio best practice rule that factory and racing engine builders have followed for a long time would say different also. Clevite who made the oem bearing for some of these engines recommends the same clearance ratio. The S65 clearance ratio is smaller than this minimum recommended best practice value. The many failed S65 engines that people have had that were inspected by machine shops and engine builders have said most were from too little bearing oil clearance. Most of these engines also had very tight rod side clearance causing damage to the rod's and crankshaft. There are plenty of documented bearing failures out there that you can research and find yourself. Also the bearing clearances you are talking about for the S65 and toyota engine don't prove any point without mention journal diameters. Without that information their clearance specifications don't mean very much.
- Status