BMW M6 V10 Castrol 10w-60 with 13,000 miles!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 2, 2007
Messages
44
Location
Jacksonville,FL
This is a UOA from my best friends 2006 BMW M6 V10. This oil had a little over 13,000 miles with 2 quarts of make up oil. BMW refused to change the oil under their "maintanance free" program since the oil/service light had not come on. I told him to screw and pay out of pocket. THere is no way i would leave an oil for 13K in $100k car that revs to 8200RPM. It seems as though i was right.




BMW_M6_1st.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not to be a smartarss, but does your friend know that you just posted his name and complete contact info on a public forum? Anyways, I would have expected worse on a 13k drain. The lead is pretty alarming, but the insolubles are remarkably low.

My mom's X3 also has that dam'ned oil monitoring system. She drives like 2 miles a day and still has 3000 mile to go before she is due for an oil change. I'm wondering if she'll ever get a chance to change her oil before her lease is up in three years. This is why I would never buy a BMW off a lease.
 
I cropped the image and took out the name, etc.

Please do not post UOA images with the personal info still intact. Crop the image or blur the info out.
 
I think Blackstone is right, this engine is still new, so some of the wear is simply break in materials, and it will subside over time. I think the 13k interval might be a tad too long, but not by a big margin. I think this just illustrates that there should be a few 5-6k oil changes at the beginning of an engine's life, before settling in with higher intervals, that's all.
 
Whats the sump capacity?

All things considered, doesn't look all that bad.

Oil sheared alot. I guess that is what to expect from the 10w60 spread. It is scraping the '40wt' range.
 
If I remember correctly, the sump capacity is 10 liters. The oil was in ok shape and since there's no trending information, we don't know how the wear is progressing.

The TWS 10w-60 shears to a 50wt in about 100 miles. The film strength is as good or better than most pure racing oils, and it lasts pretty well for an SJ rated product.
 
Quote:


Whats the sump capacity?

All things considered, doesn't look all that bad.

Oil sheared alot. I guess that is what to expect from the 10w60 spread. It is scraping the '40wt' range.




This is deceptive, since the oil capacity is 13L, or almost 14 Qts. If you wanted to compare this to a Prius, which has a 4 Qt capacity, you'd have to multiply the V10 numbers by 3.5. If you wanted to correct for engine complexity by normalizing for the number of cylinders, you could divide by 2.5. Still, wear is significantly higher.
 
Quote:


Quote:


Whats the sump capacity?

All things considered, doesn't look all that bad.

Oil sheared alot. I guess that is what to expect from the 10w60 spread. It is scraping the '40wt' range.




This is deceptive, since the oil capacity is 13L, or almost 14 Qts. If you wanted to compare this to a Prius, which has a 4 Qt capacity, you'd have to multiply the V10 numbers by 3.5. If you wanted to correct for engine complexity by normalizing for the number of cylinders, you could divide by 2.5. Still, wear is significantly higher.




From what I understand and looking at his service report it took 10quarts not 13?
 
[quote
This is deceptive, since the oil capacity is 13L, or almost 14 Qts. If you wanted to compare this to a Prius, which has a 4 Qt capacity, you'd have to multiply the V10 numbers by 3.5. If you wanted to correct for engine complexity by normalizing for the number of cylinders, you could divide by 2.5. Still, wear is significantly higher.




I really didn't know that there is such math involved with the UOAs. The numbers, except for lead, are not crazy, but of course if you do the math you are suggesting they would be really over the top.

I really wonder what the whole point of the UOA deal is. I think it has become more of a hobby than anything else.

Can somebody please provide me some info where the UOAs looked bad and the car broke down within a 6 months? At the same time is there anybody that can show a bad UOA, suggestions on what to fix and the numbers improving.

Please do if you can, because I have been getting very skeptical about this whole deal. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy reading these forums and testing out new things, but sometimes it does seem like a waste of time and money.
Sticking with manufacturer recommended intervals and approved oils (in my case 5000 miles and VW 502 00 oil) I would think the car would run fine for quite some time.

I am aware of RS4 stats and the RLI info that is on top of the forum and that is a great example of how to lower wear numbers. I am sure that the money that was invested in the research was great as well.

Thanks guys
dunno.gif
 
yea..BMW just realeased a Service bulletin that the S85 in the M5 should only take about 8.8L and that the original capacity of 9.5 is a little too much. So unless the S85 in the M6 has a drastically different oil pan..there's no way it holds 13L's...
 
This board has two groups that get UOA's done - the perfectionists trying to get the lowest wear and the correctionists ensuring that their engines are running normally. Fortunately for all concerned, BOTH groups end up with more efficient, lower polluting engines. Nobody loses, as far as I can tell.

A UOA tells you the condition of the oil, not the engine.

The wear numbers, the fuel, water, antifreeze (glycol) and silicon numbers are just pointers to the effects of contamination by chemicals that aren't supposed to be there, which usually means that mechanical work is needed.

So it won't tell if your engine will fail soon, but it will tell you if there are problems that, if not unrepaired, could cost a lot to repair later.



Quote:



This is deceptive, since the oil capacity is 13L, or almost 14 Qts. If you wanted to compare this to a Prius, which has a 4 Qt capacity, you'd have to multiply the V10 numbers by 3.5. If you wanted to correct for engine complexity by normalizing for the number of cylinders, you could divide by 2.5. Still, wear is significantly higher.




I really didn't know that there is such math involved with the UOAs. The numbers, except for lead, are not crazy, but of course if you do the math you are suggesting they would be really over the top.

I really wonder what the whole point of the UOA deal is. I think it has become more of a hobby than anything else.

Can somebody please provide me some info where the UOAs looked bad and the car broke down within a 6 months? At the same time is there anybody that can show a bad UOA, suggestions on what to fix and the numbers improving.

Please do if you can, because I have been getting very skeptical about this whole deal. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy reading these forums and testing out new things, but sometimes it does seem like a waste of time and money.
Sticking with manufacturer recommended intervals and approved oils (in my case 5000 miles and VW 502 00 oil) I would think the car would run fine for quite some time.

I am aware of RS4 stats and the RLI info that is on top of the forum and that is a great example of how to lower wear numbers. I am sure that the money that was invested in the research was great as well.

Thanks guys
dunno.gif



 
A bit off topic here...
Quote:



A UOA tells you the condition of the oil, not the engine.




I don't agree. With professional analysis, one can determine a number of engine/performance problems (not each & every problem, but many of them). Terry (Dyson Analysis) was able to tell me of problem on my car some 25,000 miles *before* the problem came to the surface.

The key here is professional interpretations.

Back on topic now...
 
I agree that if the oil's in bad shape it usually means that there is something that should be repaired. The reverse is not true, though: there's no guarantee that the engine is fine if the UOA is ok. Failing engines can turn in good UOA's right up to their dying moment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top