2016 BMW 535i w/ N55 engine @ 56k miles; QS Euro 5w-40 5.5k miles

[ps2cho]

2016 535i - N55 engine, 56,000 miles on odometer, oil has 5,500mi on it.

Thoughts?
The wears dont seem to really be showing anything concerning, but is the lower viscosity anything to think on or change the oil brand from current Quaker State Euro 5-40w?

I was wondering if I can push OCI's to ~7-8k? Or think I should stick with my current 5-6k intervals that I have always done?

 

[squidward]

Do you do a lot of short-distance driving?

 

[ps2cho]

Do you do a lot of short-distance driving?

I wouldnt call it a "lot". This mileage included 1000mi road trip, regular commute is 40 miles each way 3-4x a week, then weekend stuff is all 5-mi/way...some, but the cars definitely not living local. Put 16-20k miles a year on it.

 

[fantastic]

Yeah, You'd hope that it would've stayed in a 40 grade for longer than 5,500 miles but I'll provide my feedback once you let me know what the sump capacity is on this engine. As for the wear your Fe is 50% lower than the average. That's great!

 

[ps2cho]

Yeah, You'd hope that it would've stayed in a 40 grade for longer than 5,500 miles but I'll provide my feedback once you let me know what the sump capacity is on this engine. As for the wear your Fe is 50% lower than the average. That's great!

N55 capacity is 6.9qts

 

[fantastic]

N55 capacity is 6.9qts

Thanks for that information. I don't think the viscosity decrease is really too bad. Shell is known to design their oils on the thin side & then add in that Blackstone doesn't report fuel in a percentage that's easier to understand. There may be some fuel present here too bringing it down a bit. Still 5500 miles w/6.9qts ending at the beginning of a very thick 30 grade is nothing to worry about. I would recommend using a lab that reports the fuel contamination in percentage though but that is entirely your choice. I think your N55 is in great shape.

 

[ps2cho]

Thanks for that information. I don't think the viscosity decrease is really too bad. Shell is known to design their oils on the thin side & then add in that Blackstone doesn't report fuel in a percentage that's easier to understand. There may be some fuel present here too bringing it down a bit. Still 5500 miles w/6.9qts ending at the beginning of a very thick 30 grade is nothing to worry about. I would recommend using a lab that reports the fuel contamination in percentage though but that is entirely your choice. I think your N55 is in great shape.

Would you think I run an 8k OCI next and send in another analysis, or continue at 5-6k intervals and just roll with it (plan is one oil analysis every 20-30k for safe measure)

 

[fantastic]

Would you think I run an 8k OCI next and send in another analysis, or continue at 5-6k intervals and just roll with it (plan is one oil analysis every 20-30k for safe measure)

I think with your use case & seeing these results, so long as you're not beating on it every day. This oil starts at 12.29 when new & after some fuzzy math 12.29-11.52=0.77 decrease would end at 11.17 cst viscosity at 8,000 miles. That would be excellent for an end run. That would be ending at the thickest 5w-30 grade euro oils on the market. You won't know unless you try right?

 

[JavierH19]

It's not the oil, it'll dilute anything in the sump, here's a recent qs 5w-40 uoa in an ml 350

QS Euro 5-40 @ 6500 miles

Any help on uploading a report from ALS. Using a Mac I saved it in notes but can't figure out how to find it to upload. I could take a screenshot but don't think it would capture the entire list. This was in a MB ML 350.

bobistheoilguy.com

 

[JavierH19]

All in all it's still protecting well with that visc. Metals are good, 5k intervals are good enough.

 

[JHZR2]

I was expecting to see more fuel than that…

I’d stay about the same given that it’s either shearing or something else is up…

 

[ps2cho]

So are you saying on the N55 the fuel dilution is “normal” and nothing any oil will resolve?

 

[chris719]

I was expecting to see more fuel than that…

I’d stay about the same given that it’s either shearing or something else is up…

N55 and S55 don't really have high fuel dilution. It's probably sheared. Almost all UOAs of oils from these engines show a good loss of viscosity without tons of fuel dilution.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

View attachment 202398

2016 535i - N55 engine, 56,000 miles on odometer, oil has 5,500mi on it.

Thoughts?
The wears dont seem to really be showing anything concerning, but is the lower viscosity anything to think on or change the oil brand from current Quaker State Euro 5-40w?

I was wondering if I can push OCI's to ~7-8k? Or think I should stick with my current 5-6k intervals that I have always done?

First, I don't have a lot of faith in BS viscosity measurements. They always seem to come in low and then go up once retested.
Second typical 40 grade euro oils are on the low end of the viscosity range for that grade to begin with and there's going to be some movement through the OCI.

Your oil is good for 10k miles.

 

[dnewton3]

Thoughts? ...

I was wondering if I can push OCI's to ~7-8k? Or think I should stick with my current 5-6k intervals that I have always done?

The wear seems fine; within the normal expectations for this engine series.
The contamination is negligible.

Upping the OCI to 8k miles is certainly doable. Try it and get another UOA. Assuming that's good, could likely go further but should check incrementally.

 

[kschachn]

I was expecting to see more fuel than that…

I’d stay about the same given that it’s either shearing or something else is up…

So are you saying on the N55 the fuel dilution is “normal” and nothing any oil will resolve?

First, I don't have a lot of faith in BS viscosity measurements. They always seem to come in low and then go up once retested.
Second typical 40 grade euro oils are on the low end of the viscosity range for that grade to begin with and there's going to be some movement through the OCI.

Your oil is good for 10k miles.

One has no idea just how much fuel is in that oil, or if there is any mechanical shearing of the VM. The UOA is patently worthless in that regard.

 

[JHZR2]

One has no idea just how much fuel is in that oil, or if there is any mechanical shearing of the VM. The UOA is patently worthless in that regard.

What’s your basis?

A value is provided. Notionally it was done IAW standard test.

Are you saying they’re lying, or that their test is inaccurate?

 

[kschachn]

What’s your basis?

A value is provided. Notionally it was done IAW standard test.

Are you saying they’re lying, or that their test is inaccurate?

Yea it’s a standard ASTM test. But like some ASTM tests it has poor accuracy. Just because it’s a standardized test doesn’t mean it yields reliable results, many ASTM tests have poor resolution and/or repeatability and reproducibility.

Here you’re taking another test with relatively poor accuracy (flash point) and then inferring another result on top of that. It’s much more of a screening test rather than diagnostic. A far more accurate result is obtained by a test that measures fuel directly such as by gas chromatography. Some analysis labs offer this method.

Owning, operating and maintaining a CG is somewhat expensive so Blackstone chooses a cheaper and inferior method of estimating fuel contamination. They aren’t the only ones, and some labs will use this method unless you pay extra for a more accurate test.

We have seen multiple analysis on here where the flash point estimate is not only inaccurate but wildly so.

 

[JHZR2]

Yea it’s a standard ASTM test. But like some ASTM tests it has poor accuracy. Just because it’s a standardized test doesn’t mean it yields reliable results, many ASTM tests have poor resolution and/or repeatability and reproducibility.

Here you’re taking another test with relatively poor accuracy (flash point) and then inferring another result on top of that. It’s much more of a screening test rather than diagnostic. A far more accurate result is obtained by a test that measures fuel directly such as by gas chromatography. Some analysis labs offer this method.

Owning, operating and maintaining a CG is somewhat expensive so Blackstone chooses a cheaper and inferior method of estimating fuel contamination. They aren’t the only ones, and some labs will use this method unless you pay extra for a more accurate test.

We have seen multiple analysis on here where the flash point estimate is not only inaccurate but wildly so.

I wasn’t even looking at the flashpoint. Just the fuel number itself.

I’m acutely aware of the costs and challenges associated with high fidelity analytical equipment. And the RSD that is appropriate.

That said, absolute accuracy or consistency isn’t the whole name of the game. The right tool and the right fidelity at the right place and time is necessary. I don’t need to know if it’s 0.5 or 0.513%. I need to know if it’s varying by percentages.

 

[kschachn]

I wasn’t even looking at the flashpoint. Just the fuel number itself.

I’m acutely aware of the costs and challenges associated with high fidelity analytical equipment. And the RSD that is appropriate.

That said, absolute accuracy or consistency isn’t the whole name of the game. The right tool and the right fidelity at the right place and time is necessary. I don’t need to know if it’s 0.5 or 0.513%. I need to know if it’s varying by percentages.

The flash point is what’s used to infer fuel dilution.

And we have seen Blackstone estimates that are way worse than 0.013 discrepant. More like several percentage points.