What oil?

[Mike RT4]

Couple of understandable but important misconceptions here.

Specs like what Mike RT4 posted are related to important aspects of oil formulations, but they can't tell us which oil's formulation is "closer to" or "better than" any other in any meaningful way. A higher VI could be due to better base stocks or higher levels of polymeric additives. Lower pour point could mean more PAO or a lot of pour point depessant. Sulfated ash could come from any combination of anti-wear, anti-friction, or detergent/dispersant additives. And there's no guarantee that the numbers even mean anything in the first place because there could be batch-to-batch variations that are larger than the differences among oils. To know which formulations are more or less "like" each other, we'd have to know base stocks and additive packages in detail as well as the performance specs of the finished formulation. That stuff can't really be inferred from a spreadsheet, and oil companies aren't likely to divulge it. Actually, the real real test is how it works in actual engines. But that's even more out of reach.

Cold start performance is indeed vitally important. The best indicators of that are not pour point, but CCS and MRV. Those simulate actual pumping. Pour point just tells you at what temp the oil will no longer move, which isn't necessarily related to viscosity above that temp (honey has a lower pour point than water, but that hardly matters above 0º C). Notice the two oils in the table that have CCS numbers listed: Castrol Edge has a better number than the Fuchs even though they have identical pour points. The highest pour point on the table is -39º C, and I'm pretty sure few people here will ever cold-start an M3 in temps below that, so any extra margin on that spec is... perhaps interesting, but not meaningful in practice.

My understanding of the CCS figure was that it was just used to confirm the oil's viscosity rating?:

CCS Test Limits in SAE J300:

SAE Viscosity Grade : CCS (mPa.s)

• 0W : 6200 @ -35ºC
• 5W : 6600 @ -30ºC
• 10W : 7000 @ -25ºC
• 15W : 7000 @ -20ºC
• 20W : 9500 @ -15ºC
• 25W : 13000 @ -10ºC

[Onefastsicilian]

Anyone ever run 5w50? Hear that’s supposed to be good stuff

[Carbonvert]

Couple of understandable but important misconceptions here.

Specs like what Mike RT4 posted are related to important aspects of oil formulations, but they can't tell us which oil's formulation is "closer to" or "better than" any other in any meaningful way. A higher VI could be due to better base stocks or higher levels of polymeric additives. Lower pour point could mean more PAO or a lot of pour point depessant. Sulfated ash could come from any combination of anti-wear, anti-friction, or detergent/dispersant additives. And there's no guarantee that the numbers even mean anything in the first place because there could be batch-to-batch variations that are larger than the differences among oils. To know which formulations are more or less "like" each other, we'd have to know base stocks and additive packages in detail as well as the performance specs of the finished formulation. That stuff can't really be inferred from a spreadsheet, and oil companies aren't likely to divulge it. Actually, the real real test is how it works in actual engines. But that's even more out of reach.

Cold start performance is indeed vitally important. The best indicators of that are not pour point, but CCS and MRV. Those simulate actual pumping. Pour point just tells you at what temp the oil will no longer move, which isn't necessarily related to viscosity above that temp (honey has a lower pour point than water, but that hardly matters above 0º C). Notice the two oils in the table that have CCS numbers listed: Castrol Edge has a better number than the Fuchs even though they have identical pour points. The highest pour point on the table is -39º C, and I'm pretty sure few people here will ever cold-start an M3 in temps below that, so any extra margin on that spec is... perhaps interesting, but not meaningful in practice.

Thank you for such a detailed response. It’s been awhile since I’ve stepped into an oil thread - glad I did- I learned something.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[IamFODI]

Ravenol looks the closest to the old formulation of TWS to me. Very similar VI, lower pour point, higher flash point compared to Fuchs.

As we know cold start performance is one of the most important attributes in an oil for our cars if street driven. Ravenol and the original TWS have the same pour point as a 0w40.

Couple of understandable but important misconceptions here.

Specs like what Mike RT4 posted are related to important aspects of oil formulations, but they can't tell us which oil's formulation is "closer to" or "better than" any other in any meaningful way. A higher VI could be due to better base stocks or higher levels of polymeric additives. Lower pour point could mean more PAO or a lot of pour point depessant. Sulfated ash could come from any combination of anti-wear, anti-friction, or detergent/dispersant additives. And there's no guarantee that the numbers even mean anything in the first place because there could be batch-to-batch variations that are larger than the differences among oils. To know which formulations are more or less "like" each other, we'd have to know base stocks and additive packages in detail as well as the performance specs of the finished formulation. That stuff can't really be inferred from a spreadsheet, and oil companies aren't likely to divulge it. Actually, the real real test is how it works in actual engines. But that's even more out of reach.

Cold start performance is indeed vitally important. The best indicators of that are not pour point, but CCS and MRV. Those simulate actual pumping. Pour point just tells you at what temp the oil will no longer move, which isn't necessarily related to viscosity above that temp (honey has a lower pour point than water, but that hardly matters above 0º C). Notice the two oils in the table that have CCS numbers listed: Castrol Edge has a better number than the Fuchs even though they have identical pour points. The highest pour point on the table is -39º C, and I'm pretty sure few people here will ever cold-start an M3 in temps below that, so any extra margin on that spec is... perhaps interesting, but not meaningful in practice.

[Zack]

Love my liquimoly 10w60 change every 7500 miles

[bigjae46]

Has never failed me...



🤣

[Carbonvert]

Perhaps I should rephrase it as to saying it's not as good a match to the original TWS specification as the Fuchs is. Also, the Fuchs being ester based is allegedly far more shear stable than other non-ester based oils.

Ravenol looks the closest to the old formulation of TWS to me. Very similar VI, lower pour point, higher flash point compared to Fuchs.

As we know cold start performance is one of the most important attributes in an oil for our cars if street driven. Ravenol and the original TWS have the same pour point as a 0w40.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mike RT4]

Out of curiosity, how do you come to the conclusion that it's not as good? Thicker at 100*C? Seems like comparing numbers out of context doesn't tell the whole story.

Perhaps I should rephrase it as to saying it's not as good a match to the original TWS specification as the Fuchs is. Also, the Fuchs being ester based is allegedly far more shear stable than other non-ester based oils.

[IamFODI]

The one spec on there that might influence my decision is sulfated ash. Lower is better, assuming all the oils seemed roughly equivalent for my application otherwise. Too bad it's not published for all oils.

[r4dr]

Out of curiosity, how do you come to the conclusion that it's not as good? Thicker at 100*C? Seems like comparing numbers out of context doesn't tell the whole story.

[Mike RT4]

Having reviewed the original specs of Castrol TWS, the closest I have found to this is Fuchs Titan Race Pro S 10w60. Castrol's own current Edge spec is not quite as good as the old TWS. You can actually verify all this from comparing the data sheets provided earlier in this thread and judge for yourself.

	Standard	Titan Race Pro S	Castrol Edge	Castrol TWS	Shell Helix Ultra Racing	BMW Twin Power
Kinematic viscosity 100°C mm²/s	IP71	24.1	22.7	24.2	22.8	23.1
Kinematic viscosity 40°C mm²/s	IP71	163.9	160	161	151
Viscosity index (A)	IP226	179	173	179	174
Specific gravity (density) 15°C	IP160	0.869	0.853	0.864	0.846	0.845
Flash point - Celsius	IP34	200	203	200	215	250
Pour point - Celsius	IP15	-39	-39	-51	-39	-42
Sulfate ash content (% wt)		N/A	1.29	1.1	N/A
Cold crank viscosity -25°C	ASTM D5293	6100	4879
API		SL, SJ & SH	SN, CF		SN, CF	SN

[sc_tr0jan_m3]

after looking through some more reviews, i may switch back to the OEM oil via FCP. LM doesn't appear to perform as well.

[m3nt0s]

Those of you who use the BMW stuff via FCPEuro - what is the most cost effective way to do the return shipping? Does it fit in any of the USPS flat rate boxes?

As others have stated, I just hang onto all the original shipping materials that come from FCP, and pack the old oil and filter for return shipping. It’s usually $15-17 to send it all back and when asked, I just say “car parts”.

I’ve gotten the most hassle from the post office, less so from UPS or Fedex. If I’m using some third party generic shipping store, or the shipping counter at Staples, they don’t seem to care at all.

[digger]

Get a good name brand oil in correct viscosity range and you’re good to go. These days people are over thinking it for what are essentially street engines

[IamFODI]

I can’t find the documentation to confirm (probably lost on the old forum) but it seems like this could be the closest of what is available to the original blend of Castrol TWS. I remember that also had a pout point in a class of its own.

How original are we talking? TWS's provenance goes back decades at this point. :]

TWS is a great lubricant with a great history. AFAIK it has historically gotten Castrol's best tech. It's also a great example of how stellar performance requires not heavy additization, but the right additization. It didn't have the kind of everything-but-the-kitchen-sink additive package that other "boutique" oils had, and yet it -- not they -- found its way into serious race cars and OEM applications.

These days, there are several options like that. I know some people don't want to hear this, but BMW TwinPower Turbo 10W-60 seems to be in that class. Shell Helix Ultra, Liqui Moly, Ravenol... It's not hard to find a good lubricant in this class. Nothing has the heritage of TWS, but there are plenty of potent competitors.