What oil?

[cobra]

Wait, so you guys are shipping used oil back to fcp? Thread is too long for me to thoroughly read every post.



If the above is true, it's because I'm lazy is that a good enough reason?

I have never done it but it's totally legit and they will refund ya.

[jet_dogg]

You're next oil change, presumably

That is up with all fluids fosho, tws or ravenol me thinks.

[jet_dogg]

Wait, so you guys are shipping used oil back to fcp? Thread is too long for me to thoroughly read every post.

Why would anyone buy oil from anywhere but FCP?

If the above is true, it's because I'm lazy is that a good enough reason?

[cobra]

Why would anyone buy oil from anywhere but FCP?

[terra]

Gaining popularity

Castrol also makes a 5w-50 which might be a decent option for people whose cars see winter duty.

[Tbonem3]

sup

You're next oil change, presumably

[Tbonem3]

15w 50

Gaining popularity

[Kdubski]

15w 50

[jet_dogg]

sup

[eacmen]

Interesting video that is clearly sponsor-bait by Mobil 1 but I still found it informative.

https://youtu.be/YHaBrmb1U8w

[Norocehcap]

Ugh, every time you link this I buy a case because it's a good deal.

Nice score! I think Amazon does this same sale every few months, I paid $103 in November when someone linked it last time for black friday.

[Tbonem3]

I've never seen it this low. it's usually like $12x iirc. Too bad the per liter price is still $13.50 (still cheaper than other venders who have it at $14, however).

[r4dr]

Just bought 12 liters of TWS for $110! $9.20 per!

https://www.amazon.com/Castrol-SUPER...5317995&sr=8-4

Ugh, every time you link this I buy a case because it's a good deal.

[Tbonem3]

Just bought 12 liters of TWS for $110! $9.20 per!

https://www.amazon.com/Castrol-SUPERCAR-10W-60-Advanced-Synthetic/dp/B0161A4CIS/ref=sr_1_4?dchild=1&keywords=10w60&qid=1615317995&sr=8-4

[IamFODI]

I did follow your link but the first one was dead, and I didn't see anything else that lead to engine testing?

Thanks. Fixed it.

The point is what I said here:

...the people who do this stuff for a living don't like to choose engine oils based on an incomplete list of ingredients and/or a very small number of un-validated tests on homemade rigs. They want to look at a lot of different aspects of performance, using extensively validated methods and actual engines.

And here:

The [test rig in this video is basically a version of] the "one-arm bandit," a machine that sorta-kinda-mimics the Timken OK Load test. The real Timken OK Load test is well defined and accepted for extreme pressure (EP) performance, which is very important for greases and gearbox lubes. But there's almost nothing in an engine that sees similar kinds of loads, and formulating a lubricant for very high levels of EP performance involves compromises that are not acceptable for an engine oil (which is a major reason why engine and gearbox lubes are different). So, even if this method had been validated (which it hasn't) and were performed in a rigorous way according to accepted standards (which it isn't), it would only tell us one aspect of an oil's performance, and that one aspect would be largely irrelevant to engines.

[The] evaporation loss test is okay for what it is, and the thought of testing aged oil is great. But at no point in an engine does the oil sit at that temp under atmospheric pressure for... hours, and real oil aging methods involve more than just high temps (e.g. bubbling NOx compounds through the oil and then loading it with soot). All he does to justify this method is name-drop the Noack volatility test, which is interesting but very narrow in its utility and works differently from how he did it [not just with greater precision as he says].

[The] cold flow test also is not meaningful because cold oil doesn't just passively flow through an engine. It gets pumped, and pumping generates shear forces which change the apparent viscosity of the oil. That's why real cold viscosity tests, like the MRV and CCS testing that defines an engine oil's W rating (e.g. the 10W in 10W-60), involve shear forces.

And:

What limited data is worth basing a decision on? Well, for one thing... the people who developed the engine literally told us what oil they think we should use.

Beyond that, we're unfortunately in a crappy situation because BMW never published an actual lubricant spec for these engines. They and their lubrication partners (Castrol, then Shell) are the only ones who really know the details of what the engine needs, and they're never going to tell. Everyone else is just guessing.

Barring an OEM recommendation, and in the absence of an actual spec, the (distantly) next best thing is a track record of apparent success in real performance engines, ideally including yours. Liqui Moly is the obvious go-to here. If you like big additive PPM numbers on oil analysis, Motul 300V and Red Line's non-OE-approved lineup are no-brainers; Red Line might have more of a rep in S54s per se, while 300V has way more of a track record in high-end racing, for what that's worth. If impressive specs and credible promises of cutting-edge tech are more your thing, Ravenol seems like a good call.

The Castrol TWS is just repackaged whatever, and not the original TWS right?

TWS's history apparently goes back to the '70s. It was a very successful lubricant in racing that ended up going through many revisions and re-brandings over the decades (of which TWS was just one brand). It's still a highly successful lubricant family and is still in use in some applications, like the Audi R8 GT.

do we trust them to actually make it better for our application, or just improve product margins?

Impossible to know whether it's as good for the S54 as it was in 2001, but it's still just as important and successful as it always has been, so it's highly unlikely that they've ruined it through cost-cutting.