Oil for E30 M3

Lancelot11

I'll try to

1) 0w-30 is simply to thin at the top end i.e. 30 instead of 50 to give the best protection when running at high temps. 15w-50 is a motorsport grade as the engine is running hot all or most of the time. Silkolene recommend PRO S and PRO R (ester) to all motorsport users.

This is something of interest about these oils:

Quote:

Sent: 07 May 2004 16:16
To: Rowland, John
Subject: Peugeot Cosworth - result!

John

Oilman, thanks for the reply to my post on the 2nd page.

I have been discussing what to put in the car after the running in period and I am for Castrol as I have been using it on my 1989 320is,

Allthough my mechanic says I should be using Mobil 1 for the 1985 M635csi

P.S. Should the mineral oil being used for the running in period be a special make or do all the companies make then?

regards

Luke

Simon,

This is an interesting thread and provoking a lot of interest. It's good to hear from someone who knows their stuff. I've used Silkolene before, many years ago and I had no trouble with it what so ever. I had forgotten how good it was. From your info I feel I should go back to it.........

Picking up on you posts though, I'm not sure it's a good recommendation to say that BMW and others use it in factory fills. As you say a new engine requires different things of an oil to an engine with a number of miles on it. You quite rightly say a new engine requires an oil which will allow some wear, to enable the engine to 'bed in'. 

Knowing a new car will be maintained by the dealer network and that the first check post p.d.i. is at the 1,250 mile point (e46 M3), with less revs (demand) made on the engine during this period, this oil really doesn't have so much expected of it?

I know your hands are tied, but do you think the Castrol recommendations are purely commercial?

Dave.

M3Pilot wrote: I'll get me coat! I can only parrot fashion what they say on there site. But they do make a convicing case.I might mail them what you have posted above if you don't mind and see what they say.

Still want to give this one a go?

JR reckons you won't get a straight answer but worth a try.

I have the question, phrased properly, if you want to give it a go, email me and I'll send you JR's response.

Cheers

Simon

 

 

oilman wrote: M3Pilot wrote: I'll get me coat! I can only parrot fashion what they say on there site. But they do make a convicing case.I might mail them what you have posted above if you don't mind and see what they say.  Still want to give this one a go? JR reckons you won't get a straight answer but worth a try. I have the question, phrased properly, if you want to give it a go, email me and I'll send you JR's response. Cheers Simon

Yes. All I can do is see what they say. I have no idea what there response will be. But if they market there oil as one of the best there is, then they need to step up to the plate.
I think the oil test will be good too. I just hope that it is un biased and if it is good it will be said as so. I'm still convinced it's a great oil until I'm proved other wise. I'm sure Redline is still better than the like s of Magnatec.

I'll mail you and we can get the ball rolling and see what happens.


Edited by M3Pilot

A WORD OF CAUTION ON ADDITIVES!

 

This is the transcript of an AA article published in Motor May 10^th 1986.

 

The widely-advertised oil additive Slick 50 has been soundly slammed by the AA’s Technical Services.

The AA claim that their tests show Slick 50 provides no fuel savings when it is added to a cars engine oil – and there is no evidence of any other benefits under normal operating conditions.

The AA have made no press or public announcement of their report, but have produced a leaflet for the benefit of any paid-up members who apply for one. An AA member on Motor’s staff applied for a report in the normal way.

The report states that whilst there is no evidence the product will do harm to the engine, one good point is that most of it will be very rapidly removed by the oil filter. “At about £12 per treatment”, say the AA, “it is a very expensive way of coating your oil filter element”.

The AA performed tests by taking three identical cars and carefully running them in, splitting the driving equally among their test drivers. Oils were changed at 1500 miles, the cars were run a further 500 miles to stabilise the oils’ viscosity, the cars’ tuning was carefully checked and steady speed fuel consumptions and power outputs were measured.

The report says: “The procedure is so sensitive that, for instance, leaving the headlamps of the car switched on will make a nonsense of the results due to the extra drag of the charging system”.

Engineers added Slick 50 to two of the cars in the recommended way at 3000 miles.

After a further 2000 miles, further dynamometer tests were carried out. “One car should show the sort of gradual change expected of a car in good condition” says the report, “whereas two should show a noticeable improvement . Here came the big disappointment. After our several months of careful testwork, we could not distinguish any difference between the three cars.”

The AA claimed that all cars were performing well, but performance was remarkably consistent , within a few percent.

The AA say that a detailed examination of the claims made for the product will explain what happens when Slick 50 is added to an engine. Of one gallon of petrol burnt in an engine, says the report, some 60 percent of the energy will be lost as heat from the exhaust and cooling system. That leaves 40 percent and some 25 percent is used to drive the car and its accessories. The remaining 15 percent goes to losses such as pumping air into the engine (6 percent) and some 9 percent is lost as engine friction. Of that 9 percent, 6 percent is lost in churning the oil and only 3 percent of the total input goes into the sort of “boundary” friction that a solid lubricant could affect. “If tests of Slick 50 did show a 16 percent decrease in this friction, as claimed in current advertisements”, says the report, “it would only affect the car’s overall consumption by a half of one percent”.

The AA also claim that their tests show there is no evidence that Slick 50 produces a surface layer on the engine wearing surfaces, let alone one that could last for 100,000 miles.  

 

On questioning John Rowland, Silkolene/Fuchs Chief R&D Chemist for 40 years about additives, I received the following reply.

 

Quote:

 

The AA report encapsulates my opinion of Slick 50, it is an expensive way of blocking your oil filter, Believe me, it does precisely nothing beneficial. It has been proven time and time again that it just blocks oil filters and oilways.

 

For all other “magic” additives, most are based on 1930’s technology corrosive chlorinated paraffins. (synthetic anti-seize compounds originally made 70 years ago. They are cheap, toxic and corrosive. We use them in certain types of cutting oil!) Do not touch them with somebody else’s bargepole!

 

UCL’s on the other hand can be useful. After all, 2-strokes in effect run entirely on UCL. So……the best UCL’s are 2-stroke oils! I always tell people to use a decent 2-stroke at 0.5% or 1%, because they are superior to the UCL’s sold as UCL’s if you get my drift. A litre of Super 2 Injector or Comp-2 will be better than a cupful of cheap mineral oil dyed red (no prizes for guessing the name) any day.

 

Vee engines (twins, to V8’s) benefit from UCL’s because the upper walls of the RH cylinder bank, looking from the front, always run dry. Think about it!

 

Unquote:

 

So, there you have it.

 

Cheers,

Simon Barnard 

Simon,

I appreciate your comments and I have heard of many reports that question the claims made by Slick 50. I have always found their claims very hard to believe and never thought anyone would spend the money on slick 50 believing they would see cost savings or performance improvements. As I said, I only use it for insurance against losing oil protection, (stone thru the oil cooler, hick up in oil delievery,etc) and to decrease wear. The active ingredient is PTFE, which is only second to 'dry ice on dry ice', as the most slippery thing known to man..that's us.

I remember when it was launched the RAC oversaw the preceedings whereby they ran a car treated with Slick 50 but without its oil around brands hatch. The bottom line was minimal wear, even at the extended temperatures without oil and with the 'collision' effect of no oil film protection. Quite incredible.

I am very concerned about your view on clogging oil filters. This was an obvious line of enquiry before I started using Slick 50. I remember looking into it some 20 years ago when I was rebuilding high performace, high reving motorcycle engines. I spoke to the manufacturers of Slick 50 and they confirmed that their particulate size was a lot smaller than the level of fliteration offered by these high performance, high flow, high pressure oil filters. These filters are fitted to high end engines, including the Motorsport engines today. I suspect, all or most modern driver orientated cars also use them. I also spoke to the Mobil technical office and had a written confirmation that it could be fitted to an engine running on Mobil 1 0w-40 (the only fully synthetic easily available in the early to mid 80's, from memory the first), although the usual PR blurb was included in the text.... 'Mobil 1 does not need additional measures against premature wear', blah,blah,blah.........

It's a smiply line of enquiry, the size of particulate filtered by the filter compared to the particulate size of the free flowing , oil suspended additive - (although to be fair Slick 50 is not an oil additive 'as in' an oil performance improver), provided we do not witness clogging of the additive this would hold true.

Dave.

 

bhp555 wrote: What do silkolene recommend for a 1995 M3 3.0 e36 GT?

Coming up with the same, "all year round" Fully Synthetic 5w-40, -20 to 20 degC, 10w-40 Semi or Fully Syn.

Would recommend BMW Approved

Silkolene PRO S 5w-40 Ester Fully

Fuchs Titan Supersyn SL 5w-40 Fully

If you want a 10w-40, I have loads but only 1 Fully Syn.

Hope this helps.

Cheers

Simon.

PS. Don't waste your money on "Slick 50", you'll not need it with a decent oil and at worst it will upset the finely balanced "additive pack" in the oil!

 

Simon,

Thanks for the recommendation, the BMW approved fully syn 5w-40 PRO S would be the one.

N.B. As far as the Slick 50 debate goes, I've seen these reports before. The most eye opening one was the one where they claimed Du Point refused to sell Teflon to the manufacturers of Slick 50 in the USA. This was allegedly, because they felt it was incorrectly specified. It obviously didn't last, but it raised a few eyebrows at the time.

I think the bottom line is to use the best oil and change it, including filters (all filters) more often then you change your .............underwear, mind, etc........

Thanks again, 

Dave.

Always worth remembering that 'racing' oils are ment to last a race not 7000 miles, the basic structure of the oil is the same but the 'additive pack' is very different to prevent the 'road' oil breaking down too quickly.



worth a look

worth a read