Interesting info regarding oil drain interval

Originally Posted by GoingNuts

BMW design and sell passenger cars. If the car is used for the intended purpose, everything they specified apply. Outside of this parameter, nothing applies. If the car is used as a poor-man's or kid's ferrari, it needs maintenance like a poor-man's/kid's ferrari. Castrol specified their oil according to the intended purpose of the car. Therefore it is not difficult for them to guarantee their oil for that purpose, be it 15k or 30k miles. The working parameters of the car and oil are predetermed. Their life cycles are statistically predictable.

Congratulations! The marketing minions have assimilated you.

Working parameters of the car and oil are predetermined? To a certain small degree maybe, but not hardly all encompassing.

And you really believe that ALL life cycles are statistically predictable? Maybe if you take out the human element in all interactions. Take you and I for example. I bet we have 2 different driving styles, environments, ways we use our cars, maintenance, fluid/fuel availablity etc etc. Do you think our preditable outcome could possibly be the same and fall into nice neatly defined boxes?

Edit: Wow! 15 f-in pages .

Originally Posted by shortyb

No one (yes bun, even me) is arguing over the existance of safety margins/factors. Where it gets sketchy is when someone seems to randomly pull a number out of somewhere without rationale...

Yup.

Just like the recommendation you made earlier in this thread for an oil change interval. Calibrated in miles no less.

When it comes to oil change intervals, none of us are qualified to recommend anything.

However, all of us enjoy the freedom to do whatever we like with our own car and apply whatever rational we choose for the adding of liquids to our crankcase.

Originally Posted by shortyb

Congratulations! The marketing minions have assimilated you.

Working parameters of the car and oil are predetermined? To a certain small degree maybe, but not hardly all encompassing.

And you really believe that ALL life cycles are statistically predictable? Maybe if you take out the human element in all interactions. Take you and I for example. I bet we have 2 different driving styles, environments, ways we use our cars, maintenance, fluid/fuel availablity etc etc. Do you think our preditable outcome could possibly be the same?

Edit: Wow! 15 f-in pages .

You mistake statistics for marketing. I recommend a kindergarten statistics class for you.

All large companies work with statistics. They don't care for individual product failures. However they do care if the life cycle of all their products as a whole follow a certain distribution. So a percentage of product failure is a foregone conclusion - they knew these would happen before they happen.

The distribution curve would resemble the outline of a church bell. One end represents a small percentage of total failures. The other end represents a small percentages of total non-failures. In the middle are what companies find most interesting to work with and represents the life cycles of vast majority of their products. As long as the company tweak their manufacturing to keep the bell curve in a certain shape, life cycles of their products as a whole becomes predictable.

My driving style and environment places me towards the total non-failure end of the curve. Therefore I have room for manoeuvre. I can take greater risks and save some money yet I would still be no worst off than majority of the car owners. In your case, you just do random servicing. The result of which may have absolutely no effect but it would have costed you money.

The outcome for our cars could be similar but mine is alot cheaper than the average, and yours a lot more costly than the average.

Originally Posted by bmwbun

Yup.

Just like the recommendation you made earlier in this thread for an oil change interval. Calibrated in miles no less.

Because most folks base maintenance on the simplicity of miles driven. If I know that they could/would do it based on fuel consumption (or the corresponding point on the SI) I would rather offer that instead. Also, I took into consideration several similar oil analysis results and averaged the mileage. Generalization? Maybe, but has some merit IMHO. And lastly, my recommendation was for less mileage, not double or triple, than what the SI would generally read. The former seems to be more acceptable than the latter, wouldn't you say?

Originally Posted by bmwbun

When it comes to oil change intervals, none of us are really qualified to recommend anything.

I have to mostly agree. But we all have experiences here, and in that regard, can impart rather intelliegent info based on that. Whether it will be 100% applicable to someone else is a different animal, since each of us is different. But that would be up to the end user to take into consideration the source(s)/validity of said info. Also when folks see many different sources saying basically the same thing, they have a tendency to go in that direction. All human nature.

Originally Posted by bmwbun

However, all of us enjoy the freedom to do whatever we like with our own car and apply whatever rational we choose for the adding of liquids to our crankcase.

Good point. Maybe we can end this thread on that note.

Originally Posted by GoingNuts

You mistake statistics for marketing. I recommend a kindergarten statistics class for you.

All large companies work with statistics. They don't care for individual product failures. However they do care if the life cycle of all their products as a whole follow a certain distribution. So a percentage of product failure is a foregone conclusion - they knew these would happen before they happen.

The distribution curve would resemble the outline of a church bell. One end represents a small percentage of total failures. The other end represents a small percentages of total non-failures. In the middle are what companies find most interesting to work with and represents the life cycles of vast majority of their products. As long as the company tweak their manufacturing to keep the bell curve in a certain shape, life cycles of their products as a whole becomes predictable.

My driving style and environment places me towards the total non-failure end of the curve. Therefore I have room for manoeuvre. I can take greater risks and save some money yet I would still be no worst off than majority of the car owners. In your case, you just do random servicing. The result of which may have absolutely no effect but it would have costed you money.

The outcome for our cars could be similar but mine is alot cheaper than the average, and yours a lot more costly than the average.

I finally figured it out. You guys over there have nationalized healthcare. I see it includes mental health as well. Now, give the keyboard back to nurse Ratchet and wait for your happy pills.

Originally Posted by shortyb

No one (yes bun, even me) is arguing over the existance of safety margins/factors. Where it gets sketchy is when someone seems to randomly pull a number out of somewhere without rationale (other than "its Castrol, so it has to be good for 45K because of the "safety margin"). Obviously the same can be said for any of the numbers regarding drain interval other than the BMW SI, but those are generally SHORTER. Hence, a waste of money/oil instead of possible engine damage statement/argument ensues.

i believe that the interval rating on any particular oil has a safety margin. i don't know much about the design process itself, but i would think with a product like oil, you would start with a somewhat random blend, not knowing what the outcome will be once it's tested. when i say random here, i mean you know what ingredients to use but the proportions are somewhat random. you then test it under ideal laboratory conditions in a controlled environment to find out it's absolute max. let’s say it's 18250. now comes the question, "what do we market this as, 12000 or 15000 mile?" an executive decision is made which is based on how much risk the company is willing to take. i'd choose 12000 miles because it would be hard to predict and impossible to test ever scenario. and for the fact, you can't guarantee that every bottle ever made will be the same. you have to allow for error.

i find it very improbable that any oil that would go in our cars, could last for 30k, 45k, or 60k without doing major damage or complete failure. but, at the same time, i am very open to the idea that these numbers could be hit in the lab.

Originally Posted by shortyb

So (honestly) do you believe that 15K from US Edge 5W-30 is possible regardless of how its used for that interval? I personally find it hard to believe due to the lack of, as you say, very, very specific listed conditions and the disclaimer "up to". Castrol does say that exclusions are: severe use (frequent towing and hauling, nothing else mentioned), racing dirty conditions, and excessive idling. Leaves it fairly wide open BUT.........they'll catch you with the "up to" part when you try to file a failure claim because you did 15K worth of short trips in the dead of winter.

first off, i would never put the US edge 5w-30 in my crankcase because it's not recommended nor approved. i'm sure that there are conditions in which you couldn't get 15k out of it, hence the exclusions listed by castrol. but for everyday driving that the vast majority of e46 owners do, i would expect it to last for 15k miles. but that would be it. it would be changed at that time. i definitely would not leave it in for anything beyond that, esp. not these "let’s test the limits" numbers of up to 45k on the e46. (if i remember correctly, the 60k interval was based on the n54.) and i would never recommend any of those.

it's funny that one of the items fueling this thread is the US guys talking about the US edge and the UK guy taking about the Euro (or UK only) edge. i guess, based on tdi engines, goingnuts has better beef than us in the states, with respect to edge. but, that is irrelevant because the last time i checked, none of us have tdi engines. so naturally, that can't be used as a basis for determining an interval for the e46.

one good note, we can all have excellent beef with the BMW HP 5w-30, or really even m1 0w-40. i think there's enough proof around the board just from the large number of people that use it for every change.

Originally Posted by Makakio

How about this: if you feel better changing oil at 3-5k, then go for it. If you feel fine at BMW's recommended 15k then good on you. If you're somewhere in between and it's workin' for ya then stick with it.

I have no doubt ALL of our engines will see 200k miles if we were to simply change with factory spec oil at the factory spec 15k miles. And we didn't money-shift or let them overheat somewhere along the way.

agreed.

m1 0w40 is no beef. At best it's horse meat. Just doesn't taste the same. The Castrol beef is sweet in every sense of the word.

Originally Posted by GoingNuts

m1 0w40 is no beef. At best it's horse meat. Just doesn't taste the same. The Castrol beef is sweet in every sense of the word.

Says who?

Originally Posted by GoingNuts

m1 0w40 is no beef. At best it's horse meat. Just doesn't taste the same. The Castrol beef is sweet in every sense of the word.

i would say the castrol is veal, and m1 is general beef. it has to be good if a large company like BMW approves it for use, even though it's in small amounts.

Originally Posted by e46sixspdZHP

i would say the castrol is veal, and m1 is general beef. it has to be good if a large company like BMW approves it for use, even though it's in small amounts.

By that logic, Mobil 1 0w-40 would be even better. It's factory fill in the Nissan GT-R and Porsche Carrera GT.

Also, VW (who owns Porsche) is a MUCH larger company than BMW.

Originally Posted by jeffro3000

By that logic, Mobil 1 0w-40 would be even better. It's factory fill in the Nissan GT-R and Porsche Carrera GT.

Also, VW (who owns Porsche) is a MUCH larger company than BMW.

i'm referring to use in a e46, but there's not much that can be said about that with respect to all make and model.

edit: and there's probably more manufactures that use it as OEM.

Originally Posted by jeffro3000

Also, VW (who owns Porsche) is a MUCH larger company than BMW.

Stop making up things. People will find it difficult to take you seriously if you keep doing it. Porsche purchased and own VW, not the other way round.

Edit - Porsche has recently increased their stake in VW to 51% (in march)

Neither company actually owns the other. Not now anyways. It's more like a partnership.

Originally Posted by shortyb

Because most folks base maintenance on the simplicity of miles driven. If I know that they could/would do it based on fuel consumption (or the corresponding point on the SI) I would rather offer that instead.

Consider offering no recommendation. Let's face it, guys like you and I aren't qualified to be giving oil change guidance.

Originally Posted by shortyb

Also, I took into consideration several similar oil analysis results and averaged the mileage. Generalization? Maybe, but has some merit IMHO.

Averages, from a sample of one. Can we get any more insignificant (from a statistical perspective) than that?

Originally Posted by shortyb

And lastly, my recommendation was for less mileage, not double or triple, than what the SI would generally read. The former seems to be more acceptable than the latter, wouldn't you say?

No, I wouldn't say. Not without having some pretty compelling data to back it up. It is obvious that there are significant unintended consequences of changing oil too frequently.

It is possible you may not be adequately addressing them when arriving at your recommended mileage interval.


.

Originally Posted by jeffro3000

Edit - Porsche has recently increased their stake in VW to 51% (in march)

Neither company actually owns the other. Not now anyways. It's more like a partnership.

It's exactly like a 50/50 partnership.

Except one of them owns 51...

Originally Posted by bmwbun

It is obvious that there are significant unintended consequences of changing oil too frequently.

No more or less obvious than the consequences of leaving it in too long.

About the same.

That's why we don't treat the 7,000 mile changers any different than the 30,000 mile changers.

All of their dicks are hanging in the wind with their recommendations. They're just pointed in different directions.


.

Originally Posted by bmwbun

It's exactly like a 50/50 partnership.

Except one of them owns 51...

I'm glad you were able to make that observation as well.

Originally Posted by bmwbun

Consider offering no recommendation. Let's face it, guys like you and I aren't qualified to be giving oil change guidance.

So why do we give them when asked?

Originally Posted by bmwbun

Averages, from a sample of one. Can we get any more insignificant (from a statistical perspective) than that?

You keep assuming that I just use single samples to arrive at my conclusions. I've said before that I don't do that, but I'm sure you'll still denounce this as non-empirical data. It comes from non-biased scientific sources. Figured that should be credible enough for folks to draw conclusions of their own on. Mea culpa.

Originally Posted by bmwbun

No, I wouldn't say. Not without having some pretty compelling data to back it up. It is obvious that there are significant unintended consequences of changing oil too frequently.

It is possible you may not be adequately addressing them when arriving at your recommended mileage interval.


.

Maybe, maybe not. I do however know how to interpret the data I base these recommendations on and understand when you reach a certain point that the numbers tell, its time for a change.

I like your philosophy on freedom stated above, but I'll still give advice when asked. I've never assumed it to be gospel or that folks have to follow it or else something catastrophic happens. That decision is for them alone.