Does every 4.4, 4.6 and 4.8

[bpowa]

My x was one owner and dealer service its whole life. I got it at a great price. I wanted the 04+ due to the 6 speed tranny. I figure it should last me a few years then ill get something else. Maybe a newer x.

[bcredliner]

Absentmathis---IMO--your entire position is compromised when you misinterpret another's post, especially when it is used as an endorsement to your own position. Stating there IS a way to test oil when I didn't post there wasn't is an example.

It is a good idea to ask for clarification of a post prior to stating someone's position is excessive or wasteful. Even then, it is disrespectful to respond in that fashion rather than--- I disagree because, as an example.

Analogies are difficult to get right even if it is intended as a great way to simplify you own stance. Your analogy is an example of missing the mark.

On topic--The blue smoke issue-- From many discussions, I have not seen a consensus of what particular X5s are most prone to the blue smoke problem. Even those that have had the problem there are others with the same engine that have not had the blue smoke issue. I not been able to come to a conclusion of how to fix it the first time or have confidence it will not happen again soon. I do know I haven't had the problem so far.

While the forum sample size could easily generate an inaccurate conclusion on the blue smoke syndrome--I agree with the suggestions to purchase an X that includes the history of service and repair, that is still under some kind of warranty that covers some of that potential of costly repairs and that you have had a PPI done by a qualified BMW specialist.

It seems remiss to me that BMW has not offered a fix that gives confidence to the customer base that a particular repair will mean it is slim to none that it will happen again, at least from a problematic cause. I do recall someone posting or summarizing a 'tech sheet from BMW' that read how to troubleshoot the most likely cause of blue smoke but I think the fix was to replace the failed parts with the same new parts.

I interpreted they either felt it was an infrequent happening or repair was so costly they wouldn't risk a forced call back or the possibility they would contribute to the potential of a class action suit. Since there is so much discussion here that contributes to credibility it happens a lot, they went with a bottom line approach --- too bad so sad your bad.

As it relates to oil is better until after X miles than it is new---doesn't that mean there is a market for oil used less than X miles? I think I know the answer to that.

Just for grins---Anyone want to buy my used only 5000 miles oil that I now recycle?
Anyone confident enough to use cycled oil?

[JCL]

Originally Posted by TiAgX5

Why would BMW do a low miles oil change on all high RPM ///M cars? To increase wear on these new, tight tolerance engines?

Because of the surface finish on the cylinder bores, as I understand it. But they don't do it anymore, they are now using the same bore machining that they use on their non-M engines, so the 1200 mile oil change was discontinued.

I would suspect you actually want to accelerate the wearing in of the piston rings to match them up to the bores, so although it sounds counter-intuitive, yes, an early oil change would speed the bedding in process. Sometimes wear is a good thing.

[bcredliner]

Originally Posted by JCL

Because of the surface finish on the cylinder bores, as I understand it. But they don't do it anymore, they are now using the same bore machining that they use on their non-M engines, so the 1200 mile oil change was discontinued.

I would suspect you actually want to accelerate the wearing in of the piston rings to match them up to the bores, so although it sounds counter-intuitive, yes, an early oil change would speed the bedding in process. Sometimes wear is a good thing.

Or, perhaps they wanted the contaminated oil out of the engine before it caused damage. As an example, it is common to change the oil in highly modified engines after every race or even every pass.

[JCL]

Originally Posted by bcredliner

As it relates to oil is better until after X miles than it is new---doesn't that mean there is a market for oil used less than X miles? I think I know the answer to that.

I think you are misinterpreting the comment about used oil. It isn't that it is better. It is just that it results in less engine wear. That is only one characteristic of engine oil, although it is the one that many discuss when they mention more frequent oil changes.

Higher mileage used engine oil will have the risk of water contamination, and a potential viscosity change from new specs. It will have a reduced additive package, with an increased TBN. Within reason, ie 15,000 mile intervals, those are very low risks. But it has also been shown to lubricate better, in repeated independent studies that are not publicized by the oil change industry.

There is a market for used oil here, as it is all recycled. It is sold in many outlets. But it is cleaned up first, and new additives are incorporated before it is packaged. I don't use it. But I figure that after 24,000 km or so, my engine oil doesn't owe me anything.

[JCL]

Originally Posted by bcredliner

Or, perhaps they wanted the contaminated oil out of the engine before it caused damage. As an example, it is common to change the oil in highly modified engines after every race or even every pass.

In a race vehicle, changing the oil more frequently has to do with the very high heat the oil is subject to. IMO.

Changing the oil more frequently in those cases has little to do with making the engine last longer, as the engines tend to be rebuilt very frequently and long engine life isn't an objective.

[JCL]

I should qualify that I think changing engine oil regularly is a good thing. I just challenge the notion that doing it more frequently somehow results in reduced engine wear, compared to doing it at a higher mileage that is still well within the design guidelines for the engine and the oil.

[TiAgX5]

After reading the old vs new link in this thread, I find the statement by one of the Sr members interesting......Quote "BTW, ZDDP only takes a little heat and pressure to form tribofilms on the surface. And as others have stated, the old zddp doesn't disappear entirely."

It seems the Zinc/ZDDP film already on metal friction surfaces from the old oil is not instantly removed by the new oil installed in the engine. The ZDDP thermal reaction to activate and begin adhesion to friction surfaces is not excessively long.

There's not much info in the tech data sheets defining how long the old tribofilms remain on friction surfaces, that variable is a MAJOR factor in establishing whether or not the new oils required time to activate the ZDDP and produce tribofilms will result in significant wear.