[F87source]

Originally Posted by 3LiterBeater

Here's another RLI Bio-Syn 5w-40.

6 track days on the oil. Again a bit of lead but overall, not too shabby

That's some thick 40 weight oil, the base stock is probably medicore imo because pour point isn't that low so not much if any pao's or esters, NOACK is 9% (so it likely isn't GTL), and the viscosity is pretty high for only >3.7 HTHS (as per their specs).

[3LiterBeater]

Originally Posted by F87source

That's some thick 40 weight oil, the base stock is probably medicore imo because pour point isn't that low so not much if any pao's or esters, NOACK is 9% (so it likely isn't GTL), and the viscosity is pretty high for only >3.7 HTHS (as per their specs).

It's a bio-ester oil, so it is quite the opposite of not much ester. These oils all thicken as they age, by nature.

Using wear metals as a reference point, I'd say it's fairly good stuff

[F87source]

Originally Posted by 3LiterBeater

It's a bio-ester oil, so it is quite the opposite of not much ester. These oils all thicken as they age, by nature.

Using wear metals as a reference point, I'd say it's fairly good stuff

https://renewablelube.com/assets/fil...-Motor-Oil.pdf

Pour point and viscosity says otherwise, generally with esters you get really low pour points and a very high HTHS at a very low viscosity. This is what you get with premium base stocks, very exceptional shear strength with without the viscosity penalty to go with it - showing how strong the film is, and generally with cheaper base stock oils if they want more shear strength they have to go thicker. With this oil it is the complete opposite of what you would get with esters. The spec sheets and site says nothing about esters.


Also oils don't thicken or shouldn't thicken with use, they should break down, and note the spec sheet says kv100 should be in the 15's which is crazy thick for a 40 weight.


The additive pack is crazy on this oil, I looked at the VOA and it is pretty crazy, noteably the amount of zinc. So it is good in terms of additives, but I hear there may be copper as an additive that combined with zinc may be bad news for your cats.


Overall the wear results should be good for the HTHS, additive package, and viscosity - it is a beefy oil. But wear results don't mean anything, cheaper oils like PPE show no signs of wear production even with track abuse, and the benefit of this oil is you get lower NOACK, lower viscosity, and all the OEM certifications at a fraction of the price. You could also get castrol edge 0w40 with its high pao content allowing for an immensely good pour point in addition to all the benefits of the PPE, so wear isn't everything you must also look at the oil specs itself to see where else you can gain performance. Because technically any oil (not pointing fingers at bio syn) can get good wear results with a heavy additive package and thick oil, but this just means the oil isn't as robust/good because you need all these things to reach the same end goal.

So imo this oil isn't that impressive, I personally feel it uses viscosity to gain HTHS which is a brute force method of doing so, and I feel if you don't need any oem certifications there are better options out there for similar price like motul sport, redline etc. But this is just my opinion.

[3LiterBeater]

Originally Posted by F87source

https://renewablelube.com/assets/fil...-Motor-Oil.pdf

Pour point and viscosity says otherwise, generally with esters you get really low pour points and a very high HTHS at a very low viscosity. This is what you get with premium base stocks, very exceptional shear strength with without the viscosity penalty to go with it - showing how strong the film is, and generally with cheaper base stock oils if they want more shear strength they have to go thicker. With this oil it is the complete opposite of what you would get with esters. The spec sheets and site says nothing about esters.


Also oils don't thicken or shouldn't thicken with use, they should break down, and note the spec sheet says kv100 should be in the 15's which is crazy thick for a 40 weight.


The additive pack is crazy on this oil, I looked at the VOA and it is pretty crazy, noteably the amount of zinc. So it is good in terms of additives, but I hear there may be copper as an additive that combined with zinc may be bad news for your cats.


Overall the wear results should be good for the HTHS, additive package, and viscosity - it is a beefy oil. But wear results don't mean anything, cheaper oils like PPE show no signs of wear production even with track abuse, and the benefit of this oil is you get lower NOACK, lower viscosity, and all the OEM certifications at a fraction of the price. You could also get castrol edge 0w40 with its high pao content allowing for an immensely good pour point in addition to all the benefits of the PPE, so wear isn't everything you must also look at the oil specs itself to see where else you can gain performance. Because technically any oil (not pointing fingers at bio syn) can get good wear results with a heavy additive package and thick oil, but this just means the oil isn't as robust/good because you need all these things to reach the same end goal.

So imo this oil isn't that impressive, I personally feel it uses viscosity to gain HTHS which is a brute force method of doing so, and I feel if you don't need any oem certifications there are better options out there for similar price like motul sport, redline etc. But this is just my opinion.

Esters absolutely increase in viscosity with age. Motul 300V shows the same characteristics, you can confirm this on many UOAs. You can also find UOAs of Motul Xcess (per your example) with unacceptable shearing in less time than my past samples.

My car does not have a cat, so no worries there. I'd be worried the constant abuse on track killing it before oil additives do, however.

At the end of the day, engine wear control is oil's primary job. This oil consistently shows lower wear metals on the same engine(s), even those without track use. Granted, this is very much case specific, as I'm sure you know.

Care to post your oil analysis with similar track time? It'd be nice to reference.

[F87source]

Originally Posted by 3LiterBeater

Esters absolutely increase in viscosity with age. Motul 300V shows the same characteristics, you can confirm this on many UOAs. You can also find UOAs of Motul Xcess (per your example) with unacceptable shearing in less time than my past samples.

My car does not have a cat, so no worries there. I'd be worried the constant abuse on track killing it before oil additives do, however.

At the end of the day, engine wear control is oil's primary job. This oil consistently shows lower wear metals on the same engine(s), even those without track use. Granted, this is very much case specific, as I'm sure you know.

Care to post your oil analysis with similar track time? It'd be nice to reference.

Oils do not thicken with age.... This means sludge is forming via oxidation..... And 300V doesn't thicken with age, they shear (as normal oils do with use, and not a bad thing if no extra wear occurs) as shown in every 300v UOA I have seen... I believe you were explained this before by edycol. BTW you still do not have any TAN testing to confirm if this oil is oxidzing up and causing issues.

RLI still doesn't have any of the typical traits ester oils have, so I have no idea what their base stock is but it doesn't scream out esters, if there are pao and group 5 in it I also wonder why HTHS isn't rated higher.

Take a look at 300v: https://azupim01.motul.com/media/mot...n_fr_motul.pdf

13.1 kv100 to reach a 4.1 hths, now that is a remarkable oil, using quality base stocks to get shear strength not relying on viscosity - which also comes with the penalty of higher heat retention and more friction causing parasitic loss



Well if you're on the track that much I would agree the cat will die, unless it is a sport cat designed for track use. Then the oil additives will matter.



Show me some UOA's where RLI has lower wear metals than other oils, I highly doubt this is the case (I have heard people report this online yet never seen any concrete back to back UOA's on the same car), even with high amounts of track abuse and PPE shearing down it didn't show any increase in wear metals. This shows you the base stock is damn good, because it didn't need immensly high viscosity to bring up the shear strenght it relies on quality GTL base stocks to do so. This is like comparing a quality compound tire and only needing to run a 245mm width tire to offer the same amount of lateral grip vs. a lesser compound tire which needs to run 305mm width to offer the same grip.

In terms of wear control that is not the only thing oil is responsible for it must also not cause damage to the engine, high zinc has detrimental effects on the timing chain, high calcium can contribute to LSPI. Oil that is too thick may have issues with flow and lubrication on cold starts especially in tight areas like the bearings. RLI also has zero manufacturer approvals, so will it oxidize too quicky? An increase in viscosity is worrying because it could be sludge build up. This can clog up the tiny little oil squirters on the valvetronic motor and cause it to fail, a very common issue with high oil change interval cars and cars that use crap oil. So there are many considerations when it comes to oil, and that is why I personally do not feel confidence in RLI.



Like I said before, if I didn't care about any manufacturing certifications or really beated on the car for track use, I would go with motul sport, motul 300v, and or redline long before I went with RLI. Simply because it is better oil. Then for street use and limited track time I would go with PPE or motul xcess because again better oil and has better certifications and doesn't show signs of issues even with shearing.





I would post my UOA but I have none for the m2 because I have yet to take it on the track. The last time I did take a UOA was on my frs near 10 years ago and it was running redline which has plenty of UOA's on the n55 for you to see. You can even see ZM2 's results on redline and he heavily beats on his 450 whp car at the track with ethanol fuel mixes that are known to cause oil shearing.

[F87source]

Originally Posted by 3LiterBeater

Esters absolutely increase in viscosity with age. Motul 300V shows the same characteristics, you can confirm this on many UOAs. You can also find UOAs of Motul Xcess (per your example) with unacceptable shearing in less time than my past samples.

My car does not have a cat, so no worries there. I'd be worried the constant abuse on track killing it before oil additives do, however.

At the end of the day, engine wear control is oil's primary job. This oil consistently shows lower wear metals on the same engine(s), even those without track use. Granted, this is very much case specific, as I'm sure you know.

Care to post your oil analysis with similar track time? It'd be nice to reference.

https://f87.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh...&postcount=369

Oh yeah edycol did explain to you why wear metal results mean nothing and are arbitrary at best. This can vary from engine to engine, car to car etc.


The results of the oil are more important, and RLI's increase in viscosity is concerning.


imo there are so many better options out there if certifications don't matter, oils with way better base stocks that don't rely on viscosity for shear strength.

[PackPride85]

Originally Posted by 3LiterBeater

Esters absolutely increase in viscosity with age. Motul 300V shows the same characteristics, you can confirm this on many UOAs. You can also find UOAs of Motul Xcess (per your example) with unacceptable shearing in less time than my past samples.

My car does not have a cat, so no worries there. I'd be worried the constant abuse on track killing it before oil additives do, however.

At the end of the day, engine wear control is oil's primary job. This oil consistently shows lower wear metals on the same engine(s), even those without track use. Granted, this is very much case specific, as I'm sure you know.

Care to post your oil analysis with similar track time? It'd be nice to reference.

Oils only thicken with age due to oxidation.

[edycol]

Originally Posted by PackPride85

Oils only thicken with age due to oxidation.

^This!
It is not called for no reason "oxidative thickening."

[3LiterBeater]

Originally Posted by F87source

Oils do not thicken with age.... This means sludge is forming via oxidation..... And 300V doesn't thicken with age, they shear (as normal oils do with use, and not a bad thing if no extra wear occurs) as shown in every 300v UOA I have seen... I believe you were explained this before by edycol. BTW you still do not have any TAN testing to confirm if this oil is oxidzing up and causing issues.

RLI still doesn't have any of the typical traits ester oils have, so I have no idea what their base stock is but it doesn't scream out esters, if there are pao and group 5 in it I also wonder why HTHS isn't rated higher.

Take a look at 300v: https://azupim01.motul.com/media/mot...n_fr_motul.pdf

13.1 kv100 to reach a 4.1 hths, now that is a remarkable oil, using quality base stocks to get shear strength not relying on viscosity - which also comes with the penalty of higher heat retention and more friction causing parasitic loss



Well if you're on the track that much I would agree the cat will die, unless it is a sport cat designed for track use. Then the oil additives will matter.



Show me some UOA's where RLI has lower wear metals than other oils, I highly doubt this is the case (I have heard people report this online yet never seen any concrete back to back UOA's on the same car), even with high amounts of track abuse and PPE shearing down it didn't show any increase in wear metals. This shows you the base stock is damn good, because it didn't need immensly high viscosity to bring up the shear strenght it relies on quality GTL base stocks to do so. This is like comparing a quality compound tire and only needing to run a 245mm width tire to offer the same amount of lateral grip vs. a lesser compound tire which needs to run 305mm width to offer the same grip.

In terms of wear control that is not the only thing oil is responsible for it must also not cause damage to the engine, high zinc has detrimental effects on the timing chain, high calcium can contribute to LSPI. Oil that is too thick may have issues with flow and lubrication on cold starts especially in tight areas like the bearings. RLI also has zero manufacturer approvals, so will it oxidize too quicky? An increase in viscosity is worrying because it could be sludge build up. This can clog up the tiny little oil squirters on the valvetronic motor and cause it to fail, a very common issue with high oil change interval cars and cars that use crap oil. So there are many considerations when it comes to oil, and that is why I personally do not feel confidence in RLI.



Like I said before, if I didn't care about any manufacturing certifications or really beated on the car for track use, I would go with motul sport, motul 300v, and or redline long before I went with RLI. Simply because it is better oil. Then for street use and limited track time I would go with PPE or motul xcess because again better oil and has better certifications and doesn't show signs of issues even with shearing.





I would post my UOA but I have none for the m2 because I have yet to take it on the track. The last time I did take a UOA was on my frs near 10 years ago and it was running redline which has plenty of UOA's on the n55 for you to see. You can even see ZM2 's results on redline and he heavily beats on his 450 whp car at the track with ethanol fuel mixes that are known to cause oil shearing.

Wear metals can be "elusive", absolutely. You can see I replied to this saying it's trends that matter, not the numbers individually (unless you're showing 100ppm of copper, for example). I do feel using the same engine as a base/ rough measurement among those who track these cars is very handy. I do not like using non-M2 N55s as they tend to have oiling issues when used on track.

It's clear that both of you have spent more time digging into this than I have, so I do appreciate the information so far. I'm interested in the relevancy of the thickening or "sludge" formation when an oil is changed every 5-6k miles.

This oil was brought to my attention from an engineer at a big OEM supplier. On the topic of sludge buildup and varnishing, he claimed it was a non-issue. The main concern with bio-esters is their tendency to become acidic based on the nature of the esters which can damage seals in the long run but only if left in place too long.

In regards to 300v, here's a quick sample using a VOA showing some increased viscosity with use.
https://www.s2ki.com/forums/s2000-un...30-uoa-747908/

In regards to lower wear metals, a BITOG post showing a particular Audi RS4 using the RLI and consistently showed reduced wear metals despite higher mileage and track time on the sample. The OEM castrol did not fair well. I experienced the exact same results on my RS4 with sustained track time at 260+ for ~15 evens per year for 3 years.

Noting that the car sees track time between all but three months out of the year and not much mileage in between, what better options are you referring to? Aside from the 300V, all the mentioned oils seem to have issues maintaining viscosity with age. If anything, when running at a sustained ~230-250f, that increased viscosity is going to be helpful, no?

[edycol]

Originally Posted by 3LiterBeater

Wear metals can be "elusive", absolutely. You can see I replied to this saying it's trends that matter, not the numbers individually (unless you're showing 100ppm of copper, for example). I do feel using the same engine as a base/ rough measurement among those who track these cars is very handy. I do not like using non-M2 N55s as they tend to have oiling issues when used on track.

It's clear that both of you have spent more time digging into this than I have, so I do appreciate the information so far. I'm interested in the relevancy of the thickening or "sludge" formation when an oil is changed every 5-6k miles.

This oil was brought to my attention from an engineer at a big OEM supplier. On the topic of sludge buildup and varnishing, he claimed it was a non-issue. The main concern with bio-esters is their tendency to become acidic based on the nature of the esters which can damage seals in the long run but only if left in place too long.

In regards to 300v, here's a quick sample using a VOA showing some increased viscosity with use.
https://www.s2ki.com/forums/s2000-un...30-uoa-747908/

In regards to lower wear metals, a BITOG post showing a particular Audi RS4 using the RLI and consistently showed reduced wear metals despite higher mileage and track time on the sample. The OEM castrol did not fair well. I experienced the exact same results on my RS4 with sustained track time at 260+ for ~15 evens per year for 3 years.

Noting that the car sees track time between all but three months out of the year and not much mileage in between, what better options are you referring to? Aside from the 300V, all the mentioned oils seem to have issues maintaining viscosity with age. If anything, when running at a sustained ~230-250f, that increased viscosity is going to be helpful, no?

Actually, no that 300V could very well be in appropriate KV100.
First of all, that UOA doesn't have TAN. So it is really pointless to discuss it. However, let's play that game.
300V is very shear stable oil. While Motul indicates KV100 11cst, that is typical value. It could very well be 11.5. It could also be that UOA measurement is bit off. Blackstone is not known as being on target.
What we need to see is starting TAN in virgin oil. Ester based oils will have bit higher TAN, and than compared to TAN in UOA.
For you what matters is relationship between TBN and TAN. Bottom line, as long as TBN is higher than TAN, oil has enough additives to fight consequences of oxidation.
That UOA you listed is waste of money.

[3LiterBeater]

Originally Posted by edycol

Actually, no that 300V could very well be in appropriate KV100.
First of all, that UOA doesn't have TAN. So it is really pointless to discuss it. However, let's play that game.
300V is very shear stable oil. While Motul indicates KV100 11cst, that is typical value. It could very well be 11.5. It could also be that UOA measurement is bit off. Blackstone is not known as being on target.
What we need to see is starting TAN in virgin oil. Ester based oils will have bit higher TAN, and than compared to TAN in UOA.
For you what matters is relationship between TBN and TAN. Bottom line, as long as TBN is higher than TAN, oil has enough additives to fight consequences of oxidation.
That UOA you listed is waste of money.

Let's ignore TBN vs TAN for the time being. This is what I've found in regards to ester thickening:

From Polaris Labs, regarding FTIR oxidation test: "Significant contamination of water, glycol, soot or fuel may affect all FTIR results. Ester-based lubricants will show high oxidation values."

"These esters, imides and amides can interfere with the oxidation measurements of the FT-IR. For this reason, a good FT-IR program will include a reference sample of the new oil used in the application. The new oil spectrum is subtracted from the used oil to eliminate the presence of these additives. If your program is not using this new oil reference method, a comparison analysis of the new oil should be obtained, so that you will know the amount of these additives that might be interfering."

There was a link attached but is no longer working.

Now I'm not going to pretend I understand everything going on there. And please, correct if I'm wrong. Is this effectively saying oxidation will be artificially inflated or imitated based on these esters?

[edycol]

Originally Posted by 3LiterBeater

Let's ignore TBN vs TAN for the time being. This is what I've found in regards to ester thickening:

From Polaris Labs, regarding FTIR oxidation test: "Significant contamination of water, glycol, soot or fuel may affect all FTIR results. Ester-based lubricants will show high oxidation values."

"These esters, imides and amides can interfere with the oxidation measurements of the FT-IR. For this reason, a good FT-IR program will include a reference sample of the new oil used in the application. The new oil spectrum is subtracted from the used oil to eliminate the presence of these additives. If your program is not using this new oil reference method, a comparison analysis of the new oil should be obtained, so that you will know the amount of these additives that might be interfering."

There was a link attached but is no longer working.

Now I'm not going to pretend I understand everything going on there. And please, correct if I'm wrong. Is this effectively saying oxidation will be artificially inflated or imitated based on these esters?

Ester oils will have higher oxidation. However, there are A LOT of variables. Bottom line: yes, there is do called "false " oxidation. But it is more complicated than it seems.
Motul 300V from my experience is very resistant to oxidation. I actually saw several UOA where it is oxidizing far less than Mobil1 0W40 (also has bit esters in).
So that is what I said about TAN value of virgin oil or even just TAN value of used oil. There is a point where TAN in conjunction with KV100 is obviously suggesting that there is oxidative thickening going on.
For example, I had UOA of Mobil1 0W40 in 2014 with KV13.3 after 5k. Starting KV of that old M1 was 13.5. But TAN was 2.2! So that oil didn't shear at all, and obviously it is not oxidation as TAN was super low.
Now when TAN creeps into 4 together with very high KV, that indicates trouble regardless of base stocks. Higher TAN as well as TBN, but obvious shearing: not an issue.

Next UOA do TAN. Also, take into consideration that BMW engines like to oxidize oils. That is why BMW revised LL01 and LL04 in 2018 and made already most stringent oxidation requirements in industry even more stringent. That is why Mobil1 is not approved for any BMW approval. Their base stock and additive combo is prone to oxidation.

[3LiterBeater]

Originally Posted by edycol

Ester oils will have higher oxidation. However, there are A LOT of variables. Bottom line: yes, there is do called "false " oxidation. But it is more complicated than it seems.
Motul 300V from my experience is very resistant to oxidation. I actually saw several UOA where it is oxidizing far less than Mobil1 0W40 (also has bit esters in).
So that is what I said about TAN value of virgin oil or even just TAN value of used oil. There is a point where TAN in conjunction with KV100 is obviously suggesting that there is oxidative thickening going on.
For example, I had UOA of Mobil1 0W40 in 2014 with KV13.3 after 5k. Starting KV of that old M1 was 13.5. But TAN was 2.2! So that oil didn't shear at all, and obviously it is not oxidation as TAN was super low.
Now when TAN creeps into 4 together with very high KV, that indicates trouble regardless of base stocks. Higher TAN as well as TBN, but obvious shearing: not an issue.

Next UOA do TAN. Also, take into consideration that BMW engines like to oxidize oils. That is why BMW revised LL01 and LL04 in 2018 and made already most stringent oxidation requirements in industry even more stringent. That is why Mobil1 is not approved for any BMW approval. Their base stock and additive combo is prone to oxidation.

I better understand the importance of the TAN/TBN now and appreciate that. My only concern with the 300V would be winter use for the reasons you mentioned.

So given all that you've mentioned, it's impossible to take into account the "quality" of RLI without these TBN/TAN numbers. Is it a far reach to compare it to other oils or universal averages and still see (let's use iron as an example) half of what they typically are in other tracked M2s, and even samples using the 300V? I understand some variability here and there but 13 to 26ppm seems outside of a simple variance.

This RLI is a bit thick, which is fair. I didn't consider the valvetronic circulation. What oils have proven track-worthy for extended periods? Is there a "road" oil that can handle 5-6k miles and ~10 track days? (Also worth mentioning I instruct so track time is often more than a standard day as I'm often bringing students out for educational laps)

I had a on track turbo failure on 0w40 Mobil 1 back in 2015 or so which really scarred me on that oil. I realize Porsche uses it with great success so most of that is just superstition.

[ZM2]

edycol is going to cringe, but in the next 1-2-months I'll do a 300V oil change/lab test that includes one year of 3000mi of mostly hard highway and around town driving with 480whp/540wftlbs, four seasons use including cold winter starts and hot summer use, and ~10 track days. Will be interesting to see how the 300V holds up, despite being advised not to use it in such a manner.

I'm running 10W-40 300V bc it is so thin (10W-40 300V is like others 5W-40, 5W-40 300V is like others 0W-40), and I get a little oil/fuel dilution from running E50.

We'll see what it looks like!

[edycol]

Originally Posted by 3LiterBeater

I better understand the importance of the TAN/TBN now and appreciate that. My only concern with the 300V would be winter use for the reasons you mentioned.

So given all that you've mentioned, it's impossible to take into account the "quality" of RLI without these TBN/TAN numbers. Is it a far reach to compare it to other oils or universal averages and still see (let's use iron as an example) half of what they typically are in other tracked M2s, and even samples using the 300V? I understand some variability here and there but 13 to 26ppm seems outside of a simple variance.

This RLI is a bit thick, which is fair. I didn't consider the valvetronic circulation. What oils have proven track-worthy for extended periods? Is there a "road" oil that can handle 5-6k miles and ~10 track days? (Also worth mentioning I instruct so track time is often more than a standard day as I'm often bringing students out for educational laps)

I had a on track turbo failure on 0w40 Mobil 1 back in 2015 or so which really scarred me on that oil. I realize Porsche uses it with great success so most of that is just superstition.

Your circumstances fall right into that gray area of not really racing but more than street driving.
I think you have two choices:
1. You run something like 300V during track season. Then in winter you switch to some 5W30 with high detergency, pretty much any LL01.
2. Or you run something like Motul 5W40 Sport with oxidation in better control than 300V. Sport is API approved, so it is kind of dual oil for that grey area you are in.

I personally would run 300V and do full UOA with TAN.

Also, I highly doubt M1 0W40 was responsible for turbo failure. Something else was going on there. M1 is ridiculously rich in additives.

[mokrunka]

~28k miles. 0W-30 Castrol.

[chris719]

Originally Posted by mokrunka

~28k miles. 0W-30 Castrol.

Do you buy this oil or is it dealer fill? It looks like an older formulation, high calcium and no magnesium. It’s fine I am just surprised the SP formulation hasn’t made it everywhere. Also that is thin as hell.

[F87source]

Looks pretty thin lol, but that's typical bmw ll01fe oils for you.

[E90convert]

Nice oil report and trends! I guess I’ll be posting my UOA here later this summer. Stock M2, BMW 0w-30 SP formulation, 5 or so track days. Gonna change it around 3k miles for a first check-in with this engine.

[jefe2000]

Here's my recent report for the OEM BWM 0W-30 LL01-FE oil. This is my first UOA.

I ran the oil for ~4,800 miles (~7,700 km) and just about a year on the calendar since the prior oil change. While I don't give much credence to BMW's 10K mile (16.1K km) oil change interval, it's looking like I might consider going a bit longer than the 5K mile (8K km) change interval I'd been planning.

[E90convert]

Clean report for my M2. BMW Genuine 0w-30 and genuine ///M filter. Genuine air filter, engine is all stock.

[k_mann]

Sharing mine as well, do the metal counts seem high? Car had a 3 or so 0w30 changes, then switched to ravenol 0w40, now on ravenol 5w40