I had a car that had the same engine as your friends BMW. The internals were solid and didn't burn any oil. It is very common and easy for BMW owners to use non approved BMW oil and when they do this is what happens.
The oil has to be A3 rated and is usually almost a 40wt oil. Many BMW owners make the mistake of using Mobil one 5W-30.

 

DEVH, on another post you mention the following: "Toyota oil is good stuff because the base oil is high quality and it's jacked up on Moly which is great for boundary lubrication. If twenty weight oil is too thin for the rings then my car should consume oil which it hasn't."

Your car has not consumed oil yet, but a post about oil consumption was viewed 10K times. Which means others experience or are concerned about oil use and transmission issues (25K views). 100K LS's were sold in the US *Those % refute the chemistry data.

 

EI don't know about the logic of your refutation.

The idea that the number of views of a post correlates to the number of people experiencing the problems mentioned in the post doesn't seem valid. Interest and even concern about a topic isn't necessarily the same as experience. And experience must have additional information behind it to provide evidence for or against a theory.

I wish I had more knowledge and technical expertise to evaluate Devh's statements you quoted. All I can say is that number of post views doesn't in itself prove or disprove those statements.

 

What was is that Mark Twain lied about.

 

That is like saying that because your local McDonald's served 300 million hamburgers last year everyone in the United States ate at your local McDonald's.

Chances are most of those 10K views were multiple views by those CL members following the thread.

 

Gbp, the numbers are indicative of "hot" topics. The logic is sound, that's one of the reasons forums exist. You deserve that break today. #@McDonalds

DEVH your stats quote refutes the Chemistry results more than you know. Chemistry is ultimately an excercise in mathematics and statistical analysis. The Mark Twain quote is originally about expert witnesses.

Stick to the oil discussion ladies and gentlemen.

 

I'm wondering, if you'd care to provide any statistical data or topic-specific information backing the myriad of "excerpt's" you seem to prefer to post?
Just mere observation, however, you seem to blatantly and quickly refute statements made by others, in a manner which displays heavy undertones of cynicism, rather than providing a well composed, thought out logical and data infused statement.
I don't think its difficult to realize here, that most of us are quite open to speaking about and being informed about the vast subject matter of oils and engines in a mature and helpful manner.

So in respecting your comments: "Stick to the oil discussion", lets do so and could you respectfully and logically explain why you feel as though the chemistry of an oil is less of a telling tale of its current effective state than a "race track" scenario where a car is accelerated 0-30 or 0-60, and how this may relate to oil burning/oil consumption?
Or do I have this all wrong...

 

There are informal tests that try to prove differences between products but it often ends up being extremely futile and too easy to discredit. too many variations even between models, wear and overall condition of each vehicle. There is no way you can judge anything from a track let alone a dyno by two representative examples because the margin of error is too great. There are so many variables that it could go one way or the other.

An oil analysis is the best known measure we have period. I would not take one example as being indicated of anything but trends and then trends from others members that show similar values which you can draw conclusions from. It's still speculation if you want to be picky about it but it's the most possible and probable compared to blood letting. There are many white papers written on the subject of oil testing, they are peered reviewed and held up to scrutiny. Oil like anything else is a technology that is ever changing and it would be foolish to go back to 3k oil changes without understanding the rational.

In regard to subjectivity that is the argument Royal Purple oils used when they were taken to court for making false claims stating that is what their owners reported rather then actual test data.

 

No kidding. And all after only a handful of posts on CL. Until I saw that he's been a member since Nov 2014, I thought maybe he was trolling from another site or thread from another part of the CL forums. However, I guess he's just a little "prickly" (as someone else stated).

There are also independent tests published which showed RP to be a very poor product....especially their gear lube. Lucas being the only one that was worse.

 

I cant even begin to tell you how many people I have deprogrammed (saved) from the RP cult.
For some it was already too late when their synchronizes went.

 

You can search the internet for 5w20 issues in your spare time. Not' just Toyota threads, but all threads by guys who study and research engine oil; analyze what is said about the property differences between the two products. This "oil" discussion is in another thread that specified 5w30 was in the 4.6 engine during shipping(search the threads). I can lead you to water but I refuse to make you drink.

One for the Road (pun intended):
Roadfrog: Pick up some class over the weekend. Name calling never solved anything.
DevH: You should use indicative instead of indicated: "as being indicated of" (see also post#38).

 

Oh no....not a grammar cop too.

I didn't call you "Prickly".....someone else did in another thread. But class is not lacking in my M.O.... believe me.

 

When you're in a debate or argument and your opponent points out your shoes are untied and your shirt is ugly it's time to just run out the clock. Game over .

 

Guys, can we stop the personal remarks, please? Questioning ideas is fine. Attacking people isn't. It tends to escalate, diverting the thread and worse, creating bad feelings between members. Thanks.

 

I agree with the others that this line of thinking isn't sound.

I've been posting on and running car forums for 15 years or so. There are a lot of reasons why a thread or topic may get a lot of views vs another.

For one, when you have a very active discussion, every time someone comes back to check on the discussion or to post in the discussion, those are new page views. When I click through multiple pages of a discussion, those are additional page views. Look at all the people here who are posting in this thread who do not have oil consumption issues, many people click on the topic because it interests them, even though they likely do not have an issue. The topic also will appear in search engine results both on the forum and on browser search engines, for searches such as "LS460 oil", and the more views and posts it has the higher up it ranks and will present in those searches. People click on the link out of interest...and those are page views. When you have a discussion that has persisted over a number of years as this has, that has it out there longer collecting more page views, as most threads will disappear from the main list completely after a few days to a week.

You are assuming that the page view counter is the same as a counter of "unique visitors" and thats not the case. 25,000 individual people have not looked at the thread...the topics have been viewed 25,000 times by an undetermined number of people. So your comparison of 25,000 views to 100,000 LS460s sold in the US is not at all meaningful. All it means is that its an active discussion on the forum. In fact, to me the fact that this thread is only 3 pages long since 2012, and 44 total posts, with only 3 individual owners reporting what they perceive as high oil consumption in an LS460 (go through and count), I'd say this issue is likely not significant.

As an example, the "Post a picture of your LS today" has 242,000 views. Using your logic one would say that the sales numbers of LS460s must have been misreported, there clearly are at least 242,000 LS460 owners because 242,000 people have viewed the thread. That logic is equally flawed. Don't come back and tell me that means "242,000 people are interested in pictures of the LS460", because your logic says that anybody interested in a discussion of oil consumption or transmission issues in the LS460 has an LS460 with oil consumption or transmission issues...so by your logic anybody interested in pictures of the LS460 must have an LS460.