21 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHOil level Question
Leading reported evidence
Check interior guage and it seems
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed · Original poster
It wasn't until after my stopping to get get gas a few days later that I checked the interior guage and it seems to be overfilled.
Leading evidence: 'Check interior guage and it seems' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Check before adding' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
But once filled, the car is driven and then left to settle and checked using the electronic guage.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
I still think using the guage is better than using the dipstick.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
Well I'm an old f**k so I use the dipstick method, but I will admit that the gauge correlates nicely.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
Both independents I use say they rarely use the dipstick to check oil level except during the fill-up service.
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
Your wrneches might use the guage as they believe it is accurate enough to see if actually checking the dipstick is necessary, but notice they don't use it to fill up the oil.
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
The interior guage is used as a guide to see if you need to actually check the oil, but by no means it is what you use to determine the absolute oil level.
Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.
21 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
Rennlist: 1 discussions
0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.
0 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Generation: 20261027T075545Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
After changing my oil last weekend (2000 996) the electronic gauge is reading all hte way to the top line. Dip stick reading appears normal. It drained for more than an hour, as I was doing some other things at the time, and I put 9 quarts and a bit more in. After changing, I drove it around to get up to operating temperature and dip stick read correctly. It wasn't until after my stopping to get get gas a few days later that I checked the interior guage and it seems to be overfilled. Or at least it is past the center and almost even with the top line. Do I need to drain a little out? What kind of problems, if any, could I experience from an oil overfill. BTW, I change it every 5k miles, in spite of the 15k recommendation, and the level has never dropped between changes.
Never trust the interior guage. The dip stick method is correct. Let the car settle for 5minutes before checking and if its correct then don't worry about the guage. It was there as a guide so you know if it should be check manually.
Thanks. It's a zoom out from the original. I should have used it in the first place. Learning issues on sizing photos... BTW it was the moment of driving my new car out of the showroom.
Lee - I like this avatar better too... it doesn't look as ga... Oh, never mind, no sense in stirring all of that up again! Just poking a little fun...
Seriously, I like this one better, it's got to bring back good memories of "day one" for you!
I totally disagree with this comment. The recommended and best way to check your oil level is to use the electronic guage. The guage should read to the top or at the least one below it. Overfilling won't do any harm it will just burn off. The guage level should be checked with the engine hot but settled for 20 minutes or so with the car on a flat and level surface. Both independents I use say they rarely use the dipstick to check oil level except during the fill-up service. But once filled, the car is driven and then left to settle and checked using the electronic guage.
Please explain to me how can a electronic guage be more accurate than actually using a mechanical method that is used in the dyno room. The oil used in current 911 are 0W-40 and thin oil will settle quite fast when warmed up. Your wrneches might use the guage as they believe it is accurate enough to see if actually checking the dipstick is necessary, but notice they don't use it to fill up the oil. The interior guage is used as a guide to see if you need to actually check the oil, but by no means it is what you use to determine the absolute oil level.
I never check the dip stick and have found that the electronic gauge is exactly on the mark. The comment made by Scouser " Overfilling won't do any harm it will just burn off" is wrong. As the volume of oil is increased, so is the drag on the crankshaft, etc. This will not only cause foaming but will also measurably decrease the power of the engine after full warm up. When I change my oil, I fill it up to 1 bar below the top on the gauge until my next change.
If you can't trust the oil level gauge, then you should change most of the gauges on these new cars as most are electric. Oil pressure, Tachometer, speedo, etc.
As a general matter, I agree.
Of course, electronic gauges can fail. My oil pressure sender was bad for a long time, and, as a result, it showed a much higher oil pressure than actually existed, which, could have had really bad consequences. Less chances for failure from the dipstick, but no reason, as a general matter, to doubt the electronic gauge. In other words, you should have a real good idea where your oil level should be anyways. If you see something unexpected from the dash gauge, it would be a good idea to check the dipstick.
If you have both, why not use both? The dash gauge is great for when you want to do a quick check. But, there can be no more accurate reading than a physical check of the oil, period. I let mine sit overnight and check before adding, and after adding 8 oz of oil at a time. Removing overfill is a pain.
I have to say that in all my p-cars the guage in the dash has been right on the money!
In fact when adding oil to the older cars, I tend to leave the engine running and just watch the guage through the rear window....
right...right...
to anyone who's been on the track it's pretty clear you're just waiting to turn the corner before blowing by
PS. Sorry for the hijack...
FWIW the factory techs use the gauge as suggested in the manual. Some models like the TT and GT2 don't even have a dipstick. I am told the gauge compensates for temps too. The dip stick is a vague reference only since there is a lot of oil in there. I also agree that overfilling is bad. It comes out the breather, drips onto the exhaust and makes white smoke - in addition to being bad for the engine.
Agree on the overfilling. I meant to say, if you accidentally overfill it should be OK providing its not rediculously overfilled and of course it should not be overfilled as a matter of normal oil change.
I still think using the guage is better than using the dipstick. The manual says to do it that way. The OEM techs do it that way and as Bob just said the dipstick reading can be vague.
My guess is that it's not on the TT or GT2 to save weight
