Lake Speed Jr - Motor Oil Geek's latest video re: Viscosity and M96 engines

Hi I'm a fan of Lake. I've emailed him questions and he's be great at responding. He posted this video up last night. I don't believe he is making these videos for clickbait or sensationalism. The BIG Lie About Thick Motor Oil My only confusion (and me being confused is a constant... like the speed of light in a vaccum hehe) is I think I remember the Oracle (Skip) saying that when the oil is thin or thins out due to heat the scavenge pumps are not as efficient in returning the oil to the sump when compared to a slightly thicker oil. And the main oil pump is very efficient regardless of viscosity and can pump the sump dry quickly (please correct me if I've misunderstood a post from your PT3...) . And this is one reason to run a 50 or 60... especially on track. ? Lake does say that it is an Oiling System issue in the M96 engines. He goes on to say that the best chance for our engines is oil that contains molybdenum. Doesn't say specifically how many ppm needed... but that the data that they have seems to suggest that it is a statistically of benefit. Interested in people's takeaways from this video.

My takeaway was that viscosity alone is not the answer, that Porsche owners need to consider a better quality oil for M9X/9A1 (Alusil and/or Lokasil) engines to mitigate the chances of cylinder bore scoring.

Oh gee, an oil thread! Moly for friction, zddp to bind to the aluminum to maintain the tribofilm produced by the silicon crystals, and a very high HTHS rating for the warzone that is our incredibly clattery engines. DT40 was formulated specifically for our engines, there simply is no replacement. If you somehow have a unicorn with no bore scoring, DT40 is still the only oil that will nigh on prevent bore scoring, assuming proper driving procedures and healthy injectors. The only deviation to this would be using Valvoline cummins diesel oil to run a properly knocked up engine shortly before a rebuild, this is what Jake Raby does for select few customers. 986 guys can run whatever, 987 guys should at least use Pennzoil Ultra Platinum, us 911 guys only have one solution, for better or worse.

I am amazed at how Lake can say that same things so many times in different ways and with his enthusiasm make it sound like he is saying something for the first time....lol I agree with everything he says but will add that while running a thicker oil on the M96 will not show as better on a Lab Report, it will be further away from "Thermal Runaway" when pushing the car hard on hot summer days at the Track.. At 260F to 280F, a 40 weight oil will be so thin, and the Aluminum in the heads/block has expanded so much, that the 58 oiling points, most of which are in the heads, will flow so much oil, the sump can run dry.... " Oil Pressure" can also be a measurement of "Resistance to Flow"...so a lower oil pressure when very hot just means the oil flow has increased. ...But if the oil flow increases too much (oil pressure dropping) then you run the risk of running out of oil in the Sump.. Lake is calling high viscosity oil a "Band-Aid" cure for oiling problems, but I consider it more of a " Tourniquet " ( used to stop severe bleeding).. since it is used to keep from having too much oil flow too fast.. It is a complex physics dynamics with circular logic and is why Lake says the same things over and over in different ways trying to get his points across..

Lake treats this subject like the data driven engineer he is. This is, by far, the best video he's done about the M96. He's made some mentions, but nothing this specific to our motor. Since my engine had a good (low) blow by number I'm running something over +1 qts. At the end of last season I installed @Coopduc oil temp gauge. I've done some spirited mountain pass climbs in warm weather that has gotten my oil temp "all the way up" to 192F. In the hottest highway driving conditions I'm hardly able to keep the oil temp above 182F. My UOA shows no signs of bore scoring with the engine at 100,000mi. I wonder how many 996 owners actually follow the owner's manual warm up procedure? The manual says "Do not let the engine idle to warm up. When starting the engine, be ready to drive immediately. My understanding is idling to warm up heats the engine unevenly and contributes to bore/cylinder wear. The rest of the instructions are to keep RPM 3,000 until the coolant reaches operating temperature. Avoid high RPM under load at low engine speeds until fully warm. The manual's instructions, when coupled with Lake's comments in this video make complete sense. The oil is at the right temp at the right time. I look at this bore scoring issue like my ability to get in and out of the 996. My knees do not make any cracking/popping noises doing the deep knee bends needed for vehicle ingress/egress. I'm in and out in a jiffy. One day in the future I suspect my knees might complain, but that will be before bore scoring is a problem.

Quotes source post: 20655787

Sort of, what happens is cars run rich until the catalytic converters heat up sufficiently to burn off emissions. Idling the car to warm up causes cylinder wear because the oil is diluted or washed off the cylinder walls. Which is why I cringe when people have remote start and let their car warmup in the driveway. Hard to believe the #6 cylinder in M96/97 engines is selectively enriched during warmup, probably another factor is involved, like uneven cylinder cooling.

As a follow-up to my previous post. 95 degrees today w/ 50% humidity. 25 min sessions in the fastest run group of which oil temps haven't exceeded 240. This is down from last year at the same time when I hit 245. I have not added a third radiator even though its been sitting on my air hockey table for years. What has made a huge difference in cooling has been the addition of front GT3 fender liners and cutting out the front centers for more airflow flow past the radiators. I am also running 12.5 qts of DI50 with the UAOST and 2qt deep sump.

Quotes source post: 20655787

Do you have a low temp stat or larger oil cooler? I can hit 200F oil without much trouble, 190 on the freeway at 80mph. Running 5w-50.

Quotes source post: 20655999

I am running the stock thermostat and standard oil cooler. In the cooler months I turn off the spoiler to get the oil temperature above 180F. Is your spoiler working?

Yeah my spoiler works fine. Stock oil cooler and stat as well. My 99 is high mileage at 195k miles, so maybe some of that stuff is gummed up. I have new rads, bigger oil cooler, stat and water pump on hand. Maybe once I get it sorted I�ll have another point of comparison.

First, I don't know of anyone who spends more time doing actual testing. Second, no one has more used oil analysis data on Porsche engines than Lake. Lastly, I don't think there is anyone else out there with the credentials to comment on this topic online or in any video than Lake, being that he holds both Certified Lubrication Specialist (CLS) and Oil Monitoring Analyst (OMA) certifications from the Society of Tribologists and Lubrication Engineers (STLE), which he also is committee member of. I have discussed this at great length with Lake. People are running thicker oils when they don't need to (and shouldn't), like 10w60, on the street. The data shows increased wear doing so. There is a point where thicker does not mean reduced wear. Yes, there is a difference between street and track, and we know oil temperature indeed has a direct effect on oiling in the M96 engine. It's pretty well established that when oil temperature exceeds 240F, even intermittently, running a 50wt is called for in the M96 engine. What seems new to many is actually old news. Going back literally almost 20 years, Jake has always recommended Driven XP6 15w50 for track use. That recommendation stands. Again, on the street, there isn't a statistical improvement going to a 50wt over a 40wt, that is unless you are comparing M1 0w40 to M1 5w50. Yes, the latter will indeed outperform the former, because we all know M1 0w40 sucks. For the street, it's hard to beat DT40. DI40 is the only thing I've seen that does so. Don't take my word for it. Use the search feature on this forum and look at years of UOA's compared to other oils. The only reason I recommend a 50wt in a street car is as a band-aid in engines with bore scoring. I have never recommended a 10w60 and will never do so in an M96 engine.

Quotes source post: 20653876

Just to clarify, ZDDP does not bind to aluminum, only ferrous surfaces. Moly on the other hand binds to aluminum, forming "glassy" plates that reduce friction as well as wear. I will add that if you look at Alusil and Lokasil, the mild wear regime (as referred to in AlSi cylinder system) in these engines result in iron wear particles from the piston skirts and the rings embedding themselves in the aluminum on the cylinder bores, and that does allow ZDDP to bond at those sites. However as the bore surface is primarily bare aluminum, moly is doing the heavy lifting here.

Which Moly additive would you recommend: Liqui Moly MoS2 or the Liquid Moly Ceratec? and why? TIA. Will they both work?

Quotes source post: 20661843

If you need an additive in your oil, you are using the wrong oil. That's what Lake would say. That said, not that I recommend additives either, but there are those on here that run Liqui moly oil with Liqui Moly Ceratec and have had good luck, but I'm not sure how many of those people are doing used oil analysis and sharing those results, so YMMV. As I have posted previously, Ceratec is thinner than the oil itself, so you will be reducing your oil's viscosity. Second, they claim that you don't have to add it at every oil change - I don't agree with that as when you change the oil, the additive goes with it. There is no such thing as a magic molecule that will permanently bold to the engine surfaces to provide long term protection, or better yet, reverse wear, like some other additives claim to do.

@Charles Navarro For me I went from a 40 to 50 as I experienced oil pressure below 3 bar @ 3000rpm on a few canyon carving runs. So that would be a good use case to go to 50? What would you (and Lake if you could talk for him) suggest as the minimum ppm of moly we should be aiming for? 50? 250? 500? I look at this resource VOA Results from BITOG and there are big differences in application. Also after someone rebuilds their engine with your nickies - do you still recommend oils with moly ? Cheers

Quotes source post: 20661989

I'd wager 250-300 is a good target value for moly. However, there is more than one type of moly, so the number alone doesn't tell the whole story. Just looking at VOAs doesn't translate to improved UOAs. The proof is in the pudding - you have to test your engine for how you use it. We really should have a sticky thread for UOAs on Rennlist. And yes, moly won't hurt anything in a rebuilt engine, assuming that you've already fully seated the piston rings before switching to a partial or full-synthetic or a friction modified oil.

Quotes source post: 20661989

There is the old rule of thumb of 10psi per 1000 rpm, but buried in countless SAE papers I did find a GM Technical Institute document that further defined that to 6-7 psi per 1000. Those of you who have owned or driven a aircooled 2.7 911 on a hot summer day know that the oil pressure light will flicker at idle and you're lucky if you have 2 or 3 psi, however you have oil volume, so it's really not an issue. Moving forward a few decades, starting with the 987.2 and 997.2, the oil pumps are computer controlled and if you look at the data, there often are points where you have less than even 6 psi per 1000 rpm. All said, how low do you see the oil pressure drop below the 3 bar at 3,000 psi?

FWIW ;; if you go to 7:30 to 8:30 of this video Lake says that of the 2k m96 oil analysis sample he has done there is no statistical difference in wear between a 40-50-or 60 weight oil using the JMP analytic software... With my experience and testing I believe this to be true, I would still like to have the "Hard Data" that backs this up because many others don't think so... IMHO there is no reason to run a lighter weight oil than a 10w-60 on the M96 unless you just want the highest fuel mileage possible and least emissions., or are in a climate that i consistently well below zero temperatures.. While I agree with Lake that the 10w-60 would not be needed if the oiling system was much better designed, the hard fact is that it is not, and that most m96 owners have not or will not upgrade their oiling systems. My fear is that many will not understand the technical significances of these components and will go with the lowest denominator and put in a 0w-40 a40 oil, then go to a DE Track Day in the heat of the Summer and spin a rod bearing due to thermal runaway .. ........... Yes if you just cruise your 996 and never go on the Track in the heat of the Summer, and your engine is less than 40k miles ,you can run a 0w-40 oil and have no worries...

Quotes source post: 20662615

Skip, I respect your position on this.

Is there any reason why my oil consumption went up when I switched from Motul 5w-40 to Driven DT50? Figured it would be the opposite.

How big of an increase? Are you on your first OCI? I'd give it at least 2 to let things stabilize. I would consume about 1qt of FR50 in 2500mi with some hard driving here and there. I switched to DT50 and saw a quart go in about 2000 miles but now on my second OCI with DT 500 I'm 3000 miles in and only half quart consumed.

Quotes source post: 20663305

That's a valid observation. Lake has also documented this same phenomenon on his Boxster with a built 3.8 with Nickies (SUMEBore coated). Has more to do with the viscosity, not the actual brand or formulation. The thinner the oil, the more effective the oil control ring is in doing its job. Lake was running a 5w30 at some point and I think that had the best oil consumption. That has to do with piston design and oil control ring tension. We have specifically added additional oil drain back holes to help with oil control, but with Nikasil, you are limited to how much oil control ring tension you can run. We've published 9-11# tension is the most you can run with Nikasil. Most of the aftermarket piston rings available fall in the 6-7# out of the box if using a 1/1.2/2.0 configuration. With iron bores, or SUMEbore or PTWA, you can run more tension to overcome that, but you lose a little more power to friction as a result. However, our tests of OE piston rings from Ford and Porsche show they are favoring lower tension rings to improve fuel economy.

Quotes source post: 20663322

Another great point. Additive clash is a thing. Usually you will also see this with used oil analysis, with subsequent oil changes after changing brands will have even better UOA results.

Quotes source posts: 20663322, 20663395

Yeah, first time running it. Having said that, I decided to switch again to LiquiMoly 5w-50 MolyGen now that FCP Euro carries it and bundles as oil change kit for the 996. It's a bit easier on the wallet and Slakker Racing endorces it. I'll keep track of usage over the next couple OCIs as I plan to stick with this. Thanks for the info. My rebuild is using steel liners and the builder used rings to his specifications - no idea what the tension is rated. I've put about 30K miles on the rebuild and it has always consumed oil. It was really bad when I had bore scoring and I was getting less than 300 miles until needing a quart. After the rebuild that number went up to over 700 miles before needing about a quart (I think Porsche states 600 miles is normal?). With this last change to heavier oil, the number dropped to 400-600 range, but I plan to be more precise once I run the heavier oil through a few times.

Quotes source post: 20664985

Have you done used oil analysis recently?

Quotes source post: 20665173

No, I should probably get a kit to do so...

Quotes source post: 20663305

Motul 300V 10W-60, changed at 5,000-mile intervals, has consistently shown improved UOA results and reduced oil consumption in the engines we�ve switched over to it. I suspect 300V's anti-foaming characteristics are a contributing factor. Also make sure you don�t have any vacuum line or crankcase leaks (such as at the oil cap, AOS, or AOS lines) as those can also increase oil consumption. I strongly disagree with Lake�s continual recommendation of lower-viscosity oils for M96/M97 engines while largely ignoring the effect viscosity has on hot oil pressure and oil-starvation risk. If he would simply log oil pressure and drive his Boxster hard on some twisty roads�the way these cars are meant to be driven�he could see the problem firsthand.

Quotes source post: 20666513

Thanks - I must have a leak somewhere as I had a P2098. I checked the AOS using a manometer and it looked good. The leak must be elsewhere.

Quotes source post: 20666743

If you want to do a "thorough " job at testing the AOS, then don't just test it at a static idle .....Test it at the very instant of starting or after a quick throttle blip or full throttle .... When the AOS first starts to fail, I have seen the reading go up as high as neg. 40-50 inh20 then drop back down to 4-6 inh20 in a matter of seconds....

Quotes source post: 20666743

If you don't have a proper smoke machine, definitely pick up the Hyper Smoke one on Amazon - Amazon Amazon It's a fantastic little machine which helped me discover a few minor leaks I had. For example, I have the larger plenum and found out that the clip that attaches to the side and leads to the diaphragm was slightly off center even though plugged in all the way. I used an extra rubber gasket to seal it off.

Quotes source post: 20668782

I have the same smoke tester and concur it is great. I like how you installed the cone over the TB. Great idea!

Quotes source post: 20668782

Agreed. I just bought one to test my evap system and then used it to find a leak in my intake. Works great for the price. But, I gotta ask, what is holding your throttle body open here? Do you just have it propped open with something?

Quotes source post: 20669849

I have a small stubby screwdriver with a rubberized and ribbed grip. I just carefully opened the TB and had it keep it open. No issues. Just be sure not to let the TB shut close quickly. Not good for the motor.

Quotes source post: 20666513

There are two thoughts running in this thread. One is track use and the other is road use. This one crosses the line and I'm genuinely curious. We're out on paved roads through national forests, doing spirited drives with my buddies. They're on twisty mountain roads at speeds +25-30 mph over the curve speed sign. We aren't racing or being stupid and don't want to ruin our day, but they are spirited. The highest oil temp I've seen with @Coopduc 's oil temp gauge is 195F. I have the Ultimate UAOS and running way probably closer to +2 qts. I believe running more oil keeps the engine cooler. My buddy is running a hopped up 911SC 3.0 and oil has to be doing something for him to keep up with me. I change my oil at the end of the season and do a UOA, here is my last report from SpeedDiagnostics. This engine was at ~98,000 miles. My conclusion is the oil is working pretty well in an engine that has aged better than I have over the last 25 years. What does your UOA look like? I'd definitely run higher viscosity oil if I were tracking the car, but the nearest track worth doing is a 450 mile drive, one way. Based on what I've read in threads on this topic, my conclusion is running the Ultimate UAOS with more oil probably does more for lubrication than changing the viscosity. I am not an engine builder/mechanic just sharing my data/observations.

Quotes source post: 20669555

A must for anyone doing their own AOS replacement. So many issues can be found with a simple little smoke test :-)

Quotes source post: 20698884

I agree 100% ... Everyone who is a First Timer on the M96/7 intake manifolds or installing UAOS/AOS always has vacuum leaks.. Smoke Machines and Manometers are Essential M96/7 Tools ....Don't open the engine lid if you don't have these ...

Quotes source post: 20655857

Airflow is a big factor. I'll also say that experienced and faster drivers like yourself tend to carry more speed overall and therefore are getting more cooling on the track, which results in slightly lower temps and therefore, viscosity a tad higher.