13 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHOil Analysis Results
Leading reported evidence
Check cam deviations
Suggestion or failed attempt
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 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
By any chance, did you check cam deviations before replacing the IMSB?
Leading evidence: 'Check cam deviations' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Check cam deviations' (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 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
What are the recommended minimum miles driven before doing a UOA?
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 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.
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 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
By any chance, did you check cam deviations before replacing the IMSB?
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 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 attribute this to the removal/reseal of the oil pan in the fall 2020 oil change.
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.
13 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: 20261026T183130Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
Hello all, did an oil analysis on my 996 and these are the results. The car had 3 track days and 2000 total miles on the oil. What do you think of the results, the silcione is high, I had put in a brand new OEM oil filter after the first oil change, so I am not sure why it went up more. I had Liquimoly 5w40 in with a bottle of MoS2 additive. Is this normal wear for a car that sees track time as Blackstone says? TIA.
What has me concerned with the report is the combination of high wear metals for silicone, aluminum and iron all at once. From the recent PCA video talking about UOA, silicone is what starts to wear first on the bores followed by aluminum. What did the past oil change intervals look like and did you notice any oil consumption? How long have you had the car?
After listening to the recent PCA videos on both Oil/Fuel and Bore Scoring, I would have dropped the sump at this oil change and taken a scope to each cylinder wall. Especially after results of the first UOA. Now I would make a borescope a priority and take a look.
I don't want to contribute to fear-mongering, but those numbers would have me a little concerned. With that said, you do need more data points to draw a conclusion. Here's my data set for comparison. I have not done any track days but to annual drives to Deals Gap in October that result in probably similar wear to one track day per year. Last 5 changes have been Motul Xcess 8100 5W40. Prior to that was M1 0W40.
I dropped the sump this oil change to put on an FVD pan with x51 baffles and 997 oil return lines. I believe it has been off before but can not confirm. The history before my ownership is not clear aside from IMS / clutch being done 2-3 years ago.
It may make sense to drop the sump, see what's in there after your track day, as well as scope your bores from the sump. At least you will know what the bores look like. From there you can make adjustments to your oil as needed. If you havent already, take a look at the Rennvision YouTube videos.
FWIW � not trying to scare you � I own a 99 C4 with 112k miles that had much cleaner oil analyses (multiple) and the dual-row IMSb was in early stages of failure. I got lucky and caught it early. If you have anything in an oil analysis that is cause for concern, my recommendation would be to address the big issues. YMMV.
FWIW my silicon jumped in my May 2021 sample... I attribute this to the removal/reseal of the oil pan in the fall 2020 oil change.
I haven't tested yet in 2023, but in the samples after May 2021 the numbers came right back down.
More data is likely needed to draw a conclusion, but might not be that big of a deal if you recently removed oil pan.
Just sent one in with less than 300 miles with a track day and local/hwy driving. My understanding is preferably 1000 miles or more for local/hwy driving.
This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.
