170 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHOil Wars, Revisited!!!
Leading reported evidence
Fill from the factory
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
However, I take the fact that all new 911s come filled from the factory with Mobil 1 0w-40 as a recommendation by Porsche.
Leading evidence: 'Fill from the factory' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, the most frequently mentioned possible cause is 'entertaining thread if only' (1 discussions; 0 report identifying it and 1 suggest it). The most frequently discussed action is 'Check oil in lawnmower"' (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
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.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
The 2001 996 Turbo was the first Porsche to use the VarioCam Plus technology and a friend who works as a dealer technician told me that one of their technicians spend the whole day trying to diagnose a running problem caused by an owner who hadn't trusted Porsches factory fill and thus changed his oil to SAE 20W-50.
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.
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
The heavier oil totally confused the VarioCam plus system and the engine ran poorly.
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
Porsche may very well have tested the aluminum pedals and found them to be unsafe.
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
Older hotrod V8s had much more space in the lubricating journals and does need thick oil to fill the large space to protect them, but newer cars have very tight tolerances and needs a thinner oil to get in there better .
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
Yes, the oil lubricates and is needed to a degree, but his point was that if the bearing is "lubricated" but is too hot, it is going to fail no matter how much lubrication you have.
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
Older hotrod V8s had much more space in the lubricating journals and does need thick oil to fill the large space to protect them, but newer cars have very tight tolerances and needs a thinner oil to get in there better .
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 agree on this point - by using Porsche recommended/approved oils, I ASSUME that they come with years of Porsche research on how the oils do in their racing engines, and in their street cars.
These are separate views of the same evidence. Frequency alone does not establish a fix, and these counts must not be added together.
entertaining thread if only
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Identified cause
1
Suspected cause
0
Reported fixes
Read evidence and context
Discussions that suspect a cause
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.
Suspected cause
This has proven to be an entertaining thread if only for the stubbornness of those asserting their opinions, but unable to back them up with any form of evidence.
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.
170 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: 20261027T070717Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
Oh man, you couldn't have waitred a week to post this? I had just finished packing up the popcorn machine for the trip to Dallas. Now you have made me unpack it again!
I figured I might as well put some beverages on ice too!
I think most people with any knowledge of how an engine works and wants to properly protect the engine, no longer uses Mobil Water. Worse thing you can ever put in an engine. However, there will always be those that fall for the intense marketting of a product. Moving away from Mobil Water will provide you with better Variocam operation, less oil leakage, less oil burning and better protection of bearings and journals especially at lower rpms and high load conditions..
If I remember correctly, someone on this board has been arguing against using 0W40 for years now. I can't remember who, tho.
My car makes the "clackety-clack" noises for 10-30 seconds upon startup after sitting for overnight or longer. I searched the archives and see this is common, but saw people suggest switching to 15/50 and people suggesting switching to 0/40. I'm sure it all really depends on your climate- they are as different as the oil weights! I'll be experimenting this year with oil weights, and I'll use the one that makes the engine quit making that damn scary noise at startup. I think I have 0/40 in right now (just had this car for a little over a month- not 100% sure).
As wellardmac suggests, I use whatever the dealer puts in. The dealer puts in whatever Porsche tells him to put in. There's a big "Mobil 1" sticker under my engine lid; I'll take my chances with Porsche and the dealer before some yahoos on the Internet.
These threads remind me of the episode of South Park where the Surgeon General recommends eating food through the rectum and then defecating out of the mouth. At the end of the public service announcement, they say "...And I base this on nothing."
None of these studies ever take into consideration the pressure of the oiling system which is their biggest fault. Without adequate pressure, even a 50 weight oil is not enough to keep componants such as the crank from slapping against the journals. This is exactly why lugging an engine is so bad.
ALL oil ratings are based on the oil properties at atmospheric pressure which, for the most part, is irrelevant when used in an engine. What is it going to do under pressure? What pressure is needed to maintain a film thick and strong enough to hold componants apart? Does a thicker oil really take longer to reach components while under pressure? If so, does the additional time it takes cause any damage?
This, among other faults, is a big problem with Mobil Water. Your oil system is not built to provide enough pressure to keep this water compressed enough to hold it's form between parts when operated at warm temperatures and low rpm's.
Look at all the people who report extremely low oil pressure when running Mobil Water. There are many on here reporting less than 10 psi at idle. With these low pressures, the engine is a time bomb, especially if sudden load is introduced. Push a sleeve out, score a journal, etc. Component slack is one of you engine's biggest enemies. Either increase the flow of your oil pump or move to an oil that will maintain the proper pressure.
I am not going to rehash all the faults of Mobil Water, but those who care should do a little research and/or testing on their own. Sometimes, even common sense can change your mind.
_______________________________
"At this past DE a rep from Motul told me that Porsche was switching away from 0w oils to 5w oils on all the current water cooled cars, and that North America would be following shortly as well."
_______________________________
It states very clearly "all the current water cooled cars", not only turbos.
Of course this is only a rumor at this point but the OP is a respected member of Rennlist and is in all likelihood telling the truth. The question is , what is the credibility of the Motul rep?
We had a Fluid Engineer come into my work once and state that oil in a jet engine is not for lubrication, but for cooling only. Think about that one for awhile. Made one of our Engineers dumbfounded for awhile. Jet engines use gear pumps, piston rings, and friction bearings very similar to reciprocating (car) engines.
Don't argue. We know that when it comes to oil, there is only One True God on Rennlist, and he has issued his fatwa.
As for me, I'm not using any oil at all until there is some consensus. I don't want to take any chances.
Oil pressure is a function of the resistance of the oil to flow not the amount of oil in the lubricating surface. Lubrication is based on the amount of oil in the journal area not the pressure. What you base your assumption on is based on oil leaking out of a journal area not leaving enough film to provide adequate lubrication, but however your thinking is flawed in one area as it is based solely on loose tolerances. Older hotrod V8s had much more space in the lubricating journals and does need thick oil to fill the large space to protect them, but newer cars have very tight tolerances and needs a thinner oil to get in there better . The newer cars lubrication need more oil flow to the area, thicker oil may not even get to all the surfaces as it may have a problem getting to the surface in adequate amounts. I have been using Mobil water in all of my Euro cars and have not had one engine failure yet in the last ten years even in hot S. Cal wheather.
I am not arguing at all, just throwing some thoughts out there since we all now think we are experts at this topic.
But Bruce, you should use oil in your engine, it works better with some in it.........
More fodder here.....
https://rennlist.com/forums/997-forum/410614-what-is-the-best-bang-for-the-buck-mod-you-have-done-or-are-planning.html
A little off topic, but I guess you throw it in where you can....
Arrrrgggghhhh! This is freakin' killing me. I run my 996 GT3 as a "track only" car, and my local dealer insists on Mobil 0W-40. I then decide to take it to the guys that maintain GT3 cups (same engine) at Miller Motorsports Park (Synergy) and they recommend Mobile 15W-50 TriSyn.
So now what? Help - anyone, anyone...
-B
Don't worry, be happy. The one thing that's always missing from these debates is even one example of oil-related engine failure. None. Nada. This is just one of those "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" kinds of discussions.
Hmmm.....I wonder what the manufacturer of your engine (Porsche) recommends???
Or, you could always listen to random internet speculation with zero testing behind it.....
Well said Ray.
This constant argument cracks me up - as far as I'm concerned Porsche is the final word in everything Porsche - We can choose to ignore what they say, but in the end I think they know what's best for the machines that they designed - certainly better than Joe Schmo from Cyberville, who could easily be a 15 year old "expert" with 30 years of experience in driving Porsches.
... not that we have any of those here.
I use 0w-40 in the winter months and change to 15w-50 for the summer. I have noticed no significant differences between the two viscosities and my engine tells me it likes both.
+1.
Not a shred of evidence that Porsche is wrong, nor how nor why. And not a shred of credentials to support the argument. Breatharians stand on firmer dialectical ground than this.
+1
I use 0w-40 in my 2000 C2 and will continue to do so until I hear otherwise from Porsche.
The bottom line for me is that Porsche is the expert on these engines and I cannot see what their motivation would be in steering us wrong. Sure they have a relationship with Mobil, but Mobile makes a wide variety of oil viscosities. If Porsche felt that Mobil 1 15w-50 was a better choice, they would recommend it.
Ray S - WTF? please re-read my post. Are you familiar with Synergy Racing?
http://www.synergyracing.com/
They manage GT3 Cups for privateers running in IMSA. Is this random internet speculation? I think not...
I appreciate your "bravado", but am still searching for some substance behind it...
Thanks,
-Blake
I think these oil discussions are quite funny lately...Why,oh why, would Porsche (or any other manufacturer) recommend and approve an oil and/or viscosity range that is detrimental to their engines? Would it be because they like warranty claims? Maybe they enjoy the damage to their reputation that comes with engine problems? Conspiracy whackos aside, does anyone really believe that the testing that Porsche, VW,Mercedes and BMW have subjected M1 0w40 to is "marketing"? If you don't like that flavor, pick one of the other 162 oils that are on the "approval list".
Alright, rather than get involved in this riduculous holy war - I'll contact Synergy on Monday and find out what the hell is going on. I'll post what they have to say to continue this wave of unsubstantiated internet speculation...
-B
I don't think he was referring to you, although I could be wrong. There are some very strong anti-Porsche opinions on this subject here, and those who hold them tend to use belligerent rhetoric in the place of evidence.
Bravado?? Please, I wasn't even refering to you..
You asked for advice and I gave you mine.
Ok, how's this for substance, Porsche (the company who made your engine) publishes a list of oils for the motors. Like Brant says, do you think they like warranty claims? They have obviously done testing and determined the best oils for their motors.
Not enough?? How about Excellence Magazine? The April 2007 issue addresses the 0W-40 "oil" topic. Two technical experts claim that newer Porsches require the thinner oil to ensure proper VarioCam function.
On page 34 a reader asks a question about using 10W-40 oil (for a Boxster) in Florida vs Mobil 0W-40. He is concerned about using the 0W-40 because 10W-30 or 10W-40 is a "more common fill" in Florida (he also asks about break-in). The response from the Excellence technical expert was as follows.
"Those who suggest higher viscosity oils usually don't understand the whole problem. Oil in engines is no longer just a lubricant. It is also a coolant for the engine as well as a hydralic control fluid for all of the things like VarioCam Plus, hydraulic lifters, and similar systems. If the oil is too high a viscosity, it can affect the way those circuits operate.
The 2001 996 Turbo was the first Porsche to use the VarioCam Plus technology and a friend who works as a dealer technician told me that one of their technicians spend the whole day trying to diagnose a running problem caused by an owner who hadn't trusted Porsches factory fill and thus changed his oil to SAE 20W-50. The heavier oil totally confused the VarioCam plus system and the engine ran poorly.
All of these devices have been designed to run with the SAE 0W-40 oils or other oils that Porsche recommends. Use only those oils recommended in your owners manual - SAE 0W-40, SAE 5W-40, or SAE 5W-50. Porsche is so sure about this decision that it came out with a bulletin recommending these oils for all of its older models as well."
Now I know that is just one "experts" opinion. However, on page 169 Porsche tech expert Jim Pasha dedicates his entire "Tech Forum" article (6 pages worth) to "Oil". I'm not going to type in all 6 pages of material but I will quote a few short pieces of what Jim reports in his column (he covers a lot of ground in his article).
"Why does Porsche specify such a low lower viscosity rating? The answer comes in two parts. First, in a quest for better fuel economy and longer engine life, Porsche engineers use bearing and cylinder-wall clearances far tighter than what they used previously. This creates less internal drag on components, and lighter oil is more compatible with tight tolerances."
He also says;
"In the latest Porsches, which use 0W-40, the thinner oil is critical to delicate systems that use motor oil as a hydralic activator. VarioCam Plus uses tiny "shafts" of oil created under high pressure to help the system alter valve timing. It is a trick system but it REQUIRES thin oil to work properly
Here is what Porsche list for your reference;
http://www.wrightune.co.uk/downloads/approved_oils.pdf
Please ask Synergy racing for their life testing using different oil grades. If they geniunely have done extensive testing on multiple engines, I'd love to see it. Without that data, I think I'll continue to use one of the oils on Porsche's list.
Ray, as usual, you are the man!
Amazes me how quick some people are to disregard the advice of the creators of the machine they revere so much.
... I knew I should have trusted that hot dog vendor in Times Sq. last weekend when he told me the answer to all my gas problems.
Ray S - I sincerely appreciate all of your hard work assembling some substance to match your bravado. Well done. I do mean that.
But this still does not answer my question (and I am beginning to see that few people will venture to address this topic as the term *holy war* is aptly used): Why does Synergy recommend 15W-50 for their GT3 Cups?
It is this question that has made me pause. For a respected racing shop with years of Porsche race experience under their belt to recommend an oil that is not on the approved list - well, that raises a question in my mind..
Can you at least concede this point?
Thanks,
-Blake
GT3 cup cars engines are rebuilt quite often...you want that? You can not look to what folks who are racing use...period. They are not concerned with longevity. Can you concede the point? And 1999...show me your Ph.D.
Alright guys.... This is getting old. We all have our opinions.
In particular, I like this thread from my local board (specifically the last post):
https://rennlist.com/forums/showthre...&highlight=oil
Let the floggings continue!
-B
Wait a minute...if the hot dog vendor recommends 15W-40 like Synergy does, isn't that enough to convince you? I know that I'd believe them instead of Porsche. No contest.
Now for a few facts:
Porsche does not recommend 0W40 for your engine
Porsche recommends using one of their approved oils
Using the approved 5W50 oil will reduce both leaks and oil burning for those who have those problems.
Using the approved 5W50 oil will provide you with better shear protection and better oil pressure over the Mobil Water.
5W50 provides you with equal protection as 0W40 down to -25C. Porsche makes no statement on which oil is better at higher temperatures and load, but the oil manufactures, approved by Porsche, do. 5W50 wins that category.
Therefore, from Porsche's own documentation, for those who drive in temps above -25C, 5W50 is as safe and as preferred as 0W40. It is also a fact that 5W50 provides better protection than does 0W40 at higher temperatures and loads.
So, what basis do you use now to argue that 5W50 should not be used and that 0W40 is the best?
I think Porsche listed 0-40 amongst others on their recommended list, but wasn't specific/detailed as to what's better than the other maybe save for outside operating temp?
But where I think 1999Porsche guy is flying pig in the sky is how he's stating reasons why 5-50 is better than 0-40 for our P-cars.
Has anyone met 1999 in person? Is he real?
I just run Mobil1 0-40 btw.
Excellent technical reponse! I didn't expect any of you "Porsche knows best" people to have an answer.
Typical avoidance of the subject rather than acknowledging the facts.
How about some specifics why it is not better?
Is it true or not that the 5W50 provides better shear protection at higher loads and oil temperture? If you agree with that statement which is factual as reported by the oil manufacturers who are approved by Porsche, then, why is better shear protection NOT better for you P-car?
If you do not agree that 5W50 offers better shear protection, then you are ignoring facts and simply not interested in any answer but your own.
Sigh. When will you learn that it's not our obligation to prove you wrong? It's YOUR obligation to prove PORSCHE wrong? You're the one challenging the 'official' version, so the onus of proof is on you.
It's just such a weak defense, last practiced with any effectiveness in Salem, I believe.
I don�t recall anyone saying that Porsche recommends 0w-40 and only 0w-40. I think most people are aware that Porsche has a long list of �approved� oil choices.
However, I take the fact that all new 911s come filled from the factory with Mobil 1 0w-40 as a recommendation by Porsche. After all, given the wide variety of Mobil 1 viscosities, why would Porsche not choose the one best suited for the engine?
Porsche states that they are equal down to -25C. The approved oil companies state that the 5W50 is better at higher temps and loads. You only need to look at the specs of each for your proof. No magic here. No opinions, just facts for those who care to look.
IF 0W40 was the best oil for your Porsche in all conditions (as many claim over and over again on this forum), why on earth would Porsche recommend other viscocities, including 5W40 and 5W50? Could it be that there are conditions that might warrant a higher viscosity oil?
I'm a real dumbass so you need to lead me to the trough. Can you provide a link or quote from a document from one of the approved oil companies that states this in plain english?
A quiz...
1) At warmed-up operating temperature, what is the viscosity of 5W-40 Oil?
2) At warmed-up operating temperature, what is the viscosity of 0W-40 Oil?
Depends what brand oil. Some 0W40 oil has a lower warm cst than 5W40 and some have a higher. Rules allow for a 40-weight oil to have a minimum viscosity of 12.5 cSt at 100�C (212�F) and must be less than 16.3 cSt.
holy crap that is a 20% variation.
If 0W40 has 12.4 centistokes and 5W40 has 16.3, there may be a basis for some of the arguments on this thread.
But in a "perfect" world, they are the same. Read the MD's oil stuff, looks right to me. but, as all physics majors and engineers know, MD's aren't real scientists. j/k.
OMG, the reason everyone gives up arguing facts with you is that you dimiss them. Facts are just that, non-debatable. What is even more hilarious is some of the reasoning you use to strengthen your case is actually backwards and shows a total lack of understanding about viscosity and lubricants in general. I'm not upset about it, it's actually quite entertaining! Please try to present to us one factual piece of info to make your point, no conjecture.
The so called oil expert of this board just can't provide good evidence to back up his belief because its based on pure personal feelings. So many people just believe that they just know better than the recomended factory fill. There are reason why places like Synergy uses different oils, mainly is that there engine are different spec than yours are. Most race shops take them apart and have different specs on tollerances which may be reasoning for this.
There you go again with the attacks and again, absolutely no mention of what I stated that is not true. I know, you just like to speak in general terms so as not to commit to anything, which most probably means you have limited knowledge of the subject matter. However, there are a few people here that care enough to read about other experiences and opinions and smart enough to do a little reasearch of their own if they care too. Not everyone will or should blindly accept the consensus position. The consensus is often proven wrong.
I have already prresented the facts as they relate to 0W40 and 5W50 oils. They are facts and if you care not to accept them or not, that is your choice. They are easily verified by reading your manual and with a few clicks of your mouse or a trip to your library.
There is no need to reply (although you probably won't be able to stop yourself) since you seem unable to contribute anything constructive to this discussion.
Weren't you recommending a "15" w50 just a short while ago? Why the switch? What wisdom can you share with us concerining your sudden change of heart? Why shouldn't I use a 15w50? Why 5w50? Do tell us what research and exhaustive testing led you to make this earth shattering change. Have you contacted each of the 996 owners whom you convinced to use your fomer personally approved oil? I remember debating with you about 5wxx oils. You must have had an epihany!
I knew you couldn't keep from responding.
And once again, a meaningless response that does not even address the subject. I don't recall even mentioning 15W50 oil in this thread. Why are you wasting bandwidth?
No credentials. No objective proof. No examples of engine failure caused by oil viscosity problems. From a man who claimed in a recent thread to have three degrees, and writes sentences like, "You, it is a big range. There is more to oil than you can learned on the internet, which some people here refuse to accept."
Not completly true Tippy, I used to test turbine engines for many years on Heavy Jet AC and Oil and Gas industry and many engines use different types of seals (Carbon air/oil etc) and they do carry heat away from surfaces but also provide in sealing and lubrication.
PS: Turbines do not use pistons they are just big compressors in a way that change pressure to velocity with some Jet A fuel thrown in, not to to be pompus but if your wondering I am FAA certified.
Great stuff, love this place
Something as simple as to following the recommended engine oil has become so high tech and complicated, I am scared to ask about bearing grease.
Maybe, just maybe this has been a tiny bit overanalyzed?
Nah, if anything this calls for the assembly of an elite car engine oil research dream team
See what I mean, it is too hard to understand that oil in jet engine is for cooling, not lubrication. If the bearings stay cool, there is no need for a lubricant according to "this" Engineer. Heat is what causes failure, remember, all thrust and radial bearings in jet engines are ball or roller.
The rings I was referring to were on the carbon seals, not for compression of a cylinder like a piston.
All moving parts must have lubrication or failure will occur. A turbine or jet engine uses oil for both lubrication and cooling as well as cleaning. The guy was pulling your leg. If not, it makes me look less crazy to be afraid of flying.
The Engineer was not pulling anyones leg, he was explaining this to other Engineers. He had no intent to mislead or misinform and other Engineers agreed after he explained. No offense to any on this board but these Engineers I have been around for over 10 years have my ear and respect. I will listen.
Let me rephrase this. Yes, the oil lubricates and is needed to a degree, but his point was that if the bearing is "lubricated" but is too hot, it is going to fail no matter how much lubrication you have. "Wicking" away the heat outways lubrication.
Engineers and technicians are people to and have seen some that I would not let them touch my lawnmower "Reminder to self check oil in lawnmower".
Be careful what you say Ramjet, Scram jet and other engines do not use bearings at all. Regarding the carbon seals the ones I worked with use a Delta P (oil vs air) to provide the positive flow lubrication, cooling, sealing and cleaning etc.
Our Engineers were informed from this particular Engineer, I highly doubt he could be discredited so easily.
I was speaking of your run of the mill gas turbine jet engine, not a ramjet (which is found in the afterburner of our engines) or Scramjets which I have never seen in person.
If I speak anymore I will be putting out information that is considered "tech data". You know what I mean?
Just in the splitting heirs mood today Tippy. Point taken.
. Just my opinion but I do think that there are some engineers that live by the book and never see there results in the feild where common place is common sense. I have sat in 148 degree heat at an intersection in phoenix, AZ in summer and am sure glad I was not using 0-40 WT oil.
You are preaching about common sense just like '99 over his observations of using 0W-40. I tend to agree with '99 on this topic but I dont want to get my ***** busted over it, that is for '99 to do.
No, sorry you are wrong there I speak from experience between me and the engineers I have worked with over the years and the recommendation of oils from porsche and others. What matters to me is what conditions the car is being used in Racing, High/Low temp climates etc and have used the oil I think fit the best for me and not anyone else.
Has anyone had or know 1st hand of anyone who can directly relate an engine failure to using the wrong weight oil in a 996, or any car for that matter?
The only oil related engine failure I can directly attest to is a Briggs and Stratton that was run w/o oil and it seized. I got my *** beat for that one, age 11.
I also know of a 996 Cup that was run without any oil in the crankcase. It made it to the hot pits b4 seizing.
You shouldnt of got your @$$ beat for that, the Briggs motor does not use friction bearings, rather aluminum conn rod on a iron crank. If you let it cool down and add oil, it will run again. HAHA, I did the same as a kid, thats how I know. I was scared sh!tless praying it would revive with oil and it did.
Has anyone had or know 1st hand of anyone who can directly relate all the engines sent back sealed to Germany for engine failure were not due to the wrong weight oil?
Just because you may not have immediate symptoms from using bad oil does not mean you are not doing damage. I have smoked heavily for 35+ years and have no health problems. Should I just assume that smoking is not potentially damaging to me?
And, yes. I personally have rebuild dozens of engines that have failed because of the oil or oiling system.
[Image-only post; no author-written text. Original image references:]
https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/icon501.gif
https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/banghead.gif
Have you rebuilt an M96 engine due to the oil or oiling system? Can you provide any documentation (analysis/photos) of the failure mechanism(s)?
I would think you would be happy providing just one example of oil being the reason for an M96 engine failure. Now you're implying that all engine failures that were crated up and sent back to Germany are due to the wrong weight oil. That's a bit of a stretch.
Still witch hunting?
Okay, I'd like to ask a similar question: "Has anyone had or know 1st hand of anyone who can directly relate all the engines sent back sealed to Germany for engine failure were not due to..." a) Not letting elephants ride in the car, b) Not having single malt scotch for breakfast, c) Not getting laid every other day, d) Not voting for Ross Perot, or e) Not having the car blessed by a local cleric, f) Not paying protection money to Tony Soprano?
What a spectacularly lame, bankrupt, desperate piece of conspiracy-theory logic that is...
Don't even try. Once, a long while back, in one of these debates, I even offered up oil analysis results from my own car, reasoning that if there was unnatural wear, you'd see it in the oil. Even this was not acceptable evidence. No fact is powerful enough to stand in the way of this conspiracy-theory juggernaut.
Yeah, I figured I would ask the question in a straightforward way. But not really expecting a rational answer. More like some psychotic assertion that implies he knows more than god.
I'm getting my oil changed tomorrow. Porsche recommends 0w40, and 5w40. I figure since I don't drive my car as much as I should, 5w40 will be a better lubricant during cold starts. When the car warms up to operating temps, the first number means nothing and the 40 kicks in, same as 0w40, right?
So, it looks like 5w40 will be my oil (and Porsche's) of choice!
Actually 0W is better during cold starts, you want the oil to get pumping as quickly as possible when the engine is cold, and you are pulling it out of the sump. especially in NJ where it really gets cold.
The W in the viscosity stands for "winter." When the engine is cold, a single viscosity oil (say, 30 weight) would be way too thick when cold to be pumped effectively by the oil pump, and would take too long to enter tight tolerance areas. The upper sections of the engine would also be oil starved, and excessive wear would result. The only reason for multiple viscosity oils is to provide protection when the engine is first started and is cold.
You don't get higher shear protection in a 40 weight oil until you move to a 15W40. If you want to use a 5W oil and get additional protection when the oil gets hot, move to a 5W50.
Then you need to educate a lot of auto instructors and change auto mechanics books throughout the US because I was taught the same as dresler at an early age.........course these books and instructors also talked of warped rotors.......
hmmmmm
Blind leading the blind
...I guess that makes it right...someone reads a post on here and thinks it is fact...next thing you know it is published in books (please post the reference)
YOU really should read the link.
Which is why I just do what Porsche tells me to do when it comes to oil. They've got the most at stake, the most tangible credentials and the biggest sample to learn from.
Anything that attracts so much vicious debate online among people you don't know, many of whom are either guessing at it or overthinking it... that's something to ignore.
Tested under numerous conditions that I've been ivolved in, my official recommendation is to simply add a squirt of KY. This will keep things well lubed even in the worst conditions, cold starts. There is no documentation or proof of a broken shaft using this method.
This is yet another well-intentioned, misinformed poster. The correct lube is NOT KY; rather, it is 0W-40 Astroglide. With Astroglide, you get superior performance, and it doesn't stain.
Stain? uh....will leave this one alone
.
I have experienced impressive performance and reliability time and time again, zero failures directly related from my recommendations
Even below freezing? Si, no problema amigos.
I would consider further studies involving 0W-40 Astroglide, but the risk of a catastrophic failure is simply not worth it, IMHO.
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/whatstuff/84/8411oil.html
:
"The oil's cold-weather weight is indicated by the letter "W," meaning "winter," as in 10W, which is gauged by the oil's viscosity at 0 �F. The warm-weather weight is based on the viscosity measured at 210 �F. Oils used to be sold mostly as single-grade products, and still are for some special uses, such as extreme weather conditions or for racing cars. But the viscosity range of single-grade oils is too limited for general use. That's where multigrade oils come in."
http://www.kic-oil.com/engine-oil-bible.html
:
SAE Grade counts too! The API/ACEA ratings only refer to an oil's quality. For grade, you need to look at the SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) ratings. These describe the oil's function and viscosity standard. Viscosity means the substance and clinging properties of the lubricant. When cold, oil can become like treacle so it is important that any lube is kept as thin as possible. It's cold performance is denoted by the letter 'W', meaning 'winter'. At the other end of the scale, a scorching hot oil can be as thin as water and about as useful too.
I could post dozens more, but look it up it yourself, arrogant butthead.
Both articles are exactly what I am talking about...nonsense. You read a magazine article and you know it all...good luck. Your use of derogatory remarks only confirms your intelligence.
I'm not getting involved in this argument, but excuse me, C&E news is not simply "a magazine" article - it is the communications arm of the American Chemical Society - it is a respected publication published by chemists for chemists. With the exception of Raudy Baum's editorial ranting it is rarely factually wrong.
Yes, and I'm a chemist by Ph.D, so you really don't want me to get involved in this considering I DO have a background that is relevant to the discussion.
time to stop the pissing match and move on.
stop wasting energy and look it up. You act like you're the only one here with advanced degrees.
How about Gulf oil Co?
http://www.gulfoilltd.com/faq_s/index.html
"5. We have come across an oil having a 20W-40 rating. What does 'W' stand for ?
This is the common terminology used to indicate a multi-grade oil. 'W' signifies the winter rating of the oil, showing that it will perform well in cold weather. The lower the number prefixing the 'W', the lower the temperature the oil can withstand. Thus 10W- indicates a lower viscosity at low temperature than 20W-. The second figure shows the viscosity at 100 C, which is close to the bulk oil temperature in most water-cooled engines"
How about Valvoline?
http://www.valvoline.com/carcare/art...=ccr20040601ov
"Most people are familiar with oil's viscosity rating—10W40, for example. However, very few may know that the "W" refers to "winter," not "weight." And most of us have no idea what the weight-rating numbers actually mean other than that the vehicle's manufacturer specifies a particular viscosity"
Or, a book: "Polymer Characterization: Laboratory Techniques and Analysis By Nicholas P. Cheremisinoff"
http://books.google.com/books?id=LGb...Tgcg#PPA208,M1
Appendix D
The point is, the W represents the viscosity measured cold, like, in winter. This is the origin of the W designation, and frankly, is a stupid point to bring up at any rate, because it does not change the meaning of anything I said.
Bonehead.
You guys are hilarious (especially because you apparently take me seriously) and only support my point. Anyone can post anything on the net...The whole post is very entertaining, but that is all. There are no facts or data presented. Just emotion and hypotheses.
dresler, you really need to clean up your dialog. Name calling is really not appropriate. If this is your typical reaction you should seek help.
Let the games continue.
All this just for an oil change? WTF?
Nort even Utilities and IPP's challenge nor spend any time/energy on the type of oil for their multi-million dollar Turbine Generator sets.
They go by the factory recommendations. No questions asked or studies to be done, even with millions at stake on down time alone.
Come on, it's as if their factory recommended SYNTHETIC oil was destructive on their own engines. Brilliant!
Please, No mas, No mas
As an outsider looking in, I see that no one individual has authoritative data to back any position on specific oil weights.
The only group that have the answers are Porsche, and they don't post here (that I'm aware of)
It's very easy to back a position when there's no data to discredit your stance - and equally there's a ton of quack advice on the Internet that you'd be foolish to believe without qualification.
It is of course perfectly possible that both camps are backing an oil weight that meets the needs of the engine - one may be more 'politically correct' because of emissions, but no one here has proved that this adversely effects engine life.
What is clear is that certain individuals use this issue as their 15 minutes of fame - and whether right or wrong, they are always going to have an opinion on the subject.
I suggest that someone writes in to Mythbusters and gets Jamie and Adam to test the myth, then maybe we call all go and argue about something more productive.....
From your first link:
Mobil 1 0W-40's wide viscosity range provides
unsurpassed
levels of protection, fuel savings and the best overall smooth driving experience.
So reading literally, Mobil is saying that 0w-40 is the BEST grade.
(There are no direct comments about which is "better at higher temps and loads" in either link.)
I interprete that statement as stating it is a "compromise" oil.
I don't do remedial. You can choose to accept the marketting description or you can take the initiative and educate yourself on what the specs of each oil mean. The choice is yours.
If you are going to justify using one oil over the other by highlighting a few words from the description, why not these words?
From Mobil on their 5W50:
"This oil, not only exceeds the toughest industry performance standards, it is approved by several major car manufacturers for service fill use."
And here are a few from Mobil 0W40:
"Exceeding
most
of the global industry standards and the major leading builder requirements......" (I wonder what standards 0W40 DOES NOT meet).
They also indicate that your engine will consume less oil with 5W50.
However, why believe words when the technical data tell you what you need to know?
That's been the problem with this thread and all others like it - a bunch of people with half an ounce of knowledge portraying it as definitive fact and bickering to the death. Honestly, it's worse than a playground.
As you, I and others have said, only Porsche knows what the effect of varying oil viscosities is on their engines and they're not telling.
One can only assume that Porsche has tested many oils considering that they have published a fairly authoritative list of approved oils. Logic states that if an oil is on the list, then it has been tested - If it's not on the list, then it either has not been tested, or it has failed to perform to specifications.
These threads only have the following consequences:
i) entertainment value for those that have not already grown tired of them
ii) allowing people to make an *** of themselves.
ii) pointless arguments that achieve nothing.
All I can say is that if you love to argue, then maybe Off-Topic is the best place to take this playground spat.
Wallardmac said,
"
I'm not getting involved in this argument
, but excuse me, C&E news is not simply "a magazine" article - it is the communications arm of the American Chemical Society - it is a respected publication published by chemists for chemists. With the exception of Raudy Baum's editorial ranting it is rarely factually wrong."
Jerry
It's funny how people who don't have the answers don't bother to find them and always fall back on the all encompassing "Porsche knows best" excuse. Yet, for some reason, even though they may be brain dead when it comes to oils, these Porsche owners somehow find the necessary brain cells to question Porsche's other recomendations, consciously challenging Porsche's knowledge of what is best for their cars. A few examples:
- Running non "N" rated tires
- Using an air filter other than one purchase from Porsche
- Using a battery that is not pruchased from Porsche
- Using sparkplugs other tyhan those specified by Porsche
- Using fuel additives
- Installing a short shifter not purchased from Porsche
- Having someone other than your Porsche Dealer change your oil
- Using an alternative point (engine) to lift or hold up car
- Charging your battery without removing it from the car
- and on and on and on
If you have done any of the above, you can confidently state that you have more knowledge than Porsche when it comes to knowing what is best for their car.
Amazing how the brain can think logically on so many levels yet seems to freeze up when it comes to oil.
I'm only guessing here, but I'd wager that very very few people on this forum have the time or resources to actually test the performance of one oil weight versus another, over the lifetime of an M96 engine.
That's where Porsche have the advantage, they have the time, money, experience and data.
You have all of the above I presume?
1999, your like a pitbull...cracks me up.
You do have some good points but some of your examples have nothing to do with going by factory recommended oil and two wrongs do not = one right.
I'll stick with a squirt of KY.
About as much time you had when you somehow were able to prove that Porsche's recommendation for tires was wrong and you decided other non "N" rated tires were better. I guess you are smarter than Porsche when it comes to tires?
I agree on this point - by using Porsche recommended/approved oils, I ASSUME that they come with years of Porsche research on how the oils do in their racing engines, and in their street cars. So I gladly default to their list.
Same way I trust Consumer Reports to pick the best toaster oven for my house. They have done the testing and testing for me.
Same way I trusted Rennlist when researching the possible pitfalls of owning a 996.
When I install my aluminum pedals, that's where I deviate from Porsche designers. I am guessing Porsche didn't put aluminum pedals into the 996 because of cost-saving and not years of research....
Tire performance and tire life is easy to judge, and hence is a reasonable personal call.
We all make it when we select brand x over y every year or two.
Now engines and wear due to oil weight... we'll that's clearly a different call.
And you clearly avoided answering my question - leading me to conclude that you have nothing in the way of empirical data on the M96 engine to back up your position that one oil weight is better than another.
Just have the ***** to say it - rather than BS'ing everyone time after time.
Porsche may very well have tested the aluminum pedals and found them to be unsafe. How dare you make a judgement like that.
And you don't think that Porsche could have filled their engines with 0W40 to help meet the European and other country's emission requirements? Even Exxon/Mobil states that the oil is a compromise between good fuel exonomy and protection.
Actually, I have quite extensive and intimate knowlege of lubricants. However, my intent is not to convince anyone that I am right but to have those who care, question the status quo and do a little research on their own. Having someone prove an answer to you is the easy way out. Finding the answer yourself is much more rewarding. By definition...smart people do not follow others blindly.
BTW: Is wear the ONLY reason why "N" rated tires MUST be used according to Porsche? I don't think so....... How were you able to extensively test and then determine that the non "N" rated tires you use are as safe? Please tell.
As has been stated on a number of previous occasions, there is certainly a link between emissions requirements and chosen oil weights.
However, this does not prove that one oil is better/worse than any other for the M96, merely that one oil weight gave the company a lower emissions profile across the fleet.
I apologize profusely for my shouting match a few pages back ,but it is extremely hard to sit silently when so much is blatantly incorrect with the advice 1999 is giving...I trust most (if not all!) realize that he is hugely wrong in each oil related thread...One needs only to visit his former posts to see how wrong. When presented with facts he will argue with conjecture and hearsay...Even the printed words in the manufacturers literature are twisted to fit his views. Take a look at the approved list and make your choice...You won't pick a bad one and an engine failure related to oil is not going to be something you should lose sleep over.
The difference is twofold. First, most people understand the risk for many of these mods and are willing to take it. They understand that a high flow filter may provide better air flow but allow more particulates to pass (and accept that risk).
Second, in the case of some of your list people can perform their own tests and decide they are willing to live with the the difference (brake pads are an easy example).
Changing against Porsches recommended oil is similar to changing the air filter. Anyone who does it is just guessing that it will work "ok" long term.
I suspect that if you were willing to be honest you would admit that you are just guessing on the oil (don't worry, I'm not holding my breath
). It may be a guess based on some degree of experience, but it is still just a guess.
The "funny" part (as you put it) is that you continue to announce your "guess" as better with absolutely no documented testing on these motors. You guess that some failures are caused by oil, but offer no proof.
You state it in a manner of mythical authority that seems to imply that if you say it often and loud enough it will become true. That's "funny"....
For the scientists around here it's all about the data baby - this thread is long on talk and short on data.
No scientist worth their salt would take any stock in anything said here unless backed up with data. Opinions are worthless unless backed up with data.
I don't have any data on this because I don't have a spare Porsche engine (or two) sitting around to generate any. That being said, I think we have come to a curious impass where I think the ladies doth protest too much, but have no way out of their bluster.
As Ray said, in the absence of data it's about the risk analysis and whether you're prepared to take the bet. In most cases it's easy to see the risk-cost-benefit balance of a mod. In the case of an engine you may as well put on the blindfold and play Russian Roulette.
I'll be honest, that the reason I've stayed out of this discussion is that I'm all about data and this thread has had none so far. If I can't contribute anything, then I'm staying out of it.
I've agreed with every post (including yours) that has pointed out that there's no data on this except the data that Porsche holds and keeps to themselves.
This has proven to be an entertaining thread if only for the stubbornness of those asserting their opinions, but unable to back them up with any form of evidence. It's sad to see passionate and intelligent people get caught up in their own rhetoric and unable to see the flaws in their assertions - the best course of action when someone calls you out for data is to provide it or shut up and preserve your integrity.
The scientists in the room should, I would think, disengage altogether from the debate, because there is no manifest problem to be solved. There are no broken engines from choosing the wrong oil viscosity, that anyone knows of. Therefore, we're debating the cause of a conjectural problem using theories that themselves lack, as you point out, any data to support them, against an opponent with uncertain credentials. It's the ultimate 'tree falling in the forest' kind of question, the kind empiricists like to avoid, in my experience.
Spoken like a philosopher, but true. I'm not big on opinion that's not backed up with data - anything else is just hot air and a waste of all of our time.
I can't help but feel responsible for this skirmish after reading your posts Wayne.
My intention was not to resurrect the BS which has been flying around this board for quite some time, but rather point out the possibility that the original poster (referenced in my link) could be on to something. The OP is a respected Rennlist member IMHO, and if his story is true I want to be the first to know about it. I do the oil changes on my car personally, as do many here, and I would like to know if Porsche changes their "recommendation" (“approved” or whatever you want to call it) to another oil viscosity. BTW, if Porsche uses 0w-40 as their factory fill, then that IS their recommendation.
I simply found the post interesting and thought I would give the other 996 owners a heads-up.
As I stated earlier, I use Mobil 1 0w-40 and will continue to do so until Porsche either recommends otherwise or changes to another viscosity oil in the cars leaving their factory.
Carry on Gentleman.
You're not responsible for the actions of others, although the end result was kinda predictable - it happens every time this subject is raised. I swear that at some point it's going to cause a war.
It's good to be passionate about stuff, but sometimes you know that we're getting carried away when the name calling starts.
dictionary.com
defines "unsurpassed" as "not capable of being improved on". If you you interpret that word as "compromise" then we have a huge language barrier between us.
Blackness & I, as oil ignoramuses with open minds, are simply asking you to explain how you've come to the conclusion that "The approved oil companies state that the 5W50 is better at higher temps and loads."
I only quoted the "marketting description" because you give me the links ostensibly to support your theory.
No one's trying to justify anything. All I wanted was to understand your thinking.
Now that I know that explanations are beneath you, i'll let the subject drop and listen to others. Thank you.
"Unsurpassed" in what? It is NOT unsurpassed in protection. It is NOT unsurpassed in fuel savings. It is unsurpassed in protection AND fuel savings. Therefore, it is a compromise.
If, in fact it WAS how you interpreted it to be, there would be absolutely no reason for Exxon/Mobil to manufacture any other type of oil.
Yup, much like yourself who has NEVER contributed anything worthwhile to this forum. Why not address the technical issues I raised with something other than "your wrong" or Porsche knows best"? Or, if your have no knowledge of the subject as it appears, go back to responding to the social topics you like so much and stop wastiing bandwidth here.
No. Actually I have never wondered that. Your kind are very predictable and it provides for entertainment. It's always the one's who have the least knowledge and feel threatened by those whose opinions do not match their own. Reminds be of the playground that most of us moved on from when we became adults.
It's always predictable which ones won't be able to keep from responding too. Please prove me wrong.
I see you're still avoiding the difficult questions, failing to provide any evidence to back you statements on oil weights, and working hard to try and deflect attention from those 'challenging' issues for which you appear to have no answers.
Where is the evidence to back your stance on the unsuitability of Mobil1 0W40 for the M96 engine?
