4 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCH996 vs 997 return tubes
Leading reported evidence
Fill level, and especially the oil type/brand/weight
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
I would never discourage anyone from doing comprehensive testing..and you may actually see a difference if you keep all variables the same except the return tubes, ie, the track , the temperatures, the oil fill level, and especially the oil type/brand/weight used...
Leading evidence: 'Fill level, and especially the oil type/brand/weight' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Fill level, and especially the oil type/brand/weight' (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.
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 always keep an open mind about testing...my saying for 50 years has always been " If a test result differs from the theory, believe the test result, and invent a new theory "...<<this has kept me open minded untill positive conclusions can be positively made...
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
I always keep an open mind about testing...my saying for 50 years has always been " If a test result differs from the theory, believe the test result, and invent a new theory "...<<this has kept me open minded untill positive conclusions can be positively made...
These are separate views of the same evidence. Frequency alone does not establish a fix, and these counts must not be added together.
Fill level, and especially the oil type/brand/weight
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
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 would never discourage anyone from doing comprehensive testing..and you may actually see a difference if you keep all variables the same except the return tubes, ie, the track , the temperatures, the oil fill level, and especially the oil type/brand/weight used...
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 always keep an open mind about testing...my saying for 50 years has always been " If a test result differs from the theory, believe the test result, and invent a new theory "...<<this has kept me open minded untill positive conclusions can be positively made...
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 always keep an open mind about testing...my saying for 50 years has always been " If a test result differs from the theory, believe the test result, and invent a new theory "...<<this has kept me open minded untill positive conclusions can be positively made...
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 used this device I designed to extract aerated oil from the engine while running at operating temperature and at 4k RPM for 5 minutes, then I would lower the atmostpheric pressure in the glass jar to allow atmospheric pressure on the oil in the sump to push oil into the test tube, then stop the flow and observe/note the aeration percentage.
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.
4 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: 20261026T144035Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
@Porschetech3
Whats your opinion of the old vs new return tubes? Didn�t know which you are using with your sump.
I�ve been using the new style but still have the old. Going back to watkins Tuesday and was thinking of trying the old to see if there is a difference.
It�s my understanding that the newer return fast but the old were designed to take air out of the oil.
I may have that completely wrong.
Brad
The principals involved in de-aerating oil from the air-entrained oil are several. A device that aims at de-aerating oil can use one or more principals, or all of them in the attempt to de-aerate..
Using weight differential to de-aerate oil::
The weight differential of oil and air can be used to de-aerate by high velocity spinning, the heavier oil moves to the outer perimeter of the circle while the lighter air remains to the inner perimeter.
Using surface tension differential to de-aerate oil :::
The surface tension differential of oil and air can be used to de-aerate by spreading out the aerated oil over a large sloped surface area, oil has a higher surface tension so it sticks to the surface while the air is released
Using the coalescence differential to de-aerate oil ::
The coalescence differential of oil and air can be used to de-aerate by colliding two streams of aerated oil together, the smaller air bubbles will coalesce to form larger bubbles which will rise to the surface quicker to break open easier and release the trapped air
Using pressure differentials to de-aerate oil ::
Changing pressures can be used to de-areate oil. Air is compressible while oil is not. On the oil return side, inducing a pressure drop will cause air bubbles to grow larger, coalesce easier, and rise to the surface faster where they can break open and release the trapped air
Using time/residence time to de-aerate oil::
Time/residence time is the most effective method for de-aerating oil..Given enough time, oil that has been entrained with air will self-deaerate as the air will rise to the surface and coalesce with other bubbles untill they are large enough to break open and release the trapped air
Device to extract aerated oil directly from oil pump inlet durring real time operation
Location of drilled port to test aeration
I used this device I designed to extract aerated oil from the engine while running at operating temperature and at 4k RPM for 5 minutes, then I would lower the atmostpheric pressure in the glass jar to allow atmospheric pressure on the oil in the sump to push oil into the test tube, then stop the flow and observe/note the aeration percentage. Then increase the atmospheric pressure in the glass jar to return the oil from the test tube to the oil pump and oiling system. Then I made the changes and repeated the test. I tested the 996 swirl pots and the 997 return tubes and also center de-aerator oil return baffle..
The testes were inconclusive as I could find no discernible difference in any of the oil returns at 4k rpm....a more conclusive result may come from testing at 7k rpm using a Spintronic or other expensive equipment, but I dot have the resources for that type of testing..
That said I believe the 997 tubes to be better than the 996 swirl pots due to the simple fact that the 996 swirl pots were already designed and being produced and it would make no since to spend the $$ to design and manufacture a less effective and more costly device, if the one you currently have is better and is costing nothing in R&D..
And again like I have said before, these devices that use these principles actually do more to keep from increasing aeration than they do to decrease aeration. The best thing is too keep from creating aeration in the first place with using proper designs and using oil that resists aeration...
I would never discourage anyone from doing comprehensive testing..and you may actually see a difference if you keep all variables the same except the return tubes, ie, the track , the temperatures, the oil fill level, and especially the oil type/brand/weight used...
I always keep an open mind about testing...my saying for 50 years has always been " If a test result differs from the theory, believe the test result, and invent a new theory "...<<this has kept me open minded untill positive conclusions can be positively made...
