83 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHFlat6 Innovations Bore scoring video Pt 3B
Reported or suspected cause
equation
Reported cause
No successful repair reported for this finding.
1
Identified cause
0
Suspected cause
0
Reported fixes
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 report identifying 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.
Leading evidence: 'equation' (1 discussions report identifying this cause; no attributable repair resolution). Across 1 matching discussions, the most frequently mentioned possible cause is 'equation' (1 discussions; 1 report identifying it and 0 suggest it). The most frequently discussed action is 'Clean room type particulate filter' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
How long can it be driven like that?" Just this week I was behind a Lexus GS300 that was blowing oil-filled smoke.
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.
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
I believe (my opinion) the iterations of Lokasil were to address known cylinder cracking and scoring issues on engines replaced under warranty or when cores were sent back for evaluation, as most manufacturers do for failure analysis.
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
environmental compliance), but Porsche states that "graphal" coatings were used for "acoustic reasons".
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 think it is plausible to think that Porsche made a change for the 996.2 engines from the Ferrostan ( iron/tin electroplate) to something different along with the Lokasil II higher silicon content cylinder bores and since Ferrostan is environmentally unfriendly, but it doesn't stand to reason that Grafal ( graphite/resin base) was used since that doesn't seem advisable according to Mahle.
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
Lokasil I has a 20% silicon content, Lokasil II has a 27% silicon content.I think the coating change after more reflection, was from Ferrostan to FerroPrint, basically a change from electroplate to resin base coating due to environmental reasons of the Ferrostan process.
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
Lokasil I has a 20% silicon content, Lokasil II has a 27% silicon content.I think the coating change after more reflection, was from Ferrostan to FerroPrint, basically a change from electroplate to resin base coating due to environmental reasons of the Ferrostan process.
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.
83 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.
1 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
As education as this video is, I had really hoped we'd be at the scoping part of the series by now. I'm at six months and due for an oil change.
The ticking in this video now has me concerned as I thought they all sounded like this...
Refer t this thread :
https://rennlist.com/forums/997-foru...ing-sound.html
Not saying that the ticking/knocking sound is not as a result of bore scoring, but there are exceptions as in my case. And I verified it with a stethoscope.
When I️ was a little kid the only movie that ever frightened me was Poltergeist. I️ get the same feeling watching Jake�s videos. I️ appreciate them, but they terrify me.
Jake describes the "Symptoms of Bore Scoring" in part 3A-B. I'm pretty sure he'll discuss how to deal with a car that may be experiencing the early onset of scoring. I think he mentioned it on one of the threads on the 997 forum. I'm not 100% sure. But I don't remember him saying that it would take 6 - 7 parts to explain all aspects of the problem adequately.
You Tube
You Tube
Jake's videos are very informative but i must admit also a little scary as in almost every engine sceinario the engine will require a rebuild. Just keep in mind as we all know that such failures are quite low and in general these engines are robust.
Living in downtown Toronto , I see many m96 and m97 cars / engines in service all year around being driven by lets say from initial driver glance non Porsche enthusiasts and being treated like regular daily drivers.
Two in particular are driven by close neighbours one a mid 60's gal and the other by an approx 75yr old guy and both cars are left out year round in the drive and i see them pulling out in -15 weather with no special treatment and both don't smoke , no soot at a glance from the pipes and I know both from the look of them are high milage cars and no issues ... This gives me confidence that mine will be just fine providing i drive it and simply enjoy it.
It's like cancer ... You worry about it too much and try to prevent it you end up getting and aneurism and croaking anyway , Live free i say and break the chains of Worry !! What will be will be ....
Funny observations. True. I want to maintain my car and drive my car as best I can to promote both longevity and enjoy-ability. But I don't want to worry myself sick in the process (if not too late already).
I often think: "yes, that engine needs x work, but so what? How long can it be driven like that?" Just this week I was behind a Lexus GS300 that was blowing oil-filled smoke. A lot. It smelled. But the car was still going, driving perhaps oblivious to it, and enjoying his nice old Lexus. Granted, smoking and burning oil is not the same as an IMS or similar terminal, catastrophic failure, but is bore-scoring something that absolutely requires a rebuild the moment it's detected, or can one continue to drive a car 2,000 miles per year for many years that way? (Like many on this forum likely do most likely.)
In the interim, I'll continue to watch the videos, to only drive my car when I can drive for at least 20 minutes to get it fully warmed up. And I'll painfully, continue to change my oil every 6 months even if only driven 200 miles, as Jake put it. However wasteful that seems in terms of money and environment.
I am in Toronto too, west end Etobicoke. I work at Winston Churchill/Lakeshore. I see a 997.1 almost daily driven in all kinds of winter weather. Yet, I am on these forums trying to figure out the best way to schedule a minimum 20 minute drive, above 10 degrees Celsius. My car was bore scoped as part of ppi in October. I have done the Solution, water pump too. When I watch these videos, I keep wondering what is best way to prevent? What is so magical about JGR DT40 when compared to the Castrol Edge 5w40 I got at Costco for $30? Common sense tells me it is all black magic. My heart tells me if I don�t do it and it fails, I will be full of regret. Argh.
Any recollection of this and where is this information?
The videos are great informational and generally correct overview of the bore score issue, but there is one technical mistake in the video as far as piston coating. At about 1:45 to about 3:36 it mentions m96.03 and m96.05 ( 02 and up 3.6 engines) having Ferrostan (iron/tin) coatings, and references the coating to the other previous videos.
According to Porsche all 02 and up engines use Grafal ( Graphite/resin base) coatings. Ferrostan (iron/tin base) coatings were outlawed by EPA due to hazardous by-products of the Ferrostan Process.
May be just a technical error by FSI
or
could be that the Porsche Tech information is wrong/inconsistant with actual production, I have not verified any of either information.
Ferostan ( iron/tin base) m96 up to 2002
Grafal (graphite/resin base) 2002 and up m96
Fact:
When the coating fails, and flakes off the piston it�s always ferrous. I�ve yet to see a graphal coating that was ferrous.
looks like it�s time to start charging for these videos.
So, you're saying that Porsche
did not
change to the
Grafal
coating on the pistons, but stayed with the
Ferrostan
coating instead? So you have never seen the
Grafal
coating on the pistons?
Just trying to clarify .
Then, based on the info in the TSB attachment you shared, Porsche is lying. You say it was truly about EPA (i.e. environmental compliance), but Porsche states that "graphal" coatings were used for "acoustic reasons". Who's right and who's wrong here?
I think you have the more plausible explanation - that is, the eco-impact laws/compliance.
Heck, it even mentions that both the 986 and 996 had cast pistons. Jake Raby confirmed that the 996 had forged pistons which one of the contributing factors of bore scoring. Well, since after spending lots of time and money cleaning up Porsche's IMS bearing mess on my car, cause they didn't get it right the first 3 times, and for years acted like there was no problem, I'm going with the guy that has spent the last 30+ years working closely with the Flat 6 engines to make them better over a company that is notorious for suppressing many of the facts to save their precious reputation.
Don't get me wrong, I love these cars, but Porsche has done many questionable things in it's history. Don't get me started about it's sibling VW company... does dieselgate ring a bell?
Ok, rant over...
Here�s what Mahle has to say about the two coatings. No mention of the environmental issues, but do mention favorable acoustical properties of grafal, and the ability of it to wear off under extreme conditions as a benefit.
I'm not calling anyone a liar, just looking for clarification. Porsche has made many errors in their Technical Literature as well as production. And I specifically remember the Porsche Training Instructor going over the Ferrostan to Grafal change, whether it actually happened or not, I don't know, but you can see where they put it in print.
As far as conflicting statements about the
reasons
for change, both statements could be true. Grafal
is
acoustically quieter, and Ferrostan
is
environmentally unfriendly. Here is an exert from a patent application from 1999..
A variety of metals and metal alloys are commercially plated from solutions with sulfate as the primary anion. See for example U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,347,107; 4,331,518 and 3,616,306. Certain sulfate electroplating baths have limitations that can sometimes be alleviated with the addition of additives including other anions. For example the steel industry has been tin plating steel for many years from sulfuric acid/tin sulfate baths where phenol sulfonic acid is used as a special electrolyte additive which improves both the oxidative stability of the tin as well as increasing its current density range. This is known as the ferrostan process but because of environmental problems with phenol derivatives the steel industry is looking to replace this bath with one which is less harmful to the environment.
It was just my observation that after watching 4 video's on bore scoring there was no mention of Grafal, hence my question and background statement/supporting documents. Personally, I get no feather in my hat for proving either way, just information only.
Is this an E-book, or just an excert? I have been thinking of buying the hardback for about $90 bucks for a while now, I think it would be a good read if my old bad eyes can handle it..lol
.
I added a 6 pack of Silver Bullets to my crankcase, then went downstairs got in the Porsche and went for a drive, it felt like it really helped, you just didn't add enough...
No, as I said the cause of bore scoring is pretty elusive. Nothing concrete. Even inputs from experts mention a range of causes.......from piston coating, the way we drive, how it is warmed up, the environment, the kind of fuel, the climate, even the kind of oil we use, etc, etc, etc..... the list goes on and on.
One absolute way to prevent any engine failure is to LEAVE IT IN THE GARAGE. Don't drive it, and you will sleep better at night.
Hello gentlemen, tell me if I'm reading this wrong... based on the MAHLE Ferrostan paragraph (see att), it reads that Grafal� based skirt coatings would be a poor choice for Aluminum/Silicon (AlSi) bores because of "rapid seizing and high wear". In academic engine jargon, the Grafal� skirt coats is NOT "tribologically" suited for aluminum cylinders?
So then, would Porsche put into production pistons that they knew were susceptible to wear and seizing? Thus, ignoring the advice of MAHLE? or, did they know at the time? ... and lastly, did they know and revert back to ferrostan type of skirt coated pistons without alerting the Porsche service techs?
I understand what you meant, but respectfully disagree. Bore scoring (and causes) are far from elusive IMHO. The cause is an equation. It can be simply found (or ruled out) by bore scoping. As Raby states, it usually happens on bank#2. Simply start with cylinder #6 and work backwards. Knowing the symptoms (i.e. ticking, oil consumption, smoke tailpipe, soot, misfires, etc.) help to alert you, not elude. Just like if you go to the ER with severe chess pains, the doctors will run scans to properly diagnose the cause. Nothing worse than getting cut open over something simple like acid reflux, huh?
lol
My interpretation is that Grafal would be used with cast iron cylinder bores. Is there information indicating that Porsche also went to iron cylinders at the time of this supposed piston skirt coating change?
Maybe this confirms Jake’s observations that he still sees magnetic particles in the ‘02 and later piston coatings, meaning Porsche did not change to Grafal, rather, still uses Ferrostan.
I think it is plausible to think that Porsche made a change for the 996.2 engines from the Ferrostan ( iron/tin electroplate) to something different along with the Lokasil II higher silicon content cylinder bores and since Ferrostan is environmentally unfriendly, but it doesn't stand to reason that Grafal ( graphite/resin base) was used since that doesn't seem advisable according to Mahle.
Instead I think they used the FerroPrint ( iron/resin base) coating which would explain why Jake Raby says that the coating he finds that has flaked off is ferrous. It would probably be difficult to tell Grafal from FerroPrint since they are both resin based, only one would be magnetic and one is not.
In all the research I have read, I think the best coating for pistons used in ALsi cylinders is Nickel-Phosphorus-Boron-Nitride (Ni-P-BN) electroplate process.Successfully used by Mercury Marine and can be used "as bored" on ALsi cylinders without etching or "brushing" of the aluminum back to expose the silicon if used in two-stroke with TCW-3 oil/fuel mix. When used in 4-stroke requires the aluminum to be "recessed" to provide oil retention cavities.
Read my post again. I'm NOT referring to the symptom, which there are many many as pointed out by the video, but the CAUSE which is so far quite elusive and all reasons were given to a point I guess all bases are covered.
No, there was a change from Lokasil I to Lokasil II in the 996.2 engines. Lokasil I has a 20% silicon content, Lokasil II has a 27% silicon content.I think the coating change after more reflection, was from Ferrostan to FerroPrint, basically a change from electroplate to resin base coating due to environmental reasons of the Ferrostan process.
No iron cylinders were ever used in 996.
I think the Ferrostan was used up to 02, then after 02, FerroPrint was used. It still has the Iron in it to be ferrous/magnetic, but is applied in resin base instead of a electroplate process.
I would bet $100 bucks that the error in the Porsche Technical Literature came from the translation from German to English. At one point a German Engineer has written explaining explicitly and in detail about the change and referencing the electroplating and the resin based process like used in Grafal to attach Ferroprint to the pistons, and the English translator just wrote it as "Grafal coating for acoustic reasons" !! I have seen many errors that were due to translations because the translators are not well versed on the Porsche Technical subject.
Correct, I think the error was made in the translation from German Engineering speek to English PCNA Tech Talk. There was a change made, but it was to a "Grafal-like" resin based coating, called FerroPrint which is iron/resin based and still magnetic/ferrous, instead of Graphite/resin based..
Looking at some of the pics from the coatings flaked off, it definitely looks resin based, so there ya go JR, we have collectively answered the question, no need to start charging for your video's yet. I do have more questions, but hesitate to ask, that one wasn't well received.
I didn't say the symptoms of bore scoring are elusive. I stated that "Bore Scoring (and causes)" are far from elusive, IMHO" and are noted clearly in Part 2 of Jake's videos. It make total sense what Jake Raby is saying - that is, the causes are the set of variables that equate to the sum of bore scoring. Piston offset, Lokasil bores, piston composition, change in rod-to-stroke ratio, improper heat cycles/warm ups, excess fuel in the cylinder acting as a solvent, faulty fuel injectors, etc.
Yes !! Yes you can !! If I were 30 years younger I would consider that an irresistible challenge !! lol
I wish somebody in here would do it, it would make for some interesting conversation, and would show the strengths and weaknesses, of course the weaknesses would show up first..
Could you point out one and only one element that causes bore scoring ? We are not talking about politics or legalese here, but something engineering and technical that is a very exacting science. Multiple causes deriving at a conclusion can never identify the real element because once you start inputting multiple variables than it becomes exponential. Sure the cause of bore scoring falls into some, if not one element, but what you are saying has a multitude of tenfolds and that is the problem because it than becomes elusive. But by claiming all of these as causes for bore scoring that would in fact cover ALL basis and any mis-diagnosis would be impossible, or likewise accurate diagnosis equally impossible. Jake is a stand up guy and knows his stuff. I learned a lot and I think he is trying his best to put together in identifying what the real cause is. He is the best flat 6 engine builder out there. However, whenever you read his input, there will be others trying to put himself on the same level and offer their 2 cents worth. Then they throw in additional elements such as different climate, different fuel, different geographic locations, different driving habits etc, etc, etc/.......and the entire issue explodes exponentially. I don't want to name anybody, but those that has been following this issue know what I'm talking about. Notably someone from the other side of the pond that seemingly to always use his experience as justification on anything but conclusive. Porsche owners that come to this forum are not ignorant when it comes to taking care of our cars. The fact that we like Porsches say something about us as a group. Personally I appreciate what Jake is doing. Posting anything on this forum for those looking for answers will be scrutinized. That goes with the territory as any scientific paper or thesis published will get feedbacks and criticisms. Hopefully this forum stays as a place for us to learn. Not as a place to elevate ones authoritarian knowledge for their own purpose.
Porsche was Kolbenschmidt's pilot program for Lokasil. Not opinion - it's a fact. No other manufacturer has employed it or it's later II and III variants, as best as I can find.
I believe (my opinion) the iterations of Lokasil were to address known cylinder cracking and scoring issues on engines replaced under warranty or when cores were sent back for evaluation, as most manufacturers do for failure analysis. The fact that Porsche abandoned Lokasil and went back to Alusil with the 9A1 (MA1) speaks volumes, as the Lokasil process was touted for it's cost savings benefits over Alusil, especially as it didn't require the etching process that Alusili requires, which means lower cost.
As we've hashed out many times, there are many variables such as rod stroke ratios, piston offsets, piston to cylinder clearance, fuel dilution, operating environment, and even choice of lubricant that can affect scoring.
Understanding how the scoring happens and how to address it triobologically is something we are currently researching. Driven is currently working on an additive based on our research that might help. I'll be making a post on the LN Facebook page looking for willing participants when we are ready for field testing.
Like I have stated in every video on the bore scoring topic to date... I will maintain that at this point we have not found any single thing that leads to bore scoring conclusively.
About the only constant that we�ve seen between all the engines we have seen, and had reports of bore scoring from, is the exclusive use of Mobil 1 oil. Do I think this caused the issues? That answer will never be made, and when asked this direct question I have never answered it in public or private.
That said, in the most recent recommendations Porsche has now altered the oil recommendations. Why did they change their minds?
These are answers that no one will ever know.
Wow, quite a revelation. I will be taking Jake's advice on 5w40. I am torn about using DT40. I can only get it in Canada through mail order and it is over $200 CDN/Case of 12. So it is not inexpensive. I also wish there was a better explanation of what the superior properties are in the DT40 when compared to other oil brands. I spend my career adhering to published standards in what I do. DT40 does not adhere to any published standards such as Porsche A40, ACEA A3/B4 etc. Besides cost, my concern with DT40 is that I have yet to see what makes it a superior oil to other brands, Mobil 1 included. I have yet to see any evidence or details on what ingredients make it superior. I am not trying to be critical of Jake. I believe Jake to be genuine in what he says. His videos are very informative (although it is like waiting for Game of Thrones next episode LOL).
On the oil part, over the last few weeks I have done a lot of reading of all the different types of oils, brands etc. It all seems like a bunch of black magic to be blunt. If I buy a Coca Cola in Toronto or buy a Coca Cola in Paris, they taste similar. The difference is published right in the ingredients: Toronto Coke uses corn syrup, Paris Coke uses real sugar. Yet, when I read about Mobil/Castrol, there are online suggestions that the same named product is radically different in different markets. I even contacted Castrol Canada. They told me their Castrol Edge is not compatible with a 2003 Porsche 996. Go figure that. On the Porsche approved oils list, Castrol Edge is listed as an approved oil. What geographic region of Castrol Edge though?
So, does anyone have empirical evidence to demonstrate which oil is best for our cars?
You can get DT40 at Performance Improvements. Not sure where you are in Canada but there are lots of these stores in Ontario. I get it at the Barrie store and did not pay $200. Ian McQuillan at Hockley Autosport has also been able to get it when doing work on the car..
I am a 10 minute walk (not drive) from PI. DT40 is 18.89 a quart. So, over $200 just for oil which I have no evidence why it is so good. Also, I am not a fan of PI. They don�t put prices in their store, lousy customer service. I asked if they had it, would have to order it. Porobably a drop ship. They did have other Driven oils though.
Oil has 70 kms on it from when Solution was installed. I have until the fall to change it.
I continue to to be a believer and appreciative of Jake Ruby. I do wish he would get to how to prevent bore scoring already!
here is email from Castrol:
Thank you for contacting Castrol North America.The specifications are as follows; 2003 Porsche 911 V6 - GM P/N
12378514
2003 Porsche 911 V8 - GM P/N
88900402
, Spec.
9986186
(supersedes GM P/N
12378508
) Regrettably Castrol does not offer an engine oil which meets the 2003 Porsche 911 specifications currently. You are asked to contact your dealer / manufacturer. Thank you for contacting Castrol, we value your patronage!Ticket:
https://ccrdesk.freshdesk.com/helpdesk/tickets/51760
So... You are looking for recommendations from the same people who designed an engine that has 31 current modes of failure?
Hell, I do the opposite from whatever the “published directives” tell me to do in almost every scenario. Who cares what they think? They recently changed their minds on this topic, anyway... Boxster and 996 recommendations have just changed.
“If you do what you believe is right, rather than what is expected, there will be those who appreciate what you create, and want to share it with you”
Thats a Dr. Porsche quote. I wonder if he ever let some guys sitting in a board room tell him what he should do?
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Perhaps the easiest way is to sell the car (or cars) and switch to public transport and Uber. Then we can all worry about something else.
Just drive it. If it fails, call it an opportunity. An opportunity to get a hand built engine, with real directives, based on real first hand experience, built without compromise, with no budget cuts, and no time constraints.
Are you speaking of the Classic Oil 5w-50 that Porsche offers specifically for the 986/996? If so, are there any equivalents at that same weight? M1 comes to mind...
Yes. I just finished a newsletter explaining the changes to our customers.
Long story short, gasoline particulate filters are coming, even to sports car models, like particulate filters on diesels. The new Porsche C40 spec is required for the newest models which, even according to Mobil, is not backwards compatible with the A40 spec.
There is also a C30 and C20 spec, all in the name of emissions system protection and fuel economy.
What is best for the engine is not necessarily the best for the environment or emissions control devices, which they care about as they are federally mandated to be warrantied far beyond the engine warranty.
Porsche reversing their prior recommendation of an A40 oil for 1984 and later model year sports through the 986/996 for a classic oil is a clear indication that things have changed.
[Image-only post; no author-written text. Original image references:]
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlist.com-vbulletin/120x120/thumbs_up_sign_1f44d_69e0c2ffadf21f762cac1fc3b32cd6d15400acd1.jpg
I don't know if anyone has been following the VOAs at Speediagnostix.
https://www.speediagnostix.com/new-oil-analysis-results
I would like them to do a VOA of the Porsche 5w50, and DT40.
As an aside, the "Amazon Basics" 0w40 compares well with a VOA for DT40:
https://www.speediagnostix.com/new-o.../amazon-basics
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forum...IVEN_DT40_5W40
Of course, not everything shows up in a VOA. However, I don't take an appeal to authority as a proper explanation of why DT40 is a good oil.
There are different species of ZDDP and Moly as well as different base stocks, all that can't be quantified in a VOA. The only real way to know if an oil is performing well is to do used oil analysis.
For what it's worth, all the development work for DT40 was done in the M96 engine along with Flat 6 Innovations and LN Engineering's participation.
Whoa, that is going to be some kind of clean-room type particulate filter. I recall the gas particles are about 10 times smaller than the diesel? Since cars don't/can't smoke anymore, and the oil consumption of the gas ICE is super-low, I'm not sure what they will be trapping. Filters like that are also very costly, although price will have to come down when they are mandated for gas cars. Hope they carry the mandated 100,000 smog equipment warranty like other smog bits.
They have found that GDI (gasoline direct injection) engines produce soot and particulate matter at the tailpipe. The EU is mandating particulate filters on gasoline engines and that's going to trickle down to us here in the US. The most current oil recommendation bulletin from Porsche calls for different oils for models fit with "DPF/PPF".
Here is the M1 0w40 that meets the C40 spec for models with PPF:
https://www.mobil.com/English-GB/Pas...bil-1-ESP-0W40
It is not backwards compatible with A40.
OK, I believe you, but how big can the gas particulate be? It's been a long time since college chem, but the carbonic compounds of gas exhaust has to be 20nM or less. Can you imagine how fine a filter has to be to capture 20nM?
I also looked at the spec for Mobil-1 0-40W, and its a "fully synthetic", but has .8% sulfated ash by wt. How can that be? Mobil is adding Sulfur, combined with O2+C to produce a Sulfate? WTF? What good is Sulfate ash in motor oil? That has to be a mistake. The whole point of hydrocracking dino oil is to remove as much sulfur as possible.
In the latest issue of 911&Porsche World, under news, this was slipped in:
"Unsurprisingly, Porsche blames the Euro downturn on the new WLTP emissions regime. 'The switch to the new WLTP test cycle and gasoline particulate filters in Europe mean that we faced significant challenges in the fourth quarter of 2018, and these will continue to be felt in the first half of 2019."
This was in reference to their not offering S or manual models, blaming the added regulations likely hindered development and testing costs.
To backtrack, soot is a known issue with gasoline direct injection engines and the resulting pollution. They solved one problem and increased efficiency, but with an unintended side-effect:
https://phys.org/news/2016-07-gasoli...en-choice.html
Furthermore, companies like Mazda are developing gasoline compression ignition engines that operate double stochiometric 30:1 for greater efficiency, but will require particulate filters to catch byproducts of combustion not treated by the catalytic converters, just like diesels all have to have after-treatment devices to control soot.
I guess my engine is doomed then. My 99 was purchased from Brumos Porsche by Michelin Research and Development as a tire tester at their Spartanburg SC plant in May 1998 (March 1998 build). They had multiple track mods done, such as a roll cage and Euro GT3 seats. The only engine mod I am aware of was an X51 baffle. It has always run M1 15W50 until its last oil change when I used Driven XP-9 since I am tracking it. Michelin wrote "Mobile 1 15W50" on the air intake with a marker. The second owner and I continued to use it. The car now has 92k miles. The car has always resided in upstate SC here it is relatively warm, so the high viscosity worked out. The high viscosity may have been a plus as far as oil dilution and fuel in the cylinders.
Fact : Hyper-eutectic aluminum (Alsi) cylinders are here to stay: The fact that the new Turbo and GT3 are now using this instead of Nickasil speaks volumes.
.Alusil�, Lokasil�, Silitec�, DiASil, Mercosil, ALBOND� are all trade names for Alsi cylinders with the only Tribological difference is the % of silicon which ranges from 12% to 30% . Higher silicon content = harder material / higher tensil strength and less expansion with temperature.
My list (opinion) on the factors and variables that effect bore score on the M96 in order of impact (opinion).
1. piston pin offset (factor)
2. bank 2 coolant flow (factor)
3. cylinder ovaling (factor)
4. temperature (variable)
5. piston coating (factor)
6. rod stroke ratio (factor on 82.8mm stroke engines 3.6L 3.8L)
7. oil contamination (variable)
8. oil quality (variable)
9. over fueling (variable)
10. driver habits (variable)
11. ect
No. It�s a 99�
We seldom ever have a report of a 99� suffering from bore scoring. if we do, it is fitted with a replacement engine that is newer.
99�s may have other issues, but bore scoring isn�t one of them. This is based from first hand experience, with the 99�s being the cars that we�ve been working with the longest.
Excellent. My car does have the original M96/01.
I have been watching the videos and I think I will replace the injectors with new OE in the near future. They are 20 years old and I think it would be relatively inexpensive insurance. I can see where cylinder wash would be a significant contributor.
I'll second that. We rarely see any M96.01/M96.02/M96.04 3.4s with scoring. I can't say for sure if it has anything to do with the fact that they are Lokasil I vs II in the 3.6, from what little documentation I have been able to find.
% Silicon and alloying agents. What I find interesting is that Mercosil uses graphite added to the aluminum as an extreme pressure lubricant.
The other interesting tidbit is as the % silicon is increased, thermal conductivity decreases, but Alusil still has four times the thermal capacity of iron.
Porsche has gone to SUMEBore (Oerlikon Metco) on the some of the newest engines (Porsche 918 specifically) and Alusil is still prevalent across many European manufacturers, Porsche included.
I'm in the process of developing and testing Nickies, both aircooled and watercooled, with the same process, but it's about four times as expensive as Nikasil at less than OEM production levels, not to mention the NRE costs. Same tech used in current Nascar engines as well as the Nissan GT-R, Shelby Cobra, and a few other high end performance engines that can bear the high cost of the process.
It was through Lake Speed Jr. at Driven that I got hooked up with Oerlikon - they do all our DLC coating for the IMS Solution.
I still can't find any other manufacturer who has used Lokasil, other than Porsche, with the M96/M97 engines from 1997-2008. To me, the fact that Porsche reverted back to Alusil with the 9A1 in 2009 says everything I need to know.
Why didn't you tell me that ages ago?! I could have unsubscribed from this thread and put my head on my pillow rather than freak out worrying about bore scoring! LOL
Seriously, thanks for sharing. As always.
Hey, the question about replacing injectors:
Is this good preventive maintenance in general? Would there be symptoms that indicate it's advisable to do? My 1999 has 38k miles and has all the usual upgrades (IMS, RMS, AOS, water pump, coolant tank, etc). So should I add this to the list?
If yes, what's the ballpark cost, installed?
Adam
So on the topic of injectors, I just did a quick search. Other than GB remanufactured ones, I don't see any in stock at the wholesalers for the 3.4 996 engine. Genuine Porsche will be the only option at over $100 ea, new.
For the later 3.6 models, there are now Bosch OEM injectors available on the aftermarket, however Bosch now manufactures them in China (another topic for another day). I can't vouch for their quality or long term performance other than we just send a set to be tested that had a few hundred miles on them since new and they passed testing.
As far as when to replace them, that's the million dollar question as part of PM. I get asked that all the time and I don't have a good answer.
Thanks for the tidbits of tech info, I enjoys these more than you know, and your in depth explanations/continued research.
The reason for going to Lokasil in the first place (as explained to us Techs at the Porsche Training Center In Reno) was that the hardened content of the full hypereutectic (Alsi) block as used in Alusil was damaging to drilling/taping/machining tools, so using the "standard" aluminum everywhere except the localized cylinder bore ( hence the name Lokasil=localized silicon) was the solution. Now with the advancement in tooling and the auto-changing tools they can go back to using the Alusil full hypereutectic blocks and it be cost effective.
BTW, I like what you are doing with the RND engine program with the "engine kits", I think it will be a great success.
This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.
