When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Motor oil should be selected very selectively, selecting under the brand and under the wear of the car. Then there will be some sense. I have Tucson 2.0 and I can say that the mechanisms are as similar as possible and it was also very difficult to pick up oil, because it is also old. That is, hard oil will not fit there, maybe even spoil the engine and transmission. Therefore, it is better not to take risks and take exactly those oils that are best suited to such types of cars and engines. You can also read about the best oil for tucson 2.0 https://carfluidsexpert.com/best-eng...cson-2016-2-0/ , there are different variants of such machine oil described in details. I personally took Mobil 1 Extended Performance 5W-20 Full Synthetic Motor Oil and I do not regret, because of its full synthetics it is quite loyal to the engine. Therefore, it is ideal if you have an old car, but in any case, study the top and then already select from it.
It’s your car and your warranty, but the manual says C40. Dealers who have made the inquiry to Porsche say C40. From all of the specs I’ve seen, I think it’s a better base oil.
It’s your car and your warranty, but the manual says C40. Dealers who have made the inquiry to Porsche say C40. From all of the specs I’ve seen, I think it’s a better base oil.
I’d be interested to learn how the base oil is better, if you’re able to post that part (with explanation if it’s not obvious on its face, please). Thanks
I’d be interested to learn how the base oil is better, if you’re able to post that part (with explanation if it’s not obvious on its face, please). Thanks
Based on the graphics in post #8 above, it would appear that the C40 meets or exceeds the performance of the A40 specs in every category listed. In the case of the Motul A40 and C40 products, the C40 has higher Viscosity Index and HTHS specs. I’m no tribologist, just a car guy (and retired mechanical engineer) who has studied oil a bit over the years. Those specs suggest to me a better quality base stock oil with less dependence on viscosity improving additives.
I cannot explain why the C40 is not “backwards compatible” with the A40, so I won’t even blow smoke in that direction.....
It seems like every new car has its own unique oil spec these days. I bought a new BMW and a new Expedition last year. Both have oil specs incompatible with my cabinet full of BMW oil, Mobil 1, Redline, and Motorcraft. As with Porsche, many car dealers are clueless about the requirements and use the same bulk stuff they have been pouring into all of their vehicles. I recently bought a ZL1 1LE. Same deal. It calls for the M1 “ESP” mentioned earlier, but not the “X3” version, which is currently produced in Romania.
My friend purchased his GT4 from a dealer in the southeast. They were unaware of the C40 spec. They reached out to their tech support contacts at PCNA, and confirmed the C40 spec for the US spec 718 GT4, as per the owners manual. They also managed to source the correct Mobil product through a local distributor at a semi-reasonable price.
Bottom line is that I have to assume the manufacturers change their specifications for a reason. It costs them money to do that. I’m not going to second guess them, especially where there is a warranty to protect.
The result of 'your' deductive reasoning or suggested/confirmed by the service department at your local Porsche dealer or by Porsche AG themselves?
My reasoning: C40 was introduced to address issues specific to GPFs. If I have a North American car with inert GPFs, then I don't need C40 oil. Could I use it? Well, Mobil says its not backwards compatible, so that would disincline me to use it in non-GPF applications.
Dealers are not oracles of truth, and in this instance there's significant confusion coming from Porsche AG as well.
Called out development with Porsche specifically, despite this not being linked to a Porsche specific page. So seems highly likely that this is the latest and greatest oil, designed with GPF in mind but no harm done to non-GPF engines, and it's therefore what is being recommended. If there were no advantages over A40 then perhaps the ROW spec cars would continue on with that, but assuming those radar charts someone posted prior are correct then there have obviously been improvements.
Based on the graphics in post #8 above, it would appear that the C40 meets or exceeds the performance of the A40 specs in every category listed. In the case of the Motul A40 and C40 products, the C40 has higher Viscosity Index and HTHS specs. I’m no tribologist, just a car guy (and retired mechanical engineer) who has studied oil a bit over the years. Those specs suggest to me a better quality base stock oil with less dependence on viscosity improving additives.
I cannot explain why the C40 is not “backwards compatible” with the A40, so I won’t even blow smoke in that direction.....
It seems like every new car has its own unique oil spec these days. I bought a new BMW and a new Expedition last year. Both have oil specs incompatible with my cabinet full of BMW oil, Mobil 1, Redline, and Motorcraft. As with Porsche, many car dealers are clueless about the requirements and use the same bulk stuff they have been pouring into all of their vehicles. I recently bought a ZL1 1LE. Same deal. It calls for the M1 “ESP” mentioned earlier, but not the “X3” version, which is currently produced in Romania.
My friend purchased his GT4 from a dealer in the southeast. They were unaware of the C40 spec. They reached out to their tech support contacts at PCNA, and confirmed the C40 spec for the US spec 718 GT4, as per the owners manual. They also managed to source the correct Mobil product through a local distributor at a semi-reasonable price.
Bottom line is that I have to assume the manufacturers change their specifications for a reason. It costs them money to do that. I’m not going to second guess them, especially where there is a warranty to protect.
This is of course important to me, until I have PAG supporting documentation personally I will be sticking to the oil as recommended in the owners manual.
Originally Posted by sobiloff
My reasoning: C40 was introduced to address issues specific to GPFs. If I have a North American car with inert GPFs, then I don't need C40 oil. Could I use it? Well, Mobil says its not backwards compatible, so that would disincline me to use it in non-GPF applications.
Dealers are not oracles of truth, and in this instance there's significant confusion coming from Porsche AG as well.
This is the red flag for me, not backward compatible, if it weren't for the new oils availability I don't think we would be having this discussion at all, simply buy the C40 and call it done.
09-07-2020, 11:32 AM
