Seric

Super busy at work and don't have time to search on this.

I am looking to do my first oil change in my 911 and currently it is using 10w-30 Mobil 1. I live in a temperate zone, Seattle area, and was wondering if I should run a different viscosity over 10w-30. 0w-40?

Thanks!

bgiere

There are many threads on this topic...but in general you need at least a 40 weight oil with a HTHS of 3.6 or better....Porsche has an updated TSB out and all listed oils are 40 weights save for the M1 5w50 which is rare in the States...factory recommended isM1 0w40 for all models/years...I run Rotella T 15w40 or Chevron Delo 15w40 in my street cars and used oil analysis tells me it is an excellent choice for my usage patterns. You should not be using a 10w30.

tasracer

here is a TSB from 1/05...there are newer TSB's on oils however this list has many U.S. available oils listed.

http://www.wrightune.co.uk/downloads/approved_oils.pdf

WolfeMacleod

I'm starting to wonder this too. Hey, I live in Seattle! Just got my car two weeks ago. Love it!

Steve Weiner-Rennsport Systems

Seric:

I would second the recommendations from Mr. Giere, as above and the use of either a 15w-40, 15w-50 or a good 20w-50 for Spring and Summer driving.

Other great oils are Swepco 15w-40 or 20w-50, Brad-Penn 20w-50 Racing oil, Mobil 1 20w-50 V-twin oil and some others. All of these products contain sufficient ZDDP to protect your engine.

Steve Weiner-Rennsport Systems

Swepco is not found in stores; you can get it from a shop that uses it in transmissions and engines.

CN

I always used either Castrol GTX 20/50 or Valvoline Racing 20/50 in my old 3.2 as it would reduce the leaks and burn.

Loaded

silkolene is the best

Seric

I went with 15w-50 Mobil 1, thanks all for your response.

Doug Hillary

Hi,
Seric - IMHO the advice given by "begiere" (and supported with the TSB link from "tasracer") is reliable and accurate. Factory Technicians certainly endorse this approach. I have used mineral HDEOs such as Rotella T and Chevron 400 (obviously their earlier equivalents) in wide variety of petrol engines since the mid 1950s - and always with great success
Originally 911's were delivered ex the factory with Shell's Rotella/Rimula HDEO in their engines
M1 15w-50 whilst not a Porsche Approved lubricant is an excellent product in what ever configuration it was you used

Steve - I always appreciate and value your practical and experienced input but with regard to ZDDP, there is no evidence to suggest that ACEA A3/B3 Licensed oils and especially those on Porsche's Approval List offer any less wear protection (valve actuation components/liners/rings/pistons/bearings) than they did over 10 years ago. The reality is that they probably actually offer more wear protection than ever before

The ACEA quality performance test protocols have been the same since 1996 and their newly current (effective from 28/2/2007) test sequences confirm this trend. As well the test sequence "mule" engines, a Peugeot and MB engine family member, remain the same. Wear measurements remain identical

Compared to the ACEA's quality standards, the API's quality standards have not always been as meaningful as simply following the engine manufacturer's lubricant quality requirements. In the high speed heavy diesel engine field for instance MB, MAN, Detroit Diesel, Cummins and CAT will have rooms full of data that support this assertion

Porsche's extended durability tests at both 100C and 150C are an extension of the ACEA protocols - especially so in the area of overall shear stability and lubricant degradation (thickening, oxidation etc - so read wear rates etc.) Porsche also extends the ACEA protocols further in anti foaming and volatility control sequences, amongst others

ZDDP and other such "old" anti-wear chemicals have been/are being replaced with excellent alternatives including a number of advanced esters. Their time has come - people forget that they were only originally introduced as a stop-gap measure and "cheap fix" some decades ago. As well, the Oil Company Marketers allowed the mentality that "more is better" to flourish. This is simply wrong as there is a downside too with ZDDP and etc. that few talk of

Many of the "new" components are substantially better than the "old" ones they replace. Concentrating emphasis on one element in the formulation of an engine lubricant is not really productive as it is the sum of all of the parts that produces the end result.
For instance, some modern Group 3 hydro-cracked "semi-synthetic" lubricants (now produced using very advanced hydro-cracking processes) are producing much better performance results than many older formulation Group 4 (PAO) synthetics that are marketed by some well known boutique oil blenders
And all are better than many "famous" names that were overdosed with the likes of ZDDP

IMHO Porsche Owners are very well advised to use a current lubricant off the Porsche Approvals List (TSB). There are over 100 to chose from and about 30% are sold in NA

Earlier cars will do better on a SAE40 (15w-40) HDEO (especially a "new" Group 3 semi-synthetic 15w-40 or 5w-40) than simply going to a higher SAE50 viscosity lubricant.
Many SAE50 lubricants are not as robust as a SAE40 HDEO.and they will take longer to
exit the critical ring land area

IME, engine lubricants with a cold rating viscosity above 15w (eg 20w, 25w etc) should be avoided in any Porsche engine

Again IME keeping the oil in the ideal temperature band (around 93-110C) and getting it there quickly remains one of the key ingredients in attaining low component wear rates regardless of the lubricant used

Loaded - What is perhaps more important to remember is the simple fact that despite all the hype, no engine lubricant has ever been shown to offer significantly less component wear rates than any other lubricant meeting the same specification - regardless of the Brand!!

Regards

ked

Doug, thanks for this overview - the first (that I've read) defending the recent changes to engine oil formulations from an objective expert.

I am no chemist, petro engineer, don't play one on TV, nor have I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express recently... in the context of this forum, my pov is limited and parochial... I care about the effect of the reformulation on my '87 3.2 air-oil cooled flat 6 (115K mi). So, these questions (for any & all, these discussions are great) occur to me...

a) was the recent reformulation (SM/CJ-4) done in order to address my needs, or the industry-gov requirements for latest-generation cat conv longevity, emissions &/or fuel economy?
b) were there shortcomings (for my 911 engine) in the hi-quality SL/CI-4 oils that I have been using (Mobil 1 15W-50, Rotella T 15W-40 & 5W-40 Synth), such that modification was called for?
c) is it possible that the challenging and complex requirements now faced by the auto-truck industry, the enviro-urges of gov, & the capabilities (& economies) of the petro industry have lead to a specification that is NOT ideal for the specific needs of my engine? in other words, SM/CJ-4 may be advanced tech and excellent for new water cooled engines, but does that automatically mean it is also superior for my old, airy, oily lump?
d) do you think oils touted for air/oil-cooled motors (like motorcycles as well as 356s, Tatras, old 911s, etc) will thrive or disappear in the presence of this new spec? snake oil, niche marketing or real issues?
e) IF reports of wear problems (from respected specialist engine rebuilders) persist or even increase, how are we to proceed? I realize I can't hold the petro industry responsible for any bad outcome.

I am by nature a skeptic, even a cynic (esp when confronted w/ the vagaries of human institutions), so I am loathe to depart a known good for a promised one. Again, many thanks, cheers!

Steve Weiner-Rennsport Systems

Ked:

You're right,...this is a great discussion,...

I'll preface my remarks that I am certainly not a chemist, tribologist, or lubrication expert of ANY kind. I am simply a race engine builder and have been doing same since 1964 and 911's specifically since 1976. Doug's intimate knowledge of lubricants trumps what little I know on this subject, for certain. I am simply in the process of getting an education from a lot of various SAE papers as well as detailed conversations with oil engineers at different companies. Fascinating stuff, for sure.

So,.....here's my take on your questions based on what I know and what I've read, thus far.

A) The oil reformulations were all based on EPA requirements and regulations for extended cat life. YOUR interests (and mine) regarding the long-term health of your engine were NOT part of the discussion and ensuing laws.

B) The reductions of these EP additives (ZDDP) has resulted in increased cam and rocker wear in a LOT of different engines, not just Porsches. People in North America have been seeing this for years and its in all the Automobile repair trade publications. I cannot speak for oils sold overseas as I have no experience or knowledge on that.

C) My opinion is simply speculative since I have no facts either way, but I do not think that the long-term interests of car owners were ever part of the debate/discussion and regulations. Oils are, as Doug wrote, better in almost every respect, BUT the reduction-change of EP additives (even some may be using alternative products) is not a pancea. Time will tell just as it did 40 years ago when ZDDP became available.

D) For the present, American oil manufacturers/blenders recognize the need for specialized products requiring the old, but effective EP packages and will still offer those products for motorcycles, race cars, and other off-road machinery. Right now, those kinds of lubricants are being labeled for "Off-Road use only" in some cases, specifically racing oils containing higher levels of ZDDP. These oils are not energy-saving products and are not labeled as such.

E) Just talk to race engine builders and other performance engine jobbers about this issue. Solutions are emerging as this is discussed and there are many options. I am not a cynic by nature, but I have no illusions about my (and customers') interests being a priority by the oil companies as well as the Government agencies that mandate such things.

I do remind my clientel that replacing a failed catalytic converter is a lot less expensive than rebuilding the engine.

Just one man's opinion of course so consider the source.

Doug Hillary

Hi,
well my "short & brief" grasp on your questions follow;

a) The latest reformulation was done, as has been done since the early 1960s, to address emerging technologies some of which are "emissions" driven. As well, it reflects the US slant (evolutionary) on addressing the world wide moves to reduce overall emissions (better fuel economy etc)

b) When the API's SL/CI-4 quality standards were introduced the sceptics deplored them!
In practice they have turned out to be very good and there is no evidence that suggests that they needed to be replaced for existing engines. New and emerging technologies however is a very different story

The API's CI-4 standard was formulated to handle the introduction of EGR equipped engines in 2002. This meant addressing along with other issues, already high combustion temperatures, higher oil temperatures, greater acid control measures and etc. A panel of seven engine Makers, four Additive suppliers and three Oil Companies convened via the ASTM enabled this standard. That type of co-operation would NOT have happened a decade ago

I suspect that the engine makers finally had suffered long enough at the hands of the Oil Industry and they simply wanted to better manage warranty liabilities and etc

c) The challenges faced in the Road Transport (and Auto) Industry are not really much different from those of 40/50 years or more ago. They will be well met!

During the 1950s and 1960s over fuelling caused through carburation, faulty chokes etc were the "in" problem as was cold/hot engine deposits, turbo charger failures and the likes. And excessive camshaft wear in some engine families
These were addressed by newer technologies and in some part by better lubricants

As an example, in 1992 Porsche issued a Technical Bulletin that listed 20 Approved engine lubricants and text as follows;
"Cars operated in certain areas of the US are more prone to carbon formation on the intake valves than in others
The following engine oils have been tested and found to contribute less to this carbon build up. Use of one of these oils may prove helpful in cars operated in these areas of the country"

Only two synthetic oils were listed - both were Mobil 1! At this time the factory fill was a Shell product!!

As for your specific engine, the Porsche Approved List contains over 100 lubricants that are most suitable for your engine. All Listed oils are semi or fully synthetic - an evolutionary matter over 15 years!

So, oil formulations have always been evolutionary and sometimes the API's standards have lagged behind the emerging technologies.

d) Oils for air cooled engines and coolant cooled engines do not NEED to be any different

MC oils are usually formulated to handle specific needs such as high revs, wet clutches and integrated gear sets. BMW "boxer" MCs for instance use PCOs with great success - and I always used a 0w-30 synthetic in mine!
The World's first wide spread multigrade 20w-50 lubricant (Duckhams) was especially formulated in 1958 for the Austin/Morris (BMC) Mini with its integrated engine-gearbox!

So, IMHO is not so much that an engine is cooled in a certain way it is more to do with the engine family's technology! In a Porsche engine one critical criteria is the HTHS viscosity which needs to be >3.5cSt - this has a direct influence on camshaft/component wear

Porsche's engines were factory filled with a monograde Heavy Duty Engine Oil "HDEO" right from the very start, Shell Rotella or Rimula according to the intended market as I recall
Even today their Factory Technicians will only use 20w-50 mineral oils in certain of their old rare and expensive engines but just as long as they are warmed up to an oil temperature of 80C before "exercising" them. And they like me, have a heathy regard for the use of modern 15w-40 HDEOs in early (pre 1984) engines - and for using only TSB Listed lubricants in later applications

I have never seen an HDEO that has not been improved by API's quality reformulation needs. However, the reasons behind each new reformulation is the real story!

The API and ACEA row different boats. Up until fairly recently the API was "driven" by the Oil Industry. The ACEA has always been "driven" by those that design and make engines
Of these, I have always preferred the ACEA's standards over the last decade!

Over the last 50 odd years I have learned to go by what the ENGINE MAKERS specify. In some cases I have had a direct influence on what the specification is
I have never seen a negative result from this over a very wide mix of engine types, ranging from small single cylinder 2 cycles to large high speed 12 cylinder diesels costing $A100000 and more

As an example, the MB229.3 lubricant quality standard is based on the demanding ACEA A3/B3 standard. It then includes extended engine tests (M11E, OM602A,VW TDI and PV) and another four bench/engine (M111, OM611, M166,M111 E23ML) tests and extensive high and low speed field testing in two vehicle families! These tests measure cam component and cylinder wear amongst other factors too!!!

For the future? I will only use lubricants based on either the Makers Approved List or the ACEA's specification!
And, I have not heard of a Porsche owner who has always used a Porsche Approved and Listed lubricant suffering from any excessive component/engine wear that is lubricant related

Regards

Matt Romanowski

Doug, thanks for sharing all your knowledge with us. I'm sure people are learning a lot. I think your thoughts about a manufacturer's recommended oils is probably spot on.

It's really cool that I can talk with someone from Australia about oils here on Rennlist!

glenncof

http://theoildrop.server101.com/foru...rue#Post838665

Doug,

Please take a look at my above BITOG post on ZDDP in flat-tappet engines. It includes a link to "ASTM RESEARCH REPORT Development of the Sequence IIIG Engine Oil Test" which includes flat-tappet engine tests. I assume this is the basis for Bob Olree (prior chairman of the ILSAC/OIL committee and participant in the test development) to make the claim there is "no" ZDDP issues for properly broke-in, stock, flat-tappet engines in normal applications. (I can't tell if the cam lift rates and spring rates of the testing are valid for porsche).

Is this consistent with what you are saying about ZDDP levels for flat-tappet apps? <So I don't need to worry too much>

I'll agree for modified or race applications , well, you need to do your own engineering.