old man neri

[ulr=www.rennlist.com]type whatever you want here[/ulr]

(instead of typing 'ulr' type 'url')

The end result will be a
sentence filled with random links to pictures from
my recent trip to Guatemala. Haha Doug, I stayed at a $5/night hotel with a view that is the same as your $400 night place. Ha ha ha.

imcarthur

When you post a link using the link button above, after it inserts the link in your text, the text part is highlighted like this:



You can type anything you want. A letter, a number, a phrase . . .

Ian

PS Nice pics OMN. Looks like a nice place to go.

imcarthur

On topic . . .

Mobile 1 is a great oil. They are obviously hearing about/reading about/feeling the sales hit, as legions of Porsche guys/Ferrari guys etc & their mechanics start abandoning them. They are trying to defend their oil. But I'll trust Charles' research for now. And Brad Penn is making my car purr.

Ian

Chris M.

To those that have to order it online due to no local availability, from whom do you buy it?

After all the Mobil 1 uproar I switched to Valvoline VR-1 racing oil (20W50 vs the 15W50 Mobil 1) and my car ran hotter on the track so I'm still searching for an alternative.

Also, to get a link to a thread that you are currently in do the following: at the top of the page there is a small blue folder icon next to the name of the thread. Right-click on that blue folder and choose "copy link" then paste it where you please.

Brads911sc

Chris... Try Kendall GT1... Probably the best dino oil out there and has the right amount of Zinc...

83 SC

old man neri

I would be surprised if all of us (Porsche, Ferrari...etc) with older engines even make up a tenth of a percent of their sales. I can't say I really blame them for giving up on us and appealing to the larger market.

breale01

Found this virgin oil analysis that sombody posted for Mobil 1 15W50 'SM' on www.bobistheoilguy.com :

"Here's a VOA provided by CTC Analytical Services of Phoenix, AZ and
reported in a recent issue of Full Throttle magazine:

Silicon: M1 15W-50: 9ppm
Boron: M1 15W-50: 228ppm
Sodium: M1 15W-50: 13ppm
Magnesium: M1 15W-50: 43ppm
Calcium: M1 15W-50: 2464ppm
Phosphorus: M1 15W-50: 1193ppm
Zinc: M1 15W-50: 1315ppm
Molybdenum: M1 15W-50: 90ppm"

Phosphorus matches up well with Mobil's 1200 ppm claim and Zinc seems reasonable. It may not be the old 'SL' formulation, but it looks usable.

FlatSix911

The active ingredient that you are talking about is phosphorus which is added thru a component called ZDDP.
The Zinc is included in the additive package according to Mobil and backed up by the referenced Oil Analysis.

Steve Weiner-Rennsport Systems

I do not wish to start a debate on this but from everything I've read on this, qualifying for the API-SM rating with ZDDP levels above 1000ppm are pretty much mutually exclusive.

I think some detailed clarification from Exxon-Mobil about the SM rating on the 15w-50 product is needed to settle this. I've seen VOA's vary widely on such products so IMHO, more data is needed before I'll use this again.

Chris M.

What are you using instead?

84_Carrera

I bought Brad Penn over the phone / shipped from Radio Oil in Worcester MA, FWIW. They were close enough I could have made the hour trip to get it, but figured shipped for $15 was about the same as wasting that much gas.

breale01

I'm far from being an expert, but I too have been reading alot on the subject (just don't ask me to dig up the reference!). As I understand it, the lowered ZDDP levels in SM rated oils are mandated for 5W30 and 10W30 grades only (for now). So the 1200 ppm for 15W50 is legal (for now).

I do agree that Exxon-Mobil (and others) should clarify the situation once and for all (e.g., why is it they don't publish the Zinc content in their Product Guide?)

Peter Zimmermann

I agree completely. Let's not overlook the fact that the ACEA has not approved M1 15W-50, and that the ACEA seems to give far more consideration to the specific needs of our older engines.

Edward

Hi Pete,

I'm just wondering aloud here: what is the ACEA's role/motive is in "approval"? I thought they were just a group whose focus is emissions/enviro-matters with respect to cars, and not necessarily concerned with "mechanical" things, like engine longevity. Can you elaborate? My point is, of course, that if they are more the former than the latter, then is their "approval" really something that's worthwhile (...unless they want to subsidize my engine rebuild in 100K miles ).

Edward

Peter Zimmermann

The way that I read it is that the two groups that set oil standards are (1) American Petroleum Institute (API), and (2) Automotive Manufacturers Association (ACEA). The API determines those oil standards in America, while the ACEA does the same in Europe. The ACEA seems to recognize that certain vehicles have specific needs, and rather than throw a blanket over everything, like the API is trying to do with their ILSAC GF-4, the ACEA has different standards for gas engines, turbo engines, etc. Some Euro manufacturers have used the ACEA standards as a starting point and have taken their own requirements to the next level. In contrast the API thinks that the "one size fits all" mentality is OK, when in fact it's not. Because of this I think that the ACEA's role is very important. As an example, my V8 Touareg has such tight requirements that M1 5W-30 does not meet them, but M1 0W-40 does. Both oils meet "API SM, SL/CF", but 5W-30 is ILSAC GF-4, and 0W-40 is not, and each oil meets a different set of ACEA standards. At this point I think that the Euro manufacturers are not only concerned about catalytic converter life, they are also concerned about engine life, hopefully even our older ones!