Oil choices
#31
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Pretty big claims there Mr Targa, would be very interested to see some statistically valid evidence supporting your views.
#32
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
There have been a few articles I've read about this in Excellence, can't really recall the issue where this was covered. But this is not only on Porsches. Other cars with extended intervals have issues with coking valves and emissions equipment. One of the reasons for these low sulfur oils.
Oil is really cheap, changes every 5k are good insurance.
Oil is really cheap, changes every 5k are good insurance.
#34
Burning Brakes
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I change my oil every 5000 miles or 1 year, whichever is first. It's just been my rule for 20 years now. Oil changes are easy and cheap - and it gives me time to inspect the engine and other things. Even in my 991 which recommends 10k miles I still do it every 5k.
#35
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Yes, oil is cheap and don't disagree with your proposition that 5,000 mile change intervals seem to be a good idea but I am unable to find any valid data to support more frequent changes would give measurable benefits than what Porsche themselves recommend for their air cooled cars.
My main point is that there are thousands of forum posts statements that have no scientific reasoning and are frankly "old wives" tales in the majority of cases that just get repeated over and over without critical review. I'm all for expressing opinions but when it gets to fear mongering I don't think that's good for anyone.
Mr Targa, thanks for posting that link as I haven't been on Charle's site for almost 2 years. It interesting that he has adopted a more realistic view of the role of oil in the watercooled engine IMS bearing debate which I think is a good thing for everyone. Although I think his driver for suggesting 5000 mile change intervals is a compromise between cost and minimising the amount of contaminants in the oil filter that are at risk of being bypassed back into the engine and maybe of limited value for us air cooled guys.
In the end, we all have our preferences and views but I don't think anyone is able to scientifically justify theirs is better than anyone else. So let's not agonise over oil and just get out and drive.
My main point is that there are thousands of forum posts statements that have no scientific reasoning and are frankly "old wives" tales in the majority of cases that just get repeated over and over without critical review. I'm all for expressing opinions but when it gets to fear mongering I don't think that's good for anyone.
Mr Targa, thanks for posting that link as I haven't been on Charle's site for almost 2 years. It interesting that he has adopted a more realistic view of the role of oil in the watercooled engine IMS bearing debate which I think is a good thing for everyone. Although I think his driver for suggesting 5000 mile change intervals is a compromise between cost and minimising the amount of contaminants in the oil filter that are at risk of being bypassed back into the engine and maybe of limited value for us air cooled guys.
In the end, we all have our preferences and views but I don't think anyone is able to scientifically justify theirs is better than anyone else. So let's not agonise over oil and just get out and drive.
#36
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
PeterRM, I enjoyed reading your posts and opinions on this often repeated subject. To me what's more important is changing oil regularly. I use Mobil 1 15w50 because it's cheap, readily available at Walmart, and I've had no issues with it. My car doesn't leak even 1 drop of oil
![Big Grin](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
#38
Instructor
#39
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Suggest you don't waste your time. If you Google the author you'll find compelling reasons to ignore it.
Or you could just ask yourself, "If such a simple inexpensive test is representative of what actually goes on inside an engine, why doesn't API and ACEA use it in their respective accreditations schemes?"
Then again, I'm confident that for our purposes using what he recommends couldn't be proven to be any better or worse than anything else so why not!
Or you could just ask yourself, "If such a simple inexpensive test is representative of what actually goes on inside an engine, why doesn't API and ACEA use it in their respective accreditations schemes?"
Then again, I'm confident that for our purposes using what he recommends couldn't be proven to be any better or worse than anything else so why not!