Yeah, these threads always remind me of the sketch with the Chewlies Gum salesman in Clerks.

The reality is that if Porsche is selling us out to ExxonMobil, then it is going to be one of a hundred similar compromises that we don't have any control at all over. It's probably like the tires. Sure, we get Pirellis when most of us would prefer Michelins because they make a tiny margin of difference in magazine tests at some cost in everyday driving qualities. But that doesn't mean the Pirellis are actually bad tires, or in any way inappropriate for our cars. If they were, then Porsche could generally be trusted not to make such a decision on our behalf.

Warm up your car before hammering on the gas pedal. Insist that others such as dealership lot porters do the same. Don't buy used cars from people you don't trust. Then it will be fine. Usually.

The critical piece of information is that Mobil 1 is empirically (keyword empirically) inferior in every single oil performance metric. Mobil 1 was good stuff until circa 2002 when Exxon bought them out and dumbed down the ingredients.

https://www.6speedonline.com/forums/...engines-2.html

Mobil is probably the reason for exacerbating excessive wear on the cam lobes in the early GT3 motors too. Mobil 1 was an excellent oil until Exxon bought them out. The 4-ball wear test results posted previously are horrible with Mobil 1, reason alone to switch to another brand.

That's hilarious because I don't recall Porsche making a single mention of oil quality being a factor with the 991.1 GT3 finger follower issue which was traced to a metallurgical defect in a few small batches of engines. What's even more hilarious is the fact that Porsche then extended the warranty on those engines to 10 years or 120,000 miles while continuing to recommend that very same oil you believe caused this issue in the first place! :roflmao:

What....anybody can post anything on the internet and it doesn't have to be fact based? Shocking. ;-)

I recall accusations against M1 in the mid 1990s regarding camshaft failures on engines that used non-hydraulic lifters. Mostly Asian motor designs IIRC. Affected cars ran on the race track. Don’t believe they ever proved it was M1.

Part of the G-Engine "fix" to mitigate the excessive cam follower wear was improved OILING (keyword oil), you know, that fluid that mitigates metal to metal wear.... Look at the Mobil 1 ASTM numbers between pre Exxon and post Exxon. BIG change in performance, more specifically HTHS, and viscosity @ 100 degree C. Mobil 1 no longer maintains a good oil barrier at high temps, it also has a much higher sulfated ash weight. All these things exacerbate metal-metal wear in high stress high temp environments.

Porsche is in bed with Exxon/Mobil 1 financially, they would never point the finger, especially when oil is a FACTOR not the mechanism. It's very important to make that distinction. Also, Mobil 1 has excellent Racing oils and their European blends use superior base stocks, so it's also apples to oranges with respect to North America, which get's screwed with our Mobil 1 0W-40 "European Formula". I would never put that junk in my 9A1 again. Especially after the positive empirical evidence I have personally witnessed.

But hey, drop that Wal-Mart $3 a liter oil in your six figure 911, it's a free country after all.

Hmmm ok I am just about sold lol

Out of warranty now anyways so I might as well now exercise the freedom of choice, will look into getting Motul 5W40 Xcess 8100 put into my 991.1. If it could mean more healthy engine I'm all for it

Edited just for you: That's hilarious because I don't recall Porsche making a single mention of oil quality being a factor with the 991.1 GT3 finger follower issue which was traced to a metallurgical defect in a few small batches of engines. What's even more hilarious is the fact that Porsche then extended the warranty on those engines to 10 years or 120,000 miles while continuing to recommend that very same oil you believe caused this issue in the first place! https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/roflmao.gif

There seems to be a lot of confusion between lack of lubrication and oil quality along with a lot of speculation yet no supportive evidence to your claims. Until you can provide data from a top engine lubrication engineer along with an engine designer that can clearly show a connection between GT3 engine issues, this supposed 9A1 bore scoring issue and Mobil 1 0W-40 I would suggest cooling off with the absurd exaggeration and fear mongering until an actual expert or Porsche itself gives you reason to believe otherwise. Rennlist deserves better.

Nice discussion. I should not have been so reactionary. What made me believe that mobile 1 performed poorly was that graph that was posted. It showed M1 to have the most metal wear on the test. Who knows if that is significant.
Anyway I am sticking with M1 for now and might try Motule oil this winter at my next oil change.

Thanks for all the info and opinions on both sides of the issue.

"OILING" refers to availability of a sufficient quantity of oil in the appropriate places, not the brand or additive package.

It seems that this issue shows up in just one cylinder, so perhaps the problem is not so much which brand of oil is in use, but whether the injector is at fault due to leakage, has a misdirected spray pattern, or is governed by an incorrect cold start duty cycle.

I ran Mobil 1 full synthetic 5w-50 oil in my '15 991.1 GTS, starting with the first oil and filter change at about 1,000 miles. After that I used a baseline of 5,000 mile intervals, except that I did additional changes after each four track days during a DE season. The car was in warranty so I wanted to use a Porsche-approved oil. At the time (don't know now) the only approved 5w-50 was Mobil 1. Excellent oil analysis on every sample. I never had to add any oil in the three years I had this car. Being very careful with loading the throttle until the oil is fully up to operating temperature always seems to be a requirement for engine longevity

I've also had excellent results with Liqui-Moly and Motul products, but have no experience with either in a 9A1 or 9A2 motor. I'm planning to try Amsoil this year in both my 69k mile '96 993 C2 and 77k mile '02 986S track car.

They added additional oil-channels so more oil could flow on the cam lobes that were exhibiting excessive wear. Excessive wear is also mitigated by a better oil. Mobil 1 is an inferior oil, with inferior additives to mitigate wear. It scores poorly in all the ASTM performance metrics. All these FACTORS contribute to bore scoring and the like. This is not a one-dimensional problem, it's combinatorial.

Without oil analysis, the only thing you can say about any oil is that the engine runs and hasn't has a catastrophic failure. With analysis, then you can grade the lubricant's performance A, B, C, or D.

Oil analysis is hit or miss. People put too much stock into a murky science at best. Go ask the E9x/S65 owners how effective their Blackstone Oil Analysis worked for them when many of them won their rod-bearing lottery shortly after a "successful" Blackstone analysis....

Empirical performance data is the most useful data. Mobil 1 has poor ASTM empirical performance data. This isn't a difficult concept.