AndyK

I agree on this point - by using Porsche recommended/approved oils, I ASSUME that they come with years of Porsche research on how the oils do in their racing engines, and in their street cars. So I gladly default to their list.

Same way I trust Consumer Reports to pick the best toaster oven for my house. They have done the testing and testing for me.

Same way I trusted Rennlist when researching the possible pitfalls of owning a 996.

When I install my aluminum pedals, that's where I deviate from Porsche designers. I am guessing Porsche didn't put aluminum pedals into the 996 because of cost-saving and not years of research....

cdodkin

Tire performance and tire life is easy to judge, and hence is a reasonable personal call.

We all make it when we select brand x over y every year or two.

Now engines and wear due to oil weight... we'll that's clearly a different call.

And you clearly avoided answering my question - leading me to conclude that you have nothing in the way of empirical data on the M96 engine to back up your position that one oil weight is better than another.

Just have the ***** to say it - rather than BS'ing everyone time after time.

Tippy

I am sorry, I am going to have to do this, I didnt want to but........ This really is very entertaining.........

1999Porsche911

Porsche may very well have tested the aluminum pedals and found them to be unsafe. How dare you make a judgement like that.

And you don't think that Porsche could have filled their engines with 0W40 to help meet the European and other country's emission requirements? Even Exxon/Mobil states that the oil is a compromise between good fuel exonomy and protection.

1999Porsche911

Actually, I have quite extensive and intimate knowlege of lubricants. However, my intent is not to convince anyone that I am right but to have those who care, question the status quo and do a little research on their own. Having someone prove an answer to you is the easy way out. Finding the answer yourself is much more rewarding. By definition...smart people do not follow others blindly.

BTW: Is wear the ONLY reason why "N" rated tires MUST be used according to Porsche? I don't think so....... How were you able to extensively test and then determine that the non "N" rated tires you use are as safe? Please tell.

cdodkin

As has been stated on a number of previous occasions, there is certainly a link between emissions requirements and chosen oil weights.

However, this does not prove that one oil is better/worse than any other for the M96, merely that one oil weight gave the company a lower emissions profile across the fleet.

cdodkin

Long on words, short on evidence, big on opinions, huge on BS.

bgiere

I apologize profusely for my shouting match a few pages back ,but it is extremely hard to sit silently when so much is blatantly incorrect with the advice 1999 is giving...I trust most (if not all!) realize that he is hugely wrong in each oil related thread...One needs only to visit his former posts to see how wrong. When presented with facts he will argue with conjecture and hearsay...Even the printed words in the manufacturers literature are twisted to fit his views. Take a look at the approved list and make your choice...You won't pick a bad one and an engine failure related to oil is not going to be something you should lose sleep over.

Ray S

The difference is twofold. First, most people understand the risk for many of these mods and are willing to take it. They understand that a high flow filter may provide better air flow but allow more particulates to pass (and accept that risk).

Second, in the case of some of your list people can perform their own tests and decide they are willing to live with the the difference (brake pads are an easy example).

Changing against Porsches recommended oil is similar to changing the air filter. Anyone who does it is just guessing that it will work "ok" long term.

I suspect that if you were willing to be honest you would admit that you are just guessing on the oil (don't worry, I'm not holding my breath ). It may be a guess based on some degree of experience, but it is still just a guess.

The "funny" part (as you put it) is that you continue to announce your "guess" as better with absolutely no documented testing on these motors. You guess that some failures are caused by oil, but offer no proof.

You state it in a manner of mythical authority that seems to imply that if you say it often and loud enough it will become true. That's "funny"....

Wellardmac

For the scientists around here it's all about the data baby - this thread is long on talk and short on data.

No scientist worth their salt would take any stock in anything said here unless backed up with data. Opinions are worthless unless backed up with data.

I don't have any data on this because I don't have a spare Porsche engine (or two) sitting around to generate any. That being said, I think we have come to a curious impass where I think the ladies doth protest too much, but have no way out of their bluster.

As Ray said, in the absence of data it's about the risk analysis and whether you're prepared to take the bet. In most cases it's easy to see the risk-cost-benefit balance of a mod. In the case of an engine you may as well put on the blindfold and play Russian Roulette.

wross996tt

Wellard...so you are coming around (see my previous post). I know us Philly guys stick together (Broomall)...

Wellardmac

I'll be honest, that the reason I've stayed out of this discussion is that I'm all about data and this thread has had none so far. If I can't contribute anything, then I'm staying out of it.

I've agreed with every post (including yours) that has pointed out that there's no data on this except the data that Porsche holds and keeps to themselves.

This has proven to be an entertaining thread if only for the stubbornness of those asserting their opinions, but unable to back them up with any form of evidence. It's sad to see passionate and intelligent people get caught up in their own rhetoric and unable to see the flaws in their assertions - the best course of action when someone calls you out for data is to provide it or shut up and preserve your integrity.

BruceP

The scientists in the room should, I would think, disengage altogether from the debate, because there is no manifest problem to be solved. There are no broken engines from choosing the wrong oil viscosity, that anyone knows of. Therefore, we're debating the cause of a conjectural problem using theories that themselves lack, as you point out, any data to support them, against an opponent with uncertain credentials. It's the ultimate 'tree falling in the forest' kind of question, the kind empiricists like to avoid, in my experience.

Wellardmac

Spoken like a philosopher, but true. I'm not big on opinion that's not backed up with data - anything else is just hot air and a waste of all of our time.

DreamCarrera

I can't help but feel responsible for this skirmish after reading your posts Wayne.

My intention was not to resurrect the BS which has been flying around this board for quite some time, but rather point out the possibility that the original poster (referenced in my link) could be on to something. The OP is a respected Rennlist member IMHO, and if his story is true I want to be the first to know about it. I do the oil changes on my car personally, as do many here, and I would like to know if Porsche changes their "recommendation" (“approved” or whatever you want to call it) to another oil viscosity. BTW, if Porsche uses 0w-40 as their factory fill, then that IS their recommendation.

I simply found the post interesting and thought I would give the other 996 owners a heads-up.

As I stated earlier, I use Mobil 1 0w-40 and will continue to do so until Porsche either recommends otherwise or changes to another viscosity oil in the cars leaving their factory.

Carry on Gentleman.