I've tried to stay away from this but really, M96 specific oil?

Last time I checked, the M96 was just a regular combustion motor in a boxer configuration such as that as Subaru's. There's nothing exotic about it imo. It isn't some space age design.

Once again, I can see Jake wanting to protect or preserve the integrity of his own engines and he has that right as the builder and it would make sense in his situation. However for the rest of us that have used 996's, I don't really see the logic...

 

Automotive design involves many compromises. Jake Raby hates to compromise.

 

I can definitely see that but in the case of a used 996 which all of us have, our engines have already been compromised somewhat given that rational of having had "regular" motor oil in it for 20k, 50k, 100k.

Also compromise can be subjective in terms of what your'e expecting. I have over 120k on original motor using Mobil and it's been just fine. Am I expecting to keep the car forever and drive over 500k?, no. The "compromise" for me has been working just fine. Thank you.

Although I can definitely appreciate over-engineering, I'm in the camp that it isn't necessarily needed sometimes at the expense of other things.

 

If you find it hard to believe JR knows what hes talking about, just dont follow his advice. I and many others will listen and use what he recommends. There is no law I know of that mandates you must use JG in your 996 so its your choice.

There is no call to insult him or imply that he contradicts anything he has posted. Hes giving free sound advice that I will use.

Why start using JG after 20K, 40K, etc. miles? Why not? The damage has been done argument makes no sense. Its never too late to do PM, unless the engine is destroyed.

 

I know you're a fanboi but I do agree with personal choice. I wasn't in no way insulting JR or anyone that decides to use his oil. I was merely stating that I personally don't see the logic.

As for damage has been done argument, one can argue "what damage?". "Why fix something that isn't broke" is the flipside to PM. All personal choices on what makes you sleep better at night.

I think many that haven't caught on are merely curious in the long term effects(if there are any) and since there is no long term sample yet, are just asking for other info to determine the feasibility of whether to switch or not.

JR should give you a discount for at least being the main cheerleader.

 

Agreed.

Considering there has been one UOA posted, and still no virgin specifications, I won't be using it until some more product data is available.

 

Like I said, depends on your use. I will likely never see more than one oil change a year, so why not? Cost difference is minimal, and if it makes a difference, well worth it. I might think different if I made 5 changes a year, though..

But not even for autocross? Really, now we're pushing it. AX is mild on an engine, oil wise. They just last too short a time.

 

As others mentioned, JR doesn't seem to be a fan of compromise and I can understand that. He's posting his best advice and it's up to users to decided what they're going to do. But when you see other's jumping on him for saying it shouldn't be used on the track, can you imagine what they would do if he said you could use it on the track and then someone had a failure? The mobs with torches would be out in streets.

From what I read he's posting what he believes is the best no-compromise approach to engine longevity. Although I'd like to not compromise, the reality is that I don't have a tow vehicle and I don't think it's realistic for me to change oil at the track for every event I drive to. So, I like most people, need to compromise. Who knows exactly what I'll do, but I can tell you that if I ran DT40 or any other non race oil at the track and had a failure I wouldn't have anyone to blame but myself. I've always run Mobil on the street and on the track and haven't had an issue. Will I ever have an issue? Maybe, maybe not, but at least I'm better informed about how I can minimize the probability of an issue. In the meantime, I appreciated the opportunity to learn more about this oil and some of the considerations that went into its development.

 

Since the position of DT40 is that of a street oil now, it would be interesting to see the long term real world effects of the condition of the cats and O2 sensors to see if they fail in any premature way with the elevated zinc levels. And by long term, I mean 80-100k miles and real world, meaning real driving and not on rollers in laboratory conditions like the million mile Mobil1 test car.

Edit: Found interesting spec guide for ZDDP/Phosphorous content in the various M1 oils.

http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/...duct_Guide.pdf

 

All is good until there is a failure. At that point, it is time to identify the cause(s) of the failure. Several in this thread have pointed out that switching to a new oil may be better/worse for the engine, but it would likely take time and miles to prove either.

We have been down a similar road with the IMS retrofit. Many feel that their cars are safer from IMS failure by installing the retrofit IMS bearing, yet has there been enough time and miles to support this as fact? Some OEM bearings have clearly failed at 40k, 60k, 100k, etc. Are there enough cars with the retrofit bearing, with enough time and miles, to accurately show that the replacement bearing will be any safer?

 

just got back from WalMart with 9 quarts of Mobil 1 OW-40 ($6.97/quart)...for my annual oil change (currently have 65K miles, 100% street only, weekend toy, 5K miles/year max) .
P.S. Been reading a lot of good stuff about EVOO

 

Alpine, nice link, thanks. Interesting to see that the 15W-50 oil that Mobil mentions as being suitable for street and track use does have a little higher levels than most.

 

Interesting to note that they also have a specific racing oils made just for racing which does have the elevated and highest ZDDP/Phosphorous content. The chart also backs up another poster's comments on the v-Twin oil as well.

 

Those that are 40 weight and above do not need to comply to additive guidelines: http://www.enginebuildermag.com/Arti...t_why_how.aspx

The "track ready" terminology refers largely to the lack of detergents coupled with a high level of protectant additives and a shear stable base stock. Hence why many true track oils are single weight; the lack of viscosity index improvers (the presence of which makes an oil multi-weight) keeps them shear stable (VII's shear down over time in high temperature/high shear conditions). Couple that with a lack of detergents (which allows the protectant additives to do their job completely without being washed out) and a high additive pack, and you've got yourself a track oil.

And another link: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/oilshear.htm

 

Shawn I agree 100%