Dock

Uhhh...never mind.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


I don't add any oil until the level is one bar above "minimum". When it reaches that point, I add one full quart of oil.

"02996ttx50

exactly.

Danyol

"An engine having oil then not having oil is not an event that I've ever encountered. Engines simply do not lose their oil at random times."

Mac, I had one of my old cars blow off an oil cooler line, it wasn't pretty! I'm sure like me you would have pulled over and looked as soon as you saw the warning, 8 qts would make a very obvious mess!

Macster

Then one or both methods would be a compromise.

To report best the oil level the oil level sensor/dipstick telltale has to be in the center of the oil reservior.

They can't both be properly positioned, so one's going to report the oil level wrong, well, less accurately.

If it is the electronic one then of course owners will just rail even more heatedly against the electronic one.

If it is the dipstick, why have it there?

Sincerely,

Macster.

adam_

Wow.

doubleurx

Not sure how Porsche set it up, but both are accurate and agree with each other. I'm pretty sure Porsche used this method on all air cooled 911's from the mid 70's on.

daytrip00

I get the impression this has reached the point or religion for him. He can't even admit that there's a disadvantage to having an electronic sensor. There have been many reports of oil sensor failures (meaning no oil level checking until it's fixed and likewise requiring you continuously run the engine up to temp to test if it's fixed, all without being able to measure the level).

Conversely, i've never heard of i dipstick failure and suspect one is 4 or 5 orders of magnitude less common. It' my impression that german engineers give much less thought to failure modes during design.

Macster

Maybe I'm older than most car owners here but I remember the issues the dipstick had: hard to read even in good conditions; imprecise/inconsistent measurements arising from the failure to push the thing in all the way; the infrequent use of the dipstick because of its horrible 'user interface' and so on.

Thus I can't admit there's a disadvantage when there isn't one simply to agree with the opinion of some forum members.

Sincerely,

Macster.

paoylin1

where is this located?

up4speed

I like having both a dip stick and a digital readout like I had on my Boxster s.
The digital gauge is great to spot check, and the dipstick is good to verify that the correct amount is in the engine when you do an oil change and the oil is cold. I also like to be able to see the condition of the oil on the dip stick. It's nice to be able to see how dark it is (I know they say that color really doesn't matter), but more importantly, it's nice to be able to make sure that coolant isn't getting in the oil. If there is coolant mixing in the oil, I would be able notice and fix it sooner thus minimizing the damage to the engine. With only an electronic gauge, I have to wait until the next oil change to make sure the oil is not contaminated.

"02996ttx50

it still annoys me there is no dipstick. i find it one of the most continually annoying features of the car.

iirc rob gt2 has mentioned a gt3 oil filler ned/tube ( whatever ) etc that can be retrofitted. i've never looked into it fully, but if i ever had time to fix stuff that wasn't broken, that would be among the first things i would address.

ten minutes to check oil lol. whoever heard of such a thing.

mcbit

as long as my electronic display keeps working, I have no issues! And as long as you check your oil on the flat, there will be no difference between an electronic and a physical dipstick.

Macster

And you check the dipstick for presence of coolant how often?

I dare say even if there was an intermix problem you'd likely not spot it by looking at the dip stick, unless the intermix was very far advanced. The coolant would collect at the bottom of the sump, under the oil. It would not adhere to the fraction of an inch worth of plastic on the end of the dipstick.

In fact I dare say that if one was that concerned about a coolant/oil intermix problem using the electronic oil level system would be preferable to a dipstick. 'course, one would have to use it every opportunity, but given one can do this from inside the car makes this a less burdensome task, with the idea to be looking for an inexplicable increase in the level of the oil.

My 2002 Boxster has a dipstick and I can't recall the last time I used it. However, I check the oil level at least once and often more than once per day using the electronic oil level system. Love it.

I do not in any way miss not having a dipstick in my 2003 Turbo.

Macster

Unless you insist on checking the oil level before you drive off after starting a cold engine how are you checking the oil level that it takes 10 minutes?

When I go to check the oil in my Turbo -- once the engine is warmed up -- it takes but 5 seconds for the reading to appear. An inconsequential amount of time certainly compared to what it would take were I to have to use a dipstick instead.

In fact the process is so quick I often check the oil level while waiting for a stop light.

Try that with a dipstick.

highlander

I liked my '01 Boxster.
Electronic check when you first turn on the ignition, but also the old fashioned dipstick if/when the electronic sensor flakes out.
My new Boxster only has the electronic and I'm getting used to it.

I use interminable traffic here in the SF bay to check the oil in my TT when stopped in traffic jams or at traffic lights. I prefer the TT version over the Boxster version (i know it's because of the dry sump) as if you forget in the Boxster, then it can take up 10 minutes to get a measurement.