Charles Navarro

I know many swear by Ceratec. If you want to use that, then LM's 5w40 A40 with Ceratec or their MoS2 additive works. I prefer Driven DT40 or DI40 as it has more moly in it than what you get with LM 5w40 plus their additive and that's the only additive in the oil that will bond to the aluminum surfaces. ZDDP does almost nothing to protect the Al-Si cylinder system (unless you have iron wear debris embedded in the aluminum and then that will allow the ZDDP to bond to the iron particles).

nwGTS

This is the latest jam and is in my car:
https://drivenracingoil.com/i-304977...motor-oil.html

You can get it in cases from Charles at LN Engineering:
https://lnengineering.com/shop-by-mo...rts-18406.html

silver_tt

Charles already answered your question but since you asked specially about it I would just point out that DI40 has a specialized dispersant which will help with the soot issue. Soot will be created in a DFI engine, we can't stop that; but what we can do is use a dispersant that will peptize the soot and keep it from agglomerating. Not saying it proves anything but since replacing my timing chain 30K miles ago I have been running DI40 the entire time and the new chain hasn't stretched at all (as measured by software monitoring the vane cell adjustor deviation in the camshaft) whereas previously it stretched so much in 75K miles I'm lucky it didn't jump teeth.

With respect to additives, it is not the same thing as the product that comes out of the refinery. Some additives need to be blended into the oil in a special way -- at high heat, etc. I'm not saying they are bad products but just dumping some moly into your oil isn't going to be the same thing as the product that comes out of the refinery. If you give two different people the same ingredients and cookbook and tell them to bake a cake, it doesn't necessarily mean that both cakes will turn out exactly the same way. That is to say, there is some manufacturing technique involved, etc.

silver_tt

Jake/Charles - Didn't you test DI40 or have some part in helping create its formulation? If so, I'm not sure if it's a trade secret or you're allowed to say, but is the dispersant provided by Lubrizol? Please feel free to correct me if anything I have said above is not 100% correct. With respect to the proprietary package used, I am going in part of off information that was provided to me by Driven. Thanks again for all the free information!

Charles Navarro

We were the first to run DT40 and DT50 and we indeed did help by running these products (and other from Driven) in countless engines and helped to collect tons of used oil samples through the various iterations the products went through. We still have 5 gallon pails of "secret sauce" around the shop of various test oils run through the years. Lubrizol originally did supply the additives, but the package used by Driven was discontinued, so they switched to an Afton package many years ago, but that change did not affect anything negatively as proven by the countless used oil analysis results we've seen here and others have posted on Rennlist.

silver_tt

Fantastic, thank you so much. It's a good thing I don't live in Momence -- I would be over in your garage asking you questions all the time. Trust me, I have a lot of questions

Not sure exactly when they switched the additive package but I never noticed a difference. Agree about no negative effects. Very dear friend of mine owns a racing shop and has a database of literally thousands (if not more) of UOAs -- his results show that the Joe Gibbs/Driven oils were/are, in the words of Bobby Fischer, "best by test".

Charles Navarro

It's grand central station here this week. Tony Callas flew out to help put my '75 911S back together, we have a media company doing videos, and have a 356 Club open house on Saturday. We rarely get walk-ins, but do enjoy when people do come by. We are most certainly under the radar in our small farming community!

silver_tt

Sounds like a nice week to me. My father had a 1962 356 B. I would love to come by and see you guys some day, you're right on my way to Chicago -- I would be polite enough to let you know well in advance, not just drop in unannounced, that is rude. I have spoken with your father on the phone in the past, he's a very nice guy. I went to college in the area at Wisconsin-Madison and have known about you guys and been a big fan of your work on this platform since you very started. The whole Nickies deal is pretty incredible that a college student in an incubation program came up with such a brilliant idea and then actually did it.

sandwedge

Just curious why. I have always agreed that the IMS issue has been overblown and over dramatized over the years but I've also read stories of the bigger bearing failing although a rare occurrence so there seems to be no 100% protection of IMS failure as long as that bearing is part of the engine.

My understanding from from posts on this forum and readings from other outlets is that in addition to the elimination of the IMS on the 997.2 and forward there were other improvements as well. One thing I've read numerous times is that the cylinder walls were redesigned/strengthened, lessening the risk of bore scoring as well. Correct or bad information?

So in short, I guess my question is why you would rather have a 997.1 engine than a 997.2 engine. I've read about plenty of 997.1 engine failures but can only recall one post of a 997.2 engine failure. I really don't care either way. As I said, just curious about your assessment.

Wayne Smith

Note: The quote above is incomplete. Context is required inthat this pertains to Jake saying he would not own anything newer than a 997.1.

There will always be contention over what's best. There's no right answer. I still miss my English sports cars while also realizing the masochistic reality involved.

I used to do ALL of my own work. As computers arrived on cars in the form of black boxes that could not be worked on I became very hesitant to venture into newer car ownership. Yeah, that goes back 50 years now. It's no longer applicable. But ... We are (hopefully) most comfortable with what we know best. And Jake has his own history of experience.

There is also the ease of working on a car. Remember when you could change spark plugs without doing anything more than lifting the hood? Jake points out all the special tools he had to design to work on the 9A1 as well as all the extra hours required to do anything. What a PITA!!! I have read a lot of posts from people wanting to return to the simpler days of the air cooled 911s. I understand.

That being said, and having owned a 997.2 long term, I've found myself much more comfortable with the 9A1 motor. Is it perfect? No. It is full of engineering compromises. All designed consumer products suffer this way. The EPA makes demands and engineers are further restricted by the Accounting Department. And there are the Laws of Materials and Physics!!!

Back to the question on the quote, the 9A1's closed deck design offers more strength ... At the risk of the rare cold seizure event. The lining on the cylinder walls was changed to lessen the risk of bore score ... There are those who insist that anything looking like bore score is actually cold seizure although cylinder wall washing from the DFI still creates a risk. The oiling system was modified to lessen the risk of losing pressure as well as to insure correct pressures within the motor for varying conditions. There were other improvements as well. IMHO, those improvements show big time.

If I viewed ownership as a process that would include an eventual rebuild would that skew my view beyond the improvements? I'm not smart enough to answer that (Jake is). But I also don't view a rebuild as being in the context of my time with my car.

In all likelihood the 991 and beyond cars are better yet. But for who?

While I respect and appreciate Jake beyond what I can express, I'll keep my 997.2 😀

RABjr

Just bought a case of DI40 for my 997.2!

Thanks!

Bruce In Philly

Are we sure Porsche eliminated the IMS to improve the engine from a failing bearing? That shaft was part of Porsche design since the 60s. The concept of that shaft was not the problem, but the choice to eliminate a constantly oiled bearing with a permanent, sealed one was the issue.

Porsche may have eliminated the IMS simply for cost savings. I remember reading somewhere that the 9A1 engine had way few parts that previous engines. Sounds like a cost reduction strategy to me. This may be an improvement, but I just question the motivation at Porsche that this design was purposefully done to eliminate the bearing problem. Heck, maybe they did this just to improve consumer perceptions, although I doubt this because they kept this bad design for 10 years.

Even strengthening cylinder wall composition may not have been done to eliminate a problem, but just to support higher torque requirements passed down to engineering from the marketing department to support longer-term model plans.

Obviously, I am a little cynical about all of this given the sordid history of the M9X platform... they blew up for many different reasons over their history and Porsche did little except patch the platform despite making a ton of ever-increasing profits. As if I need to remind anyone, I had two blow up long before the 9A1 appeared.

Peace
Bruce in Philly (now Atlanta)

silver_tt

Because the design of cars is now being completely driven by environmental considerations and the 997.1 is the last pre-DFI engine. Look at Euro 6 or 7...the emissions reductions are so ridiculously aggressive. Take the oil pump I mentioned for example. Jake said it doesn't fail often but IMHO this design is complete and utter nonsense; using a solenoid to reduce the load on the pump to save gas. It's the same consideration when choosing an oil to run. It's no coincidence that manufacturers are moving to smaller displacement turbocharged engines. And it's also the reason OEMs are moving to thinner oils like 0W-20 which are crap.

I was recently studying the 2.0T engine. I have a 2nd generation EA888 and I know that engine inside and out blindfolded. I was looking at what they did on the gen3 model. They did stuff like adding a phaser to the exhaust cam -- my gen2 only has has a single one on the intake side. Can you guess the reason why they added the vane cell camshaft adjustor to the exhaust cam? NOx emissions reductions.

Charles Navarro

For those who missed it, CAFE requirements were made even more stringent. 49 MPG by 2026. Going to thinner oils for the engine and transmission are the low hanging fruit for quick and easy fuel economy increases. C10 oils are going to be the next thing. Other manufacturers are already running viscosities as low as 0w8... The only way this can be done is have higher permissible wear which will result in shorter component life or require additional processes like DLC coatings to allow these components to survive in this environment.

https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases...year-2024-2026

sandwedge

Good questions. I just look at it through the simple lens. A member here since 2007 I've read about far more engine failures of .1 cars than .2 cars. As I've said I can only recall reading about one .2 engine failure here. I may have missed some but they seem very rare. So the points you make about cost savings and overall consumer perception could well be part of the design of the 9A1 but it seems like they also achieved improved reliability along with the cost savings. Don't you think?