Porsche engine parts failure on Mobil 1 0w-40

[buster]

Quote:
Porsche 996FL Engine test. This test will last 203 hours. The engine, and the oil, will go through: - 4 times the simulation of 35 hours of summer driving, - 4 times the simulation of 13.5 hours of winter driving, - 40 cold starts, - 5 times the simulation of 1-hour sessions on the “Nürburgring” racetrack, - 3.5 hours of “running-in” program Measurements on the engine and on the oil will be done at regular intervals, and the following parameter will be taken into account to grant the approval or not: - torque curve (internal friction), - oxidation of the oil, - Piston cleanliness and ring sticking, - Valve train wear protection. Cam & tappet wear must be less than 10 µm. - Engine cleanliness and sludge: after 203 hours, no deposits must be visible. - Bearing wear protection: visual rating according to Porsche in-house method. Several mechanics told me that they were relying on “their own testing” to choose an oil. None of these mechanics showed me that their method came close to matching what Porsche does: running dozens of oils through the same 203-hour test, and comparing the results. This test has been designed by Porsche to guarantee the availability of test-proven oils for all Porsche since model year 1973: the letter (attached) given to oil manufacturers specifies that date. This oil testing procedure exists specifically to avoid the wear cam problems created by the fiasco of ILSAC GF-4 being recommended in Porsche by some distributors.

 

[sparkplug]

Whats next? "I got my girlfriend pregnant while I was using Mobil 1!!!"?

 

[buster]

Probably.

 

[robertcope]

I don't think I'll be moving away from M1 based on this. I certainly see a lot of Porsches driving around and on the track, and my bet is many of them have M1 in them and that they will continue function just fine for years to come. With any mass-produced and mass-consumed item, there will be issues that crop up due to manufacturing problems and product-misuse, so you'll pretty much always be able to find scary examples.

robert

 

[Audi Junkie]

Originally Posted By: robertcope
I don't think I'll be moving away from M1 based on this. I certainly see a lot of Porsches driving around and on the track, and my bet is many of them have M1 in them and that they will continue function just fine for years to come. With any mass-produced and mass-consumed item, there will be issues that crop up due to manufacturing problems and product-misuse, so you'll pretty much always be able to find scary examples.

robert


So, what would it actually take for you to critically judge a motor oil product?

It seems like your "betting" and guesswork is biased away from finding any fault.

 

[scurvy]

Originally Posted By: jmac
Why is the gear red in the picture? Why is there a thin black line between the red fuzzy focus part of the picture and the sharp detail part, making it look like a photo cut and paste of separate photos welded together?

Put down the tinfoil and remove your velostat hat.

The gear is red because it's on a shop rag. You know, one of these that you find in every shop, the one you can see in the background of both photographs:

That 'thin black line' is a fiber from said rags. Despite being listed as 'low lint', they seem to shed fibers like crazy.

 

[ThirdeYe]

Originally Posted By: scurvy
Originally Posted By: jmac
Why is the gear red in the picture? Why is there a thin black line between the red fuzzy focus part of the picture and the sharp detail part, making it look like a photo cut and paste of separate photos welded together?

Put down the tinfoil and remove your velostat hat.

The gear is red because it's on a shop rag. You know, one of these that you find in every shop:

That 'thin black line' is a fiber from said rags. Despite being listed as 'low lint', they seem to shed fibers like crazy.


I hate those rags.

You're totally right about them shedding lint, and the ones I have also don't seem to want to pick up any type of fluid. They're pretty much useless and I never bothered to finish the bag of them I bought.

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: jmac
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Indeed. The image is in too tight to clearly see multiple teeth, but the neighboring tooth doesn't seem to be in the same condition. We can't even see if the sprocket is "overly worn overall".


Why is the gear red in the picture? Why is there a thin black line between the red fuzzy focus part of the picture and the sharp detail part, making it look like a photo cut and paste of separate photos welded together?


The gear is red/cyan due to (probably) ambient or flash produced light causing that putrid back drop color on to the gear to reflect it.

There's no need to consider the photo "worked". Only BITOG internal debates inspire such conspiracy theories. In a technical presentation one would tend to show more than just the critical failure point ..or at least would show multiple points of fatigue. That's all. One tooth would not be the only point of wear.

I doubt the author has an anti-M1 agenda.

 

[jmac]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Originally Posted By: jmac
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Indeed. The image is in too tight to clearly see multiple teeth, but the neighboring tooth doesn't seem to be in the same condition. We can't even see if the sprocket is "overly worn overall".


Why is the gear red in the picture? Why is there a thin black line between the red fuzzy focus part of the picture and the sharp detail part, making it look like a photo cut and paste of separate photos welded together?



The gear is red/cyan due to (probably) ambient or flash produced light causing that putrid back drop color on to the gear to reflect it.

There's no need to consider the photo "worked". Only BITOG internal debates inspire such conspiracy theories. In a technical presentation one would tend to show more than just the critical failure point ..or at least would show multiple points of fatigue. That's all. One tooth would not be the only point of wear.

I doubt the author has an anti-M1 agenda.


Like I said just saying what it looks like, and I am not implying that the original author has an anti-M1 agenda.
Just asking questions.

 

[buster]

You really have to consider everything before pointing the finger at any approved oil. Consider M1 is 60% of the syn lube market and how many Porsches there are worldwide. This does not mean M1 is the best or has issues, but you have to consider everything.

I don't know of any mechanic that has the resources to test a lubricant like Porsche has. Plus, most mechanics don't know jack about oil.

 

[glxpassat]

Two versions of this oil have been documented and since there is only one version on their approved list, I don't think Porsche has tested the US version. Porsche's approval expires after 3 years or so, and M1 keep stating "Approved in 2002" for many more years. Why would M1 do this if they had kept the approval up to date?

 

[jmac]

Please delete all my posts in this thread, I looked at the picture again and I was taking foreground for background and vice versa in an MC-Escher style for some reason at initial glance.

 

[buster]

 

[Gene K]

I thought the M96 2.5 Boxster Engine had a known cam tensioner problem?

If you really think its the oil I have a few extra jugs of Motorcraft 5W20 blend you can have.

PS guys thanks for getting this topic locked.

 

[robertcope]

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
So, what would it actually take for you to critically judge a motor oil product?

It seems like your "betting" and guesswork is biased away from finding any fault.


Well, I think that's a fair question, and I'm not really sure I have a specific answer. But, I would suggest that actual scientific testing would be required. Since I don't have access to anything close to the resources that I'd need to gather my own [useful] data, I have to trust things that I can observe, such as the specifications an oil has met (which hopefully were tested in a scientific manner), number of vehicles out there running the oil, and that sort of thing.

I don't think it is really guesswork to say that 'millions of vehicles run M1 and don't have any major oil-related issues'. One or two pictures of failed parts are interesting, but are hardly enough evidence to [censored] an oil that many people and race teams have had success with.

I am sure this answer will not satisfy you, but that is okay, I'm not really concerned about your satisfaction! Hopefully you at least understand where I'm coming from.

robert

 

[Gene K]

Originally Posted By: robertcope
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
So, what would it actually take for you to critically judge a motor oil product?

It seems like your "betting" and guesswork is biased away from finding any fault.


Well, I think that's a fair question, and I'm not really sure I have a specific answer. But, I would suggest that actual scientific testing would be required. Since I don't have access to anything close to the resources that I'd need to gather my own [useful] data, I have to trust things that I can observe, such as the specifications an oil has met (which hopefully were tested in a scientific manner), number of vehicles out there running the oil, and that sort of thing.

I don't think it is really guesswork to say that 'millions of vehicles run M1 and don't have any major oil-related issues'. One or two pictures of failed parts are interesting, but are hardly enough evidence to [censored] an oil that many people and race teams have had success with.

I am sure this answer will not satisfy you, but that is okay, I'm not really concerned about your satisfaction! Hopefully you at least understand where I'm coming from.

robert


I dont think it would be a stretch to say that the majority of M96 Engines were run on M1 through the warranty period at least. If most of them were on M1 I dont think it would be a stretch if the majority of failures occurred on M1. I do think it would be a stretch to say that M1 caused it.

Part of the VCT on early 4.6L and 5.4L 3V V8 Fords routinely fail and most are run on MC 5W20 but Ive never heard anyone try to claim it was caused by the MC.

 

[buster]

All consumers have to go by is the Porsche spec. They are the only group available that has the resources to test what they require in a lubricant. That is why I posted what the Porsche spec is. Notice a lot of the testing is based on a visual inspection.

If you don't use an approved oil, you then rely on Joe Schmoe the mechanic or take a chance that the blender knows how to make a better oil, which can happen.

Gene, that is a fair assessment. Well said.

 

[Audi Junkie]

If you read the linked page, the author seems to have quite a decent grasp of past and current lube tech and products.

That, I find compelling.

 

[c3po]

My next door neighbor has a 1997 Porsche 911 that holds 12 quarts of oil, its an AIR COOLED ENGINE, he is now using Brad Penn Oil.

Lets look at how these cars are driven, when I went for a ride in my neighbors Porsche, the guy is 55 years old, he was flying in this car, my heart was in my throat, he took this one curve that had a speed limit posted of 35 m.p.h. he took the curve at 65 m.p.h. and we were coming down a hill into this S-Curve, and the car went through the curve fine, I thought we were going to fly into the woods, he told me that when he lowers his suspension and puts on some different springs and maybe shocks that he could probably take that curve at 70 m.p.h.

The guy was banging through the gears and had the RPM's up to about 6000 or so.

Blame the oil all you want, but at lease realize how these cars are driven.

 

[Johnny]

Yep, your average 911 is not your grocery getter.