Doug H

Hi, your UOA result is a very good one It is a shame that you cannot buy M1 5W-50 in the USA - it is a better lubricant for these engines if you wish to run a SAE50 lubricant That said, feel very pleased with the result - M1 15W-50 in either version is an excellent lubricant

Sorry - no link?

Hi Ed, lubricant colour is NOT a good indicator of its condition. A practiced person can do a "blotter test" to determine some aspects of contamination Many things can contribute to contamination A Used Oil Analysis (UOA) is the best way to determine the lubricant's condition. Blackstone appears to be a reputable LAB in NA

Hi, White987S - Of course the engine lubricant was changed as per Porsche's service schedule - at around two year intervals or at the 20k km OCI points whichever was reached first

Hi, this is the latest Used Oil Analysis results from my 2.7 Tiptronic 986 Engine data M9622 & Tiptronic @ 98677kms (61260miles) Operation over 15677kms (9730 miles) A number of long high speed trips (85%) and a small amount (15%) of Urban running Revs rarely above 6k Location Australian Tropics - high humidity (up to 98%) Lubricant Mobil's Delvac 1 5w-40 (CI-4/SL) Lubricant condition Nitration = 14 Abs/cm Viscosity @ 40C = 88cCt (new lubricant is 93cSt) TBN 6.4 (new lubricant is 11) PQ Index <1 Elemental analysis Iron = 12 Aluminium = <1 Chromium = 1 Copper = 10 Lead = 1 Potassium = 6 Silicon = 18 (up due to gasket sealant) Sodium = 5 Oil consumption = nil Summary The lubricant was suitable for continued use and was well within all degradation paramaters I changed the lubricant and the filter The previous lubricant in this engine and from new was M1 0w-40 I hope this is of interest

Hi, using the aircon C6? Code my cooling system is constantly around 93C when fully warmed up. Lowest constant has been around 92C and the hottest 105C I live in the Tropics and these temperatures are with an ambient spread of around 22-38C Oil temperarture is ideal when in a band of around 90-96C

Hi, Westcoaster - No error, lubricants are very expensive here. I believe M1 5w-50 is about $A80 for 5 litres Your choice of viscosity is a wise one Regards Doug

Hi, Westcoaster - IMO your best bet is to stay with M1 0w-40 Once out of warranty Mobil 1 Turbo Diesel Truck 5w-40 (Delvac 1 5w-40) is a very good lubricant in these engines. It is as suitable as M1 5w-50 in the occasional DE due to its superior High Temperature High Shear (HTHS) viscosity over M1 0w-40. I use this lubricant all year round in the Northern QLD Tropics where I live M1 0w-40 is around $A108 for 5 litres Delvac 1 5w-40 is around $A85 for 5 litres Group 4 refers to the PAO structure of the base fluid and Group 5 refers to the ester base or (content). Both these lubricants are Group 4 base with around +/-20% ester content Regards Doug

Hi, Weastcoaster - The best viscosity for you (and most of us) is 0w-40. If you track the car then the 5w-50 version of M1 could be considered depending on the prevailing ambient temperature The Group 4/5 structure of M1 0w-40 is its great strength and why it is being increasing used by other Manufacturers as a Factory fill M1 0w-40 is one of the best lubricants ever made and at any price Regards Doug

Hi, yes Mobil 1 5w-50 is the only SAE50 viscosity lubricant Approved by Porsche. It is an excellent lubricant with a long history. It ia available in most Countries except the USA Mixing most Mobil 1 products to achieve a "supplementary" viscosity can be done without the risk of loosing the benefits of the overall base fluid/additive package There are two exceptions to this however. M1 0w-40 and M1 Turbo Diesel Truck 5w-40 (non Approved) should not be mixed with other Mobil 1 lubricants if you wish to retain their unique and quite sophisticated formulation I use the "parent" of M1 TDT 5w-40 - it is a Commercial lubricant called Delvac 1 5w-40 Regards Doug

Hi, I have been monitoring the temperature of my car a 2.7ltr for some time now Typically after a complete warm up it normally runs in a band from around 94C to 105C. It does rise with limited air flow (in traffic) and falls again to around the mid/upper 90s once air flow is re-established I live in the Tropics Regards Doug

Hi, perhaps as here in Australia the "fail safe" source is the local area Mobil Distributor We are able to purchase it here in 5ltr containers at most Mobil S Stns and most discount Parts/Accessory stores ExxonMobil are very poor retail Marketers in my opinion! Regards Doug

Hi, Paul you are doing the right thing. You are also correct in not focusing on a few ppm here and there - especially if lubricant Brands are changed and etc. UOA is a complex task. To really understand the results and the implications requires much more than simply being a Lab. Technician - or a car Owner UOA results are very hard to replicate due to such things as Operator experience, Lab equipment type and etc. and of course the level of experience and knowledge of the Analyst With a new engine it is wise to commence a Trend database and look for the desirable downward trend in wear metal uptake along with no uptake spikes! Oil condition is important to monitor too as the experienced Analyst can perhaps detect coolant leaks and the like and the suitability of the lubricant to the engine I have found that getting both Total Base Number (TBN), (a falling value in used oil) and Total Acid Number (TAN) (a rising number in used oil) will assist in determining your best OCI if you do not want to stick with the engine maker’s suggested interval The PQ (Particle Quantifying) Index is a good addition to a UOA plan as it provides a real indication of the actual content of the larger and important ferrous metal wear debris UOA is at best a very good tool for providing a “snapshot” of the lubricant’s condition. In the hands of an experienced practitioner it can provide an insight into the way an engine’s components are wearing over time and is an excellent tool in the early detection of cooling system (and some other) potential problems Regards Doug Hillary

Hi, cnavarro - Charles you said this: "For what its worth, there are much better approved oils than M1 0w40." Can you substatiate this comment with some hard and unbiased facts please!! Your comment about draining the engine lubricant when at 50% of the original TBN is no doubt your opinion. Most engine manufacturers state that a TBN of 1 (D4739) or 2 (D2896 - ISO 3771) is the safe minimum - or 1/3 of the virgin TBN in diesel engines! This variance against your 50% would often represent the difference between the Porsche recommended OCI and far too early! This wastes a very valuable resource for NO benefit!! The unreliability of UOAs is well known in Tribology circles and I suggest that trending will assist in understanding the variances and variabilty Regards Doug Hillary

Hi Bill, yes the mysteries of Tribology are many! You will find Bob Is The Oil Guy (BITOG) an interesting and informative site All the best to you and yours for 2008 from Tropical North Queensland in Australia Kind Regards Doug

Hi, Bill - your "lesson" on Mineral & Synthetic lubricants directed at me was not really required. I have been involved in this field and in the development of mineral, semi-synthetic and synthetic lubricants for a very long time! It is obvious from your Post that you do indeed have a lot of learning to do - this will take time moderated by experience and the likes of the "BITOG" Website will assist you greatly! I do not intend to "pull apart" your Post in detail that would be wrong and too time consuming but I will comment on certain of you comments or statements My comments of Porsche's engines covers a number of engines made purely for racing (mostly long distance, Carrera, LeMans etc) and the lubricants are warmed to 80C prior to loading and reving the engine beyond 2000rpm! I have had recent and direct contact with both the Engineers and engines involved at out Phillip Island Historic Racing events! Most other more recent engines use a conventional mineral 15w-40 "mixed fleet" HDEO - this is widely promoted by the Engineers involved! Such oils were once Porsche Factory fill. M1 0w-40 is widely used in all late model race engines - by the Factory and most Privateers Indeed it is very clear that a modern mixed fleet 15w-40 HDEO will perform at least as well as a synthetic and probably much better in most Pre MY84 aircooled Porsche engines Have no doubt - synthetics are excellent when correct application based and some applications certainly preclude their use! Porsche knew this and even the 928 engine was equipped for synthetic use from the early 1980s. Porsche have not Approved a mineral oil for use in any MY84> since 1999! Many engine makers will actually advise against the use of synthetic lubricants - some of the reasons why are because of the very characteristics you promote as "positives" and which are most desirable in other "correct" applications Some Mobil 1 (and Delvac) products contain esters and are NOT solely based on PAOs - this has been so for a number of years!! As to whether Amsoil is better than comparable specification products - well the obligation is on you to prove that it is! I have a database covering UOAs from many vehicles - petrol, diesel and gas powered - and using a huge range of lubricants. In the case of 911 aircooled engines and comparing wear metal trends, MINERAL lubricants clearly outperform synthetics. Amsoil's product's results are around average over all engine families. When comparing each lubricant's condition as obtained from the UOAs it is clear that some Amsoil products tend to become more viscous (commonly known) amongst some other issues such as a poor TBN (TAN) performance Bill - I do not wish to debate this matter and simply bore the pants of all of the Forum's users, I do wish to restate that Amsoil does make a number of good products. At the same time they are around average in their class - no more no less! As for comparative data, if only Amsoil had all of their products either API or preferably ACEA Quality registered as the Major Oil Companies do this may indeed be a meaningful request. At present ACEA (composed of the Euro Vehicle/Engine manufacturers) have the best test protocols and Amsoil simply say some of their product "Meet" or "Exceed" these or they use the same terminology regarding the very serious Engine Manufacturer's test protocols This extract from Detroit Diesel-MTU's (a Division of DB) (7SE270) states this; "Beware that some marketers may indicate that their products "meet" API requirements. THIS IS NOT ADEQUATE. Although the licensing system does not gaurantee good oil performance, the marketer must be able to support data and follow established testing guidelines to substantiate that the service classification is met! ONLY OILS LICENSED BY API SHOULD BE USED IN DETROIT ENGINES!" Porsche is mentioned on the label of Amsoil's AFL 5w-40 lubricant - we are asked to believe that it is as good as the 100 odd Porsche Approved and Listed lubricants. As good? Better? Inferior? Simply we are asked to believe Amsoil that it is "the best" or "Number 1". I make no judgement except to say again that Amsoil's products are about average performers in their individual specification class Regards Doug Hillary

Hi, Bill - Thanks for your comments! However, you have not produced any unbiased and conclusive data to support the comment about Amsoil being the "best oil" or "Number 1" as there simply is none! Your comments follow: 1 - " We both know that first off all synthetic oils offer better performance attributes than conventional oils. Starting there, there is a better oil" Bill, this is a very questionable statement! I know that many Group 3 lubricants perform at least as well if not much better in some applications than the Group 4 lubricants offered by Amsoil and others. It is simply application related, specification based and can be verified in simple ecomonic terms. Ask the trucking Industry! There are a number of applications where Group 4 synthetic lubricants (such as many Amsoil products) should not be used! If they are used their perfomance can have a detrimental effect on component life! The Porsche Factory actually use mineral lubricants in many of their own engines - engines that in some cases are virtually irreplacable Porsche first moved to a minimum specification Group 3 lubricant as factory fill around 1991! 2 - " We also know that each company uses different additives in their products to achieve a certain quality expectation while also achieving a price point" Bill, this statement is also very loosely based! Most Oil Companies simply purchase an Additive Package made by the five or so (Worldwide) Suppliers. These are blended (like Amsoil does) into a base fluid. The base fluid used holds part of the story about the finished product - it is the "carrier" of the additives. Base fluids developed by Companies such as Chevron-Caltex (and etc), Shell (XHVI), ExxonMobil (SuperSyn etc) etc. are used by many other Blenders under assumed names - Amsoil being but one! The base fluids are used by the Blender to give the lubricant (such as the Porsche Approved and Listed M1 0w-40 or M1 5w-50) its very good low pour point and excellent high temperature (HTHS) performance. Some people claim that the best of the best of these fluids are not on-sold but form the basis for their own products. Lubricants are produced to satisfy certain application criteria - most determined now thank goodness by the engine Manufacturer and not by the oil Industry (thanks to ACEA and the NA diesel engine makers) I am not trying to be obstructive Bill but as Loren said earlier, there are around 100 lubricants on Porsche's Approval List from many Oil Companies/Blenders Worldwide - all are great lubricants and all perform at the required levels or well above! Amsoil is NOT on that List! Again, Amsoil makes good products (AFL is on the MB Appoved List) - they are not exceptional performers though and many other cheaper products are their equal Regards Doug Hillary

Hi, benaslan - What is better? How is this judged and to what criteria. Using full UOAs and other test criteria would take at least 800k miles each according to Cummins to evaluate the AW performance of two lubricants. Even then the results will most likely be inconclusive unless the same operating criteria are used! I worked with Castrol on a three year evaluation project during the 1990s with a prototype HDEO semi-synthetic lubricant (you now know it as Tection) and the vehicle covered 5 million kms, there were a number of tear downs and many UOAs. There were many formulation "tweaks" too in the process! "End on end" UOAs with two different lubricants in the same engine is at best interesting and mostly very misleading owing to the cleaning and replating effects of the new lubricant. Even then the performance is (mostly) judged incorrectly on a few ppm of some wear metals! Trending wear metal uptake rates within an engine family requires time/distance and a reasonably large pool of target engines! In my own case (and some of my Clients) with one engine family I have hundreds of samples on my database - it simply enables analysis via exception and provides a good snapshot of the lubricant's condition and suitablity for further use at a point in time. My $50000 engines were on 90k km OCIs and used centrifuge oil conditioners. Iron wear metal limit is 150ppm and soot 4%, viscosity must remain in grade! The true methods of evaluating lubricants is either via transducers on certain engine components in a clinical situation or via RATT. The oil must be "conditioned" and the operating sequences which need a defined purpose (cam wear, ring pack wear, deposit control etc) must be fully able to be replicated over a series of situations. This will range from WOT to various load and warm up/cool down positions) In fact RATT (Radio Active Tracer Technology) is now used in either surface or thin layer activation and/or bulk activation and at real time! This is then backed up by in service evaluation using UOAs and other test controls Castrol for example when assisting VW to promulgate their VW506.01 Quality standard carried out a series of 1000 hour radionucleide tests (VW devised) - wear was measured in nanametres (one millionth of a mm) per hour. This evaluated various additives and base fluid compositions. Backing this up they had a selection of vehicles in field test service in a variety of "normal" applications in the hands of "joe public". City traffic, highway, mixed and with and without oil changes for up to three years! This is the confirmation phase! And a Amsoil reresentative promotes their lubricant as "the best" or "Number 1" - I don't think so! Engine test regimes in the "public" field especially via ACEA are very very good and now being "aped" by the API. The extra testing required to achieve Manufacturer Approval is indeed where its all at now and where it will be into the future. This is especially so as new metallurgies are used and very sophisticated Additive Packages and fluids are developed to compensate for the shortfall in readily available and cost effective petroleum products as we knew them! I stress again that Amsoil products are good but not exceptional performers (many tended to thicken out of grade with use, a real no no in a modern engine - is this why are not ACEA registered?) and certainly they are no better than many many others. The 100 or so lubricants Listed by Porsche are cost effective and are formulated to suit our engine families! I have NO affilialtion with ANY Oil Company and I am quite happy for my comments to be evaluated by a Senior Lubricant's Engineer from a Major Oil Company! Regards Doug Hillary M1 0w-40 in 06 MB CLK D1 5w-40 in 01 Boxster

Hi, Bill - your Post sure sounds like Amsoil blurb - that's sad because Amsoil does make good products! I am sure that you have had excellent results from the products used. Oh, did they pass Porsche's special anti-foaming test protocol, was the viscosity test sequences used by Porsche used by Amsoil? - I think not! There is much more too!!! And I note that you did not supply any unbiased information backing up your claim that Amsoil is "the best" or "Number 1". You will NOT be able too!! Notwithstanding you have had good results, but Porsche must think Globally and widely in terms of vehicle application and operation - hence their Approved Lubricants List. They have had this for years. I worked for Mercedes Benz (Heavy Trucks) and spent a lot of time in Germany and on engeine development - and they have had an Approved Lubricants protocol for many decades. So has CAT (since the 1930s) and Mack, and recently Cummins and DD have found the need for this too Oil Companies that have Technical alliances with engine Manufacturers do indeed have a unique insight into the lubricant needs of a particular engine family. VW with Castrol, BMW with Castrol, MB (and AMG) and Porsche with Mobil etc. I have worked with Mobil & Detroit Diesel in the development of products and with Castrol too - over several decades! I was an employee of Caltex-Chevron as the Technical Manager of their Training facility in Copenhagen (Denmark) and had experience in solving sluge/deposit issues in VWs and other engines during the 1960s - as a result I have used HDEOs in my own vehicles ever since (see later) The Technical alliances produce knowledgeable Engineers in both camps and within the engine manufacturer's component suppliers (valve actuation gear, turbochargers, superchargers, lubrication system components and etc.) too! I stress again Amsoil does make good lubricants - not exceptional but good. But, certainly no better than any of those on Porsche's Approved Lubricants List Everyone is free to use what they will but the people that know most about the engine in the vehicle you drive is the people who designed it, produced it and then back it under Warranty. If they recommend a lubricant then it is wise to use it Yes I use a "mixed fleet" 5w-40 HDEO in my Boxster (under Porsche warranty) that is NOT on the Porsche Approval List but I have millions of kms experience with this product in many engine families and helped with its development over nearly 10 years. Porsche Approved its use in my case. I use a MB Approved lubricant in my CLX under Warranty! There is NO best oil! Regards

Loren, my point exactly! Regards

Hi, a subjective opinion that one lubricant is "the best" is simply that! I can assure readers here that any lubricant on the Porsche Approval List will perform about the same as another named there - Amsoil is not on that List! Amsoil is a "Boutique" blender and their Additive packages are similar to many others. Amsoil have been "followers" for some time now and some product formulations have been moved to align with the major Oil Companies products! We can expect very big developments in new lubricants yet to be released. Many are being field tested as we read! Such lubricants (Group 4/5) will be 0w-60 for instance and will have superior "viscosity" change characteristics from hot to cold. Modern Anti Wear and other sophisticated additives will lead to "fill for life" abilities. Some modern Group 3 (semi-synthetic) lubricants already outperform many "old" Group 4 PAO synthetic lubricants at a much cheaper price! Group 6 lubricants will be released in the not too distant future as well So, to get this thread into perspective a subjective viewpoint that Amsoil is "the best" or "Number 1" is simply an incorrect one Just this simple question highlights this - Why and to What criteria was this subjective judgement applied? No Amsoil "blurb" please - just the facts from an International Body like the API, ACEA, DIN, ISO or JASO will do fine! Or even such a definitive judgement and supporting endorsed statement from a respected engine manufacturer like MB, Porsche, CAT, MTU, Toyota, Cummins or Detroit Diesel will do fine!!! Amsoil's lubricants are not "bad" either - they are just another Boutique product though. Specification for specification there are products that are at least as good and many possibly even better and these come from Castrol, Shell, Havoline, FUCHs, Repsol, Mobil and many others - and most are cheaper too!!! Used Oil Analysis by any Lab. is NOT a good or reliable way to compare lubricants! It is an excellent way to check the CONDITION of the lubricant at any point. Comparing the wear metal results of one lubricant against another is at best "interesting" - in reality a UOA means very very little if anything in that regard!! Anybody suggesting otherwise is clearly mislead and unpracticed in the wonders of Tribology Oh, who was first with a synthetic engine lubricant? - well, it was NOT Amsoil. The Germans and other companies had been there and done that in the 1930s and well prior to 1945! Regards Doug Hillary

Hi, saaber - Typically with gear oils you need the following information; Viscosity Phosphorus TAN Iron Copper Chromium Aluminium Lead Silicon Sodium Water PQ Index A lot depends on the actual metallurgy used in the component in seeking these Tell the Lab what vehicle, MY and gearbox type/model Universal averages are quite meaningless in this case although they will probably provide some data I am quite happy to help Regards Doug

Hi, saaber - Firstly perhaps the initial fill was an Esso product Mobil are emphatic about specifying their "PTX" lubricant or going to a Dealer and Castrol (Germany) recommend their excellent SAF-XO (at 160k kms OCI) In any case they all concur on a 75w-90 synthetic (GL5) but not all gear oils are made the same and the above two are recommended with good purpose and no doubt to improve shift quality and longevity Many Manufacturers do have special gear oil "brews" and in many cases these are only available via the Approved Dealers Gear oils are indeed quite different to analyse via a UOA. If you puplish the results on here I'll walk you through the details Regards Doug

Hi, Charles - A lubricant's anti wear package is not built on as you put it "Zn and P" alone Delvac 1 has had a around about 24% on complex esters in it's content for many years. Its Anti Wear package is second to none. I have used Delvac 1 in all of its formulations for over a decade or so, in a variety of engine families (petrol and diesel) and over many millions of kms! I have been through the "tear down inspect" process with an engine's manufacturer (MTU-Detroit Diesel) at 1.1m kms - I believe I know a little about all of the Delvac 1 5w-40 variants As I have pointed out to you before, Delvac 1 is fully imported into this country from the US - we use exactly the same current US formulation and always have since the aerly 1990s! Our most popular heavy diesel engines are ex the US! Many CJ-4 manufacture's lubricants are already out performing the previous CI-4 versions My comments stand Regards Doug

Hi, saaber - When an oil change is done the new lubricant will go through a cleaning and replating phase. This is longer if the new lubricant is a different formulation (Brand/Type) to the replaced lubricant. This affect can last for a very long time indeed in certain circumstances. It will provide anomalies in UOA results in the process - especially in regards the various additives used As well the new virgin lubricant will have a metal content of its own - more or less So the wear metal uptake is not linear - as well, contaminated oil tends to reduce the uptake rates in some cases. So interim UOAs are best at determining the condition of the lubricant (viscosity, water content, TBN/TAN etc) and just add to the engine's wear metal trending pattern. Unwelcome "spikes" caused by say a fractured air intake will (usually) show a companion spike in more than one wear metal in any UOA, and this can tell a story! So regular UOAs will form the trend, the OC UOA will be the most meaningful one in most cases as accumulation is complete To answer your points in the same order; 1 - Perhaps, but see above. Increased wear metals in the new oil may be a carryover from the old oil (oil coolers etc) or part of the cleaning/replating phase 2 - It is hard to say what level of "scavaging" may present. This is a factor of each lubricant's formulation and the additive package used in each The tracking of UOAs is a long process. The UO sample intervals need to be similar and these will form the basis for determining the OCI Endeavouring to rate oils by wear metal increases/decreases and by margins of just a few ppm in random UOAs is simply impossible! Perhaps you now better understand my comment on BITOG about changing from M1 0w-40 I hope this is of interest Regards Doug