JFP in PA

The Pentosin CHF 202 container states that it is fully compatible with the CHF 11S, but is not compatible with the older CHF 7.........

And so do the IMS issues; I personally know of two.....................

P1691 is usually either a short or lack of continuity between the DME and the instrument cluster, or a lack of ground at the cluster. While it could be the cluster itself, it rarely is, more often it is a wiring issue…………

We have. Basically, if you have an M96 of any vintage, there is some element of risk of the IMS failure. Porsche made multiple attempts at rectifying the problem, but only solved it with the introduction of the 9A1 replacement for the M96, which does not have the intermediate shaft....................

You probably tripped the system pulling the seat. Did you leave the key in or listen to the radio while working on the car? Either can trip the airbag MIL. Unfortunately, unless you own the Durametric software, you will have to take it to a dealer to get the MIL cleared..................

Wouldn't an OBD II scanner pick out which one it is?

Or won't admit to it....................... B)

We use 10W-40 as the "standard" offering at my shop now for several years; only difference is that we do not use any Mobil 1 products......

That's just it....no one seems to provide a clear answer only opinions. What does the owners manual recommend? There are several major disconnects on this issue: 1. Porsche produces an almost mystical “approved” oils list, but regularly changes it, without any explanation of why a particular oil was added or dropped. 2. Some oil compounders (mostly smaller ones) employ totally deceptive marketing practices to imply that they have specific oil ratings when the actually do not (a fact that can be independently verified). 3. Major oil producers reformulate their products constantly, often to the extent that they totally lose some ratings that a particular grade used to hold, and yet they say nothing. Some of these companies fortunately are honest enough to change the packaging to indicate that a specific rating is no longer held, but you have to search for it to find out. 4. Owner’s manuals are time capsules. The products and grades recommended in 2001 or 2005 may no longer exist, or meet the same ratings they did when the manual was printed. This basically renders the manuals useless……….. This leaves you, the consumer, in the unfortunate position of having to become more informed and staying up to date on the latest changes in the available products, and while there are a lot of resources available, it is something not everyone is interested in doing. There is also the option of doing your own testing, which is both time and $ consuming, but very informative. So, here we sit, “caveat emptor”, unless we are willing to do our own homework, or trust the data collected by others………….

This is a no-brainer; if one has failed, others may follow (this spring did not fail without reason). If you replace one, that valve will probably have better spring pressure than the others will. You already have it apart; do you want to be doing this again in two months? I would do all new springs, retainers and retainer locks. I would also be sure to check installed heights as well as open and seat pressures for both the original and the replacements. Would also be a good time to check for guide wear, new seals and a freshened up valve job.............. Do it right and you’ll only do it once……..

As I mentioned earlier, I have no direct experience with Amsoil products. I'm sure they produce a reasonable quality oil that will do fine in many applications. I just am circumspect about their oils because of their strange statements that "recommend" their oils for applications that require ACEA. If you have ACEA, why not just say it? And if they don't have it, they are not unlike other small oil compounders that use "legalese" to try to get around the fact...............

Beside the number times it has been posted on various sites, like BITOG; if you do a search for the current ACEA oil sequences, you can find a large PDF file that lists their requirements for complying.............I should warn you that, as is the case with most European community legal documents, it is a bit of a ponderous read, and references several agreements and protocols, which you will also need to read to get the full picture….. Excerpts from the most recent sequences: “ACEA requires that any claims for Oil performance to meet these sequences must be based on credible data and controlled tests in accredited test laboratories. ACEA requires that engine performance testing used to support a claim of compliance with these ACEA sequences should be generated according to the European Engine Lubricants Quality Management System (EELQMS), but ACEA reserves the right to define alternatives in exceptional cases. EELQMS which is described in the ATIEL Code of Practice1, addresses product development testing and product performance documentation, and involves the registration of all candidate and reference oil testing and defines the compliance process. Compliance with the ATIEL Code of Practice is mandatory for any claim to meet the requirements of the 2008 issue of the ACEA sequences. Therefore, ACEA requires that claims against the ACEA oil sequences can only be made by oil companies or oil distributors who have signed the EELQMS oil marketers’ Letter of Conformance.” . In addition, when a marketing type from RP started claiming that they had ACEA ratings because RP used “ACEA approved ingredients” on a Landrover website, someone from ACEA actually replied with the ACEA sequences requirements, noting that “ACEA only rates finished products, not ingredients” and that “any change in a rated formulation requires resubmission for independent testing in order to regain compliance.” I think you are beginning to see why ACEA is a bit more credible than the API standards…………..

I really don't know much about Amsoil as their multi tiered marketing and distribution system turns off most shops; we prefer dealing with local or regional distributors that stock a lot of products (and brands) and offer reasonable discounts for commercial operations that buy in volume. That said, I would be circumspect about their claims as their site says their products “surpass the most demanding European specifications. It is recommended for European and North American gasoline or diesel vehicles requiring any of the following worldwide specifications”: • API SM/CF • ACEA C3 • ACEA A3/B3 • ACEA A3/B4 • BMW LL-04 • Mercedes Benz 229.31, 229.51 • Porsche • Saab • Volvo • Volkswagen 502.00, 505.00, 505.01 • DaimlerChrysler MS-10725 This looks like more “our marketing department recommends” verbiage to me as they do not actually state they are ACEA rated (meaning they have paid to have their oils tested in an independent lab under ACEA regimen, and agreed to “freeze” the formulation once it has successfully passed. ACEA only rates finished products, not ingredients, and any change, no matter how slight, requires re-testing to obtain their rating). They also list Porsche and other OEM’s, which would make their product a big seller if it were true, but I have never seen their products listed on the OEM’s “recommended oils” lists for any of the brands they mentioned. As for ACEA, I’d shoot an email to the manufacturer (not one of their hoard of “distributors”) and ask them to tell you when (date) they received ACEA, and for what products, and under which “oil sequence” (ACEA term for their test specs). You can also contact ACEA and ask them if Amsoil participates in their program, and what ratings they have obtained. Be prepared to wait for a response from ACEA, they tend to take their time answering. I’d be willing to bet all the responses you receive will be negative…………..

Used oil analysis..................

would you mind sharing some analysis results? ;) Anything specific you would like to know (e.g.: TBN, ability to stay in grade, etc.)? Maybe ZDDP, Moly, Calc levels, TBN, and grade stability? :D OK, here we go with a couple of caveats: Our database has a lot more Syntec 10W-40 data than 5W-40 as the 10W product is used by most of our clients. That said, we do have a fair number of 5W analysis. The data was screened to limit the analysis to cars that see mainly street driving, and were not suffering issues (high fuel dilution, coolant infiltration, etc.). Oil analysis was all done in a local lab that handles both oil and fuel analysis. Virgin oil comparison – Other than the obvious viscosity differences, for the most part the 5W-40 and 10W-40 looked similar with a couple of exceptions: The TBN value was notably higher in the 5W product (~12.5 vs. 10.8), as was the calcium levels (1585 PPM vs. 1205). Moly levels were similar between both grades, with the 10W product being a bit higher (38 PPM), as were its phosphorus levels (943 PPM), which would be expected as Castrol promotes the 10W product as their premium full synthetic for “higher mileage” vehicles. 3,000 mile interval – Small but subtly different changes between the two grades, slightly higher drop off in TBN values for the 5W (both grades had the similar TBN values even though the 5W started higher, indicating higher degradation in the additive package), along with a drop in 100C viscosity for the 5W. Both products are staying “in grade”, but changes are larger for the 5W product. 6,000 mile interval – Differences between the grades are more noticeable. The 5W product TBN has lost over 60% of its starting value (it is beyond the point at which it should be changed), and the 100C viscosity drop in much higher in the 5W product. The 5W product is on its way out of “grade”. The 10W product still maintains a reasonably high TBN, better high temp viscosity; and remains “in grade”. 7,500 mile interval – The 5w product is well out of grade, TBN values are very low, as is the high temp viscosity. The 10W product has also suffered a bit, but is still “in grade, with a TBN value of 4.8. 100C viscosity is showing signs of dropping, but nowhere near that of the 5W product. A couple of observations: Obviously, the Syntec 10W-40 appears to be a better choice than the 5W-40. While not intended to do so, this comparison also seems to add credence to the old adage about not depending upon a multi-weight oil with more than a thirty point viscosity spread…………. very good analysis! i assume the wear rates should be similar in the same engine using either syntec 5w-40 or 10w-40. however porsche only recommends 0w-xx, 5w-xx grades. don you know of any particular reasons not to use 10w-xx? how about syntec 5w-50 which seems to be widely available as well and more stable than 5w-40? Porsche (like many OEM’s) “recommend” oils based upon multiple parameters including things like gas mileage and the life of the catalytic converters. While one would like to believe that engine wear and life are taken into account as well, it is impossible to determine what weighting they were given in the OEM determination of what to recommend, which is why we do not place a lot of faith in what Porsche “recommends”. Add into the mix the fact that oils constantly come and go from their preferred list, and you are left scratching your head. We base our oil selection on collected data and performance history. From what we have seen, the M96 does well on Syntec 10W-40 in terms of engine wear and longevity. Gas mileage and cat life can fall where it may, but the engines have to survive. My shop is in a cold winter climate area (currently about 20F), and we see triple digit heat in the summer; and we have a lot of cars running 10W-40 year round without issues, mine included. At the end of the day, the greater the spread between the oils rated weights places a greater load on the additive packages in synthetic oils. While the base stocks are important, wide viscosity spreads typically are totally dependent upon the additives, and the additive packages are susceptible to break down from a variety of sources. This is why you see postings about wide viscosity (e.g.: 5W-50) spread oils not living very long lives or standing up well under high loads.

RP does not have any ACEA ratings, one of their marketing people admitted as much on another website, saying that they have never submitted the product for testing as "ACEA applications are too small a market for us..." Yet they continue to imply they do............ And, by-the-by, in response to RP’s marketing hype, ACEA has stated “there are no ACEA warranty requirements”. UoA's for the grades of RP we have seen did not fare well; the products tend to shear down quickly, show high levels of TBN fall off and go out of grade in as little as 2,000 street miles. Not what I would be looking for in a premium priced synthetic....

would you mind sharing some analysis results? ;) Anything specific you would like to know (e.g.: TBN, ability to stay in grade, etc.)? Maybe ZDDP, Moly, Calc levels, TBN, and grade stability? :D OK, here we go with a couple of caveats: Our database has a lot more Syntec 10W-40 data than 5W-40 as the 10W product is used by most of our clients. That said, we do have a fair number of 5W analysis. The data was screened to limit the analysis to cars that see mainly street driving, and were not suffering issues (high fuel dilution, coolant infiltration, etc.). Oil analysis was all done in a local lab that handles both oil and fuel analysis. Virgin oil comparison – Other than the obvious viscosity differences, for the most part the 5W-40 and 10W-40 looked similar with a couple of exceptions: The TBN value was notably higher in the 5W product (~12.5 vs. 10.8), as was the calcium levels (1585 PPM vs. 1205). Moly levels were similar between both grades, with the 10W product being a bit higher (38 PPM), as were its phosphorus levels (943 PPM), which would be expected as Castrol promotes the 10W product as their premium full synthetic for “higher mileage” vehicles. 3,000 mile interval – Small but subtly different changes between the two grades, slightly higher drop off in TBN values for the 5W (both grades had the similar TBN values even though the 5W started higher, indicating higher degradation in the additive package), along with a drop in 100C viscosity for the 5W. Both products are staying “in grade”, but changes are larger for the 5W product. 6,000 mile interval – Differences between the grades are more noticeable. The 5W product TBN has lost over 60% of its starting value (it is beyond the point at which it should be changed), and the 100C viscosity drop in much higher in the 5W product. The 5W product is on its way out of “grade”. The 10W product still maintains a reasonably high TBN, better high temp viscosity; and remains “in grade”. 7,500 mile interval – The 5w product is well out of grade, TBN values are very low, as is the high temp viscosity. The 10W product has also suffered a bit, but is still “in grade, with a TBN value of 4.8. 100C viscosity is showing signs of dropping, but nowhere near that of the 5W product. A couple of observations: Obviously, the Syntec 10W-40 appears to be a better choice than the 5W-40. While not intended to do so, this comparison also seems to add credence to the old adage about not depending upon a multi-weight oil with more than a thirty point viscosity spread………….

would you mind sharing some analysis results? ;) Anything specific you would like to know (e.g.: TBN, ability to stay in grade, etc.)? Maybe ZDDP, Moly, Calc levels, TBN, and grade stability? :D OK, give me the evening to pull together some comparable data from our files and I try to supply a detailed synopsis in the AM...................

would you mind sharing some analysis results? ;) Anything specific you would like to know (e.g.: TBN, ability to stay in grade, etc.)?

Castrol Syntec 5W-40 is pretty good, but not as good as their 10W-40 from what we have seen.

We have been using (and constantly testing) Castrol Syntec 10W-40; it seems to hold up well, so you might want to give it some consideration...............

As we do not see much Motul oil, I really do not know what ACEA ratings it does or does not hold; my reference to deceptive marketing was directed at another brand............

Someone recently posted that their shop stopped using M1 when the formula was changed recently. To me, M1 feels like dishwater. I use Redline, but that's a touchy subject with at least one person around here; so I'll leave it at that. It was not recent, Mobil 1 started reformulating their products just after they were acquired by Exxon in 1989; shortly after they lost a legal action over the exclusive rights to use the term “full synthetic”. Products that were believed to be true Group IV (PAO base stocks) were reformulated downwards, becoming Group III+, and eventually Group III oils. Along the way, some grades lost all ACEA ratings, most notably the 15W-50 grade that once was the mainstay of the air-cooled 911 crowd. The products that retained their ACEA ratings, like the 0W-40, also showed a marked decline in several critical performance criteria such as film strength, ability to stay in grade, TBN values, etc.; demonstrating that they were no longer the products they once were. As for other small compounder brands, we don’t like or dislike them; we simply refuse to use products that employ deceptive marketing tactics to imply they have ratings credentials that they actually do not have…………….And I am not “alone” in that opinion……………..

Which is exactly why we put a dab of antiseize on the treads, along with a new washer, before we put them back in......

Good luck...................