Looking for a better oil?

[Ignited]

Has anyone noticed that Motul lubricants carry the Porsche-approved designation? I have used both Motul 0-40 and Amsoil 20-50 in my Nissan turbo car for years and just noticed the Motul actually carries the ACEA approval. For those of us who love throwing gobs of money at our cars here is yet another way to do that. I have been looking for something other than Mobil 1 and found it by accident in my own garage!

Tim in Ft Worth

Edited January 21, 2010 by Ignited

[bigbuzuki]

What's wrong with the recommended Porsche factory fill lubricant Mobil 1?

Edited January 21, 2010 by bigbuzuki

[DUTCH VanAtlanta]

What's wrong with the recommended Porsche factory fill lubricant Mobil 1?

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.

[JFP in PA]

What's wrong with the recommended Porsche factory fill lubricant Mobil 1?

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……………..

Edited January 21, 2010 by JFP in PA

[phillipj]

Here is an interesting take on the whole Mobil 1 controversy. Found this on another board. This is a gentleman who writes about lubricants.....

ExxonMobil sponsor this site, and I have to believe that more than a few of their managers/executives read it as well. We are, after all, a good representation of their target market for high performance synthetic oils, and our opinions reach far beyond this site as we talk to our friends and neighbors. It would be nice if they could step in here with some specific comments or explanations for our observations on their oil's performance - not the party line marketing fluff about being number one and trusted by top OEMs, but a head-on addressing of our wear concerns.

Hundreds of UOAs posted here show a trend of higher iron content, and several of their top competitors have publicly accused them of having higher wear rates than other similar products. As a long time M-1 user, this is enough to raise my eyebrows and seek an explanation, which I am not getting from them or the endless speculation and theories tossed around here. I think it would be to their benefit to talk to their customers, rather than continue to allow us to possibly misinterpret their silence.

As a former oil marketing executive I understand the safety of silence, but I also understand the importance of communicating with customers in an open and honest manner when it comes to real and relevant concerns. For the first time in 10 years I am beginning to lose faith in M1 and seriously considering changing brands. I really don't want to change, but I prefer to do business with companies who value their customer's opinions and concerns. Unfortunately, modern management teachings attempt to reduce business to a series of mathmetical formulations rather than good old fashioned customer relationships. Size is no excuse for being out of touch with the people who buy your product.

Tom NJ

[Ignited]

thanks for the correction to ACEA, JFP. I mis-identified the rating in my original post. I'll correct it for future reference.

Tim

[JFP in PA]

thanks for the correction to ACEA, JFP. I mis-identified the rating in my original post. I'll correct it for future reference.

Tim

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............

[TopGun2000]

According the UOA from BlackStone, the M1 0w-40 used in my 04 CTT for about 3000 miles basically sheared into 30 weight at 100C, TBN from 12 to 6 under normal driving condition. So this makes me wonder about the alternative to M1 0w-40.

I almost settled on RedLine 5w-40 until I found out that people have been complaining about their recent formula change of removing all the molybdenum from this grade...

[JFP in PA]

According the UOA from BlackStone, the M1 0w-40 used in my 04 CTT for about 3000 miles basically sheared into 30 weight at 100C, TBN from 12 to 6 under normal driving condition. So this makes me wonder about the alternative to M1 0w-40.

I almost settled on RedLine 5w-40 until I found out that people have been complaining about their recent formula change of removing all the molybdenum from this grade...

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...............

[TopGun2000]

According the UOA from BlackStone, the M1 0w-40 used in my 04 CTT for about 3000 miles basically sheared into 30 weight at 100C, TBN from 12 to 6 under normal driving condition. So this makes me wonder about the alternative to M1 0w-40.

I almost settled on RedLine 5w-40 until I found out that people have been complaining about their recent formula change of removing all the molybdenum from this grade...

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...............

thanks for the recommendation. what do you think about Castrol Syntec 5W-40 which is on Porsche Approved Oil list?

[70Sixter]

thanks for the recommendation. what do you think about Castrol Syntec 5W-40 which is on Porsche Approved Oil list?

I'm thinking the same thing and just hit Castrol USA's website for ratings. Also awaiting an eval of the 10W-40 from another source.

Meanwhile save $20 at this site! http://www.castrol.com/castrol/sectiongene...ntentId=7058683

[70Sixter]

Has anyone noticed that Motul lubricants carry the Porsche-approved designation? I have used both Motul 0-40 and Amsoil 20-50 in my Nissan turbo car for years and just noticed the Motul actually carries the ACEA approval. For those of us who love throwing gobs of money at our cars here is yet another way to do that. I have been looking for something other than Mobil 1 and found it by accident in my own garage!

Motul 8100X-CESS and X-Clean are P-approved, but are only API SL and SM respectively. SL is bare minimum IMO. Motul X-Max is not on the P-list.

I have been using very expensive unapproved, but terrific Motul 300V, but will probably go to Castrol Syntec this year. From their website:

SAE 5W–40:

is engineered specifically to meet the Volkswagen engine warranty requirements, exceeding VW 502 00 and 505 00. Exceeds all car and light truck manufacturer’s warranty requirements for the protection for gasoline, diesel and turbocharged engines where API SL, SJ, SH, CF or CD is recommended. Exceeds European ACEA: A3, B3, B4, MB 229.3, MB 229.1, BMW LL-98, Porsche A40. Meets the engine protection requirements of Volvo, BMW, Mercedes Benz and ILSAC GF-3 for API Certified Gasoline Engine Oils.

[JFP in PA]

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

Edited January 21, 2010 by JFP in PA

[Ignited]

Has anyone noticed that Motul lubricants carry the Porsche-approved designation? I have used both Motul 0-40 and Amsoil 20-50 in my Nissan turbo car for years and just noticed the Motul actually carries the ACEA approval. For those of us who love throwing gobs of money at our cars here is yet another way to do that. I have been looking for something other than Mobil 1 and found it by accident in my own garage!

Motul 8100X-CESS and X-Clean are P-approved, but are only API SL and SM respectively. SL is bare minimum IMO. Motul X-Max is not on the P-list.

I have been using very expensive unapproved, but terrific Motul 300V, but will probably go to Castrol Syntec this year. From their website:

SAE 5W–40:

is engineered specifically to meet the Volkswagen engine warranty requirements, exceeding VW 502 00 and 505 00. Exceeds all car and light truck manufacturer’s warranty requirements for the protection for gasoline, diesel and turbocharged engines where API SL, SJ, SH, CF or CD is recommended. Exceeds European ACEA: A3, B3, B4, MB 229.3, MB 229.1, BMW LL-98, Porsche A40. Meets the engine protection requirements of Volvo, BMW, Mercedes Benz and ILSAC GF-3 for API Certified Gasoline Engine Oils.

Mike, the Motul product I was talking about is the 8100 E-tech 0W40. I went out to the garage to grab a bottle. It says it's ACEA ratings are A3/B3/B4 and API is SJ/CF. THe Porsche approval is 229.3

I hope this clears up more of my original thought. So Motul may not be acceptable for all Porsches. Anyone know?

Tim

[TopGun2000]

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

would you mind sharing some analysis results? ;)

[JFP in PA]

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

would you mind sharing some analysis results? ;)

Anything specific you would like to know (e.g.: TBN, ability to stay in grade, etc.)?

[TopGun2000]

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

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

[JFP in PA]

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

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...................

[JFP in PA]

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

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………….

Edited January 22, 2010 by JFP in PA

[turbodoug]

Does anyone have any comments on Royal PurpleÉ It was recommended to me for my 996TT. Prior to using the Royal Purple, I was using Motul. Oil consumption was higher using the Motul and I subjectively thought I had more valve train noise. I have not performed any oil analysis and as such can make no comment on performance. Has anyone elseÉ

Check out this doc if you want to compare the specs.

http://www.royalpurple.com/prod-pdfs/motor-oil-ps.pdf.

Page two indicates that the 0W40 "meets or exceeds" ACEA A3/B3-04 warranty requirements and the 15w40 meets or exceeds ACEA A2-96 and A3-02 warranty requirements.

I grant that this does not mean that the oils have been tested and received approval by the European sanctioning body.

I`m still using Mobil 1 in my 09 CTTS. Back in my Datsun 510, 240, and 280z days, I swore by Mobil 1 and Slick50.

[JFP in PA]

Page two indicates that the 0W40 "meets or exceeds" ACEA A3/B3-04 warranty requirements and the 15w40 meets or exceeds ACEA A2-96 and A3-02 warranty requirements.

I grant that this does not mean that the oils have been tested and received approval by the European sanctioning body.

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....

Edited January 22, 2010 by JFP in PA

[phillipj]

Wow an oil thread with no swearing and no fights!!! :rolleyes:

Just intelligent discussion... And they said it couldn't be done.........

:cheers:

[Ignited]

Does anyone have any comments on Royal PurpleÉ It was recommended to me for my 996TT. Prior to using the Royal Purple, I was using Motul. Oil consumption was higher using the Motul and I subjectively thought I had more valve train noise. I have not performed any oil analysis and as such can make no comment on performance. Has anyone elseÉ

Check out this doc if you want to compare the specs.

http://www.royalpurple.com/prod-pdfs/motor-oil-ps.pdf.

Page two indicates that the 0W40 "meets or exceeds" ACEA A3/B3-04 warranty requirements and the 15w40 meets or exceeds ACEA A2-96 and A3-02 warranty requirements.

I grant that this does not mean that the oils have been tested and received approval by the European sanctioning body.

I`m still using Mobil 1 in my 09 CTTS. Back in my Datsun 510, 240, and 280z days, I swore by Mobil 1 and Slick50.

Good to see another Datsun/Porsche turbo guy on this board, Doug. I still have my old 280 but now it also has a turbo motor in it. I got addicted to the spool-up and bypass sounds, and of course the power! I don't think the discussion of oil viscosity here applies to turbo engines. I was told to use the 20-50 Amsoil in my Z and the 0-40 in my CTT. I would love to use the Amsoil in both cars but have not researched it for Porsche. Sorry, I know nothing about Royal Purple.

Tim in Ft Worth

[TopGun2000]

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

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?

Edited January 22, 2010 by TopGun2000

[JFP in PA]

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

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.

Edited January 22, 2010 by JFP in PA