Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JFP in PA
Oh really? We have been collecting UoA's on M96 (and other) engines for many years now, our database entries for the M96 number in the thousands. We have seen Mobil 1's vaunted 0W-40 show lower viscosities than straight 20W oil after only 2,000 miles in an M96, we have seen TBN values that were less than 20% of their virgin numbers in the same number of miles, and have seen more crap in the used oil than one might imagine (fuel dilution, coolant, high metals, etc.).
"Furthermore, boxer engines are typically very easy on oil by their design." You have got to be kidding me.............The M96 is one of the worst oil killers Porsche ever released (and I have been building, repairing and racing them for over 35 years), they run way too hot, have a myriad of minute oil passages that become easily plugged, the chain tensioners are very sensitive to oil’s film strength, they have a lifter and galley design that is forever causing lifter issues, they tend to run bearings dry in hard corners, etc., etc.
We where happy when we could find an full synthetic that could last for over 5,000 miles in one………..on the street.
|
...
Hey JFP,
Like I asked - can you point me to the UOAs or a spreadsheet of them? I'm not trying to be facetious here, nor am I trying to represent myself as an expert on the m96. I don't have access to a bunch of m96 UOAs either (short of lots of google searching).
My short google search led me to other postings of yours with similar statements. Frankly, my exchanges with lubrication engineers (specifically, automotive oils for street use) have led me to argee with you that several Mobil oils are terrible....but their 0w40 and 15w50 synthetic blends are top notch. Their 0w40 DOES shear down to a 0w30, but from what I can tell it was always intended to be a 0w30 and had VIIs added to bring it to 0w40 for european spec requirements, not to make it a better lubricant.
My understanding is that the m96 is, short of the early design problems and the IMS, a very well built and designed engine with very few problem areas within the lubricated & reciprocating masses. So your statements about oil passages clogging, chain tensioners, and dry bearings catch me somewhat by surprise. Are those common failure points in these engines? If so, ok, good to know.
Also, my statements regarding boxers being easy on oil was, as was stated and intended, a generalization. Boxer engines in general tend to REQUIRE less oil because of the shorter paths to return and the less time spent by oil getting heat and more time spent in cooler areas or in the general sump. That, combined with the very large sump in the m96, combined with my general understanding of the m96 being a very bulletproof engine and not having alot of lubricated-part failures...well, you can see my inferences.
I would truly love to dig through those UOAs if you can point me in the direction. Also, I'll reconsider what oil I choose to put in my boxster if your data indicates such consideration is warranted.