Oil Comparison Tests

[ZeeOSix]

And a video:

Is that test for oil certification/approval ... or more for testing the design of the sump/oil pick-up and oiling system under extreme cornering G-force conditions? The video description doesn't say much.

 

[OVERKILL]

Is that test for oil certification/approval ... or more for testing the design of the sump/oil pick-up and oiling system under extreme cornering G-force conditions? The video description doesn't say much.

Well, the test protocol stipulates simulated lapping and my understanding is that it is the same rig used, though I believe the engine used is different. They also of course use the same setup to evaluate oil sump performance.

 

[OilUzer]

The test could include lubrication interruption test (LIT) which is funded by government for rollover accidents to see if the engines survive.

 

[jurko]

To get the blessing and be allowed to print on the bottle certain XYZ approval is a typical example of pay-for-play where money is exchanged for privilege to get in the game and engage in approved activity (sales) if you meet certain minimum stated requirements of oil composition.
No different than any other pay-to-play scheme like ISO. This type of game always favors the big boys.

 

[kschachn]

One needs to be careful that their prejudices don’t cloud their perception of reality. The Project Farm “tests” are still useless.

 

[KneeGrinder]

Is that test for oil certification/approval ... or more for testing the design of the sump/oil pick-up and oiling system under extreme cornering G-force conditions? The video description doesn't say much.

Pre 1998, Air to "oil cooled" is the proper term. Why? because they have oil coolers. 1998 and later are water cooled and have radiators.

Pre 1998 oil cooled 3.6L and I'm not familiar with the smaller engines but I would believe the same oil system has been the same, well I do recall the 2.7L having the remote reservoir so I would figure maybe all the 6 cyl engines have the same Scavenge system with a remote oil reservoir system to control oil in the crank case due to G force.

The crank case has a drain plug but 2/3 quarts is all that should drain out of the oil cooled motors due to the scavenge system, there is a remote oil reservoir on the passenger side, I can't remember but I think its just in front of the rear tire and it should drop either 8-9/ or 11 quarts of oil. To change the oil on the oil cooled motors you must drain both crank case and reservoir, fill res, start, warm up, check oil while engine running. It will need to be topped off with couple more quarts.

I have no idea if they changed the water cooled motors, but would take a guess and say they still have a scavenge system with a remote reservoir tank because it works. I have not looked at or under a water cooled Porsche but I would find it Very hard to believe it has an actual oil pan like "Normal" engines. There is not much that is normal about Porsche's.

 

[KneeGrinder]

These are all 2000's and newer, I think I want a Turbo S after writing and finding this data. I'm not sure if I'm Mature enough to own it. The wife would be pissed to bail me out of Jail.

Model Power output (in metric), Engine 0–100 km/h (62 mph) acceleration (seconds) Top Speed
911 Carrera 235 kW (320 PS) at 6,800 rpm, 3.6L integrated dry-sump 4.9 286 km/h (178 mph)
911 Carrera 4S 235 kW (320 PS) at 6,800 rpm, 3.6L integrated dry-sump 5.0 280 km/h (174 mph)
911 "40 Jahre" 254 kW (345 PS) at 6,800 rpm, 3.6L integrated dry-sump 4.8 290 km/h (180 mph)
911 Targa 235 kW (320 PS) at 6,800 rpm, 3.6L integrated dry-sump 5.2 280 km/h (174 mph)
911 Turbo 309 kW (420 PS) at 6,000 rpm, 3.6L dry-sump 4.2 310 km/h (190 mph)
911 Turbo X50 331 kW (450 PS) at 6,000 rpm, 3.6L dry-sump 4.0 309 km/h (192 mph)
911 Turbo S 331 kW (450 PS) at 6,000 rpm, 3.6L dry-sump 3.9 317 km/h (197 mph)
911 GT3 265 kW (360 PS) at 7,400 rpm, 3.6L dry-sump 4.5 310 km/h (190 mph)
911 GT3 RS 280 kW (381 PS) at 7,400 rpm, 3.6L dry-sump 4.4 310 km/h (190 mph)
911 GT2 356 kW (484 PS) at 5,700 rpm, 3.6L dry-sump 3.6 314 km/h (195 mph)
911 Turbo Cabriolet 309 kW (420 PS) at 6,000 rpm, 3.6L dry-sump 4.4 301 km/h (187 mph)
911 Turbo X50 Cabriolet 331 kW (450 PS) at 6,000 rpm, 3.6L dry-sump 4.2 304 km/h (189 mph)
911 Turbo S Cabriolet 331 kW (450 PS) at 6,000 rpm, 3.6L dry-sump 4.1 310 km/h (190 mph)
911 Carrera Cabriolet 235 kW (320 PS) at 6,800 rpm, 3.6L integrated dry-sump 4.9 283 km/h (176 mph)
911 Carrera 4 Cabriolet 235 kW (320 PS) at 6,800 rpm, 3.6L integrated dry-sump 5.2 282 km/h (175 mph)
911 Carrera 4S Cabriolet 235 kW (320 PS) at 6,800 rpm, 3.6L integrated dry-sump 5.4 277 km/h (172 mph)

 

[RamFan]

You are quite welcome. I believe that's just a small segment of what the Nurburgring section of the test looks like, it's VERY intense. That's why I always harp on the OEM testing protocols being one of the best barometers, if it passes A40 you know it is no slouch.

Totally agree, if we know what is being tested. I wish more manufacturers would disclose what it is their certs test against.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

To get the blessing and be allowed to print on the bottle certain XYZ approval is a typical example of pay-for-play where money is exchanged for privilege to get in the game and engage in approved activity (sales) if you meet certain minimum stated requirements of oil composition.
No different than any other pay-to-play scheme like ISO. This type of game always favors the big boys.

This is nothing like ISO. There's no pay-to-play. Any oil company can label their product with "recommended for XYZ" and it doesn't cost them a penny. A glaring example of this is MaxLife MV ATF. If an automaker wants to sell a product which indicates it was approved under a certain specification then they pay the $5k or whatever the nominal fee is and be done with it. Automakers have a vested interest in making the correct oil easy to identify by the consumer.

 

[MCompact]

This is nothing like ISO. There's no pay-to-play. Any oil company can label their product with "recommended for XYZ" and it doesn't cost them a penny. A glaring example of this is MaxLife MV ATF. If an automaker wants to sell a product which indicates it was approved under a certain specification then they pay the $5k or whatever the nominal fee is and be done with it. Automakers have a vested interest in making the correct oil easy to identify by the consumer.

Quit confusing people with facts.