Hi,
AJ - Thank you for commencing this Thread and your call for me to contribute!
Firstly I am not an employee of Porsche AG or Exxon Mobil - and never have been!
I have been involved with EM (and Castrol) in lubricant development and have owned Porsche cars for many many years. As a result of my background I have International and Local contacts within these organisations that go back some decades. I have been a regular visitor to Germany within the Auto Industry for many decades having been a Senior employee of Daimler-Benz AG
All I can add is a number of salient points - most of which I have covered in the past on BITOG
1 - M1 0W-40 is a universal lubricant and it is marketed almost WW. It can and does come in various editions (marketing)! The OZ version is US derived! M1 0W-40 has an eviable reputation when used according to its specification and OEM Approvals
AJ - The current German version of M10W-40 is API SM/CF compliant
2 - The M96 2.5 engine was the first volume produced water cooled boxer engine made by Porsche. It had some spasmodic problems in use. Many of these were blown out of proportion (one was simply a leaking RMS) when related to sales and in fact evidence suggests it was as reliable as many of the earlier air cooled boxer engines. One major spasmodic issue was significant and it involved the Intermediate Shaft that operates the camshafts. This was a design problem. The MY2000 M96 2.7 was/is a very good engine - its larger displacement cousins (3.4 Boxster S and 3.4 "911s" until 2001) did suffer some casting issues. Most were Warranty jobs as were the problems in past engines. My own M96 2.7 engine had a RMS replacement under Warranty!
3 - The pictures in here of the Boxster M96 2.5 engine (its last production year was 1999) would most certainly draw more interest from a damage and consequential damage viewpoint than from simply a lubricant perspective. In fact with careful analysis as others have pointed out here, this Thread may never have gotten off the ground!
Boxster engines can be very quickly overheated as well due to a number of things! Many have been run with low oil levels too!
Many of these engines are now in excess of 13 years old, many have been abused and no doubt have suffered variable service routines. A lot have had a trouble free life to date
At least 90% of M96 engines have been "trouble free" - a similar level with many other OEMs
4 - During the early 2000s Porsche NA carried out a UA programme which embraced major works undertaken on any M96 engine. No changes were made to any Approved lubricant in their List as a result. M1 0W-40 has been a FF at Porsche since around 1996-7 (firstly they used a Shell synthetic 10W-30 and finally settled on a 5W-40) so it has a very long history with Zuffenhausen and Leipzig - and at the Nurburgring!
5 - The Porsche OCIs were reduced with the introduction of the DI engine families - and to standardise servicing whilst supporting the Dealer network. I mentioned this here after my visit to Zuffenhausen and the Nurburgring well over a year ago
6 - I can say with certainty that no engine failures caused from using an Approved lubricant were recalled amongst very senior Porsche technical people. The same can be said in general terms
7 - Another Thread mentioned cam failures in Porsche engines when using M1 0W-40. My own research at the highest levels do not in any way confirm this whatsoever!
8 - Engine lubricant quality as FF is monitored by VOAs at the Factory "gate" by Daimler AG and Porsche AG - typically as a component of QA. And for sound economic reasons
9 - It is very common for Porsche Owners to use M1 0W-40 as a matter of choice - in both road and race use. I have tested this situation in Germany and at the Nurburgring (2009 and 2010). This lubricant is used by many Porsche race teams who have freedom of choice!
10 - As alluded to by others, some people who endeavour to establish a reputation as an "expert" in their field do not always deliver the goods. For instance, any individual or organisation that endeavours to rate an engine lubricant (or Brand) by "end on end" UOAs (including a fresh oil flush) will always produce corrupted and unsound data. This goes along with recommending non Approved lubricants such as Brad Penn and SWEPCO at all stages over those Approved and durability tested by the engine manufacturer
There are other issues with the linked data too!
11 - Recently at Nurburg I spoke with a Senior Development Engineer from an "exclusive" car and engine manufacturer. They have a Development facility at Nurburg. He is most enthusiastic about the level of Engineering expertise coming from EM. Their cars racing in the 24hr event all used M1 0W-40 based on performance. All cars finished of course without incident!
12 - I have learnt over the last 54 years that engine manufacturers DO know the best lubricant specification to be used! This applies to both petrol and diesel engines in all configurations. My exposure range includes English, Japanese, German, Swedish, French, Italian and American engine Manufacturers. It covers the original API categories and the original Approvals from CAT, MB and etc
13 - I have also learnt that many Service managers, Fleet managers and a significant number of mechanics and lubricant retailers (and some wholesalers) do not know very much about lubricants and lubrication! This leads to many poor engine management practices!!!
14 - Using an Approved Dealership is the first stage of successful Porsche ownership - especially when the vehicle is new. This ensures that all modifications (if any) are carried out (usually seamlessly) so that when the Warranty expires the car is in good shape. Enthusiast's non Approved service points may do a great job for many - and they may also do a very poor job! I have seen and used the best and the worst at play!!!
Personally I feel BITOG is a lessor place to be because of the amount of "Trolling" and mis-information that has become quite commonplace
Many "instant experts" appear here now and their sometimes destructive and inaccurate comments go by without challenge. IMO this does BITOG no favours and severely dilutes the original founders and present Owners objectives and intentions
There are very few if any "bad" lubricants around and when compared specification to specification the various Brands perform at very close proximity. The same can be said about the mineral V synthetic debate - as a very experienced retired Daimler AG said to me at Unterturkheim last year "...many people spend a lot of money on exotic lubricants but all of our Approved lubricanst perform at very similar levels be they mineral or synthetic." These words echo my own experiences over the years
That said I have used synthetic lubricants for about 56 years and still do - cost effectively though!!!
I trust that by Posting this information I am not seen as an "expert" - I'm not!
