JFP in PA

My space in the Cartesian coordinates of life if to try and fix these cars faster than my customers can break them, which has not been always easy. For anyone other than an oil company with a good research lab at their disposal, it would be prohibitively expensive to develop and maintain a continuous analysis of all the possible products and substitutes on the street. Early in my corporate career, I worked for what was then one of the major oil company's R&D center, and I can attest from experience how difficult in is to stay on top of such a cross reference, particularly when most compounders are altering their formulations fairly regularly, for both economic and technical reasons. This would be impossible for an individual or a shop to attempt to replicate on an ongoing basis. But what we can do is share what we have learned, often a some expense itself. As I said, you made an interesting shot at comparing the fluids, but I simply wanted to caution you and other readers to not accept limited technical data as gospel evidence that the products were an exact match, and thereby a guarantee nothing could go wrong. We have had customers that used all sorts of ATF, some with success, others not so much. I think some of the time, the products they have tried are "close enough" that nothing really bad happened. At the end of the day, any individual owner can choose to go any pathway they like, it is their car and their money. As a business owner, I have to pursue a more cautious route; if we do not have direct experience with a given product, we don't put it in customer's cars until we do (often, by testing it in our own vehicles first), and know it is at least as good, if not better than what we were using. My livelihood depends upon that level of certainty.

Good point..............

While I have no direct data to indicate that Porsche is using a proprietary ATF composition, it would not come as a surprise if they did. They have done exactly that in other current models, such as the Boxsters. In the Boxster, the five and six speed manual gear boxes have different spec gear oils from different manufacturers, mostly due to the use of different synchronizer alloys (speced by Porsche and the source of the old GL-4 vs. GL-5 argument). And while the factory lube for the five speeds is a pretty odd product, it works very well; and as many have discovered to their dismay, is not easily substituted with an aftermarket product. In fact, when we questioned Mobil directly about a suitable lube for the five speeds, their answer was that Porsche was using such an odd product that they had no suitable substitute, and actually suggested staying with the OEM lube. While Aisin builds transmissions for several manufacturer's, that does not necessarily mean that they are not all the same internally. Aisin also builds Nissan's non CVT automatics, and you will note that Nissan is not listed in the Mobil UK ATF document you sited. That is because Nissan uses a different spec ATF (believed to be a Pentosin product) because their engineers selected a different friction material for the organic clutch plates in their Aisin boxes. Porsche does not make their own lubricants, and their ATF could well be made by Mobil or someone similar; but that alone is not a guarantee that what they spec is exactly the same as another over the counter product from the same oil manufacturer .

Like your previous statement, this is also open to question. You have values for certain chemicals that are in both fluids, but have no idea in what form(s), and therefor have no real chemical composition. Much like the presumption often made about engine oil's zinc, calcium, and more importantly phosphorus content, it comes from multiple sources, not just ZDDP. So assuming that because two fluids have similar total phosphorus levels means they both have the same level of ZDDP is a major leap of faith, not science. To really know if they are similar, you are going to need a full chemical breakdown and balance, so you know the all the sources and distribution of the phosphorus, calcium, and zinc. Granted, you have made an interesting effort to try and compare two fluids, but you are still going on the basis of the 1/7th of the iceberg you can see, not the total picture, which can take you somewhere other than where you intended. You also have very limited physical data; flash point only tells you the ignition point of the lowest volatile in the mixture. Much more telling would be coefficient of friction by either SAE or ASTM standards. For decades, Ford and GM used ATF that had very similar basic physical and chemical properties (viscosity, flash point, various chemical concentrations, etc.), but the fluids were totally different in terms of their coefficient of friction, a key factor in how the organic and steel clutch plates wear. Put Ford's high CF fluid in a GM car, the car began to shift very hard, run hot, and the clutches burned up prematurely; put GM's low CF fluid in a Ford, the trans quickly began to show signs of slippage and began to leak. It does not take much.

For your sake, I certainly hope it continues that way, but you are running an expensive risk.

"Total supposition based upon some coincidental matching chemical compounds. To use laboratory analytical techniques to match lubricants, you would need match physical properties (e.g.: coefficient of friction, foam development, lubricity, heat transfer properties, etc.) as well as a full chemical match (mass spec, etc.). Just because two different products both contain boron does not mean they are even remotely the same thing. You would be risking a very expensive trans in the quest for saving a couple of bucks......" Using your hypothesis, and similar analytical techniques, 0W-20, and 15W-50 oils would be the same thing, and obviously they are not..............

Possible that the fluid level sensor is going south, it is replaceable, but be sure to drain the tank before taking it out.

Some people have had success lubricating the helper, but most end up just replacing it:

Normally, once the adaptor is installed and torqued, it really won't come loose when the filter is removed, unless someone goes "postal" when tightening on a new filter. Always remember to smear a dab of oil on the sealing gasket of a new filter before installing.

Possibly the battery, cables, or the starter itself. Both the battery and cables can be isolated by testing (load test the battery, do a voltage drop on the cables). The starter Bendix drive may also simply need to be cleaned and lubricated.

Depends more on the driver's style than the miles; we have seen clutches with 80K on them that looked nearly brand new, and others with 40K on them that were toast.

Which was probably an Asian knock off of a now dead old Durametric system that is no longer supported. Be careful with these things, some have caused DME problems which are not easily resolved............

According to Sach's website, the K70193-01 is correct for your car. Suggest you visit their site and see for yourself: http://www.zf.com/media/media/document/int_print_catalogs_documents/usa_4/ZF_ClutchKit_Application.pdf Thanks for the link, I went to the Sachs site but all I found was the German manufacture content. This is one to keep. So by reading the parts index, I see the same kit is being used for the 986 and 987 up to 2008, including the Cayman 2.7? So does that mean that all 986 5 speed kits sold by Sachs automatically get the 987 clutch and pressure plate, or does that mean all the 2004-08 987 kits get a 986 kit? So why does everyone say changing to a 987 disk and plate is an upgrade? What it means is that the same part fits both cars..........

According to Sach's website, the K70193-01 is correct for your car. Suggest you visit their site and see for yourself: http://www.zf.com/media/media/document/int_print_catalogs_documents/usa_4/ZF_ClutchKit_Application.pdf

I see the different part numbers. I have a spare axle and it appears to be identical to the opposite one. I would like to know if they are interchangeable. I would say no for a very simple reason: Porsche (and the aftermarket) would not carry two individual part numbers (marked left and right) if both sides were the same. Other Boxster models are the same on both sides, and there is only one part number.

2001 base with a manual trans have a left and a right axle listed.

If memory serves, the 987 six speed disc is different that that of the 986.

Year, transmission, and model? 2001 Boxster manual tranny. Thnx "S" or Base?

Year, transmission, and model?

And how exactly are you, the unsuspecting public, supposed to know how the product performs over time it there are no accepted industry benchmarks? As a shop owner, I am potentially on the hook if I put something in a customer's vehicle that leads to problems. More so than licenses, marketing agreements, etc., I need to know the product is both going to work and obey the first rule of the Hippocratic Oath; "First, do no harm." You may see that as a business context, but I see it as an everyday reality. There are several very reputable oil companies that make some excellent product lines and do not participate in ACEA and other similar organizations, but they also are very open about that fact and make no attempt to use marketing language to try and deceive you about what you are buying. Joe Gibbs is a perfect example. When companies openly attempt to mislead you about something, you have to wonder what and when will they do next. "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" is not a viable business model, and I cannot run my business that way; I have to know that my customers drive away with the best I can provide for them. So when we find questionable behavior, we simply stop doing business with them. We cannot afford that kind of behavior.

The quote you site refers to engine oils, and specifically oil viscosities and high ambient temperature application's, which is an entirely different can of worms. There was a time when the brand of oil and grade Porsche most favors could stand up to high heat/high shear conditions for a lot of miles, but as the direct result of multiple reformulations that took that product from a true Group IV product to one that barely makes Group III, and that same product today can fall out of grade specs in as little a 3K miles. Hence my statement. Both RP and Redline have made questionable statements concerning their products ratings, and specifically ACEA engine oil ratings. A RP marketing rep got called out on a Land Rover forum about that specific point when a poster listed the signatories to the ACEA Technical Concorde Agreement, which is a requirement to participate in the ACEA mandated outside independent laboratory testing of all products applying for ACEA ratings (if you do not join the Concord Agreement - read pay a substantial fee and agree to use the outside labs and testing protocols mandated by ACEA, at your cost), your products cannot be advertised as holding ACEA ratings. And as neither RP or Redline are signatories, they could not have participated in the ACEA testing, and therefor did not hold any ACEA ratings. Yet their websites implied they did. When questions about this point, the RP rep commented that ACEA ratings are "unimportant to the markets they primarily serve", so they have chosen not to participate in the ACEA testing program. A short time later, RP website was changed to state their engine oils "are formulated specifically to meet current American Petroleum Institute (API), International Lubricant Standardization and Approval Committee (ILSAC), and Association des Constructeurs Européens d’Automobiles (ACEA) specifications for new vehicle warranties", which is pretty much a meaningless statement. Redline changed theirs to state that their oils are "recommended for applications requiring ACEA rated products", without ever explaining who "recommended" them. Both statements remain marketing drivel as to date, neither company has joined the ACEA Technical Concorde, and have never had their products tested or rated. So regardless of how good some their products may or may not be, I personally have a large ethics problem with companies that try to imply their products are something that a little searching can demonstrate they are not, and which then obviously calls their other product claims into question as well. At the end of the day, you hold a rating or you don't, there is no middle ground. And just as a by-the-by, ESSO LT71141 is a product, not a specification: http://www.taligentx.com/passat/maintenance/atfchange/ESSOSpecs.pdf. At the end of the day, it is your vehicle, and you can choose to use any product in it you please.

Like all OEM's, Porsche has selected several faults that can trigger "limp mode", most of which related to either what they consider safety issue or severe emission related problems that could result in damage to the vehicle.

My analytical comments were directed at the use of a Blackstone type oil analysis to determine if two lubricants were the same. In the case of both RP and Redline, they have both made statements in the past concerning what specs their products meet, which were later found to not be correct, and had to be retracted. This type of spurious "spec" behavior is unfortunately too common with smaller lubricant blenders. On that basis, I'm suggesting caution. Without fully supporting evidence to the contrary, the "best" lubricants are often what the OEM specs for the application.

Total supposition based upon some coincidental matching chemical compounds. To use laboratory analytical techniques to match lubricants, you would need match physical properties (e.g.: coefficient of friction, foam development, lubricity, heat transfer properties, etc.) as well as a full chemical match (mass spec, etc.). Just because two different products both contain boron does not mean they are even remotely the same thing. You would be risking a very expensive trans in the quest for saving a couple of bucks......