Fluids sanity check

[Scott C]

I recently sold my '05 Cayenne S and bought an '08 GTS 6MT. I'd like to baseline the service on the new vehicle.

Finding info on the GTS is hit-miss so I'll post here and plead for help.

I found some other threads that detail fluid choices. These threads were a few years old so I'm hoping time and mileage experience can be shared. Here's a link to the old thread...... http://www.renntech.org/forums/topic/31331-transmission-oil-and-diff-oil-change-and-oil-recommendation/

Here's what I learned from the old thread. I'd like to know if the same advice holds true for a GTS.

Transmission (6MT): Burmah BOT338 (P/N 000.043.300.38)

Transfer Case: Esso ATF LT71141 (P/N 000.043.205.09)

Front Diff: Burmah SAF-AG4 (P/N 000.043.205.30)

Rear Diff w/o locking: Same as front

Reard Diff w/locking: Burmah SAF Carbon Mod (P/N 000.043.300.37)

1. I didn't see the option for 1Y1 (locking differential)..... Does the GTS natively have a locking rear diff? I thought it may be covered under the GTS option umbrella.

2. I don't want to start a lubricant debate, but saw where Royal Purple, Mobil-1 and Redline are mentioned being used as replacement fluids. Can you share your anecdotal experience with each? Is your experience better with the factory fluids or aftermarket?

In particular, how is shifting in the MT vehicles?

Thanks in advance for your help. I'll post a pic later.

[hahnmgh63]

A top quality synthetic 75w-90 gear oil for the front & rear diffs, I use Redline. For the transfer case a ATF meeting Esso LT71141 spec, I use Redline D4 but their are many fluids meeting this spec, go with a fully synthetic one. For the manual trans you could try the VW dealer and see if they have Burmah BOT 338 => VW Oil No. N 05279800, it is Esso 304. A good quality synthetic 75w-80 gear oil which will probably be GL-4/GL-5 spec. Stay away from a conventional gear oil with the GL-5 spec as it may have too much Sulfur or a non-neutralized Sulfur which will be hard on the Synchros. If you like Redline you may want to call them but probably their MTL or MT-90 is the one you would want. Back to the rear Diff, normally as listed it would be the same as the front but the locking diff requires a friction modifier or Redline 75-90NS instead the plain old 75-90.

Remember, the tranny is a 75w-80, not a 75w-90. Not a huge difference but probably would be noticeable in a cold climate and once again cause extra synchro wear.

P.S. I only listed the VW part # for the tranny (6MT), the front & rear diff is Audi / VW Oil No. N 052145000, with rear locking diff Audi/VW Part number G 052 196 A2.

Also, my Audi RS6 calls for the same front & rear diff fluid with the center diff calling for the Burmah SAF Carbon. I have been using the above listed Redlines, 75w-90 in the front & rear diffs and Redline 75w-90NS in the center diff for 7yrs and 60K miles only about 3yrs and 25K in my '06 CTTS.

Edited April 24, 2014 by hahnmgh63

[wrinkledpants]

I, too, am a Redline fan. Most of the well known gear oil companies (Redline, Amsoil, Motul) all make their gear oils synthetic. The factory fill for the whole driveline is non-synthetic. If you live where it's flat, you don't track your car, you don't tow, and you don't see cold winters - the factory stuff is just fine. It'll be more expensive than going with other fluids, though. Most of the good driveline fluids advertise to "meet the spec," but they don't all submit samples for licensing, and therefore don't show up on Porsche's approval list. It's not because the fluid is unapproved, but that the company didn't pay the fees for the testing and licensing. Sometimes - this is confusing for people.

I'm pretty sure the GTS doesn't have a locking rear diff. I think that only came on the off-road design package. But, you can check by going into low-gear, then locking the center diff, and flipping the switch one more time to see if the rear locks. Or, look at the rear diff. The stepper motor to lock it is on the driver side of the rear diff, and it's about the size of a soda can with a wiring harness plugged into it. You can't miss it.

For me - if the fluid meets the spec and it's from a reputable company - I wouldn't have a problem using it. Most report smoother shifts going to a synthetic, but that also could be from the fact that the old fluid was just that - old. Replacing it with OE fluid might have smoothed out the shifts just the same. Lots of people will have opinions on driveline fluids, but really the only sure-fire way to know is with an oil analysis. I don't see many of those on gear oils. For me personally, the only fluid I don't use that is approved is M1 0W40 because it will shear to a 30 weight. Lots of people with good UOA on that fluid, but also lots of them showing the shearing. This is why a number of drivers from various brands and models elect to not use M1, especially if they track or drive in a manor that puts their car through the paces. But - that's just my opinion and my personal choice. Not bagging on folks that choose to run that fluid.

[bigbuzuki]

You will find lots of opinions on oils and fluids.

If you want to take the guesswork out of it, and you want a choice that will give you peace of mind, go for the fluids on the Porsche approval list.

Change the fluids sooner than later and you will be guaranteed smooth shifting and longevity.

[Scott C]

Thanks guys for the detailed info. I confirmed that I don't have the locking diff. I interpreted locking diff as a limited slip.... Not like off-road lockers.

That said, this makes the fluid choices easy. I plan on running Royal Purple Synchromax in the trans and Mobil Delvac 75-90 in the diffs.

I just need to find a good cross to the Esso ATF for the transfer case.

[wrinkledpants]

The T-case is the same fluid that is run in the automatic transmission on the cayenne.

[wrinkledpants]

If you like Royal Purple - use their Max ATF. They're not listed on the Porsche approval list, nor is Porsche listed on the Max ATF sheet, but this oil does meet the Esso LT71141 spec, and the T-IV. The OE porsche trans fluid is just rebranded T-IV fluid, IIRC. Again - this likely gets back to the fact that Royal Purple likely didn't submit to Porsche to pay for the licensing fee, despite the fact that it meets the spec.

There is an oil analysis floating around that shows the Porsche fluid and Toyota T-IV fluid is exactly the same. Aisin builds the auto trans on the cayenne, and also many of the transmissions for Toyota. So, if Max ATF meets the spec for T-IV, then it meets the spec for Porsche.

Found it.

http://www.renntech.org/forums/topic/40735-porsche-cayenne-atf-vs-toyota-type-iv-atf/

[bigbuzuki]

The T-case is the same fluid that is run in the automatic transmission on the cayenne.

Not the same fluid as per the Porsche Approval List.

Transfer case fluid part number is 000 043 301 36.

Tiptronic fluid part number is 000 043 205 28.

[wrinkledpants]

Anyway you could post that list? The doc I have from Porsche specs the same ESO number as the tranny.

[JFP in PA]

If you like Royal Purple - use their Max ATF. They're not listed on the Porsche approval list, nor is Porsche listed on the Max ATF sheet, but this oil does meet the Esso LT71141 spec, and the T-IV. The OE porsche trans fluid is just rebranded T-IV fluid, IIRC. Again - this likely gets back to the fact that Royal Purple likely didn't submit to Porsche to pay for the licensing fee, despite the fact that it meets the spec.

There is an oil analysis floating around that shows the Porsche fluid and Toyota T-IV fluid is exactly the same. Aisin builds the auto trans on the cayenne, and also many of the transmissions for Toyota. So, if Max ATF meets the spec for T-IV, then it meets the spec for Porsche.

Found it.

http://www.renntech.org/forums/topic/40735-porsche-cayenne-atf-vs-toyota-type-iv-atf/

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......

[wrinkledpants]

Nobody said it was a quest to save a couple of bucks - more to find the best fluid. Max ATF meets the ESSO LT71141 spec. If that's also the spec for the porsche trans - then I fail to see how this wouldn't apply. It's not like there is ESSO LT71141-C for the cayenne.

I'm holding a Porsche document that specs ESSO LT71141 for the t-case. If this isn't right - I'll happily correct my statements.

[JFP in PA]

Nobody said it was a quest to save a couple of bucks - more to find the best fluid. Max ATF meets the ESSO LT71141 spec. If that's also the spec for the porsche trans - then I fail to see how this wouldn't apply. It's not like there is ESSO LT71141-C for the cayenne.

I'm holding a Porsche document that specs ESSO LT71141 for the t-case. If this isn't right - I'll happily correct my statements.

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.

[wrinkledpants]

Really? Then why did you say this over on the Pelican side?

"Much like their “N” rated tires, I wouldn't place that much credence in their "approved" oil list; I’d focus more on which oils perform best, and do the best job of protecting the engine.................."

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/porsche-996-997-forum/617912-104-degrees-texas-0w-40-stil-ok.html

How do you explain Porsche specifically stating ESSO LT71141 for their tranny and t-case, an oil company meeting that spec, but it's not showing up on Porsche's approved oil list, nor is that oil showing the porsche spec? I mean - there isn't context for a given oil spec. It's not like the spec is one thing for this OEM, and another thing for this OEM. So, the only rational reason I can come up with is that RP didn't submit for licensing to Porsche, and that's why they're not on the p-car list. Amsoil and Redline both make incredibly stout fluids with plenty of UOA to back that up. If Porsche had a completely proprietary spec for the transmission, and it didn't show up on RP's list - then I would not recommend it.

I'm not trying to say that "if you want to know if two fluids are the same, get a simple oil analysis done." But, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that porsche rebranded an established fluid, and the oil analysis is just one more piece of evidence to support that. Max ATF lists the VW spec, and it's the same tranny as the Touareg.

And - I've never heard of RP, Redline, or Amsoil claiming to meet a spec, but then tests show they don't. If that's happened, I'd like to know about it. I have heard of them claiming to meet a spec, when from a licensing standpoint, they can't legally say that. It's one thing to design an oil that is better than the spec, it's completely different to submit a sample for licensing and get approval to "list the spec" on the bottle. For sure - some of the smaller companies have taken heat about listing a spec when they never submitted for approval. But, for the reputable companies that don't submit for licensing, lots of UOA have shown that they are very good oils. For instance, Redline says "suitable for" instead of stating "meets" when referencing a spec.

I am holding a porsche spec sheet that shows ESSO LT71141 for the t-case. Again - if this isn't right, then I'm waiting for some other porsche document that shows a different spec. My opinion didn't come out of thin air - this is what Porsche is telling us. Do you have info from Porsche that states otherwise?

[bigbuzuki]

Have a look at the TSB section on this forum. The fluid approval list is in there.

[wrinkledpants]

TSB 3965 lists ESSO LT71141 for the t-case. The transmission is JWS 3309 (per another porsche TSB). RP - as well as most reputable synthetic tranny fluids meet both of those specs. I'm still not sure what I'm missing here.

Maybe I should have rephrased my initial post to "you CAN run the same fluid in the t-case," per the published specs from porsche.

[JFP in PA]

Really? Then why did you say this over on the Pelican side?

"Much like their “N” rated tires, I wouldn't place that much credence in their "approved" oil list; I’d focus more on which oils perform best, and do the best job of protecting the engine.................."

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/porsche-996-997-forum/617912-104-degrees-texas-0w-40-stil-ok.html

How do you explain Porsche specifically stating ESSO LT71141 for their tranny and t-case, an oil company meeting that spec, but it's not showing up on Porsche's approved oil list, nor is that oil showing the porsche spec? I mean - there isn't context for a given oil spec. It's not like the spec is one thing for this OEM, and another thing for this OEM. So, the only rational reason I can come up with is that RP didn't submit for licensing to Porsche, and that's why they're not on the p-car list. Amsoil and Redline both make incredibly stout fluids with plenty of UOA to back that up. If Porsche had a completely proprietary spec for the transmission, and it didn't show up on RP's list - then I would not recommend it.

I'm not trying to say that "if you want to know if two fluids are the same, get a simple oil analysis done." But, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that porsche rebranded an established fluid, and the oil analysis is just one more piece of evidence to support that. Max ATF lists the VW spec, and it's the same tranny as the Touareg.

And - I've never heard of RP, Redline, or Amsoil claiming to meet a spec, but then tests show they don't. If that's happened, I'd like to know about it. I have heard of them claiming to meet a spec, when from a licensing standpoint, they can't legally say that. It's one thing to design an oil that is better than the spec, it's completely different to submit a sample for licensing and get approval to "list the spec" on the bottle. For sure - some of the smaller companies have taken heat about listing a spec when they never submitted for approval. But, for the reputable companies that don't submit for licensing, lots of UOA have shown that they are very good oils. For instance, Redline says "suitable for" instead of stating "meets" when referencing a spec.

I am holding a porsche spec sheet that shows ESSO LT71141 for the t-case. Again - if this isn't right, then I'm waiting for some other porsche document that shows a different spec. My opinion didn't come out of thin air - this is what Porsche is telling us. Do you have info from Porsche that states otherwise?

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.

[wrinkledpants]

Right - but what you're talking about is the business side of things. Whether RP, or anyone else, pays for the licensing and testing has zero correlation with the quality of their fluids. Because Amsoil, Redline, and a select few Motul fluids aren't submitted for testing means that they are relying mostly on reputation. There is no correlation between quality of fluid and being on the porsche approval list. M1 0W40 is a prime example.

If RP has questionable UOA's all the time, nobody would buy it anymore. Same with Amsoil, Redline, and others. Licensing for API, and then licensing for the various OEM's is expensive. It's a business decision on their part not to do. The average joe at NAPA isn't going to plunk down twice the cost for Amsoil or Redline over Mobil1. The only people that will are the ones with a more discerning requirement, and as evident by their respective successes in the oil industry. Those discerning people aren't impacted by the lack of ratings. Ratings becomes a question of ROI, and if the ROI isn't there, then who in their right mind would expect them to do it?

I can't argue with your ethics issue in suggesting the ratings they might meet. But, that's a conversation with a business context. That info has absolutely zero bearing on the fluid caliber. Compare Redline 0W40 to M1 0W40 - especially 5K miles in. Which one will still be in grade, and which one has the ratings? You're the one that said focus on the fluids ability to lubricate, and not whether it's on the porsche approval list.

[JFP in PA]

Right - but what you're talking about is the business side of things. Whether RP, or anyone else, pays for the licensing and testing has zero correlation with the quality of their fluids. Because Amsoil, Redline, and a select few Motul fluids aren't submitted for testing means that they are relying mostly on reputation. There is no correlation between quality of fluid and being on the porsche approval list. M1 0W40 is a prime example.

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.

[wrinkledpants]

They choose not to participate because it doesn't make business sense to do so. You see this all the time in various industries with regulating business aspects like this. You see it all the time in my industry, too. I appreciate where you are coming from; my family owned a motorsports dealership growing up and we only sold lubricant products that were "legal" for various reasons - most oriented around liability.

For the rest of us consumers - Amsoil, Redline, RP, et al - they all make great products, and continue to do so. I'm not going to bring in the ethics aspect of how they market their product. Once you go down that worm hole - that brings in all sorts of other products of the auto industry. K&N comes to mind. And, you're assuming that Redline, RP, etc will, at some, point deceive us because they can. I can't fault you for thinking that, but I choose to use known good products until they they are no longer making a good product. In today's consumer society - it doesn't take long for crap products to be known. Doesn't mean they're not good buys (they may be priced cheaper than anything else), but at least the concept of value is a lot more stratified now than it used to be. As a business owner myself, I can't always choose to to partake in these organizations in my industry because they are simply too expensive. They're geared towards my competitors who's revenue stream is about 150 times larger than mine. Yet - I produce a better product than anyone. *shrug*

For the sake of staying on topic - I choose to use the best lubricants I can buy. Outside of the ratings and porsche approval list - I have not seen any reason *not* to use some of these products. Most of the recommended fluids out there for the cayenne are good fluids. I have seen evidence of M1 0W40 not living up to what Mobil advertises. And, in fact - I have seen more "approved" fluids turn out to be crap, than I have non-approved fluids.

In the end - we all have to make our own decisions, and it's in everyone's best interest to be an informed consumer.

[bigbuzuki]

There are heaps of owners out there who have hundreds of thousands of miles on their Cayennes who are using the recommended fluids. I'm one of them. They all can't be wrong. Change the oil / fluids sooner than later and all will be fine.

If a consumer had an engine or other mechanical failure, the car was still under warranty, and found to be using an oil / fluid that claimed was meeting specification but was not on the approval list. Why would you give Porsche a reason not to honour the warranty?

Edited April 27, 2014 by bigbuzuki

[hahnmgh63]

These Oil discussions can and do get a little heated every time. I am a Redline user in all of my vehicles (well not my '84 F-250 Diesel, can't afford the 3gallons at a change) but the important thing here is to change it no later than the manufacturers spec and in many cases earlier. I think Porsches 20K oil change has been shot down by Oil analysis, unless you only want to keep it for 50~100K. I don't want to step in and be the second car owner of a Porsche that only had two oil changes when I pick it up at 55K. I think a top quality synthetic gives you a little extra margin if you do run your oil a little longer or drive a little harder on it. Do you think Porsche wants your car to go 200K? If they (Porsche's) recommendations are so good then why do we have 50K drivelines, 5~7yr plastic Coolant pipes, Cylinder scoring (CS), IMS failures (911, Boxster, Cayman), etc... We all love our Porsche's, that's why were on here. I think OEM fluid's, although very expensive, will get you through the life of your vehicle, especially if you change them more often. I am just one that personally feels that changing it a little more often and using a Superior oil is extra insurance.

Scott C, just choose a top quality oil that meets the spec or go with OEM too, but please change it a little more often than recommended and you'll be fine. If you track or tow then it definitely needs to be changed more often. You can search the site here and you will find many, and I mean many oil discussions. If your still interested try searching 'Bob is the oil guy' and check out that site.

[clarksongli]

Check the stickied post up top....I did a Blackstone analysis on porsche atf and Toyota type 4 ....chemically the same and much cheaper. ....

[JFP in PA]

Check the stickied post up top....I did a Blackstone analysis on porsche atf and Toyota type 4 ....chemically the same and much cheaper. ....

"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..............

[clarksongli]

I agree to an extent....but the likelihood that two oils have nearly identical ppm levels of additives....With the same flash point etc. Gives me greater confidence. I've run type 4 for 50k+ miles now and nothing but good shifts hot or cold.

[JFP in PA]

I agree to an extent....but the likelihood that two oils have nearly identical ppm levels of additives....With the same flash point etc. Gives me greater confidence. I've run type 4 for 50k+ miles now and nothing but good shifts hot or cold.

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