'09 Mazda CX-9 3.7,Delo 15w-40 Isosyn, 8400 Mi OCI, 196K On Engine

[Stumpy]

Latest report on my wife's CX-9. Had the infamous FORD 3.7 water pump replaced a while ago. Looks like the Chevron claims about its conventional HDEO with "ISOSYN" technology is equal or better than competitors synthetic blends is on the mark. No, I didn't do an apples to apples comparison, mileage wise, with the Delvac 1300 from 3 changes earlier but they look like they would be about the same. WARNING: HEAVY SARCASM AND TROLL LIKE BEHAVIOR FOLLOWS:
-Boy look at those wear metals. That cannot be! Why this is a MODERN ENGINE and "modern engines are built to tighter tolerances and have tighter bearing clearances and have to have the thinner motor oils to get into those tight spaces and if you run a motor oil thicker than the factory spec, you'll ruin the engine". SARCASM ENDS!

Observations on the Ford 3.7:
-It dirties up the oil FAST. 3000 miles and it is black on the dipstick and I think "holy crap". Don't know if it was the shorter mile hops my wife took or what. The oil in my mostly interstate Ford Focus and Scion XD would still be clear or brown on the dipstick at 7500-12000 miles.
-It uses oil. Always have had to add at least a quart between changes. My theory is it that the high revving, not much torque at low rpms 3.7 just struggles a bit pulling this 4300 pound body around.
-The engine is louder and makes more racket while running now. Not internally but the alternator, power steering pump, etc. I guess when they dropped the engine to change the water pump, unbolting and bolting everything back just got things a hair out of alignment as far as the accessories go and that accounts for the minor chirps and squeaks and the like.

Have Advance Auto Parts Fram/Amalie 5w-40 in it now. No one had the Delo Syn Blend or Full Syn locally(since the Wuhan Panic, oil supply on shelves in my part of Bama is spotty) so I decided to try a 5W-40 HDEO. Will run it 10K-12K and will report back. Should be pretty soon. Wife now commutes an is racking up 2000 miles a month.

 

[dnewton3]

Overall fine if you ask me.

The Cyclone engine series (3.3, 3.5., 3.7) all are fairly good-wearing engines. Yours is no different; good wear rates over several UOAs. They run "clean" despite the oil darkening; your insolubles are well controlled over several UOAs. One of Ford's better engines (despite the complaints of water pump placement in transverse applications). For the size, the power is good; admittedly not a lot of torque down low.

Your comment about vis is typica for those of us who've experimented. Generally, engines don't care what vis is used AS LONG AS the MOFT is maintained to keep parts separated. Having a thicker or thin oil means little to the wear if the barrier is present and adequate for the job at hand. I would have seen this phenomenon in the old Ford "mod motors" (4.6, 5.4, 6.8); they just don't care what vis is in the crankcase; it does not change the wear rates at all.

Using a quart in 10k miles is, by no means, a bad consumption rate. Nothing wrong with that, and on par with many other engines in this series. I"m not familiar with the CX-9 application, but my 2018 Taurus only turns 2000 rpm at 80mph; hardly "high revving" in my application. Maybe Mazda is choosing to rev it higher with different gearing? My engine loves to rev, but it doesn't have to rev high to move my 3900 lb Taurus.

Did you get any pictures of the engine with valve covers off that you can share? I'd be curious to see the cleanliness level in there.

 

[FZ1]

Latest report on my wife's CX-9. Had the infamous FORD 3.7 water pump replaced a while ago. Looks like the Chevron claims about its conventional HDEO with "ISOSYN" technology is equal or better than competitors synthetic blends is on the mark. No, I didn't do an apples to apples comparison, mileage wise, with the Delvac 1300 from 3 changes earlier but they look like they would be about the same. WARNING: HEAVY SARCASM AND TROLL LIKE BEHAVIOR FOLLOWS:
-Boy look at those wear metals. That cannot be! Why this is a MODERN ENGINE and "modern engines are built to tighter tolerances and have tighter bearing clearances and have to have the thinner motor oils to get into those tight spaces and if you run a motor oil thicker than the factory spec, you'll ruin the engine". SARCASM ENDS!

Observations on the Ford 3.7:
-It dirties up the oil FAST. 3000 miles and it is black on the dipstick and I think "holy crap". Don't know if it was the shorter mile hops my wife took or what. The oil in my mostly interstate Ford Focus and Scion XD would still be clear or brown on the dipstick at 7500-12000 miles.
-It uses oil. Always have had to add at least a quart between changes. My theory is it that the high revving, not much torque at low rpms 3.7 just struggles a bit pulling this 4300 pound body around.
-The engine is louder and makes more racket while running now. Not internally but the alternator, power steering pump, etc. I guess when they dropped the engine to change the water pump, unbolting and bolting everything back just got things a hair out of alignment as far as the accessories go and that accounts for the minor chirps and squeaks and the like.

Have Advance Auto Parts Fram/Amalie 5w-40 in it now. No one had the Delo Syn Blend or Full Syn locally(since the Wuhan Panic, oil supply on shelves in my part of Bama is spotty) so I decided to try a 5W-40 HDEO. Will run it 10K-12K and will report back. Should be pretty soon. Wife now commutes an is racking up 2000 miles a month.

Interesting, looks good!

 

[Stumpy]

Overall fine if you ask me.

The Cyclone engine series (3.3, 3.5., 3.7) all are fairly good-wearing engines. Yours is no different; good wear rates over several UOAs. They run "clean" despite the oil darkening; your insolubles are well controlled over several UOAs. One of Ford's better engines (despite the complaints of water pump placement in transverse applications). For the size, the power is good; admittedly not a lot of torque down low.

Your comment about vis is typica for those of us who've experimented. Generally, engines don't care what vis is used AS LONG AS the MOFT is maintained to keep parts separated. Having a thicker or thin oil means little to the wear if the barrier is present and adequate for the job at hand. I would have seen this phenomenon in the old Ford "mod motors" (4.6, 5.4, 6.8); they just don't care what vis is in the crankcase; it does not change the wear rates at all.

Using a quart in 10k miles is, by no means, a bad consumption rate. Nothing wrong with that, and on par with many other engines in this series. I"m not familiar with the CX-9 application, but my 2018 Taurus only turns 2000 rpm at 80mph; hardly "high revving" in my application. Maybe Mazda is choosing to rev it higher with different gearing? My engine loves to rev, but it doesn't have to rev high to move my 3900 lb Taurus.

Did you get any pictures of the engine with valve covers off that you can share? I'd be curious to see the cleanliness level in there.

No photos, but the shop that replaced the water pump couldn't believe how clean the internals were when I told them about the extended drain intervals. Said it was one of the cleanest 3.7s they have ever cracked open and they do dozens of 3.7's a year.