11 Mustang GT, Amsoil SigSeries 10w-30, 7304 miles

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
You don't think short trips and some WOT runs are "normal" for a 5.0 Mustang, or for anyone else for that matter? Do you purport that this is the only engine of the face of the planet that sees short trips and some "spirited" running? Do you infer that this type of use is beyond what Ford had in mind when it designed the engine, and stipulated that the oil simply must meet the Ford spec (which is NOT predicated on syns, BTW). You're fooling yourself, sir or ma'am. Why - even your very own statement confers this is expected ...
Originally Posted By: JDos1
... everything appears normal.


I have thousands upon thousands of UOAs for all kinds of vehicles and engines in my database. I can tell you that the statistical normality of everyday use by all kinds of folks shows what is "normal". This UOA is normal; you said it yourself. The use it sees is normal; there is nothing unique about some short trips or WOT runs. Cat labs may not advise you what the "average" metals are, but I would concur you are well within one sigma node of "normal" wear. Further, you CANNOT look at singular UOAs and suggest that any one product is better or worse than another. You cannot use limited micro analysis in such fassion; at least not do so and come to a statistically credible conclusion.

Again - I'm not picking on the lube; the Amsoil did a fine job. It likely could have done a fine job for 2x or 3x that OCI interval. But at the artificial limit of 7.3k miles, it's a waste of any syn, regardless of who makes it (that includes the Synpower you just put in). Any decent qualified lube meeting the Ford spec (of which many dino's do) would have done just as well.

According to the MotorCraft website (the official site for Ford owners manual publications), the 2011 Mustang manual (3rd printing; page 277) simply calls for oil meeting WSS-M2C930-A for both the 3.7L and 5.0L engines. Just about ANY brand name dino oil including PYB, Mobil 5k or Super, QSGB, VWB, and a host of others do indeed meet that spec (which has been superceeded by either 946 or 946 IIRC). Further, according to page 322 of that document, the Mustang has an IOLM, and can indicate up to 10k miles (or one year) OCI. What did your IOLM indicate at 7.3k miles? The performance expectations of the IOLM are predicated on any lube meeting the Ford spec, not lubes meeting your emotional "synthetic need".

The only thing that can be said, I have already said. I would challenge you or anyone else to show me statistical evidence that would allow any other fair and logical conclusions.


I think you're too excited about this. If he wants to run 10w30 Amsoil and change it as often as he'd like then that is his choice. It has been well established that it will not hurt anything. It may or may not be beneficial but who cares? It is his engine and his money.
 
I have zero care for what he runs, and he probably cares not about what I run. In that matter, it's a free market and we all can do what we want. I have no problem with that; I embrace that.

But ...

It does matter to those who may not be well informed. It matters when we have noobs or lurkers who visit and try to learn.

The point I make is that "normal" is vastly under-utilized in the world of BITOG vehicle use; many members believe they are "unique" and somehow they use their equipment in a manner that is severe enough to warrant some notable exception to justify some form of premium product. But the reality is that mass-population averages wash out this type of issue. When everone is "special" then no one is "special", as it were. All it takes is a study of averages and variance to realize few of us really push the envelope past "normal".

So why jump on this? Because the numbers in the UOA represent very typical (average) results for this engine. It does not take a synthetic oil to get this kind of performance. All it takes is any oil that meets the Ford spec, which is easily filled by much less expensive fluids. In this case, the synthetic oil use did not manifest into distinguishable "better" wear protection.

And for the noob/lurker, perhaps they don't have an unlimited budget; maybe they are on a fixed income or perhaps a struggling collent student. Who cares? Perhaps they do, and I know I do.

You think I'm "too excited" about this? Fine.
But that does not negate my point.
 
I understand what you are saying but you cannot make such statements based on the evidence presented here. You do not have thousands of UOAs for 5.0 Coyote engines comparing 5w20 and 10w30. I'm not saying you are wrong, just that you are assuming and generalizing. If our objective here is to protect the uninformed then we simply cannot draw these conclusions without further evidence.

If you'd like to see more UOAs for the new 5.0 check out the UOA thread on SVTP.

http://www.svtperformance.com/forums/201...ml#post12289810
 
Exactly my point 10cent.


Newton, As I've mentioned before... I pay very little for Amsoil. I'd actually be paying more to buy dino than I do this. It seems very logical to me that I go ahead and continue using Amsoil. Does it protect my engine? Yes. Does it hold up well to my driving habits? Yes. Am I changing it out when I'm comfortable changing it? Yes. Do I care that it could potentially last 2x what I've put on it? No.

Did I ask someone on a strict budget to use this UOA as a basis for what they buy? No. Do I care? No. I had this UOA performed so I'd have the information on MY engine on hand for my purposes.


Do you go on everyone elses UOA and b**** that they aren't pushing their oil to the very end of it's service life? No. So why are you doing it here?

Also can you not read? I already mentioned that the only reason I changed it out so soon is because I'm taking it in soon for warranty work and want ZERO issues from the service dept about running any oil other than spec'd. I don't think it's getting through to you that I would've ran this oil longer if I wasn't going to be taking the vehicle in soon for warranty work.
 
JDos1,

I don't even want to post UOA's here anymore as I would be subjected to a passive/agressive lashing on why I didn't squeeze every last 0.1 TBN out of my oils.

We all seen pictures of what that can do to an engine and I will not go there.

You're another one that is learning their lesson...
 
Originally Posted By: tpitcher
JDos1,

I don't even want to post UOA's here anymore as I would be subjected to a passive/agressive lashing on why I didn't squeeze every last 0.1 TBN out of my oils.

We all seen pictures of what that can do to an engine and I will not go there.

You're another one that is learning their lesson...



I've pretty much decided myself I will never do a uoa for this forum.

Cant wait til I'm back 100%,I'm not gonna sit back anymore on what so many here try to shove down everyones throat,enough is enough.Amsoil is doin fine in this car,no need to change anything.
 
I've seen plenty of 5.0 Coy UOAs already.

If someone pays less for Amsoil than do they for shelf dino, that is fantastic for them, but it is NOT a deal that the average person can get. It is fair to apply realistic terms across the broad base of buying public, not some super-sweet deal that someone gets on the side. If everyone could get Amsoil for less than dino, there would be no dino sales, and likely Amsoil would eventually go out of business, because the business model would collapse.

I most certainly am generalizing, and will continue to do so. Slowly, surely, people are beginning to see that "normal" is a very broad application in reality, and very few people are "extreme" in their use. Under those conditions, there is no significant benefit to using syns, unless specifically mandated by the OEM for warranty purposes.

Again - I have mountains of UOAs as data for proof; where's your proof? I do statistical process quality control for a living; I deal with data every day. I know how to process data into consumable, useful information. I also used to run a large maintenance program when I worked at Ford. Those are my strengths. I, like eveyone else, also have limitations. I have always openly admitted here that chemistry is not my strong suit; I rely on others here to help me in that regard. We have plenty of people here who can contribute on some meaningful scale. We also have people here who contribute little, have no real world experience, and yet seem to be weekend tribologists by self-proclamation.

This UOA is completely "normal". There was no tangible benefit to using such a top-tier product in this set of circumstances; the Amsoil did no better than any other qualified Ford 930 oil would do. Rather than get defensive, why not just acknowledge it?


As for the warranty work; why remove the oil? Are you afraid that the Amsoil is non-compliant to the point of failing? Are you so sure that whatever the issues is, it will be blamed on Amsoil? For that matter, are you sure they would even check what oil was used? And just how would they know it's Amsoil, and not some other approved oil from a simple "sniff test" in the garage bay? Further, even if Ford did want to blame Amsoil, are you suggesting that Amsoil would not stand behind their product? Finally, your act of removing the Amsoil in favor of another compliant oil is an admission that you skirted the warranty provisions, and now want your non-complaince to be hidden from view. Does that not imply you are, in some way, cheating the system? Would that not be akin to a guy that hops-up the power in a diesel truck with a huge power tune, snaps an axle, and then asks a dealer to replace the axle only AFTER he removes all evidence of the tuner? You have used a non-qualified oil, and now want Ford to warrant the product after you decided to venture off the reservation, by covering up the evidence. If you have faith in Amsoil (and I have no reason to suggest you shouldn't) then why the aversion to the topic at the dealer? It really does not matter what your answer is; this is a topic of perception becoming reality. You may or may not have "pure" motives, but the outward indication to me is that you're trying to cover up something after the fact. You broke a rule and now want someone else to blame, should there be any blame to pass around. IN NO WAY do I think Amsoil is a fault here. But by your actions, YOU, SIR are giving the outward perception of three things:
1) you believe the use of non-complaint lube will be blamed, regardless if it was at fault or not
2) you want to avoid that blame, even though it was your direct choice to use a non-complaint fluid
3) you are willing to change conditions "after the fact" to cover up the true evidence of whatever may or may not be a contributing factor

If some of you choose to not post UOAs because you wish to avoid the experience of having to explain your rationale behind your decisions, then fine. But your ability to post here does not, by right, mean I must withhold my comments. It's a public forum; when you enter the public domain, you accept that some people are going to agree with you and some will challenge your actions.

Originally Posted By: JDos1
Do you go on everyone elses UOA and b**** that they aren't pushing their oil to the very end of it's service life? No. So why are you doing it here?

Apparently, you don't know me very well. I do, indeed, challenge most everyone to get the value out of their choices, regardless of base stock, brand, grade, etc.
 
Last edited:
This Amsoil ATM looks like an excellent choice for your Mustang engine. Do you know what method the Lab uses for fuel dilution testing? If it's GC, then you could probably go longer (up to 3-4%). But if the method is FTIR or Flash, then the oil needed changed.

It wouldn't hurt to get a VOA for the ATM if you wish to continue using it. That way you'll know what to compare wrt oil condition when you do another UOA. Also, TBN and/or TAN would help determine how well the chemistry of ATM neutralizes harmful combustion byproducts.

BTW, I'm not an accountant. So I won't tell you how to spend your hard earned money. That would be annoying, wouldn't it?
 
Originally Posted By: -SyN-
My mistake! Sorry

He basically proved to me that the Ford Modular V8 does not need 5W-20 to survive! Only to help with MPG and Cold Weather Start Ups.

My Son's 08 has had nothing but 5W-30 syn-blend for the last 154K miles.


Thick VS thin!!!
07.gif
09.gif
 
Last edited:
Newton, Once again you seem to have failed to realize that I posted this UOA here to benefit ME! NO ONE ELSE.

Is this not what this forum is for? For someone to post a UOA and have others analize it for the posters own info? Once again, if someone comes in here and sees my UOA and buys Amsoil simply because it did so well for a short time in my engine then it's on them for not doing further research and making an informed decision. I couldn't give a [censored] less rather anyone else uses this UOA for their own gain, that's not what I posted it for.

Again, You're making assumptions as for why I'm taking it in. Did I change parameters as far as tuning goes? No. Would that void the warranty? Depending on the dealer yes. Many dealers let things slide that Ford specifically says voids the warranty. My dealer included said as long as I use oil within one weight difference then it was of zero concern to him. As I stated, ownership of the dealership has changed but I've since spoken to the same guy and he said nothing has changed as far as the service dept goes. Do I feel that Amsoil is inferior and has caused the minor oil leak that is effecting more than a few Coyotes? No...Look at the UOA, it shows that Amsoil has preformed very well in my engine and it'll be going back in after this oil change.

Did I state I was having a mechanical issue? No. Stop making assumptions.

Please disregard any UOA's that I post in the future, I'll be changing this Synpower out at ~5000 miles so would you like to go ahead and whine and moan about that too?

I asked for other people's insight as for what my UOA showed, not a rant about how the average person might not be able to afford Amsoil and the fact that I didn't push it to it's absolute limits.

I still have the used oil in a 5 gallon bucket. If you're sooooooo upset that I changed it so soon, send me postage and I'll gladly ship the used oil for you to use in your engine until it shows a TBN of less than 1.0.

Do I follow you? No. Do I know you personally? No. You don't know me very well either so that has no effect either way. Why argue as for what people feel comfortable doing? I feel comfortable changing my oil whenever I feel like it, not pushing it to it's dead limits. It DOES NOT MATTER if I change it early. The choice is mine. I get more than my money worth out of it and my UOA's show that it's doing a great job.

Tpitcher, IndyMac, and DragRace....Thank you very much for your input that wasn't a rant that went down a rabbit trail. It's nice to see someone that can give simple insight without trying to be Mr.Bigshot.
Indy: I do not know what method they use. I get these kits from our Western Star dealer and will ask them to obtain that info for me.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: JDos1
Newton, Once again you seem to have failed to realize that I posted this UOA here to benefit ME! NO ONE ELSE.

Is this not what this forum is for? For someone to post a UOA and have others analize it for the posters own info?



Somewhat selfish, are we? You post for your own benefit, but no one else? To answer your question, "No", this forum is not for you. Nor any single person. Nor is it only for a one-way interpretation of your UOA.

Is it your presumption that the site exists so that ONLY people who agree with you will be allowed to chime in and respond? Someone limited viewpoint, is it not?

Your posting of UOA is available for all of us to comment on, and several have done that. You posted; I analyzed. I said the oil did a fine job. I said that you wasted good synthetic oil by changing it too soon. Neither of those are false; they are true. Additionally, I quoted the Ford spec's for the 5.0Coy; a large selection of lubes will fit that bill, including many dino oils. You used your car in a very "normal" fassion; Ford does not require syns for such use. Your UOA results are very "normal"; any conventional oil would have turned in similar results. Again - all true.

Your ranting and rhetoric do not negate the facts, and you have yet to prove my claims otherwise.

Don't like my analysis? Don't read it. Others actually appreciate my candor, even if you don't.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
You don't think short trips and some WOT runs are "normal" for a 5.0 Mustang, or for anyone else for that matter? Do you purport that this is the only engine of the face of the planet that sees short trips and some "spirited" running? Do you infer that this type of use is beyond what Ford had in mind when it designed the engine, and stipulated that the oil simply must meet the Ford spec (which is NOT predicated on syns, BTW). You're fooling yourself, sir or ma'am. Why - even your very own statement confers this is expected ...
Originally Posted By: JDos1
... everything appears normal.


I have thousands upon thousands of UOAs for all kinds of vehicles and engines in my database. I can tell you that the statistical normality of everyday use by all kinds of folks shows what is "normal". This UOA is normal; you said it yourself. The use it sees is normal; there is nothing unique about some short trips or WOT runs. Cat labs may not advise you what the "average" metals are, but I would concur you are well within one sigma node of "normal" wear. Further, you CANNOT look at singular UOAs and suggest that any one product is better or worse than another. You cannot use limited micro analysis in such fassion; at least not do so and come to a statistically credible conclusion.

Again - I'm not picking on the lube; the Amsoil did a fine job. It likely could have done a fine job for 2x or 3x that OCI interval. But at the artificial limit of 7.3k miles, it's a waste of any syn, regardless of who makes it (that includes the Synpower you just put in). Any decent qualified lube meeting the Ford spec (of which many dino's do) would have done just as well.

According to the MotorCraft website (the official site for Ford owners manual publications), the 2011 Mustang manual (3rd printing; page 277) simply calls for oil meeting WSS-M2C930-A for both the 3.7L and 5.0L engines. Just about ANY brand name dino oil including PYB, Mobil 5k or Super, QSGB, VWB, and a host of others do indeed meet that spec (which has been superceeded by either 946 or 946 IIRC). Further, according to page 322 of that document, the Mustang has an IOLM, and can indicate up to 10k miles (or one year) OCI. What did your IOLM indicate at 7.3k miles? The performance expectations of the IOLM are predicated on any lube meeting the Ford spec, not lubes meeting your emotional "synthetic need".

The only thing that can be said, I have already said. I would challenge you or anyone else to show me statistical evidence that would allow any other fair and logical conclusions.


Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I have zero care for what he runs, and he probably cares not about what I run. In that matter, it's a free market and we all can do what we want. I have no problem with that; I embrace that.

But ...

It does matter to those who may not be well informed. It matters when we have noobs or lurkers who visit and try to learn.

The point I make is that "normal" is vastly under-utilized in the world of BITOG vehicle use; many members believe they are "unique" and somehow they use their equipment in a manner that is severe enough to warrant some notable exception to justify some form of premium product. But the reality is that mass-population averages wash out this type of issue. When everone is "special" then no one is "special", as it were. All it takes is a study of averages and variance to realize few of us really push the envelope past "normal".

So why jump on this? Because the numbers in the UOA represent very typical (average) results for this engine. It does not take a synthetic oil to get this kind of performance. All it takes is any oil that meets the Ford spec, which is easily filled by much less expensive fluids. In this case, the synthetic oil use did not manifest into distinguishable "better" wear protection.

And for the noob/lurker, perhaps they don't have an unlimited budget; maybe they are on a fixed income or perhaps a struggling collent student. Who cares? Perhaps they do, and I know I do.

You think I'm "too excited" about this? Fine.
But that does not negate my point.



I challenge you sir......

Give me your BEST conventional over the counter lubricant, in the same engine, driven the same way, for the same mileage. Your "cheap" dino lube wont even come close.

His signature says it all....anti true synthetics. Must work for big oil.

haters14.jpg


Keep preaching your "conventional oils are just as good price versus mileage" comparison. You are so wrong.

You completely ignore the fact that true synthetics have superior cold flow properties, have superior anti shearing properties, lower engine temperatures, provide lower frictional coefficients....which results in lower wear and better efficiency, better TBN, longer duration of use, lower endurance cost, etc.....

This is why I dislike this site. People actually believe petroleum is in the same league. Puhlease!!!
 
Shows how little you know about me. I have often praised syns, when used in the proper context. I actually use syns in some of my personal equipment. But they are not a one-size-fits-all answer for everything. Any lube, regardless of base stock or grade, can be over or under utilized.


I have thousands of UOAs in my database; I do statistical process control for a living, and ran maintenance programs for years. Syns can only hold an advantage if they are in a position to do so; normal applications don't challenge them past what a dino oil can do in this circumstance.

btw- One could make the same analysis about you; Amsoil drapped all over your signature line. Oil biggot, perhaps?
 
Last edited:
No, just have been proving that Amsoil is kicking dino and hydrocracked petroleum's butt in Ford modular engines for the past few years, and it's funny. I have the evidence to prove it, not just talk on a forum.
 
That's your idea of proof?

I'm sorry, perhaps I need to be more clear in my requirement to a greater level of proof.

Where is the statistical analysis that shows both micro and macro analysis averages? What standard deviation exists?

That is nothing but a list of some UOAs with no organization nor analysis.

Where is the control group? What was the protocol for any of the testing? I see a lot of syns there; where are all the dinos for comparison?

Pointing to a website and saying "see here" isn't proof; it's regurgitation of information that hasn't been analyzed, and shows a complete ignorance of what statistical analysis means.

Stay tuned; I'll post an article soon that I'm putting the finishing touches on that show what real analysis entails. It will have CLEAR examples, both micro and macro, that show in normal use premium products have no realized benefit. I will detail full disclosure showing what I state. I use not just averages, but standard devaiation to show what "normal" really is.

Further, there are some bold people here that are actually using analysis in the proper manner that are finding out what I'm stating. Check 2010FX4 for one such decent storyline developing. There are others.
 
Last edited:
I have never worked for any lube company.
I have worked previously for Ford, and now for several years at a majory HVAC manufacturer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top