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.
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.