48 qts of M1 5w-40 vs Ford Spec WSS-M2C946-B1 EcoBoost

[TTBadDog]

I bought qty 3, 24 qt box of Mobil 1 5W-40 from a shop closing down oil change service. Time vs money thing for them.

Meets or exceeds the requirements of
API SP, SNPLUS, SN SM SL
ACEA A3/B4
AAE (STO 003) GROUP B7 -CHINA GB 11121-2006SL

Has the following builder approvals
-MB 229.3, MB 229.5 -VW 502 00, 505 00 -Porsche A40
-AVT0VAZ Group Premium - BMW LL01
-Renault RN0700, RN0710

Sounds like a cookie recipe there, I know that the 2017 Ecoboost calls for WSS-M2C946-B1spec but the above oil does not meet that spec. I am not able to determine if it is simply a viscosity or EPA thing. I perused several threads but cannot make a determination if this is a better oil than the "recommended" or simply good enough and is fine to run in an EcoBoost 3.5L truck with light-duty towing now and then. See thread 1.

I can see this is an Euro oil and the HTHS may be better than others. I read that, in general, the 0w-40 oils have a better base stock than the 5W-40 oils and that some of the EcoBoost guys prefer a specific flavor, but at some point we are splitting hairs. Is the M1 5W-40 "good enough" given that it was cheap enough with an OCI of 4 or 5K? Oil analysis will be done to see if the interval is correct. Packaging or Mfg. date was 08/23 so given the amount of oil I have and the OCI for the boat (GM 502 old school carb, good oil cooler, minimal WOT), 2007 BMW 328i I have plenty of oil to tighten OCI before the 5year expiration (Mobil says 5 year shelf life per google machine).

Does anyone see an issue using this in an EcoBoost for general driving and light 6500lb towing regardless of the Ford spec?
Should be OK for the GM 502 in a boat?
Pretty sure it is ok for the 07 BMW FI NA straight 6?

There might be a better choice of oil but at this point, I am considering the oil as free as it is paid for and I already have it. I was offered it for a good price and it would not be available if I took the time to research it, "by it now or the next guy in the door will".

Thread 1

W

Thread 'WSS-M2C946-B1 vs WSS-M2C961-A1'

May 29, 2020

Good Evening Everyone,

So I recently acquired a 2012 F-150 with a 3.5L EcoBoost and while reading the owners manual I noted that the oil spec in the the manual is 5w30 WSS-M2C946-A (which I have since learned has been superseded by B1). I started looking at what oils would meet that spec and I really want to use Valvoline Red Bottle Maxlife. I've used that oil in the past and have always had a good experience with it.

I jumped on Valvoline's website and checked the PI Sheet for Maxlife and it says that it meets Ford WSS-M2C961-A1 (in addition to being API SP, etc). In fact according to...

• W9HDG
• Replies: 7
• Forum: Passenger Car Motor Oil (PCMO) - Gasoline Vehicles

• 

 

[rijndael]

WSS-M2C961-A1 supercedes WSS-M2C946-B1.


I found this to be an interesting summary of the Ford spec:

https://www.explorerst.org/threads/resources-on-ford-approved-engine-oil-for-the-3l-eb.8133/

What makes the WSS-M2C961-A1 standard:

- Viscosity: SAE 5W-30
- ILSAC Standard: GF-6A
- API Certification: API SP
- Engine Tests: The oil must perform well under several ASTM tests, including:
- D6557 (Ball Rust Test)
- D8111 (Sequence IIIH - for oxidation and viscosity increase)
- D8350 (Sequence IVB - for valve train wear)
- D8256 (Sequence VH - for fuel efficiency)
- D8114 (Sequence VIE - for LSPI control)
- D6709 (Sequence VIII - for high-temperature deposit formation)
- D6335 (TEOST 33C - for deposit formation under thermal stress)

- Additional Requirements:
- Oils need to pass a Ford-specific chain wear test, which indicates durability for engine timing chains.
- They require a Total Base Number (TBN) greater than 10, which is higher than some other standards like ACEA A5/B5 which require a TBN >8, indicating good acid neutralization capability.
- Ford also prescribes additional oxidation tests to ensure oils do not degrade too quickly, enhancing engine longevity.

- Compatibility: This spec supersedes the older WSS-M2C946-B1 standard. Oils meeting WSS-M2C961-A1 are generally considered backward compatible for engines specifying the older standard, but for warranty and optimal performance, Ford recommends using oils that meet this newer specification.

- Market Availability: Brands like Motorcraft, Valvoline, Mobil 1, Castrol, and Pennzoil have oils that meet this specification. However, not all oils from these brands that meet API SP or ILSAC GF-6A will necessarily meet WSS-M2C961-A1 due to the additional Ford-specific tests and requirements.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

That oil will be fine in an EcoBoost. If you buy a good oil that stays in grade, there’s no need to step up to a 40 grade, but it’s senseless to not use it, either.

 

[TTBadDog]

I get that the WSS-M2C946-B1 is specific to the weight, the link above applies to a different spec WSS-M2C961-A1 which supercedes the WSS-M2C946-B1 so likely a tighter yet standard though still specific to 5W-30. This would lead me to believe that no 5w-40 is going to meet that spec as the viscosity is wrong. The only thing I see there that could be of concern is the
D8114 (Sequence VIE - for LSPI control)
Article on LSPI control
https://www.valvolineglobal.com/en-eur/what-is-lspi/

And the SP grade of the oil from post 1 that does NOT meet the Ford spec addresses LSPI and Chain Wear, sort of leads me to believe that the SP grade is going to be good enough just the not Ford wanted grade for CAFE crap.
https://www.valvolineglobal.com/en-... new,available for different viscosity grades.

Sort of starting to go down the rabbit hole but original question stands, is the oil listed in post 1 "Good enough", will only be using it for 4 or 5 changes on the EcoBoost 3.5L I am not worried about the other engines in post 1, pretty sure it is fine for them but open to correction.

FROM THE LINKED POST #2 and info suggests supercedeing M2C946
What makes the WSS-M2C961-A1 standard:

- Viscosity: SAE 5W-30
- ILSAC Standard: GF-6A
- API Certification: API SP
- Engine Tests: The oil must perform well under several ASTM tests, including:
- D6557 (Ball Rust Test)
- D8111 (Sequence IIIH - for oxidation and viscosity increase)
- D8350 (Sequence IVB - for valve train wear)
- D8256 (Sequence VH - for fuel efficiency)
- D8114 (Sequence VIE - for LSPI control)
- D6709 (Sequence VIII - for high-temperature deposit formation)
- D6335 (TEOST 33C - for deposit formation under thermal stress)

- Additional Requirements:
- Oils need to pass a Ford-specific chain wear test, which indicates durability for engine timing chains.
- They require a Total Base Number (TBN) greater than 10, which is higher than some other standards like ACEA A5/B5 which require a TBN >8, indicating good acid neutralization capability.
- Ford also prescribes additional oxidation tests to ensure oils do not degrade too quickly, enhancing engine longevity.

 

[TTBadDog]

That oil will be fine in an EcoBoost. If you buy a good oil that stays in grade, there’s no need to step up to a 40 grade, but it’s senseless to not use it, either.

You posted while I was typing, I am sort of leaning that way. Aware that the XW-30 is the Ford spec but the Hot end of the W can vary a lot from mfg. to mfg. and with the current GM 6.2 debacle and thicker oil in lieu of the CAFE standard, I am thinking the 40W is less CAFE friendly but perhaps more engine bearing friendly. Without knowing the bearing clearances in the as mfg. EcoBoost hard to say if a 40W or 30W is better. I would think that the HTHS is more important in a boosted engine than an NA engine and it has a HTHS of 3.9 which is pretty respectable
https://www.mobil.com/en-fr/passenger-vehicle-lube/pds/gl-xx-mobil-1-5w40

 

[kschachn]

I get that the WSS-M2C946-B1 is specific to the weight, the link above applies to a different spec WSS-M2C961-A1 which supercedes the WSS-M2C946-B1 so likely a tighter yet standard though still specific to 5W-30. This would lead me to believe that no 5w-40 is going to meet that spec as the viscosity is wrong. The only thing I see there that could be of concern is the
D8114 (Sequence VIE - for LSPI control)
Article on LSPI control
https://www.valvolineglobal.com/en-eur/what-is-lspi/

And the SP grade of the oil from post 1 that does NOT meet the Ford spec addresses LSPI and Chain Wear, sort of leads me to believe that the SP grade is going to be good enough just the not Ford wanted grade for CAFE crap.
https://www.valvolineglobal.com/en-au/blog/education/api-sp-and-ilsac-gf-6-specifications-are-coming-in-2020/#:~:text=API SP is the new,available for different viscosity grades.

Sort of starting to go down the rabbit hole but original question stands, is the oil listed in post 1 "Good enough", will only be using it for 4 or 5 changes on the EcoBoost 3.5L I am not worried about the other engines in post 1, pretty sure it is fine for them but open to correction.

FROM THE LINKED POST #2 and info suggests supercedeing M2C946
What makes the WSS-M2C961-A1 standard:

- Viscosity: SAE 5W-30
- ILSAC Standard: GF-6A
- API Certification: API SP
- Engine Tests: The oil must perform well under several ASTM tests, including:
- D6557 (Ball Rust Test)
- D8111 (Sequence IIIH - for oxidation and viscosity increase)
- D8350 (Sequence IVB - for valve train wear)
- D8256 (Sequence VH - for fuel efficiency)
- D8114 (Sequence VIE - for LSPI control)
- D6709 (Sequence VIII - for high-temperature deposit formation)
- D6335 (TEOST 33C - for deposit formation under thermal stress)

- Additional Requirements:
- Oils need to pass a Ford-specific chain wear test, which indicates durability for engine timing chains.
- They require a Total Base Number (TBN) greater than 10, which is higher than some other standards like ACEA A5/B5 which require a TBN >8, indicating good acid neutralization capability.
- Ford also prescribes additional oxidation tests to ensure oils do not degrade too quickly, enhancing engine longevity.

It’s fine.

 

[kschachn]

You posted while I was typing, I am sort of leaning that way. Aware that the XW-30 is the Ford spec but the Hot end of the W can vary a lot from mfg. to mfg. and with the current GM 6.2 debacle and thicker oil in lieu of the CAFE standard, I am thinking the 40W is less CAFE friendly but perhaps more engine bearing friendly. Without knowing the bearing clearances in the as mfg. EcoBoost hard to say if a 40W or 30W is better. I would think that the HTHS is more important in a boosted engine than an NA engine and it has a HTHS of 3.9 which is pretty respectable
https://www.mobil.com/en-fr/passenger-vehicle-lube/pds/gl-xx-mobil-1-5w40

You don’t need to know the bearing clearances. A 40-grade with a higher HT/HS will reduce wear. How much depends, and whether it is important to you.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

You posted while I was typing, I am sort of leaning that way. Aware that the XW-30 is the Ford spec but the Hot end of the W can vary a lot from mfg. to mfg. and with the current GM 6.2 debacle and thicker oil in lieu of the CAFE standard, I am thinking the 40W is less CAFE friendly but perhaps more engine bearing friendly. Without knowing the bearing clearances in the as mfg. EcoBoost hard to say if a 40W or 30W is better. I would think that the HTHS is more important in a boosted engine than an NA engine and it has a HTHS of 3.9 which is pretty respectable
https://www.mobil.com/en-fr/passenger-vehicle-lube/pds/gl-xx-mobil-1-5w40

If you’re concerned, run the 40 in your OPE. Buy a 30 grade that stays in grade; the HPL PCMO 5w30 has been proven over a couple billion miles in a large fleet in hard conditions over 15-20k mile OCIs. I’m not recommending to go to this and blindly jump to those distances, but to say that when an oil stays in grade and has the proper makeup to provide protection over very long intervals, there’s no need to increase grades if the recommended grade provides the needed protection, like @kschachn referenced.

FTR, I have been running HPL’s oils at 14-16k intervals for the past ~54k miles, and while not a direct indicator of wear, my UOAs are averaging right at 2ppm Fe/1k and reserve TBN is higher than most oils today are when they’re virgin. HPL has protected my engine well, so for me the “cost” of buying a premium oil is more than offset by the protection & extended intervals.

But again, you can run the 40 grade oil in your truck; a 3.9HT/HS is more than sufficient. I’d do 5k in-service UOAs to determine when to change it.

 

[tcp71]

My 2016 Eco has been running Edge 0w40 since new. 80k miles now. Your 5w40 meets far more stringent requirements than Ford's. Use it and enjoy.

 

[TTBadDog]

For all the responses, thanks guys! I am no Tribologist but I am aware that certain standards and properties are key to a healthy engine, I can read and take advice.

 

[FlyingTexan]

A 40-grade with a higher HT/HS will reduce wear.

Since when?

 

[kschachn]

Since when?

Since physics started. An increase in HT/HS always reduces wear. It’s not linear, but it does reduce wear.

I’m surprised you were not part of the discussion that showed that graph.

 

[FlyingTexan]

Since physics started. An increase in HT/HS always reduces wear. It’s not linear, but it does reduce wear.

I’m surprised you were not part of the discussion that showed that graph.

What physics did you take that supports this? Why don't you just run a a 10w-60 in every daily driver? Hint..... look to the left of the graph.

 

[kschachn]

What physics did you take that supports this? Why don't you just run a a 10w-60 in every daily driver? Hint..... look to the left of the graph.

View attachment 278032

Because that winter rating would not be appropriate for my area for some of the year. Plus I'm doing well in my vehicles with a 3.5 HT/HS oil, getting as many miles out of them as I need (and then some). But could I run a -60 grade? Sure, I could.

 

[FlyingTexan]

Because that winter rating would not be appropriate for my area for some of the year. Plus I'm doing well in my vehicles with a 3.5 HT/HS oil, getting as many miles out of them as I need (and then some). But could I run a -60 grade? Sure, I could.

lol you’ll tell yourself anything. Here I’ll use your common retort, what lab based data supports your claim? Because in the real world it doesn’t hold.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

lol you’ll tell yourself anything. Here I’ll use your common retort, what lab based data supports your claim? Because in the real world it doesn’t hold.

I guess GM eating crow on the 6.2Ls and changing their recommendations from a 0w20 with an HTHS of about 2.9 to a 0W40 with an HTHS somewhere above 3.5 isn't lab-based or real-world enough for you?

Besides, your graph lacks context, potentially due to poor cropping technique. What was the duration of each test? Where is the legend that shows what the different shapes represent? How many decades ago was your data captured, considering it looks like a chart my kid recently drew for school? What about diesel engines that run hundreds of thousands of miles on HTHS levels you claim would cause their early demise?

 

[kschachn]

I guess GM eating crow on the 6.2Ls and changing their recommendations from a 0w20 with an HTHS of about 2.9 to a 0W40 with an HTHS somewhere above 3.5 isn't lab-based or real-world enough for you?

Besides, your graph lacks context, potentially due to poor cropping technique. What was the duration of each test? Where is the legend that shows what the different shapes represent? How many decades ago was your data captured, considering it looks like a chart my kid recently drew for school? What about diesel engines that run hundreds of thousands of miles on HTHS levels you claim would cause their early demise?

You’re more patient than me.

 

[wemay]

For me, believing the cause of GM's troubles is the oil viscosity is like believing you must stick with a XW20 because today’s advanced engines are built with much tighter tolerances.

 

[walterjay]

I think your engine will do just fine with 5-40.

 

[Strumpan_]

Any oil will be good for a American engine. As we all know.