Another Ford 2.7l Wet Belt Question

[josephp732]

I have a question about Amsoil and Redline oil compatibility with wet belt oiling systems. I just purchased a 2025 Ford Ranger with a 2.7l Ecoboost engine that uses a wet belt oiling system. Ford's oil specification for this engine is WSS-M2C961-A1 which refers to a 5W-30 engine oil that meets the requirements of ILSAC GF-6, API SP Resource Conserving, and API SN Plus. The service manager at the dealership told me that's it is crucial to use oil that meets Ford's specifications, especially with wet belts, as using incorrect oil can lead to increased wear and potentially shorten the belt's lifespan. To maintain the warranty, of course, he recommended I use Ford's own branded oil. Does anyone know if there has been any wet belt longevity testing when you use a POA/Ester based oil in these systems? In all my vehicles I use either Amsoil Signature or Redline products. My 4Runner's 1GRE-FE runs very well and abnormally quiet on Redline's Ester with high ZZDP oil. I noticed that Redline's Euro-series oil and Amsoil Signature Series both state they can be used in applications or are a suitable replacement for oil that requires the WSS-M2C961-A1 spec. Should I have any concerns about shortening the belt life or maintaining my warranty, if I use these oil's? I perform 5k OCI's.

 

[LazyDog]

I'll stick w/ OEM while the warranty is in place. You can also contact HPL and see what they recomend

 

[zfasts03]

I have a question about Amsoil and Redline oil compatibility with wet belt oiling systems. I just purchased a 2025 Ford Ranger with a 2.7l Ecoboost engine that uses a wet belt oiling system. Ford's oil specification for this engine is WSS-M2C961-A1 which refers to a 5W-30 engine oil that meets the requirements of ILSAC GF-6, API SP Resource Conserving, and API SN Plus. The service manager at the dealership told me that's it is crucial to use oil that meets Ford's specifications, especially with wet belts, as using incorrect oil can lead to increased wear and potentially shorten the belt's lifespan. To maintain the warranty, of course, he recommended I use Ford's own branded oil. Does anyone know if there has been any wet belt longevity testing when you use a POA/Ester based oil in these systems? In all my vehicles I use either Amsoil Signature or Redline products. My 4Runner's 1GRE-FE runs very well and abnormally quiet on Redline's Ester with high ZZDP oil. I noticed that Redline's Euro-series oil and Amsoil Signature Series both state they can be used in applications or are a suitable replacement for oil that requires the WSS-M2C961-A1 spec. Should I have any concerns about shortening the belt life or maintaining my warranty, if I use these oil's? I perform 5k OCI's.

What viscosity Redline oil did you use in the 4Runner that was quiet?

 

[dnewton3]

I have a question about Amsoil and Redline oil compatibility with wet belt oiling systems. I just purchased a 2025 Ford Ranger with a 2.7l Ecoboost engine that uses a wet belt oiling system. Ford's oil specification for this engine is WSS-M2C961-A1 which refers to a 5W-30 engine oil that meets the requirements of ILSAC GF-6, API SP Resource Conserving, and API SN Plus.

I don't think that Ford engineering spec specifically addresses wet belts. If I'm wrong, someone please correct me.

The service manager at the dealership told me that's it is crucial to use oil that meets Ford's specifications, especially with wet belts, as using incorrect oil can lead to increased wear and potentially shorten the belt's lifespan. To maintain the warranty, of course, he recommended I use Ford's own branded oil.

Of course he did ... more money in their pocket.

 

[josephp732]

What viscosity Redline oil did you use in the 4Runner that was quiet?

I have run both 0W-20 and 5W-30 Redline. I was very surprised that even 0W-20 was quieter than other 0W-20's including Toyotas (which is a good oil - I did a few Blackstone reports on Toyota's 0W-20 that I posted a while back), but going to 5W-30 made a big difference. My 4Runner is in FL so I stayed with running 5W-30. I tried same viscosity Amsoil Signature and Redline was quieter. I use Amsoil in all my other vehicles but the 1GR-FE seems to like Redline a little better.

 

[twX]

I don't think that Ford engineering spec specifically addresses wet belts. If I'm wrong, someone please correct me.

Somebody in this thread purchased one of the Ford standards. Apparently they do have a test for wet belt compatibility.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

Somebody in this thread purchased one of the Ford standards. Apparently they do have a test for wet belt compatibility.

But, is that test something that’s not already covered by typical ASTM or API standards? Ford isn’t the only manufacturer to use wet belts, are they?

 

[2.7ecoboostFordBronco]

2.7L Ecoboost Tear down and Wet belt oil pump discussion

Even though the video indicates some wear in that engine’s belt, I haven't heard of a 2.7L failing from the wet belt drive oil pump and they've been using that design since 2018. AI says Ford has manufactured almost 1,000,000 2.7L ecoboost engines with the wet belt driven oil pump by now, which makes sense seeing as about 30% of F-150's are produced with that engine and they sell about 750,000 F-150's per year plus Broncos, Rangers, and other vehicles. Some of the smaller ecoboosts (1.0L) which also had wet TIMING belts have had a lot of problems to include probles with the oil pump belts as well.

I don't know if it will end up being a big problem someday for the 2.7, but I also doubt any non ford-spec oil is going to cause issues with it or we probably would've heard about it by now. On the 1.0L there were some claims that a specific Castrol oil needed to be used for wet belt compatibility: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/1-0l-focus-oil-choice.387154/ . The problems mostly seem to be isolated to that engine though, I haven't heard about it with the 2.7.

I have read that the worst things for the wet belts are fuel exposure through fuel diluted oil. The 2.7L tends to dilute oil with fuel in the 2-4% range according to most Polaris labs UOA's, but it can vary from <1% to 5% for reasons I don't fully understand (probably climate, driving style, age, time spent idling, type of driving, etc). The consensus seems to be that the only ways to mitigate fuel dilution are to change the oil more frequently, probably at intervals not to exceed 5,000 miles, and to use an oil that is thick for grade, like Mobil 1's ESP line or other Euro-spec oils. Dave at HPL told me to use their premium plus 0W-30 for the 2.7L. Lake Speed Jr. told me to use Valvoline Restore and Protect 5W-30 which does have the Ford spec. I'm running two broncos with the 2.7 side by side with the VRP and HPL presently.

Also here is where @CarbonSteel purchased the ford spec requirements applicable to the 2.7L:

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/wss-m3c96x-a1-requirements.379368/

 

[YZJB]

Oil dilution (with fuel) kills wet belts. Keep the oil fresh and it will be absolutely fine.

I would definitely stick to the M2C961-A1 spec though.

 

[dnewton3]

Somebody in this thread purchased one of the Ford standards. Apparently they do have a test for wet belt compatibility.

Interesting info. Thanks.

As Subie inquired, though, is this testing something that makes the Ford spec for the lube truly unique? Or does it just mimic what any GF-6 / SP can do?
I would be impressed if the Ford spec required some manner of "extra" capacity or capability which made the belt last longer. But if all they are testing for is general compatibility to make sure the best isn't adversely affected (undesirable degradation), then their spec isn't really anything special.

 

[twX]

As Subie inquired, though, is this testing something that makes the Ford spec for the lube truly unique? Or does it just mimic what any GF-6 / SP can do?

The API standards include a compatibility test for nitrile rubber, which is apparently what the belt is made of. However, the Ford test seems to use an actual running belt, as well as a test temperature of 150°C instead of the 100°C used for nitrile rubber in the API test. The allowable limits for volume, hardness, etc, might be different as well.

The Ford test seems a lot more specific to the application, so it probably correlates better with belt failures. Of course it could be that most oils out there would easily pass the Ford test without any special formulation changes. I'd still use an oil that meets the spec out of caution, since these wet belts don't exactly have a great reputation for reliability, and they'll destroy the engine when they let go.

 

[thastinger]

2.7L Ecoboost Tear down and Wet belt oil pump discussion

Even though the video indicates some wear in that engine’s belt, I haven't heard of a 2.7L failing from the wet belt drive oil pump and they've been using that design since 2018. AI says Ford has manufactured almost 1,000,000 2.7L ecoboost engines with the wet belt driven oil pump by now, which makes sense seeing as about 30% of F-150's are produced with that engine and they sell about 750,000 F-150's per year plus Broncos, Rangers, and other vehicles. Some of the smaller ecoboosts (1.0L) which also had wet TIMING belts have had a lot of problems to include probles with the oil pump belts as well.

I don't know if it will end up being a big problem someday for the 2.7, but I also doubt any non ford-spec oil is going to cause issues with it or we probably would've heard about it by now. On the 1.0L there were some claims that a specific Castrol oil needed to be used for wet belt compatibility: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/1-0l-focus-oil-choice.387154/ . The problems mostly seem to be isolated to that engine though, I haven't heard about it with the 2.7.

I have read that the worst things for the wet belts are fuel exposure through fuel diluted oil. The 2.7L tends to dilute oil with fuel in the 2-4% range according to most Polaris labs UOA's, but it can vary from <1% to 5% for reasons I don't fully understand (probably climate, driving style, age, time spent idling, type of driving, etc). The consensus seems to be that the only ways to mitigate fuel dilution are to change the oil more frequently, probably at intervals not to exceed 5,000 miles, and to use an oil that is thick for grade, like Mobil 1's ESP line or other Euro-spec oils. Dave at HPL told me to use their premium plus 0W-30 for the 2.7L. Lake Speed Jr. told me to use Valvoline Restore and Protect 5W-30 which does have the Ford spec. I'm running two broncos with the 2.7 side by side with the VRP and HPL presently.

Also here is where @CarbonSteel purchased the ford spec requirements applicable to the 2.7L:

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/wss-m3c96x-a1-requirements.379368/

What boost level does the 2.7 max out at in factory trim?
Being a small engine in a heavy truck, I would suspect it to be in boost a good bit around town and being worked...and boost = fuel dilution.

 

[2.7ecoboostFordBronco]

What boost level does the 2.7 max out at in factory trim?
Being a small engine in a heavy truck, I would suspect it to be in boost a good bit around town and being worked...and boost = fuel dilution.

About 20 psi of boost max, I don’t think I’ve ever seen mine over 18. Aggressive highway merge etc it will get into the mid teens pretty fast. It doesn’t need boost to cruise at 70 mph or less unless you’re going uphill, at least in Bronco. Most city driving you can stay out of the boost completely if you drive normally, except accelerating uphill.

I’m not qualified to assess the engineering merits of the engine but far and away the biggest reported problem with them seems to be premature failure of Variable Cam Timing (VCT) phasers, not the oil pump wet belts, and since the phasers are reported to fail in as little as 3,000 miles since new for some owners, I don’t think oil plays a major role.

 

[josephp732]

I asked the question to Red Line and Amsoil. So far Red Line responded:

Red Line Professional-Series Motor Oil 5W-30 product 12204 exceeds new car warranty requirements as defined by ILSAC GF-6. It is uniquely formulated to help combat low speed pre-ignition (LSPI) in turbocharged gasoline direct injection engines.

Red Line Professional-Series Motor Oil meets or exceeds “Resource Conserving”requirements for fuel economy improvement, emission system and turbocharger protection, and protection of engines operating on ethanol-containing fuels up to E85.
It is backward serviceable for use where API SN or earlier “S” category engine oils are recommended.

Red Line Professional-Series Motor Oil is licensed for:

• ILSAC GF-6A, 0W-20, 5W-20, 5W-30 API Service SP, SN PLUS with Resource Conserving
• GM dexos1® Gen3, 0W-20 and 5W-30

Red Line Professional-Series Motor Oil meets or exceeds the requirements of:

• Chrysler MS-6395
• Ford WSS-M2C960-A1 (SAE 5W-20)
• Ford WSS-M2C961-A1 (SAE 5W-30)
• Ford WSS-M2C962-A1 (SAE 0W-20)
• GM6094M (obsolete specification)

Red Line High performance Euro 5W-30 product #12304 is “suitable to use” in applications calling for FORD M2C-917A/M2C-946-B1/WSS- M2C961-A1. Redline high performance series product line is a “suitable to use” product but will not carry The OEM API licensing such as the profession series engine oil.

This product will include the appropriate levels of anti-wear additives and low ash content to ensure emission equipment compatibility.

The euro series 5W-30 is an SP rated product which will still have reduced levels of ZDDP compared to the 5W-30 high-performance engine oils. The Euro 5W-30 would be suggested over the non-Euro 5W-30 HP engine oil.

We not aware of any specific testing that has been done on wet belt applications when it comes to Red line oils, but based off the Ford WSS- M2C961-A1 the Euro series states it suitable for use.

From warranty standpoint we suggest staying with OEM recommended products and or using the professional series engine oils they carry the API and OEM license for warranty protection. it also recommended to always verify with the dealership before switching to any products to avoid warranty issues.

 

[josephp732]

Amsoil's reply:

Thank you for reaching out to us. Yes, the oils we are offering for this vehicle meet fords specifications. I do not have any research results to share for wet belts. There are no concerns maintaining a regular warranty with this product. If you have an extended warranty, please read the details on it to make sure of the exact wording.

Thank you,
AMSOIL Technical Services

 

[relentless044]

on my 2.7 (bronco) I am running the controversial a word's signature series and am most pleased, just like the first eco boost I dumped it in it is quieter, and gets a tad better mpg vs the ford syn blend.

As far as the effect on the wet belt, if you get a lot of fuel dillution thats not good for the rubber but the 2.7L has been one of the few genuinely good things to come out of ford and wear the ecoboost badge, I'd trust it, and I trust the amsoil

For me I'll likely follow the moniter as I live in a fairly warm climate and the truck sees a decent amount of highway, unless the oil test says otherwise

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

on my 2.7 (bronco) I am running the controversial a word's signature series and am most pleased, just like the first eco boost I dumped it in it is quieter, and gets a tad better mpg vs the ford syn blend.

As far as the effect on the wet belt, if you get a lot of fuel dillution thats not good for the rubber but the 2.7L has been one of the few genuinely good things to come out of ford and wear the ecoboost badge, I'd trust it, and I trust the amsoil

For me I'll likely follow the moniter as I live in a fairly warm climate and the truck sees a decent amount of highway, unless the oil test says otherwise

There’s nothing more controversial about Amsoil’s products than any other oil company. They make better products than many. If you’re referring to business practices, they’ve been around for more than 50 years so it’s obviously legal and working well.

Even if I hadn’t used Amsoil and hold a high opinion of them, I find it quite high hypocrisy that people who whine about a $16 annual fee for Amsoil have no problem at all paying Costco $150, or $15/mo for Netflix, or any other paid membership where other significantly similar places have free alternatives. Those people are the EV Karen’s complaining about some ICE parking in “their” spot!

Amsoil sells excellent products. If they fit your needs and you use them, don’t make excuses about your choice just to appease people who don’t have any say about it. There’s a cost of admission to every single thing in life.

 

[relentless044]

There’s nothing more controversial about Amsoil’s products than any other oil company. They make better products than many. If you’re referring to business practices, they’ve been around for more than 50 years so it’s obviously legal and working well.

Even if I hadn’t used Amsoil and hold a high opinion of them, I find it quite high hypocrisy that people who whine about a $16 annual fee for Amsoil have no problem at all paying Costco $150, or $15/mo for Netflix, or any other paid membership where other significantly similar places have free alternatives. Those people are the EV Karen’s complaining about some ICE parking in “their” spot!

Amsoil sells excellent products. If they fit your needs and you use them, don’t make excuses about your choice just to appease people who don’t have any say about it. There’s a cost of admission to every single thing in life.

you got the wrong guy, for the most part I agree with you, I use amsoil in virtually everything, motorcycles, all of my trucks, even the 02 nissan with 210k on it that runs 3-4 times a year as its a matter of well that escalated quickly.

I agree, save the money for better food and drink, yup, cause drinking your money is an excellent return on investment

Its always been humorous to me to read that a uoa is not a tool to determine how well a motor oil is doing, but whenever someone does one featuring an amsoil or other boutique product its a matter of I could do that with brand xy