Best Oil for 5.0L Coyote

If I was a service manager and Ford was paying the bill I would not hesitate to take a warranty job.
Well, clearly you aren't a service manager. Ford "paying the bill" does NOT pay like a non-warranty job. Warranty work tends to pay VERY poorly, which is why dealerships will try to avoid it if possible.

When that warranty work is an engine job, you are holding up a bay and, depending on the shop configuration, you may not be able to clear that hoist/bay so then you are down a source of revenue. No shop wants a job that isn't making money taking up a hoist, and no tech wants that in his/her bay.

So, let's say this job pays 14 hours warranty rate, but it takes a good tech 18 to do it right. The tech is already working a loser even ignoring the lower rate paid for warranty, AND the vehicle is difficult to move without the engine in it and, depending on the shop configuration, may need to stay in the bay while they wait for the replacement engine and parts to arrive. Those could be on back-order (look at the current supply shortage) and may take weeks to arrive. So, now the tech is inconvenienced, the shop is inconvenienced, the owner is inconvenienced, and down a vehicle for a few weeks, maybe has to get a rental...etc. It's not a good experience for anybody involved. AND, the shop has to show Ford that the TSB is applicable to the situation with this particular vehicle in order to initiate a warranty claim so that Ford will cover it. This is additional work for the tech and the SM.

SO, if a tech, on their own volition, has determined that, in some instances, just changing the oil to something a bit heavier, solves the problem, that'll likely be the first course of action taken/suggested with the owner. If that solves the problem, great! The owner had a quick fix, so did the tech, and the tech has likely already told the SM that this is an effective solution in some instances. A job was quickly moved through the shop and everybody is happy. That's why these solutions are shared in threads like these by techs.

Now, if that "quick fix" does NOT correct the problem, then more in-depth action will of course have to be taken. Same with if the customer isn't happy with the idea of using a different oil and forces the issue.
But this is all hypothetical as your thinking that the service manager would use Mobil 1 5w-30 to fix the problem.
It's not hypothetical, we literally had a Ford tech in this thread STATE that he used M1 5w-30 to deal with oil consumption on this friggin' engine. If that effectively works, the dealership avoids an engine warranty job, which makes everyone happy.
Like you said “Ludicrous”.
If my earlier comments got you all wadded up, that's unfortunate, but trying to spin this back at me isn't going to work and we've engaged enough that you should know that by now.
The bulletin spells out every part and action to do. But then the other service bulletins ceded the earlier. Still continued with the Motorcraft 5w-20 oil recommendation when Motorcraft had 5w-30 available.
Christ on a cracker, we all know the details of the bloody TSB. That in no way means that the dealership isn't going to take an "alternative" route that they've found works in practice, that avoid them having to do an engine job Bill.
 
Last edited:
At ford dealerships they use motorcraft syn blend. which is rebranded ConocoPhillips.
Yup, that's the Motorcraft stuff. I know some dealerships also sell "upgraded" oils, our local Ford dealer pushes Mobil 1, but I've heard some push Castrol too.
 
But then the other service bulletins ceded the earlier.

Very typical of TSBs/Service Bulletins for them to be superseded as time goes by and they tweaked them - every auto maker does it. The new version always says which TBS/Service Bulletin they superseded.
 
The TSB for oil consumption was to replace the dipstick with a longer range.
I was talking about the TSBs in post #24, and TSBs in general. The 4 TSBs in post #24 go like this. Replacing the dipstick was part of the newest one listed.

TSB 19-2058 supersedes none
TSB 19-2133 supersedes 19-2058.
TSB 19-2338 supersedes 19-2133
TSB 19-2365 supersedes 19-2338

They all pertain to: "5.0L - Excessive Oil Consumption". The replacement of the dipstick isn't mentioned until the latest TSB in the list, TSB 19-2365. So as time went on, Ford tweaked that series of TSBs that superseded the previous ones listed.

Any TSB/Service Bulletin that supersedes another are related and morphing with time. The shop would have to read the whole chain of related TSBs to see how the TSBs changed with time.
 
Last edited:
I was talking about the TSBs in post #24, and TSBs in general. The 4 TSBs in post #24 go like this. Replacing the dipstick was part of the newest one listed.

TSB 19-2058 supersedes none
TSB 19-2133 supersedes 19-2058.
TSB 19-2338 supersedes 19-2133
TSB 19-2365 supersedes 19-2338

They all pertain to: "5.0L - Excessive Oil Consumption". The replacement of the dipstick isn't mentioned until the latest TSB in the list, TSB 19-2365. So as time went on, Ford tweaked that series of TSBs that superseded the previous ones listed.

Any TSB/Service Bulletin that supersedes another are related and morphing with time. The shop would have to read the whole chain of related TSBs to see how the TSBs changed with time.
Did Ford dodge another bullet? Mobil 1 can fix it.
 
None of the TSB we did worked. Ford tried to come up with some BS to keep customers away temporarily. Just like the 3.5 ecoboost cam phaser problems, ford came up with a PCM update that would solve the issue, lol it was a complete joke. Problem with ford is, they like to hire engineers right out of school that have no experience working with automobiles, and that’s why they are so screwed up. That was told to us in ford school by instructors.
 
None of the TSB we did worked. Ford tried to come up with some BS to keep customers away temporarily. Just like the 3.5 ecoboost cam phaser problems, ford came up with a PCM update that would solve the issue, lol it was a complete joke. Problem with ford is, they like to hire engineers right out of school that have no experience working with automobiles, and that’s why they are so screwed up. That was told to us in ford school by instructors.
Thanks… That is typical. When I worked we get blueprints on substations and 80% was right. Up to the field implementers to get it to 100%. Ford is just being Ford like almost every other corporation.




Notice the lawsuit date is after the above TSB fix. If reprogramming is a fix, why the longer dipstick?

Here is some good news…

 
Last edited:
The simple fix for oil consumption issues is to use 5w30, that didn’t come from ford, we just did it as an experiment to see
Yup, and, trying heavier oil as an experiment made total sense for the reasons I explained earlier. Nobody wants to do an engine job, especially a warranty one, something that is made even worse if the engine replacement doesn't solve the bloody issue!
 
Notice the lawsuit date is after the above TSB fix. If reprogramming is a fix, why the longer dipstick?

Here is some good news…


Well, there ya go ... he said TSB 19-2365 fixed his oil consumption.

The longer dipstick was to lower the oil level in the sump, as apparently the original oil level was too high (possible excessive crank windage factor?) and contributing to the oil consumption.
 
Well, there ya go ... he said TSB 19-2365 fixed his oil consumption.

The longer dipstick was to lower the oil level in the sump, as apparently the original oil level was too high (possible excessive crank windage factor?) and contributing to the oil consumption.
The first video compares the old and new dipstick. The full hole mark is the same length. At the 1.40 time.
 
The first video compares the old and new dipstick. The full hole mark is the same length. At the 1.40 time.
See that now, assuming he had the handles perfectly aligned it appears the "full" hole is the same distance. If so, then Ford must have lowered the "low" hole to go longer between oil adds, and/or maybe the calibration of the original dipstick was off.

Was it exactly 1.0 qt between the "low" and "full" holes on the original dipstick when the engine and oil is cold ... maybe not? What's the volume change now on the new dipstick between the "low" and "full" holes ... who has verified? Something I always verify on my vehicles is if the dipstick is accurate between the low and full marks (is it really 1.0 qt).
 
See that now, assuming he had the handles perfectly aligned it appears the "full" hole is the same distance. If so, then Ford must have lowered the "low" hole to go longer between oil adds, and/or maybe the calibration of the original dipstick was off.

Was it exactly 1.0 qt between the "low" and "full" holes on the original dipstick when the engine and oil is cold ... maybe not? What's the volume change now on the new dipstick between the "low" and "full" holes ... who has verified? Something I always verify on my vehicles is if the dipstick is accurate between the low and full marks (is it really 1.0 qt).
My Miata is .75 quarts between the two. Has not been anywhere but the top hole so happy camper here.
 
Back
Top