F-150 Ecoboost - Amsoil AZO or Mobil Delvac 222?

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: Smokefan1977

I just don't get why a Company like GM can't get onboard with changing their truck engines. Pushrods and more moving parts is so 1980. I don't get why anyone would purchase this old technology. Keep building them and ill keep making money on failed valvetrain parts


If you're building a race engine with limited displacement and unlimited revs, OHC is better. For passenger cars, pushrod engines have advantages in lower manufacturing cost, lower parts count, lower friction, lower engine weight, lower engine CG, and lower engine height and width. How are you going to build a Vee-type OHC engine and keep the parts count down to the same that's achievable in a pushrod engine with the same number of cylinders?

As far as the Ecoboost is concerned, I think it's well-engineered, but the execution is flawed for fitting in with the automotive world of the next 5-10 years. The industry buzzwords I have been hearing since the Feds jacked up the CAFE standards are "friction reduction", "engine downsizing" and "engine downspeeding". While Ecoboost embraces downsizing, the 3.5 V6 has four cams, 24 valves and slider cam followers, all of which flies in the face of friction reduction.

And once downspeeding takes hold in the next 3-4 years, there will be less need for 6000+ rpm speeds, so 4 valve per cylinder engines will be harder to justify. Why not engineer a 3.9-liter 2 valve per cylinder pushrod V6 to do the same thing?

 

[Nick R]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Originally Posted By: Smokefan1977

I just don't get why a Company like GM can't get onboard with changing their truck engines. Pushrods and more moving parts is so 1980. I don't get why anyone would purchase this old technology. Keep building them and ill keep making money on failed valvetrain parts


If you're building a race engine with limited displacement and unlimited revs, OHC is better. For passenger cars, pushrod engines have advantages in lower manufacturing cost, lower parts count, lower friction, lower engine weight, lower engine CG, and lower engine height and width. How are you going to build a Vee-type OHC engine and keep the parts count down to the same that's achievable in a pushrod engine with the same number of cylinders?

As far as the Ecoboost is concerned, I think it's well-engineered, but the execution is flawed for fitting in with the automotive world of the next 5-10 years. The industry buzzwords I have been hearing since the Feds jacked up the CAFE standards are "friction reduction", "engine downsizing" and "engine downspeeding". While Ecoboost embraces downsizing, the 3.5 V6 has four cams, 24 valves and slider cam followers, all of which flies in the face of friction reduction.

And once downspeeding takes hold in the next 3-4 years, there will be less need for 6000+ rpm speeds, so 4 valve per cylinder engines will be harder to justify. Why not engineer a 3.9-liter 2 valve per cylinder pushrod V6 to do the same thing?


Because 2 valve per cylinder engines are MUCH less efficient than 4 valve engines, in both power per displacement, and fuel efficiency. Why do you think that a 2.0L 16V engine can make 160HP (Focus) when a 3.4L OHV 12V V6 (GM 3400) makes the same power nearly?

Advances in metallurgy, engine design, and lubrication all mean that friction is minimized. Pushrods may have less friction, but there is more sprung mass in the valvetrain than in an OHC setup.

You seem to forget that, older simpler engines are vastly less powerful, and fuel efficient than modern multi-cam engines. Also remember that it is possible to implement VVT in OHV setups, but it isn't as easy as it isn't as easy as in a DOHC setup.

Many newer engines are switching to roller cam followers, such as the ecotec in my cruze, and the new V6 in the equinox.

 

[Smokefan1977]

I do agree GM has done well with recent cars but the truck line need ALOT of work IMO to compete with todays market. In the last month I have had 2 malibus and 4 LS based trucks with either bent pushrods or broken rocker arms. it's just disappointing to see very little changes and they were until recently struggeling profit.....They are now profiting merely because of the recent cars they have come out with.

I think ford has proven quality will outsell and out profit for many years.

I used to drive many GM vehicles, but I could not stand the little problems that plagued them not to mention numerous injector issues. In 1999 I went to ford and haven't looked back

 

[chevman4life]

Well there have been plenty of people that have great luck with GM pushrod engines, myself included. Heck also look at the popularity of the Hemi. Pushrods work as do OHC, ain't broke don't fix it. I would much rather have a pushrod V8. There is no disadvantage in OHV to the average person on today's engine technology.

Also, it's not 1999 anymore, GM does not make the same vehicles. Ford still has their problems, hinse the reason I traded my Lincoln Town Car. Just because they didn't take bailout money and developed the EB doesn't make them a saint. GM has come a long way and made better vehicles as have Chrysler and Ford.

 

[Nick R]

Originally Posted By: chevman4life
Well there have been plenty of people that have great luck with GM pushrod engines, myself included. Heck also look at the popularity of the Hemi. Pushrods work as do OHC, ain't broke don't fix it. I would much rather have a pushrod V8. There is no disadvantage in OHV to the average person on today's engine technology.

Also, it's not 1999 anymore, GM does not make the same vehicles. Ford still has their problems, hinse the reason I traded my Lincoln Town Car. Just because they didn't take bailout money and developed the EB doesn't make them a saint. GM has come a long way and made better vehicles as have Chrysler and Ford.


No downsides other than lower efficiency and HP/Liter, and often worse torque curves.

 

[Unleashedbeast]

Originally Posted By: buster
No one is hung up on Group III base oils. Fuel economy is affected by several things. Base oil, additives, friction modifiers, viscosity/HT/HS and viscosity modifiers. So you are the one hung up on just one part of the whole.

Amsoil does use high quality PAO base oils, but so do other synthetics.


Originally Posted By: Smokefan1977
Base stocks don't tell the entire story....It's all about the complete package!!


Comparing dino, refined, and true syn base stocks....assuming all are 10W-30, just to pick a SAE grade.

Base stocks make the largest difference in friction properties. Group IV and V base stocks have no contaminants like group II and III. Additives and modifiers can assist cheaper base stocks, but having the purest base from the start will always yield the lowest friction lubricant.

Sure, other companies use group IV and V base stocks. Most mainline Mobil 1 uses a blend of refined petroleum and PAO. It's not all 100% pure. Only 0W-30, 0W-40, 5W-40, 5W-50, and 15W-50 use NO refined petroleum.

Oh, and Buster, your VOA samples looks like 0W-30 AZO Amsoil Signature Series or Mobil 1 0W-30. Mobil 1 0W-30 doesn't use any refined petroleum in the formulation, just like Amsoil's SS line. They both use a very similar additive package. Amsoil will have a higher TBN and can be used for a longer change interval. Both samples could be the same oil, as you would never see the TBN that high on any mainline Mobil 1 formulation. I've never seen Mobil 1 EP have a TBN of 12.x, mostly in the 10.x range.

The UOA of course doesn't distinguish other unique properties about the oil that a UOA can't detect.

 

[Ben99GT]

I've always found this pic interesting:

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: Nick R

Because 2 valve per cylinder engines are MUCH less efficient than 4 valve engines, in both power per displacement, and fuel efficiency. Why do you think that a 2.0L 16V engine can make 160HP (Focus) when a 3.4L OHV 12V V6 (GM 3400) makes the same power nearly?

Advances in metallurgy, engine design, and lubrication all mean that friction is minimized. Pushrods may have less friction, but there is more sprung mass in the valvetrain than in an OHC setup.

You seem to forget that, older simpler engines are vastly less powerful, and fuel efficient than modern multi-cam engines. Also remember that it is possible to implement VVT in OHV setups, but it isn't as easy as it isn't as easy as in a DOHC setup.

Many newer engines are switching to roller cam followers, such as the ecotec in my cruze, and the new V6 in the equinox.


Complete nonsense relative to VVT. It's much simpler to move ONE cam than many. See the new Eagle Hemi. And once again I point to the LS7, as it is small, lightweight, and EXTREMELY powerful in a very simple design. 2 valves versus 4 is relative to where you want the torque, and try and tell any of us that 2 valves can't run strongly... that's just nonsense. You need to get out more.

Roller valvetrains have been around a LONG time in pushrod motors! Hollow pushrods, needle bearing rocker arms, etc, have kept the high rev potential as well.

Now where are those advantages? Mostly on the pages of advertising materials. Plus your comparison of a 1960 design GM v6 versus a contemporary Ford design is hardly a good example of the point.

 

[Nick R]

Really. I never said that there aren't powerful 2V engines. Is VVT "easier" to implement in OHV, yes. I misspoke I guess. You don't want to vary the whole camshaft, you want to vary Intake/Exhaust seperately, which you need a DOHC setup to achieve.

If you don't like my comparison of the old V6 to a newer engine lets try a different one.

The 6.2L V8 in the Camaro makes 426HP. That is 68.7HP/L
The 5.0L V8 in the Mustang makes 412HP. that is 82.4HP/L
The 2.0L I-4 in the Focus makes 160HP. That is 80HP/L
The 5.3L GM V8 makes 315HP. That is 59.43 HP/L


I'm not at all saying that 2v designs are bad, but they are increasingly being replaced by DOHC setups. There is a reason that manufacturers are spending so much time and money developing them.

 

[A_Harman]

Apparently you missed the news of the Viper V10's cam-within-a-cam that does independent adjustment of intake and exhaust valve timing in a pushrod engine. Also, GM builds many pushrod V8's with cam phasers. (Perhaps you should drop them a note to tell them they're wasting their time.) They wouldn't spend ten's of millions of dollars to develop such systems if they didn't get benefit from them.

But you're missing my point: two-valve, single cam engines are cheaper to manufacture than 4-valve, DOHC engines. So the engine displacement needs to be 25% larger to make the same power, the incremental cost of a few more pounds of aluminum and steel to make a larger displacement is much less than having four times the cams, twice the valves, and four times the phasers.

And then consider that all of that extra machinery in the engine burns more fuel. The argument you made before saying that smaller valves require less spring force doesn't hold water. I am a valvetrain engineer at a major Tier One supplier, and calculating cam loads in different types of valvetrains is something I do regularly. By the time that you sum the cam torques from lifting two smaller valves at 7000 rpm, you end up with higher drive torque than lifting one big valve at 6000 rpm.

And then also consider the effect that having 4 independent cam phasers has on the oil pump. Cam phasers are oil hogs, and the oil pump displacement must be greatly upsized to drive them at a high enough rate to be useful. This bigger oil pump adds more to FHP compared to one sized for an engine with a single cam phaser. And don't tell me about variable displacement oil pumps. Once you do that, you're adding even more cost to the engine. See how that works?

 

[addyguy]

Originally Posted By: buster
Exactly.

What oil is this:

ALUMINUM: 0
CHROMIUM: 0
IRON: 0
COPPER: 0
LEAD: 0
TIN: 0
MOLY: 93
NICKEL: 0
MANGANESE: 0
SILVER: 0
TITANIUM: 0
POTASSIUM: 1
BORON: 231
SILICON: 6
SODIUM: 5
CALCIUM: 3275
MAGNESIUM: 17
PHOSPHOROUS: 860
ZINC: 1035
BARIUM: 0


Cst Visc. @100C: 10.4
Flashpoint: 435
Fuel %: —
Antifreeze %: —
Water %: —
Insolubles %: TR
TBN: 12.1


IRON: 0
COPPER: 0
LEAD: 0
TIN: 0
MOLY: 130
NICKEL: 0
MANGANESE: 0
SILVER: 0
TITANIUM: 0
POTASSIUM: 1
BORON: 232
SILICON: 6
SODIUM: 5
CALCIUM: 3251
MAGNESIUM: 12
PHOSPHOROUS: 652
ZINC: 763
BARIUM: 0


Cst Visc. @100C: 10.4
Flashpoint: 440
Fuel %: —
Antifreeze %: —
Water %: —
Insolubles %: TR
TBN: 12.5




First one is SL-spec M1.

Second one is the latest Amsoil AZO 0W-30.

Your point is taken, buster - formulation is similar.

But, whose to say that amsoil isn't being more sensible, going with a time-tested formulation, instead of the 'new' path M1 is taking?

Maybe M1's new formulations will be duds....I doubt it, but...

 

[buster]

Good call. Close but the first was M1 EP API SM from 2006.

 

[addyguy]

Cool - I went back in to add some thoughts - yours?

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: Unleashedbeast
Originally Posted By: buster
Amsoil does use high quality PAO base oils, but so do other synthetics.

Originally Posted By: Smokefan1977

Sure, other companies use group IV and V base stocks. Most mainline Mobil 1 uses a blend of refined petroleum and PAO. It's not all 100% pure. Only 0W-30, 0W-40, 5W-40, 5W-50, and 15W-50 use NO refined petroleum.
Amsoil Signature Series or Mobil 1 0W-30. Mobil 1 0W-30 doesn't use any refined petroleum in the formulation, just like Amsoil's SS line. They both use a very similar additive package. Amsoil will have a higher TBN and can be used for a longer change interval. Both samples could be the same oil, as you would never see the TBN that high on any mainline Mobil 1 formulation. I've never seen Mobil 1 EP have a TBN of 12.x, mostly in the 10.x range.
The UOA of course doesn't distinguish other unique properties about the oil that a UOA can't detect.

Boy has this thread gotten totally off topic!
The OP wanted to know what's best at -40 degrees, Amsoil or Mobil
and the answer is clear, it's Mobil.
EOM and it's subsidiaries (Imperial Oil) are the market leaders in extreme cold performance. Amsoil is not even a contender and quite frankly doesn't claim to be, if they were they'd provide MRV spec's. Even comparing what Amsoil does provide; CCS @ -35C, AZO is 5,900cP vs M1 0W-30's 3,800cP, not even close.
As I mentioned previously there are GP III based oils that are a better extreme cold choice such as PC 0W-30.

Extreme cold performance is academic to most of us consiquently MRV and CCS spec's are of little value if you're not starting your vehicle below -15C or so. In which case simply relying on the HTHSV and VI spec's are better indicators of how light one oil is compared to another at more typical start-up temp's.

 

[buster]

Originally Posted By: addyguy
Cool - I went back in to add some thoughts - yours?


I don't disagree with what you said. I'm not knocking the Amsoil formulations at all. Their oils are built very well. I was pointing out that this Amsoil additive package is nothing new. Tried and true, yes.

I'm not a chemist and I could never know the base oil blend, but I'd be willing to bet M1 is using a more cutting edge product.