FRPP Extreme Duty Recommendations for 2004 Ford Focus (5W-20)

Gene K · Jun 24, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by tenderloin:

This is an oil info/hobby/chat board. A place where people exchange questions, answers and their experiences with various oil/auto related products, among other things.

Every so often people show up asking pseudo intellectual questions and or arguments. They seem to get their jollies stirring the pot or subtly bashing, what many enjoy from this board.

What you see and get from this board, is what it is. No more nor less.

20,000 cars, free oil, 20 years Gimmee a break.

Why doesnt someone write proposal and send it to Uncle Sam? If you can get a $6,000,000 grant to study the mating habits of Mississipi Bullfrogs!

Gene

Gene K · Jun 24, 2004

BACK ON TOPIC!

From another thread QUOTE: MolaKule -

What vicosity would be required at 100C (212F), 5.25 cSt SAE 5-20

125C (257F), 5.25 cSt SAE 30

150C (302F) respectively? 5.25 cSt SAE 40

The above are considered minimum viscosities at the temperature specified as per an SAE/GM paper on minimum lubricant films in engines.

Kind of lends credence to the FRPP advisors recommendations doesnt it?

Gene

427Z06 · Jun 24, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by Jelly:
UOA's PROVE

I hope your major isn't one of the sciences.

ZiTS · Jun 24, 2004

This kind of makes me wonder if Mobil 1 0w-30 may be the best choice.

You gotta like the pumpability of the 0w- weight, and it doesn't seem to be as thick as GC 0w-30.

BTW,for all the 5w-20 bashers: Please stop. Would you use all-season road tires at a track school? No. Would you use stock brakes at an auto cross event? No. Then doesn't it pretty much go hand-in-hand (foot-in-mouth?) that 5w-20 may not be the best choice for such events? No one has ever claimed 5w-20 is the end-all-be-all of motor oils regardless of engine, vehicle, usage, etc. So let's stop interjecting (please forgive me if I spelled this wrong, as I am not perfect either) with negative comments about this oil. We all know not everyone likes 5w-20, just like not everyone likes GM, Ford, DC, etc, etc, etc....

Z-

Gene K · Jun 24, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by ZiTS:
This kind of makes me wonder if Mobil 1 0w-30 may be the best choice.

You gotta like the pumpability of the 0w- weight, and it doesn't seem to be as thick as GC 0w-30.

BTW,for all the 5w-20 bashers: Please stop. Would you use all-season road tires at a track school? No. Would you use stock brakes at an auto cross event? No. Then doesn't it pretty much go hand-in-hand (foot-in-mouth?) that 5w-20 may not be the best choice for such events? No one has ever claimed 5w-20 is the end-all-be-all of motor oils regardless of engine, vehicle, usage, etc. So let's stop interjecting (please forgive me if I spelled this wrong, as I am not perfect either) with negative comments about this oil. We all know not everyone likes 5w-20, just like not everyone likes GM, Ford, DC, etc, etc, etc....

Z-

ZiTS if you will notice I have two basically 180 degree theads started here: Dont use 5W-20 in Extreme-Duty and Visosity doesnt matter. I am trying to come to equilibrium on this subject and right now I am thinking:

Motorcraft 5W-20 Street

Schaeffer Pure synthetic #256 Straight SAE30 Track
11.7 cSt @ 100C 5.0 HT/HS MRV Boderline Pumping Temp -35F / 37.2C

Gene

[ June 24, 2004, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: Gene K ]

tenderloin · Jun 24, 2004

Mobil 1 0W-30

SAE Grade 0W-30
Viscosity, ASTM D 445
cSt @ 40ºC 56
cSt @ 100ºC 10.3
Viscosity Index, ASTM D 2270 175
Sulfated Ash, wt%, ASTM D 874 1.2
HTHS Viscosity, mPa·s @ 150ºC ASTM D 4683 2.99
Pour Point, ºC, ASTM D 97 -54
Flash Point, ºC, ASTM D 92 234
Density @15º C kg/l, ASTM D 4052 0.851

Mobil 1 5W-30

SAE Grade 5W-30
Viscosity, ASTM D 445
cSt @ 40º C 56
cSt @ 100º C 10
Viscosity Index, ASTM D 2270 167
Sulfated Ash, wt%, ASTM D 874 1.2
HTHS Viscosity, mPa·s @ 150ºC ASTM D 4683 3.08
Pour Point, ºC, ASTM D 97 -45
Flash Point, ºC, ASTM D 92 224
Density @15º C kg/l, ASTM D 4052 0.861

427Z06 · Jun 26, 2004

Sorry for peeing you off folks, but terminology is important. You wonder how such great oils have been developed over the years? It's because engineers and scientists have applied scientific principles to the quest for a better product. Imagine if you will if they just decided to rank any improvements in lubrication changes by, "it feels smoother" or "it feels faster". Molakule chimes in with some common facts and you all swoon like he turned water into wine (no disrespect intended). An unknown person who shows up with three science degrees and has worked with jet engines and automobile engines as a professional engineer for 24 years and I'm a "pseudo intellectual". I had a few other engineers private message me with the warning of the beating I would take here, but I ignored them. I guess my faith wasn't so well placed after all.

[ June 27, 2004, 05:00 AM: Message edited by: 427Z06 ]

buster · Jun 26, 2004

With the 20wt oils, it is my understanding or thinking that while your loosing some viscosity compared to a 30wt/40wt, you can make up for that by using better additives or more additives. It's clear that 20wt oils are for MPG, but I havn't seen any proof yet that they are in any way bad. In fact, they seem to be out performing their 30wt counterparts. Also you have to remember for daily driving in most modern engines, you can go as low as a 10wt oil if you wanted to. Molekule has stated this before. I wouldn't recommend it but it's possible that maybe the tolerances are that tight.

For racing though, I'd clearly use a 30wt/40wt oil.

tenderloin · Jun 26, 2004

427Z06

You are taking this board...and IMO, yourself, way too serious.

BTW. I made the "pseudo intellectual questions and or arguments" remark. Not to disappoint you, but they were not about you.....although a few more posts......

Gene K · Jun 27, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by 427Z06:
Sorry for peeing you off folks, but terminology is important. You wonder how such great oils have been developed over the years? It's because engineers and scientists have applied scientific principles to the quest for a better product. Imagine if you will if they just decided to rank any improvements in lubrication changes by, "it feels smoother" or "it feels faster". Molakule chimes in with some common facts and you all swoon like he turned water into wine (no disrespect intended). An unknown person who shows up with three science degrees and has worked with jet engines and automobile engines as a professional engineer for 24 years and I'm a "pseudo intellectual". I had a few other engineers private message me with the warning of the beating I would take here, but I ignored them. I guess my faith wasn't so well placed after all.

427Z06 I dont believe I have ever beat up on you. There are a few people on this boards opinion that when they talk I listen. You are one of those people. BTW when I had the LS1 Corvette I enjoyed your advice on some other boards as well.

If I somtimes seem like I argue just to argue.... well I consider it debating. I have found it helps me come to decisions on things. It seems to work for me.

If I have offended anyone I apologize.

Gene

427Z06 · Jun 27, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by tenderloin:
427Z06

You are taking this board...and IMO, yourself, way too serious.

OK. My bad. I'll stop being so serious here.

HOndaGuy · Jun 27, 2004

5w20s are better than regular 5w30s. Even the syn 20 wts(mobil 1 0w20 for example) has a great additive package for it to work well with engines. My uncle has over 105,000 on 20wt oil(2002 ford focus se 5 spd, we all know how many recalls that car had), and his car has no problems(only the fuel pump and alternator were replaced under warranty, which have nothing related to motor oil).

Louis Zerr · Jun 27, 2004

FYI-2002 Focus had zero recalls.
http://www.alldata.com/TSB/021950_en.html
Don't confuse recalls with Service Bulletins. I own a 2002 Focus ZX3 and have run 5W-30 since 6 months after purchase. I took my car in 1 week after i got it (New) and have never had to take it in for recalls or maintenance.

crossbow · Jun 27, 2004

5w-20 is fine for autocrossing *. Half the 20 wt UOA's from the Mazda 6 group are autox particpants, and some are tracking AND going to multiple AutoX schools.

One fellow, Bill Kratz, has a UOA with over 60+ autox runs (3 schools)! And thats in maryland heat and humidity (mid/upper 90's).

Oh ya and he's using 0w-20. (in 3.0 duratec based motor).

Modular blah blah ya. But the 2.3 6i's are showing excellent UOA's as well. 20 or 30 wt. Cept you get better performance outta the 20's, and better gas mileage to boot!

*=In many Ford Based Platforms

[ June 28, 2004, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: crossbow ]

metroplex · Jun 27, 2004

UOAs do not tell you the whole story, there are some wear materials that are not reported in your UOAs.

jthorner · Jun 27, 2004

quote:

there are some wear materials that are not reported in your UOAs

1) Such as?

2) Are there any wear parts which are not reported in UOAs? Cylinders, for example, might be made up of mostly iron with some traces of vanadium in the alloy. Even if the vanadium portion of the alloy doesn't show up, the iron which makes up the majority of the alloy will.

Are you saying that there are known examples of engine components wearing rapidly without any evidence of the wear being detectible by a low cost used oil analysis, or are you putting out a red herring?

John

Patman · Jun 28, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by jthorner:

quote:

there are some wear materials that are not reported in your UOAs

Click to expand...

1) Such as?

2) Are there any wear parts which are not reported in UOAs? Cylinders, for example, might be made up of mostly iron with some traces of vanadium in the alloy. Even if the vanadium portion of the alloy doesn't show up, the iron which makes up the majority of the alloy will.

Wearcheck tests for vanadium. My reports always shows zero for that though.

427Z06 · Jun 28, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by Gene K:
What vicosity would be required at 100C (212F), 5.25 cSt SAE 5-20

125C (257F), 5.25 cSt SAE 30

150C (302F) respectively? 5.25 cSt SAE 40

The above are considered minimum viscosities at the temperature specified as per an SAE/GM paper on minimum lubricant films in engines.

Gene

Hmmm...either I'm reading the SAE viscosity chart wrong or is something screwy with those numbers?

And what about HTHS?

[ June 29, 2004, 02:24 AM: Message edited by: 427Z06 ]

69 Riv GS · Jun 29, 2004

metroplex said:

quote:

UOAs do not tell you the whole story, there are some wear materials that are not reported in your UOAs.

So Exactly which metals/materials aren't read?
I believe the basic UOA process involves PQI sceening and use of a FTIR Spectrometer. The spectrometer identifies the type and amount of wear metals and contaminates. Its only limitation
is that it can't detect particles larger that 3-5 microns; but it's believed larger particles are only a result of abnormal wear ie.serious mechanical problem. Plus abnormal wear will also cause a spike in small 1-5 micron particles; thats why trending is so important.

I'm sure one of the experts can correct and/or elaborate on the above.

I learned this info from the Wearcheck site, very informative!

Steve

FRPP Extreme Duty Recommendations for 2004 Ford Focus (5W-20)

Similar threads