Good read on 0w20 from Honda

[CATERHAM]

OVERKILL, not sure about point #1, CAFE, as Toyota/Lexus recommend a 30wt can be used in extreme uses.

The Ford engineer did state that one can still track their car without the recommended oil cooler with no concern about damage to the engine, so engine protection is not the issue.
The installation of the oil cooler is simply to forestall the possible activation of the power dropping engine management systems in the event of certain high oil temp's. (BTW, it would be intersting to know at what temperature this will occur?)

My interpretation for specifying the heavier Motorcraft 5W-50 for the limited production Boss 302 444 hp with only a 24 hp increase, is the allowance of higher oil temp's for what is a more serious track car that goes beyond the modest power increase. (BTW, as I've mentioned previously, referring to the rather unimpressive very shear prone Motorcraft 5W-50 as "three grades heavier" is not case in reality. I'm sure after seeing some of the terrible UOAs of this oil that it's no heavier than M1 0W-40 or PU 0/5W-40 in service. But it looks like Ford is stuck with what's available to them.)

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
OVERKILL, not sure about point #1, CAFE, as Toyota/Lexus recommend a 30wt can be used in extreme uses.

The Ford engineer did state that one can still track their car without the recommended oil cooler with no concern about damage to the engine, so engine protection is not the issue.


Quite right, I believe I've already pointed that out a number of times. There is no risk of damage to the engine because of the thermal safeties that Ford has put in place to prevent this from being an issue. They've adequately covered their behinds here.

That doesn't make 5w20 optimal for this application however, which you had stated. It simply means that Ford has had the foresight to protect the engine from damage due to the decrease of viscosity as the oil heats.

Quote:
The installation of the oil cooler is simply to forestall the possible activation of the power dropping engine management systems in the event of certain high oil temp's. (BTW, it would be intersting to know at what temperature this will occur?)


I'd be interested to see at what temperature Ford deems 5w20 "unsafe" (which is a far cry from optimal....

) in this engine as well.

Quote:
My interpretation for specifying the heavier Motorcraft 5W-50 for the limited production Boss 302 444 hp with only a 24 hp increase, is the allowance of higher oil temp's for what is a more serious track car that goes beyond the modest power increase.


But that was exactly my point and what I was trying to point out earlier. The GT is ENSURED ADEQUATE (not OPTIMAL) protection with its 5w20 by virtue of its thermal protection system, whilst the BOSS 302 is ensured OPTIMAL protection because it is not a high volume product and so the thermal protection won't be as conservative because the acceptable oil temperature range can be extended due to a more capable lubricant.

These cars are perfect to compare because they are so similar, yet the recommendations so different.

Quote:
(BTW, as I've mentioned previously, referring to the rather unimpressive very shear prone Motorcraft 5W-50 as "three grades heavier" is not case in reality. I'm sure after seeing some of the terrible UOAs of this oil that it's no heavier than M1 0W-40 or PU 0/5W-40 in service. But it looks like Ford is stuck with what's available to them.)



It is still a 5w50, whether it shears or not. On paper it is still three grades heaver and certainly has a much higher HTHS. Since you are well acquainted with my faith in UOA's telling us anything of consequence about wear differences between lubricants, you can imagine how highly I regard that UOA data in comparison to the extensive in-house testing that I'm sure Ford has done with the lubricant to recommend it for the Shelby, Ford GT and now BOSS 302.

 

[demarpaint]

I'd hate to be at the track, and bet money on my car winning a race only to have the computer cut power because the oil wasn't up to par. Imagine that?

 

[Shannow]

Must be a nice feeling shelling out for a performance vehicle, then having Ford take the horsepower that you paid for off you because you don't need that much power most of the time.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Must be a nice feeling shelling out for a performance vehicle, then having Ford take the horsepower that you paid for off you because you don't need that much power most of the time.

But for the 99.9% that don't take it to the track they'll never see the power drop.

Regardless of the oil grade specified I've seen many makes of cars go into limp mode at the track. That includes BMW, Nissan, Lotus Elite and Exige to name a few. And you are right, it can be very frustrating. BTW I can't recall seeing any Ford, GM or Dodge product being actively disabled.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM

But for the 99.9% that don't take it to the track they'll never see the power drop.



But wouldn't it be cheaper for that .1% to try a different grade oil before going through the bother and expense of adding an oil cooler?

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM

But for the 99.9% that don't take it to the track they'll never see the power drop.



But wouldn't it be cheaper for that .1% to try a different grade oil before going through the bother and expense of adding an oil cooler?

It would, but as OVERKILL pointed out, to be effective it would have to involve some sort of ECU override to allow higher oil temp's. And just running a heavier oil grade could be counter-productive since thicker oil tends to run hotter.

The real question is, just how intrusive are the management systems and at what oil temp's do they come into play?

The thing is, engineers and the company bean counters make all kinds of compromises in manufacturing production sporty cars.
Not having an oil cooler that's deemed preferred for track use is one but the sky is the limit on performance upgrades.
For example, if you're a really serious tracky type you're going to want a dry sump system so that you can use really sticky tires without oil starvation which is a big expense.

 

[friendly_jacek]

Good discussion here. Not the usual thin vs thick name calling, but some facts for a change.

Now, we all know that engines/hardware is the same in cars sold worldwide with different oil specifications.

We do know that usage is different.

Now, what if software is different. What if Fords sold in Australia or Germany have no power limitations?

 

[Trav]

What i find interesting is that Chrysler decided all the SRT powered cars and the Fiat get 0w40 now. But spec 20w in the rest.

They did spec the 2013 Pentastar their most common engine for 20w without any changes in internal engine specs from 2012 and previous that were 30w. Offsetting CAFE credits maybe??

It appears the manufacturers specs are different for anything that makes a decent amount of power per ltr and is being spec for 40w and greater in Fords case.
But it seems that instead of recommending the optimal grade of oil for many of their performance engines Ford have elected instead to neuter them electronically if they get a little warm in the oil dept.

It seems to be a balancing act and they are counting on not many drivers will bring the engine up to its full potential.
I think Overkill has nailed this with his 2 choices.
Quote:
It is still a 5w50, whether it shears or not. On paper it is still three grades heaver and certainly has a much higher HTHS. Since you are well acquainted with my faith in UOA's telling us anything of consequence about wear differences between lubricants, you can imagine how highly I regard that UOA data in comparison to the extensive in-house testing that I'm sure Ford has done with the lubricant to recommend it for the Shelby, Ford GT and now BOSS 302.

Thats exactly right. If they wanted a thick 30 they could have just as easily spec'd one.
There is no availability issue to claim here in the US.
Quote:
What if Fords sold in Australia or Germany have no power limitations?

In Germany most cars are limited by agreement between the manufacturers not by law to 250Kmh but not all. On motorcycles there is none.
This was done to prevent the possibility of a speed limits being imposed years ago.
That being said most grocery getters cannot get to 250Kmh so yes you could say that most car have no limits imposed on them.
I see you point! Sure they could be electronically neutering the cars sold here to keep them from coming apart on the thin oil.
Its a valid point if thats what you were getting at.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
OVERKILL, not sure about point #1, CAFE, as Toyota/Lexus recommend a 30wt can be used in extreme uses.

The Ford engineer did state that one can still track their car without the recommended oil cooler with no concern about damage to the engine, so engine protection is not the issue.


Quite right, I believe I've already pointed that out a number of times. There is no risk of damage to the engine because of the thermal safeties that Ford has put in place to prevent this from being an issue. They've adequately covered their behinds here.

That doesn't make 5w20 optimal for this application however, which you had stated. It simply means that Ford has had the foresight to protect the engine from damage due to the decrease of viscosity as the oil heats.

at what temperature Ford deems 5w20 "unsafe" (which is a far cry from optimal....

) in this engine as well.

Quote:

But that was exactly my point and what I was trying to point out earlier. The GT is ENSURED ADEQUATE (not OPTIMAL) protection with its 5w20 by virtue of its thermal protection system, whilst the BOSS 302 is ensured OPTIMAL protection because it is not a high volume product and so the thermal protection won't be as conservative because the acceptable oil temperature range can be extended due to a more capable lubricant.


What you state as "ADEQUATE" I would refer to as optimal.
It comes down to the lubrication axiom "as thin as possible, as thick as necessary". Ford has limited how thin the oil can get to an operational viscosity that is just as thick as necessary and still avoid excess engine wear. To quote the Ford engineer, they're not running a heavier oil so as "not to penalize our Coyote buyers" which an heavier oil would do by being heavier than necessary under all conditions.
Put another way, Ford's management controls have determined the optimum minimum viscosity and all oil temperatures cooler than that actually result in an oil being heavier than necessary but still as thin as possible for the quality of oil that Ford is choosing to use.

In fact it is this management control that I'm sure all current OEMs use in one form or another, that enables them to use lighter oils than once were considered possible and will allow even lighter oils to be used in the future.


Quote:
(BTW, as I've mentioned previously, referring to the rather unimpressive very shear prone Motorcraft 5W-50 as "three grades heavier" is not case in reality. I'm sure after seeing some of the terrible UOAs of this oil that it's no heavier than M1 0W-40 or PU 0/5W-40 in service. But it looks like Ford is stuck with what's available to them.)

Quote:

It is still a 5w50, whether it shears or not. On paper it is still three grades heaver and certainly has a much higher HTHS. Since you are well acquainted with my faith in UOA's telling us anything of consequence about wear differences between lubricants, you can imagine how highly I regard that UOA data in comparison to the extensive in-house testing that I'm sure Ford has done with the lubricant to recommend it for the Shelby, Ford GT and now BOSS 302.


My point in referencing the less than stellar Motorcraft 5W-50 UOAs wasn't about wear numbers but rather just how much this oil shears in even mild street use. We're talking 25% in 2,000 miles in one UOA. The oil maybe labelled 5W-50 (the SAE grade has a lot to do about marketing) but a higher performance 0W-40 would likely be a better over all lubricant.
But that is really besides the point. Whatever the operational viscosity of the oil actually is, as you say, it is of course heavier than the Motorcraft 5W-20.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM

What you state as "ADEQUATE" I would refer to as optimal.
It comes down to the lubrication axiom "as thin as possible, as thick as necessary". Ford has limited how thin the oil can get to an operational viscosity that is just as thick as necessary and still avoid excess engine wear.


And in doing so, they've limited the ability of the car/engine. In forcing that limit to ensure that the oil provides adequate protection, they are preventing the car from being used to its potential. That means they are impeding (intentionally) optimal performance due to a sub-optimal lubricant choice under these conditions

Quote:
To quote the Ford engineer, they're not running a heavier oil so as "not to penalize our Coyote buyers" which an heavier oil would do by being heavier than necessary under all conditions.


All conditions because they are electronically limiting those conditions though

Quote:
Put another way, Ford's management controls have determined the optimum minimum viscosity and all oil temperatures cooler than that actually result in an oil being heavier than necessary but still as thin as possible for the quality of oil that Ford is choosing to use.


And you don't think this CHOICE by Ford was made for CAFE? Why not a 30-weight then? Maybe a 40? It is a pretty big jump from 5w20 to 5w50 with the two cars in question.

I would be very interested in seeing what the average oil temps for this car are, since it is high power density and has no oil cooler, I imagine the swings may be pretty dramatic.

Quote:
In fact it is this management control that I'm sure all current OEMs use in one form or another, that enables them to use lighter oils than once were considered possible and will allow even lighter oils to be used in the future.


Certainly! They can now electronically neuter the engines and subsequently veto the risk that would be associated with running a relatively thin lubricant in an application that has to potential to elevate oil temps beyond a safe level.

The question here is whether this is because the lighter oil is "more appropriate" for the general operating conditions of the engine or rather for the CAFE credits. I think this is where Trav's focus on what is spec'd elsewhere is perhaps relevant

Quote:

My point in referencing the less than stellar Motorcraft 5W-50 UOAs wasn't about wear numbers but rather just how much this oil shears in even mild street use. We're talking 25% in 2,000 miles in one UOA. The oil maybe labelled 5W-50 (the SAE grade has a lot to do about marketing) but a higher performance 0W-40 would likely be a better over all lubricant.
But that is really besides the point. Whatever the operational viscosity of the oil actually is, as you say, it is of course heavier than the Motorcraft 5W-20.


Is there no question as to the accuracy of these numbers? I ask because of the very recent Eneos Sustina 0w50 thread that you are participating in where the VOA shows the oil as a 40-weight.....

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM

What you state as "ADEQUATE" I would refer to as optimal.
It comes down to the lubrication axiom "as thin as possible, as thick as necessary". Ford has limited how thin the oil can get to an operational viscosity that is just as thick as necessary and still avoid excess engine wear.


And in doing so, they've limited the ability of the car/engine. In forcing that limit to ensure that the oil provides adequate protection, they are preventing the car from being used to its potential. That means they are impeding (intentionally) optimal performance due to a sub-optimal lubricant choice under these conditions

Quote:
To quote the Ford engineer, they're not running a heavier oil so as "not to penalize our Coyote buyers" which an heavier oil would do by being heavier than necessary under all conditions.


All conditions because they are electronically limiting those conditions though

Quote:
Put another way, Ford's management controls have determined the optimum minimum viscosity and all oil temperatures cooler than that actually result in an oil being heavier than necessary but still as thin as possible for the quality of oil that Ford is choosing to use.


And you don't think this CHOICE by Ford was made for CAFE? Why not a 30-weight then? Maybe a 40? It is a pretty big jump from 5w20 to 5w50 with the two cars in question.

I would be very interested in seeing what the average oil temps for this car are, since it is high power density and has no oil cooler, I imagine the swings may be pretty dramatic.

Quote:
In fact it is this management control that I'm sure all current OEMs use in one form or another, that enables them to use lighter oils than once were considered possible and will allow even lighter oils to be used in the future.


Certainly! They can now electronically neuter the engines and subsequently veto the risk that would be associated with running a relatively thin lubricant in an application that has to potential to elevate oil temps beyond a safe level.

The question here is whether this is because the lighter oil is "more appropriate" for the general operating conditions of the engine or rather for the CAFE credits. I think this is where Trav's focus on what is spec'd elsewhere is perhaps relevant

Quote:

My point in referencing the less than stellar Motorcraft 5W-50 UOAs wasn't about wear numbers but rather just how much this oil shears in even mild street use. We're talking 25% in 2,000 miles in one UOA. The oil maybe labelled 5W-50 (the SAE grade has a lot to do about marketing) but a higher performance 0W-40 would likely be a better over all lubricant.
But that is really besides the point. Whatever the operational viscosity of the oil actually is, as you say, it is of course heavier than the Motorcraft 5W-20.


Is there no question as to the accuracy of these numbers? I ask because of the very recent Eneos Sustina 0w50 thread that you are participating in where the VOA shows the oil as a 40-weight.....


Well said. Why bother buying a sports car to push hard that was "electronically neutered" so a thinner oil can safely be used? Seems like a waste to me. JMO

 

[MarkStock]

MB229.5

Min HTHSV 3.5

Recommended oil is M1 0w40 HTHSV 3.8

HTHSV range is small similar to 20 weight range

MB spec this in all countries for many engines from A150 to SL65 AMG Black Series

How is it that a narrow range of HTHSV, similar to the HTHSV range of 20 weight oil, is applicable for all conditions, across the world? How is it that MB recommends M1 0w40 for almost every engine in every country?

MB, engineering gods, hands not tied by CAFE, are not only spec'ing the same narrow range of viscosity in every country in the world, but they are recommending one particular oil for 1.5L to 6.5L engines in every country in the world.

What happened to choice and optimum oil for individual circumstance when MB tells everyone to run M1 0w40?

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I'd hate to be at the track, and bet money on my car winning a race only to have the computer cut power because the oil wasn't up to par. Imagine that?


Originally Posted By: Shannow
Must be a nice feeling shelling out for a performance vehicle, then having Ford take the horsepower that you paid for off you because you don't need that much power most of the time.


Originally Posted By: Overkill


Certainly! They can now electronically neuter the engines and subsequently veto the risk that would be associated with running a relatively thin lubricant in an application that has to potential to elevate oil temps beyond a safe level.

The question here is whether this is because the lighter oil is "more appropriate" for the general operating conditions of the engine or rather for the CAFE credits. I think this is where Trav's focus on what is spec'd elsewhere is perhaps relevant

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Well said. Why bother buying a sports car to push hard that was "electronically neutered" so a thinner oil can safely be used? Seems like a waste to me. JMO


All of this hand wringing over Ford's engine management strategies seems pretty curious, when a quick Google search shows pretty much nothing in the way of instances where this actually happens. OTOH, there are plenty of instances of it happening with other cars--cars which, BTW, spec much heavier oil. Where's the outrage with those cars and those customers "not getting what they paid for"? I'm not saying it "never" happens, but it seems much more common with some other makes. Of course, we can't blame CAFE for BMW's shutting down on the track...

Speaking of that, can someone point to the section in the EPA regs where it states that it penalizes cars for offering more than one viscosity? Thanks!

 

[Trav]

Quote:
, engineering gods, hands not tied by CAFE, are not only spec'ing the same narrow range of viscosity in every country in the world, but they are recommending one particular oil for 1.5L to 6.5L engines in every country in the world.

Looks like a choice to me. How many more would you like?
No facts? No problem! You can make them up as needed.

Quote:
MERCEDES-BENZ (US)
Modell
C230 (C Series)
Motor
B
Jahr
2006-2006
1. Wahl Mobil 1 New Life 0W-40
2. Wahl Mobil SHC Formula MB 5W-30

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: JOD
All of this hand wringing over Ford's engine management strategies seems pretty curious, when a quick Google search shows pretty much nothing in the way of instances where this actually happens. OTOH, there are plenty of instances of it happening with other cars--cars which, BTW, spec much heavier oil. Where's the outrage with those cars and those customers "not getting what they paid for"? I'm not saying it "never" happens, but it seems much more common with some other makes. Of course, we can't blame CAFE for BMW's shutting down on the track...


Firstly, I'll take the tacit acknowledgement from yourself and Caterham that Ford's 20 spec offers reduced headroom/safety factor, by design, for when things aren't in the 99th percentile...and it's intentional.

You guys are making progress.

Secondly, your "other cars" limp home and "CAFE not being responsible" is frankly one of the most stupid things that you've said in any of these discussions...and before you take offence, please check your other posts to me.

Limp home is supposed to be the failsafe when things go unpredictable out of range, sensors fail, systems fail, or sensors tell the computer that systems fail. The manufacturers with defective systems, equipment failures, or sensors fail indicating systems failure falls into one or another "failure" mode...not CAFE, obviously.

Ford have built an engine, and have advertised it's performance parameters, including a power output and equipment level, and an implied level of performance to their buyers. Their buyers use that engine, within the parameters that the engine can deliver, haven't chipped it, cammed it...it's exactly how it came out of the factory...and they withdraw the power at an oil temperature.

Their retracting power in a limp home mode implies that as per Caterham's assertion, 99% don't need that performance level (try getting the salesman to tell a customer that), or the lubrication system has been designed sub-optimally for the available performance of the engine...for whatever reason the engineers have chosen an oil that does not meet the engine's 100% of normally available power.

They've either pushed the engine too far for it's basic lubrication system, or underdesigned the lubrication system for the performance available.

Originally Posted By: JOD
Speaking of that, can someone point to the section in the EPA regs where it states that it penalizes cars for offering more than one viscosity? Thanks!


It's been posted, and as a master of Google, you can probably find it, that CAFE requires the manufacturer to take steps to ensure that the owners use the oil that the vehicle was CAFE certified to.

To certify to a 20, then to list 30 and 40 in the manual would not be taking those steps.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: MarkStock
MB229.5

Min HTHSV 3.5

Recommended oil is M1 0w40 HTHSV 3.8

HTHSV range is small similar to 20 weight range

MB spec this in all countries for many engines from A150 to SL65 AMG Black Series

How is it that a narrow range of HTHSV, similar to the HTHSV range of 20 weight oil, is applicable for all conditions, across the world? How is it that MB recommends M1 0w40 for almost every engine in every country?

MB, engineering gods, hands not tied by CAFE, are not only spec'ing the same narrow range of viscosity in every country in the world, but they are recommending one particular oil for 1.5L to 6.5L engines in every country in the world.

What happened to choice and optimum oil for individual circumstance when MB tells everyone to run M1 0w40?


Amongst other things they are specifying a minimum...for protection...and for headroom on extended OCIs...I don't think the M1 is the maximum, thus defining the range.

As to choice...

http://bevo.mercedes-benz.com/bevolisten/229.5_en.html

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but there are a couple of grades in there aren't there ?

 

[Hounds]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
. . . CAFE requires the manufacturer to take steps to ensure that the owners use the oil that the vehicle was CAFE certified to.

To certify to a 20, then to list 30 and 40 in the manual would not be taking those steps.

QED.

 

[demarpaint]

Lets take a hypothetical 3 Mustangs with the engine and oil in question and disable the system that protects it when things "go bad." Fill one with 0W20, one with 0W30, and another with 0W40, you can use 5W-xx in place of 0W-xx if you'd like. Track the He$$ out of them on a hot summer day until one blows up, check the oil viscosity used and see if that provided optimal protection. To much of a bother going to the track, run them on the Dyno instead till one blows. See which oil provided optimal protection. I can't say for sure which oil would provide optimal protection under those conditions, but I have my doubts it will be the 20 grade.

I know it wouldn't be fair because I said disable the system that protects the engine, and the engineers would so, no, no you can't do that. Just like they said no, no you can't up the oil viscosity if we only give you one choice, even if the situation warrants and still be covered under a warranty either. But we've talked about how engineers test things, this test is simple enough. Oh wait those results were already published, someone please provide a link I still can't find them. I bet some crafty guy might be able to figure out how to disable the system. I bet other crafty people know if they want to track their cars 20 grade oil is not optimal either, and might just choose something better, matching driving temps and conditions to viscosity themselves.

Once again one size doesn't fit all IMO.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: MarkStock
MB229.5

Min HTHSV 3.5

Recommended oil is M1 0w40 HTHSV 3.8

HTHSV range is small similar to 20 weight range

MB spec this in all countries for many engines from A150 to SL65 AMG Black Series

How is it that a narrow range of HTHSV, similar to the HTHSV range of 20 weight oil, is applicable for all conditions, across the world? How is it that MB recommends M1 0w40 for almost every engine in every country?

MB, engineering gods, hands not tied by CAFE, are not only spec'ing the same narrow range of viscosity in every country in the world, but they are recommending one particular oil for 1.5L to 6.5L engines in every country in the world.

What happened to choice and optimum oil for individual circumstance when MB tells everyone to run M1 0w40?


Mark:

With all due respect, there is a HUGE difference between the HTHS of a 20 weight, which is around 2.6-2.8cP, and what the Euro manufacturers spec, which is a MINIMUM of 3.5cP, with most oils, like Mobil 1 0w40, with its HTHS of 3.8cP, being higher than that.

I believe Shannow touched on it before, but once you get below the 2.6cP area (remember, HTHS is measured at 150C) the potential for wiping a bearing becomes incredibly high. So if you start with a lubricant who's HTHS is 2.6cP at 150C, you start off with a VERY narrow safety margin once temperatures climb.