Here I go again.New ford truck burning 5w20 oil.

[FoxS]

Originally Posted By: Shannow

Oh no they didn't...the statement regarding denial that tests took place was a strawman invented by a former member as a way to discredit his opponent...who never stated that the tests didn't take place...I was in the thread, went back and checked.
Originally Posted By: demarpant

I remember too when Mark posted the Ford test and I asked him if he was there when they did the testing. LOL Engines are tested all the time, no doubt about it. Unfortunately the more realistic testing usually occurs when the public gets the vehicles.


Ah thanks for identifying yourself as I've now found the thread Shannow referenced.

You said "Don't believe everything you read" and a respected poster wrote this in reply:

Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
demarpaint: Sorry old chum, but you need to get back onto your medication. ( : < ) I'm saying that with a smile in the hopes that you will snap back to your normal analytical self.

My friend, you can't counter a factual argument with, and I paraphrase, "They all lie," or "You can't believe what you read." That's how what much you have been saying back to MarkStock is coming across to me.


As to your comment about the public doing realistic testing, I calculate about 7.5 trillion miles done on 20 weight oil since 2001.

Is that enough realistic testing for you?

JMO

 

[skyship]

Originally Posted By: FoxS
Originally Posted By: Shannow

Oh no they didn't...the statement regarding denial that tests took place was a strawman invented by a former member as a way to discredit his opponent...who never stated that the tests didn't take place...I was in the thread, went back and checked.
Originally Posted By: demarpant

I remember too when Mark posted the Ford test and I asked him if he was there when they did the testing. LOL Engines are tested all the time, no doubt about it. Unfortunately the more realistic testing usually occurs when the public gets the vehicles.


Ah thanks for identifying yourself as I've now found the thread Shannow referenced.

You said "Don't believe everything you read" and a respected poster wrote this in reply:

Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
demarpaint: Sorry old chum, but you need to get back onto your medication. ( : < ) I'm saying that with a smile in the hopes that you will snap back to your normal analytical self.

My friend, you can't counter a factual argument with, and I paraphrase, "They all lie," or "You can't believe what you read." That's how what much you have been saying back to MarkStock is coming across to me.


As to your comment about the public doing realistic testing, I calculate about 7.5 trillion miles done on 20 weight oil since 2001.

Is that enough realistic testing for you?

JMO

YEP, just look at the huge amount of oil and filters wasted so far. If the CAFE bean counting continues they will brain wash owners into using a straight 15 grade dino oil next, because it will result in two more beans and is real cheap oil to make. The Iffy lube chains will be happy as using a 15 grade will reduce the OCI back to the 3K miles they are so keen on. Meantime the few Germans using V10 engines will be moving up to a new high tech full synthetic 5/50 and a synthetic cloth lined Bosch oil filter for a 30K mile OCI and although the fuel cost is killing off the commercial V10's faster than cheap oil and filter use, the engines serviced correctly will still be running in another 10 years. Clean oil filters are far less efficient than dirty ones and if you keep changing oil because it's cheap thin stuff the wear factors increase, although that story is more about filters than oil.

 

[FoxS]

skyship - at the time this was introduced, the factory interval was 5k with 3k for severe.

Its now OLM driven and 1 year / 10k.

Are you saying CAFE set the oci and specified dino as well as incentivized manufacturers to make their offerings more fuel economical?

I think you just have to accept that in the US, the consumer is just behind European consumers when it comes to accepting longer oci's and the more expensive oils. But plenty of cars are now on 1 year / 10k oci's.

You have to understand that an oil change is cheap here. Gas is cheaper too so the consumer hasn't, until recently, been driven to seek out cars with better fuel economy. Just look at the comparative adoption of diesels.

One could in fact argue that the greater drive in Europe for fuel economy drives the oil choice. European engines have greater power density and therefore require synthetic oils. The service costs go up so intervals have to be extended.

Here, we have bigger engines and less strain on them. Until recently, nobody was trying to save that much motoring cost. Cheap dino oil suited everyone just fine and was cheap to change so people changed it often.

Now see what is happening as fuel costs continue to rise. The Japanese and domestics are introducing designs that require specific oils. Fords ecoboost needs stouter oil. Hybrids need lighter oils. But everyone around the world is pushing for greater fuel economy and there are many ways to get there.

CAFE in the US is just like high taxes on gas in Europe. The government is driving the choice at a macro level. What happens after that is the responsibility of the market.

I could equally say that we in America are being forced to buy turbos because if the high government taxes on fuel in Europe.

 

[FoxS]

The fact is that manufacturers are incentivized to improve fuel economy all around the world and they choose how they will get there. Nobody told Ford to move to 20 weight. Ford could have found any number of ways to improve fuel economy. Any change could have introduced a reliability risk. Going to synthetic fuel conserving 0w30 could have been a risk as it was from an adoption perspective in the thread on the VW turbo that was filled with dino instead of synthetic. The manufacturer needs to weigh up a number if considerations on the best approach market by market. Toyota has taken a risk with hybrids for the US market. The Germans have taken a risk with diesels and turbos worldwide. All these risks transferred to the customer.

In many ways the biggest driver of technology aimed at improving fuel economy is European government gas taxes. All the innovations as a result of European government and presumably voter preferences, are being passed onto consumers worldwide, including the risk of those innovations.

From the reliability information that I've seen, the net result of Ford and the Japanese approach to improved fuel economy is better than European manufacturers

 

[DragRace]

Well here we are,10 pages into a weekly 5w20 oil debate.

 

[fauxchemist]

Originally Posted By: DragRace
Well here we are,10 pages into a weekly 5w20 oil debate.

Amen DRAG... Give it a rest people.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: FoxS
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Nobody anywhere said that Ford didn't test...


Oh yes they did.


Oh no they didn't...the statement regarding denial that tests took place was a strawman invented by a former member as a way to discredit his opponent...who never stated that the tests didn't take place...I was in the thread, went back and checked.


I remember too when Mark posted the Ford test and I asked him if he was there when they did the testing. LOL Engines are tested all the time, no doubt about it. Unfortunately the more realistic testing usually occurs when the public gets the vehicles.

Shannow the former member was reincarnated, he came back 12/17/12. LOL

Back on topic, OP give that engine some time, see what happens.


Absolutely on the "realistic testing"!

It strikes me as funny that some easily get this and others don't. But some here are very selective in what they absorb.

I will spare you guys a million words of obtuse blather and just say that my fleet is living proof of my oil choices. We run strictly the spec oil until they begin consuming at very high mileages, THEN switch. USUALLY this allows us to enjoy limited consumption for many more miles. We most definitely DO NOT insist that anyone else do this as our duty cycle is quite unique.

 

[INDYMAC]

Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
I've seen several 2013 Mustang GT's go through multiple blown motors. I can guarantee those cars we're raced and driven VERY hard. The failure I keep seeing is the 5.0 motors dropping a piston. Wonder if 5W50 would prevent this from happening?


How many were caused by driver error (money shift)?

 

[skyship]

Originally Posted By: FoxS
The fact is that manufacturers are incentivized to improve fuel economy all around the world and they choose how they will get there. Nobody told Ford to move to 20 weight. Ford could have found any number of ways to improve fuel economy. Any change could have introduced a reliability risk. Going to synthetic fuel conserving 0w30 could have been a risk as it was from an adoption perspective in the thread on the VW turbo that was filled with dino instead of synthetic. The manufacturer needs to weigh up a number if considerations on the best approach market by market. Toyota has taken a risk with hybrids for the US market. The Germans have taken a risk with diesels and turbos worldwide. All these risks transferred to the customer.

In many ways the biggest driver of technology aimed at improving fuel economy is European government gas taxes. All the innovations as a result of European government and presumably voter preferences, are being passed onto consumers worldwide, including the risk of those innovations.

From the reliability information that I've seen, the net result of Ford and the Japanese approach to improved fuel economy is better than European manufacturers


Most modern engines are designed to achieve the best fuel economy for the required power that the vehicle requires. There is no point comparing Fords with German cars because the German cars are designed for much higher speeds. Very few engines are designed for long life applications, except some bus and big truck engines.
The problem with the CAFE bean counting is that changing to thin oil was just too easy a way of improving fuel economy figures. Designing a new engine to get the best possible fuel economy is much more expensive than changing the oil type. Even when new more economic engines have been developed the CAFE bean counters will force the use of an even thinner oil than the engine was designed for.
The waste of oil & filters with the short OCI's that using thin oil results in should have been included in the CAFE calculation. Some of you think that 5 or 10K mile OCI's are good but the same engine using a different oil and filter will probably have double the OCI outside the US.
From the point of view of main block life expectancy the actual oil used does not make a big difference in average figures terms, BUT if you change filters at twice the rate because a thin or cheap oil is used, the oil filtration performance will be far worse because new oil filters are real bad news and result in a big increase in particle streaks in particular. Long OCI's based on UOA results with the best possible longlife oil filters will keep engine wear to a minimum. So in engine life terms the biggest problem with using thin oil is not the oil itself (Unless you push the engine real hard on a German autobahn or towing overweight trailers), BUT the fact it seriously reduces the OCI. Using a top quality non OEM high performance filter would help improve the figures for thin oil users as they could do alternate oil only changes as I do for my car, but no one wants to waste time and money servicing a vehicle, so it's much better to use the best oil & filter with a good long OCI.
The fact Ford don't offer a long life service option is a very good indicator that they have no interest in engine wear factors, or in reducing maintenance requirements, they are just counting CAFE beans with the rest of the folks selling vehicles in the US.
I expect the same folks that read Ford advertising and think that they are reading the truth, also read the advertising from oil filter compananies that keep saying their new EP filter is 99.999% efficient, without realising those figures are final filtration ones and very few users will ever get their filter that full. Most folks think the advertised figure is the new filter efficiency or an average figure, but the marketing folks for oil filters are just as good as those supporting the CAFE bean counters.

 

[skyship]

Originally Posted By: INDYMAC
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
I've seen several 2013 Mustang GT's go through multiple blown motors. I can guarantee those cars we're raced and driven VERY hard. The failure I keep seeing is the 5.0 motors dropping a piston. Wonder if 5W50 would prevent this from happening?


How many were caused by driver error (money shift)?


Bearing or ring failures are often the result of poor lubrication, BUT dropped pistons or valves are caused by design, manufacturing or right boot problems. Jumping well over red line slamming gears or even selecting too high a gear can caused a big time failure, not the oil.
There is a minor connection between fuel and oil type with valve failures due to different temperatures and deposits.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: skyship
Originally Posted By: FoxS
Originally Posted By: Shannow

Oh no they didn't...the statement regarding denial that tests took place was a strawman invented by a former member as a way to discredit his opponent...who never stated that the tests didn't take place...I was in the thread, went back and checked.
Originally Posted By: demarpant

I remember too when Mark posted the Ford test and I asked him if he was there when they did the testing. LOL Engines are tested all the time, no doubt about it. Unfortunately the more realistic testing usually occurs when the public gets the vehicles.


Ah thanks for identifying yourself as I've now found the thread Shannow referenced.

You said "Don't believe everything you read" and a respected poster wrote this in reply:

Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
demarpaint: Sorry old chum, but you need to get back onto your medication. ( : < ) I'm saying that with a smile in the hopes that you will snap back to your normal analytical self.

My friend, you can't counter a factual argument with, and I paraphrase, "They all lie," or "You can't believe what you read." That's how what much you have been saying back to MarkStock is coming across to me.


As to your comment about the public doing realistic testing, I calculate about 7.5 trillion miles done on 20 weight oil since 2001.

Is that enough realistic testing for you?

JMO

YEP, just look at the huge amount of oil and filters wasted so far. If the CAFE bean counting continues they will brain wash owners into using a straight 15 grade dino oil next, because it will result in two more beans and is real cheap oil to make. The Iffy lube chains will be happy as using a 15 grade will reduce the OCI back to the 3K miles they are so keen on. Meantime the few Germans using V10 engines will be moving up to a new high tech full synthetic 5/50 and a synthetic cloth lined Bosch oil filter for a 30K mile OCI and although the fuel cost is killing off the commercial V10's faster than cheap oil and filter use, the engines serviced correctly will still be running in another 10 years. Clean oil filters are far less efficient than dirty ones and if you keep changing oil because it's cheap thin stuff the wear factors increase, although that story is more about filters than oil.


Come on Mark we're on to you, and you knew exactly who you referring to.

You're right Mark I don't believe everything I read.

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: INDYMAC
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
I've seen several 2013 Mustang GT's go through multiple blown motors. I can guarantee those cars we're raced and driven VERY hard. The failure I keep seeing is the 5.0 motors dropping a piston. Wonder if 5W50 would prevent this from happening?


How many were caused by driver error (money shift)?


It's the rear piston right? I've seen alot of talk in the mustang forums about it. I believe it's the knock sensor not backing the timing off and the rear cylinder gets pounded with pre-ignition.
Every post I've seen about this issue the owners sheepishly admit the engine was tuned by an aftermarket either speed shop or remotely tuned and the tuners have either disabled the knock sensor,or lessened the amount of timing the ecu backs off.
I've yet to read about it happening to a stock engine running the stock tune though.
If your reading this info at TMS then I'd put no stock in it whatsoever. That forum caused a massive uproar about the 6 speed manual tranny's all being defective and caused a mass panic.

 

[Jim Allen]

Originally Posted By: FoxS
skyship - at the time this was introduced, the factory interval was 5k with 3k for severe.

Its now OLM driven and 1 year / 10k.

Are you saying CAFE set the oci and specified dino as well as incentivized manufacturers to make their offerings more fuel economical?

I think you just have to accept that in the US, the consumer is just behind European consumers when it comes to accepting longer oci's and the more expensive oils. But plenty of cars are now on 1 year / 10k oci's.

You have to understand that an oil change is cheap here. Gas is cheaper too so the consumer hasn't, until recently, been driven to seek out cars with better fuel economy. Just look at the comparative adoption of diesels.

One could in fact argue that the greater drive in Europe for fuel economy drives the oil choice. European engines have greater power density and therefore require synthetic oils. The service costs go up so intervals have to be extended.

Here, we have bigger engines and less strain on them. Until recently, nobody was trying to save that much motoring cost. Cheap dino oil suited everyone just fine and was cheap to change so people changed it often.

Now see what is happening as fuel costs continue to rise. The Japanese and domestics are introducing designs that require specific oils. Fords ecoboost needs stouter oil. Hybrids need lighter oils. But everyone around the world is pushing for greater fuel economy and there are many ways to get there.

CAFE in the US is just like high taxes on gas in Europe. The government is driving the choice at a macro level. What happens after that is the responsibility of the market.

I could equally say that we in America are being forced to buy turbos because if the high government taxes on fuel in Europe.


Brilliant assessment of the different markets, I think. Good job!

 

[Jim Allen]

Originally Posted By: DragRace
Well here we are,10 pages into a weekly 5w20 oil debate.

Yeah, I know it seems that way, but this one is civil and some good stuff is coming out. Worth the ride this time. Kudos to all the participants.

 

[skyship]

I'VE ANSWERED EACH POINT IN THE TEXT TO AVIOD MISSING SOMETHING

Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Originally Posted By: FoxS
skyship - at the time this was introduced, the factory interval was 5k with 3k for severe.

Its now OLM driven and 1 year / 10k.

Are you saying CAFE set the oci and specified dino as well as incentivized manufacturers to make their offerings more fuel economical?

NO, CAFE RESULTED IN LIGHT OIL USE, IF YOU USE LIGHT OIL AND CHEAP 5/20 IN PARTICULAR IT MUST BE CHANGED MORE OFTEN. IF YOU MUST USE A 20 GRADE IT SHOULD BE A TOP OF THE RANGE FULLY SYNTHETIC 0/20.

I think you just have to accept that in the US, the consumer is just behind European consumers when it comes to accepting longer oci's and the more expensive oils. But plenty of cars are now on 1 year / 10k oci's.

NEARLY ALL NEW EU CARS ARE NOW ON 30K KM. MY VOLVO TDI IS 10 YEARS OLD AND HAS A 20K KM OCI.

You have to understand that an oil change is cheap here. Gas is cheaper too so the consumer hasn't, until recently, been driven to seek out cars with better fuel economy. Just look at the comparative adoption of diesels.

THE US SHOULD HAVE TAXED GAS A LONG TIME AGO, BUT I GUESS IT WAS BAD FOR VOTES.

One could in fact argue that the greater drive in Europe for fuel economy drives the oil choice. European engines have greater power density and therefore require synthetic oils. The service costs go up so intervals have to be extended.

ONLY TOP OF THE RANGE CARS NEED FULL SYNTHETIC, THE NEED FOR HC SYNTHETICS IS BECAUSE OF THE DESIRE FOR LONG OCI's BECAUSE OIL SERVICES ARE MORE EXPENSIVE AND IF YOU REDUCE THE NUMBER OF FILTER CHANGES YOU GET LESS WEAR.

Here, we have bigger engines and less strain on them. Until recently, nobody was trying to save that much motoring cost. Cheap dino oil suited everyone just fine and was cheap to change so people changed it often.

THE US PUBLIC WERE BRAINWASHED BY IFFY LUBE ADVERTISING, EVEN ON CHEAP DINO 5K MILES IS OK. IT'S NOT LEGAL FOR THE GERMAN EQUIVALENT OF AN IFFY LUBE TO STATE ANY OCI INTERVAL OTHER THAN THE MANUFACTURERS APPROVED MAX FIGURE.

Now see what is happening as fuel costs continue to rise. The Japanese and domestics are introducing designs that require specific oils. Fords ecoboost needs stouter oil. Hybrids need lighter oils. But everyone around the world is pushing for greater fuel economy and there are many ways to get there.

JAPANESE FUEL COSTS ARE HIGH, SO THEY ALSO PUSH LIGHT OILS AND THEY DON'T KEEP CARS VERY LONG BUT EXPORT THEIR USED CARS OVERSEAS, SO ENGINE LIFE IS OF NO INTEREST TO THEM.

CAFE in the US is just like high taxes on gas in Europe. The government is driving the choice at a macro level. What happens after that is the responsibility of the market.

CAFE WAS A BAD IDEA AS IT HAS CAUSED UNWANTED SIDE EFFECTS, TAXING PETROL IS THE BEST WAY OF MAKING MONEY AND REDUCING FUEL CONSUMPTION, BUT IT CAN'T BE DONE SUDDENLY SO I DO UNDERSTAND THE REASON BEHIND CAFE.

I could equally say that we in America are being forced to buy turbos because if the high government taxes on fuel in Europe.

TURBOS ARE A FACT OF LIFE BECAUSE THEY ALLOW SMALLER LIGHTER ENGINES, THE NEED FOR FASTER DIESEL CARS IN GERMANY WAS ALSO A BIG FACTOR. THE GERMANS HAVE BEEN SETTING THE PACE FOR FUEL ECONOMY AND FAST CARS FOR SOME TIME, ALTHOUGH THEY ARE NOT KEEN ON HYBRIDS OR ELECTRIC CARS DUE TO HIGH COST AND BATTERY LIFE ISSUES


Brilliant assessment of the different markets, I think. Good job!

 

[skyship]

Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: INDYMAC
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
I've seen several 2013 Mustang GT's go through multiple blown motors. I can guarantee those cars we're raced and driven VERY hard. The failure I keep seeing is the 5.0 motors dropping a piston. Wonder if 5W50 would prevent this from happening?


How many were caused by driver error (money shift)?


It's the rear piston right? I've seen alot of talk in the mustang forums about it. I believe it's the knock sensor not backing the timing off and the rear cylinder gets pounded with pre-ignition.
Every post I've seen about this issue the owners sheepishly admit the engine was tuned by an aftermarket either speed shop or remotely tuned and the tuners have either disabled the knock sensor,or lessened the amount of timing the ecu backs off.
I've yet to read about it happening to a stock engine running the stock tune though.
If your reading this info at TMS then I'd put no stock in it whatsoever. That forum caused a massive uproar about the 6 speed manual tranny's all being defective and caused a mass panic.


I think fiddling with the ECU is classed as owner abuse, oddly enough the most changes to ECU's done in Germany and the UK is a cold start bypass switch or potentiometer that effectively allows you to save fuel by selecting a lean mixture early. Playing with turbo boost settings is more common amongst the boy racers and that does cause some early blown turbos.

 

[aquariuscsm]

Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: INDYMAC
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
I've seen several 2013 Mustang GT's go through multiple blown motors. I can guarantee those cars we're raced and driven VERY hard. The failure I keep seeing is the 5.0 motors dropping a piston. Wonder if 5W50 would prevent this from happening?


How many were caused by driver error (money shift)?


It's the rear piston right? I've seen alot of talk in the mustang forums about it. I believe it's the knock sensor not backing the timing off and the rear cylinder gets pounded with pre-ignition.
Every post I've seen about this issue the owners sheepishly admit the engine was tuned by an aftermarket either speed shop or remotely tuned and the tuners have either disabled the knock sensor,or lessened the amount of timing the ecu backs off.
I've yet to read about it happening to a stock engine running the stock tune though.
If your reading this info at TMS then I'd put no stock in it whatsoever. That forum caused a massive uproar about the 6 speed manual tranny's all being defective and caused a mass panic.


These were stock GT's coming into the Ford dealership. One of them was on its 3rd engine. Not sure which piston failed though. The manual trannies seem to be luck of the draw if you don't get one that crunches 2nd gear.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: INDYMAC
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
I've seen several 2013 Mustang GT's go through multiple blown motors. I can guarantee those cars we're raced and driven VERY hard. The failure I keep seeing is the 5.0 motors dropping a piston. Wonder if 5W50 would prevent this from happening?


How many were caused by driver error (money shift)?


It's the rear piston right? I've seen alot of talk in the mustang forums about it. I believe it's the knock sensor not backing the timing off and the rear cylinder gets pounded with pre-ignition.
Every post I've seen about this issue the owners sheepishly admit the engine was tuned by an aftermarket either speed shop or remotely tuned and the tuners have either disabled the knock sensor,or lessened the amount of timing the ecu backs off.
I've yet to read about it happening to a stock engine running the stock tune though.
If your reading this info at TMS then I'd put no stock in it whatsoever. That forum caused a massive uproar about the 6 speed manual tranny's all being defective and caused a mass panic.


These were stock GT's coming into the Ford dealership. One of them was on its 3rd engine. Not sure which piston failed though. The manual trannies seem to be luck of the draw if you don't get one that crunches 2nd gear.



We had a lot of 6.1 failures in the SRT community back when tuning became available. The 'early adopters' are out there proving the tune works or does not! The aftermarket will quickly find out what works and what doesn't.

And many folks have found that when you buy a highly tuned car to start with then messing with it can get expensive. Note to earlier poster about missed shifts: won't do a thing with a rev limited engine unless your DOWNshifting and you stuff it into too low a gear.

FWIW my pilot buddy has whipped his GT like a [censored] stepchild and it has not made a single hiccup.

 

[aquariuscsm]

I absolutely LOVE the new GT's. I'd get it in either Grabber Blue or Gotta Have It Green with the black stripes up the middle. BUT,it'd be getting 5/15W50 the second I got it home

 

[aquariuscsm]

My friend blew 2 300ZXTT motors when he was using 10W30. On his 3rd rebuild he went to synth 10W40,ABUSES the living heck out of it,and it still runs smooth as silk. He may have bumped up to M1 15W50 by now I think.