Mustang GT 5.0 UOA Data Collection

[ZeeOSix]

I was looking at this table of collected UOAs on 2011+ Mustang GTs (the 5.0L Coyote).

One thing that stood out was how much viscosity loss there was with most of the Mobil 1 and Motorcraft oils.

https://www.svtperformance.com/forums/threads/official-gt-5-0-boss-302-uoa-thread.805918/

Looks like the poster is connected to Amsoil in some way ... but if he's collected UOA data from board members then it's probably real data. What oils look the best to you?

I've always used 5W-30 Mobil 1 in both my Z06 and V6 Tacoma ... but I'm wondering if the higher viscosity loss is something to actually be concerned about. Comments on the data?

 

[bbhero]

Hey Zee... Go to page 30 of that thread.... Read about a near perfect UOA. Hardly any "wear" metals at all. Then the dealership found metal shavings very, very shortly after that UOA was done. And they replaced the long block of that motor. Goes to show UOAs are not the best determiner of a motors true state of health. They should be used for just analyzing the oil if it's still in range of good viscosity, and if there is any coolant present as evidenced by sodium and potassium being present, and how much dirt is in the oil from a leak in the air system.
That was very interesting to read that page all by itself.

 

[RazorsEdge]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I was looking at this table of collected UOAs on 2011+ Mustang GTs (the 5.0L Coyote).

One thing that stood out was how much viscosity loss there was with most of the Mobil 1 and Motorcraft oils.

https://www.svtperformance.com/forums/threads/official-gt-5-0-boss-302-uoa-thread.805918/

Looks like the poster is connected to Amsoil in some way ... but if he's collected UOA data from board members then it's probably real data. What oils look the best to you?

I've always used 5W-30 Mobil 1 in both my Z06 and V6 Tacoma ... but I'm wondering if the higher viscosity loss is something to actually be concerned about. Comments on the data?



The OP is a dealer but yet he's also very smart in oil applications. I've seen him over @ https://www.svtperformance.com/forums/

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: bbhero
Hey Zee... Go to page 30 of that thread.... Read about a near perfect UOA. Hardly any "wear" metals at all. Then the dealership found metal shavings very, very shortly after that UOA was done. And they replaced the long block of that motor. Goes to show UOAs are not the best determiner of a motors true state of health. They should be used for just analyzing the oil if it's still in range of good viscosity, and if there is any coolant present as evidenced by sodium and potassium being present, and how much dirt is in the oil from a leak in the air system.
That was very interesting to read that page all by itself.


Yeah, I read through some of that thread too. Hard to say what happened to the Stang that blew-up. Lots of guys get some kind of strange engine tick on these Coyote engines after doing an oil change (and not changing the oil brand or viscosity), or just out of the blue, like this guy. They have a name for it ... the "BBQ Tick". Sounds like bad rod bearings to me.

https://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101847

https://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101734

Anyway, I'm still wondering why Mobil 1 and Motorcraft oils seem to show so much viscosity change in that UOA collection table. Hard to say what's going on with some of those UOAs because a lot of those guys have modified motors, and it might be possible some are running very rich and fuel diluting the oil.

 

[dnewton3]

I took the data from that website, got the average Fe wear and plotted against vis loss.
Note that the standard deviations were VERY large, meaning there's a lot of wiggle room here ...
vis loss %: avg of 2.3; stdev 3.81
ppm/1k mi: avg of 1.67; stdev of 1.50

There were some data points that were excluded due to incomplete info, but the majority was used. (42 usable samples)

Three extreme cases; the rest were tightly clustered.

Observation: Improbable (essentially impossible) to see any linear relationship exhibited here.
Conclusion: There is absolutely zero correlation between vis loss and wear ...

 

[DuckRyder]

Originally Posted By: bbhero
...Read about a near perfect UOA. Hardly any "wear" metals at all. Then the dealership found metal shavings very, very shortly after that UOA was done. And they replaced the long block of that motor. Goes to show UOAs are not the best determiner of a motors true state of health. They should be used for just analyzing the oil if it’s still in range of good viscosity, and if there is any coolant present as evidenced by sodium and potassium being present, and how much dirt is in the oil from a leak in the air system.
...


Amen brother.

 

[dnewton3]

We've covered this before regarding UOAs ...

They are a tool. They are not a perfect tool, but none is. They are one of many tools that, when used together with the understanding of both their benefits and limitations, can be a great predictor of future expectations based on previous experiences.

Of note, I advocate for the use of:
UOAs
PCs
Visual inspections where pratical
Audible inspections where reliable and discernable
Macro data compilation and analysis
Harmonic/vibratory analysis


Are UOAs perfect? Nope.
Are UOAs always able to predict all catastrophic events? Nope.
Are UOAs worthless? Nope.
UOAs are a good tool to see how things go with normal use of equipment. And they are FAR cheaper than tear-downs, which not only are terribly time consuming and expensive, but also induce their own bias into wear data due to gage R&R issues.

Additionally, it seems many of these examples of UOAs are from engines that see a lot of hard use; racing, etc. That use induces events which often will rise up far quicker than anyone would be doing a UOA. A person will typically do a UOA only at an planned OCI; perhaps 3k or 5k or 10k miles. But a catastrophic failure or rapid fatigue failure will induce immediate impact, anywhere from several crank revolutions to perhaps less than 100 miles. You're not going to catch that kind of problem in a UOA, so we need to be careful not to imply that it's the fault of a UOA for not catching these things; they were never meant to do so. Acute failure will never be caught by a UOA; that's not it's purpose. UOAs can catch chronic problems only. UOAs won't catch a fracture line in a con-rod, or a pressed-on cam lobe separating from the shaft; those kinds of failures won't show up in a UOA until it's already too late. But let's not act like it's the fault of a UOA here; catastrophic and short-term problems are not seen by any tool other than visual clues, and who's going to tear down their 5.0L Coy motor every Monday evening after a weekend of racing?

 

[jaj]

It's an interesting set of results - there's a second forum page for the GT500 supercharged engines that require 5w-50. In that one there's endless bashing of Motorcraft oil, the oil that Ford uses for all of its vehicle testing, for shearing rapidly from a 50 wt to a 40 or even down to a high 30 wt. The engines perform fine with the Motorcraft oil, but the shearing tendency makes a useful selling point if you're promoting a specific brand that shears less. I have a few UOA's on there from my supercharged 2011 Mustang - early product natural gas based Pennzoil Ultra 5w-30 that didn't shear hardly at all - 5% or so, if I recall - after numerous track days.

The irony is that Amsoil now has a Ford-approved 5w-50 oil - it's one of the few non-Motorcraft products that's certified - and the thing I find fascinating is that I've never, in several years of checking in, found a single UOA for the Amsoil 5w-50. I suspect that it shears just like all the rest of the oils, which would make the "shearing is bad" narrative a problem, even if the oil performs just fine.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
There were some data points that were excluded due to incomplete info, but the majority was used. (42 usable samples)

Three extreme cases; the rest were tightly clustered.

Observation: Improbable (essentially impossible) to see any linear relationship exhibited here.
Conclusion: There is absolutely zero correlation between vis loss and wear ...




Interesting data, thanks for generating that plot to give a visual.

 

[jaj]

Lines 26 to 30 on that report - OEM 5w20, M1 0w40, Pennz 5w30 and Redline 5w20 - are all my data. Tests were all Caterpillar lab.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: jaj
Lines 26 to 30 on that report - OEM 5w20, M1 0w40, Pennz 5w30 and Redline 5w20 - are all my data. Tests were all Caterpillar lab.


That Pennzoil Ultra Platinum you ran sure looks good. Wonder if the Platinum would be similar. Ultra Platinum seems hard to find.

 

[dailydriver]

When did the Coyotes in the Stangs go from solely port to solely direct injected?

(and YES, I know that the current model year versions are BOTH port AND direct injected.

)

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: dailydriver
When did the Coyotes in the Stangs go from solely port to solely direct injected?

(and YES, I know that the current model year versions are BOTH port AND direct injected.

)


2018 is the first year of DI for the Coyote, and they also have port injectors as you said, to apparently curb the deposits on the intake valves. Before the 2018 model year, the Coyote was only port injection.

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
When did the Coyotes in the Stangs go from solely port to solely direct injected?

(and YES, I know that the current model year versions are BOTH port AND direct injected.

)


2018 is the first year of DI for the Coyote, and they also have port injectors as you said, to apparently curb the deposits on the intake valves. Before the 2018 model year, the Coyote was only port injection.


OK thanks!

For some reason I thought that they were DI somewhere in the very recent past.

IF I owned one, given the above info, I would not then be overly concerned with D1G2 ratings, or even the coming SN+ ratings, and would only be concerned with the Ford 945-A, 946-A, or 931-B specs if worried about the warranty.

According to the NOT GT350/GT500, and regular 2018 5.0 GT Coyote manual oil spec page, Ford is now only recommending a step up to a 5W-30 for open track use, and not the 5W-50 they used to for past versions used for that purpose.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: dailydriver
According to the NOT GT350/GT500, and regular 2018 5.0 GT Coyote manual oil spec page, Ford is now only recommending a step up to a 5W-30 for open track use, and not the 5W-50 they used to for past versions used for that purpose.

I saw that too. Apparently the Ford engineers must know 5W-30 is thick enough in the 2018 GT engine for track use. The 2015+ Coyote seems to have a pretty efficient oil cooler - not sure on the 2018, but I'd assume just as good or better oil cooler.

What's strange is I don't believe the owner's manual for the 2015 thru 2017 GT even addresses oil viscosity for track use. Does that mean Ford thinks 5W-20 is OK for track use in the 2015 thru 2017?