Man, Overkill, your patience is not likely to be rewarded here!
Need a 5W50 for 5.0 Coyote
- Thread starter swirlparanoid
- Start date
- Status
Is there ANY reason why the M1 5W-50 is not approved, save for they just did not go through the certification process??
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Is there ANY reason why the M1 5W-50 is not approved, save for they just did not go through the certification process??
That's a good question, and perhaps one for Mobil to answer.
At this point, we can at least compare its PDS properties to QSUD 5w-50 and look for glaring differences:
1. QSUD 5w-50:
Visc@ 40C: 97.84
Visc@ 100C: 17.0
VI: 189
Flash: 440F (227C)
Pour: -33C
CCS: 5450cP @ -30C
MRV: 25100cP @ -35C
HTHS: 3.98cP
NOACK: 12.33%
TBN: N/A
2. M1 5w-50:
Visc@ 40C: 108
Visc@ 100C: 17.5
VI: 180
Flash: 231C (448F)
Pour: N/A
CCS: N/A
MRV: 29244cP @ -35C
HTHS: 4.4cP
NOACK: N/A
TBN: 11.8
From what I can see, the M1 5w-50 is a fair bit heavier, looking at the HTHS.
Mind you, if you compare to the Motorcraft oil:
https://www.fcsdchemicalsandlubricants.c...20Synthetic.pdf
Its relevant specs:
Visc@ 40C: 136
Visc@ 100C: 21
It looks heavier than both of them
Is there ANY reason why the M1 5W-50 is not approved, save for they just did not go through the certification process??
That's a good question, and perhaps one for Mobil to answer.
At this point, we can at least compare its PDS properties to QSUD 5w-50 and look for glaring differences:
1. QSUD 5w-50:
Visc@ 40C: 97.84
Visc@ 100C: 17.0
VI: 189
Flash: 440F (227C)
Pour: -33C
CCS: 5450cP @ -30C
MRV: 25100cP @ -35C
HTHS: 3.98cP
NOACK: 12.33%
TBN: N/A
2. M1 5w-50:
Visc@ 40C: 108
Visc@ 100C: 17.5
VI: 180
Flash: 231C (448F)
Pour: N/A
CCS: N/A
MRV: 29244cP @ -35C
HTHS: 4.4cP
NOACK: N/A
TBN: 11.8
From what I can see, the M1 5w-50 is a fair bit heavier, looking at the HTHS.
Mind you, if you compare to the Motorcraft oil:
https://www.fcsdchemicalsandlubricants.c...20Synthetic.pdf
Its relevant specs:
Visc@ 40C: 136
Visc@ 100C: 21
It looks heavier than both of them
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
The MC is thicker than a dino 20W50.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
The MC is thicker than a dino 20W50.
Except it has a VI of 181, a pour point of -42C and a CCS of 5,900cP @ -30C, which no dino 20w-50 in the world is going to touch, LOL
Pennzoil's 20w-50:
@40C: 158.3
@100C: 17.6
VI: 122 (YIKES!!!!!)
Flash: 214C
Pour: -24C
CCS: 7,060cP @ -15C
MRV: 25,600cP @ -20C
HTHS: 4.6cP
NOACK: 4.9% (that's where this oil shines I'd say)
The MC is thicker than a dino 20W50.
Except it has a VI of 181, a pour point of -42C and a CCS of 5,900cP @ -30C, which no dino 20w-50 in the world is going to touch, LOL
Pennzoil's 20w-50:
@40C: 158.3
@100C: 17.6
VI: 122 (YIKES!!!!!)
Flash: 214C
Pour: -24C
CCS: 7,060cP @ -15C
MRV: 25,600cP @ -20C
HTHS: 4.6cP
NOACK: 4.9% (that's where this oil shines I'd say)
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
If this car was not under warranty, I'd suggest Mobil 1 0w-40. It is somewhere in the middle between the two OEM grades, has a plethora of manufacturer certs and approvals to guarantee a particular level of performance and is in general, an excellent product.
Finally something pertaining to what's the BEST oil for a coyote.
Just Because its considered one of the worlds best oils doesnt mean it is the BEST oil for the coyote. Their is no BEST oil, however if i was going to choose a BEST oil i would choose MC5w50. It was designed and formulated according to Fords specs, it retains the warranty and meets the performance specs the Engineers that built the coyote desired.
How often does a manufacture recommend 5w50? rarely. the very fact that they engineered a fairly rare and specific grade makes me believe that the engineers behind the coyote and ford created this oil spec for good reason
the OP should take OVERKILL's advice and preserve the warranty. In short, the OP should go to the dealer buy MC 5w50 and enjoy the car along with its factory warranty benefits.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
If this car was not under warranty, I'd suggest Mobil 1 0w-40. It is somewhere in the middle between the two OEM grades, has a plethora of manufacturer certs and approvals to guarantee a particular level of performance and is in general, an excellent product.
Finally something pertaining to what's the BEST oil for a coyote.
Just Because its considered one of the worlds best oils doesnt mean it is the BEST oil for the coyote. Their is no BEST oil, however if i was going to choose a BEST oil i would choose MC5w50. It was designed and formulated according to Fords specs, it retains the warranty and meets the performance specs the Engineers that built the coyote desired.
How often does a manufacture recommend 5w50? rarely. the very fact that they engineered a fairly rare and specific grade makes me believe that the engineers behind the coyote and ford created this oil spec for good reason
the OP should take OVERKILL's advice and preserve the warranty. In short, the OP should go to the dealer buy MC 5w50 and enjoy the car along with its factory warranty benefits.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
That Pennzoil looks to be a really thin 20W50. VR1 20W50 I was thinking was near the 20 end range at 100C? GTX is in the 19 range.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Pennzoil's 20w-50:
@40C: 158.3
@100C: 17.6
VI: 122 (YIKES!!!!!)
Flash: 214C
Pour: -24C
CCS: 7,060cP @ -15C
MRV: 25,600cP @ -20C
HTHS: 4.6cP
NOACK: 4.9% (that's where this oil shines I'd say)
Johnny had told me that Pennzoil YB and Pennzoil GT were the best 50 weight oils made.
Pennzoil's 20w-50:
@40C: 158.3
@100C: 17.6
VI: 122 (YIKES!!!!!)
Flash: 214C
Pour: -24C
CCS: 7,060cP @ -15C
MRV: 25,600cP @ -20C
HTHS: 4.6cP
NOACK: 4.9% (that's where this oil shines I'd say)
Johnny had told me that Pennzoil YB and Pennzoil GT were the best 50 weight oils made.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
I disagree. If we look at Doug's tear-down data as an indication as to what the values we see in a UOA can or cannot mean, what we see is that the oils shears.
Doug's tear-down data? I have reviewed this thread and don't see any mention of such a thing. What are you referring to?
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
We have no idea which lubricant is genuinely doing the best by the engine. On the other side of the coin, Ford DOES know what lubricant does the best by their engine.
Have you gone over to the SVT Performance website and read the 24 pages of posts and studied the spreadsheet of UOA's that they have accumulated over a period of years? If you would, you might come away with a different conclusion. They're pretty comfortable over there that AMSoil 10w40 is better for the supercharged 5.4 mod motors than MC 5w50. By extension, I would assume that their results would also apply to the Coyote, since the engines are basically the same and Ford applies the same oil spec to them. We don't really know if Ford has exhaustively tested all lubricants to see which ones give the lowest wear or high-temperature protection. Maybe MC 5w50 was formulated to meet corporate requirements for emissions system durability (reference the low zddp content) and year-round performance (reference the 5W low-temperature rating and high VI).
I disagree. If we look at Doug's tear-down data as an indication as to what the values we see in a UOA can or cannot mean, what we see is that the oils shears.
Doug's tear-down data? I have reviewed this thread and don't see any mention of such a thing. What are you referring to?
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
We have no idea which lubricant is genuinely doing the best by the engine. On the other side of the coin, Ford DOES know what lubricant does the best by their engine.
Have you gone over to the SVT Performance website and read the 24 pages of posts and studied the spreadsheet of UOA's that they have accumulated over a period of years? If you would, you might come away with a different conclusion. They're pretty comfortable over there that AMSoil 10w40 is better for the supercharged 5.4 mod motors than MC 5w50. By extension, I would assume that their results would also apply to the Coyote, since the engines are basically the same and Ford applies the same oil spec to them. We don't really know if Ford has exhaustively tested all lubricants to see which ones give the lowest wear or high-temperature protection. Maybe MC 5w50 was formulated to meet corporate requirements for emissions system durability (reference the low zddp content) and year-round performance (reference the 5W low-temperature rating and high VI).
Last edited:
SVT Performance website shows all the oils shear even Redline at around 17% and Motorcraft vary between 20% to 40%. I would think Ford would also UOA test the oil and is aware of the fact it shears down to at around 12 cSt. (a thick 30w or light 40w oil)
The best minimum shear results are the Amsoil 10w30 at 4.74% and 10w40 at 2.75%. Is the MC selected by Ford because of its chemistry rather than what is implied here of its shearing ability alone?
I guess you guys in the US should give Ford a call and get them to sign up as a BITOG member so we can educate them on oil matters perhaps they Ford learn from us.
Or the answer is here in the opening statement, " Just in case some of you didn't know Ford has 5W50 on the cap of 5.0 Mustangs with the Track Pack and there is no difference in the internals vs the non Track Pack recommending 5W20 which i thought was interesting"
The best minimum shear results are the Amsoil 10w30 at 4.74% and 10w40 at 2.75%. Is the MC selected by Ford because of its chemistry rather than what is implied here of its shearing ability alone?
I guess you guys in the US should give Ford a call and get them to sign up as a BITOG member so we can educate them on oil matters perhaps they Ford learn from us.
Or the answer is here in the opening statement, " Just in case some of you didn't know Ford has 5W50 on the cap of 5.0 Mustangs with the Track Pack and there is no difference in the internals vs the non Track Pack recommending 5W20 which i thought was interesting"
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
2. M1 5w-50:
Visc@ 40C: 108
Visc@ 100C: 17.5
VI: 180
Flash: 231C (448F)
Pour: N/A
CCS: N/A
MRV: 29244cP @ -35C
HTHS: 4.4cP
NOACK: N/A
TBN: 11.8
compare to the Motorcraft oil:
https://www.fcsdchemicalsandlubricants.c...20Synthetic.pdf
Its relevant specs:
Visc@ 40C: 136
Visc@ 100C: 21
It looks heavier than both of them
Comparing VOA's between M1 0w40 and 5w50:
Element, 0w40, 5w50
Mo,,,,,,,75,,,,,99
B,,,,,,,,220,,,,202
Ca,,,,,,3000,,,2923
Mg,,,,,,,20,,,,,14
P,,,,,,,,890,,,,866
Zn,,,,,,,1025,,,992
The additive packages are very similar between the two.
Perhaps M1 5w50 is just a heavier version of 0w40.
So why doesn't the 5w50 get just as much love here as the 0w40? But I'm digressing. The important difference is that M1 5w50 has a specified Phosphorous content of 1000 ppm, and MC 5w50 looks to have a max P content of 800, based on the SVT Performance data. I would bet a $6 lunch that low P is part of Ford's spec for the oil, and is the only reason that M1 doesn't meet it.
The major advantage that MC 5w50 has going for it is a very high virgin KV100. Based on the quoted KV40 and KV100 values, I estimate that it would have an HTHS in the neighborhood of 5.2. This sounds OK, but if a shear allowance of 32% from virgin were applied, MC 5w50 would end up at 3.6 after a couple of thousand miles. So why not use a good quality 40-weight?
2. M1 5w-50:
Visc@ 40C: 108
Visc@ 100C: 17.5
VI: 180
Flash: 231C (448F)
Pour: N/A
CCS: N/A
MRV: 29244cP @ -35C
HTHS: 4.4cP
NOACK: N/A
TBN: 11.8
compare to the Motorcraft oil:
https://www.fcsdchemicalsandlubricants.c...20Synthetic.pdf
Its relevant specs:
Visc@ 40C: 136
Visc@ 100C: 21
It looks heavier than both of them
Comparing VOA's between M1 0w40 and 5w50:
Element, 0w40, 5w50
Mo,,,,,,,75,,,,,99
B,,,,,,,,220,,,,202
Ca,,,,,,3000,,,2923
Mg,,,,,,,20,,,,,14
P,,,,,,,,890,,,,866
Zn,,,,,,,1025,,,992
The additive packages are very similar between the two.
Perhaps M1 5w50 is just a heavier version of 0w40.
So why doesn't the 5w50 get just as much love here as the 0w40? But I'm digressing. The important difference is that M1 5w50 has a specified Phosphorous content of 1000 ppm, and MC 5w50 looks to have a max P content of 800, based on the SVT Performance data. I would bet a $6 lunch that low P is part of Ford's spec for the oil, and is the only reason that M1 doesn't meet it.
The major advantage that MC 5w50 has going for it is a very high virgin KV100. Based on the quoted KV40 and KV100 values, I estimate that it would have an HTHS in the neighborhood of 5.2. This sounds OK, but if a shear allowance of 32% from virgin were applied, MC 5w50 would end up at 3.6 after a couple of thousand miles. So why not use a good quality 40-weight?
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Doug's tear-down data? I have reviewed this thread and don't see any mention of such a thing. What are you referring to?
The values posted by Doug Hillary with respect to his 1.2 million Km tear-down when he did fleet testing of Delvac 1 for Exxon Mobil. Condemnation points on his UOA's of over 100ppm of Fe.....etc.
Quote:
Have you gone over to the SVT Performance website and read the 24 pages of posts and studied the spreadsheet of UOA's that they have accumulated over a period of years?
Yes.
Quote:
If you would, you might come away with a different conclusion.
Nope, I didn't.
Quote:
They're pretty comfortable over there that AMSoil 10w40 is better for the supercharged 5.4 mod motors than MC 5w50.
Without actual tear-down testing, it is just opinion and a trumped up reason to feel good about using a product that isn't in compliance with their factory warranty.
Quote:
By extension, I would assume that their results would also apply to the Coyote, since the engines are basically the same and Ford applies the same oil spec to them.
They are very similar, but not the same. The 5.4L and the 4.6L shared bore size, whilst the 5.0L is different in that respect. Of course they are similar, both being members of the modular family, but there are differences.
Quote:
We don't really know if Ford has exhaustively tested all lubricants to see which ones give the lowest wear or high-temperature protection.
Why would they do that? They developed an oil and (and subsequently a certification process to guarantee a given level of performance) to achieve just that. They had no reason to start "testing oils" to see which gave the best result when they had the capability to work in conjunction with one of the majors, the same as the Euro marques do, to develop a lubricant that does just that.
Quote:
Maybe MC 5w50 was formulated to meet corporate requirements for emissions system durability (reference the low zddp content) and year-round performance (reference the 5W low-temperature rating and high VI).
The lubricant was developed and tested to provide protection for engines of extremely high power density operated under a wide range of conditions. Why do you keep assuming we know better than Ford? We don't. Just like when Mercedes develops an oil spec, is it really bright to dump Redline in the sump because it has a boatload of ZDDP so it "must be better"?
It amazes me that we trust these companies to develop these vehicles and engines, then second-guess them in their lubricant choice for them, thinking they are incompetent
Isn't that a somewhat illogical double-standard?
Doug's tear-down data? I have reviewed this thread and don't see any mention of such a thing. What are you referring to?
The values posted by Doug Hillary with respect to his 1.2 million Km tear-down when he did fleet testing of Delvac 1 for Exxon Mobil. Condemnation points on his UOA's of over 100ppm of Fe.....etc.
Quote:
Have you gone over to the SVT Performance website and read the 24 pages of posts and studied the spreadsheet of UOA's that they have accumulated over a period of years?
Yes.
Quote:
If you would, you might come away with a different conclusion.
Nope, I didn't.
Quote:
They're pretty comfortable over there that AMSoil 10w40 is better for the supercharged 5.4 mod motors than MC 5w50.
Without actual tear-down testing, it is just opinion and a trumped up reason to feel good about using a product that isn't in compliance with their factory warranty.
Quote:
By extension, I would assume that their results would also apply to the Coyote, since the engines are basically the same and Ford applies the same oil spec to them.
They are very similar, but not the same. The 5.4L and the 4.6L shared bore size, whilst the 5.0L is different in that respect. Of course they are similar, both being members of the modular family, but there are differences.
Quote:
We don't really know if Ford has exhaustively tested all lubricants to see which ones give the lowest wear or high-temperature protection.
Why would they do that? They developed an oil and (and subsequently a certification process to guarantee a given level of performance) to achieve just that. They had no reason to start "testing oils" to see which gave the best result when they had the capability to work in conjunction with one of the majors, the same as the Euro marques do, to develop a lubricant that does just that.
Quote:
Maybe MC 5w50 was formulated to meet corporate requirements for emissions system durability (reference the low zddp content) and year-round performance (reference the 5W low-temperature rating and high VI).
The lubricant was developed and tested to provide protection for engines of extremely high power density operated under a wide range of conditions. Why do you keep assuming we know better than Ford? We don't. Just like when Mercedes develops an oil spec, is it really bright to dump Redline in the sump because it has a boatload of ZDDP so it "must be better"?
It amazes me that we trust these companies to develop these vehicles and engines, then second-guess them in their lubricant choice for them, thinking they are incompetent
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
The important difference is that M1 5w50 has a specified Phosphorous content of 1000 ppm, and MC 5w50 looks to have a max P content of 800, based on the SVT Performance data. I would bet a $6 lunch that low P is part of Ford's spec for the oil, and is the only reason that M1 doesn't meet it.
Why is that important? It is a DOHC roller motor with light valve springs. It doesn't need 5 billion ppm of ZDDP to minimize valvetrain wear.
Quote:
The major advantage that MC 5w50 has going for it is a very high virgin KV100. Based on the quoted KV40 and KV100 values, I estimate that it would have an HTHS in the neighborhood of 5.2. This sounds OK, but if a shear allowance of 32% from virgin were applied, MC 5w50 would end up at 3.6 after a couple of thousand miles. So why not use a good quality 40-weight?
The effects on shear aren't linear with respect to HTHS IIRC.
But if these engines have a propensity to shear oil, and from the UOA's, they show it does, then the same effects apply to a lighter oil too. If it shears a 5w-40 down into a 30 weight and drops the HTHS down to ~3.0cP, perhaps that makes the oil inadequate at that point
See, we don't KNOW. But I'm certain that Ford DOES know. Because they did all the necessary testing to figure this out. They know how their engine and their lubricant behaves, and the developed their own oil spec so that 3rd party lubricants would provide the necessary performance and protection as well. They didn't just say "use an API SN 5w-50", and that's relevant.
The important difference is that M1 5w50 has a specified Phosphorous content of 1000 ppm, and MC 5w50 looks to have a max P content of 800, based on the SVT Performance data. I would bet a $6 lunch that low P is part of Ford's spec for the oil, and is the only reason that M1 doesn't meet it.
Why is that important? It is a DOHC roller motor with light valve springs. It doesn't need 5 billion ppm of ZDDP to minimize valvetrain wear.
Quote:
The major advantage that MC 5w50 has going for it is a very high virgin KV100. Based on the quoted KV40 and KV100 values, I estimate that it would have an HTHS in the neighborhood of 5.2. This sounds OK, but if a shear allowance of 32% from virgin were applied, MC 5w50 would end up at 3.6 after a couple of thousand miles. So why not use a good quality 40-weight?
The effects on shear aren't linear with respect to HTHS IIRC.
But if these engines have a propensity to shear oil, and from the UOA's, they show it does, then the same effects apply to a lighter oil too. If it shears a 5w-40 down into a 30 weight and drops the HTHS down to ~3.0cP, perhaps that makes the oil inadequate at that point
See, we don't KNOW. But I'm certain that Ford DOES know. Because they did all the necessary testing to figure this out. They know how their engine and their lubricant behaves, and the developed their own oil spec so that 3rd party lubricants would provide the necessary performance and protection as well. They didn't just say "use an API SN 5w-50", and that's relevant.
Quote:
It amazes me that we trust these companies to develop these vehicles and engines, then second-guess them in their lubricant choice for them, thinking they are incompetent
Isn't that a somewhat illogical double-standard?
Hah, that's why they're specing 5w50 now for 5.0s equipped with the TrackPack. Originally it was speced as 5w20, and not holding up. Then after a series of blown #8 pistons (some from aftermarket tuning -- others not tuned), they removed the oil squirters midway through 2012 on all 5.0L Coyotes, and installed different pistons, and hood vents for 2013s to aid in cooling. Cars with the Track Pack option (same engine as any other GT) - which is Brembo brakes, oil cooler, 3.73 Torsen rearend get a 5w50 oil cap, with the presumption of what may happen to it one afternoon.
Based on that 2 year exercise, I wouldn't put blind faith into their suggestions.
It amazes me that we trust these companies to develop these vehicles and engines, then second-guess them in their lubricant choice for them, thinking they are incompetent
Hah, that's why they're specing 5w50 now for 5.0s equipped with the TrackPack. Originally it was speced as 5w20, and not holding up. Then after a series of blown #8 pistons (some from aftermarket tuning -- others not tuned), they removed the oil squirters midway through 2012 on all 5.0L Coyotes, and installed different pistons, and hood vents for 2013s to aid in cooling. Cars with the Track Pack option (same engine as any other GT) - which is Brembo brakes, oil cooler, 3.73 Torsen rearend get a 5w50 oil cap, with the presumption of what may happen to it one afternoon.
Based on that 2 year exercise, I wouldn't put blind faith into their suggestions.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: AWESOMO4000
Quote:
It amazes me that we trust these companies to develop these vehicles and engines, then second-guess them in their lubricant choice for them, thinking they are incompetent
Isn't that a somewhat illogical double-standard?
Hah, that's why they're specing 5w50 now for 5.0s equipped with the TrackPack. Originally it was speced as 5w20, and not holding up. Then after a series of blown #8 pistons (some from aftermarket tuning -- others not tuned), they removed the oil squirters midway through 2012 on all 5.0L Coyotes, and installed different pistons, and hood vents for 2013s to aid in cooling. Cars with the Track Pack option (same engine as any other GT) - which is Brembo brakes, oil cooler, 3.73 Torsen rearend get a 5w50 oil cap, with the presumption of what may happen to it one afternoon.
Based on that 2 year exercise, I wouldn't put blind faith into their suggestions.
It's hardly blind faith. The 5w-50 is a purpose-engineered product. The 5w-20 was and is their "CAFE" oil. The cars were programmed to pull power when oil temperatures got too high in order to allow that oil to be used. Obviously sub-optimal to say the least. The Terminator and DOHC modulars suffered from #8 piston failures due to poor tuning too, as it resulted in #8 getting too hot. This isn't a Coyote issue and isn't due to lubricant choice.
Ford is certainly making some changes to accommodate how these cars are being driven. All OEM's do that. There is only so much in-house testing you can do and still get the product out the door. IMHO, to recommend 5w-20 for an engine with this kind of power density is foolish. Though they seem to think they can get away with it by using the thermal neutering technique. Ultimately it appears as though they are gambling on those who intend on /DRIVING/ their cars buying the Track Pack. That way they can continue to spec 5w-20 for the base GT in hopes that they will be driven in a manner that doesn't escalate oil temperatures to unreasonable levels.
I mean the whole thing is rather ridiculous due to the CAFE game. Ford is forced to walk the line to get their CAFE credits and still try to do the best by their product. I think there are times that the bean counters get in the way of the Engineer's recommendations. I think that's what happened here and why we are seeing these changes.
Quote:
It amazes me that we trust these companies to develop these vehicles and engines, then second-guess them in their lubricant choice for them, thinking they are incompetent
Hah, that's why they're specing 5w50 now for 5.0s equipped with the TrackPack. Originally it was speced as 5w20, and not holding up. Then after a series of blown #8 pistons (some from aftermarket tuning -- others not tuned), they removed the oil squirters midway through 2012 on all 5.0L Coyotes, and installed different pistons, and hood vents for 2013s to aid in cooling. Cars with the Track Pack option (same engine as any other GT) - which is Brembo brakes, oil cooler, 3.73 Torsen rearend get a 5w50 oil cap, with the presumption of what may happen to it one afternoon.
Based on that 2 year exercise, I wouldn't put blind faith into their suggestions.
It's hardly blind faith. The 5w-50 is a purpose-engineered product. The 5w-20 was and is their "CAFE" oil. The cars were programmed to pull power when oil temperatures got too high in order to allow that oil to be used. Obviously sub-optimal to say the least. The Terminator and DOHC modulars suffered from #8 piston failures due to poor tuning too, as it resulted in #8 getting too hot. This isn't a Coyote issue and isn't due to lubricant choice.
Ford is certainly making some changes to accommodate how these cars are being driven. All OEM's do that. There is only so much in-house testing you can do and still get the product out the door. IMHO, to recommend 5w-20 for an engine with this kind of power density is foolish. Though they seem to think they can get away with it by using the thermal neutering technique. Ultimately it appears as though they are gambling on those who intend on /DRIVING/ their cars buying the Track Pack. That way they can continue to spec 5w-20 for the base GT in hopes that they will be driven in a manner that doesn't escalate oil temperatures to unreasonable levels.
I mean the whole thing is rather ridiculous due to the CAFE game. Ford is forced to walk the line to get their CAFE credits and still try to do the best by their product. I think there are times that the bean counters get in the way of the Engineer's recommendations. I think that's what happened here and why we are seeing these changes.
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Have you gone over to the SVT Performance website and read the 24 pages of posts and studied the spreadsheet of UOA's that they have accumulated over a period of years? If you would, you might come away with a different conclusion. They're pretty comfortable over there that AMSoil 10w40 is better for the supercharged 5.4 mod motors than MC 5w50.
Since when is a UOA a tool for deciding which lube is best for which engine?
Have you gone over to the SVT Performance website and read the 24 pages of posts and studied the spreadsheet of UOA's that they have accumulated over a period of years? If you would, you might come away with a different conclusion. They're pretty comfortable over there that AMSoil 10w40 is better for the supercharged 5.4 mod motors than MC 5w50.
Since when is a UOA a tool for deciding which lube is best for which engine?
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
I mean the whole thing is rather ridiculous due to the CAFE game. Ford is forced to walk the line to get their CAFE credits and still try to do the best by their product. I think there are times that the bean counters get in the way of the Engineer's recommendations. I think that's what happened here and why we are seeing these changes.
Very relevant. bean counters and/or EPA regs are the driving forces behind most decisions these days. It simply cannot be discounted.
I mean the whole thing is rather ridiculous due to the CAFE game. Ford is forced to walk the line to get their CAFE credits and still try to do the best by their product. I think there are times that the bean counters get in the way of the Engineer's recommendations. I think that's what happened here and why we are seeing these changes.
Very relevant. bean counters and/or EPA regs are the driving forces behind most decisions these days. It simply cannot be discounted.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
I mean the whole thing is rather ridiculous due to the CAFE game. Ford is forced to walk the line to get their CAFE credits and still try to do the best by their product. I think there are times that the bean counters get in the way of the Engineer's recommendations. I think that's what happened here and why we are seeing these changes.
Not too much change, anyone with a coyote but no track pack is still required to run oil Ford doesn't think is up to the job.
I mean the whole thing is rather ridiculous due to the CAFE game. Ford is forced to walk the line to get their CAFE credits and still try to do the best by their product. I think there are times that the bean counters get in the way of the Engineer's recommendations. I think that's what happened here and why we are seeing these changes.
Not too much change, anyone with a coyote but no track pack is still required to run oil Ford doesn't think is up to the job.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
I mean the whole thing is rather ridiculous due to the CAFE game. Ford is forced to walk the line to get their CAFE credits and still try to do the best by their product. I think there are times that the bean counters get in the way of the Engineer's recommendations. I think that's what happened here and why we are seeing these changes.
Not too much change, anyone with a coyote but no track pack is still required to run oil Ford doesn't think is up to the job.
And I'm not in disagreement with you on that point. I don't think that the 5w-20 is adequate for all conditions potentially encountered by the engine in the Mustang, and in general, an engine of that power density. If we look to the Euro marques, you'll see that boldly demonstrated by their oil recommendations. And the plane-jane GT doesn't even have an oil cooler
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
I mean the whole thing is rather ridiculous due to the CAFE game. Ford is forced to walk the line to get their CAFE credits and still try to do the best by their product. I think there are times that the bean counters get in the way of the Engineer's recommendations. I think that's what happened here and why we are seeing these changes.
Not too much change, anyone with a coyote but no track pack is still required to run oil Ford doesn't think is up to the job.
And I'm not in disagreement with you on that point. I don't think that the 5w-20 is adequate for all conditions potentially encountered by the engine in the Mustang, and in general, an engine of that power density. If we look to the Euro marques, you'll see that boldly demonstrated by their oil recommendations. And the plane-jane GT doesn't even have an oil cooler
Quote:
. I would think Ford would also UOA test the oil and is aware of the fact it shears down to at around 12 cSt. (a thick 30w or light 40w oil)
One would hope that Ford/MC is aware of how the lubricant performed when tested.
After checking out the SVT site, it appears the 5w50 does lose a bit of viscosity, which is not surprising given the spread.
. I would think Ford would also UOA test the oil and is aware of the fact it shears down to at around 12 cSt. (a thick 30w or light 40w oil)
One would hope that Ford/MC is aware of how the lubricant performed when tested.
After checking out the SVT site, it appears the 5w50 does lose a bit of viscosity, which is not surprising given the spread.
- Status