Need a 5W50 for 5.0 Coyote
- Thread starter swirlparanoid
- Start date
- Status
Mobil 1 5w50 at a fair price:
and a $10 rebate as well
Napa sells Eneos 0w50, which should still retain the warranty as the second number is most important.
and a $10 rebate as well
Napa sells Eneos 0w50, which should still retain the warranty as the second number is most important.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: tommygunn
Mobil 1 5w50 at a fair price:
and a $10 rebate as well
Napa sells Eneos 0w50, which should still retain the warranty as the second number is most important.
The oil needs to carry Ford's approval to retain the warranty, it isn't specific to the grade. As I said on the 2nd page of this now massive thread, there are only two oils on the market that have the Ford approval.
Example, BMW's LL-01 spec is met by 0w-30, 5w30, 0w-40 and 5w-40 lubricants. One of the criteria is an HTHS >=3.5cP, which can be met by all of the above grades.
I also said this earlier, but heck, I'll just say it again for the fun of it because apparently it is an incredibly hard concept to grasp. This is the same reason the euro marques have had so many issues in North America. People see a number on a bottle and assume that it is "good to go" for the application. It isn't. These companies list an oil meeting a SPEC, and often cite a list of acceptable grades, that, MEETING THE SPEC, mean they are appropriate for the application. The GRADE isn't the important point, the SPEC/APPROVAL is the important point for warranty compliance. And particularly when dealing with OEM-dictated drain intervals and high performance applications!
This doesn't mean that other oils don't offer excellent performance. It means they aren't approved to be used in the application, regardless of the grade on the bottle matching the grade on the fill cap. But even the dealerships in North America mess that one up enough......
But I'm pretty sure you are going to have a much easier time getting warranty if your dealer put in the wrong oil than if you did it yourself
Mobil 1 5w50 at a fair price:
and a $10 rebate as well
Napa sells Eneos 0w50, which should still retain the warranty as the second number is most important.
The oil needs to carry Ford's approval to retain the warranty, it isn't specific to the grade. As I said on the 2nd page of this now massive thread, there are only two oils on the market that have the Ford approval.
Example, BMW's LL-01 spec is met by 0w-30, 5w30, 0w-40 and 5w-40 lubricants. One of the criteria is an HTHS >=3.5cP, which can be met by all of the above grades.
I also said this earlier, but heck, I'll just say it again for the fun of it because apparently it is an incredibly hard concept to grasp. This is the same reason the euro marques have had so many issues in North America. People see a number on a bottle and assume that it is "good to go" for the application. It isn't. These companies list an oil meeting a SPEC, and often cite a list of acceptable grades, that, MEETING THE SPEC, mean they are appropriate for the application. The GRADE isn't the important point, the SPEC/APPROVAL is the important point for warranty compliance. And particularly when dealing with OEM-dictated drain intervals and high performance applications!
This doesn't mean that other oils don't offer excellent performance. It means they aren't approved to be used in the application, regardless of the grade on the bottle matching the grade on the fill cap. But even the dealerships in North America mess that one up enough......
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
The important difference is that Mobil 1 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 Mobil 1 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?
But if these engines have a propensity to shear oil, and from the used oil analysis, 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
1. Who said anything about valvetrain wear? You seem to be trying hard to miss my point. Ford's reason to formulate the oil with low Phosphorous would be to protect the cats. They are probably getting wear protection from Moly and Boron compounds. And besides, valvetrains are designed to run at the same contact stress limits whether they are OHC or OHV.
2. Yes, we know from the SVT data that the GT500 engine shears MC 5w50 an average of 32%. But we also see from the same database that AMSoil 10w40 only shears about 6% in the same engine. So you can't say that the "same effects apply to a lighter oil". It's the viscosity spread that drives high levels of shear loss. In general, a 10w40 will shear less than a 5w50. Likewise with a 5w40. I have 36,000 miles of experience with RT6 5w40 in my truck, and know that it doesn't shear. (Not that I would recommend it for the Boss.)
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
The important difference is that Mobil 1 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 Mobil 1 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?
But if these engines have a propensity to shear oil, and from the used oil analysis, 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
1. Who said anything about valvetrain wear? You seem to be trying hard to miss my point. Ford's reason to formulate the oil with low Phosphorous would be to protect the cats. They are probably getting wear protection from Moly and Boron compounds. And besides, valvetrains are designed to run at the same contact stress limits whether they are OHC or OHV.
2. Yes, we know from the SVT data that the GT500 engine shears MC 5w50 an average of 32%. But we also see from the same database that AMSoil 10w40 only shears about 6% in the same engine. So you can't say that the "same effects apply to a lighter oil". It's the viscosity spread that drives high levels of shear loss. In general, a 10w40 will shear less than a 5w50. Likewise with a 5w40. I have 36,000 miles of experience with RT6 5w40 in my truck, and know that it doesn't shear. (Not that I would recommend it for the Boss.)
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
1. Who said anything about valvetrain wear? You seem to be trying hard to miss my point.
Oh, I don't think that's the case at all
Those who make it a point to focus on ZDDP usually follow it up by claiming that this somehow makes the oil "inferior" to its heavily ZDDP-laden brethren. Otherwise, what is the point in mentioning it if it doesn't matter?
Quote:
Ford's reason to formulate the oil with low Phosphorous would be to protect the cats.
So the European marques, who, as you know, also use cats, but in many cases, where the engines aren't roller (like my M5) spec an oil that has higher levels of ZDDP don't care about the cats?
It couldn't just be that the roller OHC engine simply doesn't require the elevated levels of ZDDP that you guys like to see "on paper" could it
Quote:
They are probably getting wear protection from Moly and Boron compounds. And besides, valvetrains are designed to run at the same contact stress limits whether they are OHC or OHV.
A roller motor doesn't have a sliding contact patch with respect to the cam lobe/rocker/lifter interface. This is relevant.
Quote:
2. Yes, we know from the SVT data that the GT500 engine shears MC 5w50 an average of 32%.
But we don't have any HTHS data on the oil post-sheer, correct? (I can't check that UAO thread right now because their board is down).
Quote:
But we also see from the same database that AMSoil 10w40 only shears about 6% in the same engine.
But this means what exactly in the context of this engine? Other than the obvious, without tear-down testing, or being privy to Ford's testing protocol for the spec cited in the owners manual, it means that in this application, this oil shears less. Nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't mean it is a desired trait for the application or that it is beneficial, now does it?
Quote:
So you can't say that the "same effects apply to a lighter oil". It's the viscosity spread that drives high levels of shear loss.
Really? So Mobil 1 0w-40 SM and Mobil 1 0w-40 SN, the former shearing far more readily than the latter must be a figment of my, and the board in general's imagination? Got it.
There have been numerous incredibly sheer-happy 5w30's posted in the UAO section in the past. And that's a far narrower visc spread than either oils we are discussing here, is it not? It couldn't just be that the propensity to shear relies on a multitude of factors including application, base oils used, visc spread, polymer content...etc.
Quote:
In general, a 10w40 will shear less than a 5w50. Likewise with a 5w40. I have 36,000 miles of experience with RT6 5w40 in my truck, and know that it doesn't shear. (Not that I would recommend it for the Boss.)
Using the context of "in general", as noted, I will agree with you. However, of note, run a 5w-40 in a 6.0L PSD and see how long it takes to shear the living poo out of it. Spoiler: not long. That same oil in a 500HP detroit doesn't shear at all though
Or in a 5.4L modular. Application is a key component to whether you will observe shear. Yet in many cases a lubricant that does shear is an approved product that has been tested by the manufacturer, so this is, from what we can glean from this, an acceptable characteristic. And I would bet that this is likely due to the oil, post-sheer, still having an acceptable HTHS for the application, subsequently meaning that its desired operating characteristics have not been compromised, regardless of the observed viscosity loss.
But all of this is beside the point, which is the fact that Ford has required the use of a lubricant carrying a specific approval and to comply with the terms of his warranty, that is what the OP should be using.
If he wants to use City Star 5w30 with 4 cans of MMO after his warranty is up, that'll be on him. But while operating the car under warranty, he would be ill-advised to use a non-warranty-compliant product for this application. It really IS that simple.
1. Who said anything about valvetrain wear? You seem to be trying hard to miss my point.
Oh, I don't think that's the case at all
Those who make it a point to focus on ZDDP usually follow it up by claiming that this somehow makes the oil "inferior" to its heavily ZDDP-laden brethren. Otherwise, what is the point in mentioning it if it doesn't matter?
Quote:
Ford's reason to formulate the oil with low Phosphorous would be to protect the cats.
So the European marques, who, as you know, also use cats, but in many cases, where the engines aren't roller (like my M5) spec an oil that has higher levels of ZDDP don't care about the cats?
It couldn't just be that the roller OHC engine simply doesn't require the elevated levels of ZDDP that you guys like to see "on paper" could it
Quote:
They are probably getting wear protection from Moly and Boron compounds. And besides, valvetrains are designed to run at the same contact stress limits whether they are OHC or OHV.
A roller motor doesn't have a sliding contact patch with respect to the cam lobe/rocker/lifter interface. This is relevant.
Quote:
2. Yes, we know from the SVT data that the GT500 engine shears MC 5w50 an average of 32%.
But we don't have any HTHS data on the oil post-sheer, correct? (I can't check that UAO thread right now because their board is down).
Quote:
But we also see from the same database that AMSoil 10w40 only shears about 6% in the same engine.
But this means what exactly in the context of this engine? Other than the obvious, without tear-down testing, or being privy to Ford's testing protocol for the spec cited in the owners manual, it means that in this application, this oil shears less. Nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't mean it is a desired trait for the application or that it is beneficial, now does it?
Quote:
So you can't say that the "same effects apply to a lighter oil". It's the viscosity spread that drives high levels of shear loss.
Really? So Mobil 1 0w-40 SM and Mobil 1 0w-40 SN, the former shearing far more readily than the latter must be a figment of my, and the board in general's imagination? Got it.
There have been numerous incredibly sheer-happy 5w30's posted in the UAO section in the past. And that's a far narrower visc spread than either oils we are discussing here, is it not? It couldn't just be that the propensity to shear relies on a multitude of factors including application, base oils used, visc spread, polymer content...etc.
Quote:
In general, a 10w40 will shear less than a 5w50. Likewise with a 5w40. I have 36,000 miles of experience with RT6 5w40 in my truck, and know that it doesn't shear. (Not that I would recommend it for the Boss.)
Using the context of "in general", as noted, I will agree with you. However, of note, run a 5w-40 in a 6.0L PSD and see how long it takes to shear the living poo out of it. Spoiler: not long. That same oil in a 500HP detroit doesn't shear at all though
But all of this is beside the point, which is the fact that Ford has required the use of a lubricant carrying a specific approval and to comply with the terms of his warranty, that is what the OP should be using.
If he wants to use City Star 5w30 with 4 cans of MMO after his warranty is up, that'll be on him. But while operating the car under warranty, he would be ill-advised to use a non-warranty-compliant product for this application. It really IS that simple.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
And of note:
http://www.amsoil.com/mygarage/VehicleLookupPage.aspx?FromIndex=1&url2=2013+FORD+MUSTANG+U
Originally Posted By: AMSOIL
Engine Oil
Grade 1......SN[1] No AMSOIL Product Recommendation
All TEMPS......5W-50
Which means that you won't get AMSOIL's warranty if you choose to run one of their products in place of an approved lubricant. Because they don't make a lubricant that they see fit as an acceptable replacement.
http://www.amsoil.com/mygarage/VehicleLookupPage.aspx?FromIndex=1&url2=2013+FORD+MUSTANG+U
Originally Posted By: AMSOIL
Engine Oil
Grade 1......SN[1] No AMSOIL Product Recommendation
All TEMPS......5W-50
Which means that you won't get AMSOIL's warranty if you choose to run one of their products in place of an approved lubricant. Because they don't make a lubricant that they see fit as an acceptable replacement.
The 5w50 vs 5w20 speccing seems to boil down to whether you have a 5.0 with or without oil squirters. Ones without get a 5w50 spec, ones with get a 5w20 spec.
The 5.4/5.8 is a substantially different engine from the 5.0 Coyote/RoadRunner, especially w/r/t piston ring configuration.
The 5.4/5.8 is a substantially different engine from the 5.0 Coyote/RoadRunner, especially w/r/t piston ring configuration.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
And the plane-jane GT doesn't even have an oil cooler
I can tell you from personal experience that it doesn't really need an oil cooler except in the most extreme situations. If I had to pick between an oil cooler and a trans cooler on these cars I'd go with the trans cooler.
And the plane-jane GT doesn't even have an oil cooler
I can tell you from personal experience that it doesn't really need an oil cooler except in the most extreme situations. If I had to pick between an oil cooler and a trans cooler on these cars I'd go with the trans cooler.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: metalboy
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
And the plane-jane GT doesn't even have an oil cooler
I can tell you from personal experience that it doesn't really need an oil cooler except in the most extreme situations. If I had to pick between an oil cooler and a trans cooler on these cars I'd go with the trans cooler.
I'd never own a Mustang that wasn't a manual, so that makes it a moot point for me
And yes, I imagine that in normal driving, the oil temperature will remain within an acceptable temperature range. Though from what I recall seeing on the track testing, when pushed, the oil temp climbs surprisingly fast. This is where the oil cooler immediately becomes useful. When you can actually use all 42xHP, that sort of power density has the ability to heat the oil in short order
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
And the plane-jane GT doesn't even have an oil cooler
I can tell you from personal experience that it doesn't really need an oil cooler except in the most extreme situations. If I had to pick between an oil cooler and a trans cooler on these cars I'd go with the trans cooler.
I'd never own a Mustang that wasn't a manual, so that makes it a moot point for me
And yes, I imagine that in normal driving, the oil temperature will remain within an acceptable temperature range. Though from what I recall seeing on the track testing, when pushed, the oil temp climbs surprisingly fast. This is where the oil cooler immediately becomes useful. When you can actually use all 42xHP, that sort of power density has the ability to heat the oil in short order
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: metalboy
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
And the plane-jane GT doesn't even have an oil cooler
I can tell you from personal experience that it doesn't really need an oil cooler except in the most extreme situations. If I had to pick between an oil cooler and a trans cooler on these cars I'd go with the trans cooler.
I'd never own a Mustang that wasn't a manual, so that makes it a moot point for me
And yes, I imagine that in normal driving, the oil temperature will remain within an acceptable temperature range. Though from what I recall seeing on the track testing, when pushed, the oil temp climbs surprisingly fast. This is where the oil cooler immediately becomes useful. When you can actually use all 42xHP, that sort of power density has the ability to heat the oil in short order
On thirty minute track sessions I had engine oil temperatures stabilize in the 225-235F range, although this was admittedly on a fairly cool day. Transmission oil was closer to 260F. This was with a manual gearbox. I didn't measure oil in the rear axle, but I really should have.
Originally Posted By: metalboy
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
And the plane-jane GT doesn't even have an oil cooler
I can tell you from personal experience that it doesn't really need an oil cooler except in the most extreme situations. If I had to pick between an oil cooler and a trans cooler on these cars I'd go with the trans cooler.
I'd never own a Mustang that wasn't a manual, so that makes it a moot point for me
And yes, I imagine that in normal driving, the oil temperature will remain within an acceptable temperature range. Though from what I recall seeing on the track testing, when pushed, the oil temp climbs surprisingly fast. This is where the oil cooler immediately becomes useful. When you can actually use all 42xHP, that sort of power density has the ability to heat the oil in short order
On thirty minute track sessions I had engine oil temperatures stabilize in the 225-235F range, although this was admittedly on a fairly cool day. Transmission oil was closer to 260F. This was with a manual gearbox. I didn't measure oil in the rear axle, but I really should have.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: metalboy
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: metalboy
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
And the plane-jane GT doesn't even have an oil cooler
I can tell you from personal experience that it doesn't really need an oil cooler except in the most extreme situations. If I had to pick between an oil cooler and a trans cooler on these cars I'd go with the trans cooler.
I'd never own a Mustang that wasn't a manual, so that makes it a moot point for me
And yes, I imagine that in normal driving, the oil temperature will remain within an acceptable temperature range. Though from what I recall seeing on the track testing, when pushed, the oil temp climbs surprisingly fast. This is where the oil cooler immediately becomes useful. When you can actually use all 42xHP, that sort of power density has the ability to heat the oil in short order
On thirty minute track sessions I had engine oil temperatures stabilize in the 225-235F range, although this was admittedly on a fairly cool day. Transmission oil was closer to 260F. This was with a manual gearbox. I didn't measure oil in the rear axle, but I really should have.
I don't think the elvated gearbox temp is a real issue. And likely relates to the low amount of airflow it sees and relatively small fluid capacity. That may just be its stabilization temperature.
That oil temp is definitely a lot lower than some of the testing mags experienced, where they got the car to go into thermal limp mode
What track were you running? What was the top speed you were able to achieve? And more importantly, how do you like the car?
I'm a big fan of the current Mustang body style and the Coyote/Road Runner engines.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: metalboy
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
And the plane-jane GT doesn't even have an oil cooler
I can tell you from personal experience that it doesn't really need an oil cooler except in the most extreme situations. If I had to pick between an oil cooler and a trans cooler on these cars I'd go with the trans cooler.
I'd never own a Mustang that wasn't a manual, so that makes it a moot point for me
And yes, I imagine that in normal driving, the oil temperature will remain within an acceptable temperature range. Though from what I recall seeing on the track testing, when pushed, the oil temp climbs surprisingly fast. This is where the oil cooler immediately becomes useful. When you can actually use all 42xHP, that sort of power density has the ability to heat the oil in short order
On thirty minute track sessions I had engine oil temperatures stabilize in the 225-235F range, although this was admittedly on a fairly cool day. Transmission oil was closer to 260F. This was with a manual gearbox. I didn't measure oil in the rear axle, but I really should have.
I don't think the elvated gearbox temp is a real issue. And likely relates to the low amount of airflow it sees and relatively small fluid capacity. That may just be its stabilization temperature.
That oil temp is definitely a lot lower than some of the testing mags experienced, where they got the car to go into thermal limp mode
What track were you running? What was the top speed you were able to achieve? And more importantly, how do you like the car?
I'm a big fan of the current Mustang body style and the Coyote/Road Runner engines.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
I don't think the elvated gearbox temp is a real issue. And likely relates to the low amount of airflow it sees and relatively small fluid capacity. That may just be its stabilization temperature.
That oil temp is definitely a lot lower than some of the testing mags experienced, where they got the car to go into thermal limp mode
What track were you running? What was the top speed you were able to achieve? And more importantly, how do you like the car?
I'm a big fan of the current Mustang body style and the Coyote/Road Runner engines.
Two different tracks here in Texas over December and January. The sessions were fairly short, and I'm very conscientious about doing a cooldown lap or two at the end of the session. With higher ambient temperatures or longer sessions it would be more of a problem, for sure.
I think we trapped at 145 or so coming into Turn 1 on the "faster" track.
Experience has taught me that gearboxes will start giving me trouble if the oil gets as hot as it was getting. I changed it after both days.
Since I actively compete in a few different things, and because like everybody else in my class the Mustang has a "cheater" engine, I am in the awkward situation of being honest about who I am OR being honest about my vehicle on the internet. So bear with me
I don't think the elvated gearbox temp is a real issue. And likely relates to the low amount of airflow it sees and relatively small fluid capacity. That may just be its stabilization temperature.
That oil temp is definitely a lot lower than some of the testing mags experienced, where they got the car to go into thermal limp mode
What track were you running? What was the top speed you were able to achieve? And more importantly, how do you like the car?
I'm a big fan of the current Mustang body style and the Coyote/Road Runner engines.
Two different tracks here in Texas over December and January. The sessions were fairly short, and I'm very conscientious about doing a cooldown lap or two at the end of the session. With higher ambient temperatures or longer sessions it would be more of a problem, for sure.
I think we trapped at 145 or so coming into Turn 1 on the "faster" track.
Experience has taught me that gearboxes will start giving me trouble if the oil gets as hot as it was getting. I changed it after both days.
Since I actively compete in a few different things, and because like everybody else in my class the Mustang has a "cheater" engine, I am in the awkward situation of being honest about who I am OR being honest about my vehicle on the internet. So bear with me
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: metalboy
Experience has taught me that gearboxes will start giving me trouble if the oil gets as hot as it was getting. I changed it after both days.
What other gearboxes did you experience issues on? The T-56?
The Getrag units in the BMW's tend to be problem-free with respect to extended high temps and high speed use. Given that the current (Chinese) transmission in the Mustang is a Getrag unit, I wonder if that trait will carry over to it
Quote:
Since I actively compete in a few different things, and because like everybody else in my class the Mustang has a "cheater" engine, I am in the awkward situation of being honest about who I am OR being honest about my vehicle on the internet. So bear with me
No problem, I'd love to hear more about your racing endeavours/experience with the car. If you want to do that via PM, just send me a message
Experience has taught me that gearboxes will start giving me trouble if the oil gets as hot as it was getting. I changed it after both days.
What other gearboxes did you experience issues on? The T-56?
The Getrag units in the BMW's tend to be problem-free with respect to extended high temps and high speed use. Given that the current (Chinese) transmission in the Mustang is a Getrag unit, I wonder if that trait will carry over to it
Quote:
Since I actively compete in a few different things, and because like everybody else in my class the Mustang has a "cheater" engine, I am in the awkward situation of being honest about who I am OR being honest about my vehicle on the internet. So bear with me
No problem, I'd love to hear more about your racing endeavours/experience with the car. If you want to do that via PM, just send me a message
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
What other gearboxes did you experience issues on? The T-56?
How far back to you want to go? The FT200 tended to eat pawls (even faster than usual, I mean) if you didn't cool it properly. Tremecs always seemed to be happiest with their oil around 220F.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
The Getrag units in the BMW's tend to be problem-free with respect to extended high temps and high speed use. Given that the current (Chinese) transmission in the Mustang is a Getrag unit, I wonder if that trait will carry over to it
I haven't dismantled the transmission on this car yet, but as it's a production transmission I am always skeptical. If I can get ahold of a spare, I'll get back to you with a verdict.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
No problem, I'd love to hear more about your racing endeavours/experience with the car. If you want to do that via PM, just send me a message
It handles a [censored] of a lot better than a car it's size really should, and the engine is really a marvel. It's extremely comfortable, by my standards anyway. I'm getting old, I wanted something with cushy seats
What other gearboxes did you experience issues on? The T-56?
How far back to you want to go? The FT200 tended to eat pawls (even faster than usual, I mean) if you didn't cool it properly. Tremecs always seemed to be happiest with their oil around 220F.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
The Getrag units in the BMW's tend to be problem-free with respect to extended high temps and high speed use. Given that the current (Chinese) transmission in the Mustang is a Getrag unit, I wonder if that trait will carry over to it
I haven't dismantled the transmission on this car yet, but as it's a production transmission I am always skeptical. If I can get ahold of a spare, I'll get back to you with a verdict.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
No problem, I'd love to hear more about your racing endeavours/experience with the car. If you want to do that via PM, just send me a message
It handles a [censored] of a lot better than a car it's size really should, and the engine is really a marvel. It's extremely comfortable, by my standards anyway. I'm getting old, I wanted something with cushy seats
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
The Mustangs I've driven all seem to have 1st to 2nd gear grind,the Shelby GT500s being the worst. The older 5 speeds shift so much better.
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
The Mustangs I've driven all seem to have 1st to 2nd gear grind,the Shelby GT500s being the worst. The older 5 speeds shift so much better.
The manual transmission on these cars is...controversial, to say the least. I have had absolutely no trouble with mine, and that's all I will say on the matter.
The Mustangs I've driven all seem to have 1st to 2nd gear grind,the Shelby GT500s being the worst. The older 5 speeds shift so much better.
The manual transmission on these cars is...controversial, to say the least. I have had absolutely no trouble with mine, and that's all I will say on the matter.
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
The Mustangs I've driven all seem to have 1st to 2nd gear grind,the Shelby GT500s being the worst. The older 5 speeds shift so much better.
It's really funny that the only 5.0 that I have had any seat time in does not grind at all.
Shifts just fine to me.
The Mustangs I've driven all seem to have 1st to 2nd gear grind,the Shelby GT500s being the worst. The older 5 speeds shift so much better.
It's really funny that the only 5.0 that I have had any seat time in does not grind at all.
Shifts just fine to me.
- Status