The transmission is a Tremec Magnum, which is an after market version of the TR-6060.
New Ford Coyote Crate Engine
- Thread starter rigelkentaurus
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
People speculate that it is CAFE, but does the crate engine give a basis of radiator size and airflow, oil cooler size and airflow, etc? Same engine computer and controls? Same fuel management as the Mustang?
If not, and since there's no hurt in specifying higher viscosity for an engine likely to be run hard, they can do whatever they wish.
If they assume 100% track use, 5w-50 (or perhaps even a straight weight) might be prudent for that, but given your use assessment, not necessarily for you.
Doesnt mean that practically speaking it will truly protect better and last longer in regular use.
Personally, Id evaluate the cooling and airflow approach versus a new Mustang, and evaluate from there. Since it is a custom job, Id also evaluate oil temps.
Id probably look for the lowest NOACK/highest HT/HS in a 5 or 10w-30, given your climate, and roll with it.
No one speculates that CAFE is the reason only 5w-20 is speced. It's very obvious.
I forgot that you're a Ford powertrain engineer that assessed the trades and have firsthand objective evidence that vehicles are lasting shorter these days due to lower viscosity oils. Right. Forgot.
We'd all be better off running 50wt group I slop. Forgot.
You don't have to be an engineer to be able to read and understand things like "increases fuel economy and provides adequate wear protection." I've never seen anyone post the article stating that the drive for thinner oils is for engine protection. Do you have it to post?
This is really getting silly. Of course CAFE/fuel econ is the reason. That's settled. We can argue about all the other stuff. You'll notice my vehicles are currently running 5w-20 and ILSAC rated thin 10w-30. Clearly I missed the SAE 50 or bust bus. I do like the 10w-30 HDEO for my Coyote. PUP was up next. I have to buy 2 jugs a year with the rebates.
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
People speculate that it is CAFE, but does the crate engine give a basis of radiator size and airflow, oil cooler size and airflow, etc? Same engine computer and controls? Same fuel management as the Mustang?
If not, and since there's no hurt in specifying higher viscosity for an engine likely to be run hard, they can do whatever they wish.
If they assume 100% track use, 5w-50 (or perhaps even a straight weight) might be prudent for that, but given your use assessment, not necessarily for you.
Doesnt mean that practically speaking it will truly protect better and last longer in regular use.
Personally, Id evaluate the cooling and airflow approach versus a new Mustang, and evaluate from there. Since it is a custom job, Id also evaluate oil temps.
Id probably look for the lowest NOACK/highest HT/HS in a 5 or 10w-30, given your climate, and roll with it.
No one speculates that CAFE is the reason only 5w-20 is speced. It's very obvious.
I forgot that you're a Ford powertrain engineer that assessed the trades and have firsthand objective evidence that vehicles are lasting shorter these days due to lower viscosity oils. Right. Forgot.
We'd all be better off running 50wt group I slop. Forgot.
You don't have to be an engineer to be able to read and understand things like "increases fuel economy and provides adequate wear protection." I've never seen anyone post the article stating that the drive for thinner oils is for engine protection. Do you have it to post?
This is really getting silly. Of course CAFE/fuel econ is the reason. That's settled. We can argue about all the other stuff. You'll notice my vehicles are currently running 5w-20 and ILSAC rated thin 10w-30. Clearly I missed the SAE 50 or bust bus. I do like the 10w-30 HDEO for my Coyote. PUP was up next. I have to buy 2 jugs a year with the rebates.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I forgot that you're a Ford powertrain engineer that assessed the trades and have firsthand objective evidence that vehicles are lasting shorter these days due to lower viscosity oils. Right. Forgot.
We'd all be better off running 50wt group I slop. Forgot.
First point...doesn't need to be a Ford Power train engineer to understand their motives.
Second, the lasting shorter isn't required, as it's not proof of Ford's Motives in their initial direction to do so.
The final point is a "slippery slope" argument that's not a logical outcome of the statement that Ford chose to do it for CAFE.
"Show me the pile of failed engines", and "So you say we all should run straight 50" are the logical fallacies that get trotted out time after time after time on BITOG.
Here's one of the letters from the EPA, stating exactly why Ford, and Honda chose to use 20s in the day. And whay they MUST do to be allowed to certify their engines running that oil.
https://pics.me.me/classwork-3-x-8-yoo-bro-homework-y-1-2x-3-y-64-8248958.png
One of my favorites is the "well the engine will outlast the vehicle." Maybe an econobox, or in the rust belt. I've never seen a truck with a decent body and strong running engine in the junkyard. 90s trucks are all over the place here. A fair number of earlier trucks too. I'm looking to maximize engine life, not provide adequate protection.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I forgot that you're a Ford powertrain engineer that assessed the trades and have firsthand objective evidence that vehicles are lasting shorter these days due to lower viscosity oils. Right. Forgot.
We'd all be better off running 50wt group I slop. Forgot.
First point...doesn't need to be a Ford Power train engineer to understand their motives.
Second, the lasting shorter isn't required, as it's not proof of Ford's Motives in their initial direction to do so.
The final point is a "slippery slope" argument that's not a logical outcome of the statement that Ford chose to do it for CAFE.
"Show me the pile of failed engines", and "So you say we all should run straight 50" are the logical fallacies that get trotted out time after time after time on BITOG.
Here's one of the letters from the EPA, stating exactly why Ford, and Honda chose to use 20s in the day. And whay they MUST do to be allowed to certify their engines running that oil.
https://pics.me.me/classwork-3-x-8-yoo-bro-homework-y-1-2x-3-y-64-8248958.png
One of my favorites is the "well the engine will outlast the vehicle." Maybe an econobox, or in the rust belt. I've never seen a truck with a decent body and strong running engine in the junkyard. 90s trucks are all over the place here. A fair number of earlier trucks too. I'm looking to maximize engine life, not provide adequate protection.
I still run a 5W-20 in my 14 Mustang GT but it's still under a drivetrain warranty. When that expires in August, I may go up to a 5W-30. I've not seen a bad UOA for the 5W-20 in this engine so I doubt running this viscosity will hurt it if you don't beat on it all of the time.
Its a performance engine and since CAFE [censored] doesn't apply to crate engines, FORD engineers are telling you to use the CORRECT oil and not the water they HAVE to use to get CAFE certified. Its Obvious the 20WT oil is inferior for protection in this case but the thin oil crowd just refuses to admit it!! BTW- It is like this with almost ANY performance crate engine AFAIK. Whats that tell ya?
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I forgot that you're a Ford powertrain engineer that assessed the trades and have firsthand objective evidence that vehicles are lasting shorter these days due to lower viscosity oils. Right. Forgot.
We'd all be better off running 50wt group I slop. Forgot.
First point...doesn't need to be a Ford Power train engineer to understand their motives.
Second, the lasting shorter isn't required, as it's not proof of Ford's Motives in their initial direction to do so.
The final point is a "slippery slope" argument that's not a logical outcome of the statement that Ford chose to do it for CAFE.
"Show me the pile of failed engines", and "So you say we all should run straight 50" are the logical fallacies that get trotted out time after time after time on BITOG.
Here's one of the letters from the EPA, stating exactly why Ford, and Honda chose to use 20s in the day. And whay they MUST do to be allowed to certify their engines running that oil.
https://pics.me.me/classwork-3-x-8-yoo-bro-homework-y-1-2x-3-y-64-8248958.png
One of my favorites is the "well the engine will outlast the vehicle." Maybe an econobox, or in the rust belt. I've never seen a truck with a decent body and strong running engine in the junkyard. 90s trucks are all over the place here. A fair number of earlier trucks too. I'm looking to maximize engine life, not provide adequate protection.
Funny to achieve maximium lifespan first you must have adequate protection.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I forgot that you're a Ford powertrain engineer that assessed the trades and have firsthand objective evidence that vehicles are lasting shorter these days due to lower viscosity oils. Right. Forgot.
We'd all be better off running 50wt group I slop. Forgot.
First point...doesn't need to be a Ford Power train engineer to understand their motives.
Second, the lasting shorter isn't required, as it's not proof of Ford's Motives in their initial direction to do so.
The final point is a "slippery slope" argument that's not a logical outcome of the statement that Ford chose to do it for CAFE.
"Show me the pile of failed engines", and "So you say we all should run straight 50" are the logical fallacies that get trotted out time after time after time on BITOG.
Here's one of the letters from the EPA, stating exactly why Ford, and Honda chose to use 20s in the day. And whay they MUST do to be allowed to certify their engines running that oil.
https://pics.me.me/classwork-3-x-8-yoo-bro-homework-y-1-2x-3-y-64-8248958.png
One of my favorites is the "well the engine will outlast the vehicle." Maybe an econobox, or in the rust belt. I've never seen a truck with a decent body and strong running engine in the junkyard. 90s trucks are all over the place here. A fair number of earlier trucks too. I'm looking to maximize engine life, not provide adequate protection.
Funny to achieve maximium lifespan first you must have adequate protection.
Originally Posted By: racin4ds
Its a performance engine and since CAFE [censored] doesn't apply to crate engines, FORD engineers are telling you to use the CORRECT oil and not the water they HAVE to use to get CAFE certified. Its Obvious the 20WT oil is inferior for protection in this case but the thin oil crowd just refuses to admit it!! BTW- It is like this with almost ANY performance crate engine AFAIK. Whats that tell ya?
The crate engine is through Ford Racing Performance so of course they assume the engine is going to raced, and therefore recommend the track viscosity oil. Just like they recommend a heavier oil in the street car if it's going to see track duty.
If someone is just cruising around the streets the Coyote isn't going to be harmed using 5W-20 because the oil cooler will always keep oil temps low and normal, even if getting on it now and then.
Like I mentioned earlier, the 2018 Mustang owner's manual reommends 5W-30 now for track use instead of 5W-50 like they have in the past. Not sure why they cut the track viscosity back, maybe something changed in the 2018 engine update.
Its a performance engine and since CAFE [censored] doesn't apply to crate engines, FORD engineers are telling you to use the CORRECT oil and not the water they HAVE to use to get CAFE certified. Its Obvious the 20WT oil is inferior for protection in this case but the thin oil crowd just refuses to admit it!! BTW- It is like this with almost ANY performance crate engine AFAIK. Whats that tell ya?
The crate engine is through Ford Racing Performance so of course they assume the engine is going to raced, and therefore recommend the track viscosity oil. Just like they recommend a heavier oil in the street car if it's going to see track duty.
If someone is just cruising around the streets the Coyote isn't going to be harmed using 5W-20 because the oil cooler will always keep oil temps low and normal, even if getting on it now and then.
Like I mentioned earlier, the 2018 Mustang owner's manual reommends 5W-30 now for track use instead of 5W-50 like they have in the past. Not sure why they cut the track viscosity back, maybe something changed in the 2018 engine update.
A logical answer is Ford wanted to cover all possible scenarios. Ford can't predict the cooling, timing, and application. This the 5W50 recommendation.
Do you need Motorcraft 5W-50 is that the required oil for the warranty? As I understand that Motorcraft 5W-50 shears down to a 40 weight oil rather quickly. So why not just use a quality 0W-40 synthetic oil. It'll protect and most likely it's a better quality oil than the Motorcraft 5W-50.
Whimsey
Whimsey
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
People speculate that it is CAFE, [the requirement for thin oils]
It's not speculation, Ford engineers and other manufacturers came right out and said so.
People speculate that it is CAFE, [the requirement for thin oils]
It's not speculation, Ford engineers and other manufacturers came right out and said so.
Originally Posted By: Cujet
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
People speculate that it is CAFE, [the requirement for thin oils]
It's not speculation, Ford engineers and other manufacturers came right out and said so.
It seems to be a manhood thing that the OEMs going [for thin oils] for CAFE purposes is emasculation.
Which leads to the "improved flow", "better cooling", and the infamous "dragging rated towing capacity through death valley in Summer".
Which I've not seen a Ford Power Train engineer come on the site and provide statement/evidence of as yet.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
People speculate that it is CAFE, [the requirement for thin oils]
It's not speculation, Ford engineers and other manufacturers came right out and said so.
It seems to be a manhood thing that the OEMs going [for thin oils] for CAFE purposes is emasculation.
Which leads to the "improved flow", "better cooling", and the infamous "dragging rated towing capacity through death valley in Summer".
Which I've not seen a Ford Power Train engineer come on the site and provide statement/evidence of as yet.
I personally don't worry about it. Even running 5W-20, I doubt the engine will give it up before the rest of the car does.
As far as CAFE goes, why did Ford back spec this viscosity for a lot of it's older vehicles that don't even fall under CAFE anymore if this viscosity is so bad?
Until I see wide spread reports of early engine failures with 5W-20, I'm going to keep using it for now.
As far as CAFE goes, why did Ford back spec this viscosity for a lot of it's older vehicles that don't even fall under CAFE anymore if this viscosity is so bad?
Until I see wide spread reports of early engine failures with 5W-20, I'm going to keep using it for now.
Except in this case, I am confident that the car, now 50 years old, will outlast any engine I put in her.
Originally Posted By: rigelkentaurus
Except in this case, I am confident that the car, now 50 years old, will outlast any engine I put in her.
You have a classic there so it's worth repairing anything that goes on it and plus it's a lot more simple design then say my Mustang with all of it's electronic [censored] that will be expensive to fix in the future.
My 1970 Monte Carlo has had two other engines in it since the original engine had problems.
Except in this case, I am confident that the car, now 50 years old, will outlast any engine I put in her.
You have a classic there so it's worth repairing anything that goes on it and plus it's a lot more simple design then say my Mustang with all of it's electronic [censored] that will be expensive to fix in the future.
My 1970 Monte Carlo has had two other engines in it since the original engine had problems.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Cujet
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
People speculate that it is CAFE, [the requirement for thin oils]
It's not speculation, Ford engineers and other manufacturers came right out and said so.
It seems to be a manhood thing that the OEMs going [for thin oils] for CAFE purposes is emasculation.
Which leads to the "improved flow", "better cooling", and the infamous "dragging rated towing capacity through death valley in Summer".
Which I've not seen a Ford Power Train engineer come on the site and provide statement/evidence of as yet.
Hogwash. Emasculation? Where do you come up with this stuff?!?
By such logic none of the gains in power output, longevity, etc would have ever come about save for CAFE, which is a loose way of saying "Government".
You of all people should understand that as asperities are reduced, film thickness requirements also reduce.
So should our logic be that all manufacturing, machining, and design processes were good enough at late 1960s levels? They never would have improved but for government forcing CAA and CAFE?
To say CAFE is the only driver behind thin oils and the benefits they can offer is uninformed. Again, if there is copious data proving reduced longevity due to thinner oils, do share.
But many of the enablers that allow thin oils to be run, and higher power and economy to be realized are not solely the cause of CAFE. If they were, and manufacturers were truly scared of it, engines would be downsizing, power levels would be reducing, all the tricks to optimize SFC would be in play. Not just a marginally thinner oil that gives a fraction of an MPG benefit if that.
Do thinnner oils reduce heat generation and losses in bearings? Is that a bad thing? Can other benefits be had?
If detailed analysis that is now available shows that a certain vehicle design allows for a certain bulk oil temperature, and a certain bearing oil temperature, viscosity and film thickness is appropriate to the design, is there a good reason to push excessively more "engineering reserve"?
Let's take my 135i as a good example. It runs 245F bulk oil temperatures in routine use. A good deal hotter than what Ive observed in most other vehicles. BMW only specifies LL-01. Common sense would suggest that for this engine, the necessary viscosity and HTHS, as mere objectively testible parameters should likely be higher than for a more pedestrian engine with possibly greater cooling capability and reduced power compared to my 135i. So I'd readily run a 0 or 5w-30 LL-01 oil in a 128i, while 5w-40 is certainly a reasonable option for the 135i.
So back to my OP... a crate engine, with no control into frontal area, oil cooler and radiator design, use profiles, etc would be reasonable to spec the most conservative choice.
Doesn't mean that it's necessary by design, especially if/when other critical interfaces are well designed /engineered to assure certain conditions are met. To say that the coyote engine couldn't last the same long life with 20wt that it would with 30, 40, or 50, without objective data and strong basis, is indeed speculative.
Originally Posted By: Cujet
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
People speculate that it is CAFE, [the requirement for thin oils]
It's not speculation, Ford engineers and other manufacturers came right out and said so.
It seems to be a manhood thing that the OEMs going [for thin oils] for CAFE purposes is emasculation.
Which leads to the "improved flow", "better cooling", and the infamous "dragging rated towing capacity through death valley in Summer".
Which I've not seen a Ford Power Train engineer come on the site and provide statement/evidence of as yet.
Hogwash. Emasculation? Where do you come up with this stuff?!?
By such logic none of the gains in power output, longevity, etc would have ever come about save for CAFE, which is a loose way of saying "Government".
You of all people should understand that as asperities are reduced, film thickness requirements also reduce.
So should our logic be that all manufacturing, machining, and design processes were good enough at late 1960s levels? They never would have improved but for government forcing CAA and CAFE?
To say CAFE is the only driver behind thin oils and the benefits they can offer is uninformed. Again, if there is copious data proving reduced longevity due to thinner oils, do share.
But many of the enablers that allow thin oils to be run, and higher power and economy to be realized are not solely the cause of CAFE. If they were, and manufacturers were truly scared of it, engines would be downsizing, power levels would be reducing, all the tricks to optimize SFC would be in play. Not just a marginally thinner oil that gives a fraction of an MPG benefit if that.
Do thinnner oils reduce heat generation and losses in bearings? Is that a bad thing? Can other benefits be had?
If detailed analysis that is now available shows that a certain vehicle design allows for a certain bulk oil temperature, and a certain bearing oil temperature, viscosity and film thickness is appropriate to the design, is there a good reason to push excessively more "engineering reserve"?
Let's take my 135i as a good example. It runs 245F bulk oil temperatures in routine use. A good deal hotter than what Ive observed in most other vehicles. BMW only specifies LL-01. Common sense would suggest that for this engine, the necessary viscosity and HTHS, as mere objectively testible parameters should likely be higher than for a more pedestrian engine with possibly greater cooling capability and reduced power compared to my 135i. So I'd readily run a 0 or 5w-30 LL-01 oil in a 128i, while 5w-40 is certainly a reasonable option for the 135i.
So back to my OP... a crate engine, with no control into frontal area, oil cooler and radiator design, use profiles, etc would be reasonable to spec the most conservative choice.
Doesn't mean that it's necessary by design, especially if/when other critical interfaces are well designed /engineered to assure certain conditions are met. To say that the coyote engine couldn't last the same long life with 20wt that it would with 30, 40, or 50, without objective data and strong basis, is indeed speculative.
Where did you get the engine from? I see one on Summit Racing with free shipping that looks nice for $6800.
The World Spec for that engine (as in outside of North America) is Ford WSS-M2C913-C / WSS-M2C913-D.
Which is a 5W-30 and based on the Euro ACEA A5/B5 standard.
That is the oil that is specc'd in all the Australian Mustangs. Fully imported car, same engine as yours. Same quality fuel as you.
The closest oil to that spec that I can see in North America is Pennzoil Platinum 5W-30 as it is A5/B5 rated.
(PP 5W30 PDF)
That is what I would use if I was you.
BTW if you read into the Ford 913-D oil spec, it's very interesting. It's starts as a full synthetic Euro A5/B5 oil which is already a very high quality spec. Then Ford limits it to just the 5W30 grade, then they limit it again to the very thin end of the grade, then they boost the TBN (to 10), then they boost the ZDDP. That last thing, the ZDDP boost, pushes the oil over the Phos limit to be a SN / GF-5 oil. So even though it's a very high quality oil, it's "only" rated SL. In Australia and Europe we don't care, as an A5 oil is very well respected. Don't forget that ZDDP is also a powerful LSPI quencher, so this is also the oil Ford Australia spec in the Ecoboost engines.
If you ask me what oil Ford want you to use in that engine, I would say they have already designed it, and it is a very specific oil, WSS-M2C913-D.
Which is a 5W-30 and based on the Euro ACEA A5/B5 standard.
That is the oil that is specc'd in all the Australian Mustangs. Fully imported car, same engine as yours. Same quality fuel as you.
The closest oil to that spec that I can see in North America is Pennzoil Platinum 5W-30 as it is A5/B5 rated.
(PP 5W30 PDF)
That is what I would use if I was you.
BTW if you read into the Ford 913-D oil spec, it's very interesting. It's starts as a full synthetic Euro A5/B5 oil which is already a very high quality spec. Then Ford limits it to just the 5W30 grade, then they limit it again to the very thin end of the grade, then they boost the TBN (to 10), then they boost the ZDDP. That last thing, the ZDDP boost, pushes the oil over the Phos limit to be a SN / GF-5 oil. So even though it's a very high quality oil, it's "only" rated SL. In Australia and Europe we don't care, as an A5 oil is very well respected. Don't forget that ZDDP is also a powerful LSPI quencher, so this is also the oil Ford Australia spec in the Ecoboost engines.
If you ask me what oil Ford want you to use in that engine, I would say they have already designed it, and it is a very specific oil, WSS-M2C913-D.
My engine came from Ford Performance
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Hogwash. Emasculation? Where do you come up with this stuff?!?
Not to speak for Shannow, but how I read it, he means that people dismiss CAFE oils as emasculation, all the while that OEMs do a lot of hand waving about nebulous benefits, such as the improved flow and better cooling.
Hogwash. Emasculation? Where do you come up with this stuff?!?
Not to speak for Shannow, but how I read it, he means that people dismiss CAFE oils as emasculation, all the while that OEMs do a lot of hand waving about nebulous benefits, such as the improved flow and better cooling.
- Status