I was at the Milwaukee Auto Show today and was checking out the Mustang Boss 302. 440 HP from 302 cubic inches....yow!! Anyway the hood was up and the oil fill cap clearly stated 5W-50 synthetic oil recommended. Is this a shift away from Fords' longtime use of 5W-20 ??
New Mustang Boss 302 5W-50
- Thread starter beechcraftted
- Start date
- Status
The Ford GT and GT500 also used 5W50. So, no, its just for that specific application.
They tend to have it on vehicles that they know will be driven very very hard and engine protection trump mileage.
That's because it'll get warm under the hood.
Originally Posted By: bdcardinal
They tend to have it on vehicles that they know will be driven very very hard and engine protection trump mileage.
Correct.
Also, Ford GT.
Drive it as intended, When driven hard, Ford likes 5W00 to be your oil. Sure, its better than 15W-50, you can have a 5W and 50, why not.
Drive it as intended, borrowing the car from Dr. Haas, with 0W-20 in it...
buy new car
post about thin oil.
They tend to have it on vehicles that they know will be driven very very hard and engine protection trump mileage.
Correct.
Also, Ford GT.
Drive it as intended, When driven hard, Ford likes 5W00 to be your oil. Sure, its better than 15W-50, you can have a 5W and 50, why not.
Drive it as intended, borrowing the car from Dr. Haas, with 0W-20 in it...
buy new car
post about thin oil.
How do they work around the cam phasers/etc. with the heavier weights??
Isn't that, [besides the CAFE requirements], the main reason for the 20 weights in Blue Oval powerplants?
Isn't that, [besides the CAFE requirements], the main reason for the 20 weights in Blue Oval powerplants?
Originally Posted By: beechcraftted
I was at the Milwaukee Auto Show today and was checking out the Mustang Boss 302. 440 HP from 302 cubic inches....yow!! Anyway the hood was up and the oil fill cap clearly stated 5W-50 synthetic oil recommended. Is this a shift away from Fords' longtime use of 5W-20 ??
Actually, it's 444 HP.
I was at the Milwaukee Auto Show today and was checking out the Mustang Boss 302. 440 HP from 302 cubic inches....yow!! Anyway the hood was up and the oil fill cap clearly stated 5W-50 synthetic oil recommended. Is this a shift away from Fords' longtime use of 5W-20 ??
Actually, it's 444 HP.
Do you think that the bearing tolerances are larger in these 5W-50 spec'd engines (versus the ones spec'd for 5W-20)?
Nope. Simple programming changes give the small HP increase.
Going to be a nice car, but getting a little expensive for a Mustang. The dealers are licking their lips on this one.
Going to be a nice car, but getting a little expensive for a Mustang. The dealers are licking their lips on this one.
The rods and the pistons are different in the Boss 5.0 vs. standard 5.0
Ford is also recommending a non 5W-20 (5W-30 in this case) for the EcoBoost V6 engine in the new F-150.
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Nope. Simple programming changes give the small HP increase.
Different heads, different cams, different (short runner) intake, forged rod and pistons, sodium filled exhaust valves, lightened valve-train, the engine is stable to 8400 rpm. Quite a big more than a simple tune, and I'm willing to bet $100 right now that engine is seriously underrated and/or very conservatively tuned.
Nope. Simple programming changes give the small HP increase.
Different heads, different cams, different (short runner) intake, forged rod and pistons, sodium filled exhaust valves, lightened valve-train, the engine is stable to 8400 rpm. Quite a big more than a simple tune, and I'm willing to bet $100 right now that engine is seriously underrated and/or very conservatively tuned.
Originally Posted By: Ben99Gt
Different heads, different cams, different (short runner) intake, forged rod and pistons, sodium filled exhaust valves, lightened valve-train, the engine is stable to 8400 rpm. Quite a big more than a simple tune, and I'm willing to bet $100 right now that engine is seriously underrated and/or very conservatively tuned.
+1
Different heads, different cams, different (short runner) intake, forged rod and pistons, sodium filled exhaust valves, lightened valve-train, the engine is stable to 8400 rpm. Quite a big more than a simple tune, and I'm willing to bet $100 right now that engine is seriously underrated and/or very conservatively tuned.
+1
Originally Posted By: JasonC
The rods and the pistons are different in the Boss 5.0 vs. standard 5.0
That would make sense because I remember before the 5.0 actually came out everyone was speculating how the pistons would hold up to mods/tuning/boost and there was a lot of skepticism.
The rods and the pistons are different in the Boss 5.0 vs. standard 5.0
That would make sense because I remember before the 5.0 actually came out everyone was speculating how the pistons would hold up to mods/tuning/boost and there was a lot of skepticism.
Originally Posted By: SIXSPEED
The Motorcraft 5W50 shears very quickly to a 40 grade; my 1350 mile UOA showed KV @ 100 degrees was down from a VOA value of 19.93 cSt to 15.06 cSt. The oil was from a 07 GT500 driven fairly conservatively.
What SIXSPEED posted is true. Motorcraft and Castrol 5W-50 lubricants quickly shear to a light 40 grade after only 2,000 miles. I've seen two samples that were already at the heavy 30 grade viscosity after only 2,000 miles. I also haven't seen many UOAs from the GT500s using Motorcraft or Castrol 5W-50 that looked as good as my GT500 using Amsoil 20W-50.
My current fill is Amsoil 10W-40, and a UOA is just around the corner. I suspect this will be the winning lubricant for this engine, and also why Royal Purple suggests this grade exclusively.
The Motorcraft 5W50 shears very quickly to a 40 grade; my 1350 mile UOA showed KV @ 100 degrees was down from a VOA value of 19.93 cSt to 15.06 cSt. The oil was from a 07 GT500 driven fairly conservatively.
What SIXSPEED posted is true. Motorcraft and Castrol 5W-50 lubricants quickly shear to a light 40 grade after only 2,000 miles. I've seen two samples that were already at the heavy 30 grade viscosity after only 2,000 miles. I also haven't seen many UOAs from the GT500s using Motorcraft or Castrol 5W-50 that looked as good as my GT500 using Amsoil 20W-50.
My current fill is Amsoil 10W-40, and a UOA is just around the corner. I suspect this will be the winning lubricant for this engine, and also why Royal Purple suggests this grade exclusively.
Originally Posted By: NateDN10
Ford is also recommending a non 5W-20 (5W-30 in this case) for the EcoBoost V6 engine in the new F-150.
That makes sense since the EcoBoost is DI and turbo charged. They seem to destroy oil in short order, at least in GM DI applications. The Ford applications calling for 5W20 are doing well.
Ford is also recommending a non 5W-20 (5W-30 in this case) for the EcoBoost V6 engine in the new F-150.
That makes sense since the EcoBoost is DI and turbo charged. They seem to destroy oil in short order, at least in GM DI applications. The Ford applications calling for 5W20 are doing well.
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
How do they work around the cam phasers/etc. with the heavier weights??
Isn't that, [besides the CAFE requirements], the main reason for the 20 weights in Blue Oval powerplants?
They use a different method to activate those than on previous engines. The computer knows when the cam is going to be pushed one way or the other due to the lobes on the valve springs. The computer then just unlocks the cam from the chain for a split second allowing the valve spings to do the work pushing the cam to the desired position. Its a lot less sensitive to oil viscosity.
How do they work around the cam phasers/etc. with the heavier weights??
Isn't that, [besides the CAFE requirements], the main reason for the 20 weights in Blue Oval powerplants?
They use a different method to activate those than on previous engines. The computer knows when the cam is going to be pushed one way or the other due to the lobes on the valve springs. The computer then just unlocks the cam from the chain for a split second allowing the valve spings to do the work pushing the cam to the desired position. Its a lot less sensitive to oil viscosity.
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Nope. Simple programming changes give the small HP increase.
Different heads, different cams, different (short runner) intake, forged rod and pistons, sodium filled exhaust valves, lightened valve-train, the engine is stable to 8400 rpm. Quite a big more than a simple tune, and I'm willing to bet $100 right now that engine is seriously underrated and/or very conservatively tuned.
Are you saying red line is 8,400 rpm? What's your source?
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Nope. Simple programming changes give the small HP increase.
Different heads, different cams, different (short runner) intake, forged rod and pistons, sodium filled exhaust valves, lightened valve-train, the engine is stable to 8400 rpm. Quite a big more than a simple tune, and I'm willing to bet $100 right now that engine is seriously underrated and/or very conservatively tuned.
Are you saying red line is 8,400 rpm? What's your source?
To quote Ford, "withstand all day thrashing up to it's 7,500 rpm red line."
- Status
Similar threads
