Oil recommendations for 1996 Lincoln town car

Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
2,286
Location
Somewhere in time
I agree a uoa would probably be a good idea in the near future. I also agree about all the speculation and guesses on what might be best. I was going on the assumption that someone else on here has the same engine and looking to see what they have been using with good results.
This is the fallacy of comparing UOA results and making decisions and/or declarations on the basis of someone else's data. UOA was never intended to determine a 'best' oil or a particular brand the 'works well' in a given engine design. That's what industry standards (API viscosity grades, ACEA ratings, etc) and company standards (GM dexos, Porsche A40, BMW LLwhatever) and ultimately the OEM specifications based on those standards are for. So a UOA is a unique analysis of a unique set of working conditions and nothing more.

Some members here play it like it's a game of having the inside knowledge on what brand works and what brand doesn't and that's just hogwash.

You or I have no insight into the operating conditions, maintenance history, abuse, neglect, or otherwise of an engine that a forum member posts about. Therefore we cannot make a rational decision about our own car based on the UOA results of someone else. There's just too many variables to control for.
 
Last edited:

4WD

Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
17,882
Location
Texas
I'm inclined to agree. My owners manual specs 5w30. Much later Ford changed the spec to 5w20. Maybe I'm old fashioned but I don't run 5w20 in anything including my wife's 3.0 v6 escape.
We ran 5w20 or 5w30 in a fleet of 4.6’s and they don’t care … a 40 is going to cost a wee bit of MPG … but no issues otherwise … Rotella might have more cat poison you don’t need in a 4.6 …
 

dnewton3

Staff member
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
8,684
Location
Indianapolis, IN
The Ford 2v mod motors have no preference for oil grade; none whatsoever.

I have several hundred UOAs on these engines from all manner of applications, and without hesitation I can say that grade won't matter. Anything from 0w-20 to 15w-40 works in those engines, and the wear rates don't change. For every stellar example of someone who's run thicker lubes and got high miles out of the engine, there's also someone who's run thin lubes and achieved the same results. I personally have run conventional 5w-20 in my two Grand Marquis and got excellent wear control, and even my experiment between syns and conventional lubes couldn't bring out any statistical difference in wear control. My wife's 2005 had 270k miles on it when I saw it last (sold to son's friend); still running fine after nothing but 5w-20 it's entire life, many of which were on 10k mile OCIs.

You, and most everyone else, are overthinking this topic. I'm not saying that to taunt you, but rather to reassure you. Find something else to worry about and move on.
 
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
16,743
Location
N.H, U.S.A.
True.....but there's also a chance that they were thinking of CAFE....
Ford_Y_block oil  requirement sticker..jpg


Fender tag on a Mid 1950's Ford Customline with a Thunderbird Y block V8.
 

dnewton3

Staff member
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
8,684
Location
Indianapolis, IN
This is the fallacy of comparing UOA results and making decisions and/or declarations on the basis of someone else's data. UOA was never intended to determine a 'best' oil or a particular brand the 'works well' in a given engine design. That's what industry standards (API viscosity grades, ACEA ratings, etc) and company standards (GM dexos, Porsche A40, BMW LLwhatever) and ultimately the OEM specifications based on those standards are for. So a UOA is a unique analysis of a unique set of working conditions and nothing more.

Some members here play it like it's a game of having the inside knowledge on what brand works and what brand doesn't and that's just hogwash.

You or I have no insight into the operating conditions, maintenance history, abuse, neglect, or otherwise of an engine that a forum member posts about. Therefore we cannot make a rational decision about our own car based on the UOA results of someone else. There's just too many variables to control for.
I both agree and disagree with your statements.

What you're alluding to is that data is misunderstood; that I'll 100% agree with. It is incredibly poor form to mix micro and macro data analysis and think you can make accurate conclusions which would support good decisions. What I take issue with in your claim is the blanket implication that UOAs can't be used to make oil choices for the individual; that I disagree with completely.

Micro data analysis focuses on one entity studied deeply, and all the conditional inputs need to be held constant as much as possible, such that you hopefully are able to control a single variable and study it's effects. Macro data analysis takes large group data and accounts for all the other uncontrolled variables, and reveals what mass populations will experience and the accompanying results.

The problem here on BITOG is that people do want to take the short cut, because most all of us don't have unlimited funds and time. So they try a few or even one UOA per lube and attempt to declare victory. That's just a fool's errand.

If one is committed (and has the time/money), you can certainly use UOAs to pick a lube for your own personal vehicle, and find a "best" lube, but I SERIOUSLY doubt anyone here has that bucket of resources at their disposal to do it right. Really, time more than anything else is the factor that individuals cannot easily get past more than anything else. To declare one product superior/inferior to another, it takes literally hundreds of thousands of miles, and that's just to compare/contrast two products. Micro data analysis is incredibly time consuming and not easy on the wallet either.

But we can take the macro data approach; we can compare/contrast our UOA to other folks and make some good conclusions. We can't fairly decide what is "best", but we can easily declare what is "normal" and "abnormal" for a wide variety of applications, thereby assuring ourselves that our lube selection is doing what the others do.

The dirty little secret is that most all lubes perform the same because they are more than capable of doing the job we ask, and therefore there's no condition in the test (our use) that creates enough disparity in the results to discern any distinguishable differences. Most folks run anywhere from 5-10k mile O/FCIs, and those distances simply don't put enough stress into the products to make any disparity of performance come out. If people ran 25k mile OCIs, maybe it would, but I don't have any data to make a solid claim one way or another at that duration of use.

Now, if we only had some study data and a detailed explanation as an example ... I think there might be one laying about here somewhere ...
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2002
Messages
5,130
Location
VA
I'd go with what makes you feel good and are comfortable with. I "have" to use a "Brand Name" oil. I can't
help it. I ain't using Supertech or Costco, etc. Please understand, those oils are fine oils but I only buy
Heinz Ketchup and Advil.

You seem to want to use a higher viscosity oil. I would try and find a single brand and stick with it. 5W-40
may help stabilize your thoughts concerning motor oil. I spent a long time going back and forth but as you
can see in my sig, I got a lot of older cars. I never would consider a 5w-20. But, that's just me. And anything
beyond a 5K OCI is an extended OCI. (y)

Everyone should read dnewton3's above post umpteen times. He speaks the truth.
 
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
16,743
Location
N.H, U.S.A.
I'd go with what makes you feel good and are comfortable with. I "have" to use a "Brand Name" oil. I can't
help it. I ain't using Supertech or Costco, etc. Please understand, those oils are fine oils but I only buy
Heinz Ketchup and Advil.
....
Everyone should read dnewton3's above post umpteen times. He speaks the truth.
Heinz ain't what it used to be. Pretty horrid now actually. Even then. the only the Restaurant Pack was great.

I prefer Red Gold. Didn't know about this stuff until a Greek Sub shop gave me some packets
for my fries with my meat pie slice. - Wowza !

I do buy Bayer coated 81mg aspirin BC I tried a few generic and they didn't cut it.

- Ken
 
Joined
Dec 26, 2005
Messages
18,711
Location
Upper Midwest
I'd go with what makes you feel good and are comfortable with. I "have" to use a "Brand Name" oil. I can't
help it. I ain't using Supertech or Costco, etc.
Please understand, those oils are fine oils but I only buy
Heinz Ketchup and Advil.

Everyone should read dnewton3's above post umpteen times. He speaks the truth.
But you don't follow it?
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2002
Messages
5,130
Location
VA
Heinz ain't what it used to be. Pretty horrid now actually. Even then. the only the Restaurant Pack was great.

I prefer Red Gold. Didn't know about this stuff until a Greek Sub shop gave me some packets
for my fries with my meat pie slice. - Wowza !

I do buy Bayer coated 81mg aspirin BC I tried a few generic and they didn't cut it.

- Ken
I am going to get some RED GOLD today. I generally buy ketchup and mustard by the gallon.

THANKS for the tip! Will advise after next hot dog/french fry night this week.
 
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
2,286
Location
Somewhere in time
But we can take the macro data approach; we can compare/contrast our UOA to other folks and make some good conclusions. We can't fairly decide what is "best", but we can easily declare what is "normal" and "abnormal" for a wide variety of applications, thereby assuring ourselves that our lube selection is doing what the others do.

The dirty little secret is that most all lubes perform the same because they are more than capable of doing the job we ask, and therefore there's no condition in the test (our use) that creates enough disparity in the results to discern any distinguishable differences. Most folks run anywhere from 5-10k mile O/FCIs, and those distances simply don't put enough stress into the products to make any disparity of performance come out. If people ran 25k mile OCIs, maybe it would, but I don't have any data to make a solid claim one way or another at that duration of use.
In theory you can take a macro level approach, however, the BITOG (or crowdsourced) method confounds the data by definition. In order to complete a valid macro analysis you need to control (or at least account for) operating conditions. BITOG reporting does not do that. Guys forget to mention that their teenage kid ran a sump 3 quarts low, a used car with unknown maintenance history is analyzed but somehow that fact is forgotten in a post, the OCI values are transposed or inaccurate, etc, etc, etc....

In industry we refer to this as dirty data and it cannot be used for robust analysis.

So now, the micro approach, per your comments, is too onerous (costly, time constrained, etc) for valid results and the macro approach is invalid because of dirty data.

This gets us right back to my point that a UOA is only valid for analyzing an individual set of operating conditions. Other members can't use someone else's results to draw conclusions about their own circumstances. Unfortunately on BITOG it is a daily occurrence and it should be noted for the lack of validity.
 
Joined
Dec 26, 2005
Messages
18,711
Location
Upper Midwest
In theory you can take a macro level approach, however, the BITOG (or crowdsourced) method confounds the data by definition. In order to complete a valid macro analysis you need to control (or at least account for) operating conditions. BITOG reporting does not do that. Guys forget to mention that their teenage kid ran a sump 3 quarts low, a used car with unknown maintenance history is analyzed but somehow that fact is forgotten in a post, the OCI values are transposed or inaccurate, etc, etc, etc....

In industry we refer to this as dirty data and it cannot be used for robust analysis.

So now, the micro approach, per your comments, is too onerous (costly, time constrained, etc) for valid results and the macro approach is invalid because of dirty data.

This gets us right back to my point that a UOA is only valid for analyzing an individual set of operating conditions. Other members can't use someone else's results to draw conclusions about their own circumstances. Unfortunately on BITOG it is a daily occurrence and it should be noted for the lack of validity.
Yes this. And in the specific case of dnewton3's numerous analysis, has it been subjected to a formal statistical analysis by a mathematician? People generally minimize that remark but in my years of working as a research technologist at a large corporation I learned the value of the PhD mathematicians on our staff. Proper analysis doesn't lie, in fact I've seen it turn a "sure thing" into something that in the end wasn't anywhere as significant as it appeared.
 
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
2,286
Location
Somewhere in time
Yes this. And in the specific case of dnewton3's numerous analysis, has it been subjected to a formal statistical analysis by a mathematician? People generally minimize that remark but in my years of working as a research technologist at a large corporation I learned the value of the PhD mathematicians on our staff. Proper analysis doesn't lie, in fact I've seen it turn a "sure thing" into something that in the end wasn't anywhere as significant as it appeared.
We contract out statistical analysis to 3rd party statisticians when it involves product recalls or high profile quality concerns. This helps to ensure ethical integrity, high quality outcomes and it establishes a wall between our engineering team (and their inherent biases) and the analysis of the data. We've had many occasions where the data analysis looked like a sure thing just to find that our analytical approach was faulty or the quality of our underlying data could not be demonstrated. Its a tough pill to swallow when you have to discard or repeat testing because you weren't diligent at data gathering and documentation.
 
Joined
Oct 6, 2020
Messages
935
No. My emotions overwhelm my objectivity when it comes to oil brand selection. LOL

It's still true. 100%😘
But if the oils have the appropriate rating, then why does it matter?

Whatever bottle is the prettiest and gives you that fuzzy feeling?
 
Top