Oil recommendations for 1996 Lincoln town car

[wpod]

if you do bi annual oil changes just go 5w40 summer 5w30 winter or even better 5w20 winter, i know you want to shy away from the ford rec of 5w20 but i think for your winters the 20 weight would be a better choice.

Why would that be?

 

[hemitom]

Why would that be?

What ?? don't know what your asking

 

[Gebo]

But if the oils have the appropriate rating, then why does it matter?

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

Oh, no. It is much more complicated than that. You can't quantify emotions. I'm looking at
over 60 years of inputs.

Let me get carnal if I may. Some women are beautiful to the eyes. Some women are beautiful
to the emotions. It's not the bottle that attracts me. (Says man that has been faithful 39 years)

 

[dnewton3]

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.

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.

I did statistical process/quality control for 10 years for a living. I've written DOEs and understand most every processing methodology and pitfall. I know what I'm doing when it comes to micro and macro data analysis. I have an acquaintance who is a professor of mathematics; I bounce my ideas and theory off of him if I believe I'm at the feathery edge of my knowledge.

I agree, and have stated many times, that people here use UOAs as toys because they misunderstand the pros/cons of the process. UOAs are tools, and tools have proper and improper uses, benefits and limitations.

In macro data, you are not required to "control" the operational conditions; you only need to account for it as an additional variable. It expands the standard deviation response, but that's not necessarily an evil thing, especially if those contributions exhibit the typical operational expectations.


All that said, and back on point, the 4.6L mod motors really don't care what grade lube is used as long as it's reasonable for the environmental use. Given that the OP is in IL, anything from 5w-20 to 10w-40 would work fine.

 

[Oliveoil2]

What did the prior owner use and at what OCI? I’d start there and then do the same and get a 5k UOA. A UOA is always a good idea for any older used car purchase.

 

[Imp4]

I agree, and have stated many times, that people here use UOAs as toys because they misunderstand the pros/cons of the process. UOAs are tools, and tools have proper and improper uses, benefits and limitations.

I agree.

In macro data, you are not required to "control" the operational conditions; you only need to account for it as an additional variable. It expands the standard deviation response, but that's not necessarily an evil thing, especially if those contributions exhibit the typical operational expectations.

Agreed here also.
And for clarity I believe I stated it this way in my previous posts.

I did statistical process/quality control for 10 years for a living. I've written DOEs and understand most every processing methodology and pitfall. I know what I'm doing when it comes to micro and macro data analysis. I have an acquaintance who is a professor of mathematics; I bounce my ideas and theory off of him if I believe I'm at the feathery edge of my knowledge.

Years in a job is rarely indicative of effectiveness in a position. You have presented BITOG (or crowd sourcing) as an effective means of macro analysis and that is simply not true.

YMMV

 

[Envoyguy]

What did the prior owner use and at what OCI? I’d start there and then do the same and get a 5k UOA. A UOA is always a good idea for any older used car purchase.

I'm honestly not sure what the prior owner used. The oil looked decent, not super dark and no signs of moisture. Motorcraft oil filter is all I know. I think I'll probably just use a jug of the 5w-40 I have in my stash along with the Fram xg2 and call it a day. Seems enough people have said it's not a finicky engine and I trust beefy euro oil or anything thinner.

 

[92saturnsl2]

Nothing wrong with using the 40 weights you have, especially in mid-summer. It wouldn't be my year-round choice though, it will thicken up more in cold weather than your average 5w-30 will.

For year round use, I'd buy the heck out of that $7.99 Chevron Supreme at Walmart right now. Their 5w-30 Synthetic blend would work just fine for that application and I'd have zero reservations running it regardless of season.

 

[dnewton3]

You have presented BITOG (or crowd sourcing) as an effective means of macro analysis and that is simply not true.

I'm honestly not sure what you mean by this, so I'm asking not to argue but to understand.

As a clarification, I'm not suggesting or implying that BITOG data (in it's raw form from the site) is a means to compare/contrast it as macro data. If it came across this way then I apologize to all because that's not what I meant. What I'm saying is that if you have large amounts of credible data, analyzed with proper skills, that macro data can provide a basis to singularly compare/contrast one's UOAs against the statistical normals. One can use the macro data basis to understand if their own personal UOAs are "normal" or abnormal.

To understand what is normal to a single example (one engine for example), you must do micro analysis.
To understand if that single example is responding in a typical manner against the masses, macro data is very useful.
It is completely improper to take one's single engine UOA and compare it to another persons single engine UOA and make any decree of what's better or worse; that is patently bad methodology.

In this specific thread, I have over 600 UOAs for the 4.6L engines, from all walks of life, with all manner of lubes and filters. We can easily understand what is "normal" across the total application life presents. Knowing this data allows us to understand what is "normal" for that engine series in all environments, using a broad base of lubes and filters, for varying OCI durations. With that much data, I can even narrow it down to OCI durations and some of the more popular lube grades/filters.

What I am completely confident of is that for most typical OCIs (out to 10k miles), the lube grade simply does not affect wear rates; the amount of standard deviation due to typical "life" use is greater than the delineation of lube grade for this engine series (and many others, for that matter). This is driven by gobs of credible macro data. To know if lube grade has an influence on wear rates for a specific single engine, micro data analysis would need to take place, and that takes FAR more time/money than anyone here has in their calendar/wallet.

Does that clarify what I meant? If so, how does that relate to your objection?

 

[Imp4]

This is helpful because I interpreted this comment

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.

As very different from this comment

As a clarification, I'm not suggesting or implying that BITOG data (in it's raw form from the site) is a means to compare/contrast it as macro data. If it came across this way then I apologize to all because that's not what I meant.

I agree that if you have a large, robust data set and the skills to analyze that data then you can develop a credible macro analysis.
I think we are also agreeing that the BITOG dataset is large, but definitely not robust and is therefore invalid for macro analysis.

You can't use someone else's UOA results as a justification for an oil selection for your own application, which gets us right back to my original comment.

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.

 

[dnewton3]

Ah - got it! I think I mislead you and others and I should have been clearer.

Macro data sets are NOT to be interpreted by just taking single or small sample sets from the population at large for comparison/contrast. Macro data sets must meet many conditions to be viable, and while you can compare/contrast your own single UOA to resultant info from macro data, you can't singularly select individual data point(s) from the macro set and draw any reasonable conclusions.

When I said "folks" in the first quote, I was meaning a collective of data from many people (the plural of people expressed as "folks"); a large quantity of UOAs properly assessed and then processed with sound statistical methodology. Macro data comes from many samples taken from many multiples of individual sources, but then processed into one macro dataset to understand averages, standard deviations, abnormalities, outliers, trends, ranges, etc ...
But I understand now how it could also have been interpreted as "folks" (singularly as individual's UOAs); that is not at all proper in terms of making good conclusions from the data.

- A person can take his singular UOA and compare/contrast it to properly assessed macro data to understand if his single UOA is represented in a sense of "normal" expectations, acknowledging and understanding the contributing conditions to the macro data set. He cannot say with impunity that his oil or engine is "better" or "worse" than some other sample(s) within the macro set; he can only interpret his UOA as a single point in time and conclude if it's "normal" or not.
- A person can take several of his singular UOAs and compare/contrast his info to the same macro data and see if his trends are still "normal" or not, but he still cannot declare something better or worse than another.
- A person must do micro analysis on his own engine/lube/filter selection to first understand a baseline of his current condition (focusing on controlling inputs to make them constants as best practical), and then repeat that micro analysis again while manipulating only one variable (say, lube choice), to truly understand if he can claim that manipulated variable to be better or worse than another.


I believe we're in alignment.

 

[ka9mnx]

It is completely improper to take one's single engine UOA and compare it to another persons single engine UOA and make any decree of what's better or worse; that is patently bad methodology.

 

[Envoyguy]

Well, I think I've learned that I can't rely on someone else's UOA for my car. I pretty much assumed that anyway but I think I misspoke and gave that impression. What I meant was that I thought someone else was using a specific brand of oil that the 4.6 really seemed to like. But it seems from reading that it doesn't seem to really mind what you use. I'm going to just go with my 5w40 for now but may try 5w30 at a later time. I think changing oil on a regular basis is probably the most important thing.

Many thanks to everyone for their input and time. As always bitog people are the most helpful bunch I've ever come across.

 

[Dennywires]

Anything 5w30 hi mileage

 

[addyguy]

I agree with your plan to run the 5W-40 you have, why spend extra $$ on oil when you already have some?

 

[mpack88]

Those engines are happy with any oil. Just use the 5w40 you have.

 

[OilMagnate]

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.

I like to think of myself as a ketchup connoisseur. Red Gold is far from the best. Don't get me started on House Recipe, Hunt's, or dare I even mention Del Monte. I was a die-hard Heinz guy for 25 years. No more.

"Then what is your favorite" you ask? Well, for those privileged enough to have a Whataburger or their retail products near you, their Spicy Ketchup is my absolute favorite. Sadly, as an Okie, I must admit it's something Texas did right. But without getting weird with the Spicy variable and the non-nationwide restaurant, I'd definitely have to say my favorite is French's (and I absolutely despise mustard of any kind!). Simply Heinz is an 'acceptable' runner-up, and I respect your opinion if you disagree. I gravitate to any of them that don't have corn syrup. No, I'm not a picky gluten/vegan/kosher/keto/whateveryouwanttoinventtoday. I just like the ones without corn syrup.

Speaking of which, hey Whataburger: Let's have a chat about your Spicy Ketchup containing corn syrup. Don't replace it (I don't want to be that guy), but a secondary option (even if retail only) would be nice!

Oh, and about the oil, count my vote for a 5W-30.

 

[Orthos]

Motorcraft 5W-20

 

[dadto2]

The car will spend a lot of time at 75-80 mph for long stretches of highway so I'm just trying to figure out how to best protect it, but I do realize these engines are common and appear to be reliable.

This is just about the easiest duty for this car, other then cruising a little slower. If you were talking about a lot of stop/start city traffic, long periods of idling, heavy towing, then you would probably want to look for some better protection. My $0.02

 

[Envoyguy]

This is just about the easiest duty for this car, other then cruising a little slower. If you were talking about a lot of stop/start city traffic, long periods of idling, heavy towing, then you would probably want to look for some better protection. My $0.02

I see your point, but isn't better protection better protection no matter what the driving conditions? I still 5w20 that Ford recommends is a compromise between mpg and engine longevity. A fine balancing act. I ended up going with Mobil 1 5w40 but may go 5w30 for the future. The engine runs so smooth and I've always believed that 5w30 is the best compromise between mpg and a long lasting engine. Kind of right in the middle of old school thick and modern too thin for my taste.