Question about Ford Engines and 5W-20

[wiswind]

FWIW,

The manufacture's recommended oil is a moving target. Case in point.....

There is a TSB for my '96 3.8L Ford Windstar, original oil specified when built was 5w30.

Wording in this TSB now states 5W-20 "recommended".

TSB# 02-1-9 (released in 2002)

There is a whole list of different FORD vehicles included in this TSB.

An older TSB # 99-8-16 (released in 1999)
states that 5w30 oil was recommended in "any Ford gasoline powered vehicle regarless of model year"
This TSB is refering to the former specifications for 10w30 oil.
No mention is made about 5W-20 oil.

The newer TSB would over ride the older TSB.

HOWEVER, before changing from what your owner's manual specifies.....VERIFY THE INFORMATION ON YOUR OWN for YOUR vehicle.
There may have been other TSBs issued for specific vehicles.
I only have listings for the Ford Windstar as found at alldatadiy.

The FORD 3.8L is a "pushrod" engine, but there is a roller on the cam end of the pushrod.

Much of the talk in this thread is over my head, I just don't tear into engines to that level.
Very interesting stuff, what goes on inside motors, but I will have to rely on what people who know more about them than I for information.

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hirev:

quote:

---

Also, HiRev, tell me about that parting line slot in older SBC connecting rods. Never did see any of those in the half a dozen SBCs I built over the years.

---

The oil slot is found in SBC small journal rods only and only on the rod cap on one side. It is why most all small journal rod bearings have a oil hole at the parting line. The oil slot goes thru the rod bolt hole area from the inside out and is directed at an angle to the bottom of the cam lobes as the crank spins around. Its was designed to squirt pressurized oil on the bottom of the cam lobes at low RPM. But also puts more oil on the cylinder wall.

---

Hmmm...never did see or hear this. Then again, I never built any small journal motors. It's also a moot point. If that oil slot existed in small journal motors, it didn't help any. I've seen many more small journal motors with flattened cam lobes than the other way around. Lack of proper maintenance and possibly quality control issues were at play here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hirev:
The link from year one has incorrect information.

quote:

---

(In 1968, main and connecting rod journal sizes were increased on all small-block Chevrolet engines.)

---

The MO 302s used in the 1967 AND 1968 Z/28 302 motors were small journal blocks and rods. Both of my 1968s Z/28s came with 2 bolt main, small journal 302s MOs. Only in the 69 DZ motor will you find large journals and 4 bolt mains. The 68 327s could be small journal or large journal depending on how early or late in 68 they where made. All the Camaro SS 350s from 67 on up were large journal.

---

Kinda' picky aren't we?

I believe they were generalizing about the transition like virtually every other expert does.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hirev:
As far as running greater than .0018 rod bearing clearance for blueprinting a Small block that is old school stuff unless you are running aluminum rods. It just not necessary with todays oils and the oil pressure will run very low near idle unless you go to a BBC style oil pump. Even the big boys in NASCAR find .0018 rod bearing clearance works fine.

---

Couldn't care less, I moved on to the Gen IIIs years ago. But I hear and read about people building them with .002 rod bearing clearance on an almost daily basis. Thus, it's no wonder why they have to use 40 and 50 weight oil to get any oil pressure for them to live. Then we get stories here of how M1 5w30 is blowing up engines on the race track. Go figure.

 

[GoldenRod]

"The FORD 3.8L is a "pushrod" engine, but there is a roller on the cam end of the pushrod."

Wiswind: That would be a roller on the cam end of the lifter.

427Z06: I'm wondering if it's the more accurate modern machining practices that allow for such thinner oils.

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by GoldenRod:
427Z06: I'm wondering if it's the more accurate modern machining practices that allow for such thinner oils.

---

Yes, the tolerances/clearances have generally declined as indicated above, but equally important are improvements in surface finishes, metallurgy and application of the original meaning of 6-sigma in manufacturing.

 

[Hirev]

quote:

---

Originally posted by GoldenRod:
"The FORD 3.8L is a "pushrod" engine, but there is a roller on the cam end of the pushrod."

Wiswind: That would be a roller on the cam end of the lifter.

427Z06: I'm wondering if it's the more accurate modern machining practices that allow for such thinner oils.

---

Thinner oils are nothing new, Ford, Honda and oil manufactures just reinvented the wheel.

Straight 20 wt oils were very popular in the northern US and Canada in the Winter time before multi viscosity oils were in common use in the 40s 50s and 60s, maybe even earlier.

My Dad grew up in Montana and has stated a few times that most everyone ran straight 20 wt in the Wintertime because the motors would not start with straight 30wt in the bitter cold weather.

I still remember seeing straight 20wt oils in the late 70s at auto parts stores in Washington and Oregon. Whats is old is new again.

 

[06RANGER]

In "real world" mpg would I see any difference using 5w30 vs 5w-20 in my 06 four banger?

 

[ColdCranker]

06RANGER,
Yes, your mpg will improve with 5w-20 (or 0w-20) over using an xw-30 or higher hot-viscosity oil. The only reason Ford is specifying 5w-20 is to get better mpg credits in their CAFE calculation with the EPA (Feds). Ford DOES specify 5w30 in Europe for their Duratec engines, as compared to 5w-20 in the U.S.A. I think there is slightly better protection from wear at high-load / low-rpm conditions using a 30-weight oil vs. a 20, and thats why Ford specifies a 30 weight in parts of the world where they can. That being said, it could be the synthetic 0w-20 or 5w-20 oils come pretty close to offering the same hot protection.

 

[ColdCranker]

One other thing, all evidence suggests you'll only gain about 0.2 (one-fifth) mpg using a 20 vs. using a 30 weight oil.

 

[G-MAN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ColdCranker:
One other thing, all evidence suggests you'll only gain about 0.2 (one-fifth) mpg using a 20 vs. using a 30 weight oil.

---

That certainly wasn't the case with my Chrysler. My mileage increased by about 1.8 mpg on 5w20 vs 10w30.

 

[ColdCranker]

G-Man II,
With all due respect, your mpg varies so much just based on small variations in driving conditions that the 0.2 gain you got was lost in the noise. Carefull lab tests have to be performed to get real, accurate numbers, not anecdotal stuff.

 

[G-MAN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ColdCranker:
G-Man II,
With all due respect, your mpg varies so much just based on small variations in driving conditions that the 0.2 gain you got was lost in the noise. Carefull lab tests have to be performed to get real, accurate numbers, not anecdotal stuff.

---

With all due respect, I don't drive in a lab. My car consistently gets better gas mileage on 5w20. That's what matters to me.

 

[ColdCranker]

GoldenRod and 427Z06,
(OK, I just got what 427Z06 means..) You're talking about micromachining. There is something out there now that I think will take this to the next level: http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=42;t=003315
I hope it spreads to other manufacturers!

 

[1sttruck]

" "It's pretty easy to explain why a 5W20 oil is recommended by Ford or Honda as they said so; to improve fuel economy. Ford did recommended it retroactively, suggesting that it's just fine to dump in a specified number of older vehicles, with no qualifier for vehicle age or mileage. "

So what your saying is 1struck is that the Ford engineers did an awesome job at developing and writing specs for 5w20 weight oil that do the following: protects the engine better then older technology 5w30 10w30 and 10w40 oil, provides better fuel economy, and makes the conspiracy theorists go bonkers.

If you trying to engineer for better fuel economy and you develop a superior oil in the process then where is the problem at? "

Ford and Honda both only stated that the 20 weight oils were being issued and recommended for better fuel economy. Both had the opportunity to state that 5w20 did indeed provide better protection and that no other oils were needed, anywhere in the world, but neither made such a statement. In fact both seem to often recommend heavier oils outside of the US. They can't because testing indicates otherwise.

Ford apparently had a number of failures in Australia when they initially recommended the use of 5w20, as it doesn't work as well in the typically longer oil change intervals outside of the US and people were using dino 5w20 that was available. After that Ford dropped the recommendation and went back to using a heavier oil. Note that the Motorcraft 5w20 in the US is a synthetic blend, apparently because they couldn't get a dino oil to work as well as heavier dino oils, as everything else being equal a heavier oil tends to provide a thicker oil film in more wear points in an engine, which produces less wear. That's the way things work.

If people in the US actually used 5w20 as recommended by Ford, where a large list of older vehicles were recommended to use it regardless of mileage or condition, we would ironically probably end up seeing increased fuel usage and increased emissions due to increased oil consumption, resulting in more fouled sensors and clogged CATs. We would see more failures too due to the typically larger clearances in older engines.

So in summary 5w20 provides better protection, and that's literally all that Ford and Honda have to say about that. .

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 1sttruck:
Ford apparently had a number of failures in Australia when they initially recommended the use of 5w20, as it doesn't work as well in the typically longer oil change intervals outside of the US and people were using dino 5w20 that was available.

---

Is this another one of those "closed door meeting" conspiracies that turned out to be totally false? That sounds suspiciously like a variation on an Internet rumor circulated by a friend, who's uncle's brother nephew heard at the local corner drug store.

 

[oli]

I suspect that part of the reason that ford now recommends the 5W20 for many slightly older models has to do with inventory reduction at the dealerships. Other "bottom line" issues would come into play also.

 

[Huhwhye]

EXACTLY.

5w20 appears to be fine. I'm running it myself. But they probably made it backwards compatible so the service dept doesn't need to carry to many kinds of oil. That doesn't mean it doesn't do the job. I'm just saying...

 

[GoldenRod]

Huhwhye: What vehicle are you running it in?

 

[Huhwhye]

'04 Ranger w/ 3.0 V6. Truck runs good. Running M1 5w20 and MC filter. Planning on UOA at 5000-5500 but leaving it in there pending results. Have 4400 on the currently.

I was running 5w30 prior to this but thought I'd give 5w20 a try and see for myself. Plus Terry suggested it after my last UOA.