Running 5W-50 in Ford engines instead of 5W-20 / 5W-30?

[Jackson_Slugger]

Yes, I know ... using the term "credits" meaning using whatever means are used to achieve the monetary "pay-off" so to speak of meeting the fuel economy goals. There are lots of ways to do it, but seems oil viscosity is an easy way to do it ... easier than many other things.

These two chapters give an good overview of ways to get "CAFE credits".

4 Power Train Technologies for Reducing Load-Specific Fuel Consumption | Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles | The National Academies Press

Read chapter 4 Power Train Technologies for Reducing Load-Specific Fuel Consumption: Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Mediu...

books.nap.edu

5 Vehicle Technologies for Reducing Load-Specific Fuel Consumption | Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles | The National Academies Press

Read chapter 5 Vehicle Technologies for Reducing Load-Specific Fuel Consumption: Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium- a...

books.nap.edu

From Chapter 4:

Engine Friction Reduction​

Reduced friction in bearings, valve trains, and the piston-to-liner interface will improve efficiency. Any friction reduction must be carefully developed to avoid issues with durability or performance capability. An example would be to develop heavy-duty diesel engines to run on 10W-30 oil instead of the current standard of 15W-40. The lower viscosity oil would reduce friction, at the expense of bearing capability. Fuel consumption improvement from one source[9] was 2 percent, whereas another source[10] claims 1 to 1.5 percent. The use of a thermatic oil cooler (thermostatically controlled oil cooler) in conjunction with lower viscosity lubricating oils could yield 1.5 percent improvement.[11] The effect of friction reduction and oil temperature control will be greatest during cold starts and under light load operation, where friction accounts for a larger portion of total energy consumption.

I'll read the links tomorrow. But Ford still recommends 5W-30 for the Ecoboosts (mostly anyways) IIRC. And yes fuel economy is a huge factor, but if it is the overweening one you portend, then why has Ford mostly deleted its fleet of economy, subcompact, and midsize sedans/H-backs in favor of SUV's? How many "CAFE" "pay-offs" are they getting for fielding a Ford Escape or Explorer over the deleted Fiesta?

 

[ZeeOSix]

I'll read the links tomorrow. But Ford still recommends 5W-30 for the Ecoboosts (mostly anyways) IIRC. And yes fuel economy is a huge factor, but if it is the overweening one you portend, then why has Ford mostly deleted its fleet of economy, subcompact, and midsize sedans/H-backs in favor of SUV's? How many "CAFE" "pay-offs" are they getting for fielding a Ford Escape or Explorer over the deleted Fiesta?

The links are interesting ... good overview IMO on all the avenues used to get that every increasing MPG goal. Yes, those are good questions - and obviously Ford (and others makers) know when they have to use a thicker oil for engine robustness and reliability. Better to lose out on a hair of fuel economy than get killed on warranty claims.

Ford most likely deleted many of their smaller cars over SUVs and trucks because they want to make vehicles that sell well. Look at the prices of their trucks these days ... ever wonder how much of that price is to cover lost CAFE credits due to their fuel economy? And even maybe so, they still try to eek out every MPG as possible, even using 5W-20 in the Coyote, etc. Plus Ford is investing billions into EVs, so that will really raise their CAFE payout when the really gets rolling. Even rumor of a electric hybrid Mustang with the S650 7th Gen, the full EV Mustang (not the current ugly "Mustang" SUV) with the 8th Gen.