Royal Purple Oil Experience - 2005 Mustang GT
- Thread starter 2k05gt
- Start date
- Status
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Regarding the cams, did each engine see the same kind of driving (warmups, time at redline, etc.)?
How frequently was each one driven?
And that's the reason that comparos between two different owners is difficult.
Regarding the cams, did each engine see the same kind of driving (warmups, time at redline, etc.)?
How frequently was each one driven?
And that's the reason that comparos between two different owners is difficult.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: 2k05gt
Correction
The Royal Purple was changed at 5-6,000 mile intervals.
The Mobil 1 was changed at 4-5,000 mile intervals.
Sorry, I was going by the 3,000 miles you put in your original post. Was that just the number of miles on the car?
I read it as he swapped over to RP when the car had 3k miles on it.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: chambers
Maybe those test results of Mobil 1 vs. Castrol Edge on the Edge website Edge vs. Mobil 1 aren't complete bull.
That was in regard to 5w30, this is 5w20.
Yea I know, I was just trying to screw w/ the Mobil 1 guys. But isn't it safe to assume that if one weight of the oil is performing much better than another brand then the other weights would perform comparably?
Originally Posted By: 2k05gt
Correction
The Royal Purple was changed at 5-6,000 mile intervals.
The Mobil 1 was changed at 4-5,000 mile intervals.
Sorry, I was going by the 3,000 miles you put in your original post. Was that just the number of miles on the car?
I read it as he swapped over to RP when the car had 3k miles on it.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: chambers
Maybe those test results of Mobil 1 vs. Castrol Edge on the Edge website Edge vs. Mobil 1 aren't complete bull.
That was in regard to 5w30, this is 5w20.
Yea I know, I was just trying to screw w/ the Mobil 1 guys. But isn't it safe to assume that if one weight of the oil is performing much better than another brand then the other weights would perform comparably?
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: chambers
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: 2k05gt
Correction
The Royal Purple was changed at 5-6,000 mile intervals.
The Mobil 1 was changed at 4-5,000 mile intervals.
Sorry, I was going by the 3,000 miles you put in your original post. Was that just the number of miles on the car?
I read it as he swapped over to RP when the car had 3k miles on it.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: chambers
Maybe those test results of Mobil 1 vs. Castrol Edge on the Edge website Edge vs. Mobil 1 aren't complete bull.
That was in regard to 5w30, this is 5w20.
Yea I know, I was just trying to screw w/ the Mobil 1 guys. But isn't it safe to assume that if one weight of the oil is performing much better than another brand then the other weights would perform comparably?
Not necessarily. M1 0w40 is nothing like its brethren for example.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: 2k05gt
Correction
The Royal Purple was changed at 5-6,000 mile intervals.
The Mobil 1 was changed at 4-5,000 mile intervals.
Sorry, I was going by the 3,000 miles you put in your original post. Was that just the number of miles on the car?
I read it as he swapped over to RP when the car had 3k miles on it.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: chambers
Maybe those test results of Mobil 1 vs. Castrol Edge on the Edge website Edge vs. Mobil 1 aren't complete bull.
That was in regard to 5w30, this is 5w20.
Yea I know, I was just trying to screw w/ the Mobil 1 guys. But isn't it safe to assume that if one weight of the oil is performing much better than another brand then the other weights would perform comparably?
Not necessarily. M1 0w40 is nothing like its brethren for example.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: chambers
True, I really mean between the typical passenger car oils like 5w-20 and 5w-30.
That's why it would be nice to have fleet testing of these oils and then do tear-downs.
True, I really mean between the typical passenger car oils like 5w-20 and 5w-30.
That's why it would be nice to have fleet testing of these oils and then do tear-downs.
BTW I was wrong, there was a little wear on the racing PR when they tested it WITHOUT THE OIL FLOWING.
BUT THIS WEAR IS MUCH LESS THEN THE OTHER OILS HAD WHEN THE OIL WAS FLOWING.
Google http://www.nsxprime.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74467
click on "Motor oil test" read about the RP 10W-40 and Racing 51
JimPghPa
BUT THIS WEAR IS MUCH LESS THEN THE OTHER OILS HAD WHEN THE OIL WAS FLOWING.
Google http://www.nsxprime.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74467
click on "Motor oil test" read about the RP 10W-40 and Racing 51
JimPghPa
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: JimPghPA
BTW I was wrong, there was a little wear on the racing PR when they tested it WITHOUT THE OIL FLOWING.
BUT THIS WEAR IS MUCH LESS THEN THE OTHER OILS HAD WHEN THE OIL WAS FLOWING.
Google http://www.nsxprime.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74467
click on "Motor oil test" read about the RP 10W-40 and Racing 51
JimPghPa
That is a GEAR OIL TEST, it is USELESS for measuring motor oil!
BTW I was wrong, there was a little wear on the racing PR when they tested it WITHOUT THE OIL FLOWING.
BUT THIS WEAR IS MUCH LESS THEN THE OTHER OILS HAD WHEN THE OIL WAS FLOWING.
Google http://www.nsxprime.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74467
click on "Motor oil test" read about the RP 10W-40 and Racing 51
JimPghPa
That is a GEAR OIL TEST, it is USELESS for measuring motor oil!
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
They don't have a backwards firing order. The LSx engines fire the exact same cylinder sequence. The firing order is the original 351 firing order and was adopted to the 302 for the HO engines. It provides better load distribution along the crankshaft and makes more power than the "other" common firing order from that time frame, of which Ford and GM both shared, but Ford only used on the lopo versions of the 302. GM used it on everything.
Right. I think the other confusion factor comes in because IIRC Ford numbered their v8 cylinders differently than GM and Mopar. Ford used 1-2-3-4 down the passenger side bank, 5-6-7-8 down the driver's side bank. Mopar used 1-3-5-7 down the driver's side bank and 2-4-6-8 down the passenger side. If you convert numbering, the Ford 1-5-4-2-6-3-7-8 pattern is identical to Mopar 1-8-4-3-6-5-7-2.
Yeah the difference is Ford numbered their V8 2-plane crank engine as if it was 2 4-cylinder single plain crank engine when it's really more like 4 V-twins stacked backed to back. The firing order is really the same just Ford numbered the cylinders "wrong" and everyone else numbered it correctly.
What makes Ford's way "wrong"? The flathead used this cylinder numbering sequence in 1932.
I explained why it's "wrong" and why every other manufacture numbers their V8s (and most other V-engines) the other way because it's not a flat plane crank. I don't know about 1932 model T V8 but maybe it had a flat crank anyway.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
They don't have a backwards firing order. The LSx engines fire the exact same cylinder sequence. The firing order is the original 351 firing order and was adopted to the 302 for the HO engines. It provides better load distribution along the crankshaft and makes more power than the "other" common firing order from that time frame, of which Ford and GM both shared, but Ford only used on the lopo versions of the 302. GM used it on everything.
Right. I think the other confusion factor comes in because IIRC Ford numbered their v8 cylinders differently than GM and Mopar. Ford used 1-2-3-4 down the passenger side bank, 5-6-7-8 down the driver's side bank. Mopar used 1-3-5-7 down the driver's side bank and 2-4-6-8 down the passenger side. If you convert numbering, the Ford 1-5-4-2-6-3-7-8 pattern is identical to Mopar 1-8-4-3-6-5-7-2.
Yeah the difference is Ford numbered their V8 2-plane crank engine as if it was 2 4-cylinder single plain crank engine when it's really more like 4 V-twins stacked backed to back. The firing order is really the same just Ford numbered the cylinders "wrong" and everyone else numbered it correctly.
What makes Ford's way "wrong"? The flathead used this cylinder numbering sequence in 1932.
I explained why it's "wrong" and why every other manufacture numbers their V8s (and most other V-engines) the other way because it's not a flat plane crank. I don't know about 1932 model T V8 but maybe it had a flat crank anyway.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
I explained why it's "wrong" and why every other manufacture numbers their V8s (and most other V-engines) the other way because it's not a flat plane crank. I don't know about 1932 model T V8 but maybe it had a flat crank anyway.
EVERY other manufacturer eh? Perhaps you should have done some research before making such a statement.
So BMW is "wrong" too?
And Mercedes?
And Porsche?
Maybe you've got it backwards. Perhaps it is GM and Dodge who are WRONG.
I explained why it's "wrong" and why every other manufacture numbers their V8s (and most other V-engines) the other way because it's not a flat plane crank. I don't know about 1932 model T V8 but maybe it had a flat crank anyway.
EVERY other manufacturer eh? Perhaps you should have done some research before making such a statement.
So BMW is "wrong" too?
And Mercedes?
And Porsche?
Maybe you've got it backwards. Perhaps it is GM and Dodge who are WRONG.
Whatever dude, you always pull this cr ap and pull up some obscure [censored] that's not really relevant to the main point at hand. I might have said every but I wasn't even talking about foreign manufacures. I also said most V engines. American V8s are two-plane crank and so I explained my point of why that GM and chrysler number the cylinders appropiately. [censored]. I know you are in love with Ford but still.
Last edited:
I will say those Mobil 1 cam pics look pretty much exactly like all of my stock 4.6 cams that have been run on Mobil 1.
These are from my ~140,000 mile F150, run on M1.
I wish I still had my stock Mustang 2V cams, but they were blown away in Katrina. They had more visible "wear" than than the F150 cams at ~75,000 miles.
These are from my ~140,000 mile F150, run on M1.
I wish I still had my stock Mustang 2V cams, but they were blown away in Katrina. They had more visible "wear" than than the F150 cams at ~75,000 miles.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Whatever dude, you always pull this cr ap and pull up some obscure [censored] that's not really relevant to the main point at hand. I might have said every but I wasn't even talking about foreign manufacures. I also said most V engines. American V8s are two-plane crank and so I explained my point of why that GM and chrysler number the cylinders appropiately. [censored]. I know you are in love with Ford but still.
1. Don't get your panties in a twist because you were wrong. And the digression about firing orders and the clarification took place back on page 7. It also ended on page 7. It was you who drug it back up just to tell everyone Ford was "wrong" in their cylinder numbering sequence on Page 11. So who's the one making irrelevant points?
2. I call you on something when its [censored]. In this instance, it was [censored]. Trying to justify GM's choice of cylinder numbering via crank plane choice, then saying Ford's choice was "wrong" because it didn't align with GM's.... That's just retarded.
3. You did say "every". And you in no way specified that you were excluding the Germans or any other manufacturer outside of the North American market. I cited three readily verifiable examples of manufacturers that use the same numbering scheme as Ford. When you post something as an absolute, be prepared to back it up with some facts. Otherwise, don't be surprised when somebody calls you on it. I've had my [censored] handed to me in the past for doing the same thing, so I am far from immune.
4. You said most "V" engines. Perhaps you should have been SPECIFIC and stated "V engines from Chrysler or GM" because that's really what you meant apparently. Otherwise, you are again stating bunk, since the Germans, like Ford, number their V6's in the same manner.
5. I'm not "in love" with Ford. But I'm also not the one who seems to feel the need to come up with a snooty response because the "absolute" statement that was presented as fact ended up being anything but.
Whatever dude, you always pull this cr ap and pull up some obscure [censored] that's not really relevant to the main point at hand. I might have said every but I wasn't even talking about foreign manufacures. I also said most V engines. American V8s are two-plane crank and so I explained my point of why that GM and chrysler number the cylinders appropiately. [censored]. I know you are in love with Ford but still.
1. Don't get your panties in a twist because you were wrong. And the digression about firing orders and the clarification took place back on page 7. It also ended on page 7. It was you who drug it back up just to tell everyone Ford was "wrong" in their cylinder numbering sequence on Page 11. So who's the one making irrelevant points?
2. I call you on something when its [censored]. In this instance, it was [censored]. Trying to justify GM's choice of cylinder numbering via crank plane choice, then saying Ford's choice was "wrong" because it didn't align with GM's.... That's just retarded.
3. You did say "every". And you in no way specified that you were excluding the Germans or any other manufacturer outside of the North American market. I cited three readily verifiable examples of manufacturers that use the same numbering scheme as Ford. When you post something as an absolute, be prepared to back it up with some facts. Otherwise, don't be surprised when somebody calls you on it. I've had my [censored] handed to me in the past for doing the same thing, so I am far from immune.
4. You said most "V" engines. Perhaps you should have been SPECIFIC and stated "V engines from Chrysler or GM" because that's really what you meant apparently. Otherwise, you are again stating bunk, since the Germans, like Ford, number their V6's in the same manner.
5. I'm not "in love" with Ford. But I'm also not the one who seems to feel the need to come up with a snooty response because the "absolute" statement that was presented as fact ended up being anything but.
I can't believe it. I am agreeing with heavyweight overkill. Pardigms are a horrible thing.
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Regarding the cams, did each engine see the same kind of driving (warmups, time at redline, etc.)?
How frequently was each one driven?
Baack more on topic, this was my thinking about the apparent cam wear difference too.
Regarding the cams, did each engine see the same kind of driving (warmups, time at redline, etc.)?
How frequently was each one driven?
Baack more on topic, this was my thinking about the apparent cam wear difference too.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
I will say those Mobil 1 cam pics look pretty much exactly like all of my stock 4.6 cams that have been run on Mobil 1.
These are from my ~140,000 mile F150, run on M1.
I wish I still had my stock Mustang 2V cams, but they were blown away in Katrina. They had more visible "wear" than than the F150 cams at ~75,000 miles.
Ben:
It may be the light, but your cams look better than the other M1 cams presented in this thread. The ones out of my buddy's 2000 GT looked like these ones.
And hey, at least they don't look like the ISX cams I posted earlier
hehe
I will say those Mobil 1 cam pics look pretty much exactly like all of my stock 4.6 cams that have been run on Mobil 1.
These are from my ~140,000 mile F150, run on M1.
I wish I still had my stock Mustang 2V cams, but they were blown away in Katrina. They had more visible "wear" than than the F150 cams at ~75,000 miles.
Ben:
It may be the light, but your cams look better than the other M1 cams presented in this thread. The ones out of my buddy's 2000 GT looked like these ones.
And hey, at least they don't look like the ISX cams I posted earlier
It looks like photographic evedence of Mobil 1 Cam tracking is being established. Kinda parrelels to the Seq IVA issue. At walmart I noticed M1 is the least expensive currently. I am by programing enchanted to buy the least expensive name brand sythetic..But M1 creates fear and uncertainty of the life of my cams.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Yea, the F150 cams do look a little better, but my 75,000 mile Mustang cams looked very similar to the earlier pics.
I'd like to see my Expedition ones, since it was probably run on bulk garbage until I got it. But that's not going to happen, since I really have no reason to pull a valve cover right now.
Is this one of the reasons you have a general apprehension about 5w20 in the mods?
Yea, the F150 cams do look a little better, but my 75,000 mile Mustang cams looked very similar to the earlier pics.
I'd like to see my Expedition ones, since it was probably run on bulk garbage until I got it. But that's not going to happen, since I really have no reason to pull a valve cover right now.
Is this one of the reasons you have a general apprehension about 5w20 in the mods?
- Status
Similar threads
