5W-20 in a 2013 Mustang GT? Seriously?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: tig1
aquariuscsm said:
There was a link somewhere here awhile back with an excerpt from Ford where they said the move to 5W20 was for fuel economy only.[/quote

Does that mean the oil is inferior to, say 5-30? I was using M1 5-20 in 1978 in engines calling for 10-40. My engines performed very well then and my engines perform very well today on 0-20.


Nowhere in my post did I mention the word inferior. Re-read what I wrote please. Any further questions and I`d suggest you contact Ford,author of said excerpt. I have no idea if 5W20 protects less. I was just paraphrasing what Ford said.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Originally Posted By: tig1
aquariuscsm said:
There was a link somewhere here awhile back with an excerpt from Ford where they said the move to 5W20 was for fuel economy only.[/quote

Does that mean the oil is inferior to, say 5-30? I was using M1 5-20 in 1978 in engines calling for 10-40. My engines performed very well then and my engines perform very well today on 0-20.


Nowhere in my post did I mention the word inferior. Re-read what I wrote please. Any further questions and I`d suggest you contact Ford,author of said excerpt.


I do not hold one former engineer on a team as the absolute authority on maintenance recommendations.
 
This is straight from Ford:
*a 5W-20 viscosity oil, which Ford desired for its fuel economy benefits*.
 
Yes, 5w20's are FOR fuel economy. However, you can formulate a low viscosity 20 grade to perform as well as a 30 grade in wear protection for engines that specify a 5w20 grade.

At one time, Ford said their 5w20 outperformed their 5w30.
 
Originally Posted By: buster
Yes, 5w20's are FOR fuel economy. However, you can formulate a low viscosity 20 grade to perform as well as a 30 grade in wear protection for engines that specify a 5w20 grade.

At one time, Ford said their 5w20 outperformed their 5w30.


That's my point. Since 20 wt oils offer better fuel performance, all the more reason to use it.
 
Miller88:

Not really. They're still using the [censored] MT82 and I've seen a couple of guys having issues with them in the '13. The only way they could fix them is to use a much better Q/C system or use better (but more expensive) components.

I've only got 8k miles on my second MT82 and I've been having problems (again) for about 3k miles now. I'll be taking it in again eventually. What'll they do though? Just replace it again with another stupid MT82 and then have more problems 10k miles down the road?

When the MT82 is fresh and new, it's a great transmission, but it goes downhill in a hurry. I hate the things. Some people swear by them but IDK why.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
This is straight from Ford:
*a 5W-20 viscosity oil, which Ford desired for its fuel economy benefits*.



This is also from Ford.
https://www.fleet.ford.comFFHwhy5W20Oil05_23_06.asp?News=Rental

"Why 5W20 Oil?
Some customers are reluctant to follow Ford's recommendation to use 5W-20 oil in their engines based on the incorrect assumption that Ford and other Auto Manufacturers only recommend 5W-20 oil in order to increase fuel economy. Using 5W-20 oil can increase fuel economy by about 6/10ths of a percent compared to 5W-30 and more if you are currently using a higher viscosity oil. This equates to an additional savings of 125 million gallons per year when used in all applicable Ford vehicles. Since its introduction in the 2001 MY, 5W-20 oils have saved up to 640 million gallons of gasoline in the U.S. or an equivalent 5.6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions.

5W-20 oil is a thinner oil with lighter viscosity that creates less drag on the crankshaft, pistons and valvetrain. Additionally, the oil pump can pump thinner oil more easily, improving oil circulation. Any increase in fuel economy may not be noticed by the average motorist. Machined internal engine parts are more precise than the parts of 20 years ago. This means that clearances between moving parts are smaller and more exact. Thinner oil such as 5W-20 can flow more freely through the engine while still filling the spaces. Thicker oil is harder to push through the spaces between the parts. This causes the oil pump to work harder, which in turn increases oil pressure while simultaneously decreasing oil volume. A lack of oil volume results in a decrease of lubrication and cooling, which may decrease engine part life.

The lighter viscosity of 5W-20 oil flows faster at start-up compared to higher viscosity oils, which helps reduce engine wear in critical areas by lubricating parts faster. Valvetrain components at the top of the engine require immediate lubrication at start-up.

Oil additives are not recommended as noted in the owners manual. The American Petroleum Institute (API) certifies that oils such as Motorcraft 5W-20 already contain the necessary additives for friction, detergent, etc... The addition of additives may interfere and react with the additives already present in the certified oil."

So although CAFE may play a part. I do not buy "lighter" provides less protection. Often "lighter" is only CAFE motivated. 5W-20 provides equal sometimes superior protection to other grades.
 
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
This is straight from Ford:
*a 5W-20 viscosity oil, which Ford desired for its fuel economy benefits*.



This is also from Ford.
https://www.fleet.ford.comFFHwhy5W20Oil05_23_06.asp?News=Rental

"Why 5W20 Oil?
Some customers are reluctant to follow Ford's recommendation to use 5W-20 oil in their engines based on the incorrect assumption that Ford and other Auto Manufacturers only recommend 5W-20 oil in order to increase fuel economy. Using 5W-20 oil can increase fuel economy by about 6/10ths of a percent compared to 5W-30 and more if you are currently using a higher viscosity oil. This equates to an additional savings of 125 million gallons per year when used in all applicable Ford vehicles. Since its introduction in the 2001 MY, 5W-20 oils have saved up to 640 million gallons of gasoline in the U.S. or an equivalent 5.6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions.

5W-20 oil is a thinner oil with lighter viscosity that creates less drag on the crankshaft, pistons and valvetrain. Additionally, the oil pump can pump thinner oil more easily, improving oil circulation. Any increase in fuel economy may not be noticed by the average motorist. Machined internal engine parts are more precise than the parts of 20 years ago. This means that clearances between moving parts are smaller and more exact. Thinner oil such as 5W-20 can flow more freely through the engine while still filling the spaces. Thicker oil is harder to push through the spaces between the parts. This causes the oil pump to work harder, which in turn increases oil pressure while simultaneously decreasing oil volume. A lack of oil volume results in a decrease of lubrication and cooling, which may decrease engine part life.

The lighter viscosity of 5W-20 oil flows faster at start-up compared to higher viscosity oils, which helps reduce engine wear in critical areas by lubricating parts faster. Valvetrain components at the top of the engine require immediate lubrication at start-up.

Oil additives are not recommended as noted in the owners manual. The American Petroleum Institute (API) certifies that oils such as Motorcraft 5W-20 already contain the necessary additives for friction, detergent, etc... The addition of additives may interfere and react with the additives already present in the certified oil."

So although CAFE may play a part. I do not buy "lighter" provides less protection. Often "lighter" is only CAFE motivated. 5W-20 provides equal sometimes superior protection to other grades.


Interesting but are we to believe the EB3.5 which specs 30w and the Boss and Shelby that spec 50w oil are less protected? I think not. Its just my personal opinion but I think the 20w oil is fuel mileage motivated at the expense of durability long term. I dont have any scientific proof of this and I am not an oil guru.

I read a thread wrote by an ex Ford powertrain engineer that in a nut shell said he tested hundred of Ford V8 engines and tore them apart afterward. HIs conclusion was that 20w oil was speced by the bean counters and not the engineers and that 30w is the way to go. I will try to find his thread. I think the guy is an engineer now for Michael Waltrip racing.
 
As I stated before. One former engineer from a team of engineers, does not constitute fact. Great he has more knowledge and insight than me on the subject. But what do all the other engineers state? I like the recommendation of a 30 grade oil because of some use more often than not shears into a 20 grade oil. Ford made it's engineers available and the engineers explained the reasons why the on GT Mustang 5W-20 is fine to use and explained that for this application the use of 5W-20 was a requirement from Ford so for the GT Mustang was designed to use 5W-20.

"Interesting but are we to believe the EB3.5 which specs 30w and the Boss and Shelby that spec 50w oil are less protected? I think not. Its just my personal opinion but I think the 20w oil is fuel mileage motivated at the expense of durability long term. I dont have any scientific proof of this and I am not an oil guru."

For the applications you cited Ford explained why different viscosity recommendations are made. Which to me gives Ford engineers creditability not just recommending one size fits oil all grade of oil.

If you feel thicker is better no one can stop you from using a thicker oil. But if 5W-20 is recommended by the manufacture for a engine there has been enough evidence that 5W-20 is robust enough to provide many miles and years of use.
 
It should be obvious that thinner oils are spec'd for fuel economy reasons. CAFE is a real problem when you sell performance cars, especially an extremely high volume car like the Stang because CAFE is AVERAGED across the entire line up.

And it is perfectly acceptable to go thicker. Needed? I doubt it. But it certainly will not hurt anything. I know if I was speed shifting at 7 grand I'd want the 30w in there!

Similar situation at Chrysler. The high volume 5.7 engines spec 20w and the low volume 6.4 engine with IDENTICAL fuel saving hardware specs a 40w. It's just "CYA" engineering as they must protect themselves from excessive warranty claims.
 
WHERE DID YOU FIND 5-20 IN 1978???
confused.gif
I CANNOT FIND MUCH 5-20 IN A ADVANCE STORE IN BALDWIN, LONG ISLAND IN 2012!!!!!
Originally Posted By: tig1
aquariuscsm said:
There was a link somewhere here awhile back with an excerpt from Ford where they said the move to 5W20 was for fuel economy only.[/quote

Does that mean the oil is inferior to, say 5-30? I was using M1 5-20 in 1978 in engines calling for 10-40. My engines performed very well then and my engines perform very well today on 0-20.
 
Originally Posted By: ottotheclown
WHERE DID YOU FIND 5-20 IN 1978???
confused.gif
I CANNOT FIND MUCH 5-20 IN A ADVANCE STORE IN BALDWIN, LONG ISLAND IN 2012!!!!!
Originally Posted By: tig1
aquariuscsm said:
There was a link somewhere here awhile back with an excerpt from Ford where they said the move to 5W20 was for fuel economy only.[/quote

Does that mean the oil is inferior to, say 5-30? I was using M1 5-20 in 1978 in engines calling for 10-40. My engines performed very well then and my engines perform very well today on 0-20.
Here is a lawnmower manual from 1979 that specifies 5W-20 oil for temperatures near 0 degrees Farenheit:

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...428#Post2638428

I think that only Mobil 1 came out in 5W-20 grade back in the 1970's. I'm not sure.
 
Originally Posted By: Throckmorton
Here is a lawnmower manual from 1979 that specifies 5W-20 oil for temperatures near 0 degrees Farenheit:


A great temperature to be doing yard work, for sure. We don't even mow our grass at 0 F up here.
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
And it is perfectly acceptable to go thicker. Needed? I doubt it. But it certainly will not hurt anything. I know if I was speed shifting at 7 grand I'd want the 30w in there!


Unfortunately most GT users will be using their cars in this manner very often or not at all.

Quote:
It should be obvious that thinner oils are spec'd for fuel economy reasons.


Thinner oils have been spec'd for a very long time dependent on application. This was well before CAFE. I hope with this being 2012 a good 5W-20 or 5W-30 for most driving situations could be developed. If the owner decides that normal everyday driving does not tickle his fancy and use the appropriate viscosity of oil.



"Coyote Oiling
Considerable work went into prepping the Coyote's oiling system for its 7,000-rpm redline and high-g Mustang home. It begins with thin 5W-20 mineral oil for reduced oil-pump-drive requirements, less internal drag, and quicker cold-start lubrication. Oil capacity was increased to 8 quarts, both to ensure adequate supply at high engine speeds and to increase oil change intervals to 10,000 miles.
The oil pan shape and baffling was aided by computer modeling to check sloshing behavior while braking and cornering. Testing also showed oil drainback out of the valve covers while cornering (and drifting!) proved inadequate with the initial design, requiring slight but vital revisions to the drainback channel shape in the side of the block.

At 1g cornering, the oil was accumulating in the valve cover and flinging into the PCV system via the camshaft-timing wheels. These "pip wheels" make great oil paddles at 3,500 rpm, so Habib Affes Ph.D., CAE technical expert, modeled the situation, disclosing that down in the block's oil drain passage there was a curve or bump. At 1g cornering, this bump-physically angled at 45 degrees-was sensed as flat by the oil, so it would not drain past it. Straightening the curve lowered the oil puddle depth around the pip wheel from 11mm to 3mm, curing the PCV problem.

Interestingly, one item needing less oiling are the VCT phasers on the camshafts. Thanks to the cam torque actuation strategy, the phasers do not require high-pressure oil from the pump, but are instead fed bleed oil from the front cam bearing. Had CTA not been used, the oil pump would have needed enlargement to keep a relatively large volume of pressurized oil ready to go next to the phasers in the cylinder heads. And that would have cost horsepower.
Crankcase ventilation and oil drainback are major oiling improvements in the Coyote. Crankcase breathing has never been particularly good in high-rpm modulars, and early testing showed the Coyote's high volumes of drainback oil at high rpm were air-locking the crankcase from the top of the engine. In other words, the gush of oil trying to drain down at 7,000 rpm was blocking the pressurized crankcase air trying to find its way up, effectively choking the PCV system and inhibiting drainback.

The cure was to separate the drainback paths from the crankcase breathing chimneys. Thus, Coyotes have three large oil drainbacks on the exhaust or lower side of the cylinder head. They mate to corresponding passages on the outer side of the block that downspout the oil into the pan-similar to the dry-sumped Ford GT block.

For PCV gasses, passages are placed at the top of the crankcase, about where the camshaft would be in an OHV block. These passages connect to corresponding flues on the intake side of the cylinder heads. Thus, the oil drains and breather vents are completely separated and probably approach double the combined area of previous modulars.

Consideration was given to an external oil cooler, but ultimately it was decided not to penalize all Coyote buyers for the occasional antics of a miniscule fraction of owners. Oil temperature rises precipitously when the Coyote is revved more than 4,500 rpm for extended periods, and then an external oil-to-air cooler is vital. But those conditions can only be reached on a road-racing track, so the expensive cooler was ditched and engine management strategies were used to protect the engine during hot idles. However, the mounting area for the cooler was "protected" during the 2011 Mustang's development. That makes it easier for the open-trackers among us to fit a cooler (highly recommended by Coyote engine designers), and tells you something about Ford's intentions for special editions of the Coyote-powered Mustangs.

And don't worry about the occasional open-track without an oil cooler. The engineers say the oil cools quickly as soon as you take your foot out of it, and the engine management will limit the torque output if the oil gets too hot."

Ford engineering has provided me with sufficient reason that the use of 5W-20 is sufficient for normal every day driving with the occasional track day.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OMG,just got back from 2 straight days of 90-degrees plus days of drag racing,countem 2 mustangs runnin 5w20,a 2010 mustang and the other,a 2013 mustang,both around 500-600hp,and man,their running that scary new spec of oil,called 5w20,I better tell'em to drop it tonight because it's gonna destroy these motors!!!!!!!! Some ya'll need to get a grip,seriously,not anything wrong with 5w20.
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
CAFE is a real problem when you sell performance cars, especially an extremely high volume car like the Stang because CAFE is AVERAGED across the entire line up.

This is one of the many reasons why I hate the fact that so many people bought big and/or heavy cars in recent years. If everyone who bought an SUV for on-road non-towing use bought a wagon or minivan instead, I bet our sports cars could be fire-breathing gas guzzlers that spec SAE 70 oils, and we'd still be better off.

And our econoboxes would be even better because they wouldn't have to be crash-compatible with all the behemoths rolling around (pun intended).

And our roads would see less wear-and-tear.

But I digress...


Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Similar situation at Chrysler. The high volume 5.7 engines spec 20w and the low volume 6.4 engine with IDENTICAL fuel saving hardware specs a 40w. It's just "CYA" engineering as they must protect themselves from excessive warranty claims.

Is it? Or is it an acknowledgment that the bigger engine will generate higher oil temperatures?
 
Originally Posted By: ottotheclown
WHERE DID YOU FIND 5-20 IN 1978???
confused.gif
I CANNOT FIND MUCH 5-20 IN A ADVANCE STORE IN BALDWIN, LONG ISLAND IN 2012!!!!!
Originally Posted By: tig1
aquariuscsm said:
There was a link somewhere here awhile back with an excerpt from Ford where they said the move to 5W20 was for fuel economy only.[/quote

Does that mean the oil is inferior to, say 5-30? I was using M1 5-20 in 1978 in engines calling for 10-40. My engines performed very well then and my engines perform very well today on 0-20.


M1 5-20 came out in about 1974. In 78 I started using it when I lived in Maine and had cold start problems with Val 10-40. The M1 made a hudge differance.
 
So move to Europe.


Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
CAFE is a real problem when you sell performance cars, especially an extremely high volume car like the Stang because CAFE is AVERAGED across the entire line up.

This is one of the many reasons why I hate the fact that so many people bought big and/or heavy cars in recent years. If everyone who bought an SUV for on-road non-towing use bought a wagon or minivan instead, I bet our sports cars could be fire-breathing gas guzzlers that spec SAE 70 oils, and we'd still be better off.

And our econoboxes would be even better because they wouldn't have to be crash-compatible with all the behemoths rolling around (pun intended).

And our roads would see less wear-and-tear.

But I digress...


Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Similar situation at Chrysler. The high volume 5.7 engines spec 20w and the low volume 6.4 engine with IDENTICAL fuel saving hardware specs a 40w. It's just "CYA" engineering as they must protect themselves from excessive warranty claims.

Is it? Or is it an acknowledgment that the bigger engine will generate higher oil temperatures?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top