Need your thoughts on 5w-40 Motul

[SheepDog]

So, anyone have an Oil analysis of the Motul 109776 8100 X-Cess Gen2 5W-40? Figured I'd dump this question here since a thread already exists for this oil. I just bought 10L to give it a try.

@engineermike , I know you are a fan of A3/B4 oils.

Sponsored

 

[shogun32]

you can't even buy a "bad" oil at wallymart or costco, so I can't see how paying double the going rate would have a downside, aside from your wallet.

 

[SheepDog]

you can't even buy a "bad" oil at wallymart or costco, so I can't see how paying double the going rate would have a downside, aside from your wallet.

I'd like to think that Motul has a better additive pack and higher quality base stock than anything Walmart sells over the counter, but hell, maybe not. This is why I asked if anyone had an analysis of it. 10 bucks a quart is reasonable for it, when "really fancy" oils are almost double that. My Walmart does'nt sell the Pennzoil Ultra Platinum lineup, nor the Castrol EDGE Euro 0W-40 A3/B4, or Mobil 1 Supercar. I've been running the Pennzoil Ultra Platinum SRT 0-40, but thought I would give the Motul a try. Both the same price

 

[Trace]

OK I generally try to avoid "best motor oil" threads because expert opinions are just that, opinions. But I'll give 2 cents to this one.

I retired from the lubricants industry and at one point I was a fleet/commercial sales manager. We did a lot of oil analysis. Never to determine which oil was better than another but to determine whether an oil or other lubricant was still viable.

Large fleets like tractor trailer companies are big users of engine oil. Huge fleets (think locomotive engines) use a LOT more engine oil than you'd think. They don't want to waste money on oil changes. They analyze oil periodically to determine if it SHOULD be changed. And then respond accordingly.

There is one very basic fact that people who understand engine oil (in this example) know: if a lubricant meets the current spec or the required spec for the application it is suitable for use. When I buy oil, I typically buy whatever is on sale that meets the spec for the application regardless of brand name.

I'm 65 and I've run the sheet out of everything I ever owned. I used to race a mud truck and I'd run it hard enough to peg the temp gauge and make the headers glow and never broke a motor. I have a Nissan NV3500 cargo van with a 5.6 that's never seen the same brand of oil 2 times in a row. I've towed toy hailers, dump trailers, car carriers, and it's currently got 170,000 miles on it.

Is Motul full synthetic good oil? Yes. Is Pennzoil full synthetic good oil? Yes. Is Motul 2x as good as the price would seem to dictate? No. Period. No. You can get the Pennzoil for under $25 for a 5-quart jug.

Now to viscosity- someone stated that the Coyote engine had been around since blah blah. This doesn't mean Ford hasn't improved the engine over time. Hell it gained 5 cubic inches in 2018! And tighter tolerances can lead to a change in viscosity requirements. And I don't think Ford puts full synthetic oil in the Coyote engine from the factory. The manufacturers generally keep factory fill information pretty close to the chest. It is after all typically specified in a bid offering and supplied by the lowest bidder.

Lastly, I'd have no problem running a non-synthetic lubricant in my Mustang GT. But at the small increase in price to have full synthetic I go ahead and buy it. But if it was 2x more expensive than dino oil I wouldn't. And I add this- people generally change their oil much too often. It wastes a valuable resource and your hard earned money at the same time.

Take it for what it's worth.... thanks for reading.

 

[shogun32]

and your hard earned money

I hardly think $50 qualifies as hard-earned. Or noteworthy.

When the crank and bearing shells haven't changed the clearances haven't changed.

 

[Trace]

Really? The compression ratio has increased from 10.5 to 12:1 over the life of the "Coyote" platform. You think they're all the same internally?

 

[shogun32]

You think they're all the same internally?

Ford engineering is lazy. So yeah if the crank and bottom-end hasn't changed then nothing else of great import vis-a-vis oil viscosity has changed. Updating heads is like changing the flavor of icing on a cake. The cake is still vanilla. The viscosity changes are not warranted by engineering changes - they are just chasing fractions of a percent in CAFE ratings.

0w20 thru 10w50 works fine in the engine.

 

[SheepDog]

Really? The compression ratio has increased from 10.5 to 12:1 over the life of the "Coyote" platform. You think they're all the same internally?

My owners manual says anything from 0W-20 to 5W-50 can be used, depending on conditions, so yeah probably the same.

 

[Trace]

I'm not a mechanic by any means. Help me understand.

A 307 cubic inch Coyote motor has 12:1 compression and a earlier 302 cubic inch Coyote motor has 10.5:1 compression.

The larger combustion chamber has more space and yet more compression as well.

Something else has to change to get there. I'm assuming it's fuel and air injection pressure?

 

[SheepDog]

I'm not a mechanic by any means. Help me understand.

A 307 cubic inch Coyote motor has 12:1 compression and a earlier 302 cubic inch Coyote motor has 10.5:1 compression.

The larger combustion chamber has more space and yet more compression as well.

Something else has to change to get there. I'm assuming it's fuel and air injection pressure?

It has nothing to do with bearing clearances.

Increases to compression come from longer connecting rods, longer stroke on the crankshaft rod bearing journals, larger(thicker) shaped pistons, smaller cylinder head shape, thinner head gasket, or a combination of those.

Here's a good snippet from a Motor trend article regarding bearing clearances, if you care.

"Generally speaking, bearing clearance should be 0.001-inch for every inch of journal diameter. Let's take the traditional 350 small-block as an example. The factory specs include 2.450-inch main bearing journals and 2.100-inch rod journals, which means the target bearing clearance should be about 0.0024-inch (0.0025 is the common spec) on main bearings and 0.0021-inch on the rod bearings. Again, in general terms, it's better to have the clearance slightly larger to ensure optimal performance and oil temperature, particularly if the engine is built for higher performance.

The idea that a slightly larger bearing clearance is better for overall engine performance, however, is another generality and is at the core of the age-old tolerance debate. Some builders will force a tighter bearing clearance with oversized bearings to achieve a horsepower advantage, while others will maintain the factory's target spec and accept a slightly larger clearance to foster engine durability".

"The advantages of a "loose" bearing clearance—one that is on the high side of the recommended specification range or even higher—is lower friction, particularly at start-up, which translates into lower oil temperature. Ultimately, that can mean greater engine longevity. The flip side of that is excessively large clearances will push excess oil out of the sides of the bearings, which can enhance power-robbing windage and lower oil pressure.

A "tight" bearing clearance, with a smaller hydrodynamic wedge between the journals and bearing surfaces has advantages, too. It can provide more even and uniform loads on the bearings, as well as more uniform oil pressure on them. Additionally, less oil is required to maintain the hydrodynamic wedge, which translates into a reduced load on the oil pump that can result in more horsepower.

That all sounds great, right? But there's a downside to tighter bearing clearances: heat. A thinner film of oil between the bearing and journal is going to heat up faster and rise to a higher temperature than an engine with a looser clearance. It's less of a concern in a dedicated racing engine, but for an engine that's driven daily, it can increase wear and make it easier to spin a bearing, which will totally ruin your day.

As a rule of thumb, main bearing clearance should be targeted between 0.0025- and 0.0020-inch for most street and street/strip engines."

 

[Trace]

"Increases to compression come from longer connecting rods, longer stroke on the crankshaft rod bearing journals, larger(thicker) shaped pistons, smaller cylinder head shape, thinner head gasket, or a combination of those."

I understand this.

"A "tight" bearing clearance, with a smaller hydrodynamic wedge between the journals and bearing surfaces has advantages, too. It can provide more even and uniform loads on the bearings, as well as more uniform oil pressure on them. Additionally, less oil is required to maintain the hydrodynamic wedge, which translates into a reduced load on the oil pump that can result in more horsepower."

This is what I meant when I said "tolerances". And I stand behind the statement that tighter tolerances can lead to a change in viscosity requirements. At least to get to ideal lubricating conditions.

I'm not arguing, I'm clarifying

 

[EFI]

Really? The compression ratio has increased from 10.5 to 12:1 over the life of the "Coyote" platform. You think they're all the same internally?

It's not that we think, we know.

We know which internal parts have changed and which internal parts are exactly the same throughout the years. A lot of parts are the same and carry over between the gens and even between the car and truck versions.

 

[shogun32]

And I stand behind the statement that tighter tolerances can lead to a change in viscosity requirements.

of course. But the parts and clearances haven't changed. so...

 

[robvas]

I'm not a mechanic by any means. Help me understand.

A 307 cubic inch Coyote motor has 12:1 compression and a earlier 302 cubic inch Coyote motor has 10.5:1 compression.

The larger combustion chamber has more space and yet more compression as well.

Something else has to change to get there. I'm assuming it's fuel and air injection pressure?

First gen Coyote is 11:1

But the gen 3 has a 2cc smaller head than the gen 1

But the piston is an 8.4cc dome vs 3.472 for the gen 1

That basically makes the 1 point difference in compression

The tiny amount of larger bore is only worth 0.05 compression

https://performanceparts.ford.com/download/instructionsheets/COYOTE_TECH_GUIDE_062819.PDF

 

[Trace]

Good read, thank you. Didn't realize the Mustang motor was 11:1 in '12. 10.5 was for the '12 F150 I'm more familiar with.

Sponsored