BBQ Tick After Oil Change...

[BladeGT]

Some are stating on their oil change invoices from dealer are only pulling 8 quarts not 10. Check your oil levels people who are having the problem after an oil change....FYI. You'd be surprised on how stupid people are. In the ST community, dealers were putting the wrong weight oil in.:headbonk:

Sponsored

 

[usgiorgi]

Some are stating on their oil change invoices from dealer are only pulling 8 quarts not 10. Check your oil levels people who are having the problem after an oil change....FYI. You'd be surprised on how stupid people are. In the ST community, dealers were putting the wrong weight oil in.:headbonk:

Most people who have reported the issue thus far have been 2015-2017 owners. Those "only" take 8 quarts.

 

[TheLion]

Here's a great look at the 5.0L's top end: https://www.diyford.com/ford-coyote-engine-camshaft-and-valvetrain-performance-guide/

And another great look at what went into the design of the original Gen 1 back in 2011: http://www.mustangandfords.com/parts/m5lp-1003-2011-ford-mustang-gt-50-coyote-engine/

This also why the stock Gen 2 port injected 5.0L makes the same total power from 2,000 RPM all the way up to it's 7,000 RPM red line as the much bigger push rod direct injected LS 6.2 in the SS and Vett (which is much more limited in valve timing due to fixed valve train of the push rod design, but what they could achieve on fixed valve train by utilizing DI is still impressive, just no more room to grow!).

This is also why these engines are "ticky" as many DOHC / VVT engines are and the more power they push through stock engines, the more noisy they get. You have more moving parts, more tolerance stackup, stiffer valve springs etc. For example, you have small valve lash variations in any engine with hydraulic lash adjusters even though they minimize valve lash they can generate some noise at low RPM / idle when oil pressure is very low. Then you have 4 cam phasors, timing chains and their hydraulic adjusters and then all the accessories on the outside that can also cause noises.

My 5.0, when hot after stop and go or low speed cursing on a warm day, will some times tick at idle. As RPM rises the tick goes away (yes there's a lot more noise from the exhaust and all the other noises), but it's intensity fades away as oil pressure builds. A little pronounced ticking at idle or lower RPM when pressure is low isn't harmful as there's light load on everything. And it may be there one day and not another depend on how driving conditions affect oil temps and idle RPM.

So far I have 15,000 miles on my stock 2016 GT. With Penzoil Ultra Platinum 5W-20 (which lists Fords own spec on it and meets their oil viscosity req, so there can be no question it should be suitable) I some times get a tick I can hear at idle on warm days after stop and go traffic or cursing in town at low RPM when I stop. I can only hear it if i'm next to a surface that reflects the sound waves or I step outside the car. It's very distinct and audible, but it's not abnormal. Nor is it consistent, on cooler days it almost never is there. When the engine is cold, it's not there either (higher oil pressure, so the lash adjusters are under much more pressure).

My guess, a bit of lash adjuster variance due to oil temp variations affecting viscosity. I noticed with PUP 5W-20, once warm my pump pressure is a couple PSI lower at idle. Not much, but a little lower from what the MC Semi-Syn typically produced. PUP has better temperature stability than the factory motor craft semi-syn, but it's also thinner at typical ambient (because it doesn't thin out as much as MC does at higher temps due to it's superior stability, it doesn't thicken up as much at lower temps). This may allow slightly more mechanical noise, especially at idle.

Ford states their total number of issues with the 5.0L engine (F-150 and Mustang GT) in all it's variations is less than 0.5%. That includes ALL problems, some of which are not major but easily fixed, some of which result in you getting a new engine, but that is rare. You can go all over the net and find issues with the LS 6.2, the Dodge 5.7 (infamous HEMI tick) or any other engine, push rod or DOHC / VVT although the latter is typically noisier.

That's pretty darn good considering the volume of the 5.0L compared to other american V8's. Ford's a BIG company and sells a LOT of F-150's and Mustangs. Why not wait to modify the 5.0 until at least 36,000 miles or even 60,000 once your power train warranty is up? That way you have fully broken in the engine (typically takes around 40,000 miles to fully wear in bearing surfaces, piston rings usually are broken in much soon at just a couple thousand miles). You also can have confidence at that point that it's mechanically sound.


I've been saying it from the start. INFANT MORTALITY. 99% of the people (very few of the total) who actually do have serious internal problems, have them very early on. The majority of major issues are not occurring on engines with 50k or 100k, they occur with just a couple thousand due to a manufacturing defect. For crying out loud, the engine makes the same total power as the Corvett LS 6.2L engine from 2000 RPm to it's respect redline (integrate the power curves of both the LS and Coyote using Riemann Sums, it's a little time consuming but not hard)! Why not focus on fixing the IRS compliance issues that limit the cars launch severely and using a good oil / maintenance, learning to eek every last 10th of a second out of it, putting half way decent tires on it (Pirellies suck big time)?

I've driven 350 HP turbo 4's (my FP tuned Ecoboost), low powered momentum cars like the MX-5 (1997 M-edition) and BRZ (2013), V8 automatic trucks (2016 Lariat F-150), cheap sport compacts (2007 Focus ST), push rod V6's (2001 Chevy Impala 9C1 Police Interceptor), old 4.6L 3 valves (2002 Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor with 4.10's). Not one comes even close to the performance the Gen 2 5.0 bone stock in my 2016 GT....which is under full factory power train warranty as the engine is stock. I even use a MC OE filter (nor reason to use anything else, especially since many don't have an anti-drain back valve for startup).

Sure, there's more in it. The valve train (including lift and 300 lb springs) and bottom end (powder forged Rods and chromoly crank) are direct pulls from the Boss 302 which lived in the 7400~7500 RPM region. The PP3 is a shining example of the potential that's safely left in the Gen 2 coyote. The Gen 3 likely has less inherent potential (from where it's at), but it also makes quite a bit more power stock and uses both DOHC / VVT and DI/PI with high RPM operation. It's a performer for sure, but the Gen 2 with a PP3 is right next to it.

Not every tick is bad, I'd wager most ticks people are reporting are more related to timing chain tensioner lash (especially those that are erratic and not rythmic) or possible lash adjuster induced tick (cam lobe tapping the roller follower slightly) if the there's even the slightest of clearance. Remember the Gen 2 uses 300 lb valve springs, those are pretty stiff and will result in substantially louder ticks with even the smallest of clearance variations compared to a softer valve spring. CAMs are also more aggressively timed to allow higher power output at high RPM which makes them more noisy.

Hydraulic Lash Adjusters are also very sensitive to deposit formation and fouling as well as oil viscosity. Running a thicker oil over a wide temperature range (such as a daily driver in a 4-season state) is a good way to cause excessive pressure and wear (also reduced power output as your pump is working over time), oil bypass in the filter etc. Even possible issues with inadequate flow rates to the rod bearings (the pump can only generate so much pressure before it bypasses to prevent gear damage to the pump, too high of a viscosity will reduce flow rates, higher viscosity at the same pressure = lower flow rate! it's not rocket science guys...). You want a very clean, low oxidation (resists boil off and deposit formation) and temperature stable oil for tight tolerances DOHC / VVT engines. There's plenty out there from a variety of oil manufacturers.

If you run heavier oil for actual track use (because you want to maintain proper viscosity and hence pressure at abnormally high and sustained temperatures), be sure to let the car fully warm up before driving it on track day, just like a race car. Daily and track are two different things and daily driving a track setup (oil wise) isn't good in the long run, especially if the car sees a wide range of temps like 30F in the morning and 70F by afternoon (aka Ohio lol). I'm not suggesting there are not legitimate applications for higher viscosity, but my gosh, context, context, context! Oil viscosity doesn't affect it's ability to lubricate (read up on Bob Is the Oil Guy), it's the additive package. Viscosity primarily affects pump pressure and hence flow rates and it's resistance to thinning (which affect pump pressure and flow rates...).

 

[TheLion]

[ame="[MEDIA=youtube]_lvL5CWQuwg[/MEDIA]"] sorts of issues below and the sounds they produce. Some are serious internal issues requirement a new short block of possibly even a whole new long block, a bunch from the big 3.

Behold, the Great Big Fat Engine Tick and Engine Knock List:

[ame="[MEDIA=youtube]Q2Amqu8uvkg[/MEDIA]"]

[ame="[MEDIA=youtube]G3bwyfBY9sY[/MEDIA]"]

[ame="[MEDIA=youtube]MMian38RNFk[/MEDIA]"]

[ame="[MEDIA=youtube]TbIENCR_noc[/MEDIA]"]

[ame="[MEDIA=youtube]KHPOZi4sJqQ[/MEDIA]"]

[ame="[MEDIA=youtube]KqRQHSWmmwA[/MEDIA]"]

[ame="[MEDIA=youtube]vXav5ox2jCI[/MEDIA]"]

[ame="[MEDIA=youtube]V4V9Gn9Z04E[/MEDIA]"]

[ame="[MEDIA=youtube]_ZiJA6phEq8[/MEDIA]"]

[ame="[MEDIA=youtube]xe9I9HSwzgQ[/MEDIA]"]

[ame="[MEDIA=youtube]la8ExLFFruU[/MEDIA]"]

[ame="[MEDIA=youtube]u7ChQ799XUg[/MEDIA]"]

[ame="[MEDIA=youtube]THvrs-IpAwQ[/MEDIA]"]

[ame="[MEDIA=youtube]tiYtLxYtQTk[/MEDIA]"]

[ame="[MEDIA=youtube]VCGLM-HsIVY[/MEDIA]"]

[ame="[MEDIA=youtube]h9izuL_IhSs[/MEDIA]"]

[ame="[MEDIA=youtube]NTRSMeH8GR4[/MEDIA]"]

 

[TheLion]

Note that some of those are repeats from earlier in this thread. Some people have legitimate problems while others are straining over gnats. Use a MC OE filter, use a Ford specked oil and rely on your warranty. If you do have issues by chance, your covered.

Wait until 36k to 60k to tune the car (when you do, be VERY particular about the tuner, I'd personally only recomend Ford Performance on a car that is daily, but for a weekend to you MAY be able to be a little more riske') and focus on the IRS / suspensions issues and learning to actually drive the car first before adding more power. Learn to use the power that's already there instead of adding power immediately as a band aid for you lack of skills and IRS / Suspension compliance issues (this includes me and something I learned from all the Ecoboost modding I did and money / time wasted chasing the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow)...it's also a good time to wear in the bearing surfaces, learn what ticks are normal and see what ones are not (if any).

If the engine is stock, you don't have to worry about weather your know it all tuner who is some dude on a dyno that claims to have figured out how to make more power safely in a way that won't harm the engine over it's life in just a few hours and a few runs down the drag strip than an entire team of engineers with a climactic engine dyno, computer modeling and extensive testing including thermal shock testing, 3000 hour WOT wear in tests, months worth of real road testing over the range of environments and altitudes in the US with a full data logger gathering raw sensor information in real time can in 2 years...but hey what do I know, I'm just some guy on the internet like yall.

 

[usgiorgi]

Jesus christ dude, you go from praising the 5.0 for being a great engine to telling people to not mod it because it may have issues and to keep their warranty. Then you list all the videos with ticks. What are you saying exactly? That there is a problem, or that there isn't one?

People tune their Mustangs because the stock powerband is atrocious. Especially if you have the 3.31 gears. You have to rev the engine out to make any decent power. It felt like I was driving a VTEC s2000 more than a "muscle" car. It really doesn't feel like a proper v8. I really wasn't blown away with the torque unless I did an aggressive launch. My old 370z felt a little faster under 4k rpms honestly.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, go test drive a new Camaro SS or a Challenger/Charger Scat Pack/SRT. Those V8s will throw you into the seat as soon as you think about touching the gas. Their torque comes in very low.

 

[TheLion]

Jesus christ dude, you go from praising the 5.0 for being a great engine to telling people to not mod it because it may have issues and to keep their warranty. Then you list all the videos with ticks. What are you saying exactly? That there is a problem, or that there isn't one?

People tune their Mustangs because the stock powerband is atrocious. Especially if you have the 3.31 gears. You have to rev the engine out to make any decent power. It felt like I was driving a VTEC s2000 more than a "muscle" car. It really doesn't feel like a proper v8. I really wasn't blown away with the torque unless I did an aggressive launch. My old 370z felt a little faster under 4k rpms honestly.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, go test drive a new Camaro SS or a Challenger/Charger Scat Pack/SRT. Those V8s will throw you into the seat as soon as you think about touching the gas. Their torque comes in very low.

BTW the 370Z runs about a 13.7~13.8 1/4 mile and traps around 105. It weighs between 3350 and 3500 lbs, makes about 330 HP according to MotorTrend / Car and Driver. GT runs (even with IRS issues and crappy tires) 12.9~12.8 1/4 mile. So who cares what the 370Z felt like? Because it's only 200 lbs lighter but almost a full second slower on the 1/4. It might have felt "faster", but its actually quite a bit slower than any of the big 3 muscle cars, of which the GT is the slowest. Here's the kicker. MT ran a 12.5 on the 1/4 mile with the SS. They ran a 12.8 with the GT PP. That's 2.4% difference stock...2.4%. Pretty small difference.

Their gearing, throttle mapping, torque curve and suspension tuning is all different...your confusing how something "feels" as opposed to how something actually is. Peaky power bands give the sensation of a lot of power, even if they aren't actually as fast as a car with a linear power band that produces more actual power over it's rev range. Fast isn't about feeling, it's about results. I'm not suggesting the 5.0 makes more power than the LS 6.2, in fact it doesn't, it makes about the same total power, just over a longer rev range. I have not integrated the 5.7's power graph yet so I have no idea if makes more, less or the same total power as the 5.0 and LS 6.2. Of course the 5.0 is not going to "feel" as "jolty" or "torqy" down low as the 6.2 because it's making far less torque, nearly 80 lbs-ft at certain RPM. But it takes nearly 80 lbs-ft to make just 22 HP more than the 5.0 at 2500 RPM...because we all know your SS is going to accelerate so fast when it makes 165 HP at 2500 RPM vs. the GT's 143 HP...

Torque down low isn't terribly useful except for cruising or towing because there's not a lot work being done without massive torque. But you don't need a lot of power to cruise at a steady RPM. Truck motors are tuned to get as much torque down low as possible to bias the power band in the lower and mid-range RPM band because that's where it spends most of it's time. Usable power comes on quick. If you want to accelerate, you still need to run it in the power band, but fuel consumption is much higher, so you don't run a truck long distance at higher RPM, you only need enough power to keep it going. Low end torque "pulling power" is a misnomer created by people who don't understand that to move any object you need to do work, work is done by applying more moments of torque per a given unit of time, aka rev that sucker up.

A flatter but shallower torque curve may not feels as fast or responsive down low, but will provide more total acceleration throughout it's rev range if you can rev it high enough. Torque doesn't matter if you don't combine RPM with it. Each time torque is applied, working is being done, but if it's only applied 2000 times a minute, your doing 1/2 the actual work than when it's applied 4,000 times a minute (assuming torque holds). More work = faster acceleration. A car that makes big low end torque will feel very "surgy" down low (aka the Ecoboost, it gave the sensation of big power and had a nice jolty pull, at 3000 RPM, my Ford Tuned EB was making only 30 lbs-ft less than a LS 6.2 at 2500), but once you get past that initial surge, your not actually accelerating very fast because your not making big power. It's just the sensation of the first moment of torque once you step on it, but hey, if that floats your boat...

I got the complete opposite impression with the SS 6M, in fact I found some reviews that said the same thing. All I felt was a moment of torque as described above, a jolt of the first couple of strokes, then a steady but slower acceleration in the same gear. The real sustained pull happend once we rose to the power band, but it took longer than in the GT because the gearing is so tall. I had to drive it like a momentum car around corners, focusing on maintaining speed rather than powering out of them (only so much you can do on the street, but enough to give a picture). It works, that's what makes it fast on a track, maintaining speed in corners is a better net benefit with lots of turns than powering out of them (at least with real limitations of non-infinite traction). The GT is really held back by it's IRS compliance and crappy stock tires, but the gearing allows a higher application of power. Problem it's we don't have infinite traction so it's not all usable in reality.

It all makes perfect sense, the SS is geared much higher, despite making more peak torque at the crank through much of it's rev range, it's putting down a lot less torque to the wheels in the same gear and nearly the same total torque from 2,000 RPM to it's 6,500 RPM reline because of the shorter rev range. The power band is much peakier and it should be, it's got a fixed valvtrain and it's a big bore engine. Power peaks at 6k, nearly 500 RPM earlier and average power is around 15% higher in the bulk of it's power band. Sadly all that doesn't make it more powerful because after 6k it falls FASt and ends at 6500 where it can no longer do work. That 500 RPM of the 5.0 actually makes up for that 15% average deficite across a good portion of the rev range because 0 work at 6750 and 7k of LS is a heck of a lot less than 355 WHP. But we all know that how a cars feels matters more than how a car actually is...

Torque to the wheels in the same gear (1st to 1st) with a GT is much higher than the SS because of gearing however. What your feeling is a moment of torque, not actual total usable power. Power is work being done and at 2000 RPM the SS is only making 165 HP...about as much as my 2.3L Duratec at full pipe in my old 2700 lb Ford Focus ST I had at the end of college once my Impala 9C1 kicked the bucket (needed a cheap fun sport compact at the time). The 5.0 has a much more linear power band and a lot of IRS compliance, it's not going to feel "jotly" without some suspension mods. And even with the same exact suspension it will not feel as "torqey" as the LS or 5.7 because of it's lower but much longer and flatter torque band. Think Forumla car, they use low torque but very high RPM engines with rev ranges that reach the moon and back. Very linear. They are not going to feel jolty because of the low moment of torque when your first step on it and linear build of power.

The IRS on the GT also absorbs a HUGE amount of power, any spring or rubber bushing is an energy absorber, it stores that energy when you compress it and uselessly returns it once your off throttle and it decompresses, gives the GT a very soft edge, feels more like a cushiony turbo car than a NA V8. Try an IRS lockout and Diff bushings, it's like the engine gets re-tuned. Therese a ton of IRS compliance (which Ford did for NVH and ride quality standards at the cost of raw performance) and it's well known in any review, it just hops and hops and hops more like a rabbit than it's representative equine icon. They set it up like a daily driver street car, not a track car like the SS (which is an awesome car by the way).

Haven't driven a Scat Pack / SRT so I can't comment on the 5.7's tuning and suspension. If the Mustang is so bad, why did you buy one in the first place :doh:

I know why I bought mine, it was cheap and it's issues were easy to fix with under $1k of suspension modifications I had already learned how to do from my Ecoboost adventure. It's a good in between blent of the Charger / Challenger wich are mamoth pigs and the more sports car like SS, which is much more cramped and less practical. It's a nice middle ground and at a really good price point.

BTW here's a great write up on Motor Craft 5W-20. While there are better oils, it's not by any means a bad oil, in fact it's quite good: https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1666844

Might explain why some hear quite a bit less noise (ticking) when switching back to MC 5W-20. Hydraulic Lash Adjusters are very viscosity sensitive. Heck, I might even switch back at some point because I have a hard time finding PUP in stock anywhere locally and it's a safe bet alternative.

I think you have a built in bias because of the fact that you got the unlucky 5.0 that had issues. You got the 0.5% and now your convinced all 5.0's are junk, have problems or are prone to problems. You have made up your mind already that the 5.7's and 6.2's are better quality / design and you won't have any issues by going with Dodge or GM. Good luck, I hope it works out and you will more than likely fall into the 99.5% of Dodge owners who don't have issues like in the videos above. But in my experience, all cars suck. Doesn't matter who makes them. Some are suckier than others, but the 5.0's a pretty good engine overall if you look at all the design and testing it has undergone and the actual failure rates. And yah, I post a lot, but yall know that already. It's my trade mark!

 

[usgiorgi]

First of all, I'm talking about the new Camaro. The 7speed manual not the gen 5. They're significantly faster all around than the mustang. No two ways around it. Usable power or not. The numbers speak for themselves.
The SRT/Scat packs have 6.4 liter not the 5.7 hemi and definitely dont have the aftermarket support for upgrades like the mustang and camaros do. Even then, they have 485hp and 475 torque. That more than makes up for being overweight.

Why did I buy the mustang? Because I loved its styling and it was a ton of fun to drive at first. Until the issues came. Intake manifold broke, ac was going out, trunk was hitting bumper and rear lights, I had the bbq tick that the dealer didn't hear. The last straw was Ford sending my car to a body shop because they decided to repaint the trunk and rear bumper. They messed it up so bad they repainted it 4 times. I had 14.5k miles on the car. I went and traded it in for a Charger scat pack. Why am I on here? So that people like you don't spread lies about the ticks being normal. It wasn't ticking when i bought it and sure as hell shouldn't have ticked at 3k after the first oil change.

 

[ScottsGT]

It wasn't ticking when i bought it and sure as hell shouldn't have ticked at 3k after the first oil change.

Mine did.

Interesting fact from the oil link:

MC 5w20 Base Oil (MSDS): http://www.fcsdchemicalsandlubricants.com/Main/msds/us173219us.pdf

HIGHLY REFINED MINERAL OIL 8042-47-5D 60-100%
ZINC COMPOUND 7440-66-6Z 0.5-1.5%

Looks like they are adding zinc back into the oils? Wasn't that an EPA mandate to remove from every day passenger car oils? I have additive for my '66. Might mix some in.

 

[ponyv6]

additional info about my tick
I have been tracking the relation between the ticking and oil temp
It has been consistently not ticking when the oil is too hot.
I dont know even if the gage supposed to go to right side of the middle. haven't experienced that with my 15 V6.

thiswas just after 5min driving. I did couple of pulls till 6000rpm but the last long part of the road was on the freeway. (constant speed 6th gear. weather temp is 72) I thought that should have helped the temp. in the second video you can see the fan going full speed after I close the driver door. Interestingly it never starts till I close the door.


First of all is it better that it is not doing it when it is too cold and too hot?
Secondly,any input would be good not only about ticking but also about oil temp, and fan doesnt starting till I close the driver door.

 

[TheLion]

First of all, I'm talking about the new Camaro. The 7speed manual not the gen 5. They're significantly faster all around than the mustang. No two ways around it. Usable power or not. The numbers speak for themselves.
The SRT/Scat packs have 6.4 liter not the 5.7 hemi and definitely dont have the aftermarket support for upgrades like the mustang and camaros do. Even then, they have 485hp and 475 torque. That more than makes up for being overweight.

Why did I buy the mustang? Because I loved its styling and it was a ton of fun to drive at first. Until the issues came. Intake manifold broke, ac was going out, trunk was hitting bumper and rear lights, I had the bbq tick that the dealer didn't hear. The last straw was Ford sending my car to a body shop because they decided to repaint the trunk and rear bumper. They messed it up so bad they repainted it 4 times. I had 14.5k miles on the car. I went and traded it in for a Charger scat pack. Why am I on here? So that people like you don't spread lies about the ticks being normal. It wasn't ticking when i bought it and sure as hell shouldn't have ticked at 3k after the first oil change.

2015 R/T Scat Pack -
4367 lbs
4.2 sec 0-60
12.6 sec 1/4 mile
25.3 second figure 8
0.92 g road holding
8-speed Automatic
http://www.motortrend.com/cars/dodge/charger/2015/2015-dodge-charger-rt-scat-pack-first-test/

2015 GT PP -
3810 lbs
4.4 sec 0-60
12.8 sec 1/4 mile
24.7 second figure 8
0.96 g road holding
6-speed Manual
http://www.motortrend.com/cars/ford/mustang/2015/2015-ford-mustang-gt-first-test/

2016 2SS -
3696 lbs
4.3 sec 0-60
12.5 second 1/4 mile
23.9 second figure 8
0.96 g road holding
6-speed Manual
http://www.motortrend.com/cars/chevrolet/camaro/2016/2016-chevrolet-camaro-ss-review-verdict/

So with the worst tires and the worst suspension setup for drag racing, a bone stock GT PP 6M is only 1.6% slower on the 1/4 mile than the R/T Scat Pack with a much larger and more powerful engine + an 8-speed auto, and only 2.4% slower on the 1/4 mile than the 6M 2SS (a more fair comparison) they tested.

The GT PP's figure 8 is right in between the SS and R/T Scat Pack and it's road holding in on par with the SS that had Magneride and reasonably decent tires (compared to the Pirellies, look at the Tire Rack testing results).

I think that's a far cry from a "massive" performance discrepancy your claiming. And it managed to do that with inferior tires and an overly compliant IRS compared to it's two rivals...as I said, all you need to do is put on comparable tires and a few key IRS changes (cradle lock out, diff bushings, toe link bearings) and it will catch up to the fastest car on the 1/4 mile with no engine modifications, I'd even wager the figure 8 might improve a bit.

Don't forget a stock GT PP beat out on the track the venerable E92 M3, 911 Boxster (I forget what year and trim level) and the very fast 2012 BOSS 302 (which by the way runs a 12.3 1/4 mile bone stock).

Here's a GT PP owner that actually did the very thing that I'm talking about (Project Midnight): https://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23495

Look at what Braski did with just a PP2 (worth only 24 hp, about two tenths, maybe three at most), DR's and a complete IRS make over. Take away the power adder and your in the low 12's with just tires and suspension on a 6M GT PP car. Why so much faster than the stock 12.8 with no extreme tunes, slew of bolt on etc.? Because he fixed the IRS issues and put tires on that allowed the power to be put down. Braski will not hesitate to tell you how bad the IRS compliance issues were when he first started.

The fastest nearly stock SS over on the Gen 6 forum (had DR's on it), an A8 mind you at one of the most favorable DA's I've seen, only gained a single tenth by switching to DR's with no other changes. Why? Because the car is already tapped out from the factory. The very tall 2.66 first gear puts down a lot less wheel torque than the 3.657 1st gear in the GT even though the LS 6.2 is making around 70 to 80 lbs-ft more in the lower RPM band. A LOT less torque. The SS's taller gearing allows for better use of traction, too much torque and you break traction, breaking traction = wasted power. IRS compliance = wasted power. Having more torque than you can put down isn't useful and makes for a difficult launch in a manual.

The GT is a bargain performer if you address it's character flaws. It's not an engine power problem like your saying. It's a getting the power down problem and it's well documented in every review I've seen. You just can't get the thing to launch decent. It's fiddly, choppy and squirmy, but it's also pretty easy to fix if you care about that 1.6% or 2.4% for bragging rights.

 

[TheLion]

By the way, getting back to the original purpose of this thread: http://www.allfordmustangs.com/forums/3155993-post40.html

While that's for 2011 to 2012's, my 2016 uses the same darn configuration. It has a single fixed tension belt driving the AC compressor that's separate from the serpentine that's running the water pump and alternator. If you do have an abnormally loud ticking, try turning on the AC and then turning it off, if it's the belt, it should change depending on weather the AC is on or off.

Also if you do your research, MC Semi-Syn is actually a very good motor oil. Around 50% to 60% base stock is group VI which is better than many "full synthetics" on the market that are made up mostly of group III's. The additive packages are also tailored for Ford's engine architectures. There's no reason you can't run MC Semi-syn that it comes with. Their extreme testing that is done during design validation is done using the factory oil. That includes 3,000 hours at WOT of simulated wear, -40F cold starts, tear down and wear analysis, thermal shock testing, real drive testing etc.

The more power we push through petrol chemical engines, the more sensitive they become to changes. Oil falls into that equation as well. Read through the engine testing and validation Ford does using MC Semi-syn, tell me it isn't good enough...if your engine runs quite on MC Semi-Syn but not on brand X why do you NEED to change it to something else? I've seen articles of engines last 300k to 500k on conventional dino oils not nearly as good as MC semi-syn. All they did was change it every 3k like clock work. It's cheap, it's good quality, it's widely available and if your "magic sauce" of choice is causing issues, why not go back to the factory oil? Then if something does happen or the problem gets worse, they can't blame the oil.

Defects do happen, not one auto manufacturer is immune to them. My Ecoboost Mustang had a belt tensioner that failed at some point, I don't know the exact mileage, but it didn't completely fail. It was slipping the belt but not enough to cause complete failure. The car was running hot and I couldn't figure out why. I eventually realize the tensioner had a snapped coil and was only providing part of the desired pressure to the belt. So the 2.3 was running hot, but not hot enough for the nannies to kick in. Replaced under warranty. That's what warranties are for. Just be careful with what you do and be wise and patient enough to time it properly.

As I said before, I'll say it again, why not wait for a year or two before modding the engine? Why not focus on suspension, handling and tires first which is where the car is actually deficient from the factory....why not learn to use what's already there and use that time to thoroughly test the engine for mechanical defects (by just driving it and maintaining it). If a defect is lurking it will manifest sooner rather than later and will be eligible to be covered by Ford, not you. If you mod the engine heavily first and that defect rears its ugly head, now your on the hook. I'm not suggesting to NOT tap into all the latent potential that's built into the 5.0L from the factory, because it's pretty well known they purposefully built in headroom, but rather to wait until you have confidence it's mechanically sound and your familiar with what noises are and are not normal before pushing it further. Don't do what I did with my Ecoboost and jump into modding the crap out of it right away (which i did because I simply wasn't satisfied with the 2.3's power output, but that's a completely different engine and story all together, the 5.0 is a far cry from the 2.3).

 

[usgiorgi]

2015 R/T Scat Pack -
4367 lbs
4.2 sec 0-60
12.6 sec 1/4 mile
25.3 second figure 8
0.92 g road holding
8-speed Automatic
http://www.motortrend.com/cars/dodge/charger/2015/2015-dodge-charger-rt-scat-pack-first-test/

2015 GT PP -
3810 lbs
4.4 sec 0-60
12.8 sec 1/4 mile
24.7 second figure 8
0.96 g road holding
6-speed Manual
http://www.motortrend.com/cars/ford/mustang/2015/2015-ford-mustang-gt-first-test/

2016 2SS -
3696 lbs
4.3 sec 0-60
12.5 second 1/4 mile
23.9 second figure 8
0.96 g road holding
6-speed Manual
http://www.motortrend.com/cars/chevrolet/camaro/2016/2016-chevrolet-camaro-ss-review-verdict/

So with the worst tires and the worst suspension setup for drag racing, a bone stock GT PP 6M is only 1.6% slower on the 1/4 mile than the R/T Scat Pack with a much larger and more powerful engine + an 8-speed auto, and only 2.4% slower on the 1/4 mile than the 6M 2SS (a more fair comparison) they tested.

The GT PP's figure 8 is right in between the SS and R/T Scat Pack and it's road holding in on par with the SS that had Magneride and reasonably decent tires (compared to the Pirellies, look at the Tire Rack testing results).

I think that's a far cry from a "massive" performance discrepancy your claiming. And it managed to do that with inferior tires and an overly compliant IRS compared to it's two rivals...as I said, all you need to do is put on comparable tires and a few key IRS changes (cradle lock out, diff bushings, toe link bearings) and it will catch up to the fastest car on the 1/4 mile with no engine modifications, I'd even wager the figure 8 might improve a bit.

Don't forget a stock GT PP beat out on the track the venerable E92 M3, 911 Boxster (I forget what year and trim level) and the very fast 2012 BOSS 302 (which by the way runs a 12.3 1/4 mile bone stock).

Here's a GT PP owner that actually did the very thing that I'm talking about (Project Midnight): https://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23495

Look at what Braski did with just a PP2 (worth only 24 hp, about two tenths, maybe three at most), DR's and a complete IRS make over. Take away the power adder and your in the low 12's with just tires and suspension on a 6M GT PP car. Why so much faster than the stock 12.8 with no extreme tunes, slew of bolt on etc.? Because he fixed the IRS issues and put tires on that allowed the power to be put down. Braski will not hesitate to tell you how bad the IRS compliance issues were when he first started.

The fastest nearly stock SS over on the Gen 6 forum (had DR's on it), an A8 mind you at one of the most favorable DA's I've seen, only gained a single tenth by switching to DR's with no other changes. Why? Because the car is already tapped out from the factory. The very tall 2.66 first gear puts down a lot less wheel torque than the 3.657 1st gear in the GT even though the LS 6.2 is making around 70 to 80 lbs-ft more in the lower RPM band. A LOT less torque. The SS's taller gearing allows for better use of traction, too much torque and you break traction, breaking traction = wasted power. IRS compliance = wasted power. Having more torque than you can put down isn't useful and makes for a difficult launch in a manual.

The GT is a bargain performer if you address it's character flaws. It's not an engine power problem like your saying. It's a getting the power down problem and it's well documented in every review I've seen. You just can't get the thing to launch decent. It's fiddly, choppy and squirmy, but it's also pretty easy to fix if you care about that 1.6% or 2.4% for bragging rights.

If you want to talk about tires, the scat pack comes with 245 wide rear ones. If you put 315s on just like I did, 0-60 happens in 4.0 seconds. With drag radials, it's 3.9. Quarter mile is high 11s stock with good tires. Same goes for the Camaro.

All new American V8 cars come with crappy tires except for the highest trim ones like the GT350. Why? Because people bought them and wondered why they needed new tires in 10k miles.

As far as waiting a year or two to do mods, you shouldn't have to wait out to see if your engine is going to fail before doing the mods. In a year or two, a much faster Mustang will exist. Just like people who bought 2016s could have waited a year or two to get 40-50 more RWHP in the 2018s. It only takes a few light hearted highway rolls with other v8s to realize that you're down on power in the Mustang. Ford is finally doing the right thing and adding power to compete with the Camaro, but it's still not enough.

 

[TheLion]

If you want to talk about tires, the scat pack comes with 245 wide rear ones. If you put 315s on just like I did, 0-60 happens in 4.0 seconds. With drag radials, it's 3.9. Quarter mile is high 11s stock with good tires. Same goes for the Camaro.

All new American V8 cars come with crappy tires except for the highest trim ones like the GT350. Why? Because people bought them and wondered why they needed new tires in 10k miles.

As far as waiting a year or two to do mods, you shouldn't have to wait out to see if your engine is going to fail before doing the mods. In a year or two, a much faster Mustang will exist. Just like people who bought 2016s could have waited a year or two to get 40-50 more RWHP in the 2018s. It only takes a few light hearted highway rolls with other v8s to realize that you're down on power in the Mustang. Ford is finally doing the right thing and adding power to compete with the Camaro, but it's still not enough.

But your not down on power....total power is total power....I don't understand why were arguing about this. It's possible Ford's engine tuning is more conservative and it's pulling timing more aggressively, so real power to the wheels across the rev range could be lower than stated, but not based on the dynos I've seen.

But you can't argue with the math. All one needs to do is integrate the total area under the curve of real dyno graphs using Rimann Sums, very easy to do, but a little time consuming. The LS 6.2 can't make any power past 6500 RPM. The 5.0L can. So while it's average power from 2k to 6.5k is around 20 to 40 less than the LS 6.2, that last 500 RPM where it's still making good power and the LS is now making 0 power makes up for the difference. If the gearing is appropriate for the 5.0's power band, weight is the same and the traction is the same, acceleration will be the same. Power is power.

Formula cars are a perfect example, they produce barely 300 lbs-ft of torque, not really impressive. But over 650 HP and rev up to 20,000 RPM. Power is work being done, period. Power is made by applying more moments of torque per a given unit of time. Which is why "low end torque" is a misnomer when people think that makes an engine powerful. Diesels rev up into the power band just like gas engines and their acceleration is quickest in the power band, not at the low end even if they are producing huge torque down low. Anyway, total power is what matters so unless some one can show total power is less than stated with the 5.0...the testing I've seen proves it. The LS 6.2's power band is peakier but more compact than the 5.0's, but LS's power band is stretched out over MUCH taller gearing (2.66 1st vs. 3.657, both run 3.73 final drive, huge difference).

Again I'll reference "project midnight" 2016 GT PP. 11.86 1/4 mile on a 6M with just a PP2 (24 hp peak gain), complete IRS work over and DR's. Car would run even faster with a better DA like the fastest A8 and 6M Gen 6 SS's were seeing (-1,000 and -800 DA with 50F weather...).

Take a look at Road and Tracks testing of a 2016 SS A8 and the 2015 GT PP which is a more direct comparrison, similar weather, same location. Both cars hit 150 in 26 seconds. The GT PP did it in 26.4 and the SS A8 did it in 26.7. Motor Trend also got 25.4s to 150 on their 2015 GT PP. 5-60 mph on both cars is almost 5 seconds flat (5.1 on GT vs. 5.2 on the SS). Now look at the 0-60 times. 4.2 for the A8 SS and 4.6 for the 6M GT. Sounds pretty inline with everyone else, a .4~.5 second difference to 60 mph. The GT PP is over geared, it can't get the power down at launch and the oh so finicky IRS exacerbates the issue even more, forget the Pirellies. All those things are working against the car. Put an LS 6.2 in a mustang with no gearing changes, IRS changes, axle changes and it will run the same (in fact 0-60 will be even worse because you'll need another shift to hit 60 with a redline of 6500). Again, it's not a power problem, it's a putting the power down problem.

I break traction in 2nd gear at 40 with 275's on the street! Heck, if it's cool enough I break traction in 3rd some times as well with a stock 5.0. It just can't get the power down. Bone stock it hopped like mad in 1st and 2nd, some what in 3rd and it just felt sluggish off the line, like it couldn't get moving, but it wasn't because of a lack of power, it was because I had no way to get that power down.

Both the SS and GT need a 1-2 shift to hit 60. The SS hits 53 mph in 1st, while the GT hits 42 mph. So the SS is not actually using it's full engine power band in 2nd gear by the time it hits 60, most of that work is being done over 1st gear, where the GT is doing nearly 2x the work because it revs out in 1st and 2nd to hit 60. However the GT in reality can't come close to using full power in 1st or even 2nd. Problem is the torque is so huge in 1st due to gearing, much of it can't be used because we don't have infinite traction....far from it. The SS is geared just right to do as much work as possible with real traction limits. You can floor it pretty soon after you get going and apply power once it bites, but with the GT your guessing as to how much throttle you apply before breaking traction.

That's why people can only launch a GT on the street at 2400~2600 RPm while the SS is launching at 4k or higher. So why would a more powerful engine need to rev so much higher into it's power band than the less powerful engine? Gearing. So unless the 5.0 is making less power or it's gearing just isn't using it's power band effectively, then acceleration should be the same. Now the SS is much easier to put the power down in because of it's suspension tuning, gearing and how GM put a lot of work into drive train flex to minimize wheel hop. It's just not a common SS problem stock to wheel hop, but it's a huge problem in a GT.

Skinnier tires don't always mean less traction. There's an optimal width of the tire vs. the weight of the car for a given compound and surface. It's comes down to surface grip, compound properties and force per a square inch. Too wide of a tire can actually cause less grip if the down-force is not adequate, same with too narrow. It's not a bigger is always better situation. The charger is a heavy car, it produces a lot more force per a square inch, wider tires may not be as necessary as they are on the lighter cars, it also has different rubber compound on the stock tires than the SS or GT. To be fair, all would need the same tire compound, same track surface, ambient etc.

And ALL cars will run faster on a prepped track surface. So comparing gains from a rubber laden prepped track for an SS or R/T Scat Pack with sticky DR's vs. a GT on the street with street tires is far from fair and about as biased as it gets.... GT sees gains from a prepped track as well. In fact there's a bone stock GT 6M that ran a 12.5 and an auto that ran a 12.3 on the bone stock on stock tires fast list. That auto ran .6 seconds faster on the 1/4 than the review mags managed on the street! How do you like them apples? Your supposedly slow GT beat your review mag test times by .3 seconds, with a base model 3.15 running 235's no less!

 

[usgiorgi]

2015-17 GT dynos around 370-380 at the rear wheels right?
2018 GT dynos around 410-415 stock.
Scat pack dynos around 430-440
Camaro SS dynos around 415-420.

I'm not sure why you're saying that 15-17 Mustangs aren't down on power. All acceleration figures and dyno figures have the Mustang being slower. What are you arguing exactly? There's a reason why the 2018 is so much faster and walks the scat packs and camaros past 100mph stock for stock.

All conditions the same, drag radials, prepped track, stock everything else, the 2015-17 Mustang is slower than the competitors. End of story. That's why people mod their cars and not wait 2 years as you suggest. You go to the local drag strip and line up next to a 6th gen Camaro when you're both stock, you're gonna get spanked in the Mustang. Unless you have the 2018 10 speed.

Sponsored