BBQ tick - another attempt to understand

[stangman638]

I would agree to it being possible, if it wasn't for adding Ceratec making it instantly go away.

Strangely the ticks makes the same noise my active exhaust makes when i change modes.. it almost does sound like it

Sponsored

 

[barron64]

If this tick is piston slap, which I do not believe at this point, shouldn't the ticking sound we hear be magnified X 8?

 

[Condor1970]

If this tick is piston slap, which I do not believe at this point, shouldn't the ticking sound we hear be magnified X 8?

Not necessarily. As the engine wears in, the clearance may open up slightly, and slight slap may occur since the skirts on the new piston design are very short. If it does make slight contact during its cycle, that impact may be so slight that it may be audible, but really doesn't cause any harm. Especially if it occurs at lower rpm, and low load. Usually when these engines got very hot from running hard, they tend to seal up more and the tick goes away. Not always though. If that slap becomes extremely loud to the point where there is serious metal to metal contact, you'll even start seeing metal in your oil filter and oil burning from rings not sealing properly.
All I know, is using high end friction modifiers like Ceratec, are definitely quieting down these engines.

Technically, every engine has a certain amount of piston slap. It's the very inherent nature of a reciprocating piston design. It just depends on how much, and whether or not you can notice it.

I'm starting to think a lot of this slap occurs more often in the 2018's because of the higher compression ratio causing more force on the piston which in turn has a little more forcible impact on the cylinder wall during its cycle. This is obviously going to be more audible.

 

[accel]

Ceratec is the most successful at taming existing engine tick. I wonder if adding it to oil preventatively might be an option. At link below they say it can be used during break in.

https://www.liqui-moly.com/en/servi.../news/dual-protection-with-cera-tec-3477.html

In new vehicles, CERA TEC supports engine break-in and protects against excessive wear.

We have a bunch of ticking users who added ceratec. I wonder if those who just got new short/long block or those who have non ticking engine, but are paranoid after reading this forum should try it.

At this point I can say I wish I used it preventatively.

 

[TheLion]

Just some food for though with some real testing data, this was from Bob Is The Oil Guy's blog (bold italics for emphasis, I do NOT agree with all of his statements, but he does have some real data to compare to King Bearing's Theory):

Consider the following:
.
Below is actual motor oil viscosity test data that came out of my Engineering Tests on Motor Oil film strength/load carrying capability/shear resistance:
.
20 wt oils rank between number 2 and 212
.
30 wt oils rank between number 1 and 223
.
40 wt oils rank between number 5 and 211
.
50 wt oils rank between number 37 and 220
.
The one 60wt oil tested ranks 97 out of 223

The one 70wt oil tested ranks 169 out of 223
.
So, as you can see, the various oil viscosities all overlap each other regarding their wear protection ranking position, which clearly shows that oil viscosity does NOT play a role in an oil’s wear protection capability. An oil’s wear protection capability is determined by its base oil and its additive package “as a whole”, with the primary emphasis on the additive package, which contains the extreme pressure anti-wear components. And that has nothing to do with viscosity.
.
Oil “flow” is lubrication, and using thicker oil will simply reduce critical oil flow for no good reason. Plain bearings, such as rod and main bearings, are components that are not designed to be lubricated just by an oil film, they are designed to be lubricated by a flow of liquid oil. Keep in mind that oil pressure is NOT what keeps these parts separated. Oil pressure is a measurement of resistance to flow, and the pressure only serves to supply/move the oil to the clearance between the bearings and the crankshaft journals, and of course to move oil throughout the entire engine. The crankshaft journals and its bearing shells are kept separated by an incompressible hydrodynamic liquid oil wedge that is formed as the liquid oil is pulled in between the spinning parts. All liquids are incompressible (that’s how hydraulics work, including brakes with their watery thin brake fluid), so it does NOT matter what the viscosity of any liquid is. Thick oil or thin oil will create the same incompressible liquid oil wedge.
.
As long as sufficient oil is supplied by reasonable oil pressure to maintain that critical incompressible hydrodynamic liquid oil wedge, the crank journals and bearings cannot come in contact with each other, so no wear can occur. And the higher flow rate of thinner oil, supplies more oil volume to the main and rod bearings, which helps ensure that the critical incompressible hydrodynamic liquid oil wedge is always maintained.
.
Thinner oil will of course flow out from the bearing clearance quicker than thicker oil will. But, by making sure the engine provides “sufficient oil pressure”, the oil supply will always be greater than the oil flowing out, which will maintain that all important incompressible hydrodynamic liquid oil wedge. As long as an M3/M5 engine generates at least 65 psi of oil pressure at higher rpm with thin oil, it will be in good shape.
.
Oil flow is also what carries heat away from internal engine components. Those engine components are DIRECTLY oil cooled, but only INdirectly water cooled. And better flowing thinner oil will keep critical engine components cooler because it carries heat away faster than slower flowing thicker oil can. This is especially important with plain main and rod bearings, since the flow of oil through the bearings is what cools them. If you run thicker oil than needed, you will needlessly drive up engine component temps.
.
Here are some comparison numbers from an 830 HP road race engine on the track:
.
15W50 oil = 80 psi = 265* oil sump temperature
.
5W20 oil = 65 psi = 240* oil sump temperature
.
Here you can see how the thicker oil flowed more slowly through the bearings, thus getting hotter, driving up bearing temperatures and increasing sump temperatures. And the thinner oil flowed more freely and quickly through the bearings, thus cooling and lubricating them better than thicker oil. And this means the oil coming out from the bearings, and going into the sump, is also cooler. And that is why we see the cooler sump temps with this road race engine example.
.
If an engine is running hot, use a thinner oil to increase flow, increase internal component cooling, and help keep sump temperatures down. Keeping oil temps down is important to help keep oil below the threshold of thermal breakdown.
.
Almost no engine should ever need to run oil thicker than a multi-viscosity 30 weight. The lower the hot viscosity rating, the number after the W, the better the hot flow. For example, hot 5W30 flows WAY better than hot 10W60. Thinner oil will also typically increase HP because of less viscous drag and reduced pumping losses, compared to thicker oils.
.
The churning action of rotating and reciprocating internal engine components, along with oil spraying out from between pressurized components, and overall windage, all contribute in varying degrees, to causing the engine oil to become aerated, which is exhibited by air bubbles/foam in the oil. Air bubble-filled foamy oil, is what typically causes engines running on a dyno to experience oil pressure drops, assuming they have acceptable oil drain-back from the top end, and are keeping the oil pump pickup submerged. Also, air bubble-filled foamy oil, is what typically causes engines being run hard in cars, to experience drops in oil pressure, assuming the oil pump pickup is still submerged in oil. And if that isn’t bad enough, air bubble-filled, foamy oil cannot lubricate critical internal components properly. For proper lubrication of critical components, you need incompressible “liquid” oil, NOT compressible air bubble-filled foamy oil.
.
This is an issue to take very seriously, if you want to provide your engine with the best possible lubrication protection. If this aerated oil issue is bad enough, it can cause wear, damage or outright engine failure. And it can be extremely difficult to diagnose, in the event of an outright engine failure. Because when you take the engine apart for examination, you typically can’t find anything wrong at all, other than say the rod and/or main bearings that failed. That’s because the air bubbles/foam are long gone by then.
.
Heavy thick oil such as 10W60, is of course 60 weight oil at normal operating temperature, is slower to release and eliminate air bubbles/foam, than thinner oil such as 5W30 which is 30 weight oil at normal operating temperature. Motor oils do of course contain anti-foaming agents to help control (though not altogether eliminate) air bubbles/foam. But, the air bubbles that will still be present in the oil anyway, have to travel through the oil to be released. And thicker heavier oils slow down that process, leaving compromised lubrication. However, thinner oil such as 5W30, allows air bubbles to travel through the oil and be released quicker, making it a better viscosity choice to fight motor oil aeration issues, and provide the best possible lubrication protection for your engine.
.
Thinner oil will also drain quicker back to the sump, to help keep the oil level high enough to prevent the oil pump pickup from sucking air during hard braking or cornering, in wet sump systems.
.
CONCLUSION
.
Short of rebuilding those engines correctly with proper clearances, which is what is actually needed, the one thing owners can easily do to significantly help with this rod bearing problem, is to run a much thinner oil than the insanely thick 10W60 that BMW had specified for years. I recommend selecting a highly ranked 5W30 API SN oil from my Wear Protection Ranking List, which will make a HUGE improvement in rod bearing oil flow/lubrication/cooling, compared to the more commonly used super thick 10W60. This one significant change may well prevent having to rebuild those engines, and would go a long way toward eliminating rod bearing failures in many M3/M5’s.

But regardless of all these arguments, 20 and 30 weight oils are very close in viscosity, especially as they heat up and thin out and the tighter the clearances AND the higher the temps, the less of a difference, they become indistinguishable. The MOFT of 10W-30 relative to 0W-20 is only about 5 microns thicker, 50 uInch vs. 45 uInch, at 8,000 RPM, in King Bearings calculations. Even less at just 2,000 RPM. 5W-30 to 5W-20 will be even less yet. I actually e-mailed Dr. Dimitiri Kopeliovich, the lead R&D engineer for King bearings who did these calculations about this very thing and this was his reply:

Possibly you know that I work as The Director of Research & Development for King Engine Bearings. I also provide private consulting and investigations on any subject relating engine bearings operation, design, materials, failures, etc.
I prefer oil grades and lubrication conditions providing durable and reliable operation of the bearings. Sometimes those conditions contradict to the requirements of minimizing fuel consumption and environmental pollution.
Two major parameters of hydrodynamic lubrication are most important for protection of bearing material: minimum oil film thickness, which should be as great as possible and uniformity of distribution of pressure over the oil film.
The first parameter is responsible for prevention of metal-to-metal contact and minimizing wear. The second parameter affects probability of the material fatigue. I do not think that difference between the oil grades is very significant, but in order to make a conclusion a series of hydrodynamic calculations should be performed.
I can calculate hydrodynamic parameters (mi. oil film thickness, oil temperature rise, power loss, oil pressure distribution, oil flow rate) for the three oil grades at three different oil clearances and at three different rotation speeds. Totally 27 runs of calculations. The results will allows determination of optimal oil grade for different conditions.
Best regards,
Dr. Dmitri Kopeliovich
Engine Bearings Consultant
Smooth Sliding
www.smoothsliding.com
[email protected]

The data I posted above in the graph showing MOFT between 0W-20 and 10W-30, the extreme spread of 20 and 30 weights was a mere 5 microns for a thin 20 weight vs. a thick 30 weight....consider that your filter is 95% efficiency at catching particles of 30 microns or lager. That's a 50% margin of film thickness to prevent particulate wear during hydrodynamic operation. 5 microns film thickness is not going to make any meaningful difference, but it certainly isn't going to hurt either.

I do not believe there is any harm in running 5W-30, but nor do I believe there is any meaningful benefit. If you need greater film strength, I believe that better cooling is more ideal, but a thicker oil can be used in a pinch for a rare track session or hot average climates. Consider the following:

1. 5W-30 becomes 5W-20 with only a 25F to 30F temperature rise. Track conditions can easily push oil temps well above their ideal 212 F nominal operating temperature and the maximum oil temperature that is safe to operate the 5.0 at under it's entire load and rev range is 280F.

2. Thicker oils such as 5W-30 can be used to compensate for lack of cooling to a degree, but also result in higher average temperatures of both the oil and bearings, so while film thickness maybe slightly greater, the bearing clearances and volume of flow also are reduced because of increased thermal expansion and lower flow rates. This increases expansion stresses on the bearing shell.

There is simply more localized heating within the bearing. Thicker is ONLY better to a degree and 20 to 30 weight oils seem to be the most ideal range with common production bearing clearances in the 0.0015 to 0.0025 inch range. The 2nd generation 5.0's nominal clearances is approximately 0.0019 inch with an extreme spread of 0.0011 to 0.0027 inches for reference (Source: Ford OE Shop manual for 2015 to 2018 Mustangs)

3. Air to oil coolers such as the thermostat controlled unit from Mishimoto can result in a peak oil temperature reduction of about 55F, so the MOFT with OE spec 5W-20 and an oil cooler will be more ideal than running 5W-40 viscosity with stock cooling on track days. Remember you want to keep the oil temperature as close to 212F as possible for under as much of the load range conditions as possible. At some point there is no real benefit with increased MOFT and in order to get a higher MOFT you incure substantial losses in other areas. If the bearing surfaces are NOT making contact and the contamination particles are not large enough to cause wear due to the thickness of the hydrodynamic oil wedge, than any further increase in MOFT is meaningless under the operating conditions.

4. Higher MOFT does not mean higher load support, fluid is in-compressible. Bearing surface area, clearances and general size are what determine load capability. For all practical purposes, 60 weight film will collapse under the same peak loads in the same bearing that a 20 weight film would collapse under.

5. Negative consequences of running thick oil all the time is increased cold start wear and higher pumping losses as well as higher oil temperatures which result in increased thermal breakdown rates of the oil, especially during track sessions. This is more of a short term fix for the occasional limited track sessions rather than those who track regularly. Using the recommended viscosity with a thermostat regulated air to oil cooler is more ideal.

6. MOFT has little impact on protection against knock or surge events. If the oil film collapses due to knock squishing out a 45 micron film, a 70 micron film isn't going to provide any meaningful added protection. It's not going to "cushion" more. A higher MOFT's real benefits are to compensate for thinning due to temperature rise (or bias film thickness for low RPM, high torque use which prevents wear) and to prevent particulate contact of the bearing walls (especially at low RPM). However if temperature is controlled to a greater degree and particulate size is limited to harmless magnitudes, there is no real benefit to a greater MOFT.

It is generally safe to run one higher hot viscosity, weather or not it provides any meaningful changes is debatable.

 

[Angry50]

Just some food for though with some real testing data, this was from Bob Is The Oil Guy's blog (bold italics for emphasis, I do NOT agree with all of his statements, but he does have some real data to compare to King Bearing's Theory):



But regardless of all these arguments, 20 and 30 weight oils are very close in viscosity, especially as they heat up and thin out and the tighter the clearances AND the higher the temps, the less of a difference, they become indistinguishable. The MOFT is only about 5 microns thicker, 50 uInch vs. 45 uInch, at 8,000 RPM, in King Bearings calculations. Even less at just 2,000 RPM. I actually e-mailed Dr. Dimitiri Kopeliovich, the lead R&D engineer for King bearings who did these calculations and this was his reply:



The data I posted above in the graph showing MOFT between 0W-20 and 10W-30, the extreme spread of 20 and 30 weights was a mere 5 microns....you filter is 95% efficiency at catching particles of 30 microns or lager. That's a 50% margin of film thickness to prevent particulate wear during hydrodynamic operation. And 5 microns film thickness is not going to make any meaningful difference but it certainly isn't going to hurt either.

I do not believe there is any harm in running 5W-30, but nor do I believe there is any meaningful benefit. If you need greater film strength, I believe that better cooling is more ideal, but a thicker oil can be used in a pinch for a rare track session or hot average climates. Consider the following:

1. 5W-30 becomes 5W-20 with only a 25F to 30F temperature rise. Track conditions can easily push oil temps well above their ideal 212 F nominal operating temperature. The benefits of running thicker oils is SOMEWHAT offset by increased oil and bearing temperatures.

2. Thicker oils such as 5W-30 can be used to compensate for lack of cooling to a degree, but also result in higher average internal temperatures of both the oil and bearings, so while film thickness maybe slightly greater, the bearing clearances and volume of flow also are reduced because of increased thermal expansion and lower flow rates. This increases expansion stresses on the bearing shell. There is simply more localized heating within the bearing. Thicker is ONLY better to a degree and 20 to 30 weight oils seem to be the most ideal range with common production bearing clearances in the 0.0015 to 0.0025 inch range. The 2nd generation 5.0's nominal clearances is approximately 0.0019 inch with an extreme spread of 0.0011 to 0.0027 inches for reference.

3. Air to oil coolers such as the thermostat controlled unit from Mishimoto can result in a peak oil temperature reduction of about 55F, so the MOFT with OE spec 5W-20 and an oil cooler will be more ideal than running 5W-40 viscosity with stock cooling on track days. Remember you want to keep the oil temperature as close to 212F as possible for under as much of the load range conditions as possible. At some point there is no real benefit with increased MOFT, it is only perceived. If the bearing surfaces are NOT making contact and the contamination particles are not large enough to cause wear due to the thickness of the hydrodynamic oil wedge, than any further increase in MOFT is meaningless under the operating conditions.

4. Higher MOFT does not mean higher load support, fluid is in-compressible. Bearing surface area, clearances and general size are what determine load capability.

5. Negative consequences of running thick oil all the time is increased cold start wear and higher pumping losses as well as higher oil temperatures which result in increased thermal breakdown rates of the oil, especially during track sessions. This is more of a short term fix for the occasional limited track sessions rather than those who track regularly. Using the recomended viscosity with a thermostat regulated air to oil cooler is more ideal.

6. MOFT has little impact on protection against knock or surge events. If the oil film collapses due to knock squishing out a 45 micron film, a 70 micron film isn't going to provide any meaningful added protection. It's not going to "cushion" more. A higher MOFT's real benefits are to compensate for thinning due to temperature rise (or bias film thickness for low RPM, high torque use which prevents wear) and to prevent particulate contact of the bearing walls (especially at low RPM). However if temperature is controlled to a greater degree and particulate size is limited to harmless magnitudes, there is no real benefit to a greater MOFT.

7.

this is a huge essay to sound smart, fact is roush and whipple recommend 5w50 oil in their supercharged applications. internals are not changing there is no reason its safe for supercharged but not NA.

 

[TheLion]

this is a huge essay to sound smart, fact is roush and whipple recommend 5w50 oil in their supercharged applications. internals are not changing there is no reason its safe for supercharged but not NA.

They do it to compensate for heat to maintain a proper MOFT. Super chargers place a substantial thermal load on the engine above NA only operation. Not sure what's so mysterious about this or why your attacking my character....Ford Performance does NOT recommend a higher oil viscosity with their super charger system.

Both Rousch and Ford Performance co-developed the super chargers together, but their cooling solutions may be different, I'm not sure. What does this have to do with anything I've posted? I'm simply illustrating that going to a 5W-30 has almost no meaningful impact on rod bearing function, but that in agreement with GT Pony it's certainly not going to hurt anything either. And going to a 50 weight is solely to deal with thermally induced thinning.

I still contend that using an oil cooler is a better solution hands down to simply using thicker oil. The downside is added cost. FACT IS, in your words, all Ford Racing cars have oil coolers, diff coolers and trans coolers. But they all run the OE spec oil viscosity. 5W-50 for GT350 and S197 Track Packs and 5W-20 for their 2015 vanilla GT.

Thinner oil viscosity has to do with efficiency. Both fuel and power. There's more to it than ONLY CAFE standards. But thinner is NOT always better in every application nor is thicker always better. Engineering is about what is best for the application and there's no reliability issues with 5W-20 if you control the temperature of the oil. You can over heat a 5W-50 to the point of not begin adequate if you get it hot enough....temperature stability of the oil TRUMPS ALL else.

Temperature stability is achieve by two ways and both may be used simultaneously for the best results:

1. Added cooling
2. More temperature stable base oil blend (more limited in controlling viscosity)

Knowing this, I see no reason one couldn't track a car reliably with a common off the shelf oil like Valvoline 5W-20 and an oil cooler. According to GT Pony, Valvoline's new Dexos 1 Gen 2 certified formula is very shear resistant, so it is more "stay in grade". Combine that with proper temperature control and there's absolutely no need to run 5W-30 or anything higher.

 

[Angry50]

They do it to compensate for heat to maintain a proper MOFT. Super chargers place a substantial thermal load. Not sure what's so mysterious about this. Ford Performance does NOT recommend a higher oil viscosity with their system. Both Rousch and Ford Performance co-developed the super chargers together, but their cooling solutions may be different. What does this have to do with anything I've posted? I'm simply illustrating that going to a 5W-30 has almost no meaningful impact on rod bearing function. And going to a 50 weight is solely to deal with thermally induced thinning. Using an oil cooler is a better solution hands down.

if this was true they would sell an oil cooler in their kit you know to make money.. Ford Performance is the roush kit and its recommended 5w50. assuming daily driving which is probably 90% of them the oil should not see any more temp than an NA setup. Ford even recommends 5w30 for track, there is no harm in 5w50. most people will probably never notice a difference between any of the weights. im on 5w30 and ahve been looking into the switch to the T6 5w40.

 

[TheLion]

if this was true they would sell an oil cooler in their kit you know to make money.. Ford Performance is the roush kit and its recommended 5w50. assuming daily driving which is probably 90% of them the oil should not see any more temp than an NA setup. Ford even recommends 5w30 for track, there is no harm in 5w50. most people will probably never notice a difference between any of the weights. im on 5w30 and ahve been looking into the switch to the T6 5w40.

Where in the Ford Performance instructions does it say to use 5W-50? I downloaded them and cannot find a single mention of changing oil viscosity from the factory requirements. Also why does Roush state that all of their performance crate engines run on 5W-20 if 5W-50 always is better? It's right on their web site. Oil viscosity is tailored for the application. Your failing to comprehend that thicker does not always mean better protection. Temperature, bearing clearances and flow rates all affect the most ideal viscosity. Going up in viscosity from the original design is mostly used to compensate for inadequate cooling. Most people would rather spend $25 on a few quarts of thicker oil for a once a year track session than $650 for an oil cooler.

Also, there are many cases where ideal cooling solutions for track are over kill for street use. Some oil coolers (especially non-thermostat controlled ones) would over cool the oil for normal driving conditions and cause accelerated wear rates during cold start that daily drivers often see. There is no "one size fits all", "thicker oil is always better" bla bla bla. It is the same reason Ford did not engineer an Air to Oil cooler on the regular PP GT's but they did on the GT350 Track Packs. Cost, application etc. The applications are different and what works best for one does not for another. 5W-50 is a band aid to compensate for cooling issues. It works, but it's not ideal.

The 5W-50 will thin out to a 5W-30. With proper cooling a 5W-20 can provide the same protection as a 5W-50 without added cooling unless in your mind 50 weight is immune to the laws of physics.....what I've been trying to get at is that thicker is not always better in every case nor is it the most ideal solution in every case which seems to be the old school thinking. Running 5W-30 is NOT going provide any meaningful increase in MOFT or 5W-20. Seriously....a 5 micron increase in MOFT for a thick 10W-30 over a thin 0W-20 weight? 5W-30 vs. 5W-20 is even smaller. But I'm glad it makes you feel better, perhaps it's worth it's weight in warm and fuzzy feelings. I'm done arguing this. Your welcome to believe what ever you want and if running 5W-30 makes you feel like there's a meaningful benefit, then there's no harm in that.

 

[Angry50]

Where in the Ford Performance instructions does it say to use 5W-50? I downloaded them and cannot find a single mention of changing oil viscosity from the factory requirements. Also why does Roush state that all of their performance crate engines run on 5W-20 if 5W-50 always is better? It's right on their web site. Oil viscosity is tailored for the application. Your failing to comprehend that thicker does not always mean better protection. Temperature, bearing clearances and flow rates all affect the most ideal viscosity. Going up in viscosity from the original design is mostly used to compensate for inadequate cooling. Most people would rather spend $25 on a few quarts of thicker oil for a once a year track session than $650 for an oil cooler.

Also, there are many cases where ideal cooling solutions for track are over kill for street use. Some oil coolers (especially non-thermostat controlled ones) would over cool the oil for normal driving conditions and cause accelerated wear rates during cold start that daily drivers often see. There is no "one size fits all", "thicker oil is always better" bla bla bla. It is the same reason Ford did not engineer an Air to Oil cooler on the regular PP GT's but they did on the GT350 Track Packs. Cost, application etc. The applications are different and what works best for one does not for another. 5W-50 is a band aid to compensate for cooling issues. It works, but it's not ideal.

The 5W-50 will thin out to a 5W-30. With proper cooling a 5W-20 can provide the same protection as a 5W-50 without added cooling unless in your mind 50 weight is immune to the laws of physics.....what I've been trying to get at is that thicker is not always better in every case nor is it the most ideal solution in every case which seems to be the old school thinking. Running 5W-30 is NOT going provide any meaningful increase in MOFT or 5W-20. Seriously....a 5 micron increase in MOFT for a thick 10W-30 over a thin 0W-20 weight? 5W-30 vs. 5W-20 is even smaller. But I'm glad it makes you feel better, perhaps it's worth it's weight in warm and fuzzy feelings. I'm done arguing this. Your welcome to believe what ever you want and if running 5W-30 makes you feel like there's a meaningful benefit, then there's no harm in that.

im not reading your crazy essay, you have no authority anyone cares about. a bunch of people say 5w20 is for CAFE reasons too and can write essays even bigger lol. even if 5w50 provides no extra protection its also not hurting anything.

 

[Angry50]

also post this link to a 2018 ford performance install instructions

 

[GT Pony]

I'm simply illustrating that going to a 5W-30 has almost no meaningful impact on rod bearing function, but that in agreement with GT Pony it's certainly not going to hurt anything either.

Here's another thing to consider. This is from the Section entitled "Effects of Oil Viscosity" in the SubsTech link below:
http://www.substech.com/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=oil_clearance_and_engine_bearings

The other thing to consider is that the bearing's MOFT is lower at lower engine RPM, and a thicker oil will give more MOFT at lower RPM. It's worse for the rod and crankshaft bearings to "lug" the engine at lower RPM then it is to rev it up higher. It's possible to do more damage to journal bearings at lower RPM then at higher RPM because the bearing's lower RPM alone decreases the MOFT due to the hydrodynamic phenomenon of the bearing.

So IMO, this is another advantage of using 5W-30 over 5W-20 even on the street for every day driving. Even though xW-20 isn't shown in these graphs (wish it was), you get the idea/trend. Assume the bearings have a 0.002" clearance for illustrative purposes. Looking at 0W5 and 10W30 in the graphs at 0.002" bearing clearance:

MOFT @2000 RPM
0W5 = 18u
10W30 = 27u

MOFT @4000 RPM
0W5 = 23u
10W30 = 39u

MOFT @8000 RPM
0W5 = 36u
10W30 = 53u

The 10W30 gives more MOFT at 2000 RPM than the 0W5 does at 4000 RPM, and not much less than the 0W5 at 8000 RPM.
The 10W30 gives more MOFT at 4000 RPM than the 0W5 does at 8000 RPM.

The bottom line is that thicker oil will always give more MOFT at any RPM, but since journal bearings naturally have decreased MOFT at lower RPM I think a thicker oil is better even for lower RPM operation ... especially if "lugging" is going on.

As Dr. Dmitri Kopeliovich from SubsTech said in his email that you posted in Post #622 above:

"Two major parameters of hydrodynamic lubrication are most important for protection of bearing material: minimum oil film thickness, which should be as great as possible and uniformity of distribution of pressure over the oil film. The first parameter is responsible for prevention of metal-to-metal contact and minimizing wear."

The bottom line is that MOFT really matters when engine protection counts ... and that's true at all RPM. It can also be more beneficial at lower RPM than higher as shown above. Thicker oil's primary benefit at higher RPM is that it thins down less due to heat than a thinner oil, which also helps maintain adequate MOFT. So thicker oil benefits both ends of the RPM spectrum. Most people don't think about or realize that.

 

[TheLion]

also post this link to a 2018 ford performance install instructions

See attachment for Ford Performance SC installation instructions. If it's in there, please let me know but I can't find it.

Also here is the link to Roush's crate engines including their 600 HP Super Charged Coyote based crate engine:

https://www.roushperformance.com/engines/50l-coyote-rsc.html

https://www.roushperformance.com/engines/50l-coyote-ir.html

https://www.roushperformance.com/engines/50l-coyote-sr.html

They all call for 5W-20....but of course because one retro-fit application calls for 5W-50...all our engines now have inadequate protection using 5W-20... Your welcome to ignore or skip over any or all of my posts yet you keep responding to them and saying none one has to read them....then why are you reading them . I post a lot, get over it.

Oil viscosity should be chosen to suite the application. Thicker is NOT necessarily automatically better just as thinner is NOT necessarily automatically better. And when changing viscosity you have go thick enough to actually make a meaningful difference in providing better bearing film thickness.

20 weight to a 50 or 60 weight? Sure it will make a meaningful difference in film thickness in hydrodynamic lubrication regimes, but what what other costs to cooling? There is NO SUCH thing as a free lunch in real designs. It's always a trade off. Most oils are fairly close in HTHS, but can vary broadly in their viscosity at lower temperatures. At 100C is where most of the oil will spend it's time even at high RPM, because oil provides cooling to the oil squirters, is hydraulic fluid for the cam phasors and lash adjusters, is a carrier of EP additives for cams, valve guides, piston rings / skirts that all operate partially or entirely in boundary layer lubrication regimens....these are all affected by viscosity and flow rates.

For your viewing pleasures (I also read through the warranty statement, it BLATANTLY says void if not using Premium fuel, no mention of any requirement to use non-factory oil viscosity): https://performanceparts.ford.com/d...INSTSHTM-6066-M8627IM_2015-2017_VERSION_2.PDF

So 5W-20 is not adequate to protect rod bearings on an NA 2nd gen 5.0 or even a 3rd gen 5.0 revving out to 7,500 rpm, but it's adequate to protect a SC 670 HP 5.0 making nearly 50% more power all covered under warranty on the exact same internals...? Hummm....something doesn't make sense here.

Roush is NOT Ford Performance. They may differ in their ways of doing things, level of testing and invovlment of Ford OE engineers and what they believe is necessary, have tested etc. Roush makes you pay for your warranty as an extra fee, Ford Performance includes it with the purchase cost. Both require installation by an ASE certified tech for warranty. Roush offers Phase 1 and Phase 2 SC kits making more power on the same bottom end...FP offers only that one kit designed to make the most power they believe they can safely make. Two different goals and ways of making more power.

But why would the Voodoo 5.2 or Boss 302 use 5W-50? Larger clearances to accommodate greater thermal expansion of Forged Rods and Pistons as well as very high RPM operation under high thermal loads. But they also have piston slap when cold and higher blow by...nearly all of them due to clearances necessary for a Forged piston (more expansion than hypereutectic). Thicker oil is used for the larger clearances necessary for high thermal expansion rates of forged internals....makes sense, its a track bred engine. S197 track packs may call for 5W-50 to compensate for product cost limits. The project leads are not engineers, they are business men and there are limits to what they think the market will tolerate or wants. So 5W-50 is a compromise for the limits of a water to oil cooler under track use at the expense of greater cold start wear rates. They figure these folks are mostly only using these cars as weekend toys. I drive mine all year but not daily (2-3 times a week).

1. The forces related to RPM are far greater than the forces on the rod bearings due to the power stroke even with boost (Source: Corky Bell's book on Super Charging / Turbo Charging called Maximum Boost, he designed the SC for Tony Schumahers Top Fuel dragster)...hence why the same viscosity of oil can be used NA and SC.

2. 5W-20 can absolutely become too thin, so can 5W-30 or even 20W-60 if they are over heated. And the temperature threshold between 5W-20 and 5W-30 is about 20 F which isn't much, about 30F for 10W-30 to 0W-20. Run what you want, but it won't make much of positive difference in the end without going really thick, but there are significant trade offs when going that high of a viscosity. If you dead set on a higher HTHS viscosity, you would be better served by RedLine's 5W-20 that has an HTHS of 3.0 which exceeds the minimum HTHS of SAE 30 weights (2.9) but with better cold flow than ALL 5W-30's. The difference is even smaller when accounting for increased heating both of the oil and of the bearing surfaces themselves. Lower flow = less cooling.

Come on guys...5 micro-inches (12.5 microns)...that's about 1/3 the width of a human hair (40 microns) and we're sitting here arguing about how 5W-30 is going to provide more protection over 5W-20...doh! Will it work? Sure, but It's not really optimal for most of our applications, even if slightly so. Yet according to all of the data sheet's I've gathered, 5W-30's are about 20% thicker when cold than 5W-20's despite both being 5W....5W has a broad tolerance.

Just some food for though:

2nd Gen 5.0 Rod Bearing to Crank Clearance: 0.0011 to 0.0027 with a nominal of 0.0019 inches.

Tolerance on the clearances (machining uniformity) is 0.0008 inches.

So if it's making contact at 45 micro-inches...it's probably making contact at 50 micro-inches film thickness due to asperities of the surface...you would need to step up to a 40 or 50 weight to over come the non-uniformity all together if that were causing issues, so from a wear standpoint, it's inconsequential regarding rod bearings and film thickness....but hey 5W-30's are 20% thicker when cold!

We've become really good at collecting information. What most people today fail at doing entirely is to properly interpret the information in a meaningful way. We look at differences and say "hay, there is a difference I'm right and your wrong, thicker oil is better all the time no matter ha ha ha!"...yet the actual difference is so minuscule that it's irrelevant and there are negative trade offs as well.

Film Thickness from SusTech articles (since we are obsessing with Dr. Dmitri lately):

10W-30 @ 2,000 RPM is ~27 micro-inches
0W-20 @ 2,000 RPM is ~ 23 micro-inches

10W-30 @ 8,000 RPM is ~50 micro-inches
0W-20 @ 8,000 RPM is ~ 45 micro-inches

Average difference is only 5 micro-inches for the extreme spread of 20 and 30 weights. Cut that difference in half when comparing a thick 5W-20's (boutique oils like Ravenol, Driven, RedLine, AMSOIL etc.) to a thin 5W-30's (most of what's at Wal-mart like M1, Valvoline, Penzoil, Motorcraft, QuakerState etc.). I'm sticking with temp stable 5W-20's and added cooling capacity. Interestingly enough the Ford engineers recommended added cooling for track use. Maybe they do know something and there's more than JUST CAFE standards at work here. Alright, I"m done. I"ve made my case. GT Pony his and Angry50 his meaningless and non-helpful rants against my posting too much. Now we can all just be friends. Peace .

 

[TheLion]

Ceratec is the most successful at taming existing engine tick. I wonder if adding it to oil preventatively might be an option. At link below they say it can be used during break in.

https://www.liqui-moly.com/en/servi.../news/dual-protection-with-cera-tec-3477.html



We have a bunch of ticking users who added ceratec. I wonder if those who just got new short/long block or those who have non ticking engine, but are paranoid after reading this forum should try it.

At this point I can say I wish I used it preventatively.

Don't use it before the rings are seated. Otherwise you may prevent them from properly wearing it and you will see excessive oil consumption / blow by. Some one else asked LiquiMoly a while back and they said as long as the rings are seated your good to go. Other than that it can be used at any mileage. Same thing with TriboTEX and Archoil. Although TriboTEX provides the longest wear protection and works harmoniously with MoDTC and ZDDP. LiquiMoly says NOT to use MoS2 with their hBN based CeraTec. I've read studies where certain MoS2 formulas (yes there are more than one chemical composition) cause accelerated wear and increased friction with DLC coatings.

Just for a refresh:

CeraTec's and Achroil's EP properties are from Hexagonal Boron Nitride based DLC film.

TriboTEX EP properties are from a Synthetic Magnesium Silicate Hydroxide based DLC film and works well with organoMoly (MoDTC which forms MoS2) and ZDDP EP additives.

Not all Tribofilms are created equal

 

[Angry50]

See attachment for Ford Performance SC installation instructions. If it's in there, please let me know but I can't find it.

Also here is the link to Roush's crate engines including their 600 HP Super Charged Coyote based crate engine:

https://www.roushperformance.com/engines/50l-coyote-rsc.html

https://www.roushperformance.com/engines/50l-coyote-ir.html

https://www.roushperformance.com/engines/50l-coyote-sr.html

They all call for 5W-20....but of course because one retro-fit application calls for 5W-50...all our engines now have inadequate protection using 5W-20... Your welcome to ignore or skip over any or all of my posts yet you keep responding to them and saying none one has to read them....then why are you reading them . I post a lot, get over it.

Oil viscosity should be chosen to suite the application. Thicker is NOT necessarily automatically better just as thinner is NOT necessarily automatically better. And when changing viscosity you have go thick enough to actually make a meaningful difference in providing better bearing film thickness.

20 weight to a 50 or 60 weight? Sure it will make a meaningful difference in film thickness in hydrodynamic lubrication regimes, but what what other costs to cooling? There is NO SUCH thing as a free lunch in real designs. It's always a trade off. Most oils are fairly close in HTHS, but can vary broadly in their viscosity at lower temperatures. At 100C is where most of the oil will spend it's time even at high RPM, because oil provides cooling to the oil squirters, is hydraulic fluid for the cam phasors and lash adjusters, is a carrier of EP additives for cams, valve guides, piston rings / skirts that all operate partially or entirely in boundary layer lubrication regimens....these are all affected by viscosity and flow rates.

For your viewing pleasures (I also read through the warranty statement, it BLATANTLY says void if not using Premium fuel, no mention of any requirement to use non-factory oil viscosity): https://performanceparts.ford.com/d...INSTSHTM-6066-M8627IM_2015-2017_VERSION_2.PDF

So 5W-20 is not adequate to protect rod bearings on an NA 2nd gen 5.0 or even a 3rd gen 5.0 revving out to 7,500 rpm, but it's adequate to protect a SC 670 HP 5.0 making nearly 50% more power all covered under warranty on the exact same internals...? Hummm....something doesn't make sense here.

Roush is NOT Ford Performance. They may differ in their ways of doing things, level of testing and invovlment of Ford OE engineers and what they believe is necessary, have tested etc. Roush makes you pay for your warranty as an extra fee, Ford Performance includes it with the purchase cost. Both require installation by an ASE certified tech for warranty. Roush offers Phase 1 and Phase 2 SC kits making more power on the same bottom end...FP offers only that one kit designed to make the most power they believe they can safely make. Two different goals and ways of making more power.

But why would the Voodoo 5.2 or Boss 302 use 5W-50? Larger clearances to accommodate greater thermal expansion of Forged Rods and Pistons as well as very high RPM operation under high thermal loads. But they also have piston slap when cold and higher blow by...nearly all of them due to clearances necessary for a Forged piston (more expansion than hypereutectic). Thicker oil is used for the larger clearances necessary for high thermal expansion rates of forged internals....makes sense, its a track bred engine. S197 track packs may call for 5W-50 to compensate for product cost limits. The project leads are not engineers, they are business men and there are limits to what they think the market will tolerate or wants. So 5W-50 is a compromise for the limits of a water to oil cooler under track use at the expense of greater cold start wear rates. They figure these folks are mostly only using these cars as weekend toys. I drive mine all year but not daily (2-3 times a week).

1. The forces related to RPM are far greater than the forces on the rod bearings due to the power stroke even with boost (Source: Corky Bell's book on Super Charging / Turbo Charging called Maximum Boost, he designed the SC for Tony Schumahers Top Fuel dragster)...hence why the same viscosity of oil can be used NA and SC.

2. 5W-20 can absolutely become too thin, so can 5W-30 or even 20W-60 if they are over heated. And the temperature threshold between 5W-20 and 5W-30 is about 20 F which isn't much, about 30F for 10W-30 to 0W-20. Run what you want, but it won't make much of positive difference in the end without going really thick, but there are significant trade offs when going that high of a viscosity. If you dead set on a higher HTHS viscosity, you would be better served by RedLine's 5W-20 that has an HTHS of 3.0 which exceeds the minimum HTHS of SAE 30 weights (2.9) but with better cold flow than ALL 5W-30's. The difference is even smaller when accounting for increased heating both of the oil and of the bearing surfaces themselves. Lower flow = less cooling.

Come on guys...5 micro-inches (12.5 microns)...that's about 1/3 the width of a human hair (40 microns) and we're sitting here arguing about how 5W-30 is going to provide more protection over 5W-20...doh! Will it work? Sure, but It's not really optimal for most of our applications, even if slightly so. Yet according to all of the data sheet's I've gathered, 5W-30's are about 20% thicker when cold than 5W-20's despite both being 5W....5W has a broad tolerance.

Just some food for though:

2nd Gen 5.0 Rod Bearing to Crank Clearance: 0.0011 to 0.0027 with a nominal of 0.0019 inches.

Tolerance on the clearances (machining uniformity) is 0.0008 inches.

So if it's making contact at 45 micro-inches...it's probably making contact at 50 micro-inches film thickness due to asperities of the surface...you would need to step up to a 40 or 50 weight to over come the non-uniformity all together if that were causing issues, so from a wear standpoint, it's inconsequential regarding rod bearings and film thickness....but hey 5W-30's are 20% thicker when cold!

We've become really good at collecting information. What most people today fail at doing entirely is to properly interpret the information in a meaningful way. We look at differences and say "hay, there is a difference I'm right and your wrong, thicker oil is better all the time no matter ha ha ha!"...yet the actual difference is so minuscule that it's irrelevant and there are negative trade offs as well.

Film Thickness from SusTech articles (since we are obsessing with Dr. Dmitri lately):

10W-30 @ 2,000 RPM is ~27 micro-inches
0W-20 @ 2,000 RPM is ~ 23 micro-inches

10W-30 @ 8,000 RPM is ~50 micro-inches
0W-20 @ 8,000 RPM is ~ 45 micro-inches

Average difference is only 5 micro-inches for the extreme spread of 20 and 30 weights. Cut that difference in half when comparing a thick 5W-20's (boutique oils like Ravenol, Driven, RedLine, AMSOIL etc.) to a thin 5W-30's (most of what's at Wal-mart like M1, Valvoline, Penzoil, Motorcraft, QuakerState etc.). I'm sticking with temp stable 5W-20's and added cooling capacity. Interestingly enough the Ford engineers recommended added cooling for track use. Maybe they do know something and there's more than JUST CAFE standards at work here. Alright, I"m done. I"ve made my case. GT Pony his and Angry50 his meaningless and non-helpful rants against my posting too much. Now we can all just be friends. Peace .

lol another book im not reading.. roush recommends 5w50.. its not going to hurt anything.. people have been running it since 2011 (per factory recomendations) with no issues. climate may have an influence on what oil you want to use. Tuners have even recommended 5w50. in all honesty 90% of people wont notice any difference in 5w20 - 5w50. its mostly what makes you feel better

Sponsored