Sponsored

BBQ tick - another attempt to understand

GT Pony

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2015
Threads
77
Messages
9,205
Reaction score
4,113
Location
Pacific NW
Vehicle(s)
2015 GT Premium, Black w/Saddle, 19s, NAV
Viscosity Comparison Chart
MATERIAL
VISCOSITY (centipoises)
Water @ 70° F 1-5
Blood or Kerosene 10
Anti-Freeze or Ethylene Glycol 15
Motor Oil SAE 10 or Corn Syrup 50-100
Motor Oil SAE 30 or Maple Syrup 150-200
Motor Oil SAE 40 or Castor Oil 250-500
Motor Oil SAE 60 or Glycerin 1,000-2,000
Karo Corn Syrup or Honey 2,000-3,000
Blackstrap Molasses 5,000-10,000
Hershey Chocolate Syrup 10,000-25,000
Heinz Ketchup or French’s Mustard* 50,000-70,000
Tomato Paste or Peanut Butter 150,000-200,000
Crisco Shortening or Lard 1,000,000-2,000,000
Caulking Compound 5,000,000-10,000,000
Window Putty 100,000,000
Realize those are all at 70F. What is that in cSt (centistokes)?

Lard should quiet 'er down pretty good - but go for honey if you want the thinner stuff ... :like:
Sponsored

 

Furiosa GT

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2018
Threads
16
Messages
80
Reaction score
13
Location
Edmond, OK
First Name
Shawn
Vehicle(s)
2019 Mustang GT Premium
How many miles should be on the engine before adding Caretech or Tribotex?
 

TheLion

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Threads
68
Messages
1,621
Reaction score
585
Location
US
Vehicle(s)
Ruby Red 2016 Mustang GT PP 6-MT
How many miles should be on the engine before adding Caretech or Tribotex?
I would not suggest before at least 10k. Rings should seat rather soon, but you also want wear patterns to develop fully as well.
 

HermanGerman

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 17, 2018
Threads
0
Messages
57
Reaction score
52
Location
Berlin / Germany
First Name
Olaf
Vehicle(s)
Mustang GT 2018 AT
Vehicle Showcase
1
I would not suggest before at least 10k. Rings should seat rather soon, but you also want wear patterns to develop fully as well.
I introduced my Engine to a Bottle of Ceratech after around 5000km. the ticking is gone since then. Lubrication is restored and good. I think it runs smoother and takes less gas . ( a Little) 18l per 100 km in town and 12,5 l per 100km cruising. I did it because I just could not stand the ticking anymore. It was freaking me out and it was a great pain to listen to my beloved V8, sounding like a sack of seashells. It started ticking after 2000km after the first oil Change. horrible . If i would buy a new Mustang today, I would fill in Ceratech imediately after the dealer gives me the friggin key. I even would ask him to open the Hood for me and let him watch. The Cera tech is in my Engine since 4000 and some Change Kilometers. The Engine runs great and Lubrication is fine. I will use Ceratech after the next oilchange again. If there would be a mechanical Problem with my Motor it would be dead by now. I use it on the german Autobahn , fast, hard and i use it in Berlin Traffic with a lot stop and go. The Engine is alive and well. thanks to @TheLion and his Research. he helped a lot . Today My Stang has 9748 km on the watch and 33% Oil live until i have to Change that Oil. cheers from Germany and you all have a blessed Christmas
 
Last edited:

TheLion

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Threads
68
Messages
1,621
Reaction score
585
Location
US
Vehicle(s)
Ruby Red 2016 Mustang GT PP 6-MT
I doubt running 5W-30 would be catastrophic for the 5.0 for daily or track given how close they are, but I'm far from convinced it's optimal. There are differences between the 5.0 found in the S197 (1st gen 5.0), the 2015-2017 S550 (2nd gen 5.0) and the 2018+ S550 (3rd gen 5.0). The first gen did NOT have mid-lock cam phasors which are very sensitive to oil viscosity changes according to Ford Performance. The 2nd and 3r gen 5.0's do have mid-lock phasors.

Next the 2nd and 3rd gen 5.0's rotating assembly is designed to revv out to 7,500 RPM while the first gen is designed to revv out to only 6,800 rpm. Also the Road Runner 5.0 found in the Boss 302 is yet another animal NOT having mid-lock phasors, but it does have custom low volume specialized parts like powder forged rods, 300 lb valve springs, cnc ported heads etc. that were not mass production at the time and may have different tolerances and clearances than the 2nd gen. You have no idea what's going on inside the PCM software and what the program is assuming regarding oil pressure, viscosity and flow rates. Some parameters are assumed, period. The pump, while positive displacement is also a VARIABLE displacement pump with a bleeder solenoid. It's designed to have adaptive regulation generate optimal flow rates across as much of the RPM band as possible. https://www.autoserviceworld.com/carsmagazine/1003794277-2/

We seem to be forgetting the pump is designed to optimize flow rates and it is ECU controlled....it's not a simple fixed positive displacement pump that cannot compensate for rpm or viscosity changes due to thinning. There's a difference in how much heat and how much force is generated and the flow rates necessary to manage the heat.

70 PSI for example will result in less flow of a 30 weight than of a 20 weight and you can't get around that reality. The ECU is programmed to regulate a set pressure because the ECU has to assume it is running 5W-20 which is the factory spec oil in the 2nd gen 5.0. All of it's function and interaction with the variable displacement gerotor oil pump are going to be around achieving optimal flow rates of 5W-20, in fact motorcraft 5W-20. Even changing 5W-20's can change the intended behavior a bit, but not enough to be of concern.

It's ENTIRELY possible the 3rd gen 5.0's have some adaptive programming that allows for 5W-30 on the track to extend the track time (allowing for more heat buildup) than the 2nd gen 5.0's or to compensate for a higher stock operation RPM of 7,500 vs. 6,800. How do you know the regulator solenoid operates the same on 2nd gen 5.0 and 3rd gen 5.0? How about the pump itself? The rev limit on both the first and second gen 5.0 is set for 6,800. It's not 7,000 like most people assume, they assume that because it looks like 7,000 on the tack, but looking closely you'll notice the segment isn't equal length with the other 500 rpm segments.

I found that out by data logging and the revv limiter kicked in at 6800 every time when my 5.0 was stock. That's why 3.73 manuals feel like their gearing is just too short. Power Pack 2 ups the revv limit to 7,150 rpm. A nice gain. Power Pack 3 ups the revv limit even further (due to the GT350 intake manifold) to 7,450 rpm, same as the Boss 302. But I digress. Each one is NOT the same even if the rod and bearing clearances are the same.

There's a variable were NOT taking into account. All of these articles about oil temp vs. film thickness are assuming a constant pressure and flow rate to illustrate changes. If your flow rates are regulated by a variable displacement pump then you can maintain proper flow rates to compensate for temp. All of the calculations that people have provided to "prove" that thicker viscosity means better protection do NOT account for a variable pressure pump that can compensate for heating.

Higher flow rates will manage the heat by reducing dwell time of the oil, thus less localized thinning. Thinner oils also transfer thermal energy better than thicker oils. So better cooling is achieved by using higher flow rates and thinner oils as opposed to lower flow rates with thicker oils. Even if the flow rates were the same, thicker oils simply have higher thermal resistance. But now you change your oil to a higher viscosity than the ECU was calibrated for and your flow rates aren't what the ECU thinks they should be because it doesn't know the viscosity. It only knows to regulate a specific pressure and it's assuming it has achieved a specific flow rate....are you really gaining anything at all by running a higher viscosity oil? Or are you just spinning your wheels by over heating the thicker oil and thinning it back down again to what a 5W-20 would have been at a higher flow rate....all while achieving more cold start wear, less power and poorer fuel economy....and wear rates have far more to do with ZDDP content and oil formula than viscosity. Try running a 5W-30 premium oil without ZDDP and then run 5W-20 motorcraft semi-syn...your cams, rings, cylinders, timing chains will be shot by 40k miles.

There are plenty of cars with over 300k+ running 20 weight oils: https://www.torquenews.com/1083/dri...mile-toyota-prius-shares-high-mileage-secrets

Hybrids are very hard on oils because of the start / stop technology. Your constantly going into boundary layer lubrication. Many more times than a traditional engine would be. So engine wear has far more to do with boundary layer lubrication than it does with hydrodynamic or elastohydrodnamic. As long as the film is thick enough to over come surface roughness of the rubbing pairs and particular size it is irrelevant. If it ain't touching, it aint't touching!

I'm just trying to point out how many assumptions we are basing these suggestions on. Run thicker this or thicker that because a previous or newer variant calls for it. It's not the same. The ECU strategies are NOT the same. They have different operating RPM's, different cam phasors, different rods, crank and even the bearings are NOT the same etc. even if SOME of the clearances or the blocks are the same. If I had a 2018 I'd run 5W-30 ONLY on the track. It's interesting that the 2018's call for 5W-30 only for track use then to change it back to 5W-20 for all other usage.

But the 2013-2014 track packs call for 5W-50 all the time while the regular 2013-2014's call for 5W-20. Ford has been building engines for 5W-20 since what? 2001 back when they had the mod motors switch over. They ran a rod bearing and crank tolerance of +/- 0.0008. That 0.8 Thousands of an inch tolerance. I believe the clearances are 0.001 to 0.002 range and that was back on the 4.6 mod motors over 15 years ago.... Engines designed to run on thinner oils work just fine even under hard use. The only real downside is they are more sensitive to deposit wear if your filtering is not adequate. Smaller clearances = less tolerance for large particles in the oil causing abrasive wear. But we are running filters that are 95% eff. minimum for 10 micron particle sizes now with the FL-500S filters meeting USCAR36...the minimum oil film thickness of a 0W5 at 8,000 RPM is 30 micrometers...let alone a 5W20 which is going to be just below the 5W30 at around 45~50 microns under same conditions.

I'm sorry but I'm not going to base all of my information on some here say and conjecture from a supposed ex-employee. And you forget there is not a unanimous agreement among engineers. How do you know his testing methodology wasn't flawed but he was too darn stubborn to admit he was wrong? If I had a dollar for every time another engineer argued a false understanding....I'd be rich! If it's all CAFE why are many high end super cars calling for thinner viscosity oils? Ferrari, McLauren and many other very low volume auto makers could care less about CAFE in the US and there is no such requirement for Europe yet they are running thinner oils as well in many of their cars. Different designs and applications all have different requirements that are optimal and the designers use what works best for that particular application.

There just might be some benefits the know it all's just don't know about...if we change a part from factory, the factory spec may no longer be valid, like toe settings on suspension for example. Or the factory spec may be set up for a specific reason. Some times it's to purposely neuter a car's ability so a higher model's price is more justified or due to over all cost of the car or even in some cases purposefully wear out (limited life span). Other times it actually may be the most optimal and it's the best choice. There is no 100% answer that factory is always best or the factory is always the worst. There are cases for both that can be proven.

I do know this about my 2016 PP GT. My suspension is NOT stock. My motor is NOT stock. But my motor internally is stock and the ECU was programmed by Ford Performance who programmed the ECU with the assumption that my 2nd generation 5.0 with Mid-lock cam phasors and the pressure necessary to achieve optimal flow rates to the bearings are set up for 5W-20. So the ECU is set to regulate oil pressure and hence flow rates throughout the heating and cooling cycles for 5W-20. Not 5W-30. So that is what I will run.

The 2018's are NOT the same. Nor is the 2014-2015 Track Pack / Boss 302's. They are all different and for different reasons. Run what Ford Performance suggests. Do you think Ford Performance cares about CAFE? Ford Performance cares about giving you as much power as they safely can while also remaining emissions and warranty compliant. CAFE has nothing to do with reliability or performance and it's only partially related to emissions (it has as much to do with limiting energy consumption to conserve limited resources as it does reducing pollution).

Poiseuille's Law can be arranged in this form:
flow = potential / resistance
Q = ∆p / (8 η L / π R4 ) flow ⇒ Q potential ⇒ ∆p
resistance ⇒ (8 η L / π R4 ) resistance ∝ L resistance ∝ η resistance ∝ (1 / R4 )

The potential is the same and the resistance is higher (30 wt vs 20), then the flow is less. 70 psi of pressure against a 30 weight oil will achieve a lower flow rate than 70 psi against a 20 weight oil. Positive displacement doesn't mean anything here because of how the displacement varies to regulate pressure (solenoid operated). So pressure matters for flow. Running a thicker oil in a fixed positive displacement pump would result in higher pressure. Your moving the same volume but with a higher resistance, thus more force is required. But in this case we are regulating pressure and assuming a flow rate is achieved because the ECU is operating under the assumption that oil viscosity is of a 5W-20 weight. Period.

I'd suggest following the owners manual regarding oil viscosity regardless of year. If you need more cooling then ADD MORE COOLING. In some cases the ECU may be calibrated to compensate for higher temps and allow for a small increase viscosity like the 2018+'s. Gee, the newer models have a more advanced ECU program. What a surprise they can do it but the older models cant...
 
Last edited:

Sponsored

Condor1970

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Threads
95
Messages
1,568
Reaction score
576
Location
Port Orchard WA
Vehicle(s)
2018 Mustang GT
I doubt running 5W-30 would be catastrophic for the 5.0 for daily or track given how close they are, but I'm far from convinced it's optimal. There are differences between the 5.0 found in the S197 (1st gen 5.0), the 2015-2017 S550 (2nd gen 5.0) and the 2018+ S550 (3rd gen 5.0). The first gen did NOT have mid-lock cam phasors which are very sensitive to oil viscosity changes according to Ford Performance. The 2nd and 3r gen 5.0's do have mid-lock phasors..
The cam phasers on the 3rd gen coyotes run perfectly fine with 5w30 all the time. I can attest to this, since I run 5w30. Keep in mind, if they were THAT sensitive to viscosity, Ford would not even allow the use of 5w30. Also, keep in mind that when you first start the car, the cold viscosity for the first 10 minutes of driving is like peanut butter compared to operational temperature. If they showed any notable sensitivity to heavy viscosity, your car would run like an old lawn mower until it warms up, which it of course does not. However, that may be why they no longer say to use 5w50 track use. 5w50 is like liquid concrete when very cold. This I can understand. But to say there is any concern for 5w30 is really going overboard, especially when Ford specifically says to go ahead and use it.

Also, when I started having a tick in my engine, the Lead Ford certified engine tech at our Roush dealer raised his eyebrows, nodded, then shrugged off using Ceratec like it was no big deal. They obviously know what that stuff is. He even told me specifically to go ahead and run 5w30, since it's allowed per the owners manual, and does in fact offer slightly better protection. He said the only difference is I may lose 0.5mpg on my daily commute. Well, he was right, I noticed a slight loss in mpg. However, most of that came back since throwing in a 1/2 bottle of Ceratec, I have noticed almost no difference in mpg at all.... maybe 0.2-0.3mpg less overall.
 

TheLion

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Threads
68
Messages
1,621
Reaction score
585
Location
US
Vehicle(s)
Ruby Red 2016 Mustang GT PP 6-MT
The cam phasers on the 3rd gen coyotes run perfectly fine with 5w30 all the time. I can attest to this, since I run 5w30. Keep in mind, if they were THAT sensitive to viscosity, Ford would not even allow the use of 5w30. Also, keep in mind that when you first start the car, the cold viscosity for the first 10 minutes of driving is like peanut butter compared to operational temperature. If they showed any notable sensitivity to heavy viscosity, your car would run like an old lawn mower until it warms up, which it of course does not. However, that may be why they no longer say to use 5w50 track use. 5w50 is like liquid concrete when very cold. This I can understand. But to say there is any concern for 5w30 is really going overboard, especially when Ford specifically says to go ahead and use it.

Also, when I started having a tick in my engine, the Lead Ford certified engine tech at our Roush dealer raised his eyebrows, nodded, then shrugged off using Ceratec like it was no big deal. They obviously know what that stuff is. He even told me specifically to go ahead and run 5w30, since it's allowed per the owners manual, and does in fact offer slightly better protection. He said the only difference is I may lose 0.5mpg on my daily commute. Well, he was right, I noticed a slight loss in mpg. However, most of that came back since throwing in a 1/2 bottle of Ceratec, I have noticed almost no difference in mpg at all.... maybe 0.2-0.3mpg less overall.
2018 5.0 is not the same engine as the 2016 5.0. Ford does NOT say to use it in the 2015-2017's. So how can you assume that? We are again applying blanket statements. Also when cold the car runs open loop. It doesn't go closed loop until things warm up so the phasors may not need to respond as rapidly because timing and fueling nor driving is going to allow for making full power. 20 and 30 weights are fairly close, but the 2018's are the ONLY variant that allows for a change in oil viscosity. 2011-2017's all requires a SINGLE viscosity be run at all times.

The standard S197's call for 5W-20 all the time, the Track Pack S197's call for 5W-50 all the time. The standard and Performance Pack 2015-2017 S550's call for 5W-20 all the time. The 2018's call for 5W-20 for regular use and 5W-30 for track use. They also run a higher RPM and make substantially more power and the higher viscosity may compensate for cooling limits. Track cooling is often too much for optimal street use, especially in a high revving V8 engine that is 99% of the time running on the street.

So I fail to see why your applying 2018 requirements to 2015-2017's which is what most of us are running. Just look at the issues. 2018's have a low RPM rattle the 2015-2017's don't have. Both have the BBQ Tick. They simply aren't the same engines and their optimal viscosity oil may not be the same. 6,800 rpm vs. 7,500 RPM...power bands are way different with the 2018's making way more mid-range and high rpm power than a stock 2nd gen or even power packed 2nd gen 5.0's. Just different engines. Period. I suspect the 2018's run a little hotter and 5W-20 may not cut it for track use where it is still optimal in 2nd gen's.

But I suppose Ford Performance tells us the cam phasors are sensitive to changes for no reason at all. Interestingly, you could be making less power or having non-optimal response but it's not enough for you to feel. There are people driving around with spun rod bearings that didn't know it immediately....but hey, do what you want. For 2018's the factory spec is 5W-20 or 5W-30. Not for 2015-2017's though.

Why not run a thermostatic air to oil cooler for track? Over heated 30 weight provides less protection that properly cooled 20 weight. For real track work, you need proper cooling. Then there's no need to band aid in a higher viscosity to compensate for lack of cooling...
 

Condor1970

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Threads
95
Messages
1,568
Reaction score
576
Location
Port Orchard WA
Vehicle(s)
2018 Mustang GT
2018 5.0 is not the same engine as the 2016 5.0. Ford does NOT say to use it in the 2015-2017's. So how can you assume that? We are again applying blanket statements. Also when cold the car runs open loop. It doesn't go closed loop until things warm up so the phasors may not need to respond as rapidly because timing and fueling nor driving is going to allow for making full power. 20 and 30 weights are fairly close, but the 2018's are the ONLY variant that allows for a change in oil viscosity. 2011-2017's all requires a SINGLE viscosity be run at all times.

The standard S197's call for 5W-20 all the time, the Track Pack S197's call for 5W-50 all the time. The standard and Performance Pack 2015-2017 S550's call for 5W-20 all the time. The 2018's call for 5W-20 for regular use and 5W-30 for track use. They also run a higher RPM and make substantially more power and the higher viscosity may compensate for cooling limits. Track cooling is often too much for optimal street use, especially in a high revving V8 engine that is 99% of the time running on the street.

So I fail to see why your applying 2018 requirements to 2015-2017's which is what most of us are running. Just look at the issues. 2018's have a low RPM rattle the 2015-2017's don't have. Both have the BBQ Tick. They simply aren't the same engines and their optimal viscosity oil may not be the same. 6,800 rpm vs. 7,500 RPM...power bands are way different with the 2018's making way more mid-range and high rpm power than a stock 2nd gen or even power packed 2nd gen 5.0's. Just different engines. Period. I suspect the 2018's run a little hotter and 5W-20 may not cut it for track use where it is still optimal in 2nd gen's.

But I suppose Ford Performance tells us the cam phasors are sensitive to changes for no reason at all. Interestingly, you could be making less power or having non-optimal response but it's not enough for you to feel. There are people driving around with spun rod bearings that didn't know it immediately....but hey, do what you want. For 2018's the factory spec is 5W-20 or 5W-30. Not for 2015-2017's though.

Why not run a thermostatic air to oil cooler for track? Over heated 30 weight provides less protection that properly cooled 20 weight. For real track work, you need proper cooling. Then there's no need to band aid in a higher viscosity to compensate for lack of cooling...
Hey, all I know is if the Ford guys who put superchargers in these cars, and rebuild these engines on a regular basis tell me to go ahead and run 5w30, I'll do it without a second thought. Mine is a 2018, so I can see where our concerns will differ. In my case, if the manual says it, I'm good with it.
 

TheLion

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Threads
68
Messages
1,621
Reaction score
585
Location
US
Vehicle(s)
Ruby Red 2016 Mustang GT PP 6-MT
Hey, all I know is if the Ford guys who put superchargers in these cars, and rebuild these engines on a regular basis tell me to go ahead and run 5w30, I'll do it without a second thought. Mine is a 2018, so I can see where our concerns will differ. In my case, if the manual says it, I'm good with it.
But your doing what I suggested lol. To do what the owners manual says. My owners manual calls for 5W-20 and that's it. For track it says to upgrade the cooling systems for engine, transmission and differential. Not run a higher viscosity oil. 2018's are not the same animal as 2015-2017's which are yet different than 2011-2014's. Then there's the Boss 302 and GT350 both of which have different engines even yet with different tolerances and clearances, operating RPMs, cooling systems etc.

I simply suggested all along to run the viscosity recommended but use a high end PAO or Ester that is more temperature stable, giving you more ideal properties, as opposed to going to a non-standard viscosity. That's what I'm doing and it won't void your warranty. If you need more protection, use better cooling systems. A regulated cooling system will provide better overall protection than using thicker oil weights on a street car that sees both track and street. Period.

The GT350 uses 5W-50 and that's it. But it does call have proper track cooling systems (track pack) to regulate temperature to avoid over heating the 50 weight oil. The SS 1LE calls for 5W-30 on street and 5W or 0W-40 for track even with the upgraded cooling systems.

I just don't see why, if it's necessary, some variants wouldn't call for higher viscosity for track. Typically what is specified is specified for a reason regarding oil and assuming that the only driving factor is CAFE standards is quite foolish. There's more to it than CAFE even if it's a big motivator. Power and cooling efficiency is one of them. If anyone has any data logs of oil temps of 5W-20 vs. 5W-30 on a track day for a 2nd gen 5.0 to show me otherwise, I suspect running a 5W-30 will result in higher oil temps, thus off-setting it's slight increase in viscosity and the net result is 0 gains in high RPM protection while loosing cold flow performance.
 
Last edited:

Condor1970

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Threads
95
Messages
1,568
Reaction score
576
Location
Port Orchard WA
Vehicle(s)
2018 Mustang GT
An interesting thread with some good reads, .

I intend following the manual to the letter, so 5W-20 of the correct spec. (Unless my Ford dealer just dumps in whatever oil he has in his oil tank)
My manual also says:

"Do not use supplemental engine oil
additives because they are unnecessary
and could lead to engine damage that may
not be covered by your vehicle warranty"
Do you know why they say that? It's because there is a good number of additives out there, in fact probably most, that are basically nothing more than snake oil. Like STP oil additive. All it is, is an oil thickener with a little ZDDP added. That's it. Will it ruin your engine? No not really, but it isn't all that big of a benefit either. Some oil additives can actually cause more sludge buildup like Slick 50, which had lawsuits against them. That's why auto manufacturers say to use only certain oils that meet certain standards, because they don't know what's in all that stuff. So, a blanket statement is used to help prevent people from doing things that may otherwise cause harm. There are some top shelf additives that actually do work though. And even if Ford knew about it, they wouldn't necessarily void your warranty, especially if the problem was recorded prior to its use. Using an additive to try and help a problem that already exists when Ford refused to resolve the issue, is only a sign that the owner cares more than the manufacturer does about your car.
Besides, if the Roush dealer doesn't seem to care about me using 1/2 bottle of Ceratec, then if I do need an engine replaced someday, they already know since Ford didn't want to resolve the issue earlier. If anything, a superior friction reducer may only be prolonging the inevitable. I hope that's not the case.
 

Sponsored

Angry50

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2016
Threads
10
Messages
1,321
Reaction score
298
Location
Jacksonville, FL
First Name
Fred
Vehicle(s)
2017 Shelby GT350
manual says you can use 5w30 for track use.. thats what i use
 

GT Pony

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2015
Threads
77
Messages
9,205
Reaction score
4,113
Location
Pacific NW
Vehicle(s)
2015 GT Premium, Black w/Saddle, 19s, NAV
That's true. It says to drain it out again and refill with 5W-20 when back on public roads. Quite a palaver and I can see why keen track drivers would just leave the thicker oil in.
Ford says to put 5W-20 back in because it's part of their agreement to try and make Ford owner's use 5W-20 as much as possible for CAFE credits. Part of the stipulation by the EPA to achieve CAFE credits it to push the use of it through all channels of documentation, etc (ie, like printing "5W-20" on the oil filler cap on the valve cover).
 

GT Pony

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2015
Threads
77
Messages
9,205
Reaction score
4,113
Location
Pacific NW
Vehicle(s)
2015 GT Premium, Black w/Saddle, 19s, NAV
I doubt running 5W-30 would be catastrophic for the 5.0 for daily or track given how close they are, but I'm far from convinced it's optimal. There are differences between the 5.0 found in the S197 (1st gen 5.0), the 2015-2017 S550 (2nd gen 5.0) and the 2018+ S550 (3rd gen 5.0). The first gen did NOT have mid-lock cam phasors which are very sensitive to oil viscosity changes according to Ford Performance. The 2nd and 3r gen 5.0's do have mid-lock phasors.
Ford is not going to specify using 5W-30 in Australian Coyotes for normal use if the phasors are that sensitive to oil viscosity. The cam phasors are no different in those Coyotes than the ones in the US engines.

Next the 2nd and 3rd gen 5.0's rotating assembly is designed to revv out to 7,500 RPM while the first gen is designed to revv out to only 6,800 rpm. Also the Road Runner 5.0 found in the Boss 302 is yet another animal NOT having mid-lock phasors, but it does have custom low volume specialized parts like powder forged rods, 300 lb valve springs, cnc ported heads etc. that were not mass production at the time and may have different tolerances and clearances than the 2nd gen. You have no idea what's going on inside the PCM software and what the program is assuming regarding oil pressure, viscosity and flow rates. Some parameters are assumed, period. The pump, while positive displacement is also a VARIABLE displacement pump with a bleeder solenoid. It's designed to have adaptive regulation generate optimal flow rates across as much of the RPM band as possible. https://www.autoserviceworld.com/carsmagazine/1003794277-2/

We seem to be forgetting the pump is designed to optimize flow rates and it is ECU controlled....it's not a simple fixed positive displacement pump that cannot compensate for rpm or viscosity changes due to thinning. There's a difference in how much heat and how much force is generated and the flow rates necessary to manage the heat.

70 PSI for example will result in less flow of a 30 weight than of a 20 weight and you can't get around that reality. The ECU is programmed to regulate a set pressure because the ECU has to assume it is running 5W-20 which is the factory spec oil in the 2nd gen 5.0. All of it's function and interaction with the variable displacement gerotor oil pump are going to be around achieving optimal flow rates of 5W-20, in fact motorcraft 5W-20. Even changing 5W-20's can change the intended behavior a bit, but not enough to be of concern.
The Coyote does not have an ECU controlled variable flow oil pump - unless that changed for the Gen3 Coyote, but I don't think it did unless someone can link up an article that specifically shows the oil pump is ECU controlled.

There are no wires going to any kind of solenoid valve on the oil pump. It only has a spring loaded pressure relief valve like every other old fashioned positive displacement oil pump. The positive displacement oil pump puts oil volume solely based on the engine RPM, and the pressure relief valve opens at a set pressure point based on the pressure relief spring setting. So all the other following theory talk beyond this about the oil pump being computer controlled and the ECU being "calibrated" for 5W-20 is all false - it doesn't exist.

Here's the description of the oiling system for the Gen2 Coyote. Nothing about ECU control or variable flow output.

Coyote Gen2 Oiling System.JPG


Higher flow rates will manage the heat by reducing dwell time of the oil, thus less localized thinning. Thinner oils also transfer thermal energy better than thicker oils. So better cooling is achieved by using higher flow rates and thinner oils as opposed to lower flow rates with thicker oils. Even if the flow rates were the same, thicker oils simply have higher thermal resistance. But now you change your oil to a higher viscosity than the ECU was calibrated for and your flow rates aren't what the ECU thinks they should be because it doesn't know the viscosity. It only knows to regulate a specific pressure and it's assuming it has achieved a specific flow rate....are you really gaining anything at all by running a higher viscosity oil?
I highly doubt the thermal conductivity of 5W-20 vs 5W-30 has any impact on the temperature rise of the oil in the journal bearings. Do the thermal conductivity values even exist anywhere so they can be compared?

Flow rate will definitely impact the temperature rise in the bearing from the technical data I've seen. But the slight increased rise of 30 over 20 is still a gain in terms of MOFT. The bottom line is that more viscosity will always give more MOFT. The oil pressure increases slightly with 5W-30 because the positive displacement oil pump is still forcing the same oil volume through the engine ... that's what non-ECU controlled positive displacement oil pumps do. So the cooling affect due to oil flow amount doesn't really change because the flow is still the same. Only real difference is that thicker oil will heat up a bit more inside the bearings because of the added shearing, but not enough to take away any improvements in MOFT
 
Last edited:

GT Pony

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2015
Threads
77
Messages
9,205
Reaction score
4,113
Location
Pacific NW
Vehicle(s)
2015 GT Premium, Black w/Saddle, 19s, NAV
But the 2013-2014 track packs call for 5W-50 all the time while the regular 2013-2014's call for 5W-20. Ford has been building engines for 5W-20 since what? 2001 back when they had the mod motors switch over. They ran a rod bearing and crank tolerance of +/- 0.0008. That 0.8 Thousands of an inch tolerance. I believe the clearances are 0.001 to 0.002 range and that was back on the 4.6 mod motors over 15 years ago.... Engines designed to run on thinner oils work just fine even under hard use.
If the bearing clearance was at 0.0008 inch (0.8 thousandths), look at how much the localized bearing oil temperature increases from shearing vs a bearing that it at 0.002 inch. From the Coyote service manual, the Gen2 Coyote rod bearing clearance is specified to be 0.0011–0.0027 in and the crankshaft bearing clearance is specified to be 0.0010–0.0018 inch.

Bearing Temperature Rise vs Clearance.jpg


... the minimum oil film thickness of a 0W5 at 8,000 RPM is 30 micrometers...let alone a 5W20 which is going to be just below the 5W30 at around 45~50 microns under same conditions.
Where did that data come from? As posted before, this table shows other numbers. Note that increased RPM actually increases MOFT because the journal bearing is flowing more oil from it's own rotation, which makes the journal ride on a thicker hydrodynamic oil film (the MOFT). I threw in a bonus graph showing that engine RPM has way more effect on oil temperature rise than the engine loads.

Rod Bearing MOFT vs Oil Viscosity.JPG


Engine Load and RPM Influence on Bearing Oil Temperature.jpg
 

GT Pony

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2015
Threads
77
Messages
9,205
Reaction score
4,113
Location
Pacific NW
Vehicle(s)
2015 GT Premium, Black w/Saddle, 19s, NAV
The cam phasers on the 3rd gen coyotes run perfectly fine with 5w30 all the time. I can attest to this, since I run 5w30. Keep in mind, if they were THAT sensitive to viscosity, Ford would not even allow the use of 5w30. Also, keep in mind that when you first start the car, the cold viscosity for the first 10 minutes of driving is like peanut butter compared to operational temperature. If they showed any notable sensitivity to heavy viscosity, your car would run like an old lawn mower until it warms up, which it of course does not. However, that may be why they no longer say to use 5w50 track use. 5w50 is like liquid concrete when very cold. This I can understand. But to say there is any concern for 5w30 is really going overboard, especially when Ford specifically says to go ahead and use it.

Also, when I started having a tick in my engine, the Lead Ford certified engine tech at our Roush dealer raised his eyebrows, nodded, then shrugged off using Ceratec like it was no big deal. They obviously know what that stuff is. He even told me specifically to go ahead and run 5w30, since it's allowed per the owners manual, and does in fact offer slightly better protection. He said the only difference is I may lose 0.5mpg on my daily commute. Well, he was right, I noticed a slight loss in mpg. However, most of that came back since throwing in a 1/2 bottle of Ceratec, I have noticed almost no difference in mpg at all.... maybe 0.2-0.3mpg less overall.
If I'm not mistaken, Roush requires the use of 5W-50 when they install a supercharger kit on a Coyote or they will not warranty the installation. There is NO change of the cam phasors, etc ... so how could that all be good if Coyotes were that sensitive to viscosity.
Sponsored

 
Last edited:
 




Top