Best Oil and Filter for my Engine?

articrandom said:

Really interesting stuff. For the filter, I think I am just going to go with the Motorcraft FL400S which seems to be a little bit bigger. I plan on making my oil changes every 7-9k miles so like someone mentioned above, there is little to worry about in terms of contamination in the oil for the filter to be challenged.

For oil, I am still not sure at all... I see all these certifications thrown around but not sure which one fits this engine better? Like I said, my car only has stock motor, a levels intercooler that will be installed soon, and she is my DD with some casual spirited driving.

Click to expand...

Everyone has their favorite. The discussion about standards IS pretty pedantic, but the point is a standard defines expected performance. Pretty much ANY name brand semi- or full-synthetic 5w-30 oil you use will meet warranty requirements and provide satisfactory wear protection. It's been shown time and again there is no difference in wear protection among oils from different manufacturers—assuming you are comparing like oils. Other considerations such as piston deposit formation, oxidation stability (to allow longer oil change intervals), volatility (to limit intake valve deposits), etc. are a concern with our engines because of their design. Different oil standards have been developed by different agencies to address these (and other) issues.

GF-5 is the latest International Lubricants Standardization and Approval Committee (ILSAC) standard, and is the standard recommended by Ford in your owner's manual. (Note it is RECOMMENDED, not required. The only warranty requirement for the oil you use is that it meet the latest certification for the American Petroleum Institute [API]). GF-5 was introduced in 2010, and meant to address oil-related issues specific to engines like the ones in our cars. Click here to read more about ILSAC oil specifications.

The dexos 1 Gen 2 (D1G2) standard was released in 2015, and as the name implies, is the second generation of the dexos1 standard. As Brian V. has pointed out, this is a General Motors standard, and an oil manufacturer who wishes to put a D1G2 compliance statement on their label must pay a licensing fee to GM. Brian has suggested that a licensing fee is all that's necessary, but that's not factual. There is a test protocol oil manufacturers must follow to demonstrate compliance with the standard.

The D1G2 standard addresses all the same issues as ILSAC's GF-5 standard (and exceeds the GF-5 standard for most of them), but adds protection against low-speed pre-ignition (LSPI), which is a relatively new problem related to engines like ours. LSPI is a rare event, but under the right conditions it's been shown to cause catastrophic engine damage, so the consequences are dire. Research continues into pinpointing the primary cause(s) of LSPI, but a lot of testing suggests oil formulation plays a role. GM's test protocol seeks to demonstrate that an oil is LSPI-resistant under the conditions where it is known to occur. Click here to read more about the D1G2 standard.

So, the long and the short of it is you may use any semi- or full-synthetic 5w-30 oil that is API certified to meet your new car warranty requirements. If, however, you want an oil that meets the latest performance standards for mitigating the kinds of oil-related issues common to small-displacement, high-output, direct-injected, turbocharged engines like the one in your car, you should use an oil that meets the D1G2 standard.

my suggestion would be for anyone concerned about the type and quality of oil they are using to spend a little time over at BITOG (www.bobistheoilguy.com) in the forums.

After doing a little research, and basing my choices on the UOA of others with EB motors as well as cost per change, I decided to run Castrol Magnatec 5w30 Full Synthetic in both my Mustang and the wife's Edge. Since switching from the Motorcraft fill the dealer was using, I've noticed the oil does not break down nearly as quickly, and neither motor burns a drop of oil even with 10k changes on the Edge. I've been a M1 for years, but that website has opened my eyes that there are plenty of other options available that are just as good if not better, while also being friendlier on the pocketbook than Amsoil and the likes.

I went ahead and purchased the pennzoil ultra platinum 5w30.

This one should do it for now I hope haha Thank you everyone for your help!

solodogg said:

I've been a M1 for years, but that website has opened my eyes that there are plenty of other options available that are just as good if not better, while also being friendlier on the pocketbook than Amsoil and the likes.

Click to expand...

This link was posted earlier in the thread; it lists all oils that meet dexos1 Gen 2 standard. Walmart's Supertech full-synthetic is listed. A five-quart jug is around $17 where I live. At that price (and 15 minutes of my time) changing the oil every 5K is a no-brainer.

TorqueMan said:

This link was posted earlier in the thread; it lists all oils that meet dexos1 Gen 2 standard. Walmart's Supertech full-synthetic is listed. A five-quart jug is around $17 where I live. At that price (and 15 minutes of my time) changing the oil every 5K is a no-brainer.

Click to expand...

Does the wally oil meet the Ford Spec WSS-M2C946-A? I wouldn't use any oil that doesn't.

Turbong said:

Does the wally oil meet the Ford Spec WSS-M2C946-A? I wouldn't use any oil that doesn't.

Click to expand...

There is nothing in the owner's manual that requires the use of this spec; it's recommended. The only (warranty) requirement is that the oil be API certified to the latest standard, which is SN. As far as I can tell, API SN is interchangeable with ILSAC 5. Although data regarding the performance standard for ILSAC 5 may be found online, the only thing I can find addressing the difference between 946-A and ILSAC GF-5 says they are generally the same with a "few extra tests performed on Ford engines." I can't find anything that lists those tests, or what specific performance goals above and beyond ILSAC 5 the 946-A spec is meant to address.

Do you have a link with this data?

What I find conflicting is that GM Dexos 1 Gen 2 states that these oils are formulated to reduce LSPI and that GM started running GDI in the ecotech engines in 2016 and later . The ILSAC GF 5 has an designation date of 2011and before .. these listed oils just suddenly changed the formulations of additives to address the Issues in and around LSPI .. no I think Not ... ILSAC GF 6 is supposed to address the issues ...

I can attest to the fact that GM has experienced catastrophic engine failure due to LSPI .
Their pistons fail in the GDI engines .

In order for the oil manufacturers to be able to sell an oil in this country GM and the other vehichle manufacturers have perpetrated a fraud to us consumers .. we still popping engines ?

Brian V said:

What I find conflicting is that GM Dexos 1 Gen 2 states that these oils are formulated to reduce LSPI and that GM started running GDI in the ecotech engines in 2016 and later .

Click to expand...

I don't believe LSPI is a phenomenon restricted to gasoline direct injected engines. The latest research suggests it's related to high cylinder pressure at low RPM, which is the kind of demand placed on small-displacement turbocharged engines that must produce gobs of torque to replace larger displacement engines. GDI is an antidote for many emissions-related problems, but it can't make produce torque like turbocharging.

Be that as it may, GM has been producing GDI engines for use in Europe since at least the early 2000s. Here in the US the 2007 Pontiac Solstice was equipped with a 2.0L GDI turbo engine making 260 HP and 260 lb/ft of torque. The same engine was used in the Cobalt SS starting in 2008. The third generation of that engine hit the market in 2013. It produces 295 lb/ft of torque as low as 3000 RPM, and has been used in everything from Cadillacs to Camaros.

I don't doubt that GM engines have experienced issues with LSPI. Why else would GM go to the trouble of developing an oil standard specifically meant to address LSPI?

TorqueMan said:

I don't believe LSPI is a phenomenon restricted to gasoline direct injected engines. The latest research suggests it's related to high cylinder pressure at low RPM, which is the kind of demand placed on small-displacement turbocharged engines that must produce gobs of torque to replace larger displacement engines. GDI is an antidote for many emissions-related problems, but it can't make produce torque like turbocharging.

Be that as it may, GM has been producing GDI engines for use in Europe since at least the early 2000s. Here in the US the 2007 Pontiac Solstice was equipped with a 2.0L GDI turbo engine making 260 HP and 260 lb/ft of torque. The same engine was used in the Cobalt SS starting in 2008. The third generation of that engine hit the market in 2013. It produces 295 lb/ft of torque as low as 3000 RPM, and has been used in everything from Cadillacs to Camaros.

I don't doubt that GM engines have experienced issues with LSPI. Why else would GM go to the trouble of developing an oil standard specifically meant to address LSPI?

Click to expand...

Right ! My point is as follows .. the claims that ILSAC-GF 5 is a standard utilized by the engine oil manufacturers with additive packages to meet or exceed requirements from 2011 and earlier . LSPI , Stochastic Pre-Ignition has been around for a 100 years and now all of a sudden they need to address this occurrence .

As far as I am concerned 1 might consider running conventional straight weight oils that have less or no detergents .. 1 would just have a dirty , sludged motor .

By the way the oil manufacturers exceed GM's standard before they were addressed to pony up and purchase the trademark to display on a bottle ..

Brian V said:

Right ! My point is as follows .. the claims that ILSAC-GF 5 is a standard utilized by the engine oil manufacturers with additive packages to meet or exceed requirements from 2011 and earlier . LSPI , Stochastic Pre-Ignition has been around for a 100 years and now all of a sudden they need to address this occurrence .

Click to expand...

You're right that engineers have understood the mechanism of pre-ignition for probably longer than 100 years. What's changed is the demand for small-displacement engines producing high torque at low RPM. People have been super- and turbocharging internal combustions engines almost since they were invented. But limitations in metallurgy and production tolerances made them extremely expensive, and limited mostly to use in aircraft engines up through WWII. With a few notable and rare exceptions, after WWII they were used mostly in racing applications, where engines spend little time at low RPM. The reason? Mainly because it was easier to produce more tractable, useable power with a larger displacement engine. Remember that? There's no replacement for displacement!

Although turbochargers were less rare in Europe—mainly because no one could afford to put gas in a V8 over there making Europeans who wanted a powerful engine more willing to put up with their quirks—the US public wasn't really interested in them up to 1990s because at the time they didn't make power until in the higher RPM range. It wasn't until the mid-to-late 90s that the twin-scroll and variable geometry turbines, as well as twin-turbo setups meant to tame turbo lag started appearing on the market, but again these were expensive, which made them relatively rare.

So yes, pre-ignition and turbochargers have been around since Jesus wore three-cornered Levis, but LOW-SPEED pre-ignition is a problem specific to running high cylinder pressures at low RPM, which up until manufacturers decided there is indeed a replacement for displacement, everyone worked very hard to avoid. Now, however, we have sophisticated engine management systems that allow such fine control of the combustion process we can operate engines in a manner that was impossible just a couple of decades ago. And as is always the case with progress (take two steps forward and one step back) we are discovering new things, such as the connection between oil formulation and propensity for LSPI. The connection isn't definitive, so research continues, but GM has shown that different oil formulations increase or decrease the incidence of LSPI in the same engine..

Brian V said:

By the way the oil manufacturers exceed GM's standard before they were addressed to pony up and purchase the trademark to display on a bottle ..

Click to expand...

On what do you base this claim?

My last oil change I used Mobil 1 extended interval oil, which just happens to also have both the ratings everyone is talking about here. I only bought it because it was on sale, and it's still going to get changed at 5k miles.
I always use K&N oil filters. I've been running them for years on about everything I own.

Valvoline refused to endorse the GM Dexos trademark yet the manufacturers standard for it's specific formulation exceeded GM's Standard .. years of production were specifically 2011 and earlier which we now have passed by 7 years .

Brian V said:

Valvoline refused to endorse the GM Dexos trademark yet the manufacturers standard for it's specific formulation exceeded GM's Standard ..

Click to expand...

Manufacturers often balk at paying a license fee if they believe their product exceeds the specs for a given standard. I'm certainly open minded about products that claim higher quality and/or performance, but I have to see the data. That said, Valvoline has apparently changed its mind; This list includes 18 different grades of Valvoline oil that are licensed under dexos1 Gen 2.

Sales would count for Valvoline changing stances .. Mobile oil dominated sales with advertisements and endorsing GM and the Dexos trademark ..

As you I prefer to read the additive percentages PPM specifically Calcium and Sodium . These minerals can run up to 0.725 PPM like what Amsoils formulation states .

Valvoline is at 0.211 calcium PPM and 0.049 sodium PPM full synthetic .
Unsure of Mobile 1 .or the rest of those oils listed . API - SN Plus seems to be new standard for Modern engines .. just read up on some web sites .... Valvoline Full Synthetic for modern engines ..

Check out the Pensoil site for references about the new formulations for turboed engines .............May 2018 ...... Sales Dates .............

TorqueMan said:

There is nothing in the owner's manual that requires the use of this spec; it's recommended. The only (warranty) requirement is that the oil be API certified to the latest standard, which is SN. As far as I can tell, API SN is interchangeable with ILSAC 5. Although data regarding the performance standard for ILSAC 5 may be found online, the only thing I can find addressing the difference between 946-A and ILSAC GF-5 says they are generally the same with a "few extra tests performed on Ford engines." I can't find anything that lists those tests, or what specific performance goals above and beyond ILSAC 5 the 946-A spec is meant to address.

Do you have a link with this data?

Click to expand...

I don't have it, I can't find anything that has definitive answers but speaking of Valvoline, they have all the recommendations and requirements taking out the guess work. The have ILSAC GF-5, Dexos1 Gen2, and Ford WSS-M2C946-A, i'm no oil expert but obviously there is enough of a difference for them to get both.

There is no reason not to use Valvoline at all, it costs 25 bucks(currently on sale 22, LOL) bucks at wally world for a 5 qt jug, why guess and risk, it is 100% warranty compliant, cost effective, brand recognized with all recommendations checked off.
I used it last change with stock MC filter and probably will continue to do so, I don't want them to start looking at excuses if sht hits the fan why I used bigger/wrong oil filters, bla bla, I don't see any benefit of using a bigger filter anyway if you change it between 5-7k miles which most people do anyway . Nope stick to stock filter and 100% verifiable oils with this engine.