Interesting oil thread on the Ford GT forum

Discussing oil should be considered like talking politics on a forum, gets ugly quick. Bottom line is do whatever you think will work and hope for the best. I don't see dumping on people who use what Ford says to use though, for sure they're the ones whose ass is covered. Oops! Politics!

JohnD said:

Discussing oil should be considered like talking politics on a forum, gets ugly quick. Bottom line is do whatever you think will work and hope for the best. I don't see dumping on people who use what Ford says to use though, for sure they're the ones whose ass is covered. Oops! Politics!

Click to expand...

I had no idea. I honestly was looking for objective experience and I was jumped on as if I was an infidel insulting Allah on a high holy day. I had no idea the Gospel of Ford was the ultimate source of truth...My bad.

cking said:

Ford raised the extended warranty price on all of its cars, which comes more from the new CEO being a bean counter and trying raise profits.
.

Click to expand...

Personally, I think it has more to do with Ford trying to recoup some of their losses from all the warranty issues they've been experiencing the last few years.
I could be wrong, I think I was wrong once before....back around 1969 or thereabouts.

One issue with the Savage Geese video is he doesn't talk about warm up time and cold start frequency in his cold-temp assessment. It is very true that running a thick oil that can stand up to track temps is bad for cold-weather starts. However, you have to also be careful to choose a cold-weather weight that will still provide enough protection when the engine is at operating temps.

My GT350 sleeps all winter. For other high-performance engines, my usual routine is 0W-40 for normal usage (winter and into summer), and a more track-appropriate oil for track use (e.g., 15W-50 or similar). For my "newer" (mid-'90s+) BMWs, the Mobil 1 0W-40 is an excellent oil with surprisingly good high-temp shear and flashpoint characteristics for a 0W base, and the low-viscosity base stock makes for easy starting and running in low temps. My "older" ('60s-80s) BMWs get 10W-30 in cold weather and 15W-50 in hot weather, but those older motors have much looser tolerances and larger bearing clearances than the newer engines.

Bottom line, apply some common sense. If you daily your GT350 in the cold, it is probably not a bad idea to run a 5W-40 or similar, but then it's on you to not wring the engine out and spend a lot of time at redline with that oil in it. Just like if you put on a snow tire with a lower speed rating, you have to remember not to bomb down the highway at 140+ mph. (Even my '87 535i had a speed alarm I could set to remind myself not to exceed 100 mph when I was on snow tires.)

Final thought: I saw reference to Brad Penn. I run that in my old BMWs; great oil. High in ZDDP. Newer oils do NOT have high ZDDP content because the phosphate breakdown products trash catalytic converters; I would not run that in my GT350. Also older rocker-arm and flat tappet valve actuation benefits more from ZDDP; newer engine designs generally don't suffer from a reduction in the zinc additives.

oldbmwfan said:

One issue with the Savage Geese video is he doesn't talk about warm up time and cold start frequency in his cold-temp assessment...

Click to expand...

My problem with the video is that a lot of what he says is simply incorrect. Manufacturers size their oil pumps to move enough oil to ensure adequate lubrication. "Oil pressure" is about resistance to flow, not about the flow itself, and so it's meaningless from a performance standpoint.

Oil pumps are volume devices, so every rotation of the oil pump moves a certain amount of oil, thick, thin or otherwise. Engine manufacturers pump enough VOLUME of oil through the system, regardless of whether it's water-thin or not, to ensure that the engine functions normally. The oil pressure in a bearing is thousands of PSI, and good performance relies on a high volume of oil flowing through, not on high "oil pressure" as reported by an instrument panel gauge.

In short, a lot of what he says is simply misleading. It's sad really because he believes it so passionately.

https://540ratblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/motor-oil-wear-test-ranking/


Read this. ALL of it. It is VERY good information on everything you ever wanted to know about oil. Including independent wear testing with methods, machines, and hypotheses given in detail. Worth the read for anyone that wants much better than average info.

dev1360 said:

https://540ratblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/motor-oil-wear-test-ranking/


Read this. ALL of it. It is VERY good information on everything you ever wanted to know about oil. Including independent wear testing with methods, machines, and hypotheses given in detail. Worth the read for anyone that wants much better than average info.

Click to expand...

It is a very long winded, like to hear myself report, but it does have value.

So he does find that motorcraft 5w50 is best rate 5/50 in his tests. No test of Amsoil 5/50 but the 5/30 was great, so I imagine there 5/50 might be better than the motorcraft and it meets the 931-C spec.

So we have some winners, along with quaker 5w50, mobil one 5w50, valvoline 5w50

Quaker state being least $$ on amazon

So these days we have lots of oils that meet 931-C and they maybe better than Ford 5w50.

In fact after I use up what I bought I might go to Quaker5w50.

I would say that Ford's 931-C spec help bring out more 5w50 oils.

mustang_guy said:

It's old news that fords 5w50 breaks down ridiculously fast.

Click to expand...

Breaking down and shearing down are two different things. MC 5W50 shears down in the first 50 miles to a 40weight (by design) and stays pretty consistent from that point on. Just like Castrols TWS (10w60) quickly shears down to a 50-weight initially. Due to the oil additives and friction modifiers, TWS is rated at a 10w60 when new, but is designed, acts, and performs like a 50w. Same thing for MC 5w50 performing like a 40w oil.

Amsoil and Motul 50 & 60w oils are VERY thick, thicker than new tws or MC 5w50, and stay that way. You can argue that those high quality thick oils are far worse and "out of spec" than choosing a 40 or 50w oil.

I've had no issue running M1 0W40 in my M3 and will be using it in my Mustang as well.

Wriggly said:

Personally, I think it has more to do with Ford trying to recoup some of their losses from all the warranty issues they've been experiencing the last few years.
I could be wrong, I think I was wrong once before....back around 1969 or thereabouts.

Click to expand...

No doubt about it. And the GT350 warranty issues were certainly factored in.

If the GT350 & R were increased more than other vehicles yes, but from the dealer cost charts it looked like all vehicles went up, and the rates rose more on the high mileage more than time lines. There was big jump in 60K to 80K mileage. I don't think enough GT350 get sold.