BBQ tick - another attempt to understand

[accel]

Also, I've been running Ravenol SFE 5W-20.

Ha e you added tribotex again with your ravenol oil?

Sponsored

 

[gmupatriot]

Also, I've been running Ravenol SFE 5W-20. It is the ONLY API licensed 5W-20 I can find that is PAO full synthetic base stocks. Oil pressure at idle went up from 20 psi on the idiot gauge to about 25 psi. Also peaks about 80 PSI where before mine would peak about 75 psi in the upper RPM region all the way out to 7,150 RPM (power pack 2). HTHS is 2.9 mPa*s which is the minimum spec for Hydrocracked 5W-30 oils. So you can run a 5W-20 that has the high temp protection of a cheapo us dino 5W-30 without voiding your warranty.

It is also ACEA A5/B5 which requires a minimum HTHS of 2.9 and is a Stay In Grade spec, so even over extended drain intervals the oil is rated to resist shear. CCS is only 3900 mPa*s, better than AMSOIL's cold temp pump ability. And in my 5.0, I can say it made a really nice difference. Not sure why 5 psi mattered that much, but the car always was sensitive to bog at very low RPM's and could still be a bit lethargic even after the Power Pack 2 down low (below 3000 rpm). Running the thicker PAO based ravenol seems to have eliminated that quirk. My guess is the cam phasors were responding slow due to the marginal oil pressure.

Ford performance warned me to be careful with oils as the cam phasors in the 2nd and 3rd generation 5.0 were very sensitive to oil viscosity and wouldn't respond as expected to commands if the oils foamed or thinned too much. that makes sense why down low it would be sensitive to bog under as oil pressure is still pretty low with the heavily doped VI hydro-cracked oils. Hence also the numerous comments about them being like pouring "water" into your engine. At this point I'm starting to align with @GT Pony in that some of these 5W-20's are just too thin. Add to that their high rates of shear and they may not be providing adequate protection in high RPM high powered engines.

If what has been said is true and the tolerances for the this 5.0 are the same as the S197 Boss 302, the Aussie 5.0's and the Euro 5.0's that are all running 5W-30's or 5W-50's and even call for it in the user manuals, then I'm wondering if the engine was really optimized to run on SAE 5W-30. So running a high end 5W-20 like Ravenol that meets the tougher ACEA A5/B5 specs (which are more like SAE 5W-30 specs but with stricter stay in grade requirements added) is the more ideal approach while also being warranty compliant. Also Ravenol SFE 5W-20 doesn't contain any moly, so if you run CeraTec, Archoil or TriboTEX there's no risk of moly competing with the hBN or MSH DLC layers even though I don't believe based on my R that TriboTEX in particular has any compatability issues with MoDTC (aka MoS2).

Most US 5W-20's and 5W-30's now have some small amount of MoDTC which decays into MoS2, another type of DLC coating like ZDDP, hBN and MSH. Even Motorcraft's new API SN+ formula now contains about 200 ppm of moly based on some recent F-150 UOA's. Most off the shelf synthetics are in the 50 ppm range. RedLine is in the 600 ppm range and Motorcraft is now in the 200 ppm range. But getting back to Ravenol SFE 5W-20, it's bar none the best oil I've used to date. Quieted down top end clatter even more than TriboTEX alone. I ran AMSOIL 5W-30 in my Ecoboost and it was a great oil as well, but the base stocks are still blended SAE THIN, but at least it doesn't shear down, so that's AMSOIL's strength is that while it's still watery thin it is at least stay in grade.

Thus far my oil changes have been:

1. 0 to 5,600 miles --> Motorcraft 5W-20 Semi-synthetic + FL-500S OE Filter || Notes: previous owner, no idea how the car was broken in, but I'm guessing it was driven hard

2. 5,600 to 10,000 miles --> Motorcraft 5W-20 Semi-synthetic + FL-500S OE Filter || Notes: some minor top end clatter towards end of the oil change (suspect oil thinning). Distinct burning smell like oil after being driven hard.

3. 10,000 to 16,000 miles --> Penzoil Ultra Platinum 5W-20 GTL Synthetic + FL-500S OE Filter || Notes: noticed a top end ticking that was intermittent for the first couple thousand miles, but went away in the last half of the oil change interval.

4. 16,000 to 20,000 miles --> Motorcraft 5W-20 Semi-synthetic + FL-500S OE Filter || Notes: back to normal noises, but also the burning smell after being driven hard. Also installed Power Pack 2 and JLT 3.0 Oil Catch Can at 17,500 miles. Substantial improvement in mid-range punch above 4,000 RPM. Little better down low and a little stronger up top. Also really LOVE the extra 350 rpm, makes 3.73 PP Gearing quite nice instead of just always a little too short. Noticed a mild form of the BBQ tick when starting from a stop, but only when next to a wall. I suspect it's been there as I thought I heard it also last winter when stating from a stop next to toll booths while travelling but dismissed it at the time.

5. 20,000 miles to 24,500 miles --> Mobil 1 5W-20 Synthetic + FL-500S OE Filter || Notes: similar to PUP in terms of noise / clatter. Didn't change the "BBQ Tick" when starting from a stop, but it's mild enough that unless I'm parked next to a barrier / car, I can't hear it. Added TriboTEX at 21,000 miles and BBQ Tick disappeared. Also saw substantial increase in fuel economy (about 3-4 mpg) as well as power.

The car just pulls harder through the rev range and oil temps a bit lower on average, not much, but about 1/8th of the green area on the idiot gauge. This all indicates it has had a substantial reduction in friction losses. I see 28 to 30 mpg on a known strip of highway where I used to see 24 to 26 mpg repeatedly that I travel to work every day for past 7 years.

6. 24,500 miles to current --> Ravenol SFE 5W-20 PAO Full Synthetic + FL-500S OE Filter || Notes: Another very nice improvement in response. Even with the Power Pack 2, oil catch can and TriboTEX, the 5.0 could be a little sensitive to bog at low RPMs / light throttle. Ravenol seems to have fixed that, it feels more like a slightly less torqy push rod V8 down low now. It pulls more linearly down low and the top end seems to be just as strong if not maybe a tad stronger than before. Idle pressure is now 25 psi where before it was 20 psi average. That increase carries all the way up to red-line where it tops out at about 80 psi, before it was about 75 on my particular car (note that if you look at the gauge without moving your head over, 75 psi looks more like 80, so most people report 80 on regular 5W-20's when in reality the gauge is reading about 75 in the upper RPM ranges). Also less top end noise, that mild "ticking" sound (not BBQ tick, but top end tick) seems to have disappeared entirely. I'm NOT going back to any oil with a HTHS less than 2.9 and that isn't at least a PAO group IV or better.

Moral of the story? Look for a 5W-20 that is ACEA A5/B5 spec and API SN licensed and you have an oil that meets warranty but is more robust than off the shelf SAE 5W-30's, especially over extended drain intervals. AMSOIL in my opinion doesn't cut it. There are cars that ran SS from day 1 and ended up with a new short block bone stock. Now that could have been a mfg. defect, AMSOIL makes some great oils blends, but they are a blender, not a base stock manufacturer. So they may be more limited in base stock properties than Driven, RedLine, Ravenol, Motul or others that make PAO or Ester base stock blends themselves. Additives play a very important role but so does the base stock especially for components that rely on viscosity to work properly such as Rod Bearings, Hydraulic Lash Adjusters, Cam Bearings (not the loves, the actual shaft bearings) and Cam Phasors.

CeraTech, Archoil or TriboTEX can all compensate for a weak additive packages and perform extremely well with PAO/Ester blends and all Ester blends (TriboTEX is suspended in a Ester base stock, Archoil in a Ester and CeraTech in a Group III HC base stock), especially for those with the BBQ Tick.

But I would also highly recommend focusing on a very good quality base stock to pair with those oils. They can't compensate for shearing issues or marginal viscosity from the get go even if they do enhance oil adhesion. One, you may extend the Elastohydrodynamic or Hydrodynamic regions of operation due to a greater film strength and two you provide more protection and slightly more optimal working pressures, especially when things heat up as some of these Ester or PAO base stocks are so temperature stable they don't use ANY Viscosity Improvers.

Ravenol (called their Ultra Stable Viscosity Oil or USVO technology that is a mixture of PAO grades and some Esters) and RedLine (Ester blends) are both companies that I know do not need VI's at all (yes you heard that, they eliminated VI's) and that's how they can have an oil (Ravenol has better cold temp characteristics but slightly less HTHS viscosity) with a CCS of just 3900 mPa*s but with a stay in grade HTHS rating of 2.9 mPa*s or more at 150C and why my 5.0 seems to respond so much better with the Ravenol 5W-20 than any of the off the shelf Group III hydrocracked fake synthetics. All while remaining in warranty because it's (Ravenol) an API licenses 5W-20. I'd highly recommend it. I've had good luck with their 75W-80 gear oil as well, I had issues even with BG SyncroshiftII in my particular MT-82 and forget the factory fluid, but Ravenol's PAO gear oil seemed to fix the 2nd gear failure to sync when cold. It's still a bit gritty and nibbles on occasion when very cold (20~30F), but it still goes in gear when cold and is butter smooth once warm with a hint of a weighted feel to it. I absolutely love it.

Thanks for sharing such valuable information.

Quick question, I am using PUP 5w-20 with FL500s at the moment (2018 GT has 18,3xx miles). PUP is only a ACEA A1/B1 oil correct? I will try Ravenol next oil change if that is the case.

 

[Condor1970]

2nd Generation 5.0 was built to revv out to 7500 as well. Uses mass production{ized} Boss 302 rotating assembly. 13mm valve lift, 300 lbs valve springs, powder forged rods, a cast version of the cnc ported 302 heads (flows just as well, but slightly altered to make it a castable design). The big difference in the 3rd generation is the addition of P/DI injection and wire arc plasma transfer spay in cylinder liners first used in the voodoo 5.2 and a higher flowing intake manifold to match.

Also I have not seen ANYONE mention the HPFP. DI injectors require 2000 psi fuel rail pressure unlike Port injectors that are in the 80 to 100 psi range. HPFP's are NOISY. They have an almost erratic knock sound when revving down or up. Back when I had my Ecoboost I actually thought something was wrong with the engine at first until I realized what it was. It became especially noticeable with after market shifters because the solid steel shifter would act like a tuning fork.

So not all "ticking" some people are reporting is actual issues. And yes, the ticking would get less when things got hot in the ecoboost because the HPFP tolerance would tighten up like everything else. It was an interesting creature. But boy don't miss the dead top end. Even with the Power Pack, it just didn't compare to modern V8's.

I completely agree that the HPFP and associated system does make a lot of noise. However, that noise is definitely not the BBQ tick, and DI system noise does not change when you add a bottle of Ceratec. When you add Ceratec, and all of a sudden you here this issue suddenly becomes deadened in noise level, it's pretty obvious this is internal to the engine. This is what's a happening to 90% or more of the people who use Ceratec when they start hearing the BBQ tick. Just about everyone that has tried it, had a change in noise level, even though in some cases a week later the noise started coming back. It's obvious Ceratec did affect the issue, albeit not a "fix", but instead a way to cover up the noise of an existing problem (most likely piston slap).

My question is, since so many do it right off the lot, and even with replaced blocks, is it an inherent design tolerance needed for the larger pistons? When you increase a piston size to a certain point, the amount of physical swelling at high load does require tolerances to be opened up slightly. I just don't know if this is the case with this particular engine or not.

 

[TheLion]

Ha e you added tribotex again with your ravenol oil?

Nope. I did NOT add more TriboTEX. So if there was any Synthetic MSH in the last oil that hadn't formed a DLC layer on the wear surfaces, it's gone. This would be a confirmation that it does indeed stay in the engine and that the better HTHS viscosity of Ravenol doesn't negatively affect fuel economy. I still got 30 mpg on the known stretch of highway to work just like I did with the M1 oil when TriboTEX was initially added.

Ravenol has a Viscosity of 8.4 mPa*s at 100C, about the same as the off-the-shelf super thin SAE 5W-20's which range from 8.1 (Vavoline 5W-20) to 8.9 (Mobil 1 5W-20). So it has 5W-30 protection at 150C but 5W-20 viscosity at 100C where you'll be at cruising on the highway plus it is ACEA A5/B5 Stay in Grade spec, so it will have almost no shear down. That's possible because they don't use VI's in it.

It's entirely comprised of PAO 4, 6 and 8 base stocks plus some Ester's to achieve the temp / shear stability. VI's are the reason Group III's shear down. There are higher quality VI's that don't shear as easily, I believe AMSOIL uses some high end VI's in their PAO blends (PAO's, even lower quality ones, inherently need less VI's, so using less and using higher quality VI additives allow for some impressive performance). They are not ACEA A5/B5 rated for stay in grade nor do they meet the minimum HTHS viscosity of 2.9 (AMSOIL's 5W-20 HTHS is only 2.67), UOA's some some minor shearing, but they do outperform 2 to 1 the off-the shelf Group III's. I only came across Ravenol because of my picky MT-82 and searching for some gear oils that would work better with it than OE or BG. BG was better than OE, but not as good in mine as people made it out to be. Thus far Ravenol has out performed BG by quite a bit.

Pensoil Ultra Platinum is the exception, it is a group III+ and I would be ok using it due to it's high resistance to shearing as GTL needs less VI's, it just has more ideal viscosity properties out of the bottle so less VI's are needed with PUP. But it's never in stock around here and can be hard to find at times even on Amazon. I still wouldn't run it much more than 5k though if you do a lot of high RPM without UOA's to confirm it's holding up. But over 5k we have some good data on it with GT Pony's list of UOA's for S197's.

For this first round, I'll run Ravenol for 7,500 miles to give me a nice margin of error over the extended 10k drain interval it's rated for (ACEA and Ford speced). Then do a UOA and go from there. I didn't bother with a UOA for M1 as I don't believe I"ll be sticking with the oil and it's not really performed any better than MC or PUP in terms of clatter / noise, boil off etc. Maybe a little better than MC in boil off, but that's about it. But so far i'm really impressed with Ravenol and wish I had found this from the get go. There's nothing quite as ideal out there I've found for a Street / Light Track dual purpose car.

For dedicated track you still would be better served by RedLine, which has a HTHS of 3.0 or even stepping up to a 5W-30. But going too high in oil viscosity can also have negative effects. You increase drag which lowered power to the wheels, you can actually increase bearing localized heat at the flow rates aren't high enough. The pump can compensate but only so much.

And one might argue that Ford uses a 5W-50 for their S197 track GT's that run nearly the same clearances as our S550's...but MC 5W-50 shears down REALLY fast. 36% I saw....so it more or less quickly becomes a 30 weight. It is my opinion at this point that running a good quality 5W-20 or a cheap 5W-30 for track with proper cooling is more ideal than running super thick oil because of pumping losses and localized heating as well as sensitivity of the cam phasors. I'm not sure if they have issues with thicker oil, but I do know they are sensitive to thinning and foaming issues.

 

[TheLion]

I completely agree that the HPFP and associated system does make a lot of noise. However, that noise is definitely not the BBQ tick, and DI system noise does not change when you add a bottle of Ceratec. When you add Ceratec, and all of a sudden you here this issue suddenly becomes deadened in noise level, it's pretty obvious this is internal to the engine. This is what's a happening to 90% or more of the people who use Ceratec when they start hearing the BBQ tick. Just about everyone that has tried it, had a change in noise level, even though in some cases a week later the noise started coming back. It's obvious Ceratec did affect the issue, albeit not a "fix", but instead a way to cover up the noise of an existing problem (most likely piston slap).

My question is, since so many do it right off the lot, and even with replaced blocks, is it an inherent design tolerance needed for the larger pistons? When you increase a piston size to a certain point, the amount of physical swelling at high load does require tolerances to be opened up slightly. I just don't know if this is the case with this particular engine or not.

My guess based on all that I've seen is that any tolerances have more to do with the spray on cylinder liner requirements rather than the pistons. The pistons are still hypereutectic like in 95% of cars on the road. Not forged like in the GT350. Forged pistons are NOT as temperature stable to the lower silica content, but they are physically stronger than hypereutectic. So larger clearances are needed for the cold to hot cycles and the voodoo 5.2 slaps when cold and it's normal.

The 3rd generation 5.0 however has a hybrid between the two with the spray on liners but with standard hypereutectic pistons. Maybe they need a little more clearance with the spray on liners than with the pressed in ones? It's possible, but I don't know. Either that or the composition of the pistons in the 3rd gen use less silica (may be more carbon doped) for added strength at the expense of greater expansion. There's lots of possibilities.

DI is known for oil dilution also. So the oil films on the cylinders are not going to be as robust. Using a higher quality oil is even more important in DI engines than in PI engines for that reason alone. Also bottom end clearances could be altered, the crank is re-balanced / redesigned for the 3rd gen applications. It's just another iteration with many small tweaks throughout to improve performance just like the 2nd generation was from the 1st generation by using the Road Runner internals (from the Boss 302).

 

[TheLion]

Thanks for sharing such valuable information.

Quick question, I am using PUP 5w-20 with FL500s at the moment (2018 GT has 18,3xx miles). PUP is only a ACEA A1/B1 oil correct? I will try Ravenol next oil change if that is the case.

I'm not sure of the ACEA specs of PUP but I can nearly guarantee it's not A5/B5 because the HTHS viscosity has to be between 2.9 and 3.2 at 150C. PUP is likely in the 2.6 region when new like most other Group III's. It's big advantage is that it at least stays in grade better than most other Group III's because of the more ideal base oil properties of GTL. But again, I still don't see an advantage to changing cheaper inferior oil 2x over 10k vs. a higher end oil 1x over 10k. Or if you want more protection, changing the higher end oil ever 5k or 7.5k. Either way, the performance of the higher end oil in the 5.0 is going to be markedly better.

I'll bet my bottom dollar once some one else switches to ravenol they will see what I did. It did take a while for the engine to respond differently. Remember the PCM adjusts over time. Some parameters are on the fly, cycle by cycle, while others are longer term over hundreds of thousands of cycles. So do the oil change and give it a few hundred miles then report back what you find.

It's the same thing with Power Packs from FP. They have an octane learn. Flashing the ECU at a shop then jumping on the dyno right away will yield lower power than if the car had 200+ miles on it and had completed the octane learn. Or TriboTEX / CeraTec / Archoil. The all take time to form and build up before they achieve full effect. Then the ECU has to adapt to the new environment the engine is operating in and re-adjust its timing / fueling tables etc. it all takes time.

 

[accel]

. I still got 30 mpg on the known stretch of highway to work just like I did with the M1 oil when TriboTEX was initially added.

CeraTec can also be added to gearbox. Pretty sure it could reduce friction even more. Curious you haven't tried this yet.

 

[TheLion]

It's only been 2 days but I feel like the MC 5w30 synthetic blend has really quieted down my engine at idle. Does this MC oil contain the MoDTC or do I need to go full synthetic?

I was shocked to see how watery the factory oil was when I drained it. I always put 5w30 in my 2003 Mach 1 also which was also tick free. Some Mach 1 owners said they had it.

I always change my oil with the engine hot and fresh off a start from pulling it on ramps so any contamination is suspended in the hot oil that is about to be drained.

The newest batches of MC that are API SN+ (LSPI resistant) contain about 200 ppm of MoDTC. MC is always a safe bet. It does shear down like all other group III's, but it's rate of shear is about on par with off the shelf synthetics like Valvoline. It's a decent quality oil. I wouldn't bother going with anything but MC unless your step up to PUP because it's a Group III+ or if you go high end like I did for maximum protection.

 

[TheLion]

Just for reference, there's other issues with these VI additive group III's. Temporary shear. These are partially compressible liquids because of the polymer viscosity improvers actually do compress. Assuming the pressure or heat isn't enough to cause permanent uncoiling of the molecules, they often temporarily shear and that's why they perform as well as they do at fuel economy tests and why Ravenol, even though it's only 8.5 cSt at 100C (MC is actually thicker), produces a higher oil pressure because there's no VI additives, it won't compress. It acts more or less like hydraulic fluid should act. This fact alone can provide better protection in the same viscosity because it doesn't temporarily "loose" viscosity under high pressure and I suspect why my 5.0 seems to respond more consistently than it did before because the Ravenol doesn't contain any compressible VI additives.

I'm not suggesting oils with VI additives are all garbage. I've used them for years myself. I'm only suggesting there can be some negative consequences when it comes to high revving, high performance engines and using them, especially over the longer term. But on the flip side, Ford does some quite extensive testing with MC Semi-Syn oils because that's the factory fill. The Ecoboost torture test, the development qualification testing etc is pretty darn brutal and they hold up. However that does not mean that same engine would survive with Valvoline or Mobil 1 for example, or it could perform even better.

I'm just simply implying it's another unknown variable and MC is still a safe bet, especially the newer blends which seem to be enhanced over all. It's a decent oil compared to other US group III's. People act like it's garbage but interesting the 5.0's seem to have the least amount of clatter at idle on MC or on high end PAO's / Esters. Supposedly MC is about 50% PAO / Ester blend or "true synthetic" base stocks. That might explain why, because there are likely less VI's in it. MC semi-syn showed a 10 to 15% shear loss over 7,500 to 9,000 mile intervals. My oil life calculations on my PCM usually allow for around 9,200 miles based on my driving habbits / environment. So MC doesn't do half bad.

 

[TheLion]

https://www.ravenolamerica.com/temp...RAVENOL_Super_Fuel_Economy_SFE_SAE_5W20_1.pdf

BTW I would make one edit to Ravenol, I believe the US formulas for Ravenol do contain what they call "high quality" VI's in small amounts. They don't list their US data sheet with USVO technology but still same ACEA ratings, same viscosity specs etc. Maybe they simply didn't list USVO or maybe the formula is slightly different. What ever the case it has the same HTHS viscosity of 2.9 @ 150C and 8.4 @ 100C so it will provide the same high RPM / High Temp protection.

CCS is actually a bit better in the US spec variant at 3700 mPa*s so it should also provide excellent cold start wear protection, certainly much better than the GF-5 standard maximum of 6,600. MC's CCS I think is in the 5,000 range. Also a nice TBN of 10 so it has plenty of capacity for longer drain intervals. Those using hBN or MSH DLC coatings should achieve even better results as blow by will be reduced further limiting the oil's exposure to acids and thus extending it's service life.

https://www.ravenol.de/fileadmin/content/documents/pdfs/RAVENOL_USVO_Presentation_.pdf

But I digress, if anyone want's a really good true synthetic oil that goes a generation beyond what is currently being offered on the shelves of walmart or autozone or even the Ford dealerships, then you would be hard pressed to beat Ravenol's PAO based offerings that are both API licensed AND ACEA A5/B5 making it a very unique Ford warranty friendly oil.

 

[GT Pony]

The newest batches of MC that are API SN+ (LSPI resistant) contain about 200 ppm of MoDTC. MC is always a safe bet. It does shear down like all other group III's, but it's rate of shear is about on par with off the shelf synthetics like Valvoline.

From the UOAs I've seen, Valvoline full synthetic shears down less than Motorcraft semi-synthetic. Some recent UOAs on the new dexos1 Gen2 Valvoline posted on BITOG showed it didn't shear down at all - KV100 of the used oil had barely changed .

 

[accel]

Just for the record, our UK cars use 5W-20. No ticks yet in the 18+ cars. Just one poor bloke with a rattler. At the price Ford charge over here it's a fair bet that UK 18+ owners have owned some decent cars and are very well aware of DI noises.

RHD cars got to have some more space on the right side of the engine, for pedals, steering, so something had to be relocated from that area so ewhere else.

And most US owners report the tick most prominent from the right side.

Anyone knows what is the difference between US/UK engine config?

 

[dirty-max]

RHD cars got to have some more space on the right side of the engine, for pedals, steering, so something had to be relocated from that area so ewhere else.

And most US owners report the tick most prominent from the right side.

Anyone knows what is the difference between US/UK engine config?

Exhaust manifolds are the only thing that is different, I think. It'd be crazy if the tick was something loose hitting the side of the engine or a loose exhaust or something.

 

[accel]

Exhaust manifolds are the only thing that is different, I think. It'd be crazy if the tick was something loose hitting the side of the engine or a loose exhaust or something.

I was thinking like what if US model had starter on the right side, and UK on the left side and somehow we could find correlations.

But other than the design... could fuel quality or compression matter?

I.e. - us fuel is bad on oil, or, causes engine to detonate very slightly but frequently and that wears pustons/bearings quickly...

 

[Condor1970]

I was thinking like what if US model had starter on the right side, and UK on the left side and somehow we could find correlations.

But other than the design... could fuel quality or compression matter?

I.e. - us fuel is bad on oil, or, causes engine to detonate very slightly but frequently and that wears pustons/bearings quickly...

Not likely, since a lot of petrol that is refined in Houston also gets shipped to Europe. The formulations with exception to maybe ethanol percentage is pretty similar.

Sponsored