BBQ tick - another attempt to understand

[Condor1970]

If the ticking was caused by OEM header acoustics, I would think that ticking wouldn't magically start happening right after an oil change. Headers and an oil change are not connected in any way.

Same goes for the instant deadening of sound when you add a bottle of Ceratec.

Sponsored

 

[GT Pony]

What ever the case, they still don't match the HTHS film strength of PAO's and Ester blends from Ravenol and RedLine, so if high RPM protection is what you want, they are your best bets. Both are also ACEA A5/B5 spec oils, so their HTHS is 2.9 minimum (RedLine's is 3.0). Valvoline's is 2.7 if memory serves correctly, so about 7% thinner than Ravenol and 11% thinner than RedLine.

Ravenol is a little more versatile than RedLine in that it has a more robust additive package (higher base number and performs well in extended drain UOA's) and has better cold temp pump-ability (as good or better than AMSOIL's base stocks in the same viscosity). For cars that mostly are in warm climates like Texas or live their lives mostly as track cars, RedLine is the better choice as it provides just a little more film strength at 3.0 cSt. ACEA A5/B5 requires HTHS to be between 2.9 and 3.2.

Valvoline Advanced 5W-30 has a HTHS of 3.2, and Noack of 9.3 (something else I consider when looking at motor oils). Screw Ford's "recommended" use of 5W-20 which is driven by CAFE credits. If you want to protect the engine better just use a good 5W-30 full synthetic is my take on it all. No Coyote is going to be harmed, but more like better protected, by using a 5W-30.

 

[dirty-max]

It's not every car... Last Stang show I went to in September I talked with everyone I could find who owned a 2017 or above and asked them them about ticks and noise and there was only one guy who had the BBQ tick, and he had it BAD.... For those who remember TV in the 60's it sounded like the 100 typewriters going in the background of the various news shows.. Awful.. He was working a buy back..

I dunno, this stinks of cost control, loose weight via cylinder coatings and so forth. And I cannot believe for one second that Ford doesn't know what is wrong here. They are hoping this goes away when they introduce V2 of the engine...What puzzles me is why this has not been leaked.. There is always some unhappy employee who leaks this kind of stuff anonymously... That is puzzling.

Again folks, social media is the key.
The mustang6 forums are small potatoes compared to FB, Jalopnik, CNN, Motorweek etc... Why not blast this shit everywhere?
Back in the 80's I got a lemon Chevy, brand new.
The dealer kept blowing me off.
My wife and I, newlyweds at the time and broke, covered the car in plastic lemons, parked on public property right in front of the dealership, had fliers printed up documenting our case and even called the local news, which showed up much to our surprise.... Sure, we looked like idiots but people really understood where we were coming from.

Bottom line, we got a new car.... That was REALLY unusual back in the early 80's.

Ford doesn't need bad publicity.

I called Lebanon Ford today since I am looking to purchase a mustang they told me they have seen the BBQ tick a handful of times but that it only occurs on maybe 1/100 cars or so...they claim very few customers seem to be having this issue with the 3rd gen coyote. Idk if its this forum that makes it seem worse, or if they are downplaying a big problem, I really don't know! He did tell me that it seems like the 18s have had more issues than the 19s and that I should try to stick with a 19MY if I purchase one.

 

[88lx50]

Don't count on a fix. The tick has been around since the 1st generation Coyote. This generation seems to have more instances of it.

I called Lebanon Ford today since I am looking to purchase a mustang they told me they have seen the BBQ tick a handful of times but that it only occurs on maybe 1/100 cars or so...they claim very few customers seem to be having this issue with the 3rd gen coyote. Idk if its this forum that makes it seem worse, or if they are downplaying a big problem, I really don't know! He did tell me that it seems like the 18s have had more issues than the 19s and that I should try to stick with a 19MY if I purchase one.

He wants to sell you a car. He is a not going to tell you the Mustang is a lemon. I am not saying it is, but no dealer is going to bash his product.

 

[dirty-max]

Don't count on a fix. The tick has been around since the 1st generation Coyote. This generation seems to have more instances of it.

He wants to sell you a car. He is a not going to tell you the Mustang is a lemon. I am not saying it is, but no dealer is going to bash his product.

Pretty much what I had figured, Im having a hard time admitting maybe it is a lemon myself considering its the only car of the big 3 that I really like!

 

[TheLion]

If the ticking was caused by OEM header acoustics, I would think that ticking wouldn't magically start happening right after an oil change. Headers and an oil change are not connected in any way.

It is if the noise is hidden by certain header configurations. It's just a theory as to why it doesn't seem to be an issue in the UK or Aussie cars. UK cars run 5W-20 according to one OP while Aussie cars run 5W-30. Here's the thing, I wonder if it's oil formulations. I doubt the euro cars are running the same oil, they are running what's available there and after switching to Ravenol 5W-20, I can say my 5.0 responds far better and more consistently than it ever did before. Ford Performance warned me that the cam phasors are very sensitive to viscosity. I'm wondering if hydro-cracked Group III's hopped up on compressible VI's are just too thin for optimal function.

What ever it is, my oil pressure is also consistently 5psi higher at idle with Ravenol over any of the US off the shelf snythetics. I will say it was a tad above 20 psi with Motorcraft semi-syn, maybe 21~22 psi on the pressure gauge and had better low end response than PUP or Mobil 1. It seems there's more to viscosity alone than resistance to flow in the ASTM test as to it's effects on components. I'm thinking adhesion of the films are better with higher end and OE oil and why I see these differences, the ASTM viscosity classification tests are pretty simply and may not reveal all of these formula difference in more complex hydraulic passage ways.

Oil has three main jobs:
1. Lubrication
2. Hydraulic fluid
3. Cooling

Doping up el cheapo hydrocracked group III's with lots of bottom of the barrel low density viscosity improves allows for more temporary shear. Add to that they are pushing the boundaries of film thickness without making any changes in clearances. I have no issue with 20 weights, there are lots of high end race cars (NASCARS and other legitimate race cars) that run low viscosity oils, however they are using the highest base stocks possible with proper anti-wear additive levels to prevent premature valvetrain and cylinder group wear. They do that to lower pumping losses and eek out ever last couple of HP and it is a winning formula. But it also means the margin of error is smaller, needing tighter clearances, better oil filtration and better quality oil to avoid failures.

I would encourage anyone with the BBQ Tick to at least try TriboTEX with Ravenol or another ACEA A5/B5 5W-20 or 5W-30 weight oil. Combining high end PAO / Ester blend base stocks with a surface reconditioned that enhances oil adhesion is a win win for that noise. Not only that is your going to regain anywhere from 10 to 20 hp in friction losses, especially in the 3rd gen 5.0's. I suspect that the cam phasors, bottom end clearances and hydraulic lash adjusters are all very sensitive to oil formulas.

The rod side to side clearances may need to be what they are for a reason, heat. This engine runs hot, hotter than the LT1 or 392 because it operates a higher average RPM AND it has 2x the valve-train. It consequently has higher friction losses which off-set some of the advantaged of DOHC / TiVVC. But using ultra low friction surface re-conditioners AND high quality base stock oils will tap into more latent potential than either the LT1 or Hemi have available. The higher the operating RPM, the greater the friction losses, it's generally linear. The Voodoo 5.2 would benefit immensely from this, I would not be surprised to see 25 to 30 hp gains in that high flying 8250 rpm variant. CeraTec has already proven this with multiple car dynos across multiple makes and moddles. Depending on the engine design, some benefit more than others, but the engines that benefit the most are DOHC high revvers like the 5.0 and many high revving European V8's and inline 6's or even 4 cylinders like the 2.2 / 2.4 in the S2000's.

 

[TheLion]

Valvoline Advanced 5W-30 has a HTHS of 3.2, and Noack of 9.3 (something else I consider when looking at motor oils). Screw Ford's "recommended" use of 5W-20 which is driven by CAFE credits. If you want to protect the engine better just use a good 5W-30 full synthetic is my take on it all. No Coyote is going to be harmed, but more like better protected, by using a 5W-30.

I generally agree but for those wanting to stay in warranty, it might be a big pain to have to go home and drain out the 5W-30 then bring it back in with 5W-20 if you have issues, or if something really bad happens and you throw a rod (more of an Ecoboost phenomenon, but still possible), it would be highly suspicious for you have it towed home first and then the dealership.

An ACEA A5/B5 5W-20 provides about the same protection as most off-the-shelf SAE 5W-30's or close to it at 150C. I don't think most of us are worried about viscosity at 100C under normal driving conditions as there's plenty of protection there by even off-the-shelf 5W-20's. The two worst case points are excessive cold start wear and for those that drive hard high RPM wear and shock loading. ACEA A5/B5 requires HTHS to be >= 2.9 and <= 3.5, so 5W-20 and 5W-30's can both fall under that specification but I'm not sure if 40 weights would cut it in the upper limit, maybe.

I may consider Ravenols 5W-30 next time myself for even better protection than their 5W-20 but it is a bit of a pain and risk should something go wrong, but at this point I'm no longer willing to use an oil with an HTHS under 2.9 cSt, so I'm sticking to ACEA A5/B5 specked 5W-20 oils as a minimum safe point for hard use, but just going to a high end PAO base stock has worked wonders so far for response, smoothness and protection, it's just much more torqy and predictable down low and stays that way all the way through the rev range.

Ravenol's 5W-20 meets SAE 30 weight requirements for HTHS. AMSOIL's 5W-30 has an HTHS of 3, that's only a 3.6% difference between Ravenols 5W-20 and AMSOIL's 5W-30 which has performed admirably in UOA's for the S197's, but at 100C it's about 20% difference. So you get better cold start wear protection from 5W-20's even though both are rated for 5W cold weather spec, 30's are on the upper end of the 5W tolerance where 20's are closer to the bottom or middle. Your pumping losses with a 20 weight are also going to be lower at 100C while under normal driving, thus allowing better fuel economy. Most of us aren't racing, but do drive our cars hard so we want to strike a good balance and I don't think we should dismiss ACEA rated 5W-20's. But yes I agree SAE 5W-20's are just too thin for those that drive hard over the long term.

Clevite stated that 10 cSt at 100C is the best balance for rod bearings between limiting drag losses while still providing adequate protection. It provides enough protection under high loads but keeps losses as low as possible without sacrificing protection. SAE 5W-30's fit that bill as well as ACEA A5/B5 5W-20's because the ACEA A5/B5 HTHS minimum requirements are the same as SAE 5W-30's HTHS requirements. Clevite is implying by their 10 cSt viscosity being optimal that it's a SAE 30 weight. No SAE 20 weights are going to have 10 cSt at 100C because it's out of SAE specs for 20 weights.

But what if you could get a 20 weight with the high temp protection of a SAE 30 weight? That's where the European high end PAO bast stock blends come in like Ravenol. But they do also make a 5W-30 with a HTHS of 3.0 and viscosity of 10 at 100C, it's about as ideal as you can get and I may try that myself next oil change. All of their gold bottle oils are Group IV PAO blends. Their silver bottles are group III's, so not much different than what's at walmart and I wouldn't bother with their group III's. But their IV's have some pretty ideal properties, both their 5W-20's and their 5W-30's.

 

[TheLion]

UK cars come filled with oil from Flat Rock. Presumably the same 5W-20 that's added to the US cars. The Aussie cars are filled up in Detroit with 5W-30.

UK cars see cold weather. You have 4 seasons not so different from US. Aussie cars see at best temps down to about 40F, but summer temps above 100F. So 30 weights make more sense. But I agree with GT Pony that for any hard use you need a high end spec 5W-20 or an off-the-shelf 5W-30.

 

[TheLion]

BTW did you guys know the first revision of the Aussie GT manual calls for 5W-20? Then it magically changed mid-year to 5W-30...the best might actually be to run an ACEA A5/B5 5W-20 for winter (slightly thinner) and then run a ACEA A5/B5 5W-30 for summer / track use. Either way running a good quality PAO or Ester base oil I think is a must for any hard driving. If you mostly cruise in the highway with occasional short on-ramp pulls and that's about it, then I see no reason why MC semi-syn 5W-20 isn't good enough.

For short pulls where your not heating up the oil, group III's that are heavily doped with VI's are still ok as they won't thin out much over short periods. But for a street car that gets driven hard, a PAO or Ester ACEA A5/B5 5W-20 is a minimum I think for long term protection, 5W-30 would be even better.

Viscosity is only one part of the story. HTHS and permanent shear is what we want to look at. HTHS does not account for permanent shear over the life of the oil. It's only how the oil temporarily shears when new at that temp and load. So a thinner shear stable PAO may actually outperform a thicker heavily VI doped group III.

Suppose Valvoline's new 5W-30 with a 3.2 HTHS shears down 15% (their previous formula saw between 10% and 15% shear down in as little at 5,000 miles). At 15% shear down HTHS is down to 2.72. Suppose a PAO shear stable base oil with 2.9 HTHS shears down only 5%. That's 2.75 HTHS. So the "thinner" high quality PAO base stock is actually out performing the lower quality VI doped group III base stock over the life of the oil. Just be aware of this.

I'd rather pick an idea viscosity and have it remain withing 5% of it's original viscosity than pick a thicker but less shear stable viscosity and have it shear down. Performance will be more consistent and predictable with the former. So quality matters as much as specifications weather you go 5W-20 or 5W-30. Cruising on the highway is about the easiest usage your oil will see. Cold starts and high RPM over extended time periods is the worst it will see. If you have a lot of either, using a higher quality base stock is going to be beneficial over the long run.

 

[TheLion]

Just some more food for thought on going too thick (I won't go thicker than 5W-30):

Because machined internal engine parts are more precise than the parts of 20 years ago, oils need to be thinner. Clearances between moving parts are smaller and more exact. Thinner oil such as 5W-20 can flow more freely through the engine while still filling the spaces. Thicker oil is harder to push through the spaces between the parts. This causes the oil pump to work harder, which in turn increases oil pressure while simultaneously decreasing oil volume. A lack of oil volume results in a decrease of lubrication and cooling, which may decrease engine part life.

Source: http://performance.ford.com/enthusi...tery-out-of-picking-the-proper-motor-oil.html

While Ford Performance doesn't do everything the best or know everything, they generally have some good insight and provide some of the most reliable modifications for Ford performance cars. Although you may get mixed results from their techs at times, they are also required to fall in line with Ford's requirements for warranty, so even if 5W-30 provided more protection, they might not be able to legally suggest so.

Cooling is a result of VOLUME of oil. The lower the oil volume, the longer the dwell time and the less thermal transfer. So something to consider that clearances are usually optimized for a particular viscosity. This is FAR from the first motor Ford has built for 5W-20 and despite all the claims that "tolerances are same back when bla bla bla" I've seen to actual published specs supporting that, only here say and conjecture. Now I do believe it's HIGHLY likely that the Aussie, UK and US 5.0's are all made to the same specs and the engine is fine on either grade of oil, but 30 weight is more ideal for hot climates while 20 weight may be more ideal for 4 season climates. Hence why US and UK use 20 weight and Aussie cars us 30.

Also many extreme HP cars run thin oils with great success (NASCAR, ProStock etc.). NASCAR's run up to 500 miles at 9,500 RPM making nearly 900 HP without throwing rod bearings...there are many 24 hour LeMans endurance cars running low viscosity oils as well now for the very fact that lower pumping losses = more power and with adequate volume of flow (easier to achieve with thinner oils), there is greater cooling due to lower dwell time, so each molecule of oil's maximum thermal capacity has more margin.

Don't assume thinner viscosity necessarily means inferior protection outright, that is only the case in certain situations such as using a thinner viscosity than tolerances are set up for or in instances of very high contamination like in Dirt Oval Tack cars (my father in law actually runs an 800 HP Late Model Dirt Oval car). I think it's often assumed that's the case because typical group III's we buy that are heavily doped with VI's tend to thin out and in that case the higher viscosity will provide better protection because a 30 weight might shear down to a 20 weight and become "below grade" or "out of spec" at some point if temporary or permanent shear is significant enough. But a high end PAO / Ester will be far more resistant to shear. That goes back to my suggestion of using a high end 5W-20 to give you "new off-the-shelf 5W-30 like protection" while also maintaining it over the service interval. Also looking at GT Pony's UOA's from the S197's I see absolutely NO direct correlation between iron and aluminum content and viscosity when comparing 5W-20's and 5W-30's. Driving conditions and oil quality seem to have a much larger impact.

There are cars with both higher mileage and high mileage OCI's (5,000 up to 10,000 miles) running both 5W-20 and 5W-30 weights that performed well on wear. But those with the best wear results are unanimously running PAO or Ester base oils from AMSOIL or RedLine in either viscosity. They also have the least shearing, almost none in many cases or slight thickening. So for now I'll stick to 5W-20's that are BOTH ACEA A5/B5 spec and API licensed to maintain warranty and achieve more optimal protection. We'll see how it pans out with my frequent sustained high rpm driving. Don't forget you also have a plethora of safety nannies that kick in if things get too hot as well.

Only once did I get my temps up close to "yellow", but I still had about 1/8 of the way to go before touching the warning zone and at that point I would have slowed down and let things cool off had they climbed higher but they didn't and held firm. And that was about 15 minutes of constant high RPM with a full passenger load in 90F weather. IT was HOT that day. And hey, if it throws a bearing, it's under warranty. It's not being raced and I"m using OE spec oils and filters. I has a warranty friendly Power Pack 2 done by the dealership and they are familiar with the car having done both tire installations and replaced a failed catalytic converter that was a warranty replacement (occurred after the 3 year / 36000 mile was past). Yah, I type a lot, get over it

 

[GT Pony]

Ford Performance warned me that the cam phasors are very sensitive to viscosity.

If that was true, then they wouldn't spec 5W-50 for the Boss 302, which I'm betting has the same basic cam phaser design as used in the Coyote. After I switched from 5W-20 to 5W-30 I detected no difference in how the engine felt going through the RPM range, which would make the cam phasers operate. Also, I don't know at what oil temperature the ECU allows the phasers to fully operate, but if it's say 150 F and above, even 5W-20 is thicker at 150 F than a 5W-30 or even a 5W-40 is at 200 F. So if the phasers were that sensitive, they wouldn't be allowed to operate until the oil was even hotter than 150 F with 5W-20.

I have no issue with 20 weights, there are lots of high end race cars (NASCARS and other legitimate race cars) that run low viscosity oils, however they are using the highest base stocks possible with proper anti-wear additive levels to prevent premature valvetrain and cylinder group wear. They do that to lower pumping losses and eek out ever last couple of HP and it is a winning formula. But it also means the margin of error is smaller, needing tighter clearances, better oil filtration and better quality oil to avoid failures.

Those race cars using thin oils also have insane oil coolers on them. If you can keep the 5W-20 temperature down to 200 F throughout the race then it's not going to thin down to a dangerous level. If 5W-20 gets too high, then the MOFT starts shrinking and then engine wear and damage can start to occur. Also, those race engines aren't meant to last forever, and I'm sure there's some engine wear ... but as long as it survives until the checkered flag it's done it's job.

The rod side to side clearances may need to be what they are for a reason, heat. This engine runs hot, hotter than the LT1 or 392 because it operates a higher average RPM AND it has 2x the valve-train.

The temperature of the rod big ends will primarily depend on what the oil temperature is going into the bearing, and how much the oil heats up from shearing as it's squeezed and sheared by the bearing, which adds heat and a corresponding oil temperature rise. Higher RPM really gets the rod bearings hotter - more so than piston load on the bearing. Tighter bearing clearance will also cause a higher oil temperature rise within the bearing, because tighter bearings have less side leakage (ie, less oil flowing through them) which doesn't help cool the bearing. Obviously, keeping the oil temperature down (with a dedicated cooler - which the Coyote does have) is an important aspect of keeping the oil and bearing temperatures under control.

 

[GT Pony]

I generally agree but for those wanting to stay in warranty, it might be a big pain to have to go home and drain out the 5W-30 then bring it back in with 5W-20 if you have issues, or if something really bad happens and you throw a rod (more of an Ecoboost phenomenon, but still possible), it would be highly suspicious for you have it towed home first and then the dealership.

The Ford owner's manual doesn't say 5W-20 is "required" ... it says it's "recommended". There is nothing in the owner's manual that flat out says the warranty if void if you don't use the recommended oil. All the owner's manual says is:

If you use oil and fluids that do not meet the defined specification and viscosity
grade, this may lead to:
• Component damage, which the vehicle warranty does not cover.
• Longer engine cranking periods.
• Increased emission levels.
• Reduced engine performance.
• Reduced fuel economy.
• Degraded brake performance.

Ford would have to prove that using a different oil viscosity caused the engine damage. I highly doubt running a good brand name oil with a little thicker oil viscosity is going to damage anything due to the viscosity. But yeah, I agree it could be a point of contention if there was any engine warranty work required - but again, that would have to be proven by Ford, and them automatically concluding it was due to the thicker oil would be wrong without some technical proof.

Clevite stated that 10 cSt at 100C is the best balance for rod bearings between limiting drag losses while still providing adequate protection. It provides enough protection under high loads but keeps losses as low as possible without sacrificing protection. SAE 5W-30's fit that bill as well as ACEA A5/B5 5W-20's because the ACEA A5/B5 HTHS minimum requirements are the same as SAE 5W-30's HTHS requirements. Clevite is implying by their 10 cSt viscosity being optimal that it's a SAE 30 weight. No SAE 20 weights are going to have 10 cSt at 100C because it's out of SAE specs for 20 weights

Yep, and another reason I think 5W-30 is the ideal viscosity. IMO, 5W-30 will work well in almost any engine on the road.

 

[GT Pony]

Suppose Valvoline's new 5W-30 with a 3.2 HTHS shears down 15% (their previous formula saw between 10% and 15% shear down in as little at 5,000 miles).

Here's a VOA and a couple of UOA of the Valvoline Advanced 5W-30. The KV100 was 10.11 cSt on the VOA. UOAs showed the used oil had KV100 of 10.68 cSt (12K OCI) and 10.34 cSt (6K OCI). So there was virtually zero shearing in those UOAs, but a very slight increase in viscosity - probably within the range of viscosity measurement error factor.

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4682481/1
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4841025/1
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4841559/1

 

[Condor1970]

Here's a VOA and a couple of UOA of the Valvoline Advanced 5W-30. The KV100 was 10.11 cSt on the VOA. UOAs showed the used oil had KV100 of 10.68 cSt (12K OCI) and 10.34 cSt (6K OCI). So there was virtually zero shearing in those UOAs, but a very slight increase in viscosity - probably within the range of viscosity measurement error factor.

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4682481/1
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4841025/1
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4841559/1

I'll tell ya, I've been wracking my brains over oil so much, I'm going to give myself an aneurysm. Seriously, I'm about ready to say to heck with all of it, and just go with QSUD 5w30 from Walmart, because it's only $18/jug.

 

[dirty-max]

Hey guys I just sent a big email with links to a bunch of threads on here to pretty much every single writer for Jalopnik so hopefully they can help us get an answer on these issues! Feel free to do the same to catch their attention!

Sponsored