BBQ tick - another attempt to understand

[TheLion]

I agree with everything you state here minus the last paragraph. I'm going with a 6th gen Camaro .

6th gen Camaro is a great car but far from having it's own faults. I've seen examples right on the 6th gen forum I posted links to a while back of bone stock 6th gen SS's spinning two rod bearings on a dyno with only 4k miles on the clock, car even had factory oil in it. There's plenty of videos with LT1's in the Corvetts (2014 to present) with ticking sounds as well including some guys who have had entire heads replaced....your not going to escape the possibility. Both Dodge's have the dreaded Hemi Tick issue AND low RPM cylinder rattle issues just like the 3rd gen 5.0's. Anyone buying a used Pony car who's up on these problems is going to be looking for them no matter what brand. But some engines are nosier than others and I will say without a shadow of a doubt the LT1 seems to have the least occurrences of these types of issues of the big 3 (Ford, Dodge and Chevy), despite the fact that they still happen.

The LT1 and 392 have their merits, but the 3rd Gen 5.0 makes by far the broadest power band. It makes 5hp more peak than the LT1 with more than double the bandwidth where it's making over 400 whp. LT1 is comparable to a Power Pack 2 equipped 2nd Generation 5.0. There is also no factory hot tunes. The calibration you get is the calibration you get unless you want to void your warranty on an $11,000 engine...good luck with that!

The biggest thing the Alpha has going for it is it's superb factory chassis tuning. While the SS 1LE is considerably slower than a GT350R on the track, it's also down by 70 HP. If the two were of equal power, stock to stock, they would likely be on part with each other. Just like the Performance Pack 2 GT's are neck and neck with the SS 1LE's and have a much closer power to weight ratio (GT has an average power advantage, but is slightly heavier and the coyotes are prone to oil induced knock which is fixed easily with catch cans). In some tests the 1LE comes out on top, in others the PP2 GT's come out on top. But the GT350, even the regular variant has a substantial power advantage the 1LE is never going to make up for. It also has more potential to gain power with DLC coatings because it's losses are much higher than the LT1's. I don't think you will be overwhelmed by the SS especially once you get past 6k and torque falls off the cliff, but it pulls nice down low and reminds me a bit of the Ecoboost V6 in terms of torque band. All low and mid-range but nothing up top where the party ends fast. 3rd gen 5.0 has an awesome power band, holding over 400 whp from 5,500 to 7,500. The LT1 only manages to break 400 whp from 5,500 to about 6,250...

Sponsored

 

[GT Pony]

According to Ford Performance, the big issue with changing oil viscosity is how FAST the cam phasors respond. According to them using a thicker oil causes them to take more than one cycle to respond. So instead of advancing the cam phase the next cycle, it may take two. The engine is going respond more sluggishly and make less power at that next cycle. Your simply not going to make optimal power on 5W-30. Hence why they said the phasors are sensitive to even a single grade viscosity change. The bearing clearances are optimized for 20 weight oil at the pressure and flow of the oil pump used. Pressure and flow rates along with heat affect the "optimal viscosity" just as much as the weight of the oil and the clearance used. So it may work, but is it really "better"? I still argue that using a more temperature stable 5W-20 is a better solution, even if a little more expensive.

The main reason an engine might make a bit less HP output on thicker oil is because of higher shearing of the larger (more protective) MOFT in the bearings. As far as the cam phasor thing ... I think Ford Performance is over blowing that whole deal. Again, Ford wouldn't recommend 5W-50 for a lot of the Mustangs and Roush (most likely in conjunction with Ford Performance) isn't going to require 5W-50 if it had some adverse affect on cam phasors, or Roush would also swap out cam phasors with the supercharger mod.

So going from 5W-30 isn't even going to be noticeable in terms of "power loss" or "cam phasor operation" behind the steering wheel. Probably couldn't even see a difference on a dyno because it would be in repeatability noise level of a dyno run. But per all the technical information on journal bearings they will know a difference and have more MOFT to spin on and ensure less wear over the miles, and a larger safety factor if required under hard engine use (ie, elevated oil temperatures).

The ECU calibrations for the Aussie cars are not going to be identical to the US cars. And the UK cars are different as well, in fact they make less power than the US versions (including their official rated power). Right there is a real measurable difference. UK cars are optimized for 5W-20 if that's what the manual calls for. Aussie cars are optimized for 5W-30 and run in a substantially hotter environment on average. How do you know the oil pump isn't slightly different or the rod bearing clearances are not slightly different? We can claim they "must be" all we want, but I at least have proof that the Boss 302 runs 0.0020 to 0.0025 right from Ford Performance OE short block replacement specs. Thats quite different from the 0.011 to 0.0027 range of production 5.0's.

I highly doubt the ECUs are programmed differently or oil pumps are designed differently depending on what oil viscosity Ford recommends. Why would they recommend 5W-30 for track use in the 2018+ if the ECU was programmed for 5W-20? I doubt the rod and main bearings specs in any export Coyote are any different - if we could find someone in Australia or Europe that had access to a service manual there, we could verify.

My bet it they are all the same parts (probably the same part numbers too, which could verify the question). Why would Ford really have to go through the trouble of making engines with different bearing clearances and different oil pumps, etc? Rod and crank bearing clearances have been roughly the same in engines for decades, regardless of what oil viscosity the manufacturer recommends. Have you see those many threads on bobistheoilguy where people show the owner's manuals in different countries that shows oil viscosity ranging from xW-20 to xW-50 depending on the ambient temperatures? Where as the same car sold in the USA recommends only xW-20 (CAFE driven).

All of these little tweaks have notable impacts. I doubt you'll have any issues with function or short term reliability that are substantial because 20 and 30 are so close, but I don't believe it's optimal and sticking with an ACEA A5/B5 spec 5W-20 is the better solution for high temp protection without being overly thick during normal driving. The ECU is also calibrated for the expected changes in viscosity. 2018's use a different calibration than the 2015-2017's. And the S197 Track Pack GT's use a different calibration than the standard S197 GT's. I'm not aware of any 5.0's that have thrown rod bearings because of 5W-20, only people who suggest they will or that you "need more protection". Over on the HPDE section, there's a big split, some people run 5W-20's, others run 5W-30's. No reported failures of either, but one is more optimal than the other.

You have any proof that the ECU is actually calibrated for oil viscosity? I keep seeing this statement/theory but I'd like to see proof and not have it become some internet tale. Of course the Gen3 uses a different calibration then a Gen2 ... they are completely different engines. Same goes for S197s. The ECU calibration is based on 100s of factors (and highly emissions driven), but I highly doubt what oil viscosity listed in the owner's manual is one of those factors.

Just because someone didn't "throw a bearing" doesn't mean there isn't more wear going on inside those bearings. I'd never run my car hard on a track with a 5W-20. Why do all the car manufacturer's that say something about track use in their owner's manual always recommend a higher viscosity oil for track use? The know what goes on inside bearings and know that higher viscosity always means more MOFT, which gives better bearing protection.

Enough is enough. More is not always better. Rod bearings may not be that sensitive to 20 vs 30, but what if the cam phasors are? Can you prove they are NOT? So why question what Ford Performance has consistently warned about even if it isn't causing harm? I suppose in the end it doesn't matter. We are each going to do what we want regardless. I'd consider this issue closed.

More MOFT is better, and so is more HTHS. Lots of technical papers (I've seen many on BITOG discussed) show a pretty good correlation between engine wear and oil viscosity and HTHS. And not just talking about journal bearings, but also piston ring wear is affected by HTHS ... more HTHS gives less wear (no surprise). In the end, it pretty much boils down the HTHS, which is typically a function of the rated viscosity. So I was going to have more comfort in a 5W-20 I'd certainly be looking for one with as high a HTHS as possible. I wanted HTHS above 3.0 and the only way to achieve that without paying $15 a quart on boutique oil was to go with a good 5W-30 full synthetic.

Ford wouldn't recommend thicker oil viscosity for track use if it affected the cam phasors in a negative way. If it causes them to react 12 milliseconds later (time of 1 engine rotation at 5K RPM) I don't think that's going to really matter in any real world situation

 

[GT Pony]

6th gen Camaro is a great car but far from having it's own faults. I've seen examples right on the 6th gen forum I posted links to a while back of bone stock 6th gen SS's spinning two rod bearings on a dyno with only 4k miles on the clock, car even had factory oil in it.

5W-20? Bearings spin because the heavy metal-to-metal contact basically "welds" them to the spinning journal, which then spins the bearing insert.

 

[Nanashii]

Well here we go. Maybe this video will get some traction.

The part about another 2018 owner at a car meet walking up and asking him if his motor is ticking was hilarious.



Ford are you watching?

 

[GT 550]

Ford are you watching?

Hi Nanashii, I'll wager Ford isn't watching because 1) we keep buying their cars 2) they know already and 3) we keep buying their cars. IMHO the worst part of this is not that it's happening but that they stonewall owners by not providing public acknowledgement or assurance. Somewhat along the lines of 'insult to injury'. But they've said nothing about the ac evap and RHD oil cooler issues that have been going of for years either, if you ring Ford in Australia and ask if there's a remedy for either they act like they've never heard of it. Did I mention we keep buying their cars? Presumably because we want to 'believe'; all will be well, it wont happen to mine etc. This has been exploited by Ford for quite some time so unfortunately they are unlikely to change, I think we have to accept that it's just how they do business. Remember this is the company that was recently fined $10m for trying to convince owners that a fatal trans issue in the Focus(?) was driver related when it was actually a fault.



Apologies to all if this has been covered but I couldn't find an answer on whether aftermarket rebuild 2018+ engines, assuming there are some, have the same 'features'?

Cheers

 

[Kirgiz]

Have you see those many threads on bobistheoilguy where people show the owner's manuals in different countries that shows oil viscosity ranging from xW-20 to xW-50 depending on the ambient temperatures? Where as the same car sold in the USA recommends only xW-20 (CAFE driven).

It's just oil. You guys are spending too much time on this. Nobody is building different engines for different countries.
Here is what they recommend for Poland, Europe.
Name Specification
Ford-Castrol Magnatec WSS-M2C948-B

Ford-Castrol Magnatec WSS-M2C913-D

So either 5W-20 or 5W-30. They also write that if WSS-M2C948-B is not available use 5W-20 that meets ACEA A5/B5.
In very cold climate they state one should use 0W-20 if temps below -20F/-30C

 

[Stormtroopin5.0]

Hi Nanashii, I'll wager Ford isn't watching because 1) we keep buying their cars 2) they know already and 3) we keep buying their cars. IMHO the worst part of this is not that it's happening but that they stonewall owners by not providing public acknowledgement or assurance. Somewhat along the lines of 'insult to injury'. But they've said nothing about the ac evap and RHD oil cooler issues that have been going of for years either, if you ring Ford in Australia and ask if there's a remedy for either they act like they've never heard of it. Did I mention we keep buying their cars? Presumably because we want to 'believe'; all will be well, it wont happen to mine etc. This has been exploited by Ford for quite some time so unfortunately they are unlikely to change, I think we have to accept that it's just how they do business. Remember this is the company that was recently fined $10m for trying to convince owners that a fatal trans issue in the Focus(?) was driver related when it was actually a fault.



Apologies to all if this has been covered but I couldn't find an answer on whether aftermarket rebuild 2018+ engines, assuming there are some, have the same 'features'?

Cheers

For reference, and I know I will get flamed for using a youtuber as an example, boostedaddictions rebuilt his gen 3 WITH sleeves and has not experienced the tick. Granted that engine just went together recently and hasn't been running for long. Either way, some potential proof exists that sleeves may answer the tick question.

 

[TheLion]

5W-20? Bearings spin because the heavy metal-to-metal contact basically "welds" them to the spinning journal, which then spins the bearing insert.

LT1 calls for 5W-30 for normal use. 5W or 0W-40 for track use. Go up one grade. I found this from substech:

The difference between a SAE 10W-30 and 0W-20 in MOFT is almost nothing...50 microns vs. 45 microns...a thick 5W-20 will perform identically to a typical thin 5W-30 at high RPM. So I suppose in the end it actually doesn't matter unless maybe you compared a thick 5W-30 to a thin 5W-20 regarding rod bearings but even then the actual film thickness difference is extremely small.

But at this point I would agree with your argument that 5W-30 should function just fine given the clearances and what is optimal for a 0.002" clearance. It does not make sense to me given the reality that 30 weight becomes 20 weight with an increase in temperature of just 20F that it would have any impact on the cam phasors despite Ford Performance claim. The phasors should operate over a broad range of temp swings from cold to hot far more than what that would produce. Temp swings effect on viscosity alone FAR exceed a grade change at a single temp.

5W-20 is many times more viscous at cold than 5W-30 is when hot...heat up the oil by another 20F and 5W-30 becomes 5W-20...yet they still work. I don't think it's an engine safety issue but more of an engine efficiency issue but I am having a hard time believing the claim myself given the data.

But it does seem the small added protection of 5W-30 would be better for track because it will thin out to 20 weight or even lighter with enough heat. And yes, it is true that tighter clearances generate more heat. But conversely, tighter clearances also generate thicker oil films with thinner oils. Unless the flow is affected that much with viscosity which I cannot imagine. 5W-30 should provide a better upper temp limit range for the oil pump to maintain the required pressure because it becomes too thin.

I did buy a shop manual as well just to be 100% sure of the factory 0.0011 to 0.0027" clearance spec and your correct, that's what the factory spec is for 2015 all the way to 2018's. So nominal clearance is 0.0019". Right in the sweet spot for 5W-30 or a thick 5W-20. Maybe I'll give Valvoline 5W-30 a try and just change it out every 5k at some point. It performed well in my Ecoboost, assuming it resists shear as well as you say (got a link to any UOA's on it?). Same winter performance since both are 5W viscosity. Slightly better high temp protection. And yes 10.2 cSt is the sweet spot for rod bearings between protection and efficiency according to MAHLE (aka Clevite).

However, here is some more food for thought as to the benefits of DLC films which are EP films more or less:

http://www.substech.com/dokuwiki/do...aterials_for_high_performance_engine_bearings

In particular:

[paste:font size="3"]Polymer coatings are composed of a polymer and additives in the form of small particles of Solid lubricants (molybdenum disulfide, graphite, PTFE). Polymer coatings applied onto the overlays of conventional high performance tri-metal bearings are quite popular.
The main purpose of coatings in existing applications is to provide some protection from wear to the overlay during mixed lubrication regimes (metal-to-metal contact with the journal due to an absence of oil film). For example, coatings prevent cold start wiping. Coatings prolong bearing life when operating with very thin or negligible oil film.
Today, coatings are considered by some to be nothing more than a sacrificial layer…helpful but not necessary. We believe that the true potential and benefits of coatings are quite underestimated. They can play a much more important role in preventing seizure of highly loaded bearings. Extensive research and testing is being conducted, with particular emphasis on improving wear resistance and extending the service life of coatings. Much more is yet to be developed and introduced in this regard.

My research on DLC tribofilms is even more valid. EP additives can save bearings and significantly reduce cold start wear and especially wear in hybrides or cars with start / stop. I'm seeing a lot of newer Fords (Escape, Focus, Fiesta) with start / stop now. Even greater case for using TriboTEX, especially since MoDTC at 200 ppm in the newer Motorcraft SN+ formulas works synergistically with hydrogenated DLC films and ZDDP. It is the trifecta of EP lubrication.

 

[Condor1970]

For reference, and I know I will get flamed for using a youtuber as an example, boostedaddictions rebuilt his gen 3 WITH sleeves and has not experienced the tick. Granted that engine just went together recently and hasn't been running for long. Either way, some potential proof exists that sleeves may answer the tick question.

I think it has more to do with geometry than sleeves. There were plenty of 15-17's with the tick. However, it suddenly became much more prevalent in the 2018's. Why? Well, let's separate the wheat from the chaff for a moment. The 2018 Mustang has much incidents of piston slap than the current F-150's. So, I think it has more to do with the increase in diameter of the pistons, and also the longer stroke length with higher compression ratio compared to the F-150 version. The blocks and crankshafts are the same between the Mustang and F-150 for 2018. However, to get a higher compression ratio for the Mustang, I believe they use a longer connecting rod. This higher compression, coupled with a larger diameter piston that may require a slight bit more clearance to allow for piston head expansion, starts to create a situation where piston slap could occur more often. I think in most cases using really good lubricants will allow the tick to not be such a problem, however some engines have exhibited some cylinder scoring due to excessive slap. How large of a percentage of this is, I just don't know.

 

[Angry50]

my general theory from a common person is something to do with the tolerances. that changes in temp and oil thickness is causing just enough movement for the pistons to tap/slap. that is why it goes away when friction modifiers are added which provide an additional film layer and why some have it worse than others. but i still think no one knows the real truth. even if these issues were serious i wouldnt even know how they could be fixed without major financial impact to the company.. to replace or modify all 2018/2019 engines? at this point it seems better to lemon the car if its still stock or work to build the motor if its modified.

 

[dirty-max]

I think it has more to do with geometry than sleeves. There were plenty of 15-17's with the tick. However, it suddenly became much more prevalent in the 2018's. Why? Well, let's separate the wheat from the chaff for a moment. The 2018 Mustang has much incidents of piston slap than the current F-150's. So, I think it has more to do with the increase in diameter of the pistons, and also the longer stroke length with higher compression ratio compared to the F-150 version. The blocks and crankshafts are the same between the Mustang and F-150 for 2018. However, to get a higher compression ratio for the Mustang, I believe they use a longer connecting rod. This higher compression, coupled with a larger diameter piston that may require a slight bit more clearance to allow for piston head expansion, starts to create a situation where piston slap could occur more often. I think in most cases using really good lubricants will allow the tick to not be such a problem, however some engines have exhibited some cylinder scoring due to excessive slap. How large of a percentage of this is, I just don't know.

The compression ratio is the exact same in the f150 as it is in the mustang there’s no difference unlike the previous gen. It’s 12:1 across the board in both the mustang and the f150.

 

[88lx50]

The compression ratio is the exact same in the f150 as it is in the mustang there’s no difference unlike the previous gen. It’s 12:1 across the board in both the mustang and the f150.

Bore and stroke are the same as well

 

[Condor1970]

The compression ratio is the exact same in the f150 as it is in the mustang there’s no difference unlike the previous gen. It’s 12:1 across the board in both the mustang and the f150.

Then the only thing I can think of that's noticeably different, is the F-150 has an A/C belt tension arm, and the Mustang uses a stretchy belt.

 

[GT Pony]

Maybe I'll give Valvoline 5W-30 a try and just change it out every 5k at some point. It performed well in my Ecoboost, assuming it resists shear as well as you say (got a link to any UOA's on it?). Same winter performance since both are 5W viscosity. Slightly better high temp protection. And yes 10.2 cSt is the sweet spot for rod bearings between protection and efficiency according to MAHLE (aka Clevite).

@TheLion ... Yes, I gave some links back in post #515:
https://www.mustang6g.com/forums/th...mpt-to-understand.108944/page-26#post-2407602

Even though my 2015 doesn't have any ticking noises, it sure seemed to sound even quieter on the top end (valve train) when I switched from Motorcraft 5W-20 synthetic blend to Valvoline Advanced 5W-30 full synthetic.

 

[GT Pony]

5W-20 is many times more viscous at cold than 5W-30 is when hot...heat up the oil by another 20F and 5W-30 becomes 5W-20...yet they still work. I don't think it's an engine safety issue but more of an engine efficiency issue but I am having a hard time believing the claim myself given the data.

But it does seem the small added protection of 5W-30 would be better for track because it will thin out to 20 weight or even lighter with enough heat.

Yep ... heat 5W-20 up enough and it's probably 16 or less. IMO, just not enough insurance of adequate MOFT if the engine is ran hard and the oil temperatures increase quite a bit. Hence why Ford and others recommend thicker oil for track use. Granted, if someone drives around like a grandpa on the streets it would be fine to run 5W-20. I just feel more comfortable with 5W-30 in the engine ... just in case it does get pushed hard.

And yes, it is true that tighter clearances generate more heat. But conversely, tighter clearances also generate thicker oil films with thinner oils.

Yes, but per this graph (and the one you posted a few post above) you will get more MOFT as the oil viscosity goes up. There should be a family of curves between the 0W20 and 10W60 lines - it would have been nice if they drew in some xW-30, xW-40 and xW-50 lines. This graph also says that running a thin oil in an engine with larger bearing clearances isn't a good thing to do because you'll be losing some MOFT.

Sponsored