When did Ford change the recommended engine oil for the GT?

[Schwerin]

I'm pretty sure the 21 F150 coyote does. Don't know about the mustang..

As far as I know its F-series only right now. otherwise the Mustang GT's MPG would have been rerated.

Sponsored

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Maybe some clearances were changed to eliminate the tick (oooh, I said "tick"...) and to maintain the same oil pressure it took 5W-30.

Then why did Ford recommend 5w30 for the same gen 2 engines in other markets while calling for 5W20 in the US? A: They know 5w30 is better but decided to eat a few warranty jobs in exchange for better CAFE numbers.

If they are specing 5W30 now, its because the value for CAFE is no longer worth the repair costs. Don't know if the value of the CAFE to the bottom line went down or they found out the repairs are more common or expensive than the original guesstimates.

 

[sk47]

Then why did Ford recommend 5w30 for the same gen 2 engines in other markets while calling for 5W20 in the US? A: They know 5w30 is better but decided to eat a few warranty jobs in exchange for better CAFE numbers.

If they are specing 5W30 now, its because the value for CAFE is no longer worth the repair costs. Don't know if the value of the CAFE to the bottom line went down or they found out the repairs are more common or expensive than the original guesstimates.

Hello; The chase for better CAFE numbers unfortunately makes a sad sort of sense.

After reading a few posts it seems the owners manual allows for use of 5w30. This is similar to my current vehicles. Both call for 5w30 but allow 10w30 as long as air temps are not too cold. Looks like using 5w30 in the Coyote ought not to void warranty.

 

[Schwerin]

Then why did Ford recommend 5w30 for the same gen 2 engines in other markets while calling for 5W20 in the US? A: They know 5w30 is better but decided to eat a few warranty jobs in exchange for better CAFE numbers.

If they are specing 5W30 now, its because the value for CAFE is no longer worth the repair costs. Don't know if the value of the CAFE to the bottom line went down or they found out the repairs are more common or expensive than the original guesstimates.

From what I can tell the areas that called for 5w-30 we also all hotter climates.

The spec for the 5w-30 also changed so it may be that something in that spec makes the 5w-30 meet the requirements that they previously needed 5w-20 for.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Hello; The chase for better CAFE numbers unfortunately makes a sad sort of sense.

After reading a few posts it seems the owners manual allows for use of 5w30. This is similar to my current vehicles. Both call for 5w30 but allow 10w30 as long as air temps are not too cold. Looks like using 5w30 in the Coyote ought not to void warranty.

Back around 2001 or 2002, someone posted an internal Ford document on a forum (Club Focus IIRC). It disappeared almost immediately but it acknowledged that there would be more engine failures with 5W20 compared to 5W30 but most would be after warranty. They had originally wanted to call for 5W30 with 5W20 optional so they could test with 5W20, but the govt said no way, so they had to spec 5W20 if they wanted to test with it. Obviously not about the Coyote, but it did not have any wording implying it was only an issue with the subject engine family.

 

[sk47]

Back around 2001 or 2002, someone posted an internal Ford document on a forum (Club Focus IIRC). It disappeared almost immediately but it acknowledged that there would be more engine failures with 5W20 compared to 5W30 but most would be after warranty. They had originally wanted to call for 5W30 with 5W20 optional so they could test with 5W20, but the govt said no way, so they had to spec 5W20 if they wanted to test with it. Obviously not about the Coyote, but it did not have any wording implying it was only an issue with the subject engine family.

Hello; A long way back the gov had rules on fuel economy and decided to have at least two categories. Cars and light trucks. They did not make the rules so strict on trucks for sensible reasons. Back then a truck was mainly a work vehicle used to haul or tow.
The way it seemed to me was people did not much like the way cars were being made so they started to buy trucks and their cousins the SUV. The mfg. companies started to doll up the trucks and make them ride better and even more were sold.
So the notion of restricting cars to CAFE standards appears to have backfired in terms of overall MPG. Sure small cars get decent MPG but so many have switched to trucks and SUV's with lower average MPG.

Back in the 1980's I bought my second wife a Honda CRV HF. It would get over 40 mpg easy. I had a 1972 Porsche 914 which could get at 40 mpg if driven right. Now when I shop for a small car it is more common for them to get mid 30's MPG.
The older cars were not hybrids. Both had Fuel injection of a sort. They were naturally aspirated engines. The newer cars have several things mandated by the Gov which adds cost and adds weight.
I do see some benefit in the new trucks in that reports are they get better MPG than a few decades ago. Sorry for the side track.

 

[engineermike]

@sk47 in the 1980’s the epa fuel mileage was calculated differently. The mileage test sequence has changed dramatically, plus they all ran pure gas back then not this watered down e10.

 

[sk47]

@sk47 in the 1980’s the epa fuel mileage was calculated differently. The mileage test sequence has changed dramatically, plus they all ran pure gas back then not this watered down e10.

Hello; Yes, back before the change I could count on getting some better average MPG from the Nissan Sentras I owned. For large trucks the old method was closer to accurate for my driving. I do not know how to compare the new EPA MPG estimates from actual experience. I have read and heard the new figures are closer to real life for non hybrid and non electric vehicles. I just have not owned anything newer than 2004.

The alcohol content has three things to my thinking. It is supposed to have a higher octane rating for one thing. I guess this is why some like to run the fuels with a lot more alcohol content. Another thing is alcohol has a lower energy density. An equal amount of gas and alcohol will not have the same potential energy may be a way to express this. So I have been figuring alcohol would yield less MPG. I do not know how to figure the effect of 10% alcohol content in fuel on overall MPG, but have thought it ought to lower MPG some.

The last thing is with around 10% alcohol in fuel I no longer winterize my fuel. Back in the old days I would buy and add bottles of alcohol during the winter. This to absorb the water which would get into the fuel. back a few decades gas tanks were metal and the fuel systems were not sealed so well. If you let the tank get below half full for very long the metal tanks would condense water out of the air on the inside of the tank. The water would make a layer at the bottom of the tank. Eventually that layer of water would be enough so a couple of things could happen.
One was some of the water would get pulled into the fuel lines. This could cause rough running in warm weather but could cause fuel lines to freeze enough to block fuel. I knew a lot of folks who would not be able to start a vehicle after a cold spell hit. I got in the habit of keeping a least a half tank of fuel in the winter and closer to full most of the time.

Perhaps the worse thing was the long term damage to metal tanks. If allowed to sit for a long enough time the inside of the tanks would rust. I worked on a fellows cars who did not take advice well. In the early 1980's He bought a nice 1967 Austin Healey 3000 mark IV. It needed some repair. I fixed the overdrive switch, tuned the carbs and did some other needed work. I discovered the radiator only had water in it. So I would drain the water out any time I was not working on it. It had a drain cock on the block as well as the radiator. I asked the owner to get some antifreeze for the car or to allow me to buy some. He declined. So when I had done enough to get the car running well he came to get it. I told him to be sure to drain the block when he parked it or get some antifreeze. He did neither. Just parked it in an unheated garage. Last time I saw it, around ten years ago it was still sitting on rotten tires in that garage.
There was a reason he did not drive it. The previous owners had ruined he wheel to hub assemblies. It was the sort of wheel and hub with splines on both. The wheel would slide onto the splines of the hub and be tightened in place with a large single center wing nut. Those splines had been stripped at some point so a previous owner drilled holes thru the wheel and hub assembly and inserted long bolts. This sort of worked in that the car could be driven but the holes were wallowed out so there was a loud clunk every time you changed gears or hit the brakes. The only solution was to get new wheel and hub assemblies. The guy did not want to spend the money I guess, so the car sat and ruined. Had he kept it running and nice it would be a $70K car today.
Back to the gas tank story. He also has a 1972 Porsche 911. He would let it sit for up to two years and then decide he wanted to drive it. I would go get it running again. He would drive it a while then park it for a few years. On one of the "get it going" sessions I discovered rust when I drained out the old fuel. had to remove the tank and repair it a sealant. POR 15 I think it was I used. That coated the inside of the tank. Worked well enough to get the car thru a few more cycles. So the new plastic fuel tanks are better in they do not rust and the 10% alcohol should keep the water issue at bay.

 

[Schwerin]

Back around 2001 or 2002, someone posted an internal Ford document on a forum (Club Focus IIRC). It disappeared almost immediately but it acknowledged that there would be more engine failures with 5W20 compared to 5W30 but most would be after warranty. They had originally wanted to call for 5W30 with 5W20 optional so they could test with 5W20, but the govt said no way, so they had to spec 5W20 if they wanted to test with it. Obviously not about the Coyote, but it did not have any wording implying it was only an issue with the subject engine family.

The change was in 2001 i believe. My 2000 ZX2 called for 5w30 but my 2001 was w20. There were 0 engine changes.

 

[Dfeeds]

Both the f150 and GT are using a belt driven oil pump now, too. That's an interesting change. I guess OPG gears can't be recommended anymore .

I can't stand cylinder deactivation so that part sucks. My educated guess is that cylinder deactivation pushes the mpg up enough to make any slight bump 5w20 gives a moot point. So they can now spec 5w30. That or they feel 5w30 may help mitigate oil consumption issues brought on from cylinder deactivation; even though GM uses 5w30/5w40.

 

[EFI]

Both the f150 and GT are using a belt driven oil pump now, too. That's an interesting change. I guess OPG gears can't be recommended anymore .

I can't stand cylinder deactivation so that part sucks

Was all this confirmed for the 2021 Mustang GT? All I've seen is in the F150, can you link us to where you saw this for the Mustang Coyote engine?

 

[engineermike]

Could it be that the belt driven oil pump is variable displacement so better oil flow control negates the need for low viscosity to achieve efficiency?

 

[CJJon]

Wait...does the 2021 5.0 in the Mustang GT now have a belt drive oil pump?

Nah...

 

[WildHorse]

Belt driven oil pump. where the eff are you guys getting this bogus info from lol

 

[CJJon]

Belt driven oil pump. where the eff are you guys getting this bogus info from lol

The 5.0 in the 2021 F150 has it as well as the variable cylinder crap.

Sponsored