2013 GT now takes 5w50??

[UnleashedBeast]

No we are not. There are coyote engineers. Scroll to the bottom.

2011 Ford Mustang GT 5.0 Coyote Engine - 5.0 Mustang & Fast Fords

Haven't we already concluded that engineers can be overridden by upper management? It's been documented.

what is the appropriate viscosity full-synthetic to replace the factory 5W-50 in the '13 track pack with if any of this TiVCT calibration is true or relevant? I'm also in Phoenix where it gets hot, we are already hitting 105, so should I use the 10W-40 Amsoil or another product?

A true synthetic 10W-40 is the way to roll when Motorcraft 5W-50 is called for.

However, if you wait for it....they will say I'm crazy and not a Ford engineer, that I don't know anything. Meanwhile, they ignore the true facts about Motorcraft 5W-50

1. Shears rapidly to a light 40 grade lubricant
2. Cheap hydrocracked base stock provides greater friction than a true PAO/Ester
3. Engine performance and efficiency suffers greatly with MC 5W-50

What OEM do you work for again?

If you are so far above them why dont you work for Ford again?

What's the relevance is this?

I've provided solid proof the GT500 engine ($15,000+ dollar replacement) is solid on Amsoil AMO 10W-40, no 5W-50 required. Yet the GT guys with a 5.0 ($6,500 dollar replacement) argue with me about it.

Epicness!

FYI some of your comments are so in left field you are picking daisies! I am rolling laughing about why you think the CF driveshaft was implimented. HILARIOUS

Reasons

1. Lightest material that's feasible for a driveshaft, less parasitic losses (lower rotational mass), more go fast for the 2013 GT500
2. Best resonance resistance, better than steel or aluminum
3. The older steel two piece is not as suitable for the torque created by the factory engine. The Carbon replacement is stronger
4. Dual CV joints eliminate any additional chance of vibrations up to the rated top mph. The steel two piece shaft would have never survived it.

What's so funny about it? I obviously know why it was done, and why the aftermarket offers versions of it for any S197.

 

[Stinger1982]

Haven't we already concluded that engineers can be overridden by upper management? It's been documented.



A true synthetic 10W-40 is the way to roll when Motorcraft 5W-50 is called for.

However, if you wait for it....they will say I'm crazy and not a Ford engineer, that I don't know anything. Meanwhile, they ignore the true facts about Motorcraft 5W-50

1. Shears rapidly to a light 40 grade lubricant
2. Cheap hydrocracked base stock provides greater friction than a true PAO/Ester
3. Engine performance and efficiency suffers greatly with MC 5W-50



What's the relevance is this?

I've provided solid proof the GT500 engine ($15,000+ dollar replacement) is solid on Amsoil AMO 10W-40, no 5W-50 required. Yet the GT guys with a 5.0 ($6,500 dollar replacement) argue with me about it.

Epicness!



Reasons

1. Lightest material that's feasible for a driveshaft, less parasitic losses (lower rotational mass), more go fast for the 2013 GT500
2. Best resonance resistance, better than steel or aluminum
3. The older steel two piece is not as suitable for the torque created by the factory engine. The Carbon replacement is stronger
4. Dual CV joints eliminate any additional chance of vibrations up to the rated top mph. The steel two piece shaft would have never survived it.

What's so funny about it? I obviously know why it was done, and why the aftermarket offers versions of it for any S197.

You think NVH is why the CF DS was brought in, so you "Obviously" have no idea

 

[UnleashedBeast]

You think NVH is why the CF DS was brought in, so you "Obviously" have no idea

Share with the group your knowledge on the subject.

You have our full attention.

 

[Stinger1982]

Share with the group your knowledge on the subject.

You have our full attention.

When the 2013 GT500 articles hit the public you will have all your answers in depth and if you don’t then we can talk more about it here when everything is public

here is a hint as to why:

630 ft-lbs of torque and 202 mph

 

[cidsamuth]

I'm still using 5w-20 because I'm paranoid. But, for the sake of conversation . . . .

On one hand, I can see the argument to continue using 5w-20: There is an assumption that Ford knows better than others, and there is a fear that Ford will attempt to void the engine warranty if the wrong viscosity is used. However . . .

It might also be reasonable to assume that there are many factors that go into the car's final recommendations, to include CAFE, publicity, cost, etc. I think we can all agree the engineers are often overruled.

Also, we still have the issue of the normal 2013 GT and the 2013 Track Pack being mechanically identical (at least internally) while "requiring" different oil. On another forum, the Ford rep said this was because of the "expected use," which makes no sense because there is not a requirement to track a Track Pack Mustang, so the expected use would normally be similiar.

Also, the 4.6s controlled timing with oil pressure, but the 5.0s don't, do they? Also, the 2013s don't use oil squirters to control temps, do they? So, how would a different tune explain the different oil viscosities, i.e. how could the TiVCT be viscosity specific? Honest questions.

 

[Scuba-Matt]

My Bother in law who is a Ford engineer just read through this thread. He had a good laugh. He thinks you guys are all oil paranoid. He works in the performance group and wouldn't run the MC 5/20 in his vehicles either. (F150/Fiesta/Mustang GT) If you drive hard or are in harsh conditions you better up the viscosity of your oil.
I'll stick with Amsoil in mine. 5/30 winter 10/30 summer.

 

[SicShelby09]

This is what ford says why they put 5w20 in the 11GT.

Coyote Oiling
Considerable work went into prepping the Coyote's oiling system for its 7,000-rpm redline and high-g Mustang home. It begins with thin 5W-20 mineral oil for reduced oil-pump-drive requirements, less internal drag, and quicker cold-start lubrication. Oil capacity was increased to 8 quarts, both to ensure adequate supply at high engine speeds and to increase oil change intervals to 10,000 miles.


Borrowing the idea from another...
read full caption
The oil pan shape and baffling was aided by computer modeling to check sloshing behavior while braking and cornering. Testing also showed oil drainback out of the valve covers while cornering (and drifting!) proved inadequate with the initial design, requiring slight but vital revisions to the drainback channel shape in the side of the block.
At 1g cornering, the oil was accumulating in the valve cover and flinging into the PCV system via the camshaft-timing wheels. These "pip wheels" make great oil paddles at 3,500 rpm, so Habib Affes Ph.D., CAE technical expert, modeled the situation, disclosing that down in the block's oil drain passage there was a curve or bump. At 1g cornering, this bump-physically angled at 45 degrees-was sensed as flat by the oil, so it would not drain past it. Straightening the curve lowered the oil puddle depth around the pip wheel from 11mm to 3mm, curing the PCV problem.

Interestingly, one item needing less oiling are the VCT phasers on the camshafts. Thanks to the cam torque actuation strategy, the phasers do not require high-pressure oil from the pump, but are instead fed bleed oil from the front cam bearing. Had CTA not been used, the oil pump would have needed enlargement to keep a relatively large volume of pressurized oil ready to go next to the phasers in the cylinder heads. And that would have cost horsepower.


Looking much like the Three-Valve...
read full caption
Crankcase ventilation and oil drainback are major oiling improvements in the Coyote. Crankcase breathing has never been particularly good in high-rpm modulars, and early testing showed the Coyote's high volumes of drainback oil at high rpm were air-locking the crankcase from the top of the engine. In other words, the gush of oil trying to drain down at 7,000 rpm was blocking the pressurized crankcase air trying to find its way up, effectively choking the PCV system and inhibiting drainback.
The cure was to separate the drainback paths from the crankcase breathing chimneys. Thus, Coyotes have three large oil drainbacks on the exhaust or lower side of the cylinder head. They mate to corresponding passages on the outer side of the block that downspout the oil into the pan-similar to the dry-sumped Ford GT block.

For PCV gasses, passages are placed at the top of the crankcase, about where the camshaft would be in an OHV block. These passages connect to corresponding flues on the intake side of the cylinder heads. Thus, the oil drains and breather vents are completely separated and probably approach double the combined area of previous modulars.

Consideration was given to an external oil cooler, but ultimately it was decided not to penalize all Coyote buyers for the occasional antics of a miniscule fraction of owners. Oil temperature rises precipitously when the Coyote is revved more than 4,500 rpm for extended periods, and then an external oil-to-air cooler is vital. But those conditions can only be reached on a road-racing track, so the expensive cooler was ditched and engine management strategies were used to protect the engine during hot idles. However, the mounting area for the cooler was "protected" during the 2011 Mustang's development. That makes it easier for the open-trackers among us to fit a cooler (highly recommended by Coyote engine designers), and tells you something about Ford's intentions for special editions of the Coyote-powered Mustangs.

And don't worry about the occasional open-track without an oil cooler. The engineers say the oil cools quickly as soon as you take your foot out of it, and the engine management will limit the torque output if the oil gets too hot.



Read more: 2011 Ford Mustang GT 5.0 Coyote Engine - 5.0 Mustang & Fast Fords

 

[UnleashedBeast]

It begins with thin 5W-20 mineral oil for reduced oil-pump-drive requirements, less internal drag, and quicker cold-start lubrication.

Amsoil AZO 0W-30 performed better in the 4.6L Ford modular when compared to Mobil 1 5W-20.

Mobil 1 5W-20 data sheet

Amsoil AZO is 1.6 cSt more viscous @ 100*C (212*F) - that's hardly anything in viscosity separation. It's also a 100% true synthetic base stock with superior cold flow abilities.

The engine in my 2008 GT was quieter, started easier, and got better mpg using it. No cam timing sensor (oil pressure operated) would ever know the difference. However, since a true synthetic base stock has a lower frictional coefficient, despite being slightly more viscous, will yield about the same oil pressure at any given rpm range as Mobil 1 5W-20.

It's the best upgrade your modular would love you for.

 

[cidsamuth]

SicShelby, I read that article a couple years back also.

While the bulk of what you posted seems legit, only the first paragraph of what you posted seems relevant here. And "thin 5W-20 mineral oil for reduced oil-pump-drive requirements, less internal drag, and quicker cold-start lubrication" sounds like B.S., advertising hogwash to me.

 

[SicShelby09]

SicShelby, I read that article a couple years back also.

While the bulk of what you posted seems legit, only the first paragraph of what you posted seems relevant here. And "thin 5W-20 mineral oil for reduced oil-pump-drive requirements, less internal drag, and quicker cold-start lubrication" sounds like B.S., advertising hogwash to me.

Yeah I agree with you. I also posted all that just so there was some context to the article. But I'm sticking with 5w20 and changing every spring.

 

[seank]

To be fair, many of the decisions made that caused the issues above are due to the bean counters. Engineers fight them all the time, but in the end, they have the edge to win. It's no different when it comes to engine lubrication recommendations.

As an engineer in the automotive industry this is one of if not the largest factor considered when making design decisions. NOT what is truly the best or most appropriate choice. $$$ and profit always win unless you are talking to a specialized speed parts manufacturer.

 

[UnleashedBeast]

As an engineer in the automotive industry this is one of if not the largest factor considered when making design decisions. NOT what is truly the best or most appropriate choice. $$$ and profit always win unless you are talking to a specialized speed parts manufacturer.

Quoted for truth.

Thank you for sharing your inside experience.

 

[JAJ]

As an engineer in the automotive industry this is one of if not the largest factor considered when making design decisions. NOT what is truly the best or most appropriate choice. $$$ and profit always win unless you are talking to a specialized speed parts manufacturer.

An engineer in any field deals with budgets in everything they do. There are energy budgets, thermal budgets, weight budgets and a whole plethora of limits that a design has to stay within. Just because financial budgets are based on educated guesses of what customers will pay for the product, and they're calculated by accountants who are not engineers doesn't mean they're any different. If you read the article about the Coyote engine development, they talk about all kinds of budgets and how they traded off one limit against another the whole way through. Ladies and gentlemen, that relentless tradeoff analysis IS the CORE of the product design and engineering process.

In the long running debate about engine oil viscosity, some people believe that Ford made a tradeoff between oil viscosity and engine life, and that belief has been amplified to the level of a conspiracy. While there are a number of strongly held opinions on the matter, I'm not aware of any hard evidence that the use of 5w-20 oil where it is recommended by Ford has led to any bad outcomes. That could be because I'm misinformed, but I have looked for some time for these kinds of issues and frankly they haven't presented themselves. Where are all the demolished engines that 5w-20 has caused?

 

[shadowstang03gt]

An engineer in any field deals with budgets in everything they do. There are energy budgets, thermal budgets, weight budgets and a whole plethora of limits that a design has to stay within. Just because financial budgets are based on educated guesses of what customers will pay for the product, and they're calculated by accountants who are not engineers doesn't mean they're any different. If you read the article about the Coyote engine development, they talk about all kinds of budgets and how they traded off one limit against another the whole way through. Ladies and gentlemen, that relentless tradeoff analysis IS the CORE of the product design and engineering process.

In the long running debate about engine oil viscosity, some people believe that Ford made a tradeoff between oil viscosity and engine life, and that belief has been amplified to the level of a conspiracy. While there are a number of strongly held opinions on the matter, I'm not aware of any hard evidence that the use of 5w-20 oil where it is recommended by Ford has led to any bad outcomes. That could be because I'm misinformed, but I have looked for some time for these kinds of issues and frankly they haven't presented themselves. Where are all the demolished engines that 5w-20 has caused?

motors hardly ever fail anymore. 99% of the time its the owners fault if it does. 5/20 is such junk, yet almost all the new fords are going 10,000 miles on an oil change.

 

[UnleashedBeast]

Where are all the demolished engines that 5w-20 has caused?

Not demolished, expect to get 150,000 to 200,000 miles from a grocery getter by using it. That's where the misconception comes in.

We are trained to think that's the life of an average engine, however, current technology would last twice that duration given proper maintenance.

 

[seank]

An engineer in any field deals with budgets in everything they do. There are energy budgets, thermal budgets, weight budgets and a whole plethora of limits that a design has to stay within. Just because financial budgets are based on educated guesses of what customers will pay for the product, and they're calculated by accountants who are not engineers doesn't mean they're any different. If you read the article about the Coyote engine development, they talk about all kinds of budgets and how they traded off one limit against another the whole way through. Ladies and gentlemen, that relentless tradeoff analysis IS the CORE of the product design and engineering process.

In the long running debate about engine oil viscosity, some people believe that Ford made a tradeoff between oil viscosity and engine life, and that belief has been amplified to the level of a conspiracy. While there are a number of strongly held opinions on the matter, I'm not aware of any hard evidence that the use of 5w-20 oil where it is recommended by Ford has led to any bad outcomes. That could be because I'm misinformed, but I have looked for some time for these kinds of issues and frankly they haven't presented themselves. Where are all the demolished engines that 5w-20 has caused?

I agree. However, besides Ford, no one has logged significant mileaged to have these motors show their true long term reliabilty. I don't understand how this has gotten so blown out of proportion. Guys that don't drive their car hard should just go blindly with what the dealer/Ford tells them since I doubt they really care at the end of the day. Others who or more concerned/informed and most likely abusive should upgrade the lubrication in their car. It's cheap insurance. Spend a couple hundred or so a year on quality lube instead of thousands on an engine.

 

[ViciousJay]

I agree. However, besides Ford, no one has logged significant mileaged to have these motors show their true long term reliabilty. I don't understand how this has gotten so blown out of proportion. Guys that don't drive their car hard should just go blindly with what the dealer/Ford tells them since I doubt they really care at the end of the day. Others who or more concerned/informed and most likely abusive should upgrade the lubrication in their car. It's cheap insurance. Spend a couple hundred or so a year on quality lube instead of thousands on an engine.

:beer::banana::dancenana:

 

[cidsamuth]

While there are a number of strongly held opinions on the matter, I'm not aware of any hard evidence that the use of 5w-20 oil where it is recommended by Ford has led to any bad outcomes. That could be because I'm misinformed, but I have looked for some time for these kinds of issues and frankly they haven't presented themselves. Where are all the demolished engines that 5w-20 has caused?

It's a good point. It should also be noted that, even if 5w-20 gives us less engine life, few folks will keep the car long enough to realize the difference. However, let's also ask the opposite:

Does anyone know of a time where using 5w-30 or 5w-50 in a Coyote has caused damage? Anyone had a warranty claim denied on a Coyote for using anything other than 5w-20? I have not found evidence of either . . .

 

[UnleashedBeast]

There is no evidence of such, you are correct. The only denial of warranty was due to aftermarket tunes, however, they want to talk about their assumption, not what actually causes Ford to void an engine warranty.

Engine lube: They most likely will test the oil, but will come back as a pass. Things they look for....

• Viscosity: 20 grade lubricant minimum
• ZDDP: 600-800 ppm minimum
• TBN: nothing less than 1.0

Engine mods: Custom parts, aftermarket tunes, etc. You're 100 times more likely to have your engine warranty voided due to the aftermarket tuning than you are for engine lubrication of choice.

 

[cidsamuth]

When the 5.0s first came out, and when I was going through the tick drama, I spoke with a 2011 5.0 owner (via phone) who had a different tick/knock. Ford actually instructed the dealership to put 5w-50 in his car. It did not solve the issue, but it is interesting that they went this route. This was right as the 5.0s were coming out.

That person's Ford Service Advisor also owned a 2011 5.0 and was a member of ALLFORDMUSTANGS. Based on Ford's attempt, he switched to 5w-50 because he was convinced that Ford would eventually do this for all 5.0s, either by TSB or with subsequent model years. He had no noticable effects, good or bad. Obviously, I don't know how that would have affected the car long term or how it MIGHT affect warranty -- he traded the car in some time later for an F150.

Another owner on this forum had a knock, and the dealership was instructed to drop 2 quarts of the oil and replace it with 75w-90 gear oil -- I can't remember if they were instructed to let it idle like that and drain the oil or if they wanted him to drive it that way. Regardless, it didn't fix his problem. I was skeptical about that until my dealer was instructed to do the same thing in an attempt to fix my tick. Both I and the dealer pushed back on that one, and they went a different route.

Bottom line, there is evidence (however anecdotal) that the engineers don't think thicker oil is a problem.