Which oil to use for track days for 2011 Mustang GT?

[Bill Pemberton]

A lot of guys would run the low viscosity oil in Spec Miata as feeling was it would give you a few more HP. I know I ran 0-40W Pennzoil Ultra Platinum in my Viper ACR and a lot of my competitors were running 15-50W, but since I never had an issue of overheating or oil usage I stuck with that. I also had a habit of never going over two weekends without a full oil change. Many of the newer vehicles are running the 5-20W to help get the oil to the top of the motor super quick and possibly make it slightly easier for emissions and even fuel mileage. If you are changing your oil after each track weekend I imagine it would not matter which choice you make , but would probably err towards the suggestions on the 5 -50w , just because , regardless of GT , GT 350 or Boss, these engines wind way more than many others - or stock manufacturer motors of the past.

 

[Creedog]

Go with the FR20 and rest assured. Even in the heat, your engine will be very well protected and phasers and calibration will be optimal.

This is what I used recently for the Chin Racing day in early April at Road Atlanta. Of course it was chilly and rainy for most of the day. I will use it again the upcoming event For Music City Mustangs at AMP later this month. We are back into warmer weather so I’ll see how well it holds up. Thanks for all of the replies!

 

[TheLion70x77]

I've done an immense amount of research on this topic. Things to consider when choosing oil viscosity:

1. Rod bearing clearances - Ford Shop Manual extreme spread is 0.0011" to 0.0027", I believe this INCLUDES the 0.0008" tolerance. Median of the spread is 0.0019". I also believe that Clevite (a division of Mahle aftermarket) supplies the Bi-metal aluminum rod bearings for most of Ford's engines. Clevite recommends 0.00075" clearance per every 1" of bearing diameter plus an additional 0.0005" for performance engines added to the final clearance. The Coyote 5.0's rod bearings are 2.082". 0.00075*2.082 + 0.0005 = 0.00206 ~= 0.002. Clevite recommends 5W-30 for 0.002 to 0.0025" clearances and 5W-20 for 0.0015 to 0.0018" clearances. Either viscosity should work, but 5W-30 would be the safer bet.

Clevite also states that the ideal viscosity for balancing drag losses vs. bearing protection (film strength) with a 0.002" clearance is a synthetic SAE oil with a viscosity of 10 cSt @100C. HTHS for oils in that viscosity typically range between 3.0 to 3.2 cSt @ 150C vs. 2.6 to 2.7 for SAE 20 weights unless you go exotic like RedLine or mPAO like Driven.

2. MLP Cam Phasors are what is used in the 2nd Gen 5.0. They are not the same as the phasors in the first gen and allow more optimal tuning as their default position is in the middle. They operate off of oil bleed from the cam journals as noted earlier, the oil is controlled via a solenoid system. There is an advance chamber and retard chamber. Rotation is obviously accomplished via the valve spring torque acting on the cams and phasors. The chambers, as mentioned above in another post act like a hydraulic lock to lock them into a specific position. Oil viscosity will affect the rates at which these chambers fill up and bleed down assuming all other variable remained constant but they don't.

The GeRotor positive displacement pump is a constant flow pump and will flow the same volume of oil regardless of oil viscosity. Thicker oils will see higher pumping pressure (which equates to higher pumping losses) which is a result of using the more viscous fluid. So flow rates remain constant. The CTA phasors will see the same pressure increase every other oil dependent component sees with thicker oils, so flow into the chambers is the same because the pressure increases as a result of constant flow regulation. So filling of the advance or retard chambers will be unchanged.

The the be bleed down of each chamber may be mildly effected because bleed down occurs by the torque on the valve springs forcing the stator to rotate which forces each chamber to empty respectively (depending on advance or retard). Given that there are 4 valve springs per a side per a phasor at 300 lbs each...it would have be some seriously thick oil to not evacuate the phasors quickly enough to cause issues under normal operating temps and especially at elevated track temps.

Take a look at the response graph that shows how immune they are to oil pressure, remember your Gerotor oil pump is constant flow regardless of viscosity and pressure goes UP with thicker oils: https://www2.borgwarner.com/en/MorseSystems/products/Literature/Morse TEC CTA Sheet.pdf

Going even further, over on the Mustang6g forum, we did some digging into the ECU calibrations for both the stock 2nd Gen 5.0 and the Voodoo 5.2L. The cam phasor temperature compensation tables (time delay factors to correct for changes in oil temperature based off of the water temperature) are the SAME for the 5.0 and 5.2L, despite the 5.0 calling for 5W-20 and the 5.2L calling for 5W-50....obviously the change in viscosity between the two has no meaningful impact on the time delay factors, likely for the reasons I listed above. These CTA phasors are very immune to oil viscosity and pressure.

3. Hydraulic Lash Adjusters - the greatest risk with hydraulic lash adjusters and high RPM under heavy thermal loads is inadequate lash due to excessive bleed down rates. High RPM engines using hydraulic lash adjusters can experience varying lash if the oil thins out too much, so the adjuster pushes down a bit at the peak of the cam lobe where valve spring forces are greatest and as a result your NOT achieving full lift of the valve. This affects flow in and out of the combustion chamber in a negative way. There's a reason NASCAR, Pro Stock and many other performance engines use solid adjusters with shims to set lash. They won't bleed down at high RPM. Pump Up is another concern, but in my research it's extremely rare and requires massive increase in oil pressure to even be physically possible to the lash adjuster to overcome the valve spring force. Far more common of an issue if valve float due to inadequate spring pressure at high rpm.

4. Synthetic oils transfer heat better than mineral based oils (also hydrocracked group 3's). GTL (Penzoil Ultra series with Pure Plus) is the exception to this rule as GTL base oils perform on par and even exceed PAO's.

5. Oil Flow is NOT affected by oil viscosity. Gerotor pumps are positive displacement. Their flow rates do not change and they extremely efficient with viscous fluids. Pressure will increase (pumping losses) with viscosity however. So you'll see a higher oil pressure with thicker oils, but your flow rates through the bearings are unaffected. Fluids are in-compressible and the nature of a positive displacement pump is to mechanically displace the fluid to move it. So expect only to see change in oil pressure with thicker oils, but your bearings are getting the same flow and thicker oils DO generate thicker films even in the same clearances (see SubsTech articles aka King Bearings): http://www.substech.com/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=oil_clearance_and_engine_bearings

6. Thicker oils produce thicker films in the bearings of the same clearance, but over less surface area (less spread out). This increases localized pressure extremes, but also creates a thicker hydrodynamic wedge which reduces likelihood of partical scuffing (the film wedge is thicker than metal wear particles passing through the oil) and increases load bearing capabilities.

However larger clearances with thicker fluids actually support less load as the localized pressure is more extreme per a square inch and the actual film covers less surface area, but it was necessary in older engines because the uniformity of the bearings and crank were not good enough to allow smaller clearances.

7. Tighter clearances are more sensitive to tolerance stack up errors and crank flex. Need forged cranks and tight tolerances. Also require good quality base oils to avoid shearing down and blocking of the passages from deposits. Technically thinner oils and tighter clearances do transfer heat away from the bearings better but not because thinner fluids flow better with a Gerotor Positive Displacement pump which maintains a constant flow. It's because the fluid film is spread out across more of the bearing surface with thinner fluids and tighter clearances than in older designs using 40 and 50 weight oil with larger clearances in the 0.004+ range. Also the crank journal diameter is more closely matched to the bearing shell diameter, making for more a broader fluid film as well.

NASCAR's are a bad example of 0W-20 and 0W-10 oils for performance engines. They have fixed cam timing, solid lash adjusters and only last about 600 miles before being fully torn down and re-built, including the rod bearings. They are squeezing every last HP they can out of those engines to win a race. But that does not mean they are durable like a street car. The engine ONLY needs to last the race, beyond that is irrelevant. Same with Pro Stock, their engines last about 4-8 miles...using 0W-5 and are primed externally prior to starting.

Top Fuel Dragsters are on the other extreme end, using 70 straight weight oils and running large bearing clearances because the crank flexes so much from the massive power output and extreme shock loading. Tight clearances and thin oils don't work when the crank experiences a lot of flexing, nor does it work well when there is lack of uniformity (high spots). These engines last 1/4 mile...

Now lets look at oil specs. MotorCraft Semi-syn 5W-20 has the following specs:
8.7 cSt @100C
CCS viscosity of 5,200 cP @ -30C
Viscosity Index of 164

Compared to Penzoil's Ultra Platinum GTL based 5W-30
10.3 cSt @ 100C
CCS Viscosity of 4,000 cP @-30C (actually out flows MC 5W-20 at extreme cold temps!)
Viscosity Index of 173

Going even further, all 2018 and new Mustangs, both the Ecoboost and GT now have dual oil specs. For the GT they call for 5W-20 for normal use and 5W-30 for track use. For the ecoboost they call for 5W-30 for normal use and 5W-50 for track use.

2015-2017's are what I call the forgotten generation because of how Ford specked the cars. It was an in-between generation where Ford seemed to only care about actual track use on the GT350's, so no alternate oil specifications were ever made for the lower models regardless of weather it was valid or not.

Also note the Austrailan GT's owner manual originally called for 5W-20...then they revised it in revision 3 and it now calls for 5W-30...so unless they recalled every GT made prior to the user manual and re-built the engine and re-flashed it, they simply up-specked it. This isn't new, they back specked engines build for 5W-30 to 5W-20 in the early 2000's when they made the switch.

Modern synthetic 5W-30s are an ideal viscosity for street and light track use in the 2015 all the way up to the 2018-2019's that now call for it (using the 3rd generation 5.0 with 12:1 compression, wire arc plasma transfer cylinder lines and DI + PI). For hard core track, synthetic 5W-50's, 0W-40's or even high end 5W-30's with an Air to Oil cooler.

 

[JDee]

So, to summarize, are you saying 5W-30 is better than 5W-20 for track days? I hope so, since that's what I've been using!
Good reading, even though I only understand about half of it (maybe). Do you have a background in this field?

 

[JAJ]

I've done an immense amount of research on this topic. Things to consider when choosing oil viscosity:

This is a great write-up - well done! I have a couple of clarifications to add - not about the oil but about the engine:

1. Rod bearing clearances - I used 5w30 in my 2011 supercharged GT. It worked great.

3. MLP Cam Phasors - the engine calibration has a table that predicts the time it takes for the cams to move. Axes are EOT and Time. In the real world, changing viscosity doesn't seem to make much difference even if the table values are set for a different viscosity than the one you're using. I did my own calibration for the supercharged GT and I did correct this table, but my datalogs didn't show any performance difference.

6. Oil Flow is NOT affected by oil viscosity - I think you missed something - the pump output doesn't change but flow through the engine does - there's a pressure relief valve at the pump output port that bypasses oil back into the pan above a preset pressure limit. Above about 2000 RPM on a warm engine, the oil pump output is high enough to open the valve and the system effectively switches from constant-displacement to constant pressure. At that point, the oil that goes through the engine is limited to what the engine can swallow at that pressure. Flow will increase with declining viscosity.

 

[TheLion70x77]

So, to summarize, are you saying 5W-30 is better than 5W-20 for track days? I hope so, since that's what I've been using!
Good reading, even though I only understand about half of it (maybe). Do you have a background in this field?

Not in mechanical engineering, but I do have a degree in Electrical Engineering.

Just about every on the Mustang6G forum uses 5W-30 for track. A few have used 5W-20, even the factory MC Semi-syn 5W-20 all on the stock cooling system, which isn't a bad oil, but it's certainly not the best either. But most run 30 and 40 weights for track use. 2nd Gen 5.0's ALL have a water to oil cooler (same as Boss 302). But the Performance Package GT's also have a 1.44" radiator vs. base models.

I think a thinner oil (5W-30 or 0W-40) comprised of a high quality synthetic base stock paired with an Air to Oil cooler is more ideal than running a super thick 5W-50 for hard core drivers (some one who is good enough to really push the car to it's limits).

A thinner oil at a lower temperature will produce similar MOFT as a thicker oil at higher temperature, but it won't break down as fast. There's no replacement for an Air to Oil cooler if you frequently track your car and are an experienced driver.

A thin 5W-30 is great for street use, drag racing and auto x or light duty track (less experienced drivers, novice to possibly intermediate). Even a good quality 5W-20 is great for any of those and quite a few have used them. Honestly there is no reason not to run 5W-30 as a street oil either. Some of the Synthetic 5W-30's OUT FLOW MC Semi-Syn 5W-20 at -30C...their temperature stability is so good there is some overlap with lesser quality 20 weights!

 

[TheLion70x77]

This is a great write-up - well done! I have a couple of clarifications to add - not about the oil but about the engine:

1. Rod bearing clearances - I used 5w30 in my 2011 supercharged GT. It worked great. Hennessey also uses PUP 5W-30 in their build Super Charged 2015 Mustang GT's. They set a land speed record (for this generation of Mustang) at 207 mph using Penzoil Ultra Platinum 5W-30 on an Eaton 2.9L super charger (I think it's the same eat 2.9L in the LT1 powered Corvettes and Camaro SS's and the new 2020 GT500).

3. MLP Cam Phasors - the engine calibration has a table that predicts the time it takes for the cams to move. Axes are EOT and Time. In the real world, changing viscosity doesn't seem to make much difference even if the table values are set for a different viscosity than the one you're using. I did my own calibration for the supercharged GT and I did correct this table, but my datalogs didn't show any performance difference. Over on the Mustang 6G forum we actually got a hold of factory ECU calibrations for the regular 5.0L GT AND the 5.2L GT350 (Voodoo 5.2L). The table values were the SAME. Yet the 5.0 runs on 5W-20 from the factory and the 5.2L runs on 5W-50...three viscosity grades up and it didn't require any changes. Take a look at the link above about MLP CTA cam phasors. There's a nice graph of the phasors response speed vs. RPM and pressure. It's virtually immune.

6. Oil Flow is NOT affected by oil viscosity - I think you missed something - the pump output doesn't change but flow through the engine does - there's a pressure relief valve at the pump output port that bypasses oil back into the pan above a preset pressure limit. Above about 2000 RPM on a warm engine, the oil pump output is high enough to open the valve and the system effectively switches from constant-displacement to constant pressure. At that point, the oil that goes through the engine is limited to what the engine can swallow at that pressure. Flow will increase with declining viscosity.

The valve set point is 100 psi. When at operating temperature (210F), the higher pressure generated by slightly thicker oils (5W-30 and 0W-40) is not enough to overcome the relief valve set point and go into bypass. Yes, on a cold engine in the winter, when I was running MC 5W-20, even it would hit 100 psi in winter on a cold start and go into bypass for a minute or two until it warmed up. But your not tracking the car on a cold engine, at least I hope not! So either idle it up to temp or drive it easy.

I have NOT tried 5W-50, so I don't know if 50 weight is thick enough at normal operating temps (210F) to generate 100 psi. But for street use, auto x and drag racing or light duty track, a thin high viscosity index synthetic 5W-30 produces 11%~14% better film strength in the rod bearings with only a very small penalty in drag losses and pumping losses and only a few psi higher oil pressure, so in the high 60's when very hot or low 80's at 210F even at high RPM. You getting FULL flow at operating temp with 5W-30's and 0W-40's out to redline. No risk of spinning rod bearings due to oil starvation.

Also, 5W-50 may be over kill. Remember Ford doesn't want their track focused street cars going boom no matter what you do to them. So they may be specifying a viscosity that is MORE than adequate to cover for some levels of improper use. Chevy only calls for going up from 5W-30 to 0W or 5W-40 for track use in the LT1 powered Corvettes and Camaros. Dodge just uses 0W-40 all the time. I'm of the mindset of lets use something in between that has enough margin of safety to avoid failures and wear issues but minimizes drag losses as much as possible WITHOUT cutting into the safety margin. I think Chevy and Dodge have it right in that regard and Ford is being overly cautious. You don't need massive MOFT, your better off running a thinner higher end synthetic 5W-30 or 0/5W-40 that doesn't thin out as much than running a heavily polymer doped 5W-50 that shears down.

Interestingly enough Ford Performance calls for the use of 5W-20 with their 670 HP super charger kit. Roush says you can use 5W-20 OR 5W-50 with the same (it was co-developed) super charger kit. Now using 5W-20 in a super charged 5.0 on the track is probably a death sentence for the bearings once the oil thins out form heat, but then again the nannies will kick in and limit torque to prevent damage if you reach unsafe operating temperatures. But for short bursts down a drag strip or on-ramp which is what most owners do, where it's not getting very hot, MOFT is adequate even for 9 psi FI loads...its all about temperature!

 

[JAJ]

Interesting - good write up some more!

My views on 5w50 are quite different than most people's. I think Ford uses 5w50 for reasons that have nothing to do with its viscosity, other than that it's thicker than 5w20, and it's possible that that doesn't matter much either.

Here's why I think that: there was a Boss 302 engine design article (with quotes from Ford engineers) that came out in 2012. It talked about the need for a full synthetic to minimize foaming at sustained high RPM. Apparently this was a problem with the conventional and semi-synth oils they tried during the development and testing of the Roadrunner. Well, they could have specified a full synthetic 5w20 or 5w30, but then they'd have to hope that every oil change shop on the planet would always install a full synthetic. Sounds unlikely. But, if they specify an oddball viscosity like 5w50, it pretty much guarantees that synthetic is used because even the best and most creative oil blenders can't formulate a 5w50 that isn't synthetic. It's a viscosity-based solution to a failure-to-follow-the-instructions problem.

But there's more to this than just that. Given that the MC oil shears down to 5w40 a few minutes into the first startup, then why didn't they just spec a 5w40? After all, you can't formulate a conventional 5w40 either. Well, again, I think it's about human engineering. 5w40 is widely available but a lot of it is formulated as a diesel truck oil, and Ford didn't want that in there either - it's full of phosphorus and it'll screw up the catalytic converters. So, I think that for high-revving modular engines, Ford chose a low-phosphorus 5w50 oil - Motorcraft, Castrol Supercar or Lucas - to achieve the low foam, low phosphorus solution they need, and in the process, they made it difficult to screw up, particularly for Ford dealers who only stock Motorcraft oils.

As to the pressure question, I don't have a 5.0 any more and the 5.2 Voodoo isn't an easy comparison. It has a larger oil pump than the 5.0 and there's a fair bit of magic in the valve train to survive the high RPM redline. Mine idles at 650 RPM and 205 degrees with 35psi oil pressure, and even when the oil's at 300F, there's lots of oil pressure, although when the oil's at 300, I'm too busy to spend much time looking at the oil pressure gauge. Cold start idle is over 100psi.

 

[Grant 302]

I've done an immense amount of research on this topic. Things to consider when choosing oil viscosity:

1. Rod bearing clearances - Ford Shop Manual extreme spread is 0.0011" to 0.0027", I believe this INCLUDES the 0.0008" tolerance. Median of the spread is 0.0019". I also believe that Clevite (a division of Mahle aftermarket) supplies the Bi-metal aluminum rod bearings for most of Ford's engines. Clevite recommends 0.00075" clearance per every 1" of bearing diameter plus an additional 0.0005" for performance engines added to the final clearance. The Coyote 5.0's rod bearings are 2.082". 0.00075*2.082 + 0.0005 = 0.00206 ~= 0.002. Clevite recommends 5W-30 for 0.002 to 0.0025" clearances and 5W-20 for 0.0015 to 0.0018" clearances. Either viscosity should work, but 5W-30 would be the safer bet.

Clevite also states that the ideal viscosity for balancing drag losses vs. bearing protection (film strength) with a 0.002" clearance is a synthetic SAE oil with a viscosity of 10 cSt @100C. HTHS for oils in that viscosity typically range between 3.0 to 3.2 cSt @ 150C vs. 2.6 to 2.7 for SAE 20 weights unless you go exotic like RedLine or mPAO like Driven.

2. MLP Cam Phasors are what is used in the 2nd Gen 5.0. They are not the same as the phasors in the first gen and allow more optimal tuning as their default position is in the middle. They operate off of oil bleed from the cam journals as noted earlier, the oil is controlled via a solenoid system. There is an advance chamber and retard chamber. Rotation is obviously accomplished via the valve spring torque acting on the cams and phasors. The chambers, as mentioned above in another post act like a hydraulic lock to lock them into a specific position. Oil viscosity will affect the rates at which these chambers fill up and bleed down assuming all other variable remained constant but they don't.

The GeRotor positive displacement pump is a constant flow pump and will flow the same volume of oil regardless of oil viscosity. Thicker oils will see higher pumping pressure (which equates to higher pumping losses) which is a result of using the more viscous fluid. So flow rates remain constant. The CTA phasors will see the same pressure increase every other oil dependent component sees with thicker oils, so flow into the chambers is the same because the pressure increases as a result of constant flow regulation. So filling of the advance or retard chambers will be unchanged.

The the be bleed down of each chamber may be mildly effected because bleed down occurs by the torque on the valve springs forcing the stator to rotate which forces each chamber to empty respectively (depending on advance or retard). Given that there are 4 valve springs per a side per a phasor at 300 lbs each...it would have be some seriously thick oil to not evacuate the phasors quickly enough to cause issues under normal operating temps and especially at elevated track temps.

Take a look at the response graph that shows how immune they are to oil pressure, remember your Gerotor oil pump is constant flow regardless of viscosity and pressure goes UP with thicker oils: https://www2.borgwarner.com/en/MorseSystems/products/Literature/Morse TEC CTA Sheet.pdf

Going even further, over on the Mustang6g forum, we did some digging into the ECU calibrations for both the stock 2nd Gen 5.0 and the Voodoo 5.2L. The cam phasor temperature compensation tables (time delay factors to correct for changes in oil temperature based off of the water temperature) are the SAME for the 5.0 and 5.2L, despite the 5.0 calling for 5W-20 and the 5.2L calling for 5W-50....obviously the change in viscosity between the two has no meaningful impact on the time delay factors, likely for the reasons I listed above. These CTA phasors are very immune to oil viscosity and pressure.

3. Hydraulic Lash Adjusters - the greatest risk with hydraulic lash adjusters and high RPM under heavy thermal loads is inadequate lash due to excessive bleed down rates. High RPM engines using hydraulic lash adjusters can experience varying lash if the oil thins out too much, so the adjuster pushes down a bit at the peak of the cam lobe where valve spring forces are greatest and as a result your NOT achieving full lift of the valve. This affects flow in and out of the combustion chamber in a negative way. There's a reason NASCAR, Pro Stock and many other performance engines use solid adjusters with shims to set lash. They won't bleed down at high RPM. Pump Up is another concern, but in my research it's extremely rare and requires massive increase in oil pressure to even be physically possible to the lash adjuster to overcome the valve spring force. Far more common of an issue if valve float due to inadequate spring pressure at high rpm.

4. Synthetic oils transfer heat better than mineral based oils (also hydrocracked group 3's). GTL (Penzoil Ultra series with Pure Plus) is the exception to this rule as GTL base oils perform on par and even exceed PAO's.

5. Oil Flow is NOT affected by oil viscosity. Gerotor pumps are positive displacement. Their flow rates do not change and they extremely efficient with viscous fluids. Pressure will increase (pumping losses) with viscosity however. So you'll see a higher oil pressure with thicker oils, but your flow rates through the bearings are unaffected. Fluids are in-compressible and the nature of a positive displacement pump is to mechanically displace the fluid to move it. So expect only to see change in oil pressure with thicker oils, but your bearings are getting the same flow and thicker oils DO generate thicker films even in the same clearances (see SubsTech articles aka King Bearings): http://www.substech.com/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=oil_clearance_and_engine_bearings

6. Thicker oils produce thicker films in the bearings of the same clearance, but over less surface area (less spread out). This increases localized pressure extremes, but also creates a thicker hydrodynamic wedge which reduces likelihood of partical scuffing (the film wedge is thicker than metal wear particles passing through the oil) and increases load bearing capabilities.

However larger clearances with thicker fluids actually support less load as the localized pressure is more extreme per a square inch and the actual film covers less surface area, but it was necessary in older engines because the uniformity of the bearings and crank were not good enough to allow smaller clearances.

7. Tighter clearances are more sensitive to tolerance stack up errors and crank flex. Need forged cranks and tight tolerances. Also require good quality base oils to avoid shearing down and blocking of the passages from deposits. Technically thinner oils and tighter clearances do transfer heat away from the bearings better but not because thinner fluids flow better with a Gerotor Positive Displacement pump which maintains a constant flow. It's because the fluid film is spread out across more of the bearing surface with thinner fluids and tighter clearances than in older designs using 40 and 50 weight oil with larger clearances in the 0.004+ range. Also the crank journal diameter is more closely matched to the bearing shell diameter, making for more a broader fluid film as well.

NASCAR's are a bad example of 0W-20 and 0W-10 oils for performance engines. They have fixed cam timing, solid lash adjusters and only last about 600 miles before being fully torn down and re-built, including the rod bearings. They are squeezing every last HP they can out of those engines to win a race. But that does not mean they are durable like a street car. The engine ONLY needs to last the race, beyond that is irrelevant. Same with Pro Stock, their engines last about 4-8 miles...using 0W-5 and are primed externally prior to starting.

Top Fuel Dragsters are on the other extreme end, using 70 straight weight oils and running large bearing clearances because the crank flexes so much from the massive power output and extreme shock loading. Tight clearances and thin oils don't work when the crank experiences a lot of flexing, nor does it work well when there is lack of uniformity (high spots). These engines last 1/4 mile...

Now lets look at oil specs. MotorCraft Semi-syn 5W-20 has the following specs:
8.7 cSt @100C
CCS viscosity of 5,200 cP @ -30C
Viscosity Index of 164

Compared to Penzoil's Ultra Platinum GTL based 5W-30
10.3 cSt @ 100C
CCS Viscosity of 4,000 cP @-30C (actually out flows MC 5W-20 at extreme cold temps!)
Viscosity Index of 173

Going even further, all 2018 and new Mustangs, both the Ecoboost and GT now have dual oil specs. For the GT they call for 5W-20 for normal use and 5W-30 for track use. For the ecoboost they call for 5W-30 for normal use and 5W-50 for track use.

2015-2017's are what I call the forgotten generation because of how Ford specked the cars. It was an in-between generation where Ford seemed to only care about actual track use on the GT350's, so no alternate oil specifications were ever made for the lower models regardless of weather it was valid or not.

Also note the Austrailan GT's owner manual originally called for 5W-20...then they revised it in revision 3 and it now calls for 5W-30...so unless they recalled every GT made prior to the user manual and re-built the engine and re-flashed it, they simply up-specked it. This isn't new, they back specked engines build for 5W-30 to 5W-20 in the early 2000's when they made the switch.

Modern synthetic 5W-30s are an ideal viscosity for street and light track use in the 2015 all the way up to the 2018-2019's that now call for it (using the 3rd generation 5.0 with 12:1 compression, wire arc plasma transfer cylinder lines and DI + PI). For hard core track, synthetic 5W-50's, 0W-40's or even high end 5W-30's with an Air to Oil cooler.

See the following PDF for OEM bearing specs:
https://performanceparts.ford.com/download/instructionsheets/FordInstShtM-6007-A50NA.pdf

 

[Coz]

For hot summer days, why wouldn't a 10W-40 work too? The cold flow is not an issue and the smaller range should resist shearing better with the -40 giving better protection than the -30. Even for a cold start at 65-70 degrees, will the 10W be that much thicker than a 5W to make a difference?

 

[TheLion70x77]

See the following PDF for OEM bearing specs:
https://performanceparts.ford.com/download/instructionsheets/FordInstShtM-6007-A50NA.pdf

I have the shop manual for 2015 to 2017 Mustangs. The 0.0011 to 0.0027" bearing to crank journal clearance is Ford's shop manual spec. Their Aluminator Voodoo 5.2L also lists the same clearance spec. but runs on 5W-50, not 5W-20 like the production 2nd gen 5.0's.

The clearances listed in your link are for their Aluminator 2nd Gen 5.0L that has Manley Forged Steel Rods, Mahle Forged Pistons and a billet oil pump. That is NOT a production 5.0L and that is NOT what is in the Boss 302. That's a built crate motor, not a standard production crate motor.

Here is what you linked the data sheet to: https://performanceparts.ford.com/part/M-6007-A50NAA

EDIT: NO. I linked the 2011 M-6007-A50NA Engine, NOT A50NAA, which is the 'ALUMINATOR'. G-

Here is what comes in a production 2015 to 2017 Mustang GT like mine: https://performanceparts.ford.com/part/M-6007-M50A

Those engines are not the same. One is the mass production motor you get in the car off the lot, the other is a built crate motor for race applications. They also offer the Aluminators in 9.5:1 compression ratio for FI applications.

I have a 2016 PP GT with a Power Pack 2 and some other modifications. If you want to know why the 2nd Gen 5.0 is better than the 1st, here's some general information from Ford Performance on the PRODUCTION 5.0L (not the Aluminator): https://performanceparts.ford.com/download/pdfs/Gen_2_Coyote_Technical_Reference_2-16.pdf

It's more or less the Road Runner 5.0 optimized for mass production and a crappier intake manifold (which you can Upgrade with Power Pack 3 to the GT350's high flow manifold). A couple of differences are: 1. Intake manifold on the 2015-2017 5.0 is nearly identical to the 2011-2014's but with CMCV. It doesn't flow any better up top. CMCV gives you better idle and more low end torque as well as lower emissions. 2. The heads on the 2nd Gen flow just as well as the CNC ported heads on the Road Runner, they are just cast versions for mass production. 3. 2nd Generation 5.0 has Borg Warner MLP CTA phasors (mid-lock) while the 302 uses the older CTA phasors that do not have a mid-lock feature. Allows for more ideal phase control.

All 2015-2017's come with a water to oil cooler stock. Performance Package optioned GT's come with a thicker radiator than base models (1.44" vs. 1.0"), Torsen LSD with 3.73 final drive, 255 / 275-40R19 wheels, 6 piston brembos up front, stiffer springs and bars, strut tower brake and k-brace, unique abs, stability control and EPAS tuning. It's a good starting point for a dual purpose street / track car.

The 2nd gen was built with substantial over capacity in mind. Ford Performance offers Power Packs 1, 2 and 3 plus a 670 Super Charger kit. We are picking up 40 to 45 whp at 4,000 and 5,000 RPM with the Power Pack 2's over the stock tune and 21 to 26 whp at 6,500 rpm. Rev limit is also extended out to 7150 from the factory 6,800.

 

[TheLion70x77]

For hot summer days, why wouldn't a 10W-40 work too? The cold flow is not an issue and the smaller range should resist shearing better with the -40 giving better protection than the -30. Even for a cold start at 65-70 degrees, will the 10W be that much thicker than a 5W to make a difference?

Probably not, but your forgetting that is conventional thinking on the oil base stocks. Modern synthetic base stocks from Gas to Liquid (GTL) and the new mPAO base stocks allow these viscosity ranges WITHOUT using polymer viscosity improvers or very little viscosity improvers. So these modern oils don't experience permanent shear, only temperary shear from heat (thin out with heat, but return to their previous viscosity instead of suffering permanent viscosity loss). Ravenol, a German company has their USVO base stocks that have NO viscosity improvers at all. Their temperature stability is acheived entirely through mixing various mPAO and Ester base stocks so they are highly shear resistant.

There's a reason Dodge uses Penzoil's Ultra Platinum 0W-40 in their 647 HP Viper ACR V10, Hemi 392's, Hell Cats, 840 HP Demon. Hennessey uses their GTL oils in all of their cars as well including their record braking 2015 Super Charged GT that went 207 MPH (they used PUP 5W-30). Ken block does in his rally Focus RS. Ferrari North America's only approved oil is Penzoil Ultra Platinum GTL in their Euro formula. The Penske race team actually uses production off-the-shelf 0W-40 in their Lemans Viper. It's good enough to use a production oil instead of a race blend (keep in mind that car uses the production motor, not a flat tappet that requires very high zinc to survive).

 

[Grant 302]

I have the shop manual for 2015 to 2017 Mustangs. The 0.0011 to 0.0027" bearing to crank journal clearance is Ford's shop manual spec. Their Aluminator Voodoo 5.2L also lists the same clearance spec. but runs on 5W-50, not 5W-20 like the production 2nd gen 5.0's.

The clearances listed in your link are for their Aluminator 2nd Gen 5.0L that has Manley Forged Steel Rods, Mahle Forged Pistons and a billet oil pump. That is NOT a production 5.0L and that is NOT what is in the Boss 302. That's a built crate motor, not a standard production crate motor.

Here is what you linked the data sheet to: https://performanceparts.ford.com/part/M-6007-A50NAA

Here is what comes in a production 2015 to 2017 Mustang GT like mine: https://performanceparts.ford.com/part/M-6007-M50A

Those engines are not the same. One is the mass production motor you get in the car off the lot, the other is a built crate motor for race applications. They also offer the Aluminators in 9.5:1 compression ratio for FI applications.

I have a 2016 PP GT with a Power Pack 2 and some other modifications. If you want to know why the 2nd Gen 5.0 is better than the 1st, here's some general information from Ford Performance on the PRODUCTION 5.0L (not the Aluminator): https://performanceparts.ford.com/download/pdfs/Gen_2_Coyote_Technical_Reference_2-16.pdf

It's more or less the Road Runner 5.0 optimized for mass production and a crappier intake manifold (which you can Upgrade with Power Pack 3 to the GT350's high flow manifold). A couple of differences are: 1. Intake manifold on the 2015-2017 5.0 is nearly identical to the 2011-2014's but with CMCV. It doesn't flow any better up top. CMCV gives you better idle and more low end torque as well as lower emissions. 2. The heads on the 2nd Gen flow just as well as the CNC ported heads on the Road Runner, they are just cast versions for mass production. 3. 2nd Generation 5.0 has Borg Warner MLP CTA phasors (mid-lock) while the 302 uses the older CTA phasors that do not have a mid-lock feature. Allows for more ideal phase control.

All 2015-2017's come with a water to oil cooler stock. Performance Package optioned GT's come with a thicker radiator than base models (1.44" vs. 1.0"), Torsen LSD with 3.73 final drive, 255 / 275-40R19 wheels, 6 piston brembos up front, stiffer springs and bars, strut tower brake and k-brace, unique abs, stability control and EPAS tuning. It's a good starting point for a dual purpose street / track car.

The 2nd gen was built with substantial over capacity in mind. Ford Performance offers Power Packs 1, 2 and 3 plus a 670 Super Charger kit. We are picking up 40 to 45 whp at 4,000 and 5,000 RPM with the Power Pack 2's over the stock tune and 21 to 26 whp at 6,500 rpm. Rev limit is also extended out to 7150 from the factory 6,800.

And that links says it had Boss 302 bearings.

 

[JDee]

I love oil threads. It's almost a religious discussion!
On another note, supposed to do a track day today and it's snowing out! What viscosity oil would I use for that condition? LOL!!!

 

[VoodooBoss]

I love oil threads. It's almost a religious discussion!
On another note, supposed to do a track day today and it's snowing out! What viscosity oil would I use for that condition? LOL!!!

Use the "park it and watch the carnage" viscosity.

 

[BigTaco]

Lots of assumptions and misinformation here. This is typical of oil threads since they are based on lots of arm chair “science@ but at worst, as I said, associated with “assumptions” based on guesses and “I heard” information sharing.

This is not a dig in any individual here. Seriously, I just want to change the culture based on truth when it comes to engine oil.

You can’t look at viscosity index alone and assume you need a thicker weight (because it has a higher VI than a totally different oil with a different VI).

Use the viscosity recommended by the OEM and don’t second guess it. 5w50 is not overkill for coyote based engines that have this requirement specified from the manufacturer.

Use an oil that has a high viscosity index, when that is index is accomplished by using a premium base oil and not viscosity improvers alone. Those oils will be more stable and more effective at protection throughout its life cycle.

You can just use an oil that meets the minimum requirements and still have success.

Look into mPAO (only ChevronPhillips and Mobil make this BUT this in not in either of their “standard” of the shelf oils. Both brands are a bit different in specification, not both blow PAO out of the water).

Mobil is only using this In their annual protection oils.

Chevron/Texaco oils do not have mPAO. Even more, this company (ChevronPhillips) is a co-op but the products are made are neither Chevron or Phillips products.

For example, Motorcraft 5W50 is made by Phillips, but does not use mPAO.



To make it even simpler, find a mPAO based oil in the OEM recommended viscosity. That’s as good as it can get.
These products will be more expensive but be the best products to keep your engine running at peak for the life of the engine.

 

[VoodooBoss]

Use the viscosity recommended by the OEM and don’t second guess it. 5w50 is not overkill for coyote based engines that have this requirement specified from the manufacturer.

I'll take this from a different angle: as a guy who's blown two motors on track while under warranty and had them replaced under warranty with no out of pocket costs I'd recommend following Ford's recommendations for your motor if your car is still under warranty and you're taking it to a track. When in doubt call Ford Performance directly and ask them.

 

[TheLion70x77]

There are many legitimate cases where the OE spec is NOT adequate because your using the car outside of the original intended scope. The GT350 and Boss 302's were set up for track work from the start. The 2015-2017 Performance Package GT's were NOT. Nor are the 2018-2019 Performance Package 1 and 2 GT's. They lack differential coolers, Air to Oil coolers and trans coolers.

Yet people track them. That's outside the scope of their original design intent. When we step outside of that scope, some factory specifications are no longer valid. Suggesting we should rigidly adhere to that is non-sense. As an Engineer, we have customers who will occasionally use our safety electronics in an abnormal and unintended application that requires some modifications. Just because we didn't intend for it to be used that way, doesn't mean we cannot make it work adequately in that way.

The original poster has a 2011 GT NON Track Pack. He modified the car with added coolers but was asking about oil viscosity. Because the 2011 NON Track Pack GT's ONLY call for 5W-20, should he not consider higher viscosity?

The car isn't stock, so not all OE recommendations apply. Ford never intended Non Track Pack GT's to be tracked...yet we do it anyway! My purpose was to prove though actual information from the OE bearing supplier (Clevite) and the OE bearing specs (Ford Shop Manual) in the standard production 5.0's (1st and 2nd gens) that anything between 5W-20 and 5W-50 is acceptable.

Then I looked at the cam phasors which some say are sensitive to oil viscosity and others say aren't. I cannot comment on the first gen CTA phasors that are not mid lock, but the MLP phasors in the 2nd gens are virtually immune to oil pressure and viscosity because of their design. Look at my post above straight from Borg Warner and their response time graph. Ill attach it again to this post for kicks and giggles.

Next I looked at hydraulic lash adjusters and how they are affected. The higher risk of track use is thinning. An mPAO will still become far thinner when at 280~300F than a 5W-40 or 50. One of the most common issues with high RPM track use on cars with hydraulic lash adjusters is lash at peak pressure (top of the lobe), the oil bleeds out too fast and you don't achieve full lift.

Most importantly I studied positive displacement pumps and how they function. They are CONSTANT flow pumps. Pressure varies with viscosity, but your flow rates remain constant. They also have higher efficiency with THICKER fluids interestingly. Unless your oil is so viscous (when cold) and your exceeding the 100 PSI bypass valve pressure set point and going into bypass (should not happen when up to temp), flow is constant regardless of viscosity. Like a current sources that varies it voltage to regulate a constant current.

NASCAR's running 5W-20 is a dumb example, in fact they are running 0W-10 now according to Lake Speed Jr. They do NOT have cam phasors, it's fixed cam timing. They do NOT have hydraulic lash adjusters, they are solid fixed adjusters that are shimmed. Their engines are rebuilt after just 600 miles...are you going to rebuild your 5.0 after 600 miles of road course because Ford told you to use 5W-20 and didn't use any oil cooler on the 2011 non track pack GT's?

I'm not suggesting certain 5W-20's couldn't possibly be adequate for track in some cases. With an Air to Oil cooler AND in a high end mPAO formula it may be, but then again it may not. Why not have added safety margin? All oils thin out with heat and lower viscosity base stocks of any base oil will heat shear (not permanent shear, but temporary thinning from heat) more than higher viscosity base stocks. What you can get away with in a NASCAR using the most rediculous tolerances possible (down to 0.0001) allowing them to run super tight clearances is NOT what you can do with a production 5.0...they are not remotely the same. Otherwise, why would Ford spec thicker oils for ALL their track cars and call for increased viscosity in the regular non track 2018's for track use?

Cars that recommend going up at least one viscosity grade for track use from Ford:
1. 2018-2019 Mustang GT's: 5W-20 to 5W-30
2. 2018-2019 Mustang Ecoboost: 5W-30 to 5W-50

Other cars that I know of that call for viscosity increase:
3. 2016-2019 Camaro SS (5th Gen LT1): 5W-30 to 0W/5W-40
4. 2014-2019 Corvette (5th Gen LT1): 5W-30 to 0W/5W-40

Here's another curve ball. Ford Racing School's 2015 Mustang GT Performance Pack instructor cars. I have a 2016 Performance Package GT, SAME car, just 1 MY newer. They are running the STOCK ECU calibration, which calls for 5W-20 and has NO mention of track use and does NOT give alternate viscosity recomendations. It's simply a topic avoided in the user manual for 2015-2017's. But Ford Racing School uses Castrol Super Car 5W-50 oil on their stock 2015 2nd gen 5.0 engine. I e-mailed them and that is what they said. I verified they running the engine stock on the stock ECU calibration with the exception of added external coolers (Setrab Air to oil Cooler).

So we have Ford's own racing school running stock 2015 2nd Gen 5.0's on 5W-50 on the stock ECU with an Air to oil cooler when the user manual says to run 5W-20...take a look:

Jill passed along your question to me about which oil we utilize in our 2015 Mustang GTs. We run Castrol Edge Supercar 5W/50.

Josh Williams


Race Shop Assistant Manager

Ford Performance Racing School

|Direct: 435-277-8004 Cell: 435-841-1178

[email protected]

www.fordracingschool.com

512 S. Sheep Ln. Grantsville, UT 84074

Our Mustangs do run on the factory PCM calibration. Let me know if you have any further questions.

Sent from my iPhone

We removed the stock oil to water block and installed a new adapter in its place. I have one of my techs working on getting part numbers for the oil cooler and adapter. I hope to have those for you by the end of the day.

Josh Williams


Race Shop Assistant Manager

Ford Performance Racing School

|Direct: 435-277-8004 Cell: 435-841-1178

[email protected]

www.fordracingschool.com

512 S. Sheep Ln. Grantsville, UT 84074

 

[TheLion70x77]

Take a look at the attached for more information. I took a screen shot of the 2015-2017 shop manual specs for the 5.0 Ti-VVT engine in the S550 Mustangs. The manual itself is 10,000 pages and 173 mb, too big to upload ;-).

For reference SubsTech IS King Bearings. It is Dr. Dimitri Kopeliovich, their lead designer. Thicker oil viscosity simply results in higher MOFT in ANY clearance. However some clearances are more ideal for certain viscosity range. The idea of performance car applications is to have just enough MOFT to prevent wear and damage, but no more than in necessary to limit drag losses (power to the wheels).

I suspect 5W-50 is the super safe bet. That's why Ford Racing School's instructor cars run 5W-50 on a car whose factory spec oil is 5W-20 ON TOP OF using a 19 row air to oil cooler. Reliability. As instructor cars their primary focus is reliability and handling, how being the fastest. I highly suspect that is Ford's focus with the use of 5W-50.

Their competitors are running thinner oils, Chevy and Dodge. Hennessey also runs a GTL 5W-30 in their built super charged 2015 GT's (774 HP). Don't forget how good GLT base stocks are. 80% Isoparaffins vs. Group III's that are only 40% Isoparaffins, they are extremely temp stable and shear resistant. All the information is below to support what I"m saying and from some pretty darn authoritative sources including OE suppliers for Ford, Chevy and Dodge. Take it for what you will.

 

[TheLion70x77]

Lots of assumptions and misinformation here. This is typical of oil threads since they are based on lots of arm chair “science@ but at worst, as I said, associated with “assumptions” based on guesses and “I heard” information sharing.

This is not a dig in any individual here. Seriously, I just want to change the culture based on truth when it comes to engine oil.

You can’t look at viscosity index alone and assume you need a thicker weight (because it has a higher VI than a totally different oil with a different VI).

Use the viscosity recommended by the OEM and don’t second guess it. 5w50 is not overkill for coyote based engines that have this requirement specified from the manufacturer.

Use an oil that has a high viscosity index, when that is index is accomplished by using a premium base oil and not viscosity improvers alone. Those oils will be more stable and more effective at protection throughout its life cycle.

You can just use an oil that meets the minimum requirements and still have success.

Look into mPAO (only ChevronPhillips and Mobil make this BUT this in not in either of their “standard” of the shelf oils. Both brands are a bit different in specification, not both blow PAO out of the water).

Mobil is only using this In their annual protection oils.

Chevron/Texaco oils do not have mPAO. Even more, this company (ChevronPhillips) is a co-op but the products are made are neither Chevron or Phillips products.

For example, Motorcraft 5W50 is made by Phillips, but does not use mPAO.



To make it even simpler, find a mPAO based oil in the OEM recommended viscosity. That’s as good as it can get.
These products will be more expensive but be the best products to keep your engine running at peak for the life of the engine.

GTL meets or exceeds PAO blend performance (take a look at the data in the above post on GTL base stocks). mPAO's also exceed traditional PAO blends. PAO's have been around for quite a while and while great are not on the top of the pile for film strength at high temperatures. Ester's also exceed PAO's but are difficult to get add packs to blend into and can meet their viscosity range without using any polymer viscosity improvers. Ester base oils are the ONLY oils used in jet engines still.

Agreed that viscosity index isn't a good indicator alone, but if you know the base oil technology AND it has a high viscosity index, it's probably a good bet that it will perform well. The question is, how much is really necessary in a street car at these power levels? I only suggest GTL based oils because they are more cost effective and match or exceed PAO's, I use them myself as to many others.

What I'm suggesting for the OP who has a non-track pack 2011 (that's guaranteed to be out of warranty) and is modified with the Boss 302 water to oil cooler, is to use a GTL, PAO or mPA 5W-30 for track and street. MC Semi-syn's cold cranking viscosity is 5,200 cP @ -30C, PUP 5W-30 is only 4,000 cP @ -30C. All 5W-20's thinn out, mPAO 5W-20 won't make up for 3 grades in viscosity. Typically the difference is one viscosity grade.

BTW someone mentioned Conoco Phillips not making mPAO...not sure whey they got that information from, see attached. I'll bow out of this argument at this point. I've supplied far more testing and information than anyone else to substantiate my recommendations. Your welcome to actually read through the information and determine for yourself weather or not stepping up to a higher viscosity for non-track pack variants being used on the track is beneficial or not.

I'm of the school of thought to use a slightly higher viscosity oil in a higher quality base stock to increase protection but limit drag losses to meaningless levels. That means stepping up from a 5W-20 MC Semi-syn to a GTL, PAO or other higher quality base oil in 5W-30, 0W,5W,10W-40.