Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Boss 302 and S197 Technical Forum' started by Creedog, Mar 23, 2018.
It was nice knowing your guys.
That extra 'r' makes that pretty funny. You must be talking about Bill's uh, 'guys'?
Paperwork is pending. But don't worry, I'm only batting 500 on my ban requests.
Correct. It was called the "Brake Performance Package". It was largely a Track Pack but it had no Torsen and the engine oil fill cap said 5W20 on it, not 5W50. I had a white one, but it was a fat arsed leather interior loaded luxo barge and I went a totally different direction with my current car.
Looks like RedLine and PUP held up very well. Ester and GTL's for the win. MC held up pretty well too. M1 not too bad, but their standard synthetics shear down rather quickly. SVT had a UOA thread of S197's and M1 was one of the worst offenders of all the oils at shearing down unless you went to their Extended Performance which has a decent concentration of PAO's or their annual protection which I understand to be mPAO.
ECU can only make decisions based on what sensor information is available. There are no sensors for the lash adjusters. Can you elaborate for me how the ECU will detect abnormal lash? I'm not see how it can infer that information either.
Grant 302, take a look at the data from Infinitum (attached, highlighted in yellow key points), they are a major oil additive supplier. Their research clearly shows HTHS viscosity is lost as the oil shears down due to polymer break down. It's not just KV at 100C that is lost. Viscosity is viscosity, if the oil is thinning out, it will be thinner under all conditions proportionally. If it's permanently loosing viscosity at 100C, it will also be loosing viscosity under HTHS conditions. There's a distinction between temporary shear and permanent shear. Permanent shear makes an oil permanently thinner under ALL conditions including HTHS viscosity.
The minimum viscosity for SAE 5W-50 is 16.3 cSt @100C, your M1 5W-50 came in at 13.3 despite being 17 when virgin...If you drop below 16.3 cSt @ 100C it is NOT by aANY SAE definition 5W-50...it can't because it's below the limit for that viscosity range. If any one parameter falls out of category, it has effectively sheared down permanently to a different grade. Your UOA indicated a 30% loss in viscosity. While that may be normal for most 5W-50's on the market now to shear down that much, it's no longer 5W-50 and HTHS will reflect that. I suspect that's why Chevrolet and Dodge don't even bother with 5W-50's. Nothing on the market stays in grade unless you go with super high priced boutique oils. But there are stay in 5W-40's and 0W-40's that are affordable.
I said time and again, I've put immense amount of research into oil technologies from oil suppliers, auto manufacturers and their part sources because I got so sick of people giving me unfounded opinions on this weight of oil or that weight etc.
Everyone says something different. Stay the same, go up a little, go up a lot...or the Ferrari guy who went thinner by four grades......then I get statements like "HTHS doesn't change even it shears down"...I have not even gotten consistent answers from Ford Performance. I speak to different people and get different answers...so I decided enough is enough. I'm going to look at all of the data and determine the appropriate course of action for myself for a particular application and then call it a day.
You may not like the idea that your 5W-50 is no longer 5W-50, but your UOA proves it and I have data attached to this thread to prove that HTHS thins as the KV at 100C viscosity is lost. They are directly related.
So, as I've said, and also Lake Speed Jr. from Driven Racing oil, why not just use a stay in grade oil one viscosity lower? Reduce drag losses. Your on the high end of the oil spectrum, in those cases going a little thinner with a better oil is beneficial, especially when it stays in grade. By the time you change your oil your 5W-50, your running an equivalent of a thin 5W-40 (towards the bottom of the range of SAE 40 weights). Then you can enjoy more consistent performance AND know your oil is not shearing down. Wear rates will be improved etc.
Another OP posted his UOA of his Super Charged 2011 GT. PUP and RedLine did not shear down, in fact RedLine thickened just a tad (on a performance car, I'd rather have it thicken a bit than shear down) and PUP was identical. Anyway, you obviously can do what you want with your car, I'm just basing my decisions off of actual data, not what I "think" is going on or what others tell me based on their opinions or what they heard from so and so. That's all and I wanted to share this information with others because there's so much confusion about it.
I've addressed CTA phasors and how pressure / viscosity affect them, Hydraulic Lash Adjuster operation over RPM and their issues, Rod and Main Bearings including clearances and tolerances vs. viscosity, Oil Squirter operation, gerotor oil pump properties as it relates to oil and oil base stock stability as well as providing examples of what Ford, Dodge and Chevy are doing on newer models.
To all, remember that Ford is a company with many cogs and not all of their decisions are based on what is best or most optimal from a design standpoint, just like any other company, profitability is at the top of the list, or they would cease to exist.
Usually it's a balance of the Engineers fighting for every bit of performance they can get approved, but the business side putting the brakes on some things due to profit margin limits. This is nothing new or specific only to Ford and Ford's performance focused car line is somewhat more recent in terms of producing serious and competitive performance cars with dedicated ground up designs.
In the past what they offered was sub-par (SVT days) and usually a retrofit of a non-performance oriented chassis and engine, trying to make it something it was not which severely limited performance potential. They are still growing in that area, consequently not everything they do is going to be the best and obviously they evolve. They learn and grow like any individual and organization.
What they did in the past is not necessarily what they do now. And even on older designs, because technology changes, recommendations may not always be optimal, especially if your using it outside of it's original scope of intent. Obviously they didn't provide much focus on tracking the lesser models (aka anything that is not a Boss 302, GT350 or Ford GT).
While the lesser models like my Performance Package 2016 Mustang GT has some very capable brakes, engine and chassis, it got spanked in handling and straight line performance by the 2016 Alpha based Camaro SS using the 5th Gen LT1. The SS was more performance focused from the start, handling, cooling (even base models come with a water to oil cooler), high end performance V8 from the Corvette...The average power deficit was over 30 whp between the LT1 and 2nd Gen 5.0 stock to stock over the rev range because of the LT1's huge mid-range power compared to the flat mid-range of the 2nd gen 5.0.
Handling, not even close! The GT was set up like a grand touring car, soft spring and strut combination (1.3 Hz on a heavy performance car...really Ford?), overly compliant bushings in critical areas (IRS, Toe Links, Tension Links), higher stock ride height etc. But it was cheaper than the SS by a decent amount and there's a huge after market support to extract the performance, also the chassis retains some level of practicality (much bigger trunk) and I can see out of it, something the Camaro lacks still. I also fell in love with the aesthetics of it (although I personally like the 6th gen SS as well). So I went this route realizing the OE setup was sub-par for what I wanted the car to do.
So because Ford didn't set up my GT with 250 lbs / 980 lbs front and rear springs and GT350 damping rates, does that mean I shouldn't use them because it wasn't the OE setup or recomendation? Of course not! Not if I want the car to handle better. Because Ford used a rubber bushing on the outer end of the toe link that allows toe deflection, does that mean I shouldn't use the Ford Performance spherical bearing? OE is usually a good starting point and is normally safe for average uses, but that does NOT mean it's the most optimal, especially when you deviate from it's intended scope of use.
Motor Oil viscosity is no different. 5W-20 in street performance cars is oriented towards CAFE requirements. The drag losses between 20 and 30 weights are not even measurable without precision equipment under very specific lab conditions. But there is plenty of test data to show 5W-30's provide lower oil consumption on average, a stronger film, especially if it's stay in grade and consequently better protection in performance street cars. There IS a reason that Mahle / Clevite AND King Bearings as well as many other OE suppliers and industry leaders suggest 5W-30 for the common 0.002" bearing clearances we see in most US based performance street cars now days. Ford is even specking 5W-30 for the 2018 GT's for track use, NOT the 5W-20 the intend for street use.
Chevy suggests going from 5W-30 to 0/5W-40 for track use. Dodge uses 0W-40 all the time. See the trend? Thinner oils do have benefits, but too thin and you sacrifice reliability longevity. With current design clearances and achievable manufacturing tolerances, 30 and 40 weights are right in the sweet spot for the V8's, V6's and I4's from the big three.
And while the ECU may have safeties built into protect against severe over temperature conditions, that does not mean the engine will not experience significantly heightened wear rates that reduce it's performance and service life, and the safeties may not kick in time to prevent damage. It's a margin of safety without sacrificing any meaningful performance. ECU safeties are generally pretty good, but they are not 100%.
The idea is to balance everything out, drag losses / pumping losses, engine wear, engine protection and cost / availability. I'm not trying to be a know it all, but I see so much confusion on this topic which I myself have been subject to and wanted to provide a laundry list of information that is backed by actual testing and hard data that we can use to base our decisions on because I find that to be severely lacking among car enthusiast "experts". There are way to many "rules of thumb" and "well this guys uses this and it works" etc. Or the information is so scattered you can only find bits and pieces of it, making it difficult to figure out how it impacts all of the systems.
If your dead set on tracking the car with 5W-20, I'd suggest nothing less than has been suggested before, Driven FR20 mPAO, Penzoil Ultra Platinum 5W-20 or RedLine 5W-20. mPAO, Ester and GTL base stocks are all highly shear resistant. mPAO and GTL (Pure Plus) are both are used in NASCAR race blends because they hold up well to extreme heat. Esters are still the only approved base stock for Jet engine oiling needs.
However a 5W-30 in those same grades would provide a better temperature margin and is more ideal for the OE bearing clearance specifications as well as supporting the lash adjusters at high RPM. All oils experience temporary shear, 30 weight buys you another 30F operating temperature over 20 weight in the same base stock. Can't get around that. Best of luck all!
Since Ford covers engine issues when on track under warranty, I blow it up, they buy it. I went out on a limb and assumed that they would recommend an oil which would keep the big parts out of the bottom of the oil pan. So far, its worked, who knew. And please don't assume "What is best or optimal" for you is the same for me. I lean toward having a car start up and run and not deposit large mangled parts in the oil pan. Call me crazy, but that is more important "to me" than squeezing out the very last tenth of a HP. YMMV.
...and even if the protection that I have on the first day of use wears down by the third day of use to a 40W equivalent, I'd still rather have that first day or two of 'extra' protection. After that third day, I don't worry about how long it's in there for street use (up to a year) and change it for the next track day.
There are proven pressure issues with Gen 1 Coyotes using 40W and having pressure issues on track. I'm sticking with 5W-50 M1, unless somebody produces an actual test that shows the used HTHS going under used 40W HTHS. I suspect it doesn't and that the test will never happen.
If I do change anything based off this current conversation, it might be to use straight 50W or Redline to top off between track days or like I said earlier to change to a 2 track day change interval.
Thanks for everyone keeping this thread on track and being civil. Please make sure it continues that way
I had a Salad for dinner last night.
This is the big question and why I take these engine oil and I'll add engine tune threads with a grain of salt. Everything is fine right up to the moment it's not. "I've used X product and never had a problem." You won't have a problem until you do. Unless you're doing a complete tear down and taking measurements of tolerances and wear you'll never really know how much of a different X oil is over Y (brand or viscosity). I like the engine oil analysis from your own motor as it can tell you a lot of what's going in inside your motor.
I've followed the manufacturers oil recommendations and still blew a motor. I run a mix of 91/100 octane at the track and still blew a motor. Shit happens on track, be prepared.
I can't imagine running 5w30, 5w40 or 5w50 on track in a coyote is going to cause more damage than 5w20. I change my engine oil after every two track days. Carry on.
I changed the oil filler cap.
But I am so confused , because I do understand non virgin oil , but TMS mentioned to use Extra Virgin oil and , heck, one is either a virgin or not, how can one be extra virgin? Besides , I think TMS should be banned anyway, as where did he get the right to talk about Popeye's girlfriend like that?
Better ban 70x77 too, Grant , as he was talking about toe links , and that just sounds so wrong!?
Virgin and even Extra virgin oyl may have never experienced the joy of racing.....
Who is Ray Sing?
Apparently you didn't read through Infiniums testing on the loss of HTHS viscosity. I didn't include it because it was here say, I included it because of actual test data on the issues with the use of common viscosity improvers used in motor oils. Yet here we are still debating it...
That's why I suggested that Mr. Ferrari's Enzo is likely no longer running well, or will not be in the near future. I'm not sure why everyone assumes OE setups are infallible or cannot be deviated from.
I work in the gas an oil industry designing electrical safety equipment. OE setups are a good starting point, but they are limited to a defined set of criteria of the original design intent, deviate from that and they are no longer valid.
I find it immensely irritating that I can provide actual verified test data on a particular point yet people still argue as if it will somehow make everything they believe to be valid even though the data is contradicting what they are saying...oh boy.
There are two pathways for the ECU to detect this kind of problem. First, it'll cause a rich condition on one bank because one cylinder isn't getting enough air to fully burn the fuel that's being injected. Second, the crank position sensor has an algorithm that checks to see if the cylinders are producing the same amount of torque - if one cylinder is producing a smaller torque pulse at the flywheel than the rest, it shows up as a variation in the crank timing. There are several series of DTC's related to this strategy, and a good example is the series of P219x DTC's: "Air/Fuel Ratio Imbalance" which is described as "The air to fuel ratio imbalance torque monitor is designed to detect minimal differences in the air to fuel ratio between cylinders. This DTC sets when the minimal air to fuel ratio difference in cylinder y is greater than a calculated amount." The "x" in the DTC number indicates which cylinder that the imbalance was detected on.
He claims, and I have no reason to doubt him, that before he started running the thinner oil, he requested and received a letter from Ferrari NA authorizing him to run the thinner oil.
I didn't mention the good doctor because I think he's right and you're not. I brought him up because he's taken (and put significant money on) a position on viscosity that contrasts with the common "thicker is better" viewpoint. Thicker is better at some things and thinner is better at others.
There is no track warranty for any of the non-track focused car. Why your bothering to even mention you Boss is beyond me because it has nothing to do with the original poster's NON TRACK PACK GT. You break a non-track variant on the track you pay for the repairs. This entire thread was started by an OP who has a 2011 Non-track pack GT that is modified (also, you modify it, they deny warranty if breaks unless it's dealer installed approved modification like a Ford Performance part). It has the Boss 302 oil cooler and some other modifications that were NOT installed from the factory even if they are a factory part from a higher tier model (Boss 302 in this case).
That's the exact same situation I am in with my 2016 Performance Package GT. It's a lower tier model, not a GT350, it is not a track variant with a higher tier warranty. The OE spec oil is 5W-20 for both my 2016 PP GT AND the OP's 2011 GT...that oil spec did not take into account HPDE type driving under sustained high RPM. That was not the original focus of the lower tier cars.