171 replies to this topic

[UnleashedBeast]

I have created a neat Excel spreadsheet to compare/contrast every Shelby 5.4L UOA I have ever collected. I need more samples to show trends.  

Too see chart, click here


Base green color samples are random UOAs waiting for a follow up.
Other "like" color groupings are samples taken from the same engine.

Some of you will notice your UOA is included, as I have snatched a few UOAs from Team Shelby forums. If you have a UOA on your 5.4L Shelby engine that isn't on the list, please post it here for all to see, and I will update this picture with your information.

The poll is to get an idea what everyone is using in their Shelby for engine lubrication. If you chose the "other" option.....please post what you are using in your engine. If anyone needs to know where to get oil testing, visit one of the website links below. Please, if you have your oil tested with Blackstone....opt for the extra $10.00 to have TBN tested. OAI provides TBN testing included with the price. OAI also tests for oxidation (Blackstone does not). Both labs will yield very close consistent results.

Blackstone - will cost $25.00 for basic test, $35.00 with TBN, plus the cost of shipping ($1.90 USPS)

OAI testing kits UPS prepaid - will cost $32.20 - Amsoil preferred customers get this test for $25.95

I'm currently testing the performance of Amsoil 10W-30 in my engine, results to come soon.

Edited by UnleashedBeast, 02 June 2013 - 07:20 AM.

[68fastback]

UnleashedBeast, on 25 July 2011 - 09:25 AM, said:

I have created a neat Excel spreadsheet to compare/contrast every Shelby 5.4L UOA I have ever collected. I need more samples to show trends.  



Some of you will notice your UOA is included, as I have snatched a few UOAs from Team Shelby forums. If you have a UOA on your 5.4L Shelby engine that isn't on the list, please post it here for all to see, and I will update this picture with your information.

The poll is to get an idea what everyone is using in their Shelby for engine lubrication. If you chose the "other" option.....please post what you are using in your engine. If anyone needs to know where to get oil testing, visit one of the websites. Please, if you have your oil tested with Blackstone....opt for the extra $10.00 to have TBN tested. OAI provides TBN testing included with the price. OAI also tests for oxidation (Blackstone does not). Both labs will yield very close consistent results.

Blackstone - will cost $25.00 for basic test, $35.00 with TBN, plus the cost of shipping ($1.90 USPS)

OAI testing kits UPS prepaid - will cost $32.95 - Amsoil preferred customers get this test for $25.95

I'm currently testing the performance of Amsoil 10W-30 in my engine, results to come soon.

Curious if any of the bottom three samples were from '11 alloy engines.  

Is there some way to correlate the GT500 year in the test results?



Also, the Used Viscocity numbers are all in a rather narrow band (except the redline 5W50).  The % change is largely meaningless, imo, since all 5W50s have to meet the same spec to be classed 5W and that's likely a funtion of the oil chemistry.

Nicely done!

[UnleashedBeast]

68fastback, on 25 July 2011 - 10:04 AM, said:

Curious if any of the bottom three samples were from '11 alloy engines.  

Is there some way to correlate the GT500 year in the test results?

No, it was an iron block. Do you recall the engine we discussed in depth on Team Shelby about his UOAs coming back with high Aluminum ppm. The dealer tore it down and rebuilt it. Yes, I will add a column to support year of car.

68fastback, on 25 July 2011 - 10:04 AM, said:

Also, the Used Viscocity numbers are all in a rather narrow band (except the redline 5W50).  The % change is largely meaningless, imo, since all 5W50s have to meet the same spec to be classed 5W and that's likely a funtion of the oil chemistry.

I included it for other reasons, mainly to show everyone how Ford is comfortable with 5W-50 shearing to a heavy 30 grade lubricant at low miles of use. If it shears anyway, why not choose a lubricant that will be in the proper cSt range ~13, yet retain it's viscosity.

68fastback, on 25 July 2011 - 10:04 AM, said:

Nicely done!

Thanks  

Edited by UnleashedBeast, 25 July 2011 - 01:51 PM.

[Boss Hoss 540]

That is why I use the 10-40 AMO!! Use the ASM in my 2011 Raptor!!

[SPEEDY168]

In layman's terms. What do the numbers mean ? Why are some red ?

[68fastback]

UnleashedBeast, on 25 July 2011 - 12:27 PM, said:

No, it was an iron block. Do you recall the engine we discussed in depth on Team Shelby about his UOAs coming back with high Aluminum ppm. The dealer tore it down and rebuilt it. Yes, I will add a column to support year of car.


Cool ..thanks


I included it for other reasons, mainly to show everyone how Ford is comfortable with 5W-50 shearing to a heavy 30 grade lubricant at low miles of use. If it shears anyway, why not choose a lubricant that will be in the proper cSt range ~13, yet retain it's viscosity.

...but cSt is tested at a particular temp.  Oils with dynamic [hot] viscocity modifiers will certainly shear more, but at higher temperatures they will have higher viscocityies than at the single hot test temp.  Castrol, Connoco Phillips, Penzoil, Valvolene and all major brands do that for the extended heat-range protection it affords.  While that certainly does not disparage oils using different base stocks and lower amounts of dynamic viscocity modifiers (hence they show less change from virgin to used) , it is merely a differnt approach to engine protection.  All additives are trade-offs, but so is using vs not using certain ones and how much is used.  What that testing correctly reflects (and I bet Connoco Phillips could confirm it for the MC 5W50) is that it's essentially a 30W oil that has lots of cold-flow modifiers (to achieve 5W) and lots of dynamic hot modifiers to entend the protection range well above the standard testing temp range.  This seems an excellent strategy -- it's just a differnt approach than the niche oil makers take, bu I think it would be very wrong to conclude those red 'shear' numbers imply some sort of problem with the oil.  Seems to be it's working as designed.  Maybe someone with contacts inside Conoco Phillips or one of the other major oil research labs has more insight on that.  That said, in a clearanced pushrod race engine, I'll take a high-zinc low-shear race oil with very few modifiers.  But in a tight-tolerence DOHC roller production motor -- even one making 800rwHP -- I think I'll take the highly modified chemistry ...for al lthe reasons previously discussed of where nearly all wear occurs -- cold-soak start-up (even in Florida at 90* overnite).  Oil film bearing protection is essentially a threasholding phenomenon.  If there's no physical contact under hot load for a given temp range (whether the oil is at a cSt of 10 or 30 or 50) there's essentially no hot wear.  That's also affected by bearing clearances and pressure.  More viscocity that is needed to 'float' the bearing merely reduces flow -- it does not protect better sinc eno-contact is no contact.  I realize I'm generalizing but wanted to put some explanation on why those shear numbers in red really are quite meaninless, imo, in these engines.



Thanks  

Some thoughts in blue above ...not trying to open a new debate -lol- just trying to respond in the context of Speedy168's question since I suspect he's not alone in wondering.   All those red numbers are saying is that at a specific cSt test temp those oils changed more vs virgin (and likely did it in the first 800 miles or so) but in no way does it imply they are not eminently suitable for broad-range protection in these specific engines and should not, imo, be interpreted as bad/'red' for the above reasons.

Edited by 68fastback, 25 July 2011 - 06:02 PM.

[UnleashedBeast]

I prefer Motorcraft better when it has sheared, and the "red" as you stated is not there to imply the oil isn't adequate. I only highlight it as a "Ford is comfortable with this happening", so other alternatives in oil formulations can be considered. I've calculated HT/HS of Motorcraft to be ~3.1 after it has sheared 2,000 miles. Amsoil 10W-30 HT/HS = 3.2

I chose Amsoil 10W-40 first as a half way testing point with a cSt of 14.6 @ 100*C - HT/HS 4.6, rated to be slightly more viscous than Motorcraft after it has sheared. Two UOAs and 4,124 miles later, it performed better than MC 5W-50.

Now I'm testing Amsoil 10W-30 as a final step. Both virgin 10W-40 and virgin 10W-30 are less viscous than virgin 5W-50 at all temps from 32*F-100*F, so cold start up should produce less wear with 10W-30 & 10W-40. MC (~12.8-13.0 cSt) sheared is less viscous than 10W-40 (~14.5 cSt) after 2,000 miles of use, with 10W-30 being less viscous than MC (~10.5 cSt).

Here's the kicker! Using a 170* thermostat, my oil temps have decreased. Cooler engine, cooler oil temps. Less viscous lubricants also conduct heat more efficiently. This is why a lighter 30 grade is possible, IMO. Will follow up with more UOAs at every 2,000 mile interval.

This isn't a debate....it's the sharing of experiences.  

Edited by UnleashedBeast, 25 July 2011 - 06:22 PM.

[68fastback]

UnleashedBeast, on 25 July 2011 - 06:19 PM, said:

I prefer Motorcraft better when it has sheared, and the "red" as you stated is not there to imply the oil isn't adequate. I only highlight it as a "Ford is comfortable with this happening", so other alternatives in oil formulations can be considered. I've calculated HT/HS of Motorcraft to be ~3.1 after it has sheared 2,000 miles. Amsoil 10W-30 HT/HS = 3.2

I chose Amsoil 10W-40 first as a half way testing point with a cSt of 14.6 @ 100*C - HT/HS 4.6, rated to be slightly more viscous than Motorcraft after it has sheared. Two UOAs and 4,124 miles later, it performed better than MC 5W-50.

Now I'm testing Amsoil 10W-30 as a final step. Both virgin 10W-40 and virgin 10W-30 are less viscous than virgin 5W-50 at all temps from 32*F-100*F, so cold start up should produce less wear with 10W-30 & 10W-40. MC (~12.8-13.0 cSt) sheared is less viscous than 10W-40 (~14.5 cSt) after 2,000 miles of use, with 10W-30 being less viscous than MC (~10.5 cSt).

Here's the kicker! Using a 170* thermostat, my oil temps have decreased. Cooler engine, cooler oil temps. Less viscous lubricants also conduct heat more efficiently. This is why a lighter 30 grade is possible, IMO. Will follow up with more UOAs at every 2,000 mile interval.

This isn't a debate....it's the sharing of experiences.  

True!

I'm also thinking that specs like ISLAC and GF-n (which primarily address valvetrain lubricity and cold latency) are also important considerations, especially for these engines, that likely are not refelcted in the highly simplified UOA tests which are primarily for operational trending and symptom analysis but not a substitute for the broadly rigorous testing for many of the other specifications used to formulate and evaluate oil.

Still, knowledge is power and your data and information is valuable.  

I tink we do need to realize that there are many steps on the learning scale and each one invariably reveals more closed doors to be opened each often exponentially more complex.   There are many learning models but all that I'm aware of embrace the notion of step-wise integration, for example: data => information => understanding => knowledge => wisdom.  On such a deeply scientific subject we'd be doing exceptionally well indeed if we get to fully embrace integrating your UOA data unambiguously into truly portable information that can be applied more broadly.  A true understanding likely requires a PhD in chemical/molecular enginineering with a concentration in computational fluid dynamics.  I know I definately don't qualify -lol

[UnleashedBeast]

68fastback, on 25 July 2011 - 07:21 PM, said:

I know I definately don't qualify -lol

Nor do I, but gathering of information is fun. Making sense of it is even more enjoyable. When you really figure out what just happened, that's when you really feel good about it.

[UnleashedBeast]

My latest creation. Here is an easy chart to know what to use in your Shelby for the intended application.

[68fastback]

UnleashedBeast, on 03 August 2011 - 07:16 PM, said:

My latest creation. Here is an easy chart to know what to use in your Shelby for the intended application.

...so that would be for those comfortable with choosing an oil based on simplistic UOA/two-temp viscocity testing and who aren't interested in the WSS-M2C931-B spec additive pack -- which was specifically engineered to provide low start-up latency, enbhanced wear and oxidation protection under severe operating conditions, and enhanced resistance to deposit formation, among other things.

[UnleashedBeast]

68fastback, on 03 August 2011 - 07:47 PM, said:

to provide low start-up latency,

5W-50 is much more viscous @ 32*F (0*C) than Amsoil 10W-40 and 10W-30. That being said, both Amsoil formulations will provide much better cold start wear protection. Also considering Amsoil has ester additives that will allow the oil to better adhere to metal surfaces in the valve train and not all drain to the pan.

68fastback, on 03 August 2011 - 07:47 PM, said:

enhanced wear and oxidation protection under severe operating conditions, and enhanced resistance to deposit formation, among other things.

I'm confused here. Are you suggesting that Amsoil isn't capable of these things as well as Motorcraft 5W-50 just because Amsoil doesn't carry the Ford spec?

Edited by UnleashedBeast, 04 August 2011 - 10:39 AM.

[68fastback]

UnleashedBeast, on 04 August 2011 - 10:34 AM, said:

5W-50 is much more viscous @ 32*F (0*C) than Amsoil 10W-40 and 10W-30. That being said, both Amsoil formulations will provide much better cold start wear protection. Also considering Amsoil has ester additives that will allow the oil to better adhere to metal surfaces in the valve train and not all drain to the pan.



I'm confused here. Are you suggesting that Amsoil isn't capable of these things as well as Motorcraft 5W-50 just because Amsoil doesn't carry the Ford spec?

I'm saying that simplistic UOA testing is selling-short the overall engineering implications behind a manufacturer's detailed oil specification and it's associated operational characteristics.

Edited by 68fastback, 04 August 2011 - 11:23 AM.

[UnleashedBeast]

I agree, there are more in a formulation that a UOA can't see. I still haven't found anything unique of MC 5W-50 other than all of the extra VI to make it have that much of a viscosity spread. The engine doesn't require that much viscosity for daily driving.

[UnleashedBeast]

Fastback,

I updated the chart with a new sample from a 2012 GT500. 5,000 miles on the factory fill.

[UnleashedBeast]

Fastback,

I updated the chart. I have a sample from a 2012 GT500. 5,000 miles on the factory fill.

[Imatk]

SPEEDY168, on 25 July 2011 - 05:10 PM, said:

In layman's terms. What do the numbers mean ? Why are some red ?

THIS ^^^

[UnleashedBeast]

The % of shear is in red for reference that Motorcraft 5W-50 shears rapidly, but that's OK....Ford wants it to shear. This is why I choose robust 40 grade lubricants that will not shear at all.

The TBN numbers that are in red are getting very low, anything less than 1.0 is critical. Motorcraft 5W-50 virgin TBN is probably about 9ish.

[Secondo]

UnleashedBeast, on 04 August 2011 - 10:34 AM, said:

5W-50 is much more viscous @ 32*F (0*C) than Amsoil 10W-40 and 10W-30. That being said, both Amsoil formulations will provide much better cold start wear protection. Also considering Amsoil has ester additives that will allow the oil to better adhere to metal surfaces in the valve train and not all drain to the pan.

The GT500 owner's manual does not recommend driving below 40*.

68fastback, on 04 August 2011 - 11:22 AM, said:

I'm saying that simplistic UOA testing is selling-short the overall engineering implications behind a manufacturer's detailed oil specification and it's associated operational characteristics.

+1

UnleashedBeast, on 04 August 2011 - 01:31 PM, said:

I agree, there are more in a formulation that a UOA can't see. I still haven't found anything unique of MC 5W-50 other than all of the extra VI to make it have that much of a viscosity spread. The engine doesn't require that much viscosity for daily driving.

And how many GT500 owners just "daily drive" their cars, especially in cold weather?

[2010KB]

UnleashedBeast, on 25 July 2011 - 09:25 AM, said:

I have created a neat Excel spreadsheet to compare/contrast every Shelby 5.4L UOA I have ever collected. I need more samples to show trends.  



Some of you will notice your UOA is included, as I have snatched a few UOAs from Team Shelby forums. If you have a UOA on your 5.4L Shelby engine that isn't on the list, please post it here for all to see, and I will update this picture with your information.

The poll is to get an idea what everyone is using in their Shelby for engine lubrication. If you chose the "other" option.....please post what you are using in your engine. If anyone needs to know where to get oil testing, visit one of the website links below. Please, if you have your oil tested with Blackstone....opt for the extra $10.00 to have TBN tested. OAI provides TBN testing included with the price. OAI also tests for oxidation (Blackstone does not). Both labs will yield very close consistent results.

Blackstone - will cost $25.00 for basic test, $35.00 with TBN, plus the cost of shipping ($1.90 USPS)

OAI testing kits UPS prepaid - will cost $32.20 - Amsoil preferred customers get this test for $25.95

I'm currently testing the performance of Amsoil 10W-30 in my engine, results to come soon.

2010kb using Lubrication Engineers 8800 MONOLEC ULTRA 15w40