168 replies to this topic

[UnleashedBeast]

Secondo, on 02 September 2011 - 09:44 AM, said:

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

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

The car was not recommended for cold weather use with the OEM set of Goodyear F1 tires. No other reason why this car couldn't be driven in temperatures lower than 40*F. Those who do changed their factory tires to all season tires.

Amsoil 10W-40 is less viscous at 30*C (90*F) as well compared to Motorcraft 5W-50. I see what you are trying to get at, but your assumptions are incorrect. My choices and suggestions of Amsoil are superior to the recommended fluid from Ford in every way. This is a NO compromise choice. See the viscosity versus temperature comparison on the chart below (lower numbers are better here for cold engine start up wear).

Before Motorcraft 5W-50 has sheared


After Motorcraft 5W-50 has sheared


You will see that Amsoil 10W-40 is much less viscous at 30*C (90*F) before MC 5W-50 shears, and close to the same viscosity at the same temperature after MC 5W-50 shears. The samples of MC sheared were taken from three different Shelby's using MC 5W-50. For reference...know that Amsoil 10W-40 will shear only 2% after 4,000 miles. MC 5W-50 shears 30+ percent after that many miles. The sample of Amsoil 20W-50 sheared 8-9%. Everyone who switched from MC 5W-50 to Amsoil 10W-40 immediately noticed more engine response and efficiency. They also noticed better mpg after a few tanks of fuel.


No offense to 68fastback, but it seems that he and select few others rely on Ford to tell them what is best for their car. Well heck, if that was the case....no aftermarket parts and goodies would exist for any car they build. Ford wouldn't have suggested such a viscous fluid for the MT-82 Getrag in the new 5.0 and Boss cars either. Trust me, Ford engineers are not perfect.

2010KB, on 15 September 2011 - 08:14 PM, said:

2010kb using Lubrication Engineers 8800 MONOLEC ULTRA 15w40

I would love to have a UOA of it when you change it.

Edited by UnleashedBeast, 16 September 2011 - 08:22 AM.

[2010KB]

UnleashedBeast, on 16 September 2011 - 08:10 AM, said:

The car was not recommended for cold weather use with the OEM set of Goodyear F1 tires. No other reason why this car couldn't be driven in temperatures lower than 40*F. Those who do changed their factory tires to all season tires.

Amsoil 10W-40 is less viscous at 30*C (90*F) as well compared to Motorcraft 5W-50. I see what you are trying to get at, but your assumptions are incorrect. My choices and suggestions of Amsoil are superior to the recommended fluid from Ford in every way. This is a NO compromise choice. See the viscosity versus temperature comparison on the chart below (lower numbers are better here for cold engine start up wear).

Before Motorcraft 5W-50 has sheared


After Motorcraft 5W-50 has sheared


You will see that Amsoil 10W-40 is much less viscous at 30*C (90*F) before MC 5W-50 shears, and close to the same viscosity at the same temperature after MC 5W-50 shears. The samples of MC sheared were taken from three different Shelby's using MC 5W-50. For reference...know that Amsoil 10W-40 will shear only 2% after 4,000 miles. MC 5W-50 shears 30+ percent after that many miles. The sample of Amsoil 20W-50 sheared 8-9%. Everyone who switched from MC 5W-50 to Amsoil 10W-40 immediately noticed more engine response and efficiency. They also noticed better mpg after a few tanks of fuel.


No offense to 68fastback, but it seems that he and select few others rely on Ford to tell them what is best for their car. Well heck, if that was the case....no aftermarket parts and goodies would exist for any car they build. Ford wouldn't have suggested such a viscous fluid for the MT-82 Getrag in the new 5.0 and Boss cars either. Trust me, Ford engineers are not perfect.



I would love to have a UOA of it when you change it.

I will provide one at the next change which is due in about 2K miles. I like to do them as close as possible mileage wise from one to the next. Last one was done at 4K and have 6K+ on it now so I have a little ways to go.

[UnleashedBeast]

Thanks, all contributions to the cause are greatly appreciated.

[UnleashedBeast]

Many more samples have been added to post #1. Trends are beginning to show, but I still need more samples.

Edited by UnleashedBeast, 24 September 2011 - 03:51 PM.

[68fastback]

Realize the UoAs are using Kinematic cSt  (flow through a hole time) to measure viscocity. As you can see from the chart, most oils fall in a realtive narrow band using such a simplistic test.  There are also many different types of dynamic viscocity tests.  Many of the high technology additives are designed to address specific characteristics of flow under *stress* and how those additives modify how an oil reacts to stress dynamics, i.e. oil dynamicall performs differently while under physical stresses because under such dynamic conditions energy is put directly into the oil.  cSt reflects none of that.  cSt is similar to way you measure the viscocity of paint -- which is a good measure for paint since it incurrs virtually no dynamics.  cSt is also much easier and cheaper to test for and while it's an excellent test to plot flow @ temperature it says nothing of the oil's ability to support energy-indiced stress dynamics.

If you were to test, for example, Castrol 5W50 from 7-8 years ago and Castrol Edge (the one that replaces Syntec) you'd likely find them to be virtually identical in a UoA test, but varying in important ways in the battery of complex dynamic stress tests (some standard, some proprietary to individual development labs).  Anyhow,my point is that it's a mistake to think you can select an oil based on a a simplistic UoA test that's designed to check adequacy of basic Kinematic (cSt) viscocity at verious temps and metals/minerals content.

Yes, everyone makes mistakes now and then -- and one of them just might be thinking a UoA is an appropriate test to select motor oils with.  

When all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail, and while you can pound a hyodermic needle into a block of wood faster with a hammer and might even be usefull to determine the sharpness of the needle, it's an inappropriate method to evaluate the suitability of various hypodermics for proper phlebotomatic procedures -lol- just sayin'.  Ok, an imperfect analogy for sure, but you get the point (pun intended -lol).

[jerseygator]

I use Motorcraft 5w 50. Just changed it and voted.

Stupid questions...
What is UOA?
And what is "shearing" in the spreadsheet? I see that Motorcraft is highlighted in red. Why?

[UnleashedBeast]

jerseygator, on 25 September 2011 - 04:00 AM, said:

I use Motorcraft 5w 50. Just changed it and voted.

Stupid questions...
What is UOA?
And what is "shearing" in the spreadsheet? I see that Motorcraft is highlighted in red. Why?

Used Oil Analysis

I agree that they are a narrow scope of view, and I wish we had something that was a much larger viewing angle.

[Secondo]

UnleashedBeast, on 16 September 2011 - 08:10 AM, said:

The car was not recommended for cold weather use with the OEM set of Goodyear F1 tires. No other reason why this car couldn't be driven in temperatures lower than 40*F. Those who do changed their factory tires to all season tires.

Amsoil 10W-40 is less viscous at 30*C (90*F) as well compared to Motorcraft 5W-50. I see what you are trying to get at, but your assumptions are incorrect. My choices and suggestions of Amsoil are superior to the recommended fluid from Ford in every way. This is a NO compromise choice. See the viscosity versus temperature comparison on the chart below (lower numbers are better here for cold engine start up wear).

You will see that Amsoil 10W-40 is much less viscous at 30*C (90*F) before MC 5W-50 shears, and close to the same viscosity at the same temperature after MC 5W-50 shears. The samples of MC sheared were taken from three different Shelby's using MC 5W-50. For reference...know that Amsoil 10W-40 will shear only 2% after 4,000 miles. MC 5W-50 shears 30+ percent after that many miles. The sample of Amsoil 20W-50 sheared 8-9%. Everyone who switched from MC 5W-50 to Amsoil 10W-40 immediately noticed more engine response and efficiency. They also noticed better mpg after a few tanks of fuel.


No offense to 68fastback, but it seems that he and select few others rely on Ford to tell them what is best for their car. Well heck, if that was the case....no aftermarket parts and goodies would exist for any car they build. Ford wouldn't have suggested such a viscous fluid for the MT-82 Getrag in the new 5.0 and Boss cars either. Trust me, Ford engineers are not perfect.

That is correct, Ford recommended not driving the GT500 below 40* because of the tires. Changing the tires to a lesser-performance all-season tire that cannot handle the vehicle's performance capabilities will create an unsafe condition; in addition, I also believe the oil that must be used for it was designed to be operated above 40* due to the high-performance nature of this vehicle.  

Do you have any proof or data to support your claim that Amsoil users "noticed more engine response and efficiency..." and better mpg than using the Ford recommended Motorcraft oil?

While I give you credit for running your own tests and sharing with us on the different brand motor oils, I believe that you are out of line for saying that we should not "rely" on Ford for telling us what oil is best for their car and for throwing Ford engineers under the bus. After all, they are your own tests for which you are interpreting the results of those tests on the basis of selling Amsoil oil for which you are a salesman for. And again, after all, remember that Ford designed and manufacured the car itself. So yes, I will trust Ford for letting me know which oil would be best for the car that they designed.

MC full-synthetic motor oil "Designed, engineered and recommended for use in the Ford GT and Shelby GT500..."








It is a no-brainer to actually put the correct weight of oil in an engine especially when the manufacturer recommends it and manufactures its own oil for it. Do you put the recommended weight oil in your lawnmower? Why would you think the GT500 is worth any less?   I don't believe that using an incorrect weight of Amsoil product would benefit any of us. I'm listening to what Ford recommends and not some unknown Amsoil salesman.

[UnleashedBeast]

Secondo, on 25 September 2011 - 04:35 PM, said:

That is correct, Ford recommended not driving the GT500 below 40* because of the tires. Changing the tires to a lesser-performance all-season tire that cannot handle the vehicle's performance capabilities will create an unsafe condition; in addition, I also believe the oil that must be used for it was designed to be operated above 40* due to the high-performance nature of this vehicle.

Most Shelby owners store their car during the winter months anyway....why is this even a topic?

Secondo, on 25 September 2011 - 04:35 PM, said:

Do you have any proof or data to support your claim that Amsoil users "noticed more engine response and efficiency..." and better mpg than using the Ford recommended Motorcraft oil?

Sure do....come on over to SVT Performance and poll some of the 5W-50 Red Line users about their switch to a true synthetic 10W-40. They will tell you the same story, as they are the ones that came to me saying i was right.

Secondo, on 25 September 2011 - 04:35 PM, said:

While I give you credit for running your own tests and sharing with us on the different brand motor oils, I believe that you are out of line for saying that we should not "rely" on Ford for telling us what oil is best for their car and for throwing Ford engineers under the bus. After all, they are your own tests for which you are interpreting the results of those tests on the basis of selling Amsoil oil for which you are a salesman for. And again, after all, remember that Ford designed and manufacured the car itself. So yes, I will trust Ford for letting me know which oil would be best for the car that they designed.

When it comes to a base line recommendation for a lubricant that will suffice in the car and allow for sufficient operation, sure...Ford knows exactly what they are doing. Since they are offering a lubricant that is only formulated for 3 cars on the planet, one of which has NOTHING in common with the other two, sounds like another profit margin to me. It would have been just as effective to suggest another grade of lubricant that was easy to find off the shelf. Motorcraft 5W-50 is an average formulation, and isn't anything special. The UOA chart proves that alone.

Saying they are "your own tests" is far from accurate. These UOAs have been collected from many different vehicles other than my own. Here is your second fault assumption....you assume that I only endorse Amsoil. That is untrue. I support the use of ANY true synthetic lubricant that is 10W-40 in the Shelby.....Red Line, Royal Purple, Amsoil....even Mobil 1 0W-40.

Secondo, on 25 September 2011 - 04:35 PM, said:

MC full-synthetic motor oil "Designed, engineered and recommended for use in the Ford GT and Shelby GT500..."

another successful profit maneuver by Ford.

Secondo, on 25 September 2011 - 04:35 PM, said:

It is a no-brainer to actually put the correct weight of oil in an engine especially when the manufacturer recommends it and manufactures its own oil for it. Do you put the recommended weight oil in your lawnmower? Why would you think the GT500 is worth any less?   I don't believe that using an incorrect weight of Amsoil product would benefit any of us. I'm listening to what Ford recommends and not some unknown Amsoil salesman.

This is the quote that is entertaining me the most out of them all.

This is what you are actually saying to me....."It's correct to use a 5W-50 lubricant that is sold and endorsed by Ford because they say so. I will completely ignore the fact that is shears to a very heavy 30 grade/very light 40 grade lubricant in 1,500 to 2,000 miles....because I believe that it's always going to remain a 50 grade lubricant. I also love to be charged a premium price for a highly refined petroleum base stock with heavy amounts of viscosity improver polymers that wear out so fast....why did I even waste my time using their cheap lubricant in the first place...because Ford say they want to sell THEIR oil."

I also love how you feel a true synthetic 10W-40 is an incorrect weight for this car. Guess what Royal Purple highly recommends for the GT500....yep...10W-40. I bet you think that the "10W" lubricant will be more viscous @ 32*F compared to "5W" Motorcraft lubricant. Wrong again....SAE numbers are very misleading. True synthetic 10W-40 lubricants are lighter @ 32*F compared to Motorcraft 5W-50. While MC 5W-50 shears after 2,000 miles....it's very close to the same viscosity as a true synthetic 10W-40. Guess what, this means less start up wear compared to Motorcraft 5W-50.

I will say this over and over and over and over....those of you who still insist to use Motorcraft 5W-50 compared to a true synthetic 10W-40 are fools.

Edited by UnleashedBeast, 25 September 2011 - 05:17 PM.

[Secondo]

I don't care what you or Royal Purple say about which oil to use in my GT500. Ford designed the car, the engine and the oil for it. Have you thought that maybe Ford designed the oil that way? See quote:

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.

It's a no-brainer.

I thought you could have done better here as a motor oil salesman by not trashing Ford engineers and products and not calling us "fools" for using them.

[UnleashedBeast]

This thread is about ME wanting YOUR used oil analysis reports, not selling Amsoil (yet another failed assumption on your part). Conoco-Phillips pours their lubricant into a Ford Motorcraft container, so technically...it's not Ford's either, just a lubricant that follows a criteria of specifications that Ford requested. They could have met Ford's requirements with a much better formulation.

It does however show the superior formulation of true synthetic lubricants. Even Red Line 5W-50 did a far superior job in the single UOA than any other sample of Motorcraft. You can deny....deny...deny...all you choose. 68' can debate that a UOA is a small scope of focus, and I agree that is is, but that does not discredit the UOA spreadsheet I am creating. The more Motorcraft samples I add to the list, the more FAIL I see. Jesus....just look at the wear numbers when people use Motorcraft.

Ford isn't in the oil business....they are in the business of building cars. Bean counters at Ford, and other auto manufacturers, have made choices that effect internal engine wear in the past, yet made them more money. CAFE laws and 5W-20....ever heard of it? Stop defending a company that is just like anyone should be....concerned that their product performs up to expectation, but spares expenses that most may not notice they never had. This is the difference between "sufficient" and "excellence". I don't do sufficient.

Last thing, do NOT bash something unless you have tried it. With that being said, no more comments about 10W-40 true synthetic not showing the improvements I have posted about until you have tried it for yourself. I will warn you ahead of time...you will not use anything else if you ever did.

[jerseygator]

UnleashedBeast, on 25 September 2011 - 05:13 PM, said:

...those of you who still insist to use Motorcraft 5W-50 compared to a true synthetic 10W-40 are fools.

[jerseygator]

Secondo, on 25 September 2011 - 04:35 PM, said:

.... I'm listening to what Ford recommends and not some unknown Amsoil salesman.

Secondo...

Showed this thread to a good friend of mine who use to race in Nascar. He said poppy cock.

And also said, "Amsoil salesman were generally wierd and typically fanatics. Probably sleeping with thier oil!"

You and I? We're just fools...

[68fastback]

jerseygator, on 27 September 2011 - 11:29 AM, said:

Secondo...

Showed this thread to a good friend of mine who use to race in Nascar. He said poppy cock.

And also said, "Amsoil salesman were generally wierd and typically fanatics. Probably sleeping with thier oil!"

You and I? We're just fools...

:rofl:  ...amen!

Edited by 68fastback, 27 September 2011 - 11:55 AM.

[UnleashedBeast]

Motorcraft 5W-50 wouldn't survive the torture of NASCAR....and trying to spin this around that it's because of a bias on Amsoil....that's comedy. I will say this yet again....I'm a believer in true synthetics, not the "highly refined petroleum" many have adopted as "just as good". Now that's "Poppy Cock."

For use in the Shelby, lubricants better than MC 5W-50 are....

Royal Purple 10W-40
Red Line 10W-40
Amsoil 10W-40
Mobil 1 0W-40 (oh man....did the "Amsoil" guy just say Mobil 1?)

all of which use only true synthetic base stocks and robust additive packs. This proves my point about the "biased" comments.

NASCAR uses only true synthetic lubricants with racing levels of ZDDP and very robust additive packages. This is a far cry from the formulation used on MC 5W-50. You will never see refined petroleum being used in NASCAR engines during any event.

Edited by UnleashedBeast, 27 September 2011 - 01:08 PM.

[jerseygator]

UnleashedBeast, on 27 September 2011 - 12:54 PM, said:

Motorcraft 5W-50 wouldn't survive the torture of NASCAR....and trying to spin this around that it's because of a bias on Amsoil....that's comedy. I will say this yet again....I'm a believer in true synthetics, not the "highly refined petroleum" many have adopted as "just as good". Now that's "Poppy Cock."

For use in the Shelby, lubricants better than MC 5W-50 are....

Royal Purple 10W-40
Red Line 10W-40
Amsoil 10W-40
Mobil 1 0W-40 (oh man....did the "Amsoil" guy just say Mobil 1?)

all of which use only true synthetic base stocks and robust additive packs. This proves my point about the "biased" comments.

NASCAR uses only true synthetic lubricants with racing levels of ZDDP and very robust additive packages. This is a far cry from the formulation used on MC 5W-50. You will never see refined petroleum being used in NASCAR engines during any event.

I never said they used Motorcraft in Nascar.  Mobil 1 is the oil of choice and my buddies oil of choice. He wanted to put it in my Shelby, but I stuck with MC.

And, are you saying MC oil isn't a full synthetic oil? But a highly refined petroleum?   Wouldn't that be false advertising? The product clearly states it's FULL Synthetic.  

And stop being so daymn demeaning. We are not all "Gods gift to the oil industry" like you. I joined this thread to try and learn something and you called everyone a "Fool" that disagrees with you. Not smart...  

[Boss Hoss 540]

jerseygator, on 28 September 2011 - 02:53 AM, said:

I never said they used Motorcraft in Nascar.  Mobil 1 is the oil of choice and my buddies oil of choice. He wanted to put it in my Shelby, but I stuck with MC.

And, are you saying MC oil isn't a full synthetic oil? But a highly refined petroleum?   Wouldn't that be false advertising? The product clearly states it's FULL Synthetic.  

And stop being so daymn demeaning. We are not all "Gods gift to the oil industry" like you. I joined this thread to try and learn something and you called everyone a "Fool" that disagrees with you. Not smart...  

If you think that the Motorcraft is a Real Synthetic you need to do some more research. Uncle is the one who defines the term "synthetic" and it is not what you think. This is a well known fact among oil junkies..... Key Term is Synthetic PAO Base Stocks.

Very Very few of the oils that call themselves synthetic are Group V.

[UnleashedBeast]

Boss Hoss is correct. Lubricants off the shelf that actually are 100% pure PAO group IV base stocks are far and few between. In Mobil 1's line up...this is all they have that do not contain group III "highly refined petroleum" base stocks.

0W-30, 0W-40, 5W-40, 5W-50, and 15W-50 in their main line lubricants. Then they have their Extended Performance line 5W-20, 5W-30, and 10W-30.

Everything else in Mobil 1's line up contains a mixture of group III refined petroleum. Sad but true, and why I crap on Mobil 1 so hard. They mislead the public, but they are not the only ones who do.

Pennzoil Platinum is also a group III/group IV mixture. Pennzoil Ultra is 100% group III. In their defense, they openly told us on BITOG that they used 100% group III in Ultra, but I do not agree it sells for more money than Platinum. Let me see if I understand this correctly...you want to use a cheaper base stock, yet charge more for it. FAIL!

Now, let's get back to Motorcraft 5W-50. If it were a true synthetic...the shearing percentages would be much less than the current 35%. Red Line 5W-50, which is a true group IV/group V blend, only shears about 10%. What Conoco-Phillips did with MC 5W-50 is chose a cheaper heavy 30 grade group III base stock, blended it with smaller amounts of group IV. Then they added viscosity improving polymers to not allow it to thin past a 50 grade lubricant at temperature. The problem is....these polymers wear out rapidly and allow the lubricant to resume it's "native" viscosity.

Guess what else MC 5W-50 fails at...NOACK Volatility. It has a very high burn off percentage (around 13%) due to the cheaper base stock content and VI polymers. True synthetic lubricant range from 5.7% to 7.8%. Amsoil 10W-30 is 5.7% and Amsoil 10W-40 is 6.7%. Want to see the effects of high NOACK with cheaper base stock lubricants....click on the link below and look at how it sludges up the intercooler.

Death of a TVS

first few wipes to see how bad it's caked on, and yeah...it's pretty bad.



and after cleaning



Like I said, MC 5W-50 is sufficient to protect your engine from wear and allow it to last for a reasonable amount of miles. Although, it is an inferior formulation that has too many flaws that could be corrected by using a true synthetic lubricant as pointed out in this post.

Edited by UnleashedBeast, 28 September 2011 - 09:54 AM.

[2010KB]

Boss Hoss 540, on 28 September 2011 - 05:55 AM, said:

If you think that the Motorcraft is a Real Synthetic you need to do some more research. Uncle is the one who defines the term "synthetic" and it is not what you think. This is a well known fact among oil junkies..... Key Term is Synthetic PAO Base Stocks.

Very Very few of the oils that call themselves synthetic are Group V.

+1

[UnleashedBeast]

Chart in post #1 has been updated with three new Motorcraft samples. The chart was also reworked to make it easier to read.