Notices
5.0L V8 Technical Discussions Any questions about the 'Coyote' engine, transmission, exhaust, tuners/CAI, or gearing can be asked here!

1st oil change

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 03-30-2014, 06:15 AM
  #21  
scottmach
3rd Gear Member
 
scottmach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 558
Default

5w-50 shears rather quickly, especially the sub par motorcraft. I wouldn't use it as well. On SVT Performance we have a thread going where everyone shares their oil analysis reports and 5w-50 has proven to not be a very good choice.
scottmach is offline  
Old 03-30-2014, 06:17 AM
  #22  
scottmach
3rd Gear Member
 
scottmach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 558
Default

Originally Posted by PeteInFlorida
I have enough experience to know, from my past, oil analysis will show the amount of metal in one's engine oil. Again, you really need to pay attention, because you may learn something from someone with much more experience than you've got.
I hardly doubt you have anything to share other than a condescending attitude. The minute you posted you changed your oil at 600 miles my mind was made up. As well as many others.
scottmach is offline  
Old 03-30-2014, 08:54 AM
  #23  
jz78817
4th Gear Member
 
jz78817's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,329
Default

Originally Posted by scottmach
5w-50 shears rather quickly, especially the sub par motorcraft. I wouldn't use it as well. On SVT Performance we have a thread going where everyone shares their oil analysis reports and 5w-50 has proven to not be a very good choice.
thing is, you think Ford wasn't aware of how that oil behaves when they specified it for the track pack? Before something goes into production, they run multiple engines- both on the dyno and in cars- for the equivalent of millions of miles (in total, not per engine.) It's a very safe bet that they also know how to do oil analysis on these engines, and are well aware that the 5w-50 shears down to a lower viscosity. I'd wager they selected 5w-50 because it shears down; the engine is minimally different from the non-Track Pack version which takes 5w-20.

You (and people on other forums) look at this stuff in a vacuum; you see the viscosity dropping and assume that's a bad thing. The engine is a system, all of the parts (including fluids) have to work together.
jz78817 is offline  
Old 03-30-2014, 09:46 AM
  #24  
scottmach
3rd Gear Member
 
scottmach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 558
Default

Do you think they were aware of all the problems with the MT82 before they released it? Do you think Ford makes mistakes?

And you're way off base in your thinking of the way view it. With careful thought and oil analysis tests I came to the conclusion Amsoil 10W-30 was what would work best for me.

Last edited by scottmach; 03-30-2014 at 09:49 AM.
scottmach is offline  
Old 03-30-2014, 09:56 AM
  #25  
jz78817
4th Gear Member
 
jz78817's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,329
Default

Originally Posted by scottmach
Do you think they were aware of all the problems with the MT82 before they released it?
If something turns out to be non-optimal or causes problems in the field, it gets changed. Case in point, the MT-82 launched using 75w-90 gear oil, but it had problems being too thick in cold temps which made it hard to shift. So they put out a TSB in mid. 2011 to change over to the Dual Clutch transmission oil which fixed that issue (I just had it done on my car, the difference is amazing.)

OTOH, the Track Pack originally came with the same 5w-20 as the standard 5.0, but the Boss 302 used 5w-50 and the Track Pack followed suit in MY13. So they saw some need to change to 5w-50.

Do you think Ford makes mistakes?
sure, but that doesn't mean everything you see that works differently than you expect is a mistake. Like I said, Ford changed to 5w-50 on the track pack.

And you're way off base in your thinking of the way view it. With careful thought and oil analysis tests I came to the conclusion Amsoil 10W-30 was what would work best for me.
what in the oil analysis led you to that conclusion?
jz78817 is offline  
Old 03-30-2014, 10:38 AM
  #26  
scottmach
3rd Gear Member
 
scottmach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 558
Default

A good read.
http://www.svtperformance.com/forums...ghlight=amsoil
scottmach is offline  
Old 03-30-2014, 11:47 AM
  #27  
Slowbra302
2nd Gear Member
 
Slowbra302's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: California
Posts: 390
Default

Originally Posted by scottmach
This is more or less what I was referencing.

I wasn't trying to start this huge argument I was stating why I went with a different weight and brand. As for my justifications, it might have not heated up faster (seems to as my car is garage kept and now before I get off base I get in the normal range as before with 5w-50 it would take another 2 miles obff base to get there), why I went with a 30 weight is I don't track the car (if someone could actually legitimately justify the need to run a non shearing 50 weight I will go back, unfortunately I fell it is a marketing gimic like the air vent filter), lastly it was my understanding that you don't want unecessary oil pressure. I am still learning all about cars and motors how they behave so I will keep my mouth shut as I have very little knowledge here.

Not meant to have a flame war, just trying to post stuff that might help someone out! Since the switch, way less noise coming from the engine bay area!
Slowbra302 is offline  
Old 03-30-2014, 12:11 PM
  #28  
PeteInFlorida
1st Gear Member
 
PeteInFlorida's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 81
Default

Scotmach, when I posted that comment, it definitely was not directed at you. It was directed at JZ78817.
I actually agree with your comments, along with Slowbra302.
Forums are designed for sharing information and ideas, but lots of people enjoy trolling forums with the intent to disrupt intelligent facts and ideas. Too bad for that, because those folks will never learn anything constructive from more experienced people.
PeteInFlorida is offline  
Old 03-30-2014, 12:16 PM
  #29  
PeteInFlorida
1st Gear Member
 
PeteInFlorida's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 81
Default

Originally Posted by jz78817
sad that you need to validate your existence by insulting people on the internet.

have a nice day.
Actually, I did not insult you. I just stated that you have a lot to learn. If you don't open your mind to information, you will always remain the same as you are....

Because this thread is branching off into space, I am done saying what needs to be said. Don't change you oil, it bothers me not.
PeteInFlorida is offline  
Old 03-30-2014, 12:26 PM
  #30  
scottmach
3rd Gear Member
 
scottmach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 558
Default

Originally Posted by PeteInFlorida
Scotmach, when I posted that comment, it definitely was not directed at you. It was directed at JZ78817.
I actually agree with your comments, along with Slowbra302.
Forums are designed for sharing information and ideas, but lots of people enjoy trolling forums with the intent to disrupt intelligent facts and ideas. Too bad for that, because those folks will never learn anything constructive from more experienced people.
Understood. Let's all move past it then.
scottmach is offline  


Quick Reply: 1st oil change



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:47 PM.