5w40 vs 5w30 for 3.5 HO?

[JohnSC]

Great breakdown. Good oils and good filters! Big fan of Royal Purple products. I typically use their ICE(Coolant enhancer), and Octane booster when I need it because of access to lesser fuels.

I have used Ceratec by Liqui Moly in the past. Good results on my VW TDI's when I did oil analysis. Haven't typically put it in my Fords, because of less extended intervals for change. I have been using FR3 by HotShot Secret after oil changes in my 2020 Expedition, my Previous 2020 Explorer ST, and my Current 2021 150. It is fairly cheap when broken down per oil change, and I have seen some promising analysis of it. Is it helping, well without an analysis, it is purely objective. The Expedition seems quieter on cold startup once it is added to the oil. Again, purely objective.

Of course you meant purely subjective...

Objective vs Subjective - SkillsTX

Understand the crucial difference between objective and subjective assessments. Improve decision-making accuracy in your organisation with clear insights.

skillstx.com

 

[LokiWolf]

Of course you meant purely subjective...

Objective vs Subjective - SkillsTX

Understand the crucial difference between objective and subjective assessments. Improve decision-making accuracy in your organisation with clear insights.

skillstx.com

Excellent catch John! Fixing it now.

 

[Expy Gator]

You would be wrong. The fuel used to certify most vehicles nowadays is an industry standard fuel. It is basically plain 92 Octane gasoline. No additives, and no Ethanol. There I believe is something in the works to add Ethanol to that fuel, and use a fuel that is closer to the fuel available to most, namely E10.

Nope - this is what I do for a living. Show me proof that there are no additives in the fuel Ford uses.

Plenty of reading to put you to sleep right here:

Federal Gasoline Regulations | US EPA

The Clean Air Act requires EPA to regulate fuels and fuel additives for use in mobile sources if such fuel, fuel additive or any emission products causes or contributes to air or water pollution that may endanger the public health or welfare.

www.epa.gov

 

[LokiWolf]

Nope - this is what I do for a living. Show me proof that there are no additives in the fuel Ford uses.

Plenty of reading to put you to sleep right here:

Federal Gasoline Regulations | US EPA

The Clean Air Act requires EPA to regulate fuels and fuel additives for use in mobile sources if such fuel, fuel additive or any emission products causes or contributes to air or water pollution that may endanger the public health or welfare.

www.epa.gov

As in you work for the EPA, or are a chemist who works in fuel? My degree is Chemistry. Not what I do for a living, but that is a long an convoluted story. I have MANY friends that have gone through the After market certification process for tuning.

What is in the tank at a gas station that we put in our vehicles, and what is used to certify a vehicle to EPA standards and the J1349 SAE standards that most manufacturers use to certify HP/Torque is completely different. That testing is done on a dyno, to control conditions.

The Tuners I have talked to all say the fuel that was used for certifying their calibrations was a ridiculous price per gallon, because it is also certified, and it was "CRAP". Their words not mine. Nobody would want to run it. It is a base line, so that all manufacturers are on the same playing field.

I am partially mixing 2 testing procedures. The EPA certification testing and the J1349 SAE standard used by most to certify HP/Torque. From what I have read the J1349 has a little more leeway.

 

[Expy Gator]

As in you work for the EPA, or are a chemist who works in fuel? My degree is Chemistry. Not what I do for a living, but that is a long an convoluted story. I have MANY friends that have gone through the After market certification process for tuning.

What is in the tank at a gas station that we put in our vehicles, and what is used to certify a vehicle to EPA standards and the J1349 SAE standards that most manufacturers use to certify HP/Torque is completely different. That testing is done on a dyno, to control conditions.

The Tuners I have talked to all say the fuel that was used for certifying their calibrations was a ridiculous price per gallon, because it is also certified, and it was "CRAP". Their words not mine. Nobody would want to run it. It is a base line, so that all manufacturers are on the same playing field.

I am partially mixing 2 testing procedures. The EPA certification testing and the J1349 SAE standard used by most to certify HP/Torque. From what I have read the J1349 has a little more leeway.

You can take a look at the EPA certification fuels used here:

Annual Certification Data for Vehicles, Engines, and Equipment | US EPA

This page provides certification data from various engine manufacturers for past and current model years

www.epa.gov

And no I don't work at EPA or am a chemist but I do sell hundreds of millions of gallons of gasoline and diesel each year.

 

[Michael D Morris]

The big thing people overlook is warrantee work. Your engine runs into an issue and they run a sample of your oil and figure out you’re running the wrong weights. They can easily deny a claim.
5w-30 vs 5w-40 isn’t a big deal but why change the weight? Thicker at operating temp isn’t helping flow or lubrication if the engine isn’t designed for it. I agree with sticking with the manual.
this is the same argument people who think 93 is better when the engine recommended 87 octane. Might not hurt but probably doesn’t help.
(Side note is the 3.5HO does recommend 91+ for optimal performance)

While my 2019 Expedition is still under warranty I plan to use the manufacturer's recommended 5W30 oil.

What we don't know, because the data is not publicly available, is what weight is actually best for the engine? Did the Ford engineers recommend 5W30 because of optimal lubrication, or did they recommend it because it improves their CAFE mileage by 0.2% ?

I'm guessing the engine would be fine with almost any readily available oil weight but do the turbos need thinner or thicker oil? I suspect that the auto-start plays into this equation as well. I disabled the auto start after the first month.

 

[chuck s]

Motor oil viscosity is PII (Preoccupation with Inconsequential Increments).

Blackstone Labs had a White Paper a couple of years ago noting that 5W-20 showed no wear differences in Ford engines over 10W-30 and vv. Motor oil lubricates based on oil flow not oil film and a higher grade oil may resist flow in some respects. The difference between 20 and 30, and 30 and 40 are minor my Honda S2000 calls for either 10W-30 or 5W-40. That said if the spec calls for 10W-30 I use xxW-30 full synthetic. The number before the W can 10 or lower.

My wife's car specifies full synthetic and if conventional oil is used the oil change interval is cut in half. Only car I've seen this with. It's her Subaru 3.6R engine -- the big engine here since the Expedition is a mere 3.5 liters.

-- Chuck

 

[LokiWolf]

You can take a look at the EPA certification fuels used here:

Annual Certification Data for Vehicles, Engines, and Equipment | US EPA

This page provides certification data from various engine manufacturers for past and current model years

www.epa.gov

And no I don't work at EPA or am a chemist but I do sell hundreds of millions of gallons of gasoline and diesel each year.

Awesome, Thanks for the links to the EPA. The listed fuel per vehicle per test is interesting.

Since you sell fuel, do you know what supplier provides the standard fuel for the OEM's? Do you have lists to the specs?

 

[Expy Gator]

Awesome, Thanks for the links to the EPA. The listed fuel per vehicle per test is interesting.

Since you sell fuel, do you know what supplier provides the standard fuel for the OEM's? Do you have lists to the specs?

I don't but you have peaked my interest - I'll see what I can find.

 

[LokiWolf]

I don't but you have peaked my interest - I'll see what I can find.

Awesome! I would be interested in what you find.

 

[ROBERT BONNER]

Interesting thread. After reading through it, I have a couple of comments.

Relative to fuels used by the manufacturers, it's complicated. EPA certification is done with extremely expensive and difficult to obtain EPA certified "standard" fuels, those standards change over time and I'm unsure what the formulation and Octane levels are today; but, suffice it to say it is fuel either with or without certain "additives" that isn't readily available to the general public. Back in the day (still?) it came out of a single U.S. refinery in traceable lots. This was done to ensure that all vehicles were EPA certified on exactly the same fuel. That being said, there is a genuine attempt by manufacturers to ensure that fuel systems and engines are compatible with popularly available fuels. The fuzzy area always has been that the EPA holds manufacturers accountable for emissions regardless of fuel formulation....BUT THERE IS NO ATTEMPT TO CERTIFY OR EVEN CHECK THAT STANDARDS ARE MET WITH ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE CERTIFIED FUEL. Manufacturers make their own standards relative to performance or durability associated with certain fuels (read alcohol type and level) True story: in the early 2000's when E85 was becoming popular and the government was handing out Fuel Economy credits for "flex fuel" vehicles that could handle E85, Ford had a durability spec that stated that all flex fuel vehicles (regardless of fuel tank capacity) had to be able to burn (3) consecutive tanks of E85 without experiencing a fuel related failure...it wasn't easy. Popularly available fuel pumps weren't reliable enough; so, ford installed fuel pumps that would live, at a significant cost ~$100/vehicle. The durability people pointed out that GM and Chrysler were selling flex fuel vehicles with standard fuel pumps at a $100/vehicle cost savings.....and that their trucks with high capacity fuel tanks couldn't handle one single full tank of E85 without fuel pump failures....The proposal was for Ford to revert to standard pumps because "no customers" were burning E85 other than in a few select midwestern states and we would upgrade their failed pumps with better pumps after failure under warranty - which is what GM and Chrysler were reportedly doing. We didn't make the change and eventually all vehicles had to be upgraded as the use of alcohol increased.

Motor oils: One of the most important things mentioned above was the question about any typical or unique engine failures due to motor oil choices. And none of us can think of any. I believe that what you're buying with frequent changes of high quality proper viscosity oils and filters is longer long term durability and maybe performance. I have only anecdotal proof of that. It would be interesting to run stats on it; but, bottom line is no one really cares to know enough to run the survey's and stats to understand the relationship. One thing is for sure with these compressed motors: Blowby and increased contamination/dilution of oil is a simple fact with these motors compared with uncompressed motors. When you run an extra atmosphere over the rings before the compression stroke, you're going to blow more fuel, carbon, combustion gases, etc. past the rings than with a naturally aspirated motor. The question is what to do about it. Separators are probably a good idea. I don't have one; but, I've been looking. The next thing is to change the oil and that silly little filter more frequently. I put fresh M1 and M1 filters on every 5K even though the computer says I could go twice as long....If nothing else, it makes me feel better, lol.

 

[LokiWolf]

Interesting thread. After reading through it, I have a couple of comments.

Relative to fuels used by the manufacturers, it's complicated. EPA certification is done with extremely expensive and difficult to obtain EPA certified "standard" fuels, those standards change over time and I'm unsure what the formulation and Octane levels are today; but, suffice it to say it is fuel either with or without certain "additives" that isn't readily available to the general public. Back in the day (still?) it came out of a single U.S. refinery in traceable lots. This was done to ensure that all vehicles were EPA certified on exactly the same fuel. That being said, there is a genuine attempt by manufacturers to ensure that fuel systems and engines are compatible with popularly available fuels. The fuzzy area always has been that the EPA holds manufacturers accountable for emissions regardless of fuel formulation....BUT THERE IS NO ATTEMPT TO CERTIFY OR EVEN CHECK THAT STANDARDS ARE MET WITH ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE CERTIFIED FUEL. Manufacturers make their own standards relative to performance or durability associated with certain fuels (read alcohol type and level) True story: in the early 2000's when E85 was becoming popular and the government was handing out Fuel Economy credits for "flex fuel" vehicles that could handle E85, Ford had a durability spec that stated that all flex fuel vehicles (regardless of fuel tank capacity) had to be able to burn (3) consecutive tanks of E85 without experiencing a fuel related failure...it wasn't easy. Popularly available fuel pumps weren't reliable enough; so, ford installed fuel pumps that would live, at a significant cost ~$100/vehicle. The durability people pointed out that GM and Chrysler were selling flex fuel vehicles with standard fuel pumps at a $100/vehicle cost savings.....and that their trucks with high capacity fuel tanks couldn't handle one single full tank of E85 without fuel pump failures....The proposal was for Ford to revert to standard pumps because "no customers" were burning E85 other than in a few select midwestern states and we would upgrade their failed pumps with better pumps after failure under warranty - which is what GM and Chrysler were reportedly doing. We didn't make the change and eventually all vehicles had to be upgraded as the use of alcohol increased.

Motor oils: One of the most important things mentioned above was the question about any typical or unique engine failures due to motor oil choices. And none of us can think of any. I believe that what you're buying with frequent changes of high quality proper viscosity oils and filters is longer long term durability and maybe performance. I have only anecdotal proof of that. It would be interesting to run stats on it; but, bottom line is no one really cares to know enough to run the survey's and stats to understand the relationship. One thing is for sure with these compressed motors: Blowby and increased contamination/dilution of oil is a simple fact with these motors compared with uncompressed motors. When you run an extra atmosphere over the rings before the compression stroke, you're going to blow more fuel, carbon, combustion gases, etc. past the rings than with a naturally aspirated motor. The question is what to do about it. Separators are probably a good idea. I don't have one; but, I've been looking. The next thing is to change the oil and that silly little filter more frequently. I put fresh M1 and M1 filters on every 5K even though the computer says I could go twice as long....If nothing else, it makes me feel better, lol.

Excellent points.

Yeah, those early E85 invoked pump failures are always used in the argument against E85. I can say for a fact they don't have that issue anymore, but man people bring it up, and the fuel lines not being compatible too. Annoys the crap out of me.

Based on the tuners I know who have had their tunes EPA certified in the past year, they say the standard fuel is CRAP. It was getting KR's and pulling timing. They said it was crap for getting power, but that didn't matter because all that mattered is that they passed the emissions test.