Ford 5.4l 3v design /5w20
- Thread starter modularv8
- Start date
- Status
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: modularv8
Searched Mobil Australia using their oil selector tool. Highest grade recommended by Mobil was 5w30 for the 5.4l, but this is the performance version of the 5.4 on the Falcon which I think is the equivalent to the Mustang GT.
Yup, which is a 3V and spec's 5w20 here.......
The other grades are from the owners manual, which IIRC, was posted on here.
Searched Mobil Australia using their oil selector tool. Highest grade recommended by Mobil was 5w30 for the 5.4l, but this is the performance version of the 5.4 on the Falcon which I think is the equivalent to the Mustang GT.
Yup, which is a 3V and spec's 5w20 here.......
The other grades are from the owners manual, which IIRC, was posted on here.
Hi,
Mobil here in OZ spec M1 0W-40 for most of these engines. M1 5W-50 is an alternative for the 4.0 turbo engine
M1 10W-30 is also variously recommended
Ambient temps here range for around -20C to 50C+ - take your pick! Typical spring cold start where I live is 20-26C!
Mobil here in OZ spec M1 0W-40 for most of these engines. M1 5W-50 is an alternative for the 4.0 turbo engine
M1 10W-30 is also variously recommended
Ambient temps here range for around -20C to 50C+ - take your pick! Typical spring cold start where I live is 20-26C!
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: modularv8
Well the 5.4 supercharged version here is 15w50, the 4.6 v8 is 5w20, and the 4.0 v6 is 5w30 here.
5w50 actually for the Supercharged variants, being the GT500 and Ford GT.
Well the 5.4 supercharged version here is 15w50, the 4.6 v8 is 5w20, and the 4.0 v6 is 5w30 here.
5w50 actually for the Supercharged variants, being the GT500 and Ford GT.
Originally Posted By: erogers
I'm not bashing 5W-20 (I'm running it in my 4.6).
I take that back. My Amsoil (ATM) 10W-30 was waiting at my door when I got home today, and I just came in from changing it in my T-Bird. Woo-hoo!
I'm not bashing 5W-20 (I'm running it in my 4.6).
I take that back. My Amsoil (ATM) 10W-30 was waiting at my door when I got home today, and I just came in from changing it in my T-Bird. Woo-hoo!
When comparing oil viscosity among different countries you ought to state the expected longevity between the regions. I would think that 200k as the norm here in the US in many countries you'd be lucky to reach 60-70k. But I could be wrong.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Eric Smith
When comparing oil viscosity among different countries you ought to state the expected longevity between the regions. I would think that 200k as the norm here in the US in many countries you'd be lucky to reach 60-70k. But I could be wrong.
The two countries being discussed in this instance are the USA and Australia. As far as I know from Doug's post, engines last a good long time in Australia.........
When comparing oil viscosity among different countries you ought to state the expected longevity between the regions. I would think that 200k as the norm here in the US in many countries you'd be lucky to reach 60-70k. But I could be wrong.
The two countries being discussed in this instance are the USA and Australia. As far as I know from Doug's post, engines last a good long time in Australia.........
I hear the terms thin oil and close tolerance used together a bunch. Though I can't say I compared rod and main clearances as well ring gap from one year to the next on the 3V 5.4 vs. the 5.4 2V, I have noticed the clearances on most modulars are the same from one year to the next on a 4.6. Am I missing something such as journal / gallery width? Bearing design was mentioned above. It just seems when I look at rebuild tolerances from one year to the next, they seem to be the same even though oil recommendations change within those years. This is when comparing apples to apples such as a 1999 Romeo 4.6 to a 2004 Romeo 4.6. I have a 1997 Windsor 4.6 that runs well on 5W40 RTS. I have never torn into this engine other than to change the head and intake & exhaust manifold gaskets. Always good UOA’s. I just feel I am missing part of the equation here such as difference in metals or something. I am by no means an expert here. As usual, I have way more questions than answers.
Ok... Im 99% content. Now... whos gonna write Ford and demand an answer, so we can all get some closure on this? 
Hi,
Engines here generally DO last a long time! Just look at the average age of the vehicles in our "social fleet"
We are not some automotive backwater here. We have a very long and hallowed Automotive history!
Engines here generally DO last a long time! Just look at the average age of the vehicles in our "social fleet"
We are not some automotive backwater here. We have a very long and hallowed Automotive history!
I'm hearing alot of last a long time but no actual numbers.
I changed ours during some down time today. 5-30MC semi syn with 820s. Oil was 2.77qt filter was 2.47.
I have a customer that has an 05 with like 225k on his 5.4. He has 675K on his 2000 7.3 PSD
I have a customer that has an 05 with like 225k on his 5.4. He has 675K on his 2000 7.3 PSD
The statement about less eccentric , rounder main bearings in the article was interesting. Thanks for posting it.
We have a fleet of oilfield trucks running the 3v modular’s on Castrol Syntec 5w20. My personal 4.6 3v has run mostly 5w20 motorcraft it's first 47k until I bought it and has been run on PP5w20 since I got it. Never uses any oil, just broken it at over 60k with 5k oci's and I am stretching this one to 7500-10k.
I have full confidence in Ford's recommendations’ here in the USA and see no evidence that I should for some reason be a conspiracy theorist about the issue. Many Ford owners are happy and Ford has proven to be climbing the reliability ladder here in the USA.
We have a fleet of oilfield trucks running the 3v modular’s on Castrol Syntec 5w20. My personal 4.6 3v has run mostly 5w20 motorcraft it's first 47k until I bought it and has been run on PP5w20 since I got it. Never uses any oil, just broken it at over 60k with 5k oci's and I am stretching this one to 7500-10k.
I have full confidence in Ford's recommendations’ here in the USA and see no evidence that I should for some reason be a conspiracy theorist about the issue. Many Ford owners are happy and Ford has proven to be climbing the reliability ladder here in the USA.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Quote:
If 20-weight oils were the Holy Grail, companies like Mercedes Benz, Porsche, BMW and the like would be using them in their high output engines. But that is not the case, is it?
They tend to make different kinds of cars, don't they?
Let me turn it around for you. If using 40 grade synthetics was such a Holy Grail, how do our common passenger car engines in pickup chassis manage on a 5w-20 or 5w-30 spec ..while being fully capable of pulling full capacity up 6% grades ..and only suffer a shortening of the oil change interval?
btw- MOST of the Euro's that are heralded here tend to have bigger sumps and longer drains. Detune those sumps to US typical, and see how their drains shrink under those conditions.
What you're seeing is two inverted coping mechanisms ..but viewing them only from one angle.
If 20-weight oils were the Holy Grail, companies like Mercedes Benz, Porsche, BMW and the like would be using them in their high output engines. But that is not the case, is it?
They tend to make different kinds of cars, don't they?
Let me turn it around for you. If using 40 grade synthetics was such a Holy Grail, how do our common passenger car engines in pickup chassis manage on a 5w-20 or 5w-30 spec ..while being fully capable of pulling full capacity up 6% grades ..and only suffer a shortening of the oil change interval?
btw- MOST of the Euro's that are heralded here tend to have bigger sumps and longer drains. Detune those sumps to US typical, and see how their drains shrink under those conditions.
What you're seeing is two inverted coping mechanisms ..but viewing them only from one angle.
Originally Posted By: Bryanccfshr
I have full confidence in Ford's recommendations’ here in the USA and see no evidence that I should for some reason be a conspiracy theorist about the issue. Many Ford owners are happy and Ford has proven to be climbing the reliability ladder here in the USA.
I agree with that. I don't think they would suggest an oil that would sacrifice short or long term reliability.
I have full confidence in Ford's recommendations’ here in the USA and see no evidence that I should for some reason be a conspiracy theorist about the issue. Many Ford owners are happy and Ford has proven to be climbing the reliability ladder here in the USA.
I agree with that. I don't think they would suggest an oil that would sacrifice short or long term reliability.
Hi,
Gary - You are correct. In fact low viscosity (0W-20 IIRC) lubricants were first used seriously in Europe - especially by the Germans - in the early 1970s. They caused huge problems and were quickly discontinued. Later ACEA took the reins and drove the real world of engine lubricants a quantum leap forward IMO
I think modern low viscosity lubricants and engines designed for low friction are a very happy combination. However as Ford have acknowledged previously - in markets where similar engines are marketed - the use of other recommended (higher) viscosities have had no measurable impact on longevity!
In heavy high speed diesel engines the disparity between (generally) Euro and NA sump sizes and OCIs always intrigued me. Again, early on, Euro lubricant specs were much better than NA's API proffered. It was common to see a Euro 25lt sumped 400hp engine have 40kkms OCIs. The NA equivalent has 38ltrs and an OCI of 15kkms! Price of lubricants will always play a role too but the main reasons were combustion principles and general engine design and application philosophy variances!
Gary - You are correct. In fact low viscosity (0W-20 IIRC) lubricants were first used seriously in Europe - especially by the Germans - in the early 1970s. They caused huge problems and were quickly discontinued. Later ACEA took the reins and drove the real world of engine lubricants a quantum leap forward IMO
I think modern low viscosity lubricants and engines designed for low friction are a very happy combination. However as Ford have acknowledged previously - in markets where similar engines are marketed - the use of other recommended (higher) viscosities have had no measurable impact on longevity!
In heavy high speed diesel engines the disparity between (generally) Euro and NA sump sizes and OCIs always intrigued me. Again, early on, Euro lubricant specs were much better than NA's API proffered. It was common to see a Euro 25lt sumped 400hp engine have 40kkms OCIs. The NA equivalent has 38ltrs and an OCI of 15kkms! Price of lubricants will always play a role too but the main reasons were combustion principles and general engine design and application philosophy variances!
Last edited:
No conspiracy, in my opinion. It's just that I don't have much confidence in anything that keeps changing. For example, the official Ford Shop Manual for my 1994 T-Bird (printed in mid-1993) specifies 10W-30 for the Ford modular 4.6 liter V8. The owner's manual for my car (printed in late 1993) specifies 5W-30 for the Ford modular 4.6 liter V8. Then, as of 2001, Ford back-specified all modulars to 5W-20. Once again, I'm not saying 5W-20 is bad. I'm just asking what's the deal, and why should we be afraid to run a heavier oil in these engines, assuming it is the proper weight for the temperature?
First I failed to see where it mentioned any changes made specifically for the use of 5W20! they modifications where all fix's for problems that have croped up with their development of cam phasing. Generaly if you ignore the Domestic AAuto makers past history all other players normally do not bring a design into being then keep it as is for 20 years! Normally engines and transmissions are continuously improved a little bit every couple of years not milked then kicked to the curb for a new design rather constant improvement. This was learned from Demming but Detroit laughed at him and his idea's!So what this looks like to me is that Ford adn GM are trying to learn from past mistakes and continue to improve on existing products which is a good thing! Domestics have a track record of not fixing anything for 10-30 years at a time fsometimes!
I think the article was very short sighted and pandered to those that hate all tings not invented here! First VVT has been inthe market place for a long long time on Asian and German vechiles long before it's recent appearance by the Domestics. Second almost all the imports have better thought out more flexable and effective cam phasing systems even on their ecconomy car's in some case's.Third they are doing it because they have too not because they wanted to add value the only way to stay in the game and keep performance numbers up and emissions and milage in check is with VVT type technology. The Domestics did it kicking and screaming which is why they have not really approached it from a rational stand point. Their continued reliance on cheaper single in block cam is only going to take them so far! It definitely will not be adaptable for the next 20 years! What they should have done is designed and validate a bolt on DOHC 3-5 valve head set-up with direct injection and provisions for a camless hydraulic or pneumatic valve actuation system like Daimler Benz already has in the same base engine design that Chrysler is calling Phenoxix only a more sophisticated version with no came, no lifter etc.....
If GM is true to form though instead of designing something like that they will throw the baby out with the bath water and develop a completely different engine at insane cost over long term thinking and continuously thinking ahead.Look at how badly they mis managed the 3.8 which could have soldiered on with some new heads and a new intake for another 20 years!
I do not like articles that ignore the past and what is already out their right now that is selective history as far as I am concerned!
Then you have Hot Rodder's orient articles well what do they think a 9 second Honda is? Their is an entire group of people like me that have been tuning car's from Europe and Asia that have VVT for years!
Then you have the idiotic idea of limiting the Cam Phaseing to say 20° well if you are not going to use the technology as intended then pitch it and run a big monster fat cam with out VVT! The valve springs are a huge limiter as is interference engine designs so if any of these Hot Rod shops had any sense they would redesign the crank and get some drop forged in China to change the relationship from Interference to non-interference then you could run high lift cams all day long with out the need for special pistons etc.......The ramp angle has to be rather gradual in order to keep spring rate low. This is one reason why a lot of VVT engine keep the RPM's below 7000 it makes it easier to control float and use a nice gentle spring that is cam lob and SM/GF-4 oil friendly. These are not hug obstacles though like I said imprt guys have benn dealing with this for along time!
The Viper's cam on cam design is not that radical I had the same idea in H.S. back in the 1980's the problem was size and complexity of the parts from a machining standpoint...In the 1980's it would have cost too much since CNC was not in use by most OEM's then. Today though that is not much of an issue. Since this engine is practicly hand built and low production it is ok but for a mass produced design it really isnot that hot. It massive for what it gives you compared to what other more modern DOHC set-ups can offer.
OHC is actualy older then OHV's the OHV though was a cheaper design and that is why it is still with us. CHEAP!!! Instead of wasting money on this type of stuff they really need to be getting their direct injection and camless valve acutaion systems up and running so they can match the competition quickly when it comes! They need to be getting their light weight turbo diesels ready and be getting a solid hybrid design up and running!
I was stillworking for GM when they where trying to get the cam phasing system to work on the North Star engines....I ate lunch with the guys working on the program a couple of times a week. The time and money that they spent trying to get their own system to work was insane they could have spent that money in so many other places in a much smarter and productive way!
I am confident that Ford has it's eye's set on the futcher overall with all the work they are doing with regards to their EccoBoost engine line and idea's!!! I worry though that GM is going to be left in the dust unless they have something up their sleeve. They should be the world leader in power trains but they really are in many ways not even up to the level of the Koreans with regards to refinement NVH and such with their engines.All it will take is Ford coming to market ahead of schedule with it's ecco boost line from car's to trucks or Benz bringing it's 4 cylinders with F1 valve train technology to market or something radical from Toyota like a mass switch over to something like Fords Eccoboost or light weight turbo diesel at the same price point as gas engine in their 1/2 trucks etc..........
I am at a loss for why they do not understand that a big monstrousness pushrod V8 will only get you so far with ever tightening emission lays and CAFE standards!!!
As for hot rodding how many guys are really taking 3V VCT and useing them when the Junk Yards of full of non-VCT Modular engines. It is not hard to make 500HP on the Ford Modular V8 with not much more then a head swap and a cam swap or porting and polishing the stock head and reshaping the chamber and a cam swap! You can do it on pump gas and still drive it daily as long as you do not have to worry about passing emissions. The Ford Modular V8's are so easy to get more performance out of I do not know why anyone would mess with VCT at this point in their Hot Rod unless they just wanted to be different! VCT is like cylinder deactivation not something most domestic hot roders are interested in for their rod!
The reason for the bearing design change is because any hydraulic system is going to be reading the oil pressure and if you get massive changes due to oil hemorrhage from the main or rod bearings it will cause erratic cam phasing. You most often feel it when the engine cold no matter if you running 0W20 or 15W50 the oil changes drastically the first 5 minutes of driving and you can feel it int he came phasing especially at low speeds especially if you are driving a manual transmission. Like starting a car up after 8 hours of sitting in the winter time and trying to idle through a parking lot as the oil starts to change you can feel the cam's phasing it feels like someone is graping the car from the front and giving it a gentle tug.This get's lost though the faster you go the less noticeable it is.
It was not a bad article for anyone that has been hiding under a rock for the last 15 years but it really was biased and left a lot out!
I think the article was very short sighted and pandered to those that hate all tings not invented here! First VVT has been inthe market place for a long long time on Asian and German vechiles long before it's recent appearance by the Domestics. Second almost all the imports have better thought out more flexable and effective cam phasing systems even on their ecconomy car's in some case's.Third they are doing it because they have too not because they wanted to add value the only way to stay in the game and keep performance numbers up and emissions and milage in check is with VVT type technology. The Domestics did it kicking and screaming which is why they have not really approached it from a rational stand point. Their continued reliance on cheaper single in block cam is only going to take them so far! It definitely will not be adaptable for the next 20 years! What they should have done is designed and validate a bolt on DOHC 3-5 valve head set-up with direct injection and provisions for a camless hydraulic or pneumatic valve actuation system like Daimler Benz already has in the same base engine design that Chrysler is calling Phenoxix only a more sophisticated version with no came, no lifter etc.....
If GM is true to form though instead of designing something like that they will throw the baby out with the bath water and develop a completely different engine at insane cost over long term thinking and continuously thinking ahead.Look at how badly they mis managed the 3.8 which could have soldiered on with some new heads and a new intake for another 20 years!
I do not like articles that ignore the past and what is already out their right now that is selective history as far as I am concerned!
Then you have Hot Rodder's orient articles well what do they think a 9 second Honda is? Their is an entire group of people like me that have been tuning car's from Europe and Asia that have VVT for years!
Then you have the idiotic idea of limiting the Cam Phaseing to say 20° well if you are not going to use the technology as intended then pitch it and run a big monster fat cam with out VVT! The valve springs are a huge limiter as is interference engine designs so if any of these Hot Rod shops had any sense they would redesign the crank and get some drop forged in China to change the relationship from Interference to non-interference then you could run high lift cams all day long with out the need for special pistons etc.......The ramp angle has to be rather gradual in order to keep spring rate low. This is one reason why a lot of VVT engine keep the RPM's below 7000 it makes it easier to control float and use a nice gentle spring that is cam lob and SM/GF-4 oil friendly. These are not hug obstacles though like I said imprt guys have benn dealing with this for along time!
The Viper's cam on cam design is not that radical I had the same idea in H.S. back in the 1980's the problem was size and complexity of the parts from a machining standpoint...In the 1980's it would have cost too much since CNC was not in use by most OEM's then. Today though that is not much of an issue. Since this engine is practicly hand built and low production it is ok but for a mass produced design it really isnot that hot. It massive for what it gives you compared to what other more modern DOHC set-ups can offer.
OHC is actualy older then OHV's the OHV though was a cheaper design and that is why it is still with us. CHEAP!!! Instead of wasting money on this type of stuff they really need to be getting their direct injection and camless valve acutaion systems up and running so they can match the competition quickly when it comes! They need to be getting their light weight turbo diesels ready and be getting a solid hybrid design up and running!
I was stillworking for GM when they where trying to get the cam phasing system to work on the North Star engines....I ate lunch with the guys working on the program a couple of times a week. The time and money that they spent trying to get their own system to work was insane they could have spent that money in so many other places in a much smarter and productive way!
I am confident that Ford has it's eye's set on the futcher overall with all the work they are doing with regards to their EccoBoost engine line and idea's!!! I worry though that GM is going to be left in the dust unless they have something up their sleeve. They should be the world leader in power trains but they really are in many ways not even up to the level of the Koreans with regards to refinement NVH and such with their engines.All it will take is Ford coming to market ahead of schedule with it's ecco boost line from car's to trucks or Benz bringing it's 4 cylinders with F1 valve train technology to market or something radical from Toyota like a mass switch over to something like Fords Eccoboost or light weight turbo diesel at the same price point as gas engine in their 1/2 trucks etc..........
I am at a loss for why they do not understand that a big monstrousness pushrod V8 will only get you so far with ever tightening emission lays and CAFE standards!!!
As for hot rodding how many guys are really taking 3V VCT and useing them when the Junk Yards of full of non-VCT Modular engines. It is not hard to make 500HP on the Ford Modular V8 with not much more then a head swap and a cam swap or porting and polishing the stock head and reshaping the chamber and a cam swap! You can do it on pump gas and still drive it daily as long as you do not have to worry about passing emissions. The Ford Modular V8's are so easy to get more performance out of I do not know why anyone would mess with VCT at this point in their Hot Rod unless they just wanted to be different! VCT is like cylinder deactivation not something most domestic hot roders are interested in for their rod!
The reason for the bearing design change is because any hydraulic system is going to be reading the oil pressure and if you get massive changes due to oil hemorrhage from the main or rod bearings it will cause erratic cam phasing. You most often feel it when the engine cold no matter if you running 0W20 or 15W50 the oil changes drastically the first 5 minutes of driving and you can feel it int he came phasing especially at low speeds especially if you are driving a manual transmission. Like starting a car up after 8 hours of sitting in the winter time and trying to idle through a parking lot as the oil starts to change you can feel the cam's phasing it feels like someone is graping the car from the front and giving it a gentle tug.This get's lost though the faster you go the less noticeable it is.
It was not a bad article for anyone that has been hiding under a rock for the last 15 years but it really was biased and left a lot out!
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
If 20-weight oils were the Holy Grail, companies like Mercedes Benz, Porsche, BMW and the like would be using them in their high output engines. But that is not the case, is it?
They tend to make different kinds of cars, don't they?
Let me turn it around for you. If using 40 grade synthetics was such a Holy Grail, how do our common passenger car engines in pickup chassis manage on a 5w-20 or 5w-30 spec ..while being fully capable of pulling full capacity up 6% grades ..and only suffer a shortening of the oil change interval?
btw- MOST of the Euro's that are heralded here tend to have bigger sumps and longer drains. Detune those sumps to US typical, and see how their drains shrink under those conditions.
What you're seeing is two inverted coping mechanisms ..but viewing them only from one angle.
Easy:
Most of the engines from those Euro manufacturers make significantly more power per cubic inch.
Note that we do NOT have the 425HP version of the 5.4L here. And the 5.4L we DO have, now has a 7L sump and a massive oil cooler. And still only makes 300HP.
Mercedes has engines in that displacement range making over 500HP!!!
And to reinforce this, for Ford's own high-output engines, such as those found in the Ford GT and GT500, they DO spec a heavier oil, a MUCH heavier oil in fact! 5w50!!
Quote:
If 20-weight oils were the Holy Grail, companies like Mercedes Benz, Porsche, BMW and the like would be using them in their high output engines. But that is not the case, is it?
They tend to make different kinds of cars, don't they?
Let me turn it around for you. If using 40 grade synthetics was such a Holy Grail, how do our common passenger car engines in pickup chassis manage on a 5w-20 or 5w-30 spec ..while being fully capable of pulling full capacity up 6% grades ..and only suffer a shortening of the oil change interval?
btw- MOST of the Euro's that are heralded here tend to have bigger sumps and longer drains. Detune those sumps to US typical, and see how their drains shrink under those conditions.
What you're seeing is two inverted coping mechanisms ..but viewing them only from one angle.
Easy:
Most of the engines from those Euro manufacturers make significantly more power per cubic inch.
Note that we do NOT have the 425HP version of the 5.4L here. And the 5.4L we DO have, now has a 7L sump and a massive oil cooler. And still only makes 300HP.
Mercedes has engines in that displacement range making over 500HP!!!
And to reinforce this, for Ford's own high-output engines, such as those found in the Ford GT and GT500, they DO spec a heavier oil, a MUCH heavier oil in fact! 5w50!!
- Status
Similar threads
