Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
As is typical here we dissect minutiae but forget that each platform has different requirements. I have indeed seen newer 5.0 Stangs neuter themselves at the track. But it is a rarity, as you must flog them mercilessly at high ambient temps to do so. Almost every modern car has the ability to retard spark and throttle in an overheat situation.
The mere fact they even specify a 50w oil should tell us they experience very high oil temps, but per both SRT and Mobil even 300 degrees is not excessive anymore.
I respect Caterham's opinions, they are generally well thought out. His claim of no damage on 20w oil is being proven every day in thousands and thousands of cars and trucks (my 14 Ram included).
But real track use is a different animal completely...
Great post Steve
And yes, that's exactly it, every platform is different and their requirements are as well, though I don't think anybody has "forgot" that per se, but rather there are various merits being argued regarding the appropriate approach. I think this particular topic has persisted because of two things:
1. The information that Trav has presented that pertains to the engine that the thread is about.
2. The two wildly different specs for the 5.0L Mustang that get drummed up whenever a discussion like this happens. This is the one that I often find gets misrepresented which is why I'm glad you've reiterated the fact that you have seen the thermal castration mechanism in action on non Track-Pack GT's. And this leads us to your 2nd point, regarding
why a 5w-50 is specified, which serves to back that. This was the reason Ford created the Track Pack for the GT, to deal with people beating on these cars at the track and them subsequently crippling themselves until the temps came down. An oil cooler and heavier oil along with the requisite software tweak resolved the problem.
That's not to say that the 5w-20 won't serve the regular GT well in more pedestrian usage profiles, of course it would and does, nobody is arguing that. If I had a concern about the protection a 5w-20 or 0w-20 offers in an application that actually specs it for normal use, I wouldn't be running it in the Charger, but of course I am because those concerns for me do not exist. If I were to seriously track the car, I may be inclined to step up to a 0w-40, but that is an "educated guess" based on other Mopar cars like yours calling for that grade.
On a bit of a tangent, what I find somewhat amusing is that Ford does the "this or that" with the Mustang. You buy the regular GT, you run 5w-20, you buy the Track Pack (same engine) you get an oil cooler and are required to run 5w-50.
Which contrasts handily with GM's requirements for the Corvette and Camaro where they tell you to run a DEXOS 1 5w-30 unless you track the car, and in which case to step it up to Mobil 1 15w-50!
GM's direction seems more "owner knowledge" oriented. They expect that an owner that tracks their car knows enough to swap out their regular fill for a "performance" fill when tracking. Ford's direction seems more "idiot proof", IE, if you have the regular GT, you run 5w-20. You have the Track Pack, you run 5w-50. Period. I'm not sure which one will result in fewer issues in application. On one hand we have the manufacturer relying on a sensor to "pull the plug" for the regular car and the owner running the right oil in the track version. On the other hand we have a "regular" oil spec'd for normal usage and a "performance oil" spec'd for track use. This information of course buried in the owners manual
Have you seen any of the new Camaro's and Corvette's at the track Steve? And if so, are the owners aware of and following the requirements from their manual?
To come back to the topic of the thread though, your last point succinctly explains this whole mess and why it has continued. This is the topic that has lead to so much heated debate; so much fervent back-and-forth. Track use (and I note the use of the word "real" tucked into your reply) is why we have this disagreement. Defining the differences between "drivers Ed" events (is that "real" track use?) and an experienced driver hot lapping on some PSS's (or PS Cups even!) (is
that "real" track use?) and whether at some point we meet the manufacturer's definition of that term at some arbitrary juncture or whether simply using the car in a track environment fulfills the requirement
Quite frankly I don't think we are ever going to reach an agreement, but it has of course been a great discussion.
EDIT: One other thing: The last line of the first part of your post, regarding the ability to pull spark and throttle in an overheat. This I believe is primarily for a
coolant overheat situation, which are the most common. The concerns expressed in this thread are more about an
oil overheat situation, something it appears GM doesn't compensate for other than tossing a warning light at you and many other manufacturers simply don't track. I think the oil temperature nanny is a lot less prevalent than the coolant temperature nanny, something that has been around for quite some time and has only gotten better with electronic throttle control.
