Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
And that's where you're wrong.
LOL, of course, because you simply CANNOT be wrong eh?
Quote:
Ford doesn't "cripple" and "castrate" the basic Mustang GT
Ummm, yes, that's exactly what the thermal mechanism DOES, it cuts power and subsequently castrates the car until oil temps are lowered.
Quote:
in specifying the 5W-20 grade
Not IN spec'ing the oil, they do it BECAUSE they spec that oil and so they set a thermal threshold on oil temperatures.
Quote:
because the safety management system triggering bar is set so high that most owners will never test it. And that includes taking the car to the track as one member has proved running M1 0W-20. He managed to get his oil temp's up to 230F which was not high enough for the safeties to intercede.
Yet we have testimony from SteveSRT8 that he HAS in fact observed these cars going thermal and neutering themselves AT THE RACE TRACK. So which is it big guy?
Quote:
Running a three grade heavier 5W-50 would rob power and driveability under all normal running conditions.
Oh please! The whopping 2-5HP it MIGHT lose? Yeah, that's "robbing some power" there on a 425HP V8
Quote:
And even if some owners are able to get their oil temp's high enough to trigger the safety management systems, running a heavier oil grade is still NOT the solution. The solution is install the optional oil cooler and still be able to benefit from the efficiency and power of the 5W-20 oil grade.
Yet that flies in the face of what Ford has done with the Track Pack! Do you know more than the Engineers at Ford? Are you an Engineer? Your posting here is heavy on theory, which is fine, but you don't present it as theory, you present it as fact. Even though it contradicts the actions of the OEM that designed the bloody thing
Ford ultimately feels the SOLUTION is to install the oil cooler AND run the heavier oil, because that's exactly what they do!! This allows them to modify or remove the thermal throttle mechanism. So it would seem that in Ford's testing, it is not only possible to get the oil temps to unsafe levels, WITH THE OIL COOLER, but that they got high enough to require a heavier grade of oil.
Quote:
I know the conditions that warrant the use the 5W-50 grade (it's what's spec'd for my Caterham) and it's brutal out and out racing with often blocked air flow when car contact is very close under very hot ambient conditions.
The point is you can't begin to replicate this (I certainly can't) in typical track day activities.
Your Caterham is not a Mustang GT. They are different vehicles with different engines and come across the scales with quite different weights. The conditions required with your Caterham to drive oil temperatures to unsafe levels are likely different than with a Mustang GT. Just like they would be different from an M car, AMG....etc. Different vehicles behave differently.
Quote:
I feel sorry for the guys that buy the track pac' option on their Mustang for the oil cooler and suspension up-grades and and then feel saddled in having to run the ridiculously heavy 5W-50 grade when they will never come close to benefiting from the high oil temp's it will safely allow.
They have a 425HP RWD car. Why do you feel sorry for them? Do you think the vehicle feels like a lethargic Prius with all that 5w-50 in the pan? They don't. Just like an M5 doesn't feel any bloody different running BMW 5w30 than it does running 10w-60. When you have that much power, the heavier oil weight is invisible.
Quote:
And my advice to them is, if you're not seeing high oil temp's with the way you operate your car then run the 5W-20 grade; it will be the cheapest performance upgrade you'll ever buy with no downsides.
So gaining 2HP through oil choice is now a performance upgrade? COME ON DUDE! What do you think Ford's stance is on this recommendation? Do you think they would support it through the warranty period? Or is your advice to effectively tell them to potentially screw their warranty because YOU think they will be better served running 5w-20?
Quote:
The same situation applies to Bimmer owners with cars spec'd for TWS 10W-60 and and we have members that have chosen to run oil a couple of grades lighter because they are not seeing high oil temp's with the way they drive and are enjoying the free increased performance.
Owning and having driven a BMW that has, in certain years, spec'd 10w-60, I can tell you right now there's no discernible "free performance increase". I can't tell the difference in driving an M5 with 10w-60 or 0w-40 in the pan. I run the 0w-40 because I think it is a better oil (personal opinion), my model year spec's LL-01, and because I'm in Canada (like you) and we see real cold starts, which the 0w-40 is obviously going to handle better.
Quote:
And we all know about Ali Haas and what he's running in his Enzo Ferrari (and yes Ferrari knows what he's doing because he's told them including supporting UOAs).
Yes, and if Bill Gates wanted to run TGMO in his Veyron I'm sure he could, and he could tell Bugatti all about it too! Because he can afford to put a new engine in the car if he manages to nuke it just like Dr. Haas can.
For the rest of us mere mortals who like to retain our warranty and wouldn't be able to shrug off destroying the engine in our cars as the "price of experimentation", the specifications put forth by the manufacturer, particularly those that pertain to retaining warranty, carry some weight.
You experimenting with your own cars is one thing. They are YOUR CARS, you can do whatever the heck you want with them, and if you manage to spin a rod bearing, wipe a cam lobe....etc, that's on you, you were experimenting, and that's cool.
HOWEVER
Advocating that this is an appropriate approach for anybody who happens to own a high performance vehicle that SPECIFIES a PARTICULAR grade of oil, because YOU have a PERSONAL HANG-UP on running a lubricant that YOU FEEL is "too heavy", while potentially opening up that person to warranty issues or engine damage on a vehicle YOU DON'T OWN is reckless. You are intentionally risking them potential warranty issues and engine damage (what happens if they drive their track pack car on Steve's course with your 5w-20 in the pan and aren't watching their oil temperature and manage to wipe a bearing? are you buying them a new engine?) due to something that bothers YOU. And you pander it under the guise of a "performance upgrade", which is complete and utter tripe, and that they are somehow doing better by their engine, something else which you have literally ZERO proof of. You have NOT taken multiple identical engines, operated them under the exact same conditions with half on 5w-20 and half on 5w-50 and then performed tear-down testing on them to qualify what you posit here. But you claim it nonetheless.
I've torn down and seen torn down plenty of engines run on heavier grades of oil, many of them 5w-50. They certainly didn't suffer wear because of it.
Beligerance doesn't help your argument but rather underlies the irrational fear that is the basis of the thicker is better stand. Nor does derogatory remarks like "castrate" and "cripple" to describe safety features which in some in some applications are hardly noticeable when oil temp's rise too high.
And of course you would understate the power loss associated with running 3 grades heavier than necessary which is substantial when the engine is cold and during warm-up.
'As light as possible, as thick as necessary" is the lubrication tenet to follow but you obviously don't agree with that.
Controlling maximum oil temp's through the addition of an oil cooler if the safeties kick-in at the track too often so that you don't have to run a heavier than necessary oil grade in a primarily street driven cars is obviously the preferred route to follow whether it's a Mustang or a Subaru BRZ, etc.
You don't want high oil temp's if you can avoid them and you can avoid them.
