1994 v6 Explorer...5w20 too thin?

[Gary Allan]

I would not do this with THIS engine. The Cologne V6 is a pretty fancy boat anchor in later life. If yours is not yet requiring the very expensive repair to the timing chains, I'd resist tinkering with good fortune. It's sent more Explorers to the junkyard in otherwise good shape ..or have them sold/traded for chump change. Literally worth more in scrap.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

Originally Posted By: Mustang Man
Originally Posted By: addyguy
In the warmth down there, no need even for a 5w30. I'd use a good 10w30 oil, and get the benefit of slightly more shear stability.

They both weigh the same when the engine is at operating temp. The 5w has the benefit of fast lubrication on start-up. Stick with 5w30 or give 0w30 a try which is exactly what I am planning to do this weekend.
You are ignoring the fact that the lower the 'W" number the more Vii in the oil and the less stable the oil - All else being equal. A Vii is NOT a lubricant but a major sludge generator and ring varnisher as it oxidises. The instability of vii is the major factor for 5w30 not being "stay in grade" capable through a OCI. I find this to be unacceptable performance for a lubricant while others ignore it or make peace with it as a compromise factor for better cold flow.

 

[casper]

More than enough reasons to either stay with the spec or actually go thicker with the cologne/vulcan v6.

 

[stranger706]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I would not do this with THIS engine. The Cologne V6 is a pretty fancy boat anchor in later life. If yours is not yet requiring the very expensive repair to the timing chains, I'd resist tinkering with good fortune. It's sent more Explorers to the junkyard in otherwise good shape ..or have them sold/traded for chump change. Literally worth more in scrap.


Going a little off topic here, but I believe the timing chain issues you are refering to only affected the SOHC 4.0 which was inroduced in 97/98.

Anybody else feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quite possibly so. It's the only issue I've ever seen with the engine. I've never heard of them seizing ..wiping cams...or anything else except being too expensive to fix when it came to their chain issues. Now half of that problem was that there were millions of Explorers on the road so ..they really never had much resale value.

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted By: casper
More than enough reasons to either stay with the spec or actually go thicker with the cologne/vulcan v6.

The Cologne V-6 and the Vulcan V-6 are entirely different animals.
The Vulcan is a three liter engine sourced form Ford of Britain, and built here in huge numbers for the Aerostars and Tuaruses.
It has no real design problems, and will live a long and trouble free life.
It is generally considered one of the most durable engines of the past twenty five years.
While I wasn't aware of the difference when we bought it, I am really glad that we got a 3.0 Aerostar, rather than a 4.0.

 

[casper]

The cologne is the worse of the two v6's with numerous timing chain and intake manifold issues. 5w30 or thicker is mandatory on this engine.

The vulcan is a quality design and has been back spec'd until 1993 or so to the 5w20 but I just cant see going much thinner than that on the 3.0

 

[exranger06]

Originally Posted By: stranger706
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I would not do this with THIS engine. The Cologne V6 is a pretty fancy boat anchor in later life. If yours is not yet requiring the very expensive repair to the timing chains, I'd resist tinkering with good fortune. It's sent more Explorers to the junkyard in otherwise good shape ..or have them sold/traded for chump change. Literally worth more in scrap.


Going a little off topic here, but I believe the timing chain issues you are refering to only affected the SOHC 4.0 which was inroduced in 97/98.

Anybody else feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.


Yes, it was the SOHC 4.0 that HAD (not has) timing chain issues. The OP's Explorer has a pushrod 4.0 which has no timing chain issues whatsoever, and has a great reputation for being a reliable engine easily capable of 300k miles. The SOHC got it's issues worked out years ago and is now equally reliable.

--Proud owner of both a 4.0 OHV and 4.0 SOHC

Oh yeah, stick with 5w30.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
The OP's Explorer has a pushrod 4.0 which has no timing chain issues whatsoever, and has a great reputation for being a reliable engine easily capable of 300k miles. The SOHC got it's issues worked out years ago and is now equally reliable.

--Proud owner of both a 4.0 OHV and 4.0 SOHC


I must have missed the distinction of which 4.0 he had. I also wasn't aware that any engine other than the SOHC was not back spec'd. All that was only ever said (yes, I've viewed the actual document in the distant past) "the 4.0 wasn't back spec'd for 5w-20" ..not "NEITHER of the 4.0 engines are back spec'd for 5w-20".

Given that the SOHC was by far the oddball of the entire bunch of engines, I just took it that it was the one and only non-5w-20 capable engine.

Then again, I am supposedly aware that the 4.0 is a replacement for the head cracking 2.9 ..so ...that marries them I guess in some incestuous way.

 

[pidster]

Stick with 5w30. Even my 2010 Ford Ranger, Cologne V6 SOHC motor, other than small improvements over the years is the same motor in your Explorer. It calls for 5w30, in the manual and on the oil cap.
If Ford is still insisting on 5w30 in 2010 there must be a reason for that I would think, and the same would apply to a 1994.

I was actually quite surprised seeing a 2010 Ford not calling for 5w20, other than diesel trucks I *think* it is the only new Ford using that grade.

 

[pushrod]

I have the OHV 4.0 and if I lived in Georgia I would spike my
10w-30 with 1 quart of 10w-40...5w30 in in January,February.
5w-20? NO!