Everything Jim and FX4 post up seems valid and reasonable.

Nothing in that information indicates to me that a "thicker" fluid is a "better" fluid, from a perspective of wear or operation. The 10w-40 addresses a "noise" reduction issue only. It's certainly not the "preferred" fluid. It's an acquiescence to customers that cannot abide by a light ticking sound. Nor does that mean the Triton engine series was "rated up to 20w-50" as was claimed. The 10w-40 grade rating is clearly an allowance to appease people; it is NOT an admission or condonation by Ford that thicker is better. In short, the 10w-40 is a noise-abatement consolation and nothing more. This is information I was unaware of; I had not seen the 21217 document until now. OTOH, all I ever asked for was "proof" of the 20w-50 claim. As of now, I still see nothing that backs up that claim. I left Ford in 2006; I suspect that 21217 document came along AFTER I left - hence why I was unware of if. Further, that thicker lube rating is a development LATE in the genealogy of the Triton engines; it certainly was not a recommended or preferred fluid when the modular engines were developed, or when the Tritons grew out of the original 4.6L mod motor. It is, in effect, an afterthought rating to quiet the whining of customers who complaing about ticking. That does NOT mean the engine family was developed with 10w-40 or 20w-50 as "approved" fluids. 5w-30 and then 5w-20 are the correct, intended fluids, and I've seen nothing to controvert that fact.

I think all of us owe it to each other to be concise and as accurate as possible. I openly admit I've learned things here on this site I was unaware of before, in regard to many differnt topics. I've also educated others on things they were unaware of. This should not be a bout egos; it should be about the correct, accurate sharing of information. Heck - I've been wrong before and had members correct me; I don't mind that. But all I ask is that if you find me in error, at least provide proof to back up one's claims. I can openly, publically admit my mistakes; that does not bother me in the least bit. I was unaware of the 10w-40 rating because I left Ford before that document came out. So be it; I was wrong. But I still have yet to see evidence of 20w-50 being rated, approved, suggested or even hinted at by Ford or credible sources that will step out from behind a cloaked curtain. In fact, I don't find the 10w-40 rating to be anything other than a customer-quieting move; it has zero bearing (partial pun here) on bearings, etc.

All that said, I publically offer my appology if I upset anyone, especially 1medic. That was not my intent. My goal is to find and spread solid facts and accurate data, and dispell mythology and rhetoric. No more and no less. If that labels me with "tenacity" then I wear that banner proudly.

The way I see it is this:
* 5w-30 and 5w-20 are the preferred (and developmental) fluids depending upon design year
* 10w-40 was approved only to quiet complaints and was not a "better" choice for wear and has since been rescinded
* 20w-50 is not (as of this point) shown to be approved or rated as acceptable in any manner

Edited by dnewton3 (02/24/12 07:44 AM)
Conventionals vs. Synthetics isn't about which is "better"; it's about which lasts longer, while assuring safe operation, in relation to cost. Any product can be over or under utilized. The same applies to filters.
Make an informed decision; first consider your operating conditions, next determine your maintenance plan, and then pick your lube and filter. Don't do it the other way around ...