First Service questions.
Postmaster
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 3,146
Likes: 32
From: Maryville, TN
Being bid out is not necessarily a bad thing. There are standards that have to be meet. If those standards are not meet, then it's very easy for motorcraft to deny an order. It is at no financial lose to them Vs a company that is selling directly, and could over look something to save profit. As long as motorcraft is doing their part in quality control, I would look at it as a good thing. And considering it effects the warranty on ford engines, I'm pretty reassured they are doing their part.
Elder User
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 764
Likes: 30
What Ford "recommends" and what is "required" are two different things.
- Ford will always recommend their own products; it's a sales thing.
- Ford requires products that meet their engineering/fluid specs, to make their warranty whole. (note that aftermarket warranties can supplement as such; read and understand the M/M Act).
Ford only "requires" a lube meeting WSS-M2C-946-A (5w-30), or the 5w-20 variant, depending upon year of truck/engine, for the 6.2L. There are a SLEW of approved lubes from all kinds of makers (Valvoline, Castrol, Mobil, SOPUS, etc) that meet the standards and are licensed by Ford. Those products can be synthetic, semi-syn, or even conventional. There are a LOT of "dino" oils that meet Ford's lube specs. Right now, it if meets the API SN specs, it's good for use. Ford used to be much more honest in their fluid statements; I lifted this from my Crown Vic owner's manual:
"note 6: Use of synthetic or synthetic blend motor oil is not mandatory. Engine oil need only meet the requirements of Ford specification ..."
However they don't put that statement in the manuals any longer. Not because it's not true today; it most certainly still is. It's just that they cannot sell as much Motorcraft branded products if they tell the customers it's not "needed". The inference they leave is one of doubt, on purpose, so that folks will believe they need to buy MC branded stuff. Nothing could be further from the truth. Simply put, you don't "need" a syn to be compliant with Ford warranty provisions. You can most certainly use one, but it's not necessary. You can use MC and syns; they won't hurt a thing. But the only thing they "help" is the bottom line of the sales company; it won't improve a darn thing for your engine.
Further, (and I know this will ruffle a lot of feathers here), but a syn used in a normal OCI duration will NOT, by ANY MEASURE, make for less wear in the engine. Read this:
Surprising Findings from Oil Analysis of Automotive Engines
I do statistical process quality control for a living. Trust me when I tell you that a syn used in typical truck use will NOT be "better" for the engine, despite every ounce of marketing hype you've swallowed over the years.
As for the filters, MC filters are decent, but they are not perfect. As with any product, there have been reports of failed MC filters (aftermarket made by Purolator for the most part). Voids in the media have been reported, but that issue is NOT unique to MC filters, and have been seen in many other brands at one time or another. MC filtration efficiency is good, but not great. However, the selection of oil filter does not have any real, tangible effect on engine wear rates; again - despite all the marketing hype you'll read and year. There's been no tangible, credible oil filter study done that directly shows correlation between filtration efficiency and engine wear, in actual daily use in a manner that would replicate what we all use. The distinction to note here is that lab tests (often ALTs; accelerated life tests) will manipulate things in an unnatural manner, to bring forth disparity in results. However, those manipulations never exist in our garage or driveway, and so the performance disparity shown in a lab test does not manifest into results in our real world. I can show you many examples of filter studies having bias so freakishly overt that once understood, you'd agree they are worthless for the average Joe Consumer. But that does not stop marketing folks from latching onto the inane results, and shoving it down the throats of the uninformed and gullible consumer. Most decent brand name filters will do a fine job. Brand loyalty here is not any more rewarded than that of any particular brand of lube, when you look at real world statistical data of wear rates.
But hey ... why let facts and data get in the way of good ol' fashioned bias, mythology, rhetoric and brand bigotry?
.
- Ford will always recommend their own products; it's a sales thing.
- Ford requires products that meet their engineering/fluid specs, to make their warranty whole. (note that aftermarket warranties can supplement as such; read and understand the M/M Act).
Ford only "requires" a lube meeting WSS-M2C-946-A (5w-30), or the 5w-20 variant, depending upon year of truck/engine, for the 6.2L. There are a SLEW of approved lubes from all kinds of makers (Valvoline, Castrol, Mobil, SOPUS, etc) that meet the standards and are licensed by Ford. Those products can be synthetic, semi-syn, or even conventional. There are a LOT of "dino" oils that meet Ford's lube specs. Right now, it if meets the API SN specs, it's good for use. Ford used to be much more honest in their fluid statements; I lifted this from my Crown Vic owner's manual:
"note 6: Use of synthetic or synthetic blend motor oil is not mandatory. Engine oil need only meet the requirements of Ford specification ..."
However they don't put that statement in the manuals any longer. Not because it's not true today; it most certainly still is. It's just that they cannot sell as much Motorcraft branded products if they tell the customers it's not "needed". The inference they leave is one of doubt, on purpose, so that folks will believe they need to buy MC branded stuff. Nothing could be further from the truth. Simply put, you don't "need" a syn to be compliant with Ford warranty provisions. You can most certainly use one, but it's not necessary. You can use MC and syns; they won't hurt a thing. But the only thing they "help" is the bottom line of the sales company; it won't improve a darn thing for your engine.
Further, (and I know this will ruffle a lot of feathers here), but a syn used in a normal OCI duration will NOT, by ANY MEASURE, make for less wear in the engine. Read this:
Surprising Findings from Oil Analysis of Automotive Engines
I do statistical process quality control for a living. Trust me when I tell you that a syn used in typical truck use will NOT be "better" for the engine, despite every ounce of marketing hype you've swallowed over the years.
As for the filters, MC filters are decent, but they are not perfect. As with any product, there have been reports of failed MC filters (aftermarket made by Purolator for the most part). Voids in the media have been reported, but that issue is NOT unique to MC filters, and have been seen in many other brands at one time or another. MC filtration efficiency is good, but not great. However, the selection of oil filter does not have any real, tangible effect on engine wear rates; again - despite all the marketing hype you'll read and year. There's been no tangible, credible oil filter study done that directly shows correlation between filtration efficiency and engine wear, in actual daily use in a manner that would replicate what we all use. The distinction to note here is that lab tests (often ALTs; accelerated life tests) will manipulate things in an unnatural manner, to bring forth disparity in results. However, those manipulations never exist in our garage or driveway, and so the performance disparity shown in a lab test does not manifest into results in our real world. I can show you many examples of filter studies having bias so freakishly overt that once understood, you'd agree they are worthless for the average Joe Consumer. But that does not stop marketing folks from latching onto the inane results, and shoving it down the throats of the uninformed and gullible consumer. Most decent brand name filters will do a fine job. Brand loyalty here is not any more rewarded than that of any particular brand of lube, when you look at real world statistical data of wear rates.
But hey ... why let facts and data get in the way of good ol' fashioned bias, mythology, rhetoric and brand bigotry?
.
Fleet Mechanic
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 137
From: Maryland
I look at it this way....
I'd rather be debating recommended vs required vs aftermarket vs marketing hype, etc... of motor oil and oil filter then discussing how frequently to empty the water separator, what is the best way to prevent cold weather performance problems, and/or where to purchase def for my 'torque monster' motor that reduces my truck to a garage ornament when the weather gets cold.
I'd rather be debating recommended vs required vs aftermarket vs marketing hype, etc... of motor oil and oil filter then discussing how frequently to empty the water separator, what is the best way to prevent cold weather performance problems, and/or where to purchase def for my 'torque monster' motor that reduces my truck to a garage ornament when the weather gets cold.
Senior User
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 165
Likes: 1
From: Calgary, Canada
What Ford "recommends" and what is "required" are two different things.
- Ford will always recommend their own products; it's a sales thing.
- Ford requires products that meet their engineering/fluid specs, to make their warranty whole. (note that aftermarket warranties can supplement as such; read and understand the M/M Act).
Ford only "requires" a lube meeting WSS-M2C-946-A (5w-30), or the 5w-20 variant, depending upon year of truck/engine, for the 6.2L. There are a SLEW of approved lubes from all kinds of makers (Valvoline, Castrol, Mobil, SOPUS, etc) that meet the standards and are licensed by Ford. Those products can be synthetic, semi-syn, or even conventional. There are a LOT of "dino" oils that meet Ford's lube specs. Right now, it if meets the API SN specs, it's good for use. Ford used to be much more honest in their fluid statements; I lifted this from my Crown Vic owner's manual:
"note 6: Use of synthetic or synthetic blend motor oil is not mandatory. Engine oil need only meet the requirements of Ford specification ..."
However they don't put that statement in the manuals any longer. Not because it's not true today; it most certainly still is. It's just that they cannot sell as much Motorcraft branded products if they tell the customers it's not "needed". The inference they leave is one of doubt, on purpose, so that folks will believe they need to buy MC branded stuff. Nothing could be further from the truth. Simply put, you don't "need" a syn to be compliant with Ford warranty provisions. You can most certainly use one, but it's not necessary. You can use MC and syns; they won't hurt a thing. But the only thing they "help" is the bottom line of the sales company; it won't improve a darn thing for your engine.
Further, (and I know this will ruffle a lot of feathers here), but a syn used in a normal OCI duration will NOT, by ANY MEASURE, make for less wear in the engine. Read this:
Surprising Findings from Oil Analysis of Automotive Engines
I do statistical process quality control for a living. Trust me when I tell you that a syn used in typical truck use will NOT be "better" for the engine, despite every ounce of marketing hype you've swallowed over the years.
As for the filters, MC filters are decent, but they are not perfect. As with any product, there have been reports of failed MC filters (aftermarket made by Purolator for the most part). Voids in the media have been reported, but that issue is NOT unique to MC filters, and have been seen in many other brands at one time or another. MC filtration efficiency is good, but not great. However, the selection of oil filter does not have any real, tangible effect on engine wear rates; again - despite all the marketing hype you'll read and year. There's been no tangible, credible oil filter study done that directly shows correlation between filtration efficiency and engine wear, in actual daily use in a manner that would replicate what we all use. The distinction to note here is that lab tests (often ALTs; accelerated life tests) will manipulate things in an unnatural manner, to bring forth disparity in results. However, those manipulations never exist in our garage or driveway, and so the performance disparity shown in a lab test does not manifest into results in our real world. I can show you many examples of filter studies having bias so freakishly overt that once understood, you'd agree they are worthless for the average Joe Consumer. But that does not stop marketing folks from latching onto the inane results, and shoving it down the throats of the uninformed and gullible consumer. Most decent brand name filters will do a fine job. Brand loyalty here is not any more rewarded than that of any particular brand of lube, when you look at real world statistical data of wear rates.
But hey ... why let facts and data get in the way of good ol' fashioned bias, mythology, rhetoric and brand bigotry?
.
- Ford will always recommend their own products; it's a sales thing.
- Ford requires products that meet their engineering/fluid specs, to make their warranty whole. (note that aftermarket warranties can supplement as such; read and understand the M/M Act).
Ford only "requires" a lube meeting WSS-M2C-946-A (5w-30), or the 5w-20 variant, depending upon year of truck/engine, for the 6.2L. There are a SLEW of approved lubes from all kinds of makers (Valvoline, Castrol, Mobil, SOPUS, etc) that meet the standards and are licensed by Ford. Those products can be synthetic, semi-syn, or even conventional. There are a LOT of "dino" oils that meet Ford's lube specs. Right now, it if meets the API SN specs, it's good for use. Ford used to be much more honest in their fluid statements; I lifted this from my Crown Vic owner's manual:
"note 6: Use of synthetic or synthetic blend motor oil is not mandatory. Engine oil need only meet the requirements of Ford specification ..."
However they don't put that statement in the manuals any longer. Not because it's not true today; it most certainly still is. It's just that they cannot sell as much Motorcraft branded products if they tell the customers it's not "needed". The inference they leave is one of doubt, on purpose, so that folks will believe they need to buy MC branded stuff. Nothing could be further from the truth. Simply put, you don't "need" a syn to be compliant with Ford warranty provisions. You can most certainly use one, but it's not necessary. You can use MC and syns; they won't hurt a thing. But the only thing they "help" is the bottom line of the sales company; it won't improve a darn thing for your engine.
Further, (and I know this will ruffle a lot of feathers here), but a syn used in a normal OCI duration will NOT, by ANY MEASURE, make for less wear in the engine. Read this:
Surprising Findings from Oil Analysis of Automotive Engines
I do statistical process quality control for a living. Trust me when I tell you that a syn used in typical truck use will NOT be "better" for the engine, despite every ounce of marketing hype you've swallowed over the years.
As for the filters, MC filters are decent, but they are not perfect. As with any product, there have been reports of failed MC filters (aftermarket made by Purolator for the most part). Voids in the media have been reported, but that issue is NOT unique to MC filters, and have been seen in many other brands at one time or another. MC filtration efficiency is good, but not great. However, the selection of oil filter does not have any real, tangible effect on engine wear rates; again - despite all the marketing hype you'll read and year. There's been no tangible, credible oil filter study done that directly shows correlation between filtration efficiency and engine wear, in actual daily use in a manner that would replicate what we all use. The distinction to note here is that lab tests (often ALTs; accelerated life tests) will manipulate things in an unnatural manner, to bring forth disparity in results. However, those manipulations never exist in our garage or driveway, and so the performance disparity shown in a lab test does not manifest into results in our real world. I can show you many examples of filter studies having bias so freakishly overt that once understood, you'd agree they are worthless for the average Joe Consumer. But that does not stop marketing folks from latching onto the inane results, and shoving it down the throats of the uninformed and gullible consumer. Most decent brand name filters will do a fine job. Brand loyalty here is not any more rewarded than that of any particular brand of lube, when you look at real world statistical data of wear rates.
But hey ... why let facts and data get in the way of good ol' fashioned bias, mythology, rhetoric and brand bigotry?
.
Elder User
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 764
Likes: 30
Just a couple of points...if you use a motorcraft filter under warranty and do have a filter failure that results in engine damage, you get it repaired without the hassle of proving your aftermarket filter met warranty requirements. And in a warm climate where the cold flow characteristics of lube oil are not an issue, the argument that there’s no difference between synthetic and Dino oils has merit. In sub-zero start up conditions, that argument goes out the window. Dino oil at minus 30 and synthetic at the same temperature are two different products. If the studies you quoted were representing those conditions you’d find a huge difference in the wear metals present in the oil analysis.
I would agree in some fashion, but not totally with your comments.
There are two advantages to using syns
1) longer OCI
2) cold flow properties
Most folks here will never use an engine oil to any degree that "long" is used in reference to an oil change; I'm talking 15k miles or more.
As for the cold flow, it makes a difference to some degree, but only in specific conditions. Let me give examples ...
- non-pressure fed applications like axle lube. Because the lube is only gravity fed or slung via the ring gear, a better flowing product will lube a bit better when really, really cold outside.
- engine oil for an older diesel engine. Those that are of the old mechanical injection systems, with poor starting and weak batteries, may need that very last rpm in spinning the crankshaft to compress the incoming air quickly enough to generate the heat of compression necessary for ignition. Here, a syn may be of benefit so that the starter can sling the crank around quick enough to light off the diesel fuel. But, in todays HPCR engines, with not only glow plugs, but also intake air tract heaters, etc, the engines can start with fairly good regularity. Further, if you have access to electricity, then a block heater is your best bet, not a syn lube. The syn will be of benefit in a very limited situation, but in that scenario, it may well be advisable to use.
However, and I want to assure you that I'm 100% confident about this, syns will NOT make for less "wear" at a cold start up, regardless how cold you think "cold" is. I have over 12,000 UOAs in my database, representing all manner of engines from small gas engines, to large diesel truck and generator sets, from environments and applications all over North America, and I can assure you that there is ZERO statistical proof that a syn provides less wear at start up in the cold. None, zip, nada. Not one bit. I have the data; I do statistical process quality control for a living. I studied applications of gas and diesel engines all across the continent, from every walk of life. Your assertion is quite honestly completely wrong; there is no significant difference in start up wear rates comparing syns and dino over a normal OCI. It just does not exist. If you think it does, the please provide direct credible evidence to a study that would controvert mine data. My point? The study I linked most certainly does contain data from sub-zero start conditions. I would know; I wrote that article. How the engine oil protects against wear is not only about the oil film, but the TCB (tribochemical barrier) that is established as the oil ages and oxidizes. Ford and Conoco did a study on it; see SAE 2007-01-4133. Don't just read the abstract; buy the study from the SAE and READ IT! Start up wear is likely controlled at least as much as by the TCB as an oil film, because in those first several revolutions of the crankshaft PRIOR to the oil pressure coming up, there is no oil film present to float parts on, but the TCB is always present, as it is an aged formation of multi-compounds that clings to metal surfaces in nano-state thickness. You cannot credit an oil film that is not present at start up! The TCB is always present! Hence, the wear rates of engines that use syn versus those that use dino lube in cold starts really shows no fundamental difference. As the TCB matures, it gets thicker. The thicker it is, once it passes a certain maturity, most all wear comes to a "near zero" state. So whatever benefit you might think exists with a syn in terms of "slippery lubricity", it is offset by the fact that all lubes develop the TCB, but do so at different rates. Therefore the variability in start up wear is fairly moot; once the TCB is established, it is likely the controlling factor in wear, and NOT the base stock of the lube chosen.
Here is a link to buy the SAE study from Ford/Conoco: http://papers.sae.org/2007-01-4133/
For reference, here is the abridged version of my article, but it does not contain important links within: http://www.machinerylubrication.com/...s-oil-analysis
Here is the full article I wrote for BITOG; it contains other sub-links to more data: https://bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-...hat-is-normal/
As for your filter comment, I also take exception. Using a brand name filter that is easily recognizable is not going to jeopardize a warranty claim. Although admittedly rare in the first place, should an engine failure be blamed on a filter, if the dealer sees a Fram or Wix on there, he's not automatically going to deny warranty. If the filter is suspected, both the dealer and owner are going to need to cooperate to get the filter maker involved, EVEN IF IT'S MOTORCRAFT, because MC aftermarket filters (like the ones in Walmart) are made by Purolator. The OEM filters that come from the factory are made by Champion (or at least were the last time I researched it). Now, if you use a cheap knock-off filter of unscrupulous manufacture and unknown origin, I'd agree that might be a cause for concern. But Ford is well aware of how the Magnuson/Moss Warranty Act is structured; they cannot blame an aftermarket product simply because it's not "OEM" approved. The M/M Act is actually structured to protect the maker of the products from unbounded warranty claims, not the consumer. However, the consumer does have rights established, via the restrictions against product maker in application.
Link to M/M Act: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/busi...l-warranty-law
But again, filter failures resulting in catastrophic equipment demist are VERY RARE; not worth the panic being induced by your concerns.
Tuned
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 376
Likes: 22
From: Ustoned
Never seen that before.
I run WIX filters on my stuff too. SUV, truck, harleys, ..Everything.
Griz
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
Top 6 Best Deals Available on New Fords & Lincolns Right Now
Brett Foote
This Hennessey Takes the Expedition Tremor's Off-Roading Capability to the Next Level
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Fords at 2026 Carlisle Ford Nationals
Joe Kucinski
3 Best / 3 Worst Parts of Modern Ford Ownership
Brett Foote
10 Amazing Upgrades That Solve Common Ford Truck Owner Headaches
Pouria Savadkouei
Every 2026 Ford Engine Explained
Brett Foote
10 Ugly Ford Trucks That We Still Kinda Love
Joe Kucinski
10 Things Every Truck Owner NEEDS (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Verdad Gallardo
Elder User
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 764
Likes: 30
synthetic is a marketing term in relation to what we buy off the shelf ...
Syns can be group III, IV or V.
See this article written by an insider to the lube industry:
https://bobistheoilguy.com/
regarding a "review of mineral and synthetic base oils"
The funny thing is that many folks think some brands either are or are not "pure" or "full" synthetics. Nothing is further from the truth. The reality is that ALL lubes are blends of products and stocks to achieve a task. Even PAOs and Esters utilize other lower base stocks to carry additives, etc.
Syns can be group III, IV or V.
See this article written by an insider to the lube industry:
https://bobistheoilguy.com/
regarding a "review of mineral and synthetic base oils"
The funny thing is that many folks think some brands either are or are not "pure" or "full" synthetics. Nothing is further from the truth. The reality is that ALL lubes are blends of products and stocks to achieve a task. Even PAOs and Esters utilize other lower base stocks to carry additives, etc.
Postmaster
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 22
From: very South Texas
Synthetic = man altered earth products to man made specifications.
I have been using synthetic oil since 1974..
synthetic oil is NOT made from materials from outer space.
crude oil. esters.. mixed chemicals... Learn, Please..
I have been using synthetic oil since 1974..
synthetic oil is NOT made from materials from outer space.
crude oil. esters.. mixed chemicals... Learn, Please..
Tuned
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 376
Likes: 22
From: Ustoned
I run this stuff in my Charger and Mountaineer. Lots of hemi 5.7's have lifter issues so I am trying to avoid that problem.
http://bndautomotive.com/quantumblue-products-2/
Not cheap, but it runs nice in the car and can go 10k no problem here in Houston.
I run an oil analysis on it every 3k as I was told 15k miles ago I needed a new engine as it was throwing a cylinder 5 misfire code.
I did every diagnosis I could short of pulling the heads/cam and lifters out of it and couldn't finds anything out of sorts.
Static compression tests. Dynamic compression tests. All good.
Listening via stethoscope yields no discerning noise over any other cylinder.
I'm almost sure the PO had the heads pulled or even rebuilt or replaced trying to find the issue as both heads have the name "Hector" on the front of each head engraved on them. I know the motor is built in Mexico, but I have yet to see another one "signed" by the worker.. LOL..
I love oil threads..
Griz
http://bndautomotive.com/quantumblue-products-2/
Not cheap, but it runs nice in the car and can go 10k no problem here in Houston.
I run an oil analysis on it every 3k as I was told 15k miles ago I needed a new engine as it was throwing a cylinder 5 misfire code.
I did every diagnosis I could short of pulling the heads/cam and lifters out of it and couldn't finds anything out of sorts.
Static compression tests. Dynamic compression tests. All good.
Listening via stethoscope yields no discerning noise over any other cylinder.
I'm almost sure the PO had the heads pulled or even rebuilt or replaced trying to find the issue as both heads have the name "Hector" on the front of each head engraved on them. I know the motor is built in Mexico, but I have yet to see another one "signed" by the worker.. LOL..
I love oil threads..
Griz
Tuned
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 376
Likes: 22
From: Ustoned
In case you don't know, HD puts a HD logo'd Dunlop tire on their scoots from the factory. Decent tire, but they make better ones.
Same tire or better actually. Same size. Same brand. $15 cheaper. No sale.
LMAO!
Griz
Postmaster
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 22
From: very South Texas
You'd be amazed at how many guys will not mount a Dunlop tire on their Harley just because it doesn't say Harley Davidson on the sidewall.
In case you don't know, HD puts a HD logo'd Dunlop tire on their scoots from the factory. Decent tire, but they make better ones.
Same tire or better actually. Same size. Same brand. $15 cheaper. No sale.
LMAO!
Griz
In case you don't know, HD puts a HD logo'd Dunlop tire on their scoots from the factory. Decent tire, but they make better ones.
Same tire or better actually. Same size. Same brand. $15 cheaper. No sale.
LMAO!
Griz
the Dunlop 251...
for V-Rod with HD logo,
Honda VTX1800F... same tire.. but only sold at Honda dealers without HD logo.. same tire.. same price.
180/55R18.....
so I go with the Dunlop Elite 3 in a 200/50R18
and also corrected the Honda 8 percent speedometer error .....
Senior User
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 165
Likes: 1
From: Calgary, Canada
I would agree in some fashion, but not totally with your comments.
There are two advantages to using syns
1) longer OCI
2) cold flow properties
Most folks here will never use an engine oil to any degree that "long" is used in reference to an oil change; I'm talking 15k miles or more.
As for the cold flow, it makes a difference to some degree, but only in specific conditions. Let me give examples ...
- non-pressure fed applications like axle lube. Because the lube is only gravity fed or slung via the ring gear, a better flowing product will lube a bit better when really, really cold outside.
- engine oil for an older diesel engine. Those that are of the old mechanical injection systems, with poor starting and weak batteries, may need that very last rpm in spinning the crankshaft to compress the incoming air quickly enough to generate the heat of compression necessary for ignition. Here, a syn may be of benefit so that the starter can sling the crank around quick enough to light off the diesel fuel. But, in todays HPCR engines, with not only glow plugs, but also intake air tract heaters, etc, the engines can start with fairly good regularity. Further, if you have access to electricity, then a block heater is your best bet, not a syn lube. The syn will be of benefit in a very limited situation, but in that scenario, it may well be advisable to use.
However, and I want to assure you that I'm 100% confident about this, syns will NOT make for less "wear" at a cold start up, regardless how cold you think "cold" is. I have over 12,000 UOAs in my database, representing all manner of engines from small gas engines, to large diesel truck and generator sets, from environments and applications all over North America, and I can assure you that there is ZERO statistical proof that a syn provides less wear at start up in the cold. None, zip, nada. Not one bit. I have the data; I do statistical process quality control for a living. I studied applications of gas and diesel engines all across the continent, from every walk of life. Your assertion is quite honestly completely wrong; there is no significant difference in start up wear rates comparing syns and dino over a normal OCI. It just does not exist. If you think it does, the please provide direct credible evidence to a study that would controvert mine data. My point? The study I linked most certainly does contain data from sub-zero start conditions. I would know; I wrote that article. How the engine oil protects against wear is not only about the oil film, but the TCB (tribochemical barrier) that is established as the oil ages and oxidizes. Ford and Conoco did a study on it; see SAE 2007-01-4133. Don't just read the abstract; buy the study from the SAE and READ IT! Start up wear is likely controlled at least as much as by the TCB as an oil film, because in those first several revolutions of the crankshaft PRIOR to the oil pressure coming up, there is no oil film present to float parts on, but the TCB is always present, as it is an aged formation of multi-compounds that clings to metal surfaces in nano-state thickness. You cannot credit an oil film that is not present at start up! The TCB is always present! Hence, the wear rates of engines that use syn versus those that use dino lube in cold starts really shows no fundamental difference. As the TCB matures, it gets thicker. The thicker it is, once it passes a certain maturity, most all wear comes to a "near zero" state. So whatever benefit you might think exists with a syn in terms of "slippery lubricity", it is offset by the fact that all lubes develop the TCB, but do so at different rates. Therefore the variability in start up wear is fairly moot; once the TCB is established, it is likely the controlling factor in wear, and NOT the base stock of the lube chosen.
Here is a link to buy the SAE study from Ford/Conoco: The Effect of Oil Drain Interval on Valvetrain Friction and Wear
For reference, here is the abridged version of my article, but it does not contain important links within: Surprising Findings from Oil Analysis of Automotive Engines
Here is the full article I wrote for BITOG; it contains other sub-links to more data: https://bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-...hat-is-normal/
As for your filter comment, I also take exception. Using a brand name filter that is easily recognizable is not going to jeopardize a warranty claim. Although admittedly rare in the first place, should an engine failure be blamed on a filter, if the dealer sees a Fram or Wix on there, he's not automatically going to deny warranty. If the filter is suspected, both the dealer and owner are going to need to cooperate to get the filter maker involved, EVEN IF IT'S MOTORCRAFT, because MC aftermarket filters (like the ones in Walmart) are made by Purolator. The OEM filters that come from the factory are made by Champion (or at least were the last time I researched it). Now, if you use a cheap knock-off filter of unscrupulous manufacture and unknown origin, I'd agree that might be a cause for concern. But Ford is well aware of how the Magnuson/Moss Warranty Act is structured; they cannot blame an aftermarket product simply because it's not "OEM" approved. The M/M Act is actually structured to protect the maker of the products from unbounded warranty claims, not the consumer. However, the consumer does have rights established, via the restrictions against product maker in application.
Link to M/M Act: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/busi...l-warranty-law
But again, filter failures resulting in catastrophic equipment demist are VERY RARE; not worth the panic being induced by your concerns.
There are two advantages to using syns
1) longer OCI
2) cold flow properties
Most folks here will never use an engine oil to any degree that "long" is used in reference to an oil change; I'm talking 15k miles or more.
As for the cold flow, it makes a difference to some degree, but only in specific conditions. Let me give examples ...
- non-pressure fed applications like axle lube. Because the lube is only gravity fed or slung via the ring gear, a better flowing product will lube a bit better when really, really cold outside.
- engine oil for an older diesel engine. Those that are of the old mechanical injection systems, with poor starting and weak batteries, may need that very last rpm in spinning the crankshaft to compress the incoming air quickly enough to generate the heat of compression necessary for ignition. Here, a syn may be of benefit so that the starter can sling the crank around quick enough to light off the diesel fuel. But, in todays HPCR engines, with not only glow plugs, but also intake air tract heaters, etc, the engines can start with fairly good regularity. Further, if you have access to electricity, then a block heater is your best bet, not a syn lube. The syn will be of benefit in a very limited situation, but in that scenario, it may well be advisable to use.
However, and I want to assure you that I'm 100% confident about this, syns will NOT make for less "wear" at a cold start up, regardless how cold you think "cold" is. I have over 12,000 UOAs in my database, representing all manner of engines from small gas engines, to large diesel truck and generator sets, from environments and applications all over North America, and I can assure you that there is ZERO statistical proof that a syn provides less wear at start up in the cold. None, zip, nada. Not one bit. I have the data; I do statistical process quality control for a living. I studied applications of gas and diesel engines all across the continent, from every walk of life. Your assertion is quite honestly completely wrong; there is no significant difference in start up wear rates comparing syns and dino over a normal OCI. It just does not exist. If you think it does, the please provide direct credible evidence to a study that would controvert mine data. My point? The study I linked most certainly does contain data from sub-zero start conditions. I would know; I wrote that article. How the engine oil protects against wear is not only about the oil film, but the TCB (tribochemical barrier) that is established as the oil ages and oxidizes. Ford and Conoco did a study on it; see SAE 2007-01-4133. Don't just read the abstract; buy the study from the SAE and READ IT! Start up wear is likely controlled at least as much as by the TCB as an oil film, because in those first several revolutions of the crankshaft PRIOR to the oil pressure coming up, there is no oil film present to float parts on, but the TCB is always present, as it is an aged formation of multi-compounds that clings to metal surfaces in nano-state thickness. You cannot credit an oil film that is not present at start up! The TCB is always present! Hence, the wear rates of engines that use syn versus those that use dino lube in cold starts really shows no fundamental difference. As the TCB matures, it gets thicker. The thicker it is, once it passes a certain maturity, most all wear comes to a "near zero" state. So whatever benefit you might think exists with a syn in terms of "slippery lubricity", it is offset by the fact that all lubes develop the TCB, but do so at different rates. Therefore the variability in start up wear is fairly moot; once the TCB is established, it is likely the controlling factor in wear, and NOT the base stock of the lube chosen.
Here is a link to buy the SAE study from Ford/Conoco: The Effect of Oil Drain Interval on Valvetrain Friction and Wear
For reference, here is the abridged version of my article, but it does not contain important links within: Surprising Findings from Oil Analysis of Automotive Engines
Here is the full article I wrote for BITOG; it contains other sub-links to more data: https://bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-...hat-is-normal/
As for your filter comment, I also take exception. Using a brand name filter that is easily recognizable is not going to jeopardize a warranty claim. Although admittedly rare in the first place, should an engine failure be blamed on a filter, if the dealer sees a Fram or Wix on there, he's not automatically going to deny warranty. If the filter is suspected, both the dealer and owner are going to need to cooperate to get the filter maker involved, EVEN IF IT'S MOTORCRAFT, because MC aftermarket filters (like the ones in Walmart) are made by Purolator. The OEM filters that come from the factory are made by Champion (or at least were the last time I researched it). Now, if you use a cheap knock-off filter of unscrupulous manufacture and unknown origin, I'd agree that might be a cause for concern. But Ford is well aware of how the Magnuson/Moss Warranty Act is structured; they cannot blame an aftermarket product simply because it's not "OEM" approved. The M/M Act is actually structured to protect the maker of the products from unbounded warranty claims, not the consumer. However, the consumer does have rights established, via the restrictions against product maker in application.
Link to M/M Act: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/busi...l-warranty-law
But again, filter failures resulting in catastrophic equipment demist are VERY RARE; not worth the panic being induced by your concerns.
Well ,believe it or not, I read all your articles. And I find some interesting items that lead me to believe that your analysis isn’t as solid as you would want us to believe.
I think your interest is in the mechanism of your analysis instead of the subject of your analysis. You could easily apply the mental masturbation of statistical analysis to usage of dishwasher soap, you just chose used oil analysis as the subject.
Nowhere in your articles is there any references made to operating conditions of the engines. Could all be in New York City. Not specified.
You remove any data points you don’t like and that skew the data in a direction that you don’t prefer. You list them as “anomalies “. Might be fine in statistical analysis, but it’s poor scientific practice.
TCB doesn’t “ always exist”. It exists until the operating conditions inside the engine become such that heat and friction destroy it. If you don’t think that’s true, drain all the oil out of your engine and take a drive from coast to coast. See how long the TCB lasts. The same thing happens in an engine in sub-zero temperatures that has been started with heavy weight oil. The TCB will protect the moving parts for only so long before the parts start to wear the TCB away. Hopefully the oil gets picked up by the pump and makes it to all the engine parts before this happens, but it may not. This is where the cold flow characteristics of the synthetic oils are superior. The oil film will be created before the TCB gets damaged or destroyed. Common sense. You obviously don’t work/live where it gets really cold. A litre of 15w40 Dino oil poured onto the ground at -40 becomes a PILE of oil, not a puddle. Synthetic still flows and becomes a puddle.
As for your oil filter and MM act argument, you may be right from a legal perspective, but when your fram oil filter has come apart and plugged up your engine, I’ll bet some serious cash the ford warranty guy isn’t gonna just shrug his shoulders and give you a new engine. You might get one awarded to you by a court a year or two down the road, but then you might not too.
There’s other things I find in your papers questionable too, but I’m sick of typing. You’re clearly a very smart man, and You obviously stand by your findings. But there’s the theoretical world and the actual world. Not always the same.
Mark Twain said it best( paraphrasing) “ there’s three kinds of lies.... lies, damned lies, and statistics “.