What's the best oil for YOUR Shelby? Answers within

[65SC]

Dan, I think you like this thread.

Amsoil,Royal Purple,Red Line

http://www.teamshelby.com/forums/index.php?/topic/65377-whats-the-best-oil-for-your-shelby-answers-within/page__p__1119760#entry1119760

[Gr8snkbite]

:wow2:

Great info.....been following him over on SVTP for a while....but man is he taking a beating......oh well

[68fastback]

For me, the problem with that thread is the underlying assumption that viscocity is the only determinant of engine protection. If that were the case there would be no point in spending many millions (even billions?) on the 20% of the oil that's molecularly-engineered additive. There's no notion that the actual additive engineering matters beyond the effect on viscocity @ temperature ...that's why I stopped participating over there. Seems simplistic to me that those curves represent all that matters about an oil's ability to protect specifically engineered components (like valvetrains). But that's what the small oil companies (who can't afford the deep-pocket additive research, imo) seem to 'push.' If that was the case there'd be little point in the OEMs specialized and engineered oil specifications (as Ford and GM and others do al the time) which are simply ignored in that thread as, I would assume, meaningless -doh- probably because that information and science is not visible/apparent ...or even available. Viscocity certainly matters, I reject the simplistic notion that it is all that matters at the expense of ignoring the the science we simply are not privy to.

[Vette Killer]

For me, the problem with that thread is the underlying assumption that viscocity is the only determinant of engine protection. If that were the case there would be no point in spending many millions (even billions?) on the 20% of the oil that's molecularly-engineered additive. There's no notion that the actual additive engineering matters beyond the effect on viscocity @ temperature ...that's why I stopped participating over there. Seems simplistic to me that those curves represent all that matters about an oil's ability to protect specifically engineered components (like valvetrains). But that's what the small oil companies (who can't afford the deep-pocket additive research, imo) seem to 'push.' If that was the case there'd be little point in the OEMs specialized and engineered oil specifications (as Ford and GM and others do al the time) which are simply ignored in that thread as, I would assume, meaningless -doh- probably because that information and science is not visible/apparent ...or even available. Viscocity certainly matters, I reject the simplistic notion that it is all that matters at the expense of ignoring the the science we simply are not privy to.


+1

The other part that is obviously missing from that thread is what is the viscosity requirement from Ford....all of the oils exceed the requirement so exceeding it by more is not even relevant...if the parts are floating on a film under all operating conditions that box can be ticked and move on, like you said the critical part is the additive package including detergents. In the past, several of these smaller brands achieved viscosity through the addition of EP (extreme pressure) lubricants....EP lubes are meant for gearsets where there is a wiping action through the regular sliding contact of the parts, the oil adheres to the parts much better than standard oils which provides protection when the teeth slide accross each other...not a good news story for piston rings as it will jack the rings out and cause increased cylinder wear and also causes excessive carbon buildup because the lube is not designed to be burnt like engine oils are...

I have learned over time it is best to just keep my trap shut in threads like that one as well...there are always "experts" who believe something they heard from a pro years ago without understanding the differences in application and wear life expectations...

[68fastback]

+1

The other part that is obviously missing from that thread is what is the viscosity requirement from Ford....all of the oils exceed the requirement so exceeding it by more is not even relevant...if the parts are floating on a film under all operating conditions that box can be ticked and move on, like you said the critical part is the additive package including detergents. In the past, several of these smaller brands achieved viscosity through the addition of EP (extreme pressure) lubricants....EP lubes are meant for gearsets where there is a wiping action through the regular sliding contact of the parts, the oil adheres to the parts much better than standard oils which provides protection when the teeth slide accross each other...not a good news story for piston rings as it will jack the rings out and cause increased cylinder wear and also causes excessive carbon buildup because the lube is not designed to be burnt like engine oils are...

I have learned over time it is best to just keep my trap shut in threads like that one as well...there are always "experts" who believe something they heard from a pro years ago without understanding the differences in application and wear life expectations...

+1 good points re Ford spec, etc.

In that thread there's also the assumption that more viscocity is needed as HP is increased (vs the threshold concept you mentioned) which may have some merit (given that force is increased while bearing area isn't) but another solution may well be increased flow of a correct lubricant to assure oil-film integrity without compromising the other OEM spec'd/engineered considerations.

The GT500 uses what seems to be a decent gerotor pump that should be fairly linear with rpm, but there's no discussion of such considerations at all. These aren't big-clearanced race engines (which would then demand much more oil flow) -- they're factory motors with pumps and oil specs tightly tailored to their clearances and mechanical design characteristics. As you pointed out, higher EP additives (often higher zinc which can also affect O2s, especially widebands like on the '11-up) are intended for high pressure-point wipe contact -- like gears and flat-tappet valvetrains (which is why Castrol now makes a 5W50 full-synth with high zinc for older high-HP engines), but there's little compelling justification, imo, to run high-zinc oils in these engines and some compelling reasons not to (O2s).

They also put great weigh over there on the metals found in the oil samples and while I fully agree that significant *changes/increases* above *normal* (observed over time) indicate a problem is developing or occurring, it is largely meaningless, imo, to look at a given level and assume it's 'too high' (or, conversely, very good) without knowing what is normal and correct for a given engine's make-up. Ideally, one would benchmark and break-in a new engine using the same oil, drain-interval and driving conditions and, assuming that engine has no problems, would develop a default profile (preferable across many stock engines) of what's 'normal' for this specific 5.4 engine. Then, if power mods are added, subsequent drains of the same oil, etc, should not show *significant* increases (or decreases) in the profile unless the mods themselves are affecting that.

Some over there seem to be thniking that way but I haven't seen any baselining rigorous enough to establish any usefull *absolute* profile (at least not to my satisfaction), vs a rough sketch (at best) -- which is usefull awareness but must be considered in that context. Also, certain mods can presumeably change that profile by introducing new/more of a given metal either by direct oil-wear contact or anything that can get into the oil from it. However, the notion of changing oil brand, viscocity, the drain-interval, and the use characteristics and looking at an oil report and concluding that oil-A is better/worse than oil-B seems unsupportably simplistic if the underpinnings of consistency (which fleet operators understand very well) have been corrupted for whatever reasons.

Besides, 80-90% of all engine wear occurs in the first few seconds after startup -- which is why OEM manufacturers and oil chemists spend so much time specifically targeting that as part of the overall specification. And the characteristics of engine design dramaticall affect that too. On startup in a modern roller-valvetrain DOHC engine, it's all about pressure latency and valvetrain oil flow -- which the Japanese pioneered studies on in the early 80s, I beleive -- and that largely determines longevity (aside from catastrophic failures). That's why I mentioned a couple of times over there (and explained with use examples in the original thread) that if you insist on running a 10W40 or 20W50 instead of 5W50, install a pre-pressurizer (like Parnelli Jones did on his entire truck fleet and all his personal cars in the 60s!). In general the response/feeling was like: I live in a warm climate o only drive when it's warm so thicker oil isn't a problem -doh! I assure everyone there's cold-start latency no matter where you live.

Now that there are 0W50s, they'd be my choice *if* they also meet the Ford valvetrain spec (none do so far, or at least have not been tested) -- a perfect example of lower cold viscocity (which could reduce cold-laency a tad) and *might* be a better choice. On one hand the concensus seems to be that viscocity is everything, yet it's not so important on start-up -lol. There was discussion too that other oils would surely meet the Ford spec but it's just too expensive for oil manufacturers to have the oils tested for it. I have to chuckle at that since maybe it's expensive to do that testing *because* that's the kind involved testing that actually matters -doh- whereas the general feeling over there is that it's some 'formality' that Ford/OEM's throw out there for laughs but you can just ignore without consequence.

I'm no oil expert, but I know the niche oil houses have their proselytizers out there. Federal law now requires corporations who use online "agents" that such folks must disclose, etc, but al it's done is drive the game further 'underground.' I have no inside info, but I'd be astonished if the boutique oil sellers don't have quite a few ombudsmen plying the high-performance internet sites -- probably the only way for the oil boutiques to compete effectively given the cost of deep cutting-edge research and national marketing campaigns ...whereas the major corporations have little to no presence on forums and such. Who knows and that's a different subject, but I do find the amazingly high profile of some of the boutique oil houses uncoincidentally intrigueing.

[Vette Killer]

Agreed...we promote the SOS oil sampling heavily at work (Cat's oil sampling lab) and single samples are only useful for detecting glycol, fuel or dirt contamination of the oil...you need to look at trends in oil sampling for the wear metals to have any significance. The other piece of sampling is that most people do it incorrectly and contaminate the sample; it needs to be taken midstream hot from the the drain plug or preferably, through the dipstick tube with the suction tool.

People loose sight of the fact we are looking at PPM in a sample and the samples are often contaminated by dirty work habits....we had one customer adament that his engine was failing because of samples....when I dug into it he was pouring them out of the filer into the sample bottle because it was easier and cleaner to do....lol

[onecrazydog]

Besides, 80-90% of all engine wear occurs in the first few seconds after startup.


x infinity...

I want my oil as thin as it can be, so it has instant flow and gets in all the nooks and crannies where it's needed... It comes out pretty clean everytime I change it so I don't think it is breaking down that much...

[Joker]

we had one customer adament that his engine was failing because of samples....when i dug into it he was pouring them out of the filer into the sample bottle because it was easier and cleaner to do....lol

omg

6292

[CH53Driver]

After my first 3,000 miles I just fill my oil reservoir with ZMAX. CS recommends it so it's good enough for me.

[68fastback]

After my first 3,000 miles I just fill my oil reservoir with ZMAX. CS recommends it so it's good enough for me.

:spitcopy: :rofl:

[68fastback]

Agreed...we promote the SOS oil sampling heavily at work (Cat's oil sampling lab) and single samples are only useful for detecting glycol, fuel or dirt contamination of the oil...you need to look at trends in oil sampling for the wear metals to have any significance. The other piece of sampling is that most people do it incorrectly and contaminate the sample; it needs to be taken midstream hot from the the drain plug or preferably, through the dipstick tube with the suction tool.

People loose sight of the fact we are looking at PPM in a sample and the samples are often contaminated by dirty work habits....we had one customer adament that his engine was failing because of samples....when I dug into it he was pouring them out of the filer into the sample bottle because it was easier and cleaner to do....lol


...makes sense!

[Joe G]

After my first 3,000 miles I just fill my oil reservoir with ZMAX. CS recommends it so it's good enough for me.

:giggle:

[68fastback]

Found this interesting -- notice that Ford is not shy about specifying ZDDP (http://www.fordracingparts.com/download/instructionsheets/FordInstShtM-6007-Z331P.pdf)(Zinc) when an engine design actually requires it...

(I add some high-zinc oil to my non-roller air-cooled twin-cylinder OHV tractor motor for this reason :banana:)