Blackstone oil analysis, high iron and copper only have 22k miles on engine

[silver billet]

If that logic were true, we could use straight 50w right? Yeah, thought not

Oh and speaking of Ford, guess who recommends 5w-50 in their 5.0 roush?

https://www.roushperformance.com/media/parts/manuals/1121-6006P1-AD_09222022CA_2021_F150RoushchargerKit.pdf

 

[BowDown]

At a certain point a limit will be reached and the system will go into bypass. That limit is not reached at xw-30 weights.

Pumps - Classifications

Centrifugal pumps vs. positive displacement pumps.

www.engineeringtoolbox.com

Or more realistically it becomes a clearance issue as opposed to a rate of flow issue which is why heavier weights are recommended for these systems or most precision aftermarket lifters

 

[silver billet]

You mean this post where you said the Hemi tick didn't come around until 2009?

You were talking about the mechanic and then said back peddling. I wasn't back peddaling on the mechanic which was my reading of your post.

As for the hemi tick, no the dates for the real problem is still 2009-2014 and it tapers off but is still quite heavy after that.

What you think I'm backpeddaling on, the dates, is actually my "I don't give a F" about the actual dates, because that's kind of beside the point; the point being, we have hemi tick and the reason why I'm not putting ditch water in my engine block is because the hemi is not an engine to take chances with, regardless of the date. If you were on the other forum you'd see the high reports of lifter failures continuing to come in.

 

[SD Rebel]

Speaking of Ford, guess who recently changed back to 5w-30?

https://media.ford.com/content/dam/fordmedia/North%20America/US/product/2021/f150/pdfs/2021-F-150-Technical-Specs.pdf

Interesting, though my 2.7L Ecoboost was 5W-30 when I had it, I assumed for the turbos. The NA V6 is still recommended for 5W-20 in that PDF.

The 5.0L in the F150 I think was originally spec for 5W-20, so that could be the change there.

 

[silver billet]

Or more realistically it becomes a clearance issue as opposed to a rate of flow issue which is why heavier weights are recommended for these systems or most precision aftermarket lifters

There are no clearance issues or rate of flow issues, lol. As I just posted above, Ford does actually use 5w-50 in their 5.0 which at one point was supposed to use also a 20 weight. Who'd a thunk?

 

[BowDown]

Oh and speaking of Ford, guess who recommends 5w-50 in their 5.0 roush?

https://www.roushperformance.com/media/parts/manuals/1121-6006P1-AD_09222022CA_2021_F150RoushchargerKit.pdf

Hmmm, no VVT, no MDS but wait, there's more!! Like the ecoboost change, this engine is boosted!
What do boosted engines do that N/A engines don't? Oh yes, additional pressure on the crank and rod bearing areas. What's also done on forced induction/nitrous engines? That's right, you open the bearing clearances up. What? What happens when you open bearing clearances up? Yes, you need a thicker oil.

For high revving performance engines, some bearing manufacturers recommend rod bearing clearances of .002? to .003?, with an absolute minimum clearance of no less than .0015?. The tighter the clearances, the tighter the geometry requirements are for the crank journals (as round, straight and smooth as possible with little or no taper).



Street engines can benefit from tighter tolerances and thinner oils for everyday driving. But when power adders such as nitrous oxide, turbocharging or supercharging are used, or the engine’s power output gets up in the 450 to 500 plus horsepower range, looser bearing clearances are probably safer to accommodate crankshaft flexing, main bore and rod bore distortion.

Bearing Clearances - Engines

Choose the right engine bearing clearances and oil viscosity for optimal performance. Synthetic oils excel in racing applications.

www.enginebuildermag.com

Swing and a miss...

 

[BowDown]

Interesting, though my 2.7L Ecoboost was 5W-30 when I had it, I assumed for the turbos. The NA V6 is still recommended for 5W-20 in that PDF.

The 5.0L in the F150 I think was originally spec for 5W-20, so that could be the change there.

Yes, the turbos and the increased main and rod clearances

 

[silver billet]

Hmmm, no VVT, no MDS but wait, there's more!! Like the ecoboost change, this engine is boosted!
What do boosted engines do that N/A engines don't? Oh yes, additional pressure on the crank and rod bearing areas. What's also done on forced induction/nitrous engines? That's right, you open the bearing clearances up. What? What happens when you open bearing clearances up? Yes, you need a thicker oil.

Bearing Clearances - Engines

Choose the right engine bearing clearances and oil viscosity for optimal performance. Synthetic oils excel in racing applications.

www.enginebuildermag.com

Swing and a miss...

We can do this all day, 6.4 hemi recommends 0w-40. Guess that thing is going to explode lol.

 

[BowDown]

There are no clearance issues or rate of flow issues, lol. As I just posted above, Ford does actually use 5w-50 in their 5.0 which at one point was supposed to use also a 20 weight. Who'd a thunk?

RIF

 

[BowDown]

We can do this all day, 6.4 hemi recommends 0w-40. Guess that thing is going to explode lol.

You missed the bearing clearances I see

 

[silver billet]

Interesting, though my 2.7L Ecoboost was 5W-30 when I had it, I assumed for the turbos. The NA V6 is still recommended for 5W-20 in that PDF.

The 5.0L in the F150 I think was originally spec for 5W-20, so that could be the change there.

.

 

[HSKR R/T]

You were talking about the mechanic and then said back peddling. I wasn't back peddaling on the mechanic which was my reading of your post.

As for the hemi tick, no the dates for the real problem is still 2009-2014 and it tapers off but is still quite heavy after that.

What you think I'm backpeddaling on, the dates, is actually my "I don't give a F" about the actual dates, because that's kind of beside the point; the point being, we have hemi tick and the reason why I'm not putting ditch water in my engine block is because the hemi is not an engine to take chances with, regardless of the date. If you were on the other forum you'd see the high reports of lifter failures continuing to come in.

Yes, the dates, when you went from hard line of 2009, to saying the "exact dates" is a side issue. Like I said, I have been part of Hemi communities since the beginning. Hemi tick was definitely a thing well before 2009, as were lifter failures.

 

[silver billet]

You missed the bearing clearances I see

Nope, they are identical to the 5.7.

 

[BowDown]

Nope, they are identical to the 5.7.

Lol, you still missed it

 

[silver billet]

Yes, the dates, when you went from hard line of 2009, to saying the "exact dates" is a side issue. Like I said, I have been part of Hemi communities since the beginning. Hemi tick was definitely a thing well before 2009, as were lifter failures.

Like I said, certified mechanics have given those dates as more problematic. And like I said, you're fretting over something that is completely irrelevant. The real issue here is not the dates, just that they have the problem in the first place, which is what started all this (using higher viscosity oil as a part of high quality lubrication strategy).

Would you like to post another time about how the dates might actually be earlier than 2009? Because I don't give a F about the actual dates but hey, it sure seems important to you and I'd hate for you to lose your sleep over this.

 

[BowDown]

Yes, the dates, when you went from hard line of 2009, to saying the "exact dates" is a side issue. Like I said, I have been part of Hemi communities since the beginning. Hemi tick was definitely a thing well before 2009, as were lifter failures.

A lot of that tick is really more the of the smaller valve springs with higher seat pressures. Both the LS and the Gen 3 HEMI use a very small valve spring to control a relatively large cam lobe lift .440-.470 IIRC. That much lift on those tiny springs require a higher than normal seat pressure which makes for a noisy valvetrain.
I have resolved some of this in my car by using Johnson 2116LSR lifters, probably half as loud vs the Lunati lifters but I still have high seat pressure so its not all the way gone. High seat pressures make for noisy valve trains

 

[silver billet]

A lot of that tick is really more the of the smaller valve springs with higher seat pressures. Both the LS and the Gen 3 HEMI use a very small valve spring to control a relatively large cam lobe lift .440-.470 IIRC. That much lift on those tiny springs require a higher than normal seat pressure which makes for a noisy valvetrain.
I have resolved some of this in my car by using Johnson 2116LSR lifters, probably half as loud vs the Lunati lifters but I still have high seat pressure so its not all the way gone. High seat pressures make for noisy valve trains

This is comedy gold.

You could also just run a higher viscosity oil if you want to quiet your lifters. Ask me how I know.

 

[HSKR R/T]

Like I said, certified mechanics have given those dates as more problematic. And like I said, you're fretting over something that is completely irrelevant. The real issue here is not the dates, just that they have the problem in the first place, which is what started all this (using higher viscosity oil as a part of high quality lubrication strategy).

Would you like to post another time about how the dates might actually be earlier than 2009? Because I don't give a F about the actual dates but hey, it sure seems important to you and I'd hate for you to lose your sleep over this.

Only reason I brought up the dates is because the early Hemis spec'd 5w-30 and still had lifter issues. but you were more focused on the dates to try and discredit a lifter issue and being caused by lower viscosity oils.

 

[silver billet]

It's been a lot of fun on this thread guys, but I'm out. Gotta eat supper and I've said everything I can on this subject.

Enjoy your noisy engine and your 20 weight ditch water!

 

[silver billet]

Only reason I brought up the dates is because the early Hemis spec'd 5w-30 and still had lifter issues

Fair enough, but the early hemis did not have hemi tick (lifter failure) as a general problem. And secondly even modern 6.4's running 0w-40 have failures. My posts weren't about saying one could elimintae lifter failure, they were about mitigating risk by using an oil that offers higher protection through the use of viscosity (HT/HS) among other properties of a high quality oil.

A manufacturing defect is a defect, oil choice probably can't prevent that entirely, but it's a complete no brainer to run the 30 weight when it doesn't cost you any more to run it and when it's guaranteed to offer more protection.