Fuel in oil

[cbull]

Like I mentioned above a 2-stroke engine is the only engine that is made to run and lubricate on both gasoline and oil. But again those Motors don't live long lives, they are a motor not built for longevity.

Sponsored

 

[AdamHarris]

Most modern day engines call for 0W-20 oil to be used these days. Ford calls for 5W-30 for the 2.3 which is just about as modern an engine as you can get I think most would agree. I'm just sayin..

 

[JKocot]

So my last post was #1653. I am one of the "few" lucky people that had all four injectors replaced because of fuel dilution/contamination/infiltration, or what ever we want to call it. 145 posts later and I see some vitriol being lobbed at people who are concerned about the "issue". Maybe we can all agree that the fuel smell is "normal" for these engines. But what is not normal, in my opinion, is rising levels on a dipstick. I have put a little over a thousand miles on the truck since the injectors were replaced. Still have a strong smell of gas on the dipstick when I check the oil. My level has risen slightly but not to the level as before. All I can do is keep my eye on it. My personal choice is I will have the oil changed every 5000 miles. Like I have said in previous posts, this is not my first Ecoboost engine, but this is the first Ecoboost engine that has these characteristics.

 

[Vitis805]

Only not happy because people keep going in unsubstantiated circles to try to convince others there must be a problem even in the absence of solid evidence, and then get defensive when I start asking for that evidence.

Yes, Ford specifies to use 5w30. I have not seen it suggested anywhere on this thread that people should put 5w20 in their engines. Yes, adding just a few percentage points of gasoline drops the viscosity of 5w30 down into the specs of 5w20. Is that within the design tolerances of the engine? Unless you're secretly a Ford Engineer, your guess on this matter is as bad as mine. I've never said it's rocket science. It is, however, automotive engineering.

You gave me a screenshot from Blackstone. How did Blackstone arrive at their 2% limit? According to Senior Analyst Joe Adams (who helpfully responded to my e-mail inquiry on this topic a couple months ago): "It's not often we find 2.0% fuel (or more) just from normal use or the sampling method, so that's how we've come to consider this amount cautionary." So do they have any evidence that over 2% is particularly bad for this engine? Nope, but they do know that over 2% is generally unusual, so they rightfully flag it.
You gave me a link to an Amsoil blog post, specifying a 2.4% limit. How did they arrive at that number? According to the post's author, John Baker, when responding to someone asking this very question in the comments section, it's based on "historical oil analysis data." Once again, no evidence that 2.4% is notably damaging to any vehicle, much less this particular one, but it is nonetheless unusual so they rightfully flag it.

So after reading every post in this thread, the links you provided, various other links scattered throughout this thread, technical papers on Ecoboost development, and numerous analyses of the SN11 failure (unrelated to the fuel dilution, but I mention because it turns out I do, in fact, enjoy a little rocket science), and after e-mailing with a Blackstone analyst, talking to a mechanical (though non-automotive) engineer, and the folks at the dealership, here's what I think I know (Please feel free to correct me if anything is blatantly wrong):
1) Ideally, there would be zero fuel in the oil
2) The world is not perfect.
3) 100% fuel in the crankcase would be very, very bad.
4) Somewhere between 0% and 100% fuel you transition from "ok, given this imperfect world we live in" to "totally not ok."
5) Ford has provided no information about where that transition is, nor do they seem at all inclined to do so. Is it 1%? 2%? 2.4%? 5%? 10%? 53%? They aren't saying.
6) Nobody else has the data to tell us where that transition is.
7) Even the folks with crazy high fuel dilution aren't seeing excess wear metals in their reports.

Again, the 2.0 - 3.0% range is where viscosity has definitely changed. Using a lower viscosity oil will affect the engine long-term. How long term is up in the air at this point. The people taking this thread as an offense are straight weird to me. This is an online discussion forum and this is exactly the type of thing to be discussed. It's perfectly fine. The people that went out and sold or traded in their Ranger because of this thread are straight weird, too.

 

[P. A. Schilke]

Again, the 2.0 - 3.0% range is where viscosity has definitely changed. Using a lower viscosity oil will affect the engine long-term. How long term is up in the air at this point. The people taking this thread as an offense are straight weird to me. This is an online discussion forum and this is exactly the type of thing to be discussed. It's perfectly fine. The people that went out and sold or traded in their Ranger because of this thread are straight weird, too.

It is a feature....the gasoline in the oil is a cleaner and allows the oil to remain cleaner longer...thus 10,000K oil changes....

 

[Doc]

It is a feature....the gasoline in the oil is a cleaner and allows the oil to remain cleaner longer...thus 10,000K oil changes....

I think I’ll do 20,000 miles the next time ..

 

[AzScorpion]

Yup I agree with you on this. See we are on the same page. My point was how many Rangers have had blown engines thus far????? For example, I'm arbitrarily going to pickup a number.... let's say 1.3 million Rangers sold. How many Rangers have this issue exactly beside you?? Not trolling, I'm asking you to give us all the info to help us stay informed. Perhaps I missed those numbers somewhere, can you help?

Not just the Ranger but have any others gone boom? This 2.3 has been in several other vehicles BEFORE the Ranger was even produced, have any of those exploded? If they did would Ford actually put a motor into a truck they're reintroducing in to the N'American market and set it up for failure? I highly doubt it.

Now I don't know enough about this so I've stayed somewhat out of this but common sense tells me that Ford is not going to risk having a MASSIVE recall IF this were an issue. There would/should be many Ford Focus RS & Mustangs with multiple cases of engines exploding because this 2.3 has been in them for years. It's funny because in the oil change thread most are saying "trust the engineers" when it comes to 10K mile oil changes but here it's the opposite.

 

[jsphlynch]

Found an interesting article from SAE on the issue of fuel dilution, published in 1926. Here's the link to JSTOR for the article for those who have access to that service. Full citation provided at the bottom of this post for those who may have access via other means.

Let me be clear from the onset that I am not in any way trying to claim that the 2.3 ecoboost is equivalent to engines from the 1920's. I'm bringing it up only because I find it interesting, especially given how some of the general concepts discussed in the paper parallel what has been brought up in this thread.

It turns out gasoline dilution of the crankcase oil was a concern then, and a prevalent problem. Typical cars and trucks would experience dilution of 5-10% during summer conditions, and 10-20% during winter conditions, after 500 miles driving (near as I can tell, this was the typical oil change interval at the time). In addition to air temperature, the authors note two factors that contribute to heavy dilution: cold starts with choke (made me think of the fact that the Ranger runs rich at startup), and excessively cold cooling water (an excessively efficient oil cooler has been brought up as a possible culprit for the Ranger). The authors note that this dilution substantially decreases the viscosity and the ability to sufficiently lubricate the engine. By monitoring the fuel dilution over time in a variety of automobiles, the authors noted that the initial rate of fuel dilution was quite high, but eventually hit an equilibrium (after ~150 miles) as the rate of evaporation matches the rate of fuel ingress.

One possible solution posited in the paper would be to run a heavier oil (shoutout to you folks combatting this with 10w40!) and just rely on the fuel dilution to drop the viscosity down into the optimal range, but the authors were dissatisfied with this solution since the oil would be too thick during that first 150 miles while the fuel dilution has yet to reach equilibrium.

Their ultimate solution was to formulate what they refer to as "non-diluting oil." They start with a heavy oil, then dilute it with naphtha to bring the viscosity down to a more optimal level. Since the naphtha has a distillation curve similar to that of gasoline, what they have essentially done is pre-diluted the oil so that it is already at the approximate equilibrium that normal oil wouldn't reach until that 150 mile mark. In their tests on multiple vehicles, their non-diluting oil maintains relatively constant viscosities over the entire 500 mile OCI.

One more thing that I found interesting is that the authors claim that damage from running low viscosity oil can be avoided, "provided the oil is changed about every 500 miles to prevent the accumulation of excessive quantities of road dust and grit" and "care is taken to prevent the admission of dust or grit with the intake air". They reiterated that OCI recommendation: "It should be noted in this connection that the real reason for recommending changing of the oil after 500 miles is not that the viscosity or the dilution is changing much at this time, but that dirt is accumulating to a dangerous extent if the oil is of low viscosity."

They closed with the following prediction: "If cars are equipped with really efficient air-cleaners, oil-filters and water-eliminating devices, as many probably will be in the future, I know of no reason that the oil might not be used almost indefinitely . . . It will be a long time before a large proportion of the cars are so equipped, but the three devices would greatly prolong the life of the non-diluting type of oil." I suppose that compared to 500 miles, they would probably consider the modern 10,000 mile OCI to be almost indefinite.

Citation: Wilson, Robert E., and Robert E. Wilkin. "A Suggested Remedy for Crankcase-Oil Dilution." SAE Transactions (1926): 81-115.

 

[JKocot]

Not just the Ranger but have any others gone boom? This 2.3 has been in several other vehicles BEFORE the Ranger was even produced, have any of those exploded? If they did would Ford actually put a motor into a truck they're reintroducing in to the N'American market and set it up for failure? I highly doubt it.

Now I don't know enough about this so I've stayed somewhat out of this but common sense tells me that Ford is not going to risk having a MASSIVE recall IF this were an issue. There would/should be many Ford Focus RS & Mustangs with multiple cases of engines exploding because this 2.3 has been in them for years. It's funny because in the oil change thread most are saying "trust the engineers" when it comes to 10K mile oil changes but here it's the opposite.

Much like Ford did not issue recalls for the Focus and Fiesta transmission issues lol.


https://www.cars.com/articles/ford-focus-fiesta-transmission-settlement-what-owners-should-know-420135/#:~:text=Starting Monday, owners of certain,depending on the issues experienced.&text=Starting Monday, owners of certain,depending on the issues experienced.

 

[AzScorpion]

Much like Ford did not issue recalls for the Focus and Fiesta transmission issues lol.


https://www.cars.com/articles/ford-focus-fiesta-transmission-settlement-what-owners-should-know-420135/#:~:text=Starting Monday, owners of certain,depending on the issues experienced.&text=Starting Monday, owners of certain,depending on the issues experienced.

But there were owners who actually had trouble with their transmissions. That article wasn't based on "what if my tranny fails".

No one has yet to have a problem with their motor because of fuel in the oil. This whole thread is about speculation on what "could" happen not what has happened. I'm not claiming to be an expert but IF this was a major concern I would think between the Mustang and the Focus we would've seen real world results of actual motors going boom. Maybe it's out there but so far no ones posted any links. For those who are so concerned I would think they would've looked hard for this data.

 

[D Fresh]

Much like Ford did not issue recalls for the Focus and Fiesta transmission issues lol.


https://www.cars.com/articles/ford-focus-fiesta-transmission-settlement-what-owners-should-know-420135/#:~:text=Starting Monday, owners of certain,depending on the issues experienced.&text=Starting Monday, owners of certain,depending on the issues experienced.

I blame that one on the buyers.

Anybody...

A. Buying a Focus or Fiesta that isn't a manual.

&

B. Buying a cheap car with an unproven dual clutch transmission.


...deserves what they get.

 

[JKocot]

I blame that one on the buyers.

Anybody...

A. Buying a Focus or Fiesta that isn't a manual.

&

B. Buying a cheap car with an unproven dual clutch transmission.


...deserves what they get.

Wow.

 

[BButah]

122 pages and nearly 2,000 posts.....

It's time:

 

[JKocot]

But there were owners who actually had trouble with their transmissions. That article wasn't based on "what if my tranny fails".

No one has yet to have a problem with their motor because of fuel in the oil. This whole thread is about speculation on what "could" happen not what has happened. I'm not claiming to be an expert but IF this was a major concern I would think between the Mustang and the Focus we would've seen real world results of actual motors going boom. Maybe it's out there but so far no ones posted any links. For those who are so concerned I would think they would've looked hard for this data.

I agree. My point is Ford knew there was an issue and did nothing until it blew up in their face. I am not bashing Ford. All I have owned since 1999 are Fords. Hopefully they are better about stuff like this IF in fact it is a true issue.

 

[RapidRedRanger61]

I blame that one on the buyers.

Anybody...

A. Buying a Focus or Fiesta that isn't a manual.

&

B. Buying a cheap car with an unproven dual clutch transmission.


...deserves what they get.

A little harsh but............OK. What I got was $16,900 buy back from Ford for a 2012 Focus (purchased in July of 2011) with 129k on it. Got another $2500 to use if I bought another Ford....which I did. Ended up turning my $42+K Ranger purchase, into roughly a $22K out of pocket expense. Wasn't happy with the issues I had with the Focus, but more than happy with the final outcome.

Sponsored