Vitis805
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2020
- Threads
- 2
- Messages
- 222
- Reaction score
- 469
- Location
- Santa Barbara County, CA
- Vehicle(s)
- 2019 Ranger XL
- Occupation
- Wine Nerd
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.
Sponsored