Motor oil weight for triton v10

Oldme wrote:
Ford Oil

By vehicle year

Thank you SO MUCH for this official Ford link. This is an interesting thread, and the intense knowledge of the subject matter by many of the posters is both obvious and impressive.... but -my being a simpleton- all of this viscosity and cam bearing stuff is way over my head.

I just wanted to be reminded what oil to use in my V-10. Appreciate it.

You may want to do what I did in my Ford products. I put in a real oil pressure gauges. The one's in the dash on Ford's are just fancy idiot gauges. They read full pressure at anything over 6-10 psi. My real gauges in both the 4.6 and 6.8 read around 80 psi on start-up and drop to around 60 psi at operating temps.

427435 wrote:
Sorry to hear of your expensive problem.

I think the next time I change oil on the Explorer or MH, I will pull a sample and send it to Blackstone labs.

Mark,

Thanks for your concern. I mention it only to support a great deal of knowledge and links I accumulated while learning about Triton oiling systems, not so much to elicit sympathy. My hope is that folks here may learn from my experience.

I have overhauled several engines in my lifetime and have some familiarity with the principles of operation etc. I never heard of engines losing oil pressure while idling before, and did a lot of research. After writing off the engine as best replaced, when I finally did risk restarting to deliver it for replacement, I had normal oiling. It may have merely been a stuck gallery pressure bypass, or had debris holding it off the seat after a cold start. The crankcase was filled with fairly fresh 5W20 from a recent oil change.

It ran ok, but the old engine already had other issues like slightly noisy lifters, probably multiple spark plug blow-outs (I had one) and used some oil when towing, about a quart per 800-1000 miles. No one locally would reassemble it, even if I had it machined, the heads weren't great (no cam bearing inserts). The cost was the same as another older used truck, but now it has a new engine, thus replacement the best option IMO.

It wouldn't hurt to send a sample to a lab. Engines shed extra fine particles in a snowball effect as they become more worn. I sometimes wonder if a fellow couldn't learn a lot from cutting the old filter open after removal. If there is anything in the oil, there should be lots in the used filter, a metalic film perhaps visible to the naked eye.

Wes
...

Sorry to hear of your expensive problem.

I think the next time I change oil on the Explorer or MH, I will pull a sample and send it to Blackstone labs.

427435 wrote:
Relative to the cam tensioners, I don't believe they are very sensitive to oil pressure. Looking at their design, they appear to just be something to minimize chain slap. Regardless, they do their job at relatively high oil viscountcies during the 20 minutes or so that it takes for oil to reach it's operating temps and minimum viscosity.

Anyway, I'm at 80,000 miles on the V10 and 120,000 miles on a 4.6 (similar cam tensioners) in my toad without issues. They've always had at least a 5w-30 oi in them and, in the case of the MH, at least a 5w-40. The V10 also has around 30,000 miles with a 15w-50. Prior to that, I had a 4.6 in a Grand Marquis that was still running fine at 175,000 miles. It also never saw any oil less than a 5w-30 viscosity.

Mark,

Your Triton engines are very likely fine. I've heard of some going 300-400k. Mine apparently quit at 118k and I have only owned it for about 5k. The details were a long story, and if I ever find the link I'll get back to you since you seem more interested in these engines than most here. FWIW, I liked, and trusted, the V10 well enough to replace it in an older 2000 Excursion. Ford has the best deal at competitive prices with an outstanding 3 years warranty, unlimited mileage, commercial or not, dealers everywhere. There also was no immediate towing restriction, a plus should an engine need replacing during a trip.

The tensioners do minimise chain slap of course. With such a lengthy chain, just a little wear on each pin translates to a lot of slop. Actually, without adequate oil pressure to the tensioners, a worn Triton chain saws against the aluminum timing case cover and the nylon rub block falls (is hammered) entirely out after littering the oil with aluminum and nylon debris. Meanwhile, the debris goes through the pump and lodges in the oil filter... unless the filter pressure limiting bypass is open because of thick, possibly cold oil. An open filter bypass means debris keeps going unfiltered and this is true of any engine. In case of a plugged filter, dirty oil is deemed better than no oil. Using 5Wxx is a wise choice even if for only this filter bypass avoidence. As your chart pointed out, all oils have similar hot viscosity. The filter bypass is not to be confused with the 30# galley limited oil pressure bypass.

Any debris may lodge in the cam oiling meter orifice in the head, further limiting adequate oil supply/pressure to the hydraulic tensioner... after starving the cam. For this reason Ford has refused to further warranty engine failures caused by faulty generic oil filters (disintegrating, plugging) thereby requiring customers to buy quality Ford Motorcraft filters. I suspect they spec'd 5W20 while sorting this cam "oiling" problem before they pinned it down. Engineers found filter debris as a cause of engine failure, and that may be what occurred in my V10, as the last oil change (1300mi prior) did not use a Ford filter.

Almost always, the RH cam side fails first, as the LH side gets direct oiling from the pump right below it. The heads are semi-symmetrical. As one views the head from the intake ports, the block-to-head oil port is to the right. So the LH gets direct oil at the front, but the RH tensioner only gets oil after it has traveled back past the all the leaky main bearings and then forward past all the leaky cam bearings... until whatever is left finally reaches the tensioner piston.

According to my knowledgable Ford shop supe, one exceptionally bad leak is attributed to well worn split main thrust washers that occasinally fall out into the pan. After that, the crank suddenly clunks from too much end play, and so much gallery oil leaks away, that the RH hydraulic tensioner collapses and the death throes began, although it will keep running for the unwary. The Tritons have two main thrust washers, one of which is whole that fits over the rear end of the crank, the other a split washer that is inserted piecemeal to the front of the rear main. The Tritons do not have the center saddle-shaped main thrust bearing we grew up with, but rather have main inserts and thrust separate.

I'll never be sure what happened to my V10. It lost all oil pressure while idling. It would have cost $2000 to pull the pan on a fishing expedition and later, the Ford dealer "conveniently" forgot to pull it, like he had agreed, for a look-see after the engine was removed. To pull the pan normally at least requires that the intake be removed to make cowl room for lifting the engine high enough to clear the truck cross-members while dropping the pan below the oil pick-up. The $ dilema is similar to the necessity of engine-service cab removal on Ford F-250's... the engines are 1/3 back under the windshield. Nice short hood styling-wise though.

Wes
...

Relative to the cam tensioners, I don't believe they are very sensitive to oil pressure. Looking at their design, they appear to just be something to minimize chain slap. Regardless, they do their job at relatively high oil viscountcies during the 20 minutes or so that it takes for oil to reach it's operating temps and minimum viscosity.

Anyway, I'm at 80,000 miles on the V10 and 120,000 miles on a 4.6 (similar cam tensioners) in my toad without issues. They've always had at least a 5w-30 oi in them and, in the case of the MH, at least a 5w-40. The V10 also has around 30,000 miles with a 15w-50. Prior to that, I had a 4.6 in a Grand Marquis that was still running fine at 175,000 miles. It also never saw any oil less than a 5w-30 viscosity.

427435 wrote:

Wes Tausend wrote:

427435 wrote:
A 5w-20 oil is no thinner at, say 0 degrees, than a 5w-40 oil. They both meet the viscosity requirements for a 5w oil at cold temps. And a 5w-40 oil is far thinner at operating temp than either 5w-20 or 5w-40 is at start up temps.

The person that said the 5w-20 oils are for improved mpg is spot on.

True about the 5w's being about the same cold, cold pouring no different. Not so with 10w30 etc.

But one must rethink about the so called 20 wt mpg factor. Since the 5w20 oil is thinner than the 5w40 at high temps, it flows(leaks away) faster. The pre-set pump torsional load force remains about the same (30-40# oil bypass) and more hot 20 weight is ultimately pumped through bearings in volume, than hot 40 weight. Basically the comparable hp parasitic drag of pumping either oil ends up about the same when hot, so the "claimed marketing" mpg gain of 20 becomes basically moot.

The Ford Triton engines pressurize the RH cam tensioner only after the oil has traveled from the front pump all the way to the rear of the engine, up to the RH head and forward all the way to the RH tensioner piston. The revised 20 weight oil better maintains more even pressure over this long passage than heavier oil. Oil pressure over lengthy passageways drops just like long, small garden hoses drop sprinkler pressure furthest from the supply. Ford has had some minor issues with the RH cam and RH tensioner over this long oiling path and 5w20 helps solve it. (The V-10 is longest of all.) Of course they are not going to advertise this.

I haven't seen it done, but I imagine installing a custom direct oil line, pump-to-the-front of the RH cam, would be a good performance durability mod. The LH head already oils this way. With no distributor shaft cam drive, the Triton oil pump is totally forward, keyed on the crank snout right in front of the 1st main bulkhead, not set back (centered-like) nearer the 2nd main web like older Ford engine designs, or 3rd web like early GM.

Wes
...

Yes, 10w-30 will be thicker than a 5w-30 at cold temps.

As for pressure drop to the tensioners, that's only true if there is significant flow. There isn't as the tensioners don't require much flow.

In any event, those tensioners have to work with oil much, much thicker during cold starts. The chart below is informative when you look at how little difference between different weight oils at 200 degrees despite lots of difference at cold temps.

That's a great chart, Mark. It amply demonstrates that there is very little viscosity difference in hot oils. The oil pump works very nearly as hard and causes nearly the same drag between 10W30, 5w20 no matter.

I don't regard the idea that 5W20 makes much of an improvement in mpg for that very reason.

My suspicion is that, at least in Fords case, the thinner oil supplies better lubrication for their cam problem. But admitting this would be bad marketing. Thus the marketing claim that the sole reason for switching to 5W20 was for helping meet EPA, if you can follow my reasoning.

You are correct, the front right(FR) cam tensioner does not require much flow at all. But the oil passageway to that FR tensioner is a long, narrow one. On the way to the tensioner, several bearings leak pressure away, each causing a slight drop in pressure, especially as the engine ages. The effect is identical to a series of lawn sprinklers on a long, thin garden hose. The last sprinkler barely sprinkles because there is very little pressure left.

The loss of pressure can be minimised by using large diameter hose, or water with less friction, such as the slippery water wetters that are often used with fire fighting tank equipment. Water wetters serve the same increased flow rate function as thinner oil, especially since it is too much trouble to increase the oil passage diameter or shorten the oil feed-path in existing Ford OHC engines.

Another more simple way to look at this is to fill a bucket up with a short hose and time it. Now fill the same bucket up, from the same faucet, with a long hose and time it. The flow will simply be greatest (quickest) with the short hose because of lower pressure loss.

I did have a longer, more elaborate, write-up on the V10, here on rv.net I think, but I believe a successful "search" of the thread is trapped (lost) by a gap between recent posts and those "over a year old".

On a different note, you are absolutely correct about the tolerances being tighter, not the clearances themselves. Not everyone here is able to follow this insightful concept. Perhaps it will help with their understanding that the reason that clearances don't get tighter is that hot crankshafts still expand a certain amount, so historical clearances must remain large enough to avoid seizing under hot conditions.

I once even ran into a misunderstanding by my local machinist who ground down my crankshaft too far for my taste. He ground the crank looser than official GM service limits "to be on the safe side". When confronted, he pointed out that all the local circle track guys ran these loose clearances to prevent bearing seizure under race conditions. He was right about race conditions, but I just desired long service life under moderate conditions.

I tightened up the clearances back to factory recommendations with tapered shim stock and the engine was fine. The next ground crank was correct. I always double check actual clearances with Plastigauge on assembly, but many did not back then. Plastigauge is more reliable than a micrometer even.

Wes
...

Camper Ken wrote:
Another vote for doing what Ford recommends. In my case 5W-20 synthetic blend. Why try to second guess the recommendation? I've never understood why some decide what's best themselves.

There may some that have engineering experience with engines and lubrication. They may also understand the pressure from sales and management over CAFE ratings and the problems with recommending different oils for different engines and vehicles within their fleet.

Another vote for doing what Ford recommends. In my case 5W-20 synthetic blend. Why try to second guess the recommendation? I've never understood why some decide what's best themselves.

hanko wrote:

dodge guy wrote:

bigbaddad wrote:
In 2009 at Hershey I asked the Ford guys why the 5-20 as opposed to the 10 - 30 I had used in general for many years. They smiled, said they loved all the stories they heard, but for the V10 it was mainly needed for engine tolerances which were tighter than in the past.

So they secretly got ahold of all the engines that required 5 or 10W30, pulled the motors and tightened up the tolerances then told everyone to start using 5W20? That is very good of them!

You drive a Chrysler product and wouldn't understand tight tolerances. They need straight 50 wt

:h