Ford changed its specs and lists the recommended oil for a 94 and 95 5.0 as 5w-20 on the job aid that they send to dealerships. Maybe with high mileage some would tend to go with 30 weight or higher if there was concern about thinner oil being burned off due to ring gap or other wear problems.
WIth over 200K miles, I would not touch 5W-20, even though it was retroactively recommended.
With synthetics being physically thinner than a conventional oil, I'd run a higher viscosity if I were you. For instance I run M1 15W-50 year around in the desert. The pour point on more-viscous synthetics is excellent anyhow, and with as many miles as you have, the extra viscosity (cushion) might be nice.
Just something to consider.
Good luck.
With synthetics being physically thinner than a conventional oil, I'd run a higher viscosity if I were you. For instance I run M1 15W-50 year around in the desert. The pour point on more-viscous synthetics is excellent anyhow, and with as many miles as you have, the extra viscosity (cushion) might be nice.
Just something to consider.
Good luck.
5w-20 lol I dont know but i remember seing that on all data not too long ago.
I live here in florida and have 165k and run 5w-30 castrol syn blend. I have always loved castrol. But yea I have zero issues with my car, for 2000 miles I check the oil level and still the same as when I changed it and always comes out clean. When I was using 10w-30 car didnt seem to like it as much, gas mileage even got slightly better after switching to 5w-30. Thats just my .02 though
Having a thicker oils does not equate to better protection. This is not the 60's, oils have and do move with technology. The need to run 15W50 is completely unnecessary unless your rings and bearing are shot. Even the 3m/3000ml thinking is outdated. I've been running MC 10w30 with oil intervals at 5,000 and the motor is happy as can be (139,xxx miles and zero smoke).
I would respectfully disagree with the statement that greater viscosity doesnt equal greater protection.
I would agree that one wants to run the least viscous oil that allows for adequate protection at all times. I still feel that any quality synthetic will have little issue circulating when cold (I'd take about any weight synthetic vs a relatively thin conventional oil. We've noted that 5W-20 is intrinsically a blend).
I'd worry much more about having a thin enough oil if starting the car in 0*F temps than fretting about weights and start-up when it's 80*F outside. For extended driving when it's 95-115* outisde and the fact that the 5.0 engine inherantly gets the oil pretty hot, I'll take the thicker stuff in an older mill myself.
We've seen that the same engines here that get a thinner weight are to use a thicker weight elsewhere in the world.
Just MHO.
I like these discussions. Danny and S351Saleen77 always make good points on these threads.
I would agree that one wants to run the least viscous oil that allows for adequate protection at all times. I still feel that any quality synthetic will have little issue circulating when cold (I'd take about any weight synthetic vs a relatively thin conventional oil. We've noted that 5W-20 is intrinsically a blend).
I'd worry much more about having a thin enough oil if starting the car in 0*F temps than fretting about weights and start-up when it's 80*F outside. For extended driving when it's 95-115* outisde and the fact that the 5.0 engine inherantly gets the oil pretty hot, I'll take the thicker stuff in an older mill myself.
We've seen that the same engines here that get a thinner weight are to use a thicker weight elsewhere in the world.
Just MHO.
I like these discussions. Danny and S351Saleen77 always make good points on these threads.
With todays technology (in oils) and tighter bearing clearances (v.s yesteryear) running a quality oil vs a thicker oil would be my main concern. Todays oils can pretty much handle anything thrown at them (dino or syn). Wouldn't a thinner oil cool off faster then a thicker oil? Not exactly apple to apples but a pot of boiling water would cool of faster then a pot of honey (being circulated or not). I don't know how much thinner full syn are compared to dino but if running a 15w50 syn is like running a 10w40 dino I would/could consider running that. Personally I would pay for oil analysis (which I already have) and let the facts tell me what to run. MC 10w30 did great in an oil analysis to the point were they ask me to go 6,000 miles and recheck. I get on my car pretty much every time I drive it so I know I give the oil a work out almost all the time. I live in a very hot climate during the summer 95*+ with just as high humidity and I feel just fine stomping on my car no matter the amount of time driving. .02
Danny, it's been awhile since I read up on this stuff (I learned what I wanted and haven't really kept up). I believe that though a higher viscosity oil will create more friction, it does generally lead to lower sump temps. In your analogy, remember the difference in heat vs temperature (your honey will also need to be heated a lot longer to reach the same temp as the water is).
Like I said, even M1 15W-50 has an excellent pour point (about -40*F IIRC). It 'pours' as well as the 10-40 dinos I use. I do feel that I get pressure a little faster (a highly subjective observation on my behalf) with the 15-50 than dino 10-40. I feel the operating pressure of syn 15-50 is on par with dino 10-40 (and a little lower than dino 20-50).
We should note that I see ambient temps of nearly 120*F in the summer (we wont talk about the temps of the air rippling off the asphalt). When I was remarking about protection (as an absolute), it was with that in mind. When you hit the AutoX track around here (for instance) in the summer, most everyone runs thicker synthetic because it does afford a little more protection in this extreme environment. For someone puttin' around town, it doesnt matter (that was your perspective about protection, I felt).
It really isnt unlike gear oils - a synthetic 85-140 will flow much better than a dino 75-90. So even though the synthetic is heavier (though it is approved by Ford in later 8.8's), it is a better product because it flows so well when cold.
Again, we are arguing minutia here. Danny uses what's best for his ride and I'm discussing a broader spectrum (I grew up in Alaska and now live in the desert - I got to see wide ranges of ambient temps and kind of have an interest in this stuff. I am a little non-PC [in this country] when it comes to oil selection).
Like I said, even M1 15W-50 has an excellent pour point (about -40*F IIRC). It 'pours' as well as the 10-40 dinos I use. I do feel that I get pressure a little faster (a highly subjective observation on my behalf) with the 15-50 than dino 10-40. I feel the operating pressure of syn 15-50 is on par with dino 10-40 (and a little lower than dino 20-50).
We should note that I see ambient temps of nearly 120*F in the summer (we wont talk about the temps of the air rippling off the asphalt). When I was remarking about protection (as an absolute), it was with that in mind. When you hit the AutoX track around here (for instance) in the summer, most everyone runs thicker synthetic because it does afford a little more protection in this extreme environment. For someone puttin' around town, it doesnt matter (that was your perspective about protection, I felt).
It really isnt unlike gear oils - a synthetic 85-140 will flow much better than a dino 75-90. So even though the synthetic is heavier (though it is approved by Ford in later 8.8's), it is a better product because it flows so well when cold.
Again, we are arguing minutia here. Danny uses what's best for his ride and I'm discussing a broader spectrum (I grew up in Alaska and now live in the desert - I got to see wide ranges of ambient temps and kind of have an interest in this stuff. I am a little non-PC [in this country] when it comes to oil selection).