Car Forum / Ford / Ford Cars / September 2006
2001 Ranger motor oil
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Vic Dura - 26 Aug 2006 13:19 GMT Can anyone tell me what kind of oil is recommended for the 2001 Ranger V6? Is it 5-20W or 10-40W for "mid-range" climates and service?
A related question: where 5-20W is recommended, does anybody use 10-40W instead? If so, is there any noticeable difference?
Thanks for any comments.
 Signature To email me directly, remove CLUTTER.
Mark Olson - 26 Aug 2006 13:55 GMT > Can anyone tell me what kind of oil is recommended for the 2001 Ranger > V6? Is it 5-20W or 10-40W for "mid-range" climates and service? > > A related question: where 5-20W is recommended, does anybody use > 10-40W instead? If so, is there any noticeable difference? Do you have a 3.0 or a 4.0 liter V6? Do a google search for
Ford TSB 02-1-9
I believe if you have the 3.0l V6 it's 5W-20. Ford switched their recommendation for nearly all their engines to that oil, but from a little google searching I found that TSB recommends 5W-30 for the 4.0l V6.
You might be able to download an owner's manual from Ford's website:
http://www.ford.com/en/vehicles/owners/default.htm
If you don't have an owner's manual you can buy one from Helm, Inc.
http://www.helminc.com
2001 Ranger Owner Manual Package Price: $22.00 In Stock (English, Paper, 1L5J19A321AD)
====================================================================== FORD:
Article No. 02-1-9 ENGINE - ENGINE OIL - RECOMMENDED APPLICATIONS FOR SAE 5W-20 AND SAE 5W-30 MOTOR OILS - GASOLINE AND FLEXIBLE FUEL VEHICLES ONLY
1992-2002 CROWN VICTORIA 1993-94 TEMPO 1993-97 THUNDERBIRD 1993-2002 ESCORT, MUSTANG, TAURUS 1995-2000 CONTOUR 1998-2002 ESCORT ZX2 2000-2002 FOCUS 1993-96 BRONCO 1993-97 AEROSTAR 1993-2002 E SERIES, F-150, RANGER 1995-2002 WINDSTAR 1997-99 F-250 LD 1997-2001 EXPLORER 1997-2002 EXPEDITION 1999-2002 SUPER DUTY F SERIES, SUPER DUTY F-53 STRIPPED CHAS. 2000-2002 EXCURSION 2001-2002 ESCAPE LINCOLN: 1991-2002 TOWN CAR 1993-98 MARK VIII 1993-2002 CONTINENTAL 2000-2002 LS 1998-2002 NAVIGATOR MERCURY: 1992-2002 GRAND MARQUIS 1993-94 TOPAZ 1993-97 COUGAR 1993-99 TRACER 1993-2002 SABLE 1995-2000 MYSTIQUE 1999-2002 COUGAR 1997-2001 MOUNTAINEER
This article is being republished in its entirety to update the vehicle models, engines and years affected.
NOTE: PLEASE REFER TO THE VEHICLE APPLICATION LIST LATER IN THIS TSB FOR A COMPLETE LIST OF VEHICLES AFFECTED BY THIS TSB.
ISSUE: Ford Motor Company now recommends SAE 5W-20 viscosity grade for servicing most gasoline and flexible fueled vehicles.
ACTION: All 2001 and 2002 vehicles where SAE 5W-20 is specified should be serviced at the recommended oil change intervals using SAE 5W-20. This oil is an improved formulation to improve fuel economy. Testing has validated this viscosity grade can be used in many previous model year vehicles. It is recommended ALL vehicles on the following Vehicle Application Listing be service with SAE 5W-20.
All 2001-2002 vehicles other than those listed in the "Exception 2001 Vehicles" or "Exception 2002 Vehicles" chart are being filled with SAE 5W-20 motor oil at the factory and should also be serviced with SAE 5W-20 oil.
Vehicle Application Listing Approved For SAE 5W-20 Motor Oil 1993-1996 1.9L Escort/Tracer 1995-2000 2.0L Zetec Contour/Mystique 1999-2002 2.0L Cougar 1997-2002 2.0L Escort/Tracer 1998-2002 2.0L Escort ZX2 2000-2002 2.0L Focus 2001-2002 2.0L Escape 1993-1997 2.3L Ranger 1993-1994 2.3L Mustang 1993-1994 2.3L Tempo/Topaz 1998-2001 2.5L Ranger 1995-2000 2.5L Contour/Mystique 1999-2002 2.5L Cougar 2001-2002 3.0L 4V Escape 1996-2001 3.0L 4V Taurus/Sable 1993-2002 3.0L (Vulcan) Aerostar/Ranger, Taurus/Sable (Flexible Fuel and Gas) 1995-2000 3.0L (Vulcan) Windstar 1993-1994 3.0L (Vulcan) Tempo/Topaz 2000-2002 3.0L 4V Lincoln LS 1995-2002 3.8L Windstar 1993-1997 3.8L Taurus/Sable, Thunderbird/Cougar, Continental 1994-2002 3.8L Mustang 2002-2002 3.9L 4V Lincoln LS 1997-2002 4.2L (SPI) F-150 (under 8500 GVW only), E-Series 1996-2002 4.6L 2V Mustang 1992-2002 4.6L Crown Victoria/Grand Marquis 1991-2002 4.6L Town Car 1994-1997 4.6L 2V Thunderbird/Cougar 1996-2002 4.6L 4V Mustang Cobra 1995-2002 4.6L 4V Continental 1993-1998 4.6L 4V Mark VIII 1997-2002 4.6L 2V Triton F-150/250 (under 8500 GVW only), E-Series, Expedition 1993-1999 4.9L E-Series, F-Series 1993-1995 5.0L Mustang/Mustang Cobra 1993-1993 5.0L Thunderbird/Cougar 1997-2001 5.0L Explorer/Mountaineer 1993-1996 5.0L E-Series, F-Series, Bronco
2000-2002 5.4L Excursion 1998-2002 5.4L 2V/4V Navigator 1997-2002 5.4L 2V F-150/250 (under 8500 GVW only), Expedition, E-Series, E-350 Chassis/RV/Cutaway 1993-1997 5.8L F-Series, Bronco 1993-1996 5.8L E-Series 2000-2002 6.8L Excursion 1997-2002 6.8L E-Series, E-350 Chassis/RV/Cutaway 1999-2002 6.8L Super Duty F-Series 250 HD/350/450/550 Motorhome 1993-1998 7.5L All Vehicles NOTE: FOR 1993 THROUGH 1998 MODEL YEAR FFV USE XO-10W30-FFV.
NOTE: THE "EXCEPTION 2001-2002 VEHICLES" SHOULD BE SERVICED WITH SAE 5W-30 MOTOR OIL.
Exception 2001 Vehicles
Engine Vehicle 3.3L Villager 3.9L Lincoln LS 4.0L Ranger, Explorer/Mountaineer, Explorer Sport, and Explorer Sport Trac
Exception 2002 Vehicles
Engine Vehicle 2.0L HP Zetec SVT Focus 3.3L Villager 4.0L Ranger, Explorer/Mountaineer, Explorer Sport, and Explorer Sport Trac
NOTE: IF VEHICLE IS NOT LISTED IN THIS APPLICATION, SAE 5W-30 OIL IS RECOMMENDED. REFER TO TSB 99-8-16.
Picasso - 26 Aug 2006 14:46 GMT My 02 ranger 3.0L calls for 5-20. its stamped right on the fill cap.
Also, I would like to add how much I hate rangers, and I wouldn't wish this piece of junk on my worst enemy.
>> Can anyone tell me what kind of oil is recommended for the 2001 Ranger >> V6? Is it 5-20W or 10-40W for "mid-range" climates and service? [quoted text clipped - 154 lines] > NOTE: IF VEHICLE IS NOT LISTED IN THIS APPLICATION, SAE 5W-30 OIL IS > RECOMMENDED. REFER TO TSB 99-8-16. guess who - 03 Sep 2006 21:33 GMT I once owned a 1993 Ranger, and it was one of best vehicles I have ever owned(have owned about 20 vehicles).
> My 02 ranger 3.0L calls for 5-20. its stamped right on the fill cap. > [quoted text clipped - 162 lines] >> NOTE: IF VEHICLE IS NOT LISTED IN THIS APPLICATION, SAE 5W-30 OIL IS >> RECOMMENDED. REFER TO TSB 99-8-16. Vic Dura - 26 Aug 2006 17:44 GMT >You might be able to download an owner's manual from Ford's website: > >http://www.ford.com/en/vehicles/owners/default.htm Thanks Mark. I was able to d/l the manual from the above.
BTW, I'm doing research for my dad who is thinking of buying a used Ranger so I had neither the vehicle nor the manual to check, as others suggested.
 Signature To email me directly, remove CLUTTER.
Mark Olson - 26 Aug 2006 20:08 GMT >>You might be able to download an owner's manual from Ford's website: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Ranger so I had neither the vehicle nor the manual to check, as others > suggested. Have a look at that PDF manual before you get too far... the only one I was able to download was for an *electric* Ranger, believe it or not.
Vic Dura - 26 Aug 2006 22:26 GMT >>>You might be able to download an owner's manual from Ford's website: >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Have a look at that PDF manual before you get too far... the only one I >was able to download was for an *electric* Ranger, believe it or not. I found the owner's manual PDF here
http://www.genuineservice.com/genuineservice/en/GB?page=E4
Select the year, model, etc and you'll see the list of manuals available in PDF.
 Signature To email me directly, remove CLUTTER.
Scott - 26 Aug 2006 21:00 GMT >>You might be able to download an owner's manual from Ford's website: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Ranger so I had neither the vehicle nor the manual to check, as others > suggested. Hi, I am driving my third Ranger, an '03. It took a dumb 19 year old kid to kill the 93, 175,000 miles couldn't do it. The 4 cyls made after 01 got better mileage and had much more power than the old pinto 4 cyl. My V6 3.0 with an auto gets 20 mpg highway and maybe 15 city, this is the big complaint about them.
I THINK the reason Ford recomends the 5-20 is to get another 0.1 mpg for the fleet or such. They tell you tolerances are tighter on the motors but after 50 k miles any small measure of "tighter" should be gone, I am not going to run 5-20 oil in Vegas heat, the oil would be like sewing machine oil.
Jeff - 26 Aug 2006 14:13 GMT > Can anyone tell me what kind of oil is recommended for the 2001 Ranger > V6? Is it 5-20W or 10-40W for "mid-range" climates and service? > > A related question: where 5-20W is recommended, does anybody use > 10-40W instead? If so, is there any noticeable difference? Today's engines are designed with better tolerances than before. The oils recommended by Ford are recommended for very good reasons. They don't do them on a whim.
I am sure that people use 10-40W instead of 5-20W. However, they get more engine wear and lower fuel milage.
If you go to Ford's website, you can search for glove box manual or owner manual to find a page that will let you download the manual. You can find the answer (5W-30) there. Or, you can just go to your glove box and find the owner's manual there.
Jeff
> Thanks for any comments. Andy - 26 Aug 2006 15:15 GMT >Can anyone tell me what kind of oil is recommended for the 2001 Ranger >V6? Is it 5-20W or 10-40W for "mid-range" climates and service? > >A related question: where 5-20W is recommended, does anybody use >10-40W instead? If so, is there any noticeable difference? Ford spec is 5W-20, but I think a -20 is too thin for engine protection. Get a good 5W-30 synthetic oil. I would suggest Amsoil ASL 5W-30 or HDD 5W-30.
http://www.wisynoil.com
Jeff - 26 Aug 2006 15:57 GMT >>Can anyone tell me what kind of oil is recommended for the 2001 Ranger >>V6? Is it 5-20W or 10-40W for "mid-range" climates and service? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://www.wisynoil.com Too thin? Do you have data that suggests that today's 5W-20 doesn't protect as well as 5W-30?
Jeff
Andy - 26 Aug 2006 16:26 GMT >>>Can anyone tell me what kind of oil is recommended for the 2001 Ranger >>>V6? Is it 5-20W or 10-40W for "mid-range" climates and service? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Too thin? Do you have data that suggests that today's 5W-20 doesn't protect >as well as 5W-30? There is plenty of data out there.
Jeff - 27 Aug 2006 03:23 GMT >>>>Can anyone tell me what kind of oil is recommended for the 2001 Ranger >>>>V6? Is it 5-20W or 10-40W for "mid-range" climates and service? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > There is plenty of data out there. Really?
Show us some.
Jeff
Andy - 27 Aug 2006 19:59 GMT >>>>>Can anyone tell me what kind of oil is recommended for the 2001 Ranger >>>>>V6? Is it 5-20W or 10-40W for "mid-range" climates and service? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Show us some. Why not look for yourself?
Jeff - 27 Aug 2006 23:47 GMT >>>>>>Can anyone tell me what kind of oil is recommended for the 2001 Ranger >>>>>>V6? Is it 5-20W or 10-40W for "mid-range" climates and service? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Why not look for yourself? You made a claim. It is up to you to back it, not I.
jeff
Andy - 28 Aug 2006 03:00 GMT >>>>>>>Can anyone tell me what kind of oil is recommended for the 2001 Ranger >>>>>>>V6? Is it 5-20W or 10-40W for "mid-range" climates and service? [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >You made a claim. It is up to you to back it, not I. If I post links, people say it's bias information, so I don't play that game.
Jeff - 28 Aug 2006 11:53 GMT (...)
>>>>> There is plenty of data out there. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > If I post links, people say it's bias information, so I don't play > that game. Then you lose this one. You can't or won't back your claim.
Jeff
Andy - 28 Aug 2006 13:35 GMT >(...) > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Then you lose this one. You can't or won't back your claim. Its obvious to anyone that a thicker oil protects better than a thinner one. Ford uses 5w20 so it can meet CAFE standards.
C. E. White - 28 Aug 2006 14:38 GMT > Its obvious to anyone that a thicker oil protects better than a > thinner one. Ford uses 5w20 so it can meet CAFE standards. So why not just go straight for the 90W Gear Oil......or at Least 50W.
5W30 is probably not a problem. 15W-40 probably is not a problem in warm climates. On the other hand, I mostly ran 5W20 in my 2003 Expedition as long as I owned it - 93,000 miles. No problems as long as I owned it. Never used any oil, ran great. I can see Ford recommending 5W20 for new cars to improve CAFE numbers, but why issue a TSB for certain old cars recommending its use there as well? The EPA is not going to retest 2000 model year cars and give Ford credit for better gas mileage in those vehicles. BTW, I did notice that my 2006 Mustang with the 4.0L V-6 specifies 5W30 Oil, so Ford is not blindly recommending 5W20 for all applications.
Ed
Andy - 28 Aug 2006 16:11 GMT >I can see Ford recommending 5W20 for new cars to improve >CAFE numbers, but why issue a TSB for certain old cars recommending its use >there as well? Ed,
Can you point me to the TSB, thats a new one to me.
Mark Olson - 28 Aug 2006 16:18 GMT > >I can see Ford recommending 5W20 for new cars to improve > >CAFE numbers, but why issue a TSB for certain old cars recommending its use [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Can you point me to the TSB, thats a new one to me. http://www.thedieselstop.com/faq/9497faq/tsb/tsb/files/020109.pdf
Andy - 28 Aug 2006 16:51 GMT >> >I can see Ford recommending 5W20 for new cars to improve >> >CAFE numbers, but why issue a TSB for certain old cars recommending its use [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >http://www.thedieselstop.com/faq/9497faq/tsb/tsb/files/020109.pdf What I see is Ford saying if the vechical calls for 5W-20 use the new Ford 5W-20 oil because it is more fuel efficent.
C. E. White - 28 Aug 2006 18:14 GMT >>> >I can see Ford recommending 5W20 for new cars to improve >>> >CAFE numbers, but why issue a TSB for certain old cars recommending its [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > What I see is Ford saying if the vechical calls for 5W-20 use the new > Ford 5W-20 oil because it is more fuel efficent. Ok, but if it was harmful, why make the recommendation at all. It gets them no CAFE credits if you switch your old car to 5W20. And they do not make a blanket recommendation. There have been a number of SAE papers by US and Japanese engineers on the subject of 5W20 motor oil. Not one found that it casued durability problems. GM engineers had one paper that found that the 5W20 oil had slightly reduce bearing oil film thickness than 5W30, but the difference was trivial and the paper was actually describing the measurement technique. Toyota and Honda engineers haev both published papers that were positive about the use of 5W20 and both papers calimed that their were no reliability problems. Here is some old verbage released by Ford at the time the 5W20 was initially released (2001):
TSB 01-4-7
ISSUE:
Engine oil recommended for use in 2001 vehicles is SAE 5W-20 motor oil. This oil has an improved formulation to improve fuel economy. This oil can also be used to service some previous model year vehicles.
ACTION:
Use SAE 5W-20 engine oil at recommended oil change intervals for 2001 vehicles, with the exception of the following vehicles listed in the "Exception 2001 Vehicles" chart.
All 2001 vehicles other than those listed in the "Exception 2001 Vehicles" chart are being filled with SAE 5W-20 motor oil at the factory and should also be serviced with SAE 5W-20 oil.
Vehicle Application Listing Approved For SAE 5W-20 Motor Oil:
1995-2000 2.5L Contour/Mystique 1999-2001 2.5L Cougar 1996-2001 3.0L 4V Taurus/Sable 1999-2001 3.0L (Vulcan) Ranger (Flexible Fuel and Gas), Windstar, Taurus/Sable (Flexible Fuel and Gas) 1996-1997 3.8L Thunderbird/Cougar 1996-2001 3.8L Mustang and 3.8L SPI Windstar 1997-2001 4.2L (SPI) F-150 (under 8500 GVW only), Econoline 1996-2001 4.6L 2V Mustang 1992-2001 4.6L Crown Victoria/Grand Marquis 1991-2001 4.6L Town Car 1994-1997 4.6L 2V Thunderbird/Cougar 1996-2001 4.6L 4V Mustang Cobra 1995-2001 4.6L Continental 1993-1998 4.6L 4V Mark VIII 1998-2001 5.4L 2V/4V Navigator 1997-2001 4.6L 2V Triton F-150/250 (under 8500 GVW only), Econoline, Expedition 1997-2001 5.4L 2V F-150/250 (under 8500 GVW only), Expedition, E-150/250/350, E-350 Chassis/RV/Cutaway 1997-2001 6.8L E-250/350, E-350 Chassis/RV/Cutaway 1999-2001 6.8L Super Duty F-Series 250 HD/350/450/550 Motorhome 2001 2.0L Zetec/2.0L SPI Focus 2001 2.0L Zetec/3.0L Escape 2001 2.0L SPI Escort 2000-2001 5.4L/6.8L Excursion 2000-2001 3.0L Lincoln LS 2001 2.0L Zetec Escort ZX2
NOTE: THE "EXCEPTION 2001 VEHICLES" SHOULD BE SERVICED WITH SAE 5W-30 MOTOR OIL.
Exception 2001 Vehicles:
Engine Vehicle 2.5L Ranger 3.3L Villager 3.9L Lincoln LS 4.0L Ranger, Explorer/Mountaineer, Explorer Sport, and Explorer Sport Trac 5.0L Explorer/Mountaineer
NOTE: IF VEHICLE IS NOT LISTED IN THIS APPLICATION, SAE 5W-30 OIL IS RECOMMENDED. REFER TO TSB 99-8-16.
The following Q&A's were originally posted to the Mustang newsgroup years ago -
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS REGARDING MOTOR OIL .... [ info on ATF deleted ]
Q. Why did Motorcraft release SAE 5W-20 motor oil? A. It was the right thing to do for the consumer and for the environment. It was one of Ford's first steps in improving the fuel economy of our SUVs by 25% by the 2005 calendar year. SAE 5W-20 improves fuel consumption by approximately 0.6 percent. For the 2001 fleet, this amounts to reducing fuel usage by more than 21 million gallons per year. This reduction in gasoline consumption leads to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 190,000 metric tons per year, which is equivalent to taking nearly 23,100 cars and trucks off the road each year.
Q. Is there really a difference in quality between 5W-20 and 5W-30? A. It is important to separate the differences in viscosity grade, and also the differences in the performance standards set by the International Lubricant Standardization and Approval Committee (ILSAC) and the accompanying American Petroleum Institute (API) performance categories to answer this question.
First, SAE 5W-20 oils are slightly less viscous at operating temperature than SAE 5W-30 oils. This reduction in viscous drag contributes to reduced friction in the engine and thus improved fuel economy for an SAE 5W-20.
Second, there are differences between the present ILSAC GF-2 standard (GF stands for gasoline fueled) and the soon to be commercialized GF-3 standard. The performance of a GF-3 oil will be significantly improved over a GF-2 oil. When Motorcraft released it's SAE 5W-20 formulation we wanted it to perform at the GF-3 level; but the GF-3 spec had not been finalized, so we 'guesstimated' what GF-3 would look like. In so doing we doubled the length of the standard dynamometer Sequence IIIE test (which duplicates high temperature trailer towing) which increases wear protection and reduces oil thickening. While GF-3 also improves on the standard GF-2 Sequence IIIE test, it went nowhere near as far as Ford did. This provides Motorcraft SAE 5W-20 with a significant increase over 'standard' GF-3 oils, which most SAE 5W-30 oils will meet.
Taking all this into account, the Motorcraft SAE 5W-20 will be a significant improvement over most SAE 5W-30 oils.
Q. Does the difference in price between Motorcraft SAE 5W-20 and SAE 5W-30 really reflect a better oil? A. Yes. The better base oils, and increased additives such as friction modifiers and anti-oxidants used to formulate for the performance levels in the SAE 5W-20 do cost more, but reflect the significant increase in performance.
Q. What Ford and Lincoln/Mercury vehicles use SAE 5W-20 oil? A. Approximately 80% of 2001 models should be serviced with SAE 5W-20 oils. By 2003 model year all Ford and Lincoln Mercury vehicles will be filled with SAE 5W-20 at the factory. But there are a significant number of older vehicles, some as old as 1991 models where Ford now recommends servicing with SAE 5W-20. Refer to the chart listed in Technical Service Bulletin Article No. 01-4-7 for details of which older models should use SAE 5W-20 and for the 2001 'exception' models which should continue to use SAE 5W-30.
Q. What happens if someone uses SAE 5W-20 in older vehicles? A. As stated before some older vehicles have been approved for SAE 5W-20. However, there are many older vehicles not covered by TSB 01-4-7, and Ford is presently testing these to determine whether durability and performance would be compromised if SAE 5W-20 was used. Until this testing is successfully completed (and a TSB is published to this effect), it is not recommended using SAE 5W-20 in an older model unless specifically mentioned in TSB 01-4-7.
Q. Is Motorcraft the only brand for SAE 5W-20 motor oil? A. No. Although SAE 5W-20 is not yet a popular viscosity grade, major marketers including Pennzoil, Quaker State, Valvoline, Exxon and others have either already begun marketing an SAE 5W-20 or have plans to do so. Customers should find this viscosity grade increasingly available in coming months, including at some retail outlets.
Q. Will SAE 5W-20 provide longer oil change intervals? A. At the present time Ford recommends no change to the existing drain interval for SAE 5W-20. However, Ford is investigating allowing longer drain intervals since the performance level of Motorcraft SAE 5W-20 is significantly better than today's GF-2 oils.
Q. Why does Wal-Mart have Motorcraft SAE 5W-20 so much cheaper than dealers can now buy it? A. Oil and Filter change is the number one Do-It-Yourself repair. Many Ford Motor Company customers are avid Do-It-Yourselfers. Some may purchase required products from our franchised dealerships, however, most prefer to purchase products available at mass merchandisers. If our product is not available they will buy other brands available at these retailers. Ford Motor Company has an obligation to the EPA to ensure all of our customers have access to this new oil and Wal-Mart is one of several retailers carrying Motorcraft products. Wal-Mart bought several truckloads of Motorcraft SAE 5W-20 at the original introductory price. These original quantities are still available at Wal-Mart. As Wal-Mart re-orders Motorcraft SAE 5W-20 in the future they will purchase it at the increased price.
[ ATF Info Deleted ]
Jeff - 28 Aug 2006 22:40 GMT >>> >I can see Ford recommending 5W20 for new cars to improve >>> >CAFE numbers, but why issue a TSB for certain old cars recommending its [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > What I see is Ford saying if the vechical calls for 5W-20 use the new > Ford 5W-20 oil because it is more fuel efficent. What would make it more fuel efficient, besides reduced friction? And isn't reduced friction good for the engine? Not to mention that with reduced friction, the engine is cooler?
Sounds like a win to me.
Jeff
Jeff - 28 Aug 2006 22:38 GMT >>(...) >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Its obvious to anyone that a thicker oil protects better than a > thinner one. Ford uses 5w20 so it can meet CAFE standards. Really? What if it is too thick to flow between the friction surfaces (like between the rings and cylinder wall or between the crank and bearings)?
If it helps meet the CAFE standards, wouldn't that indicate that it is lubricating better?
Jeff
Andy - 29 Aug 2006 03:45 GMT >>>(...) >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >If it helps meet the CAFE standards, wouldn't that indicate that it is >lubricating better? It flows better, but that doesn't mean it helps protect the engine better.
rmac - 27 Aug 2006 03:25 GMT >>>>Can anyone tell me what kind of oil is recommended for the 2001 Ranger >>>>V6? Is it 5-20W or 10-40W for "mid-range" climates and service? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > There is plenty of data out there. Just like all the other Spamsoil dealers - use a forum to promote their unlicensed product, then have no data to backup their pyramid scheme trash.
Andy - 27 Aug 2006 20:00 GMT >>>>>Can anyone tell me what kind of oil is recommended for the 2001 Ranger >>>>>V6? Is it 5-20W or 10-40W for "mid-range" climates and service? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >unlicensed >product, then have no data to backup their pyramid scheme trash. Get your head out of your a.s.
Jeff - 27 Aug 2006 23:48 GMT >>>>>>Can anyone tell me what kind of oil is recommended for the 2001 Ranger >>>>>>V6? Is it 5-20W or 10-40W for "mid-range" climates and service? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Get your head out of your a.s. You are clearly here to make friends.
While I don't think you are spamming, mac is clearly correct that there are a lot of spammers out there.
Jeff
Andy - 28 Aug 2006 03:05 GMT >>>>>>>Can anyone tell me what kind of oil is recommended for the 2001 Ranger >>>>>>>V6? Is it 5-20W or 10-40W for "mid-range" climates and service? [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >While I don't think you are spamming, mac is clearly correct that there are >a lot of spammers out there. Technicaly spamming is only for email. The correct term for newsgroups is troll. Sometime you have to respond to a person on thier level. Its clear to me that whoever posted that comment doesn't know anything about Amsoil the company or Amsoil the product. I have no idea why they claim Amsoil is unlicenced. Amsoil makes thier own products, so they don't need to licence from anyone else. In fact Amsoil was the first company to make a synthetic engine oil for cars, the first company to offer a synthetic oil with both API and SAE certifications.
rmac - 28 Aug 2006 06:23 GMT >>>>>>>>Can anyone tell me what kind of oil is recommended for the 2001 >>>>>>>>Ranger [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > the first company to offer a synthetic oil with both API and SAE > certifications. Another point for the ignorance of Spamsoil distributors. OEMs require that oil used in their automobiles be licensced by the API. Spamsoil is not, therefore its use will void the OEM's warranty. Why do you thnk it is not sold in retail outlets? It is only sold by people who want to participate in pyramid schemes and profit at the expense of their friends and relatives.
Andy - 28 Aug 2006 13:32 GMT >>>>>>>>>Can anyone tell me what kind of oil is recommended for the 2001 >>>>>>>>>Ranger [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >people who want to participate in pyramid schemes and profit >at the expense of their friends and relatives. Wrong again, geeze. Amsoil XL oils are API rated. They do not void the OEM warrenty. Amsoil is sold in retail outlets. Amsoil is not a pyramid scheme. Don't all goods sold profit at someone elses expense? Thats how free markets work.
C. E. White - 28 Aug 2006 14:40 GMT >>Another point for the ignorance of Spamsoil distributors. OEMs >>require that oil used in their automobiles be licensced by the API. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > pyramid scheme. Don't all goods sold profit at someone elses expense? > Thats how free markets work. The XL product is also not a "true" synthetic. It is a highly refined Group III Oil like Castrol Syntec.
Ed
Andy - 28 Aug 2006 16:12 GMT >>>Another point for the ignorance of Spamsoil distributors. OEMs >>>require that oil used in their automobiles be licensced by the API. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >The XL product is also not a "true" synthetic. It is a highly refined Group >III Oil like Castrol Syntec. Unfortunatly yes.
beebles - 30 Aug 2006 00:44 GMT >>Another point for the ignorance of Spamsoil distributors. OEMs >>require that oil used in their automobiles be licensced by the API. >>Spamsoil is not, therefore its use will void the OEM's warranty. >>Why do you thnk it is not sold in retail outlets? It is only sold by >>people who want to participate in pyramid schemes and profit >>at the expense of their friends and relatives.
>Wrong again, geeze. Amsoil XL oils are API rated. They do not void >the OEM warrenty. *ONLY* Amsoil's XL oils are API certified. The remainder of their product line, particularly their "premium" Series 2000 oils, is UNcertified.
Why do you suppose that is?
>Amsoil is sold in retail outlets. Only those retail outlets where the proprietor is talked into providing a bit of shelf space to the local Amsoil dweeb for a cut of the take. You do not see Amsoil in any mainstream distribution channels anywhere.
>Amsoil is not a pyramid scheme. Fffffplblblblblbblbb!
You owe me a new monitor and keyboard. Mine are filled with coffee now.
Amsoil *is* a pyramid scheme. More accurately, it's a multi-level marketing scheme whose main product is *dealerships*. The oil, fertilizer and vitamins are just fluff.
Andy - 30 Aug 2006 01:21 GMT >>>Another point for the ignorance of Spamsoil distributors. OEMs >>>require that oil used in their automobiles be licensced by the API. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >marketing scheme whose main product is *dealerships*. The oil, >fertilizer and vitamins are just fluff. I wish you would stop all your lies. It's getting old.
beebles - 31 Aug 2006 02:54 GMT >>>>Another point for the ignorance of Spamsoil distributors. OEMs >>>>require that oil used in their automobiles be licensced by the API. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > >I wish you would stop all your lies. It's getting old. Nice comeback, Amsoil boy.
That was my very first post in this newsgroup on this subject. How can that be "getting old"? Oh, that's right, anybody who isn't praising Amsoil and worshipping The Colonel (tm) and dare says anything non-positive about the product is lying. (That includes about 99.5% of all people who are not Amsoil dealers...)
Feel free to point out any lies. "I wish you would stop all your lies" doesn't quite cut it.
Got any explanation (a *believable* explanation) for why Series 2000 oils aren't API certified? Got an example of Amsoil being sold in a retail outlet where it's *not* due to some local Amsoil dweeb striking a deal with the proprietor for some shelf space? Got any explanation for why independent testing shows Amsoil to be no better than most other (significantly less expensive) synthetic oils while Amsoil's own testing always places it way above the competition?
Apparently your brain has steeped in Amsoil for so long you're unable to distinguish blatant marketing hype from the truth.
Andy - 31 Aug 2006 04:28 GMT >>>>>Another point for the ignorance of Spamsoil distributors. OEMs >>>>>require that oil used in their automobiles be licensced by the API. [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] >retail outlet where it's *not* due to some local Amsoil dweeb striking >a deal with the proprietor for some shelf space? I did post the offical Amsoil commentary on the API issue.
All the local Fleet Farm retail stores carry Amsoil.
> Got any explanation >for why independent testing shows Amsoil to be no better than most >other (significantly less expensive) synthetic oils while Amsoil's own >testing always places it way above the competition? Got any references showing that?
>Apparently your brain has steeped in Amsoil for so long you're unable >to distinguish blatant marketing hype from the truth. Look who's talking here, you are the one thats far from the truth.
Jeff - 28 Aug 2006 12:07 GMT (....)
>>>>> There is plenty of data out there. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Technicaly spamming is only for email. Of course, I am wrong sometimes. Not this time. It is spam: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
> The correct term for > newsgroups is troll. A troll is different. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
> Sometime you have to respond to a person on > thier level. Telling someone to" Get your head out of your a.s," is not meeting them at their level. It meeting at the level of their knees. It is not a good way to win friends, to say the least.
> Its clear to me that whoever posted that comment doesn't > know anything about Amsoil the company or Amsoil the product. I have [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the first company to offer a synthetic oil with both API and SAE > certifications. You sound like a spokesperson for the company.
To me, it sounds like the person is clearly aware of spammers.
BTW, there are other good synthetics out there, like Mobil1. For the record, I am a stock holder of Mobil (like millions of other people), but I am in no way a paid spokesperson or affiliated with the company. The purchase of 5 qts of Mobil1 will increase my net worth by an estimated $0.000000000001.
Jeff
Scott - 26 Aug 2006 20:49 GMT > Can anyone tell me what kind of oil is recommended for the 2001 Ranger > V6? Is it 5-20W or 10-40W for "mid-range" climates and service? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Thanks for any comments. I get the motorcraft 10-30, it is very good semi-synthetic. Found it at Walmart, but don't buy the sh.t FRAM filters they have get motorcraft. You can get their 5-20 also.
Backyard Mechanic - 28 Aug 2006 03:18 GMT > Can anyone tell me what kind of oil is recommended for the 2001 Ranger > V6? Is it 5-20W or 10-40W for "mid-range" climates and service? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Thanks for any comments. Well... I think I'll cut around the Spamsoil crap and those who think w20 must be 'better protection' than w30 because Ford says so.
here's the facts, as I see it:
NOBODY uses 10w40 anymore in a decent gasoline engine if they have been paying attention.
Like most say, Ford probably went to 20 for mileage purposes, making it a semi-syn to make up the difference. 20 is good enough, after all if a typical engine lasts twice or more the warranty, and with a semi-syn 20 should easily make that...
So your choices would be 5w20, 5w30 or 10w30. A few years ago, most pros went for the least possible "spread' so if the 'cold start temp' were typically 32 or above, 10w30.
Now if it were MY truck, I'd use Mobil 1 10w30 in summer and 5 or 0 w30 in the winter.
I've seen the results of Mobil 1 in two engines over 100,000 miles of MY use and 185 to 200 thousand total...pristine inside!
My prejudices AGAINST types/brands are: Dont use oils that are mainly marketing oriented.. which rules out Amsoil, and the two with Q or Z in the names.
I like Valvoline, for a Dino oil
 Signature Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price you pay..DEAL with it!
Jeff - 28 Aug 2006 12:10 GMT >> Can anyone tell me what kind of oil is recommended for the 2001 Ranger >> V6? Is it 5-20W or 10-40W for "mid-range" climates and service? [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > I like Valvoline, for a Dino oil Do you have any data, other than anecdote, to back you up?
Any studies that suggest that you would be better off with 5w20 or 5w30?
Your logic sounds good, except, that if Ford went with the a particular oil for fuel economy, increased fuel economy and probably descreased friction sound like good reasons to go with thier choice.
I've heard your arguement before (even the service manager at the dealer I bought my Ford offered the same advice), but that doesn't mean that it is correct.
Jeff
Backyard Mechanic - 16 Sep 2006 15:24 GMT > "Backyard Mechanic" <pettyfog@yaywho.com> wrote
>> here's the facts, as I see it: >> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Jeff What about 'probably.. 'if it were my..' and 'I've seen.. in MY use' is it you dont understand?
Of course it's anecdotal... but even I wouldnt be putting that on here if there wasnt a concensus on it in the past... that's what this NG is for.
You think I want to be made a fool of by someone pointing out the opposite is true? That happens but I prefer it to be few and a far time between.. and by Warman or someone else who cares that I get it right.
I've read Doctor oil or whatever he calls himself and numerous other sites... some good points, some miss the point, in my opinion.
Tell you what... if my experience, and reading, on brand usage over 40 years isnt enough, why not do the opposite?
Use nothing but Pennzoil, Fram Oil Filters and get your gas at a mom'n'pop Citgo!
And dont forget to put them Bosch Plats in all your Fords
 Signature Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price you pay..DEAL with it!
|
|
|