The shop where I have my car serviced has been urging me to change my oil in my 2013 Mustang GT California Special more often. I've owned this vehicle since May 2012 and have 11K miles on it. Since I don't have time to drive it much I change the oil once a year since Ford recommends every 10K. The question is should I change it more often or is once a year with synthetic oil okay? Thank you, Russell in San Jose
Answer: Russell, modern engine oils and engine technology allow for the 10,000 mile oil change intervals. Keep in mind the manufacturer also offers a powertrain warranty for up to 100,000 miles so a 10k oil change interval is not harmful under “normal” conditions.
If your trips allow the engine to fully warm up and the oil temperature to get over 200 degrees regularly to evaporate moisture, you’re probably just fine. Keep in mind the manual says to start the engine every 15 days and allow it to reach normal operating temperature.
Ford puts particular emphasis on their oil life monitor stating a the oil change must be done within two weeks or 500 miles of the ENGINE OIL CHANGE DUE or OIL CHANGE message. Should the monitor be accidentally reset or inoperative, Ford states to change the oil at six months or 5000 miles and never exceed one year or 10,000 miles between oil changes. More extreme use as described in your manual will require more frequent changes and the readout should reflect this.
If you want laboratory data to compare, I highly recommend Blackstone Labs for a $28 oil analysis www.blackstone-labs.com. What would be interesting is how the oil life display readout correlates to the vehicle miles and the lab analysis.
Showing posts with label oil. Show all posts
Showing posts with label oil. Show all posts
Thursday, July 21, 2016
Monday, April 20, 2009
In NASCAR the oil is faster than the driver
All the hype surrounding the drivers in NASCAR should perhaps be re-directed at the R&D department and the oil chemists before the rules change. "Witches brew" oil formulations are giving unfair advantages to the big budget teams and further lowers the drivers' influence on the outcome of the race.
Two recent articles got me thinking about this recently. Robbie Gordon was interviewed by Pit Lane, the promotional magazine for Infineon Raceway at Sears Point. Or just Sears Point to all of us enthusiasts. He stated the driver makes up 10-15% of the racing in NASCAR. Pretty disappointing isn't it? Makes it sound like anyone can floor it and turn left. Never mind turn right, threshold braking, hitting the apex and, well you know, actually racing....
Then a recent article in the Wall Street Journal states that the motor oil is the most sophisticated part of the race car and $1million per year can be spent on R&D and experimentation by a team. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123932274269507173.html This is estimated to give a 10hp gain. Even if this number isn't low, during a three hour race, this really adds up, lap after lap.
Disclaimer: Yes, I would love to be a race car driver, even in NASCAR but ONLY at Sears Point and Watkins Glen where they truly race in the purest sense. Otherwise, keeping the busy schedule they have for the "type" of racing they do is admirable, I admit. It must be both exciting and a serious grind.
NASCAR is essentially a spec-racer series. The cars must all be essentially identical with variation strictly regulated. The engines make the main difference, as we know. So if costs are controlled, is it really fair for the big-budget teams to have such an advantage that further takes the driver out of the equation? NASCAR should mandate 3 oil formulations for the season per team, controlled by the oil companies. Lesser budget teams should be able to purchase these formulas for a nominal fee. To use it as an equalizer, teams down on points can acquire a new formulation using a rewards structure throughout the season. If this is too complex, then mandate no changing of oil chemistries for the season or only three times a season. Let's raise the driver equation.
There are teams that are subsidized, only running a few laps of a race for a nice monetary payout. While this isn't ideal, wouldn't it be better if they at least ran more competitively during the few laps they participate in? Wouldn't it be nice if they could actually afford to run the bulk of a race? Efforts should be made for team development. Oil regulation would be one small step.
To be honest, I'm not a fan of NASCAR as you can tell, but I give credit again to the drivers, the hardworking teams and the fact that it is the most popular motorsport in the US. I urge NASCAR to do the right thing and raise the influence the driver has on the outcome of the race.
Two recent articles got me thinking about this recently. Robbie Gordon was interviewed by Pit Lane, the promotional magazine for Infineon Raceway at Sears Point. Or just Sears Point to all of us enthusiasts. He stated the driver makes up 10-15% of the racing in NASCAR. Pretty disappointing isn't it? Makes it sound like anyone can floor it and turn left. Never mind turn right, threshold braking, hitting the apex and, well you know, actually racing....
Then a recent article in the Wall Street Journal states that the motor oil is the most sophisticated part of the race car and $1million per year can be spent on R&D and experimentation by a team. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123932274269507173.html This is estimated to give a 10hp gain. Even if this number isn't low, during a three hour race, this really adds up, lap after lap.
Disclaimer: Yes, I would love to be a race car driver, even in NASCAR but ONLY at Sears Point and Watkins Glen where they truly race in the purest sense. Otherwise, keeping the busy schedule they have for the "type" of racing they do is admirable, I admit. It must be both exciting and a serious grind.
NASCAR is essentially a spec-racer series. The cars must all be essentially identical with variation strictly regulated. The engines make the main difference, as we know. So if costs are controlled, is it really fair for the big-budget teams to have such an advantage that further takes the driver out of the equation? NASCAR should mandate 3 oil formulations for the season per team, controlled by the oil companies. Lesser budget teams should be able to purchase these formulas for a nominal fee. To use it as an equalizer, teams down on points can acquire a new formulation using a rewards structure throughout the season. If this is too complex, then mandate no changing of oil chemistries for the season or only three times a season. Let's raise the driver equation.
There are teams that are subsidized, only running a few laps of a race for a nice monetary payout. While this isn't ideal, wouldn't it be better if they at least ran more competitively during the few laps they participate in? Wouldn't it be nice if they could actually afford to run the bulk of a race? Efforts should be made for team development. Oil regulation would be one small step.
To be honest, I'm not a fan of NASCAR as you can tell, but I give credit again to the drivers, the hardworking teams and the fact that it is the most popular motorsport in the US. I urge NASCAR to do the right thing and raise the influence the driver has on the outcome of the race.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)