What have you done to your mustang today?

cavero

forum member
Joined
Jun 30, 2012
Posts
749
Reaction score
139
Location
NoVA
For those so interested.................

Got my results on Tuesday....................she's looking good across the board, outside of the fact the oil sample tested was MC 5W-20 FS instead of the MC 5W-30 FS I've ran since the 2nd oil change (5-25-18) after I bought the car in 10-17, thus in reality what this sample is showing, IMHO, is a reflection of the general results across my full 139,433 mi thru 178,255 mi ownership range that is also reflective of the MC 5W-30 FS oil as well (the MC 5W-20 FS oil had residuals of the prior MC 5W-30 FS oil in it.......both oils have the same API Gasoline Engines SP\SN Plus specs\ILSAC 6F rating thus the exact same MC-formulated additive packages......only difference between them is the base oil viscosity index rating.......the main reason for Ford OEM OM warranty min recommendation of MC 5W-20 Blend is due to CAFE stds only--mostly emissions & MPG......fact FWIW. Also, Project Farm did a test on several OE oils--included Ford MC 5W-20 Blend--0-day sample tests results showed that this Ford MC oil had the best additive package mix of the lot......which stands to reason as all Ford Modulars & EcoBoost engines are warm runners for MPG\emissions purposes--OEM spec 212*F ECT normal operating temps thus 195*F min ECT, which have avg operating oil temps on the high side between 160*F-200*F......right at the oil temp threshold between 5W-20 & 5W-30 grade viscosity indexes using OEM 4.6L 3V 0-day bearing clearances......thus these engines will have a tendency to form varnish deposits--the thin, hard, brown residue--due to the higher operating temps causing oil viscosity shear\breakdown over time--FYI, oil sludge buildup is due to running engines too cold & not getting oil hot enough to fully cook out any moisture impingement--unless the oil has a good additive package that can arrest\clean these deposits while at the same time maintaining good lubricity\protection.......).

Now if you will note, the viscosity index test results show this MC 5W-20 FS oil was still within its 20-grade viscosity index range..........but is on the low side of it (7.8 cstks, min range for 20-grade is 6.9 cstks) in only 3515 mi (oil was run hard at times while doing WOT\drivability tuning......during the full summer season thus was run fairly hot oil temp-wise at times) thus is a little too thin for my tastes\specific engine operating conditions. But this 5W-20 run to 5W-30 changeout did confirm other things......confirmed twice that the 5W-30 oil is noticeably better for VCT operations & for operational EOP curves--VCT operations are noticeably more stable & responsive under 5W-30 than 5W-20, which translates into more accurate VCT cam timing movement\positioning thus a slight advantage in avg HP\TQ outputs at the only expense of some potential MPG loss (will be testing this out soon on the 5W-30 oil.........have already done this on the 5W-20 oil back in October..........to get a comparison result for knowledge\records) but no measurable emissions degradation at all to date (have pulled several IM Readiness Self-Check Test results from ECU since last oil changeout........all showing to remain within prior established normal Cat CE Ratio operating ranges between .035-.071 on both banks, depending on how the car was being driven.......which are stellar emissions readings thru these MagnaFlow #5461336 CARB-cert EO# D-193-140 TWC OEM-grade aftermarket cats flowing consistently between 93%-98% DECS 2.1 software calculated engine VE thru my FRPP Hot Rod cams using CMCV's--in-tune readouts between .72-.82 air load.....Ford Spanish Oak ECU's SD equivalent of calculated engine VE% using J-1349 reference std dry air--depending on air environmental conditions, ie, uncorrected density altitude & IAT--ECU can't calculate humidity% thus is "baked into" air density off MAF hot wire voltage readouts......this is approx 4%-5% better across the board than what I have recorded thru my Lunati VooDoo #21270700 cams using Steeda CMDP's......MAF Lambda 1.0 calibration results between the 2 cam profiles using the same SBE long block\CAI\MAF section & sensor\TB\OEM IM plenum & runners\full exhaust setup also back this up......only difference outside of cams are CMCV's vs CMDP's). Engine is operating very efficiently.............if she's moving the air, she'll make the associated avg & peak HP\TQ outputs as long as the fueling, VCT cam timing mapping & ignition timing is optimized per engine RPM......ie, the tuning.

Airmass=TQ........TQ=Airmass...........TQ over time\distance\RPM=work done called HP.

1 of the main things I wanted to see was the amount of fuel dilution % in the oil......a good marker of how efficient my tuning is across the board--as well as how clean the injectors are spraying\atomizing the fuel & overall engine health. Results showed 1.43%..........well within normal ranges.........also indicates engine blow-by tendencies at the level of tuning I've done.......which is also very little thus she's old but still sturdy cyl-wise thus good piston ring-to-cyl wall contact\sealing w\ hardly any noticeable bearing wear indicated.....thus also shows how good Ford's own MC oil formulations are when run\maintained in these Modulars since they were specifically formulated for them.

On another note, this sample test results gives some validation to K&N's air filters ability to clean the air when correctly maintained.........NW NM is 1 windy & dusty area to be operating an ICE in...............

When the MC 5W-30 FS oil reaches the 3515 mi mark, I plan to pull a sample & send it in for analysis to get an apples-to-apples dilution comparison...........

So far, the new oil filter adapter housing gasket is doing stellar...........oil leaks are history & old leak areas are "drying up"........oil level is so far holding steady at the upper hole marker on dipstick........even after a couple sessions of 1\4 mi WOT rips on her at the NAPI International Raceway & Test Facility down in Mexico.......checking air density "correction" effects at elevation on HP\TQ outputs at low IAT's........

:driver:

View attachment 103078

View attachment 103079
Interesting stuff, a fair amount of it was over my head, but interesting nonetheless
 

GriffX

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2017
Posts
854
Reaction score
495
Painted the valve covers, because I had them anyway removed. Was a lot of work, 3h cleaning and sanding 320 grid, 2h painting with brush and roller (for ONE cover), semi-gloss oil based medium heat range DTM paint for farm machines and trucks. I don't have a spray paint gun, if I knew before how hard the painting was, I would have bought one. But, the textured rolled paint looks good. Paint needs 8 days to fully cure, due to the mechanical stress during removal, I will wait.

CIMG1143 (Mittel).JPGCIMG1145 (Mittel).JPG
Maybe I paint the brake calipers too. I already painted them silver. Not sure, bright color painted calipers look always dirty.
 

GriffX

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2017
Posts
854
Reaction score
495
It is a lot of work but it sure looks good.:cheers:
:beerchug2:
If I had a Tornador for cleaning, sanding star for sanding, paint gun for paint, I guess I could have done one side in 2.5h instead of 5. They never show on YT videos how long it takes to do it, so winter storage it is a good time.
 

cavero

forum member
Joined
Jun 30, 2012
Posts
749
Reaction score
139
Location
NoVA
Finally, did a 3M headlight/foglight restoration. 16 y.o. plastic needed some love. Yup, worked great. $12 on Amazon and some $$$ well spent.

View attachment 102031


What did you use to protect it? I just did the same on mine, and on my 07 Tacoma's fogs. Decided to test out the 2-part clear I had, and it started eating the Taco's plastic!

This was before/after polishing
PXL_20250201_174236685.MP.jpg

This was what the clear did

PXL_20250201_191711419.MP.jpg



BTW, this is how the mustangs turned out (have not cleared it yet)
PXL_20250201_023311309.MP.jpg
 

Blue03Cobra

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2024
Posts
51
Reaction score
48
Location
Baton Rouge, La.
What did you use to protect it?
The 3M kit I used had plastic UV protectant wipes, as the last step.

Meguires also sells a stand-alone product, as well. It also got good reviews and buying the sandpaper and protectant on your own, probably saves a bit. The 3M kit recommended using a protectant, annually, to prevent future fading...
 
Last edited:

cavero

forum member
Joined
Jun 30, 2012
Posts
749
Reaction score
139
Location
NoVA
The 3M kit I used had plastic UV protectant wipes, as the last step.

Maguire also sells a stand-alone product, as well. It also got good reviews and buying the sandpaper and protectant on your own, probably saves a bit. The 3M kit recommended using a protectant, annually, to prevent future fading...
Thanks I'll check out the meguiars product. My leftover 3M kit definitely didn't have that but its pretty old, maybe 6-7 years.
 

ShelbySteve

Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2020
Posts
151
Reaction score
56
What did you use to protect it? I just did the same on mine, and on my 07 Tacoma's fogs. Decided to test out the 2-part clear I had, and it started eating the Taco's plastic!

This was before/after polishing
View attachment 103411

This was what the clear did

View attachment 103412



BTW, this is how the mustangs turned out (have not cleared it yet)
View attachment 103413
I’ve seen guys on the headlight junkies fb page talking about using 2k clear. You could also apply ppf over the lenses.
 

cavero

forum member
Joined
Jun 30, 2012
Posts
749
Reaction score
139
Location
NoVA
I’ve seen guys on the headlight junkies fb page talking about using 2k clear. You could also apply ppf over the lenses.
Yeah that's what I was using, granted the can was a little old. I'm also wondering if it was the plastic that the Tacoma's lights are made out of too. When I was sanding with a 220 disc, if I held it in one spot too long, it'd start melting. Didn't have that problem on the mustang.


BTW, finally got the ceramic coating on the front of the car:
PXL_20250205_032329886.MP.jpg
 

Laga

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2019
Posts
1,050
Reaction score
567
Location
Chicago
I finally finished replacing the electrical connectors for the COPs and injectors on my 05. Over the past 20 years, I have had one of each connector break. I spliced, soldered, and covered with a double layer of glue filled heat to shrink wrap. Not a bad job, just time consuming. #8 cylinder was a bitch. Short wire sticking out of harness and no room to work.
 

GlassTop09

Senior Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Posts
1,242
Reaction score
655
Location
Farmington, NM
But this 5W-20 run to 5W-30 changeout did confirm other things......confirmed twice that the 5W-30 oil is noticeably better for VCT operations & for operational EOP curves--VCT operations are noticeably more stable & responsive under 5W-30 than 5W-20, which translates into more accurate VCT cam timing movement\positioning thus a slight advantage in avg HP\TQ outputs at the only expense of some potential MPG loss (will be testing this out soon on the 5W-30 oil.........have already done this on the 5W-20 oil back in October..........to get a comparison result for knowledge\records) but no measurable emissions degradation at all to date (have pulled several IM Readiness Self-Check Test results from ECU since last oil changeout........all showing to remain within prior established normal Cat CE Ratio operating ranges between .035-.071 on both banks, depending on how the car was being driven......
For those so interested.................

Just got done earlier today running my 2nd fuel mileage test on my Stang running MC 5W-30 FS oil (ran 1st test back in 10-24 on MC 5W-20 FS oil) keeping the test as apples-to-apples as I could (same route in same direction of travel, under same sunny skies using the same E10 91 oct fuel from same pump at same station.......during 2nd test I had to stop at the house to pee before going to station to top back off, thus the 1 mi difference......also didn't have my laptop in car during today's 2nd test & didn't feel like pulling it out just to capture this data from today so the 2nd Forscan Mode 6 Component Self-Check data file is from 2-3-25 DC but compares very closely w\ the 1st Forscan Mode 6 data pulled right after end of 1st mileage test thus within the Cat CE operational range I posted in earlier posting.......) except for environmental conditions (density altitude, humidity & IAT) which are out of my control but my ECU's MAF IAT\AAT temp correction are set at Ford OEM 08-09 Bullitt tune settings (have a Ford OEM 08-09 Bullitt CAI installed), MAF Adaption enabled, all SD settings set at Ford OEM '09 GT tune settings w\ CMCV's installed\enabled (which are all identical to Ford OEM 08-09 Bullitt tune) along w\ correctly calibrated FP 62mm TB's actual PTA\EA mapped in ETC control's TB PTA\EA mapping @ 9.37 in2 max @ 82* TBA at WOT (thus all preemptive SD airmass modeling calcs are matching up very closely to the MAF airmass modeling calcs.......datalogged ECU's IPC Wheel TQ Error PID backs this up w\ error tracking around\at 0 TQ errors thus didn't need to touch the OEM Ford-set IPC WTE max setting of 25,000 at all in tune.....thus no Limp Mode triggers\ETC errors as ECU is in full control of this FP 62mm TB thus engine RPM at all times across the full 82* of TBA operational range.....) thus the ECU is actually accounting for any environmental differences in its airmass modeling calcs while in CL between the 2 test runs..........thus in essence, apples-to-apples.

You don't lie to the ECU, the ECU won't lie to you.....................no garbage in, no garbage out........thus can trust what the ECU tells\shows you.

Results show all is stable thus repeatable tune-wise across the board.............in my case, the viscosity difference between MC 5W-20 FS vs MC 5W-30 FS doesn't matter (friction-wise) concerning MPG........if anything is to be made out of this, MPG under 5W-30 is slightly better than under 5W-20 (roughly 1.5% MPG gain......) which discredits any claims of lower oil viscosity improving MPG (main point of EPA CAFE stds........thinner oil viscosity imparts lower friction coeff against moving internal components due to smaller oil molecular structure thus less drag on engine internals thus less engine load thus higher MPG.....)........at least between a 5W-20 vs a 5W-30 oil that meets the same API specs IMHO & from this result.......the better choice IMHO is 5W-30 for the improved wear protection since actual fuel mileage is not negatively impacted at all.......thus is another validation of my choice to run the MC 5W-30 FS oil (I went w\ it over MC 5W-20 after the 1st oil change post car purchase strictly due to accumulated engine mileage thus perceived engine internal clearance wear to increase wear protection.......MPG wasn't & still isn't my main concern........but it's very nice to have your cake & eat it too.......).

Enjoy!

FRPP Hot Rod Cams CMCV Active MPG Test 10-17-24 (1).JPG

FRPP Hot Rod Cams CMCV Active MPG Test 10-17-24 (2).JPG

FRPP Hot Rod Cams CMCV Active MPG Test 2-7-25 (1).JPG

FRPP Hot Rod Cams CMCV Active MPG Test 2-7-25 (2).JPG
 

Attachments

  • obdiimode6data101724.txt
    7.2 KB · Views: 1
  • obdiimode6data2325.txt
    7.2 KB · Views: 1

GriffX

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2017
Posts
854
Reaction score
495
AFAIK 5w30 for Ford means lower hths viscosity than normal 5w30, almost as thin as 5w20.
 

Latest posts

Support us!

Support Us - Become A Supporting Member Today!

Click Here For Details

Sponsor Links

Banner image
Back
Top