Penrith oil

[whitelion65]

Getting confused here….brain injury doesn’t help!

Is Penrite HPR 5, full synthetic, 5W-40 ok for MC diesel?

Thanks

Steve

[Citroënbender]

Only OK if no DPF.

[whitelion65]

Thanks mate!
These web sites saying the oil complies with specs….grrr

[whitelion65]

Originally Posted by Citroënbender

Only OK if no DPF.

Thank you Sir
I owe you a cool drink.
Spent fifteen minutes with the bloke behind the counter. If you learn something everyday, you’re doing well.

[NZ XR6]

To be fair, Penrite says HPR5 is "suitable for use" in vehicles requiring Ford M2C913-C or -`D oils. But I agree with Citreonbender and always used ACEA C2/C3 oils after it was out of warranty.

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

[ivorya]

https://penriteoil.com.au/products/full-synthetic-5w-30

This is their specific ***913-C/D spec oil. I was using for yrs without any issues.
Comes in the 6L bottle which was perfect for me and my Kugsta.

If i was going to use a 5w-40, i would have chosen https://penriteoil.com.au/products/e...5w-40-full-syn.

Just due to it being C3 spec.

[AlCan]

Hi Guys,

Please excuse me for throwing in my 2c worth... This oil thing has been confusing me too. I'm no expert on oil and don't know the difference between Cx oils and Ay/Bz oils, but I have concluded that Cx oils are not good in TDCi engines. I recently bought a couple of TDCi models very cheaply. Both were having "trans" problems - read LGBT... into that if you like!

Turned out, both had serious EGR issues, and both had non-Ford-approved engine oils. For sure, one had Valvoline XLIII, not the FE version, the other had Pennzoil (Full Synthetic). I suspect there's a definite connection.

On top of that, (referring to Diesel engines) the 2013 Owner's Manual says, on p223:

Topping up with oil: If you are unable to find an oil that meets the specification defined by WSS-M2C913-C (...), you must use SAE 5W-30 that meets the specifications defined by ACEA A5/B5. (Bolding as per original.)

Anyway, I'm going for strict compliance with the Ford Manual, as the cost of oil is minor compared with the potential early issues of non-approved alternatives.

Have been using Penrite's WSS-M2C913-D, called "Vantage" here in NZ, but am moving to Valvoline FE as it seems to be cheaper on average.

Another thing I'll toss in here, though maybe I should make a new thread for it.

Both of those cars were not yet due for oil changes. Both had a few '000km to run. But both already had the long cam chain rattle problem. Still waiting to see how the new oils work out, but early indications are good.

On top that, I noticed that on both engines, the fully warmed-up [in P or N] idle fuel consumption was in the range of 1.2 - 1.4 l/hr. After oil changes, one was 0.6-0.8 l/h, one even dropped to 0.5 now and then, but also mostly 0.6-0.8.

I'm now thinking that idle fuel consumption is probably a better indication of oil state than the Odo reading.

FWIW...

[AlCan]

Another 2c worth to throw into the Great Engine Oil debate...

Found this site again, putting it here for the benefit of all.

Great aid in comparing Oil Specs - you can choose two or more to compare.

Interesting to compare Ford M2C913-C or -D with A5/B5 (and with C3 of course).

Click the "Specifications" drop-down at Top Left, tick the ones you want. To get rid of the drop-down, click Specifications again.

https://online.lubrizol.com/relperftool/pc.html

Enjoy.

[NZ XR6]

AICan, there was a lengthy thread here on oil for diesel Mondeos some time ago. Despite what Ford say, a low SAPS oil is advisable for a vehicle with a DPF. I've been using a Fuchs C2/C3 oil for years with no problems, although I have now switched to Mobil 1 ESP as Fuchs has become very expensive in NZ and the Mobil 1 oil was cheaper on special.

If you want to keep using a Ford spec oil, then Fuchs make a low SAPS oil that meets the M2C913-D.

(C2 and C3 oils are technically mid SAPS, but are usually referred to as low SAPS.)

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

[AlCan]

Thanks NZ XR6,

This thread? https://www.fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=11491172

Meantime, my principal reasons for sticking to the Ford spec are what I've seen in two engines (both of them) that weren't using the Ford spec oil:

1. Either blocked up oil flow restrictors or gummed up Cam Chain tensioners (or both) as per that thread. I can see that I'm going to have to pull at least one of them out to find out what's really wrong with it. After changing to 913-D and running one of them hot daily for a while, the time to quiet Cam Chain has come right down - maybe 10 seconds or less, after sitting overnight - but, after a proper warmup, that cam chain starts rattling again. Maybe it's just worn out now (at only 134,000km), or the internal tensioner spring is broken.

2. Both engines also had massive EGR issues when I bought the cars. I have to be grateful for that, as that was what made the prices so good, but that's no reason to keep using alternative oils. That said, now that the EGRs are out of the equation, it might be okay.

Maybe both these issues were purely due to neglect and not the oil grade per se. Does that stack up when it comes to the EGR issues? Both those engines were showing increased idle fuel consumption, (sign of oil thickening I imagine), but would that make the EGRs fail?

I don't know as much as Ford does, but of course, Ford's main reason for insisting on 913-C or -D (or A5/B5 as last resort for top up) might simply be to maintain EURO-5 compliance. Or they know that other oils will create [maybe EGR] issues?

Can you explain the main reasons among the posters to that thread, for not using Ford-spec? Low SAPS, so less DPF issues? Or does C3 have better wear characteristics as well? I'd have thought higher TBN (i.e. 913-spec) is better in view of the long oil change interval - am I wrong on that?

Can I ask, a do you still have an EGR? DPF? How's your cam chain?

[AlCan]

P.S.

Originally Posted by AlCan

the time to quiet Cam Chain has come right down - maybe 10 seconds or less, after sitting overnight - but, after a proper warmup, that cam chain starts rattling again. Maybe it's just worn out now (at only 134,000km), or the internal tensioner spring is broken.

... or, the oil pressure drops too much, due to major wear in other places? Still to look into that.

Both the cars I mentioned were not up to the permitted oil change milage at the time I got them. One of them must have been neglected earlier it its young life.

[NZ XR6]

Originally Posted by AlCan

Thanks NZ XR6,

This thread? https://www.fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=11491172

Meantime, my principal reasons for sticking to the Ford spec are what I've seen in two engines (both of them) that weren't using the Ford spec oil:

1. Either blocked up oil flow restrictors or gummed up Cam Chain tensioners (or both) as per that thread. I can see that I'm going to have to pull at least one of them out to find out what's really wrong with it. After changing to 913-D and running one of them hot daily for a while, the time to quiet Cam Chain has come right down - maybe 10 seconds or less, after sitting overnight - but, after a proper warmup, that cam chain starts rattling again. Maybe it's just worn out now (at only 134,000km), or the internal tensioner spring is broken.

2. Both engines also had massive EGR issues when I bought the cars. I have to be grateful for that, as that was what made the prices so good, but that's no reason to keep using alternative oils. That said, now that the EGRs are out of the equation, it might be okay.

Maybe both these issues were purely due to neglect and not the oil grade per se. Does that stack up when it comes to the EGR issues? Both those engines were showing increased idle fuel consumption, (sign of oil thickening I imagine), but would that make the EGRs fail?

I don't know as much as Ford does, but of course, Ford's main reason for insisting on 913-C or -D (or A5/B5 as last resort for top up) might simply be to maintain EURO-5 compliance. Or they know that other oils will create [maybe EGR] issues?

Can you explain the main reasons among the posters to that thread, for not using Ford-spec? Low SAPS, so less DPF issues? Or does C3 have better wear characteristics as well? I'd have thought higher TBN (i.e. 913-spec) is better in view of the long oil change interval - am I wrong on that?

Can I ask, a do you still have an EGR? DPF? How's your cam chain?

No, it's an older thread, I'll see if I can find it.

Ash deposits generally determine DPF life, hence the development of low SAPS oil. But low SAPS means lower TBN, so other antiwear additives are used.

Yes, my engine still has the DPF and EGR, and doesn't rattle on startup.



Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

[Mondaveo]

Originally Posted by AlCan

Can you explain the main reasons among the posters to that thread, for not using Ford-spec? Low SAPS, so less DPF issues? Or does C3 have better wear characteristics as well? I'd have thought higher TBN (i.e. 913-spec) is better in view of the long oil change interval - am I wrong on that?

For me, the clincher in my decision to switch was learning that Peugeot and Citroen (who co-developed the diesel engine with Ford) both specify a C2/C3 oil for their vehicles - vehicles that utilise the exact same engine - and their spec makes a lot more sense given the engine is equipped with a DPF. As a bonus, their spec should be a little better for wear protection and mechanical longevity too.
(Initially after getting the car I was using Penrite 5W-30 meeting Ford spec M2C913-C/D, sometimes labelled 'Vantage', but for the last couple of years I've switched to Nulon APEX+ 5W-30 Multi-23, which is C2/C3. I had my mind changed by the same discussion thread that NZ XR6 refers to, plus using Nulon's engine oil sample testing service, just out of curiosity to see what it says of the wear indicators. No problems since changing to the Nulon oil, but then I had no problems running on the Penrite oil either.)

You'll notice the oils Ford says to use (that meet their specification M2C913-) usually explicitly state they are not suitable for vehicles equipped with a DPF. As a direct result, we've had lots of discussion and speculation on these forums trying to resolve the contradiction. Given that DPF repairs are known to be frightfully expensive, people understandably want reassurance they are doing the right thing!

To my recollection, the takeaway from the thoughtful analysis in that other discussion was that the Peugoet/Citroen oil spec should be better for engine protection and longevity of the DPF, at the slight expensive of fuel economy. While comparatively, the Ford spec appears to be prioritising fuel economy, with the possible tradeoff of engine wear and extra ash load on the DPF.
(There were some statements surfaced that this engine uses a "high flow" DPF which apparently makes it okay to use the supposedly non-DPF-suitable oil... but as you'd imagine, without official sources this is hardly convincing enough for many of us.)

It's also thought that Ford wanted to have just the one oil specification for most/all engines (petrol and diesel) in their European passenger car range - rather than splitting hairs with different specs for different engines.

All that said, compared to the extent of hand-wringing that goes to gearbox issues, we've essentially never seen anyone report failure of the DPF on these vehicles (yes user Bundybear had one, but that was a blocked injector which could be economically repaired, rather than an issue with the filter), so you'll probably be alright whether you stick to M2C913- or go maverick with C2/C3.

Originally Posted by AlCan

On top that, I noticed that on both engines, the fully warmed-up [in P or N] idle fuel consumption was in the range of 1.2 - 1.4 l/hr. After oil changes, one was 0.6-0.8 l/h, one even dropped to 0.5 now and then, but also mostly 0.6-0.8.

I'm now thinking that idle fuel consumption is probably a better indication of oil state than the Odo reading.

You might want to check those figures are for comparable engine load - particularly, was your A/C running?

My car usually idles at 1.1-1.2 L/hr (although during the recent hot spell I saw it sitting at 1.5 L/hr). I have climate control, so I used to leave the A/C switched on all the time (I assumed the electronic brain would manage running the compressor as needed to maintain the set temperature). However a few months ago, when the weather was cooler I actually tried pushing the button to turn the A/C off - and saw that the indicated fuel consumption at idle dropped to 0.6 L/hr (and my fuel economy around town improved out of sight too).

[Mondaveo]

I believe this is the thread:
Oil change (https://fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=11469307)

Really good wisdom in there

[goz007]

The M2C913 spec is that one Ford spec for the Lion 2.7lt tdci in the Territory, it to was a Ford/Peugeot designed engineered/engine that was used in the Jaguar, Peogeot , Citroen, Landrover & Range Rover, engine was developed when Ford had big shares in Jaguar & Landrover, the Territory has no DPF only EGR.

[NZ XR6]

Originally Posted by Mondaveo

I believe this is the thread:

Oil change (https://fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=11469307)



Really good wisdom in there

Thanks, there was another, older thread, but it might be difficult to find.

This one is interesting - I had forgotten that one of the reasons for using the Fuchs oil was that the frequency of DPF regens decreased.

I have had problems with the hoses from the DPF to the differential pressure (DP) transducer, which were sorted this week. Now that the ECU is seeing these readings again, it will be interesting to see what happens to the regen frequency with the Mobil 1 ESP oil.

Ford no longer have the replacement hoses in NZ, but the garage found some suitable aftermarket tubing.

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

[AlCan]

Originally Posted by Mondaveo

I believe this is the thread:Oil change (https://fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=11469307)Really good wisdom in there

Thanks Mondaveo!

Yes, very good wisdom and a few laughs as well!

After reading your previous post, I was going to say "Well Done, I'm In", but have to say, after reading those 5 pages, I'm gonna have a wee think about it.

I find that I get very few DPF burns on either wagon running Penrite 913-D. The first time it happened I was 400km down the line, and thought "What the hell is that blubbering noise?" Now I see that there are about 8 PIDs for all the latest DPF burns, so Ford must have been worried about it enough to do that. Or maybe they wanted a way to escape early warranty claims on DPFs?

But I'm probably going to join the Club - with a capital C , anyway. Too bad I've got quite a few litres of 913-D bought on pre-Christmas specials stored up.

Someone asked in that thread, and I think the answer is that Ford is/was more worried about EURO5 & Fuel Economy than DPF life. Being able to tick the boxes for the Fad of the Day and relevant laws, then selling as many vehicles as possible is how car makers stay in business. And they seem to have done very well with the Ranger. We have thousands of them over here. That's a great market for the real profit-makers - spare parts.

[AlCan]

Originally Posted by Mondaveo

You might want to check those figures are for comparable engine load - particularly, was your A/C running?

Yeah, sorry. I realised that after I posted, and of course it makes big difference. Even having the indicators on makes a slight difference.

So, for consistency, I do that check with EVERYTHING Off. A/C (& Fan), Lights, [Heated seats], Demister, Audio system, Trans in P or N, Engine fully warmed up (Battery charged). I usually do it with brakes on, so I can do it in Neutral at traffic lights etc. The 150 Amp Alternator is capable of sucking up about 2.5kW of mechanical power when fully loaded (if that's even possible with absolutely everything on), so electrical loads would make a huge difference. The only way to get comparable readings is with the minimum electrical load you can get, so no point doing it at night with the lights on.

And, FWIW, the Wagon with the 3rd to 1st changedown issue is currently getting 0.5 l/h, with the occasional flick to 0.6. I suspect the Big End bearings might be a bit worn, but I'm still waiting on the fittings from China - Yep, M16 x 1.5 to 1/8 BSP Adapter, Tee & Tube fitting - to check out the Oil Pressure performance. That will be interesting.

[swamp]

hi
The pdf removes all the b...sh..t

shows the definitions and DPF / Non Dpf oils

https://www.valvolineglobal.com/en-k...pecifications/

[NZ XR6]

Originally Posted by AlCan

Yeah, sorry. I realised that after I posted, and of course it makes big difference. Even having the indicators on makes a slight difference.

So, for consistency, I do that check with EVERYTHING Off. A/C (& Fan), Lights, [Heated seats], Demister, Audio system, Trans in P or N, Engine fully warmed up (Battery charged). I usually do it with brakes on, so I can do it in Neutral at traffic lights etc. The 150 Amp Alternator is capable of sucking up about 2.5kW of mechanical power when fully loaded (if that's even possible with absolutely everything on), so electrical loads would make a huge difference. The only way to get comparable readings is with the minimum electrical load you can get, so no point doing it at night with the lights on.

And, FWIW, the Wagon with the 3rd to 1st changedown issue is currently getting 0.5 l/h, with the occasional flick to 0.6. I suspect the Big End bearings might be a bit worn, but I'm still waiting on the fittings from China - Yep, M16 x 1.5 to 1/8 BSP Adapter, Tee & Tube fitting - to check out the Oil Pressure performance. That will be interesting.

Another issue is the BMS (Battery Management System). If the battery charge level is OK, this will stop the alternator charging if you are in D with your foot on the brake pedal. On my MB, that drops the fuel consumption from around 1.3 to 0.9 l/h after maybe 10 s.

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

[NZ XR6]

Originally Posted by swamp

hi
The pdf removes all the b...sh..t

shows the definitions and DPF / Non Dpf oils

https://www.valvolineglobal.com/en-k...pecifications/

Thanks for the link. I didn't know that Aramco had bought Valvoline.

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk