6.7 PSD why is 10W30 not approved for trailer tow

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I don't understand why the OEMs place such a significant emphasis on making these recommendations. I don't see any proof in real world data that would justify the commotion they create.

Maybe because they get so hamstrung over what they can recommend for gasoline engines, most often one viscosity for all conditions, they get to expend the nervous energy they have accumulated when they write the diesel lube recommendations.

 

[jmacd]

Having read and enjoyed the discussion above, I must say that Road Runner 1's UOA results on the three samples is very compelling evidence that 10w30 does the job in his "commercial" use. And I really appreciate dnewton3's detailed responses, particularly his points about "high" oil temperatures. I checked in with my two local Ford dealers regarding their PSD oil recommendations. Both service a lot of commercial vehicles. Agriculture and construction primarily. My local dealer fills with 10w30 and uses 15w40 in earlier generation Navistar designed engines. The other area dealer also fills almost exclusively with 10w30. I know that this dealer sells and services a number of Northern California's major utility, PG&E's, FORD F350-550 PSD trucks. They are all running 10w30.

My concern in my original post was based on my working years in vehicle fleet maintenance. When I started in the 1960's we ran straight 30wt in trucks and construction equipment and gradually switched over to 15w40 and ran it across the various types of vehicles and equipment in the fleets I worked for. With Ford's designed and built Scorpion PSD I expected that their extensive testing would have led them to provide a more conclusive recommendation. 15w40 is a great engine lubricant that's been around for a long time. We've moved on from straight grades of 30wt and 40wt engine lubes and it seems to me that 10w30 is the next in the progression of motor oils. Lower vis oils seem to be the future. My car "requires" synthetic 0w20. If Ford has serious concerns I would have thought they's just require 5w40 synthetic and be done with it. I think I'll go with dnewton3's suggestion and run 10w30 next OCI and add in UOA and see how it goes. Thanks all.

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Again, we need to add some perspective here.

First of all, 250F is NOT a dangerous temp for conventional lubes; especially not today's well-crafted lubes. Ever hear of the (in)famous GM filter test? Often cited here, albeit with little-to-no understanding of the parameters it was conducted with. Did you know that GM purposely held the sump temps for those tests at 250F? That's right, the target temp for the filter testing was 250F at the sump, and for 8 sustained hours! And that was back in the 1980s. If 250F is so dastardly, then why use such a litmus test for the filters? In fact, some SAE studies and ASTM tests actually call for temps anywhere from 230F to 250F as the standard.


I agree. Oil temperatures of 240-250F should be considered normal operation. I used to do Hot Box tests at Cummins back in the mid-1990's. This was a 200 hour test at rated power with coolant temperature at 230F, which forced the oil temperature up to 280F. I ran a number of these tests on 15w40 conventional lube (Premium Blue from back in the day), and never had a problem getting through the tests. I don't get stressed about oil temperature until it tops 300F if I'm running synthetic and 280F if I'm running conventional.

 

[BrocLuno]

Why are you asking this question? Ford has told you what was/is needed towing ...

 

[another Todd]

I use 5w-40 year round and don't even think about it. The $30 bucks or so difference in oil change price is cheap for the piece of mind. Last year I towed my 10,000 lb. 5th wheel about 500 miles in 110-116 degree heat and didn't even think about it. Oil temps at 245F...no problem. 10w-30 in the same situation with oil temps at 245, I think may be a problem.

 

[jongies3]

I'd just play safe and run the syn, why risk a $15k engine? I run the T6 Rotella in my 7.3 'Stroke and it costs me about $85 per change since I do the work myself, order the oil online or use rebates to get it cheaper. If you do it yourself, it should cost you about the same, but, they're awfully proud about those 6.7 oil filters I've noticed!

Be warned, though, if you haven't changed the oil on your 6.7 before, make sure to position the catch pan a good foot and half to 2 feet back from the drain plug, that oil races out of there like a fire hose once the plug's outta the way!

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: jongies3
I'd just play safe and run the syn, why risk a $15k engine? ...


So if I understand you correctly, it is your position that those of us who run 10w-30 dino are risking ours? Putting our $50-70k vehicles in a position of total destruction?

I have two questions; you only need to answer one of them:
1) what proof do you have that the 5w-40 expense pays off in reduced wear versus the alternatives?
2) conversely, what proof do you have that wear escalates with thinner lubes?

Please don't point to a marketing-induced web link or some note in a manual.
I'm asking for PROOF, if one has it.

Please tell me the following:
a) average wear metal counts for 10w-30 HDEOs in heavy towing/severe use
b) average wear metal counts for 15w-40 HDEO in heavy towing/severe use
c) average wear metal counts for 5w-40 HDEO in heavy towing/severe use
d) std dev of wear metals for 10w-30 HDEO in heavy towing/severe use
e) std dev of wear metals for 15w-40 HDEO in heavy towing/severe use
f) std dev of wear metals for 5w-40 HDEO in heavy towing/severe use
g) average exposure duration for all the above
h) average viscosity for all the above
i) average contamination levels for all the above
j) average oxidation/insolubles for all the above

I mean, why let facts and data get in the way of good ol' fashioned rhetoric and mythology, right?

Your claim, and that of Another Todd, is that running a syn is cheap insurance, and that 10w-30 is a risk. The inference I take is that for your selection to be better, mine must be inferior. That my choice offers no buffer against destruction? That thinner lubes are not up to the challenge?

I say: Prove it!

 

[mbacfp]

I think the moral of the story is that 10w-30 will provide excellent results compared to 5w-40 synthetic within Ford's OCI. Extended OCI beyond the truck's oil change minder...then a synthetic should be in better shape going longer. I started using 5w-40 because of Ford's recommendation. Appreciate dnewton, tiredTrucker, and roadrunner for their experiences. My main worry in my application is the cab and chassis turbo...thus the only reason I am using archoil 9100 (which I am considering stopping as well). Great stuff everyone.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: mbacfp
I think the moral of the story is that 10w-30 will provide excellent results compared to 5w-40 synthetic within Ford's OCI. Extended OCI beyond the truck's oil change minder...then a synthetic should be in better shape going longer.


No truer words were typed.

I've never said that syns are always a waste.

But I certainly believe people waste lubes, both syns and dinos, because they never run any lube to anywhere close to a true condemnation point where the lube is reasonably fully utilized. I want to be clear; I'm not advocating using any fluid to a point where the EQUIPMENT is compromised. Just talking about using a fluid to a point where it's near the capability limit. OEM OCIs are generally so overly conservative that no fluid is ever close to any point of real condemnation. At some point it is likely that a dino lube will degrade to a point that a syn will usurp it. But none of us, and I mean none, ever run any lube to that point anyway.

I've run dino engine oils to 3x the OEM recommendations, and the UOAs were totally fine. There's no proof that a syn can do any "better" in a "normal" OCI. It just does not happen. People think that running a syn is "cheap insurance". But there's plenty of reserve capacity in a dino fluid. So just how much extra-extra-extra "insurance" do you really need? If a dino is 3x under-utilized in a normal OEM OCI, then a syn is probably WAY MORE under-utilized.

Using a dino to the OEM limit is a waste. Using a syn is a bigger one. With no reduction of wear for the extra cost.

The only way to REALLY know is to set reasonable condemnation limits for the wear metals, vis, contaminants, etc. Then run your lube up to that point. Then choose a different lube and see if the ROI is equal/greater to the cost differential. If so, it's the one to use. If not, it's cheaper to OCI more often with the lesser cost lube. It's not rocket science, but it somehow escapes most every person, mostly because of the gross bombardment of marketing hype we endure.

 

[bullwinkle]

Only danger is the (extremely) unlikely event of an engine issue, under warranty, that Ford tests the oil on it. How they would ever know how the truck was worked? I am a big fan of 10W30 in diesels that can't be plugged in easily (my GMC 6.2 being the main example) in cold weather (which we've had none this year here)-there is a BIG difference in crank speed & starting, esp. on IDI diesels. I've still not heard a good argument on the CJ-4 ve. CK-4 phosphorus issue on the 6.7-that's the one I don't understand at all. Fortunately I'm not buying any more $55-70K diesel pickups!

 

[mbacfp]

That was the main reason (along with sales) in running 5w-40. Mine is a motorhome application...could Ford deny anything for running 10w-30 (normal) vs 5w-40 (severe service)? I have no idea and I don't think so. I know they can look at total average speeds, idling hours, engine hours, etc. Perhaps they could determine severe service from that? Galphin Ford in Van Nuys told me they use 10w-30 for work trucks...so I say it isn't an issue.

 

[TiredTrucker]

Here was 4 oil samples. the top 2 on this are 10w30 with the bottom 2 being 15w40. Both syn blends. Both same brand, Schaeffer. Ball park 20K on oil changes. A factory reman Detroit Series 60, starting at 409K miles on the reman at the lower sample and working up to 513K miles on the top sample. The top sample was at 513K miles on the reman. It now has 648K miles on it and still using the 10w30 and last sample was just as good as these.

 

[mbacfp]

Thanks TiredTrucker. In theory, wouldn't an engine tend to run cooler on 10w 30 vs 40 wt due to lower energy used by the engine?

 

[dnewton3]

I would say "yes" in theory and "no" in reality to that question. Here's why ...
The engines in most any application we would be viewing are thermostatically liquid controlled. The liquid cooled systems hold the temps to a reasonable level based upon a mechanical thermostat. The amount of friction variation in terms of heat production would be so minuscule that it would be practically impossible to show a heat profile differential. An engine with 10w-30 probably won't run "cooler" only because the thermostat should be holding temps to the same level regardless of what's in the crankcase. Now, that t-stat may have to open or close a tiny fraction differently, but the overall effect as viewed in real operation isn't discernible by the typical operator looking at the dash gage. The lighter vis does reduce pumping losses. That reduction will manifest into less fuel consumed. Burned fuel is heat energy; so less fuel is less heat produced. So on a theoretical level, it may be possible to show on paper a "cooler" running engine. But in daily ops you'd never see a temp difference because the t-stat is doing it's job of holding a steady temp. A t-stat is not a one-way device in terms of energy control; it helps warm an engine as much as cool an engine by manipulating the flow through the heat-exchanger to hold a (hopefully steady) desired operating temp.

To try and show how a thinner grade makes for cooler running would mean you'd have to control other variables so tightly that you could blind them out of a measurement system:
load variation due to grade/inclination of road surface
wind load
operator input (speed and rate of acceleration)
etc

Your theory is correct; less pumping losses means less energy demanded for operation for any performance output desired. But the t-stat is going to counter that with it's job function. An engine won't run "cooler" because lube vis is not the controller of the temps; the t-stat is. Lube is an contributor, not a control point.

 

[mbacfp]

Thanks dnewton. Appreciate it.

 

[bullwinkle]

Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Here was 4 oil samples. the top 2 on this are 10w30 with the bottom 2 being 15w40. Both syn blends. Both same brand, Schaeffer. Ball park 20K on oil changes. A factory reman Detroit Series 60, starting at 409K miles on the reman at the lower sample and working up to 513K miles on the top sample. The top sample was at 513K miles on the reman. It now has 648K miles on it and still using the 10w30 and last sample was just as good as these.



Tired-not sure if you've ever posted it, but how much (if any) percentage-wise did your MPGs improve on 10W30? 1-2%?

 

[TiredTrucker]

Kinda hard to say exactly. About the time I moved to 10w30, also changed type of tires I was using on the truck and went to lower rolling resistance tires. Between the two of them, oil and tires, I gained about .5 mpg, or roughly 13%. Not a lot for general purposes, but commercially, that is substantial. Like about $4000 a year is fuel savings at current diesel prices.

 

[The motor guy]

Ford isn't exactly what I would call the sharpest tool in the tool shed

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: mbacfp
That was the main reason (along with sales) in running 5w-40. Mine is a motorhome application...could Ford deny anything for running 10w-30 (normal) vs 5w-40 (severe service)?

Probably in theory, they could. In practice, that's another matter. It's just so unfortunate that Ford has made things so nebulous when it comes to the viscosity recommendations, and the CK-4 rollout has made matters much worse. Does the manual even mention a 5w-30 HDEO? After all, there is at least one 5w-30 that's formally approved with the Ford specification. And, given the cheap price at which I can get it, if I had the vehicle, I'd be tempted to use it.

And I agree completely. How many dealerships are simply running Motorcraft 10w-30 HDEO and not worrying about whatever the service level might be? There's no way a Ford quick lube manager would want to play corporate's games over this. They'd be saying I put Motorcraft HDEO in a a Ford diesel, what else do you want?

 

[mbacfp]

Does not mention 5w-30. Mine shows 0w-30 or 0w-40. My application is easy on the oil...lots of highway driving...very little stop and go conditions. I always felt the 40 wt was protection for excessive ideling, incomplete regens, etc...basically fuel dilution issues. My only real worry is the turbo...but so far so good.