API CK-4 Phosphorous Issue Update- 01/06/2017

[CarbonSteel]

True or False? Further clarification from the American Petroleum Institute. They tell us that 40-weight diesel engine oils (such as 5W-40, 15W-40, 0W-40) can have both the API CK-4 and API SN specs and still abide by the higher API CK-4 phosphorus limit. On the other hand, 0W-30, 5W-30 and 10W-30 engine oils carrying both the API SN and API CK-4 specs have to abide by the lower SN phosphorous limit of 800 ppm. If true - which (if any) popular oils have the both specifications?

 

[Dyusik]

I believe the reason Rotella and the like dropped the gas certification, is so that they don't have to fuss with what already works (ie RT6), instead they introduced to different line (mix fleet) of oil to satisfy the CK4/SN. I have yet to see a CK4/SN that is >800 ppm P.

 

[Virtus_Probi]

It's true, XW40 oils do not have a maximum phosphorus level for API SN. But, if they are labelled Resource Conserving, then they have to meet the same 0.08% max phosphorus weight restriction that, say, a 5W30 would.

 

[Solarent]

TRUE. The spirit of the rule is that no diesel oil that is used for gasoline engines should risk damage to the catalytic converter. Because 5W40, 15W40, 0W40 are outside the scope of the "ILSAC" grades, they do not have the same limits as the 0W20, 5W20, 5W30 and 10W30 oils. There also needs to be a full SN program ran using the HDDEO technology - Remember the testing and formulating space of an HDDEO is very different from a PCEO. The formulations designed for diesel engines are more about soot handling, oxidation resistance, scuffing wear etc, whereas gasoline engines are about deposit control, cam and piston wear, fuel economy, etc. From a practical standpoint, when you are manufacturing HDDEO you will normally use the same additive package for 10W30 as for 15W40. For this reason there was previously a waiver on CJ-4 formulas allowing higher phosphorus limits on the 10W30 package. Now that 10W30 is the factory fill and recommended viscosity grade for basically all Heavy Duty and On-highway OEM's, there was greater concern about these fluids being used in gasoline - because putting 15W40 in a gas engine is pretty uncommon. People interested in universal oils are probably going to pick a 10W30 or even a 5W30 (which they are now making for HDDEO) - so the low phos requirement is there. In HDDEO the chemistry used to meet the requirements with a lower phos content is more advanced than the traditional packages where higher phos was used. If you look at the major oil line ups (bearing in mind that the 10W30 and 15W40 DI packages are probably the same) you can see what they are doing: Some companies are claiming CK-4/SN on all grades (like Delo) which would mean their 15W40 and 10W30 probably both conform to the phos limit Other companies are claiming CK-4/SN on 15W40 and only CK-4 on the 10W30 - which probably means they are using a high phos formula and using the exception on the 15W40 to allow them to make the SN claim. Other companies are not claiming SN at all - probably using High phos formulas and want to push their customers to a real universal oil in a grade that makes sense like 5W30 (I am thinking of Shell's lineup here). All approaches, if registered, are valid, meet the specification requirements they claim and provide adequate protection. All the hand wringing on the internet about including SN or not is actually pretty funny to watch - I bet the Rotella team think we are all a bunch of crazies.

 

[njohnson]

Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD

True or False? Further clarification from the American Petroleum Institute. They tell us that 40-weight diesel engine oils (such as 5W-40, 15W-40, 0W-40) can have both the API CK-4 and API SN specs and still abide by the higher API CK-4 phosphorus limit. On the other hand, 0W-30, 5W-30 and 10W-30 engine oils carrying both the API SN and API CK-4 specs have to abide by the lower SN phosphorous limit of 800 ppm. If true - which (if any) popular oils have the both specifications?

Mobil Delvac 1300 has both specs. The Mobil TDT 5W-40 does too. And according to Mobil's Product Guide, it has 1300 zinc, 1100 phos..

 

[racin4ds]

So my question is... is the higher Phosphorus something we PSD owners want with the HEUI system or not?

 

[Linctex]

Originally Posted By: racin4ds

So my question is... is the higher Phosphorus something we PSD owners want with the HEUI system or not?

I'm going to guess that ANY "anti wear additives" would be good to have PLENTY of!

 

[BrocLuno]

+1

 

[CarbonSteel]

Well, if I understand Ford's position on CK-4 oils (not enough phosphorus to prevent wear in the 6.7L PSD) then I have to wonder why these oils are not "good" enough.

 

[jrmason]

Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD

True or False? Further clarification from the American Petroleum Institute. They tell us that 40-weight diesel engine oils (such as 5W-40, 15W-40, 0W-40) can have both the API CK-4 and API SN specs and still abide by the higher API CK-4 phosphorus limit. On the other hand, 0W-30, 5W-30 and 10W-30 engine oils carrying both the API SN and API CK-4 specs have to abide by the lower SN phosphorous limit of 800 ppm. If true - which (if any) popular oils have the both specifications?

This is essentially what Ford is stating about xxW-40 oils- virtually any 5w40, 10w40 or 15w40 with the dual rating is acceptable and to avoid any 10w30 for the fact they contain the lower phos rating. Of course Ford won't throw out the blanket statement that "all" xxW-40 oils meet their spec because that would put them in a corner they don't want to be in. I'm sure it's been posted but here it is again. "The customer should not use oils labeled CK-4/SN unless they have been approved by Ford Motor Company to meet WSS-M2C171-F1. This is possible with SAE 10W-40, 15W-40, 5W-40 and 0W-40 oils. At this time SAE 10W-30 oils showing CK-4/SN cannot meet WSS-M2C171-F1 and should be avoided. So if unsure avoid CK-4 oils that also shows SN in the API donut." Can you tell a lawyer edited the final draft of that statement?

 

[claluja]

CK4 5w40 oils I know of that have over 1000 ppm phosphorous at this point are Mystik, M1 TDT, and Amsoil. There are probably others, if anyone knows of any?

 

[yvon_la]

Status quo till acea c5 are avail (adopted 12/16

 

[TiredTrucker]

Originally Posted By: Linctex

Originally Posted By: racin4ds

So my question is... is the higher Phosphorus something we PSD owners want with the HEUI system or not?

I'm going to guess that ANY "anti wear additives" would be good to have PLENTY of!

Especially moly, titanium, and boron.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD

Further clarification from the American Petroleum Institute. They tell us that 40-weight diesel engine oils (such as 5W-40, 15W-40, 0W-40) can have both the API CK-4 and API SN specs and still abide by the higher API CK-4 phosphorus limit. On the other hand, 0W-30, 5W-30 and 10W-30 engine oils carrying both the API SN and API CK-4 specs have to abide by the lower SN phosphorous limit of 800 ppm.

True, at least based upon my digging through a bunch of API bulletins and vote results, as I mentioned in another thread. Of course, how a formulator actually makes the product is up to them, as long as it meets specifications. A 15w-40 CK/SN won't have to meet the SN phosphorus limits, but a formulator could choose to do so.

Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD

Well, if I understand Ford's position on CK-4 oils (not enough phosphorus to prevent wear in the 6.7L PSD) then I have to wonder why these oils are not "good" enough.

The problem I have with this, though, is the Delvac 1 LE 5w-30 E6 (low phosphorus, 800 ppm or lower) was on the previous Ford list (with the E suffix). So, not only is it a low phosphorus oil meeting Ford's approval, it's a viscosity that isn't even mentioned in any of their manuals. So, technically a low phosphorus engine oil was approved for the older Powerstrokes. Now, though, it's an issue for new Powerstrokes, and, retroactively, for all Powerstrokes. The confusion does not fill me with confidence. Of course, using an approved lube is always the best practice. But, when the approved list looks like it was drawn up by a grade four student and we have a lot of self-contradiction in Ford's ongoing saga here, it's really not demonstrating a lot of competence. At least if they would have just mandated an approved oil (from a list that didn't use generic, confusing product names, as I mentioned in another thread, but actually specified real, identifiable products), they wouldn't be spreading so much confusion, not to mention looking a lot less confused themselves.

 

[revupVQ]

My understanding is API only closed the loop-holes CJ-4/SN had with 5w-30 and 10w-30 phos limits, where C was always allowed to supersede S in formulating universal oils concerning their anti-wear additives, IIRC that phos limit is 1200ppm. Now only <800ppm phos allowed for CK-4/SN in only those two vis grades. All other CK-4/SN grades and CK-4's were not affected in previously allowed CJ-4 phos limits. Case in point: Amsoil offers two 5w-40 HDEO's (ADO and DEO). Both meet CK-4/SN as well as Fords new spec requirements. I emailed Amsoil tech dept and asked for phosphorous and zinc on those, being concerned of the CK-4/SN listed. ADO has 1008ppm Phos and 1108ppm Z. DEO has 1150ppm Phos and 1270ppm Z. I'll conclude, being Ford isn't disclosing 'which' oils didn't pass their testing on their 6.7, that it was one or both of the new CK-4/SN 5w-30 and/or 10w-30. Other than those two, nothing has changed as it was back in the CF-4, CF-4/SN allowable phos limit days. And phos limits are just that, max limits. Doesn't always mean your HDEO is robust in that additive (excluding the two I mentioned under CK-4/SN). I've already read threads/posts of HDEO's that were <1000ppm phos with their UOA's. So, even though Ford created this CK-4 confusion in general and is trying to capitalize on that with marketing of their special oil, I still give kudos to Ford for releasing their spec standard that I will now go by when I choose my HDEO oil for my 97' 7.3 PSD. My .02 worth

 

[Garak]

I agree, and following the spec and them mandating it would be simplest (although their list needs some serious cleanup). Just a tidbit from my post above yours, your 7.3L can use Delvac 1 LE 5w-30, which is a low phosphorus lube; at the very least, it's on Ford's previous list, despite low phosphorus.

 

[revupVQ]

Originally Posted By: Garak

I agree, and following the spec and them mandating it would be simplest (although their list needs some serious cleanup). Just a tidbit from my post above yours, your 7.3L can use Delvac 1 LE 5w-30, which is a low phosphorus lube; at the very least, it's on Ford's previous list, despite low phosphorus.

True, the Delvac you mention meets Ford WSS-M2C171-E but currently not Fords new WSS-M2C171-F1 nor is listed as a CK-4 on Mobiles website. Makes me wonder what phos limit (if any) Ford had/has on their WSS-M2C171-E spec. All I can assume is since their testing was only on their 6.7L, that particular power-plant needs the higher phos than their previous 7.3, 6.0, 6.4, being the 6.7's output is more hp and tq compared to those previous PSD's in stock form. I have been fortunate in my oil choice on my 7.3, not even thinking of phos limits, and have been >1000ppm on phos in all my UOA's with one exception. Ran Rotella T 15w-40 back in 2011 once and came back with 924 phos. I doubt that slightly lower phos not meeting Fords new 6.7 oil spec of today, hurt my 20 yr old 7.3 with its much lower hp/tq rating. Haven't looked at Fords approved oil listings, but if it's still outdated, yes they need to bring that up to snuff asap.

 

[revupVQ]

In further thought and assumption, being the 6.7 is not built by International Navistar but by Ford now, perhaps their choice of metallurgy build in relation to their hp/tq output is not as robust as it were with Internationals build choice with that hp/tq rating of past. Even with Fords 6-bolt mains and 6-head bolt per cylinder physical strength, metallurgy choice is everything for minimal wear and longevity even with a somewhat okay oil. Hence, the need for higher phos in 6.7's that previous PSD's didn't need. I don't hear Cat, International, Cummings, etc in all this noise concerning minimum phos required in CK-4, CK-4/SN like Ford has. Just thinking out-loud

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: revupVQ

In further thought and assumption, being the 6.7 is not built by International Navistar but by Ford now, perhaps their choice of metallurgy build in relation to their hp/tq output is not as robust as it were with Internationals build choice with that hp/tq rating of past. Even with Fords 6-bolt mains and 6-head bolt per cylinder physical strength, metallurgy choice is everything for minimal wear and longevity even with a somewhat okay oil. Hence, the need for higher phos in 6.7's that previous PSD's didn't need.

Not sure about that considering the 6.7L Powerstroke engine uses a compacted graphite iron (CGI) block which has increased strength and lighter weight in comparison to more traditional cast iron blocks. Nothing that IN built for Ford had this technology, but with that said there are also HP/TQ increases over anything that IN built for Ford. The 2017 PSD is 440HP and 925TQ (more that 1HP and 2TQ per CI), like yourself, I am also going to assume the higher power density plays a role versus that of OTR engines which have larger everything. But I seem to recall that Ford is talking about the rocker arms wearing more with CK-4 versus CJ-4 oil and not "major" parts of the engine. Though I do not much care for the way that Ford handled the deployment of their new specification (just about 1 month before CK-4 was released) on the other hand, had Ford not said something about the issue (real or not), there would be a number of Ford PSD owners up in arms about it; i.e. Ford cannot win no matter what.

 

[revupVQ]

Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD

Not sure about that considering the 6.7L Powerstroke engine uses a compacted graphite iron (CGI) block which has increased strength and lighter weight in comparison to more traditional cast iron blocks. Nothing that IN built for Ford had this technology, but with that said there are also HP/TQ increases over anything that IN built for Ford. The 2017 PSD is 440HP and 925TQ (more that 1HP and 2TQ per CI), like yourself, I am also going to assume the higher power density plays a role versus that of OTR engines which have larger everything. But I seem to recall that Ford is talking about the rocker arms wearing more with CK-4 versus CJ-4 oil and not "major" parts of the engine. Though I do not much care for the way that Ford handled the deployment of their new specification (just about 1 month before CK-4 was released) on the other hand, had Ford not said something about the issue (real or not), there would be a number of Ford PSD owners up in arms about it; i.e. Ford cannot win no matter what.

I was not aware it was the rocker arms, thank you for that insight. Perhaps Ford went with a different vendor/supplier/quality on the rockers for the 6.7 (assumption) and still falls under 'metallurgy build" in my book.