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

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: revupVQ
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.

That's quite correct, but it does point to some of Ford's foibles here. It's CJ-4, so it really doesn't need to be on Ford's list. Yet, it's an unspecified viscosity, not shown in Ford manuals, yet shows up on Ford's previous list. And, it's a low phosphorus lube that clearly works in their older engines. So, it does show that Ford's spreading a lot of unnecessary confusion.

I'm not really hating Ford or anything. I've driven a lot of Fords, still have one, and I get very tough on companies that I love. They have a silly mess going that could have been cleared up much more easily, and there's no excuse for this. I expect a lot better.

 

[revupVQ]

Originally Posted By: Garak

That's quite correct, but it does point to some of Ford's foibles here. It's CJ-4, so it really doesn't need to be on Ford's list. Yet, it's an unspecified viscosity, not shown in Ford manuals, yet shows up on Ford's previous list. And, it's a low phosphorus lube that clearly works in their older engines. So, it does show that Ford's spreading a lot of unnecessary confusion.

I'm not really hating Ford or anything. I've driven a lot of Fords, still have one, and I get very tough on companies that I love. They have a silly mess going that could have been cleared up much more easily, and there's no excuse for this. I expect a lot better.
Agree. It is contradicting for Ford to state CJ-4 is still okay to use in their 6.7's, but not all CJ-4's meet their >1000ppm P requirements. Irony at its best.

I'm a life-long Ford owner myself and agree they've stirred the pot. The more they open their mouths, the deeper the hole gets for them confusing the issue and with contradiction. Even their new WSS****F1 oil isn't API approved (no API doughnut looking at pictures of their bottle posted in another thread here). That raised an eyebrow this end when I saw that. Many possibilities why not API approved, but that's a different subject on marketing or cost of licensing or didn't pass API testing or Ford just giving them the finger, who knows.

Bottom-line for me on all this CK-4 rhetoric, as long as I see Fords new F1 spec on a jug of HDEO I choose or in their approval tech sheet if not API licensed (like Amsoil), I'll be guaranteed it's >1000ppm P and that's a win for any diesel engine IMHO.

 

[Garak]

The real question, that we've never had adequately answered, is what is the issue that Ford is really seeing. It just seems odd that CJ-4 stuff (even the Delvac 1 LE low P because it's CJ-4) is fine, but there's this concern for CK-4. So, 200 ppm of P may or may not be an issue.

I have no problems with OEMs pushing their own specifications. This is bit of a Charlie Foxtrot, though.

 

[NH73]

Originally Posted By: Garak
The real question, that we've never had adequately answered, is what is the issue that Ford is really seeing. It just seems odd that CJ-4 stuff (even the Delvac 1 LE low P because it's CJ-4) is fine, but there's this concern for CK-4. So, 200 ppm of P may or may not be an issue.

I have no problems with OEMs pushing their own specifications. This is bit of a Charlie Foxtrot, though.


The problem is Ford has to give an answer for an adequate answer. Back in one of these forums, one of the respondents did inquire to Ford. There answer: it all proprietary information. In other words, to the consumer Ford is hiding something, but we do know is that the issue is Phorphorus and Zinc. Where there credibility starts to sink is the previous approval of Mobil Delvac 1 LE low P.

Considering all that, you can choose to listen to Ford or not. The reason to listen would be warranty.

 

[Garak]

Yep, that's where it's strange. I find it hard to believe that Delvac 1 LE 5w-30 in CJ-4/SN E6 is fine for an "older" Ford diesel (because it was formally approved) yet Shell Rotella T5 Multi-Vehicle 5w-30 in CK-4/SN E6 is automatically verboten because of the CK-4, when, in fact, these are two competing lubricants that are about as functionally equivalent as you can find on the market.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: NH73
Originally Posted By: Garak
The real question, that we've never had adequately answered, is what is the issue that Ford is really seeing. It just seems odd that CJ-4 stuff (even the Delvac 1 LE low P because it's CJ-4) is fine, but there's this concern for CK-4. So, 200 ppm of P may or may not be an issue.

I have no problems with OEMs pushing their own specifications. This is bit of a Charlie Foxtrot, though.


The problem is Ford has to give an answer for an adequate answer. Back in one of these forums, one of the respondents did inquire to Ford. There answer: it all proprietary information. In other words, to the consumer Ford is hiding something, but we do know is that the issue is Phorphorus and Zinc. Where there credibility starts to sink is the previous approval of Mobil Delvac 1 LE low P.

Considering all that, you can choose to listen to Ford or not. The reason to listen would be warranty.



It was me; I contacted Ford directly and asked what specific issues they saw from the CK-4 use.
All I got was a "proprietary" You-Ain't-Getting-Anything-Else answer.

Here is a copy/paste of the conversation, verbatim:
Newton: I am trying to understand the specific details behind the recent Ford statement regarding lubricants for the PowerStroke diesel engines and CK-4 API oils. Specifically, the Ford announcement says: "Ford testing has shown some CK-4 type formulations have shown inadequate wear protection compared to CJ-4 formulations developed and licensed before 2016." I would like to know the specific "inadequate wear protection" that was discovered, and understand how that affects current and past diesel engines.
Raquel at Ford: Although I would like to assist you with specifics of the findings, that information that is considered proprietary in nature to the Ford Motor Company is unavailable to the public. The company is unable to share such information with the public.
Newton: I would accept that Ford is "unwilling", but not "unable". Can you direct me to some other entity within Ford that can be of further service? I find it a bit incredulous that Ford claims a API certified lubricant causes "inadequate wear protection", but won't offer any proof of such claim.
Raquel at Ford: We always appreciate customers who take time to give us their feedback. I will document your feedback to be sent to the appropriate department for consideration and review. But no, there is no contact or department to refer you to as that is not information that is available.

Not only will they withhold the info, they offer no other avenue as to find the info; they won't connect me with any other resource within Ford. Emails, Chats, and phone calls all represent the same dead end.

I can accept the fact they they may have discovered an issue with the CK-4 in regards to the 6.7L PSD. But because other OEMs have no issues or warning statements, I can only assume it's a "proprietary" problem for Ford. It's their design or material that is now so sensitive that it cannot tolerate some shift in Phos.

 

[NH73]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: NH73
Originally Posted By: Garak
The real question, that we've never had adequately answered, is what is the issue that Ford is really seeing. It just seems odd that CJ-4 stuff (even the Delvac 1 LE low P because it's CJ-4) is fine, but there's this concern for CK-4. So, 200 ppm of P may or may not be an issue.

I have no problems with OEMs pushing their own specifications. This is bit of a Charlie Foxtrot, though.


The problem is Ford has to give an answer for an adequate answer. Back in one of these forums, one of the respondents did inquire to Ford. There answer: it all proprietary information. In other words, to the consumer Ford is hiding something, but we do know is that the issue is Phorphorus and Zinc. Where there credibility starts to sink is the previous approval of Mobil Delvac 1 LE low P.

Considering all that, you can choose to listen to Ford or not. The reason to listen would be warranty.





It was me; I contacted Ford directly and asked what specific issues they saw from the CK-4 use.
All I got was a "proprietary" You-Ain't-Getting-Anything-Else answer.

Here is a copy/paste of the conversation, verbatim:
Newton: I am trying to understand the specific details behind the recent Ford statement regarding lubricants for the PowerStroke diesel engines and CK-4 API oils. Specifically, the Ford announcement says: "Ford testing has shown some CK-4 type formulations have shown inadequate wear protection compared to CJ-4 formulations developed and licensed before 2016." I would like to know the specific "inadequate wear protection" that was discovered, and understand how that affects current and past diesel engines.
Raquel at Ford: Although I would like to assist you with specifics of the findings, that information that is considered proprietary in nature to the Ford Motor Company is unavailable to the public. The company is unable to share such information with the public.
Newton: I would accept that Ford is "unwilling", but not "unable". Can you direct me to some other entity within Ford that can be of further service? I find it a bit incredulous that Ford claims a API certified lubricant causes "inadequate wear protection", but won't offer any proof of such claim.
Raquel at Ford: We always appreciate customers who take time to give us their feedback. I will document your feedback to be sent to the appropriate department for consideration and review. But no, there is no contact or department to refer you to as that is not information that is available.

Not only will they withhold the info, they offer no other avenue as to find the info; they won't connect me with any other resource within Ford. Emails, Chats, and phone calls all represent the same dead end.

I can accept the fact they they may have discovered an issue with the CK-4 in regards to the 6.7L PSD. But because other OEMs have no issues or warning statements, I can only assume it's a "proprietary" problem for Ford. It's their design or material that is now so sensitive that it cannot tolerate some shift in Phos.




In other words, a piece of junk.

 

[NH73]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: NH73
Originally Posted By: Garak
The real question, that we've never had adequately answered, is what is the issue that Ford is really seeing. It just seems odd that CJ-4 stuff (even the Delvac 1 LE low P because it's CJ-4) is fine, but there's this concern for CK-4. So, 200 ppm of P may or may not be an issue.

I have no problems with OEMs pushing their own specifications. This is bit of a Charlie Foxtrot, though.


The problem is Ford has to give an answer for an adequate answer. Back in one of these forums, one of the respondents did inquire to Ford. There answer: it all proprietary information. In other words, to the consumer Ford is hiding something, but we do know is that the issue is Phorphorus and Zinc. Where there credibility starts to sink is the previous approval of Mobil Delvac 1 LE low P.

Considering all that, you can choose to listen to Ford or not. The reason to listen would be warranty.



It was me; I contacted Ford directly and asked what specific issues they saw from the CK-4 use.
All I got was a "proprietary" You-Ain't-Getting-Anything-Else answer.

Here is a copy/paste of the conversation, verbatim:
Newton: I am trying to understand the specific details behind the recent Ford statement regarding lubricants for the PowerStroke diesel engines and CK-4 API oils. Specifically, the Ford announcement says: "Ford testing has shown some CK-4 type formulations have shown inadequate wear protection compared to CJ-4 formulations developed and licensed before 2016." I would like to know the specific "inadequate wear protection" that was discovered, and understand how that affects current and past diesel engines.
Raquel at Ford: Although I would like to assist you with specifics of the findings, that information that is considered proprietary in nature to the Ford Motor Company is unavailable to the public. The company is unable to share such information with the public.
Newton: I would accept that Ford is "unwilling", but not "unable". Can you direct me to some other entity within Ford that can be of further service? I find it a bit incredulous that Ford claims a API certified lubricant causes "inadequate wear protection", but won't offer any proof of such claim.
Raquel at Ford: We always appreciate customers who take time to give us their feedback. I will document your feedback to be sent to the appropriate department for consideration and review. But no, there is no contact or department to refer you to as that is not information that is available.

Not only will they withhold the info, they offer no other avenue as to find the info; they won't connect me with any other resource within Ford. Emails, Chats, and phone calls all represent the same dead end.

I can accept the fact they they may have discovered an issue with the CK-4 in regards to the 6.7L PSD. But because other OEMs have no issues or warning statements, I can only assume it's a "proprietary" problem for Ford. It's their design or material that is now so sensitive that it cannot tolerate some shift in Phos.




There are questions here yet, that will just still go unanswered as long as Ford doesn't speak up. These unanswered questions has to do with there credibility on the issue they may be hiding. For one, why there approval of Mobil Delvac 1 LE low P in the past? TiredTrucker even mentioned did they mix in the approvals of FA-4 to bring there opposition to CK-4.