Can I use Pennzoil Platinum 5w40 A3/b4 in my diesel truck?

Those 15w-40's are at 4.0 or higher. Even the Delvac Extreme 15w-40 is 4.1 HTHS. That IS better than the PPE no matter how much you say it's not. Tell me what Heavy diesel OEM tested the PPE for their engines? Show us that this PPE has been tested with proper Heavy Duty Engine requirements.

View attachment 268438
So Delvac has 4.1 and PPE 3.88. What will happen if one uses oil with 3.88 and not 4.1. I am all ears. People race vehicles with less HTHS for 24hrs in engines that develop much more heat.
So, please enlighten us?
PPE exceeds CF. The reason to use HDEO with CK-4 is emissions-specific requirements that this engine was never designed to meet. You are stuck on HTHS, while differences between HDEO and PCMO are all about specific additives, not HTHS. If HTHS is the key, there are numerous PCMOs with much higher HTHS than any HDEO.
Also, that engine is allowed to use dino oil, which is FAR, FAR more inferior than PPE.
You'll see through my post's that I've never recommended an F1 10w-30 in an HDEO application. Just my personal position.
Why then you mentioned F1?

Engine absolutely understand the difference between an PCMO & HDEO w/proper specification oil. Engine testing means something. Go look at the second post where I pointed the OP to two different F1 spec'd diesel oil. Ford back spec'd all Power Strokes to F1 but you must not know that. Also, the 6.0L was never spec'd for CF so not sure why you say that. That being said your PPE exceeds CF is moot.

So what gives?
 
Says the guy who was recommending Triax scammers to everyone.
Your Wrong again, Triax is warrantied against the OEM Specifications it claims to meet. This PPE You are recommending does not meet any of OP's specifications & would NEVER be warrantied for it's use in OP's engine. Who's the scammer again? 😄
 
Last edited:
That European oil is API CF! CF was current when that engine was introduced.
Wrong again! The Power Stroke 6.0L was released in 2003 while CF-4 was developed all the way back from 1994!! Do I need to include an API history chart for you?
 
Wrong again! The Power Stroke 6.0L was released in 2003 while CF-4 was developed all the way back from 1994!!
It was current in 2003. API sequence is not expiring as new one is introduced. API SM, SN, and SN+ are still current regardless of the fact that API SP is the latest one.
API CH-4 is STILL current today, regardless of the fact that it was introduced in 1998.
API CF sequence expired in 2010!
 
Your Wrong again, Triax is warrantied against the OEM Specifications it claims to meet. This PPE You are recommending does not meet any of OP's specifications. Who's the scammer again? 😄
No it does not. That is why they are in the court being sued. You know that very well, and only conclusion I can draw is that you have something to do with those scammers.
 
Last edited:
No, I try to figure out WHY you could/should not use PPE 5w40 in 6.0PSD.
You have not answered that simple question. You don't even seem to know what API CF is.
When i asked how API CF differs from HDEO you answer with gobbeltigoop.

Here is an example
https://pttlubricants.co.id/en/mobil-diesel/dynamic-commonrail-api-ci-4-sl-acea-a3-b4-e7/
Answer me this... How has the PPE 5w-40 been tested in an HD application? I think I've been VERY clear on WHY you should not use PPE in this 6.0L. Yes, my response to your CF question was just as silly as your question. Look it up! CF is a very old spec & has nothing to do with OP's question.
 
That would only answer the should part.
Yeah because you don't know, basically.

Still does not answer if you could. Stop editing.
 
No it does not. That is why they are in the court being sued. You know that very well, and only conclusion I can draw is that you have something to do with those scammers.
Personal attacks is all you have left? Shall I just start with this one to report?
 
Personal attacks is all you have left? Shall I just start with this one to report?
These are not personal attacks. You know very well that they are being sued, and you read that, but you are still here sharing misinformation.
So, why? Are you personally vested in that company then?
Sure, report.
 
These are not personal attacks. You know very well that they are being sued, and you read that, but you are still here sharing misinformation.
So, why? Are you personally vested in that company then?
Sure, report.
YOU BROUGHT UP TRIAX BUD!!! NOT ME!!! YOU DID!!!!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom