Chevron’s response to lowered ZDDP in their Delo 400 HDDEOs.

Messages
227
Location
UT. USA
I found this response on another forum, but I found it interesting.

Here from the "Horse's Mouth":

Hi Jim,

The Delo 400 LE 15w-40 will be eventually be phased out with the new government emission requirements of the API CK-4. With the current specifications and direction that they are going in, it will be very unlikely that we will see LE again. As you mentioned, you are seeing the LE's replacement, Delo 400 SDE 15w-40(CK-4), starting to stock the shelves. Delo 400 SDE 15W40 uses an ashless additive package to replace the lower zinc & phosphorus levels which were required for Chevron to meet emission requirements of API CK-4 category. We have found the ashless antiwear package improves oxidation control, wear protection, and piston deposit control in both older & newer engines. Unfortunately, we do currently do not have a product that will have similar ZDDP. LE is still being produced sold, but only in larger quantities (not in quart bottles, jugs, or case quantities) and for a limited time. Please see below for a recent statement from our Technology Team regarding SDE and flat tappet cams.

"Wear protection requirements for heavy-duty motor oils are based on industry standard engine dynamometer based tests. In particular, there are three tests that specifically evaluate the oil’s ability to provide valvetrain wear protection. Notably, there are two tests (Cummins ISM and the GM Roller Follower Wear Test) that evaluate wear protection in roller follower valvetrains, and another (Cummins ISB) that evaluates wear protection in FLAT TAPPET valvetrains. This is in addition to other wear tests like the Mack T-12 that evaluates the oils ability to protect against ring/liner wear and bearing corrosion. Engine oils like Chevron’s Delo 400 SDE SAE 15W-40 that also meet the requirements of the API SN category, have also undergone testing specific to confirm protection in gasoline engines as well.

These engine tests are carefully developed to exploit specific performance areas required of lubricants, and often run at operating conditions that far exceed those that are encountered in typical engine operation. By design, the API “C-categories” are developed to be “backward compatible”. This means that when new categories are developed, they adopt the requirements of older categories and add to them. That doesn’t always mean, however, that ALL NEW OILS can be used in ALL OLDER ENGINES. OEMs ultimately make the call regarding what performance spec and viscosity grade is appropriate for a given application. It isn’t clear to me in the situations where we are being challenged, what the real vintage of these products are, and accordingly what the lubricant requirements were/are.

What I can say is that when we choose to rebalance an additive package to address new requirements, it doesn’t involve compromising performance. As it relates specifically to ZDDP, we don’t just simply drop the level of wear protection. Instead, the additive package is rebalanced with other non-Zinc containing wear control additives, and other functional components that allow us to meet or exceed the performance requirements using the fully formulated finished oil.

Oil formulation is a balancing act, and we know that in many cases “less is more”. As such, supplemental additives that purport to enhance wear protection may in fact have the opposite effect. It can also introduce other unpredictable issues regarding seal compatibility, or general interference with the other components that are native to the formulation."

I hope this helps. Let me know if you have any additional questions.

Thank you,

Meggan Frey
Lubetek
 
Messages
109
Location
SC
I wish Chevron would test against the Ford -F1 spec. I have a feeling Delo is why Ford took a stand against CK-4 in the first place.
 
Messages
2,624
Location
pa
the GOVERNMENT cares LESS how long engines last + typical MARKETING is used to assure!!! buyers!! todays lubricants are surely better than ever BUT cost + emissions have effects on products, there are still higher zinc oils from other brands but may not meet government emissions but can still be a BETTER lubricant. look how less protective IMO + that of others xx-20 lubes are pushed by our GOVERNMENTS!!
 
Messages
714
Location
Alaska and Wisconsin
the GOVERNMENT cares LESS how long engines last + typical MARKETING is used to assure!!! buyers!! todays lubricants are surely better than ever BUT cost + emissions have effects on products, there are still higher zinc oils from other brands but may not meet government emissions but can still be a BETTER lubricant. look how less protective IMO + that of others xx-20 lubes are pushed by our GOVERNMENTS!!
I'd like to think you are right...
 
Messages
728
Location
EU
...the people that brought into this world the beyond-government oil Delo-600 ADF. What's not to respect?
 
Messages
1,692
Location
South Carolina
This is interesting to me. A lot of people with classic cars and older engines with flat tappet cams like to use HDEOs for their higher ZDDP content. I'd like to see a tear down of a SBC with a rather radical flat tappet cam after heavy use with this oil compared to the old formula to see if the ashless AW can truly substitute 30% of the ZDDP content with similar or better wear protection.
 
Messages
728
Location
EU
Would the radical flat tappet sbc after heavy use necessarily indicate if the ashless AW can truly substitute 30% of the ZDDP content with similar or better wear protection – or could that be seen more like 4-ball-wear-testing of finished oils that often go into non-rotary engines without side gears resembling transmission gears, more like a taboo than a legit interest? Plausible to a degree, but...
 
Messages
8,048
Location
Michigan
I was excited reading the first couple of paragraphs of the Chevron letter, thinking that I was going to comparison data showing how low flat tappet wear is compared to the LE formulation. But then it degenerated into doubletalk, and never got to the data I was hoping for. The bottom line for me on CK4 is; does the oil qualify for the Ford Super Duty 6.7L list? That's just out of respect for the flat tappets in my Cummins'. Ironically, later model Cummins engines have gone to roller followers.
 

Dak27

Thread starter
Messages
227
Location
UT. USA
I was excited reading the first couple of paragraphs of the Chevron letter, thinking that I was going to comparison data showing how low flat tappet wear is compared to the LE formulation. But then it degenerated into doubletalk, and never got to the data I was hoping for. The bottom line for me on CK4 is; does the oil qualify for the Ford Super Duty 6.7L list? That's just out of respect for the flat tappets in my Cummins'. Ironically, later model Cummins engines have gone to roller followers.
I saw a UOA you posted some time back using Delvac 1300 CK4, which prompted me to switch to Delo 400 XLE.
I have a question: Cummins’ 20086 test looks pretty grueling from what I’ve read. Every one of the Major brands have passed this test. What’s your theory on Ford requiring the use of oils containing higher levels of ZDDP?

And I don’t know what to make of the situation with Ford. Every one of the Majors meet the approvals of Cummins, Volvo-Mack, Caterpillar, Detroit, etc. I don’t own a Ford diesel powered vehicle, so I really haven’t bothered to follow their approved oils list.

I am happy that all of the Majors are approved to be used in my Detroit motor. I don’t send in a UOA from each PM service, but comparing the ones I’ve done using CK4 Delvac Super 1300, Delo 400 SDE, and Guardol ECT, (all in 15W40) Delo and Delvac were almost identical, Guardol was just a smidge better, but I theorize that’s because Guardol is a semi-synthetic and I only ran it for 15,000 miles.
 
Messages
8,048
Location
Michigan
I saw a UOA you posted some time back using Delvac 1300 CK4, which prompted me to switch to Delo 400 XLE.
I have a question: Cummins’ 20086 test looks pretty grueling from what I’ve read. Every one of the Major brands have passed this test. What’s your theory on Ford requiring the use of oils containing higher levels of ZDDP?

And I don’t know what to make of the situation with Ford. Every one of the Majors meet the approvals of Cummins, Volvo-Mack, Caterpillar, Detroit, etc. I don’t own a Ford diesel powered vehicle, so I really haven’t bothered to follow their approved oils list.

I am happy that all of the Majors are approved to be used in my Detroit motor. I don’t send in a UOA from each PM service, but comparing the ones I’ve done using CK4 Delvac Super 1300, Delo 400 SDE, and Guardol ECT, (all in 15W40) Delo and Delvac were almost identical, Guardol was just a smidge better, but I theorize that’s because Guardol is a semi-synthetic and I only ran it for 15,000 miles.
My theory is that Ford was seeing unacceptably high warranty claims for valvetrain wear in the 6.7L. Maybe the warranty claim rate wasn't very high, but since Ford sells as many heavy duty pickups with diesels as GM and Dodge combined, it is a big market for them. They can't afford to have the engine get a bad reputation. The 6.7L is unique in that it has two pushrods for every cam follower, so maybe the contact stresses are higher in the pushrod cups. It seems that as long as an oil has 1000 ppm of Phosphorous, it will make the list.
 
Messages
1,423
Location
Alaska
I can buy Delvac 1 SHC 5W40 from my very local dealer. It has 1400ppm Zn, 4300ppm Ca. It doesn’t bother me in the slightest that it’s $38/gal last time I checked, even though my sump takes 30L~7.8 gal. It is a perfect oil for my application: MB228.5, high TBN/Zn, synthetic (for local temperature range), 40 at operating temperature.
And it’s good in my motor for up to 1200 hours/40000 miles. Apologies if I sound like I am bragging.
 

4WD

Messages
15,919
Location
Texas
I can buy Delvac 1 SHC 5W40 from my very local dealer. It has 1400ppm Zn, 4300ppm Ca. It doesn’t bother me in the slightest that it’s $38/gal last time I checked, even though my sump takes 30L~7.8 gal. It is a perfect oil for my application: MB228.5, high TBN/Zn, synthetic (for local temperature range), 40 at operating temperature.
And it’s good in my motor for up to 1200 hours/40000 miles. Apologies if I sound like I am bragging.
Folks that own the Unimog are allowed bragging rights ! 😎 Stout motor oil right there …
 
Messages
109
Location
SC
My theory is that Ford was seeing unacceptably high warranty claims for valvetrain wear in the 6.7L. Maybe the warranty claim rate wasn't very high, but since Ford sells as many heavy duty pickups with diesels as GM and Dodge combined, it is a big market for them. They can't afford to have the engine get a bad reputation. The 6.7L is unique in that it has two pushrods for every cam follower, so maybe the contact stresses are higher in the pushrod cups. It seems that as long as an oil has 1000 ppm of Phosphorous, it will make the list.

I doubt it because their position statement on CK-4 came out very early. Early presentations shows some internal tests with proposed new CK-4 formulations.
 
Messages
1,692
Location
South Carolina
Here's a recent study conducted on ionic liquids that included Lake Speed Jr with Driven Racing Oils. I'm curious if this same technology has found its way into Chevron's oils as well. This paper refers to rear axle lubricants but has been tested in engine oils as well.

 
Messages
598
Location
Jupiter, FL
Here's a recent study conducted on ionic liquids that included Lake Speed Jr with Driven Racing Oils. I'm curious if this same technology has found its way into Chevron's oils as well. This paper refers to rear axle lubricants but has been tested in engine oils as well.

Seems to me Chevron is doing some amazing things and leading the way in R&D while some of their competitors are coasting on their name..
 
Top