CK-4 and Ford engines
- Thread starter Kolin
- Start date
- Status
https://www.fcsdchemicalsandlubricants.com/main/additionalinfo/dieseloilsWSSM2C171F1.pdf is the complete list, as of 1/9/2017. 35 of them are CK-4.
I think Ford's warning was to stay away from all CK-4 lubes, except those with the Ford approval, for all Ford engines. But, to play devil's advocate, have they been testing 7.3 examples with any CK-4 formulations. And CK-4 still being backwards compatible by definition and API regulation still holds, despite Ford's hand waving to the contrary.
dnewton3
Staff member
Ahhhhh ... reminds me of the days when CJ-4 came out ...
Remember the infamous article (more accurately called an opinion piece) from the TDR mag that warned of how dastardly the CJ-4 lubes would ruin diesel engines?
I think the way to interpret Ford's statement is thus:
Ford says if you don't use what's in their recommended/application matrix, they won't put a lot of effort into covering you; they're not going to go out and test all manner of different combinations in various conditions just to make an appeasement for the new lube class, especially in older engine series they don't even produce any longer. That does not completely alleviate them from legal responsibilities, but it's just their way to sluff you off.
Whereas the API is saying "this works and it's backwards applicable".
Remember the infamous article (more accurately called an opinion piece) from the TDR mag that warned of how dastardly the CJ-4 lubes would ruin diesel engines?
I think the way to interpret Ford's statement is thus:
Ford says if you don't use what's in their recommended/application matrix, they won't put a lot of effort into covering you; they're not going to go out and test all manner of different combinations in various conditions just to make an appeasement for the new lube class, especially in older engine series they don't even produce any longer. That does not completely alleviate them from legal responsibilities, but it's just their way to sluff you off.
Whereas the API is saying "this works and it's backwards applicable".
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2010
- Messages
- 9,835
Originally Posted By: mbacfp
I thought the problem was lower Phosphorus levels were creating some wear issues in the Powerstroke 6.7? Hopefully they provide more details soon.
Correct:
Ford Motor Company CK-4/FA-4 Ford Position Statement
I thought the problem was lower Phosphorus levels were creating some wear issues in the Powerstroke 6.7? Hopefully they provide more details soon.
Correct:
Ford Motor Company CK-4/FA-4 Ford Position Statement
dnewton3
Staff member
Anyone note that Rotella T3 10w30 is on the approved Ford spec list, but the T3 15w40 is missing? Also absent is the T6 5w-40.
T3 Fleet and T5 15w40 are on there. But T5 10w30 is not ... I find it a bit odd that some Rotella products are present, while others are not.
Which makes Ford's "recommended" versus "required" list all that more muddled.
This is where I try to get folks to understand the difference between "required" and "recommended" statements.
Ford is going to "require" something to meet WSS-M2C171-F1 for warranty coverage. They have that right to do so.
But they "recommend" a 5w-40 syn for severe service.
The distinction is that one is a mandate; the other a suggestion.
You are NOT obligated to run a syn even during severe service. You are only obligated to run a spec-approved fluid to be covered under warranty. Or so we thought, until they came out with the CK-4 paper statement ...
http://www.fordservicecontent.com/Ford_C...-US_11_2016.pdf
page 429 clearly shows that many different grades and base stock configurations meet that Ford oil spec.
And this from page 433:
1 - See the SAE viscosities grades chart for correct temperature usage.
2 - For severe duty service, use SAE 5W-40 API CJ-4.
3 - For biodiesel fuel blends (B20 max), use SAE 5W-40 or SAE 15w40 API CJ-4.
If you use oil and fluids that do not meet the defined specification and viscosity grade, this may lead to:
•Component damage which is not covered by the vehicle warranty.
•Longer engine cranking periods.
•Increased emission levels.
•Reduced engine performance.
•Reduced fuel economy.
•Degraded brake performance.
Engine Oil Specifications
The use of correct oil viscosities for diesel engines is important for satisfactory operation. Determine which oil viscosity best suits the temperature range you expect to encounter for the next service interval from the following SAE viscosity grade chart.
Wait .... What?
So note 2 tells me that 5w-40 is the stuff for "severe duty service". But not 15w40? What if it's a 15w40 syn? I guess that's not good enough. And, what if I want to run Bio-fuel up to B-20? I can use 15w40 conventional or 15w40 semi-syn or 15w40 syn. But heaven forbid I use 10w30 or 10w-40 because they are too thin. (This despite the fact that we all KNOW form oodles of UOA reports that a 5w-40 product like T6 will shear faster than a teen's fingers tap the smart-phone screen, and drop into a 30 grade range, whereas a 10w30 will often HOLD it's vis steady in that same 30 grade range ...). Seems even OEMs are not immune to grade bigotry and ignorance. But we all knew that, right?
Look - we all know that using a truck like a truck is supposed to be used would make any use "severe" by their silly definition. Only using a truck like a car on a highway would be normal use to them. Why not just spec a PAO 5w-40 for everything for Pete's sake? Because they know it's that stupid.
And the fear mongering begins with "If you use oil and fluids that do not meet ..." , then the implication they make is that something MAY happen. It might. Not that it will. And not that they will deny warranty. BECAUSE THEY CANNOT. If you use a lube that meets their engineering specification, it's covered under the M/M Act criteria.
But here they add to the fray and say this:
https://jobbersworldblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/ford-motor-company-ck-4-position-statement.pdf
An oil showing CJ-4 in the API donut without showing CK-4 would be acceptable for service even if not showing WSS-M2C171-F1.
So they admit that even though a lube may not be listed on the WSS-M2C171-F1 list, it's OK to use as long as it's CJ-4 approved. To state it is "acceptable" means they will not deem it unacceptable. Acceptable does not delineate between required and recommended. It's allowed. It's permissible. It's peachy-keen fine.
No mention whatsoever about grade selection; only a certification by either them (WSS-M2C171-F1) OR the API (CJ-4).
And what KIND of service factor? They don't delineate here between "normal" or "severe". So even if it's not WSS-M2C171-F1 approved, as long as it's CJ-4 approved, it's OK. No mention of grades, you'll note.
And this little nugget?
"Determine which oil viscosity best suits the temperature range you expect to encounter for the next service interval from the following SAE viscosity grade chart."
I could counter this with a great joke (don't worry, it's SFB (safe for BITOG)).
Mother Nature is visiting the mid-west ... and is having a conversation with Indiana.
Ma Nature: "I'll bet you can't get all four seasons squeezed into the next 48 hours!"
IN: "Hold my beer ..."
If you live in the mid-west, you realize how silly Ford's statement is. It can go from below zero F to above 60 F in one freakin' 24-hour period!
And not to mention that some folks might actually TRAVEL from one region to another; might drive from -10F in Ohio to +70F in FL as snow-birds pulling their 5ver over two days.
Yeah - that "temperature range" statement is about as stupid as one can get. In an OCI duration, it's reasonable to expect that many folks can see temps that swing WIDELY. What are they supposed to do; OCI at every Walmart along the way? I mean, if Ford was really serious about all the "what if" scenarios, they just spec 0w-40 syn as the single, only approved grade for all situations. But they know they'd hear an ear-piercing scream from all kinds of customers and service centers. They realize it's stupid to do so.
Well now, they've kind of painted themselves into a corner. And done so by actually opening the barn door wide open.
Don't use a CK-4 fluid .... Got it.
Want to use a WSS-M2C171-F1 lube? Not a problem; plenty of approved lubes in many grades and base stocks (dinos; syns; semi-syns) to choose from.
Want to use a CJ-4 lube that's NOT on the "approved" list? No problem; go ahead and do it anyway, regardless of base stock or grade.
First of all, it's HIGHLY unlikely that an engine is going to suffer a lube-related failure during the warranty period in the first place; just very remote.
Next, even if it does happen, what's the likelihood that they'll pull a sample and test your lube? Not likely.
But if they do, there are a few possibilities here ...
1) it's contaminated by either fuel or coolant or water, etc. That's all on the engine; lubes have no ability to stop contamination intrusion. Ford has to fix the engine because it's probably their engine that allowed the contamination to happen (bad injectors, bad head gasket, etc)
2) it's not contaminated, but somehow the lube is grossly out of spec in terms of vis or chemistry. And I mean WAY out of a reasonable range/application. Like someone accidentally putting GL-5 gear oil in your crankcase. That's not Ford's problem; you'll have to find the culprit. That's also not the lube's fault, by the way.
3) it's not contaminated, the lube is fine, in a reasonable grade/spec (remember that wide open barn door?); Ford's going to have to swallow their pride and fix the issue
4) it's not contaminated, the lube is not fine, but it's a lube problem from the lube maker; at this point it's a fight between Ford and the lube maker
Read and understand the M/M warranty Act.
When you use products as required by the OEM, then the burden of proof is upon them to show it's not your fault should a problem arise.
When you use products against their requirements, then the burden of proof is upon you to show it's not your fault. In this case, it does not mean the OEM will not be made to pay; they very well might. But they can delay coverage until you (or a third party) can prove it's not reasonably your fault.
By Ford putting out that CK-4 notice, and stating that any CJ-4 lube is "acceptable", they pretty much laid themselves wide open for any claim to be placed at their feet.
This is what happens when lawyers and engineers try to make a "compromise".
T3 Fleet and T5 15w40 are on there. But T5 10w30 is not ... I find it a bit odd that some Rotella products are present, while others are not.
Which makes Ford's "recommended" versus "required" list all that more muddled.
This is where I try to get folks to understand the difference between "required" and "recommended" statements.
Ford is going to "require" something to meet WSS-M2C171-F1 for warranty coverage. They have that right to do so.
But they "recommend" a 5w-40 syn for severe service.
The distinction is that one is a mandate; the other a suggestion.
You are NOT obligated to run a syn even during severe service. You are only obligated to run a spec-approved fluid to be covered under warranty. Or so we thought, until they came out with the CK-4 paper statement ...
http://www.fordservicecontent.com/Ford_C...-US_11_2016.pdf
page 429 clearly shows that many different grades and base stock configurations meet that Ford oil spec.
And this from page 433:
1 - See the SAE viscosities grades chart for correct temperature usage.
2 - For severe duty service, use SAE 5W-40 API CJ-4.
3 - For biodiesel fuel blends (B20 max), use SAE 5W-40 or SAE 15w40 API CJ-4.
If you use oil and fluids that do not meet the defined specification and viscosity grade, this may lead to:
•Component damage which is not covered by the vehicle warranty.
•Longer engine cranking periods.
•Increased emission levels.
•Reduced engine performance.
•Reduced fuel economy.
•Degraded brake performance.
Engine Oil Specifications
The use of correct oil viscosities for diesel engines is important for satisfactory operation. Determine which oil viscosity best suits the temperature range you expect to encounter for the next service interval from the following SAE viscosity grade chart.
Wait .... What?
So note 2 tells me that 5w-40 is the stuff for "severe duty service". But not 15w40? What if it's a 15w40 syn? I guess that's not good enough. And, what if I want to run Bio-fuel up to B-20? I can use 15w40 conventional or 15w40 semi-syn or 15w40 syn. But heaven forbid I use 10w30 or 10w-40 because they are too thin. (This despite the fact that we all KNOW form oodles of UOA reports that a 5w-40 product like T6 will shear faster than a teen's fingers tap the smart-phone screen, and drop into a 30 grade range, whereas a 10w30 will often HOLD it's vis steady in that same 30 grade range ...). Seems even OEMs are not immune to grade bigotry and ignorance. But we all knew that, right?
Look - we all know that using a truck like a truck is supposed to be used would make any use "severe" by their silly definition. Only using a truck like a car on a highway would be normal use to them. Why not just spec a PAO 5w-40 for everything for Pete's sake? Because they know it's that stupid.
And the fear mongering begins with "If you use oil and fluids that do not meet ..." , then the implication they make is that something MAY happen. It might. Not that it will. And not that they will deny warranty. BECAUSE THEY CANNOT. If you use a lube that meets their engineering specification, it's covered under the M/M Act criteria.
But here they add to the fray and say this:
https://jobbersworldblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/ford-motor-company-ck-4-position-statement.pdf
An oil showing CJ-4 in the API donut without showing CK-4 would be acceptable for service even if not showing WSS-M2C171-F1.
So they admit that even though a lube may not be listed on the WSS-M2C171-F1 list, it's OK to use as long as it's CJ-4 approved. To state it is "acceptable" means they will not deem it unacceptable. Acceptable does not delineate between required and recommended. It's allowed. It's permissible. It's peachy-keen fine.
No mention whatsoever about grade selection; only a certification by either them (WSS-M2C171-F1) OR the API (CJ-4).
And what KIND of service factor? They don't delineate here between "normal" or "severe". So even if it's not WSS-M2C171-F1 approved, as long as it's CJ-4 approved, it's OK. No mention of grades, you'll note.
And this little nugget?
"Determine which oil viscosity best suits the temperature range you expect to encounter for the next service interval from the following SAE viscosity grade chart."
I could counter this with a great joke (don't worry, it's SFB (safe for BITOG)).
Mother Nature is visiting the mid-west ... and is having a conversation with Indiana.
Ma Nature: "I'll bet you can't get all four seasons squeezed into the next 48 hours!"
IN: "Hold my beer ..."
If you live in the mid-west, you realize how silly Ford's statement is. It can go from below zero F to above 60 F in one freakin' 24-hour period!
And not to mention that some folks might actually TRAVEL from one region to another; might drive from -10F in Ohio to +70F in FL as snow-birds pulling their 5ver over two days.
Yeah - that "temperature range" statement is about as stupid as one can get. In an OCI duration, it's reasonable to expect that many folks can see temps that swing WIDELY. What are they supposed to do; OCI at every Walmart along the way? I mean, if Ford was really serious about all the "what if" scenarios, they just spec 0w-40 syn as the single, only approved grade for all situations. But they know they'd hear an ear-piercing scream from all kinds of customers and service centers. They realize it's stupid to do so.
Well now, they've kind of painted themselves into a corner. And done so by actually opening the barn door wide open.
Don't use a CK-4 fluid .... Got it.
Want to use a WSS-M2C171-F1 lube? Not a problem; plenty of approved lubes in many grades and base stocks (dinos; syns; semi-syns) to choose from.
Want to use a CJ-4 lube that's NOT on the "approved" list? No problem; go ahead and do it anyway, regardless of base stock or grade.
First of all, it's HIGHLY unlikely that an engine is going to suffer a lube-related failure during the warranty period in the first place; just very remote.
Next, even if it does happen, what's the likelihood that they'll pull a sample and test your lube? Not likely.
But if they do, there are a few possibilities here ...
1) it's contaminated by either fuel or coolant or water, etc. That's all on the engine; lubes have no ability to stop contamination intrusion. Ford has to fix the engine because it's probably their engine that allowed the contamination to happen (bad injectors, bad head gasket, etc)
2) it's not contaminated, but somehow the lube is grossly out of spec in terms of vis or chemistry. And I mean WAY out of a reasonable range/application. Like someone accidentally putting GL-5 gear oil in your crankcase. That's not Ford's problem; you'll have to find the culprit. That's also not the lube's fault, by the way.
3) it's not contaminated, the lube is fine, in a reasonable grade/spec (remember that wide open barn door?); Ford's going to have to swallow their pride and fix the issue
4) it's not contaminated, the lube is not fine, but it's a lube problem from the lube maker; at this point it's a fight between Ford and the lube maker
Read and understand the M/M warranty Act.
When you use products as required by the OEM, then the burden of proof is upon them to show it's not your fault should a problem arise.
When you use products against their requirements, then the burden of proof is upon you to show it's not your fault. In this case, it does not mean the OEM will not be made to pay; they very well might. But they can delay coverage until you (or a third party) can prove it's not reasonably your fault.
By Ford putting out that CK-4 notice, and stating that any CJ-4 lube is "acceptable", they pretty much laid themselves wide open for any claim to be placed at their feet.
This is what happens when lawyers and engineers try to make a "compromise".
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
This is what happens when lawyers and engineers try to make a "compromise".
Agreed. I've been saying all along they overcomplicated this, to no valid end, and confused the heck out of everyone involved. If you want to make a specification, fine, enforce it. If you don't want to, don't. But this half way bit and then going against the ordinary API backspec is not helpful.
This is what happens when lawyers and engineers try to make a "compromise".
Agreed. I've been saying all along they overcomplicated this, to no valid end, and confused the heck out of everyone involved. If you want to make a specification, fine, enforce it. If you don't want to, don't. But this half way bit and then going against the ordinary API backspec is not helpful.
This is why I have learned to take OEM recommendations with a grain of salt. I rely on good horse sense and use reputable oils that meet basic conditions and specs that are in place when the engine was made, but I don't pay too much attention to official approved oil lists and such. In well over 4 decades of both personal and commercial vehicle and equipment use, I have never had a dealer or OEM even ask what oil I was using, let alone take the time to analyze it. They have asked about service intervals, but that is about it. I have never had to produce maintenance records, used oil analysis, etc one time.
I actually have grown to believe that the reason OEM's go to great lengths to intimidate owners about specs, grades, etc is that by doing so, folks will be less likely to put in some kind of camel snot oil in their engine and drivetrains. Could be some form of quid pro quo with the oil companies, but I am not into conspiracy theories.
But thanks, Dnewton, for your perspective on this issue. Logical, as Mr. Spock would say.
I actually have grown to believe that the reason OEM's go to great lengths to intimidate owners about specs, grades, etc is that by doing so, folks will be less likely to put in some kind of camel snot oil in their engine and drivetrains. Could be some form of quid pro quo with the oil companies, but I am not into conspiracy theories.
But thanks, Dnewton, for your perspective on this issue. Logical, as Mr. Spock would say.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked