CK-4 in older diesel tractors?

[TiredTrucker]

Originally Posted By: mbacfp
TiredTrucker, off topic and I apologize, where is the best place to buy Schaeffers 5w40. Been wanting to try it...thanks for sharing your knowledge on Schaeffers.


From a Schaeffer rep. Salesrep here was one, but I haven't seen a post from him for awhile. You can go online at Schaeffer's site and search for a rep. Regular retail Schaeffer pricing is criminal. Order it thru a rep. If you can't find one on the site, I can steer you towards mine.

 

[Ramblejam]

Originally Posted By: Extreme-Duty
I am already seeing a certain board member posting his (by now usual) Chevron marketing diagram showing how well low phosphorus oils work in the Cummins ISM rocker arm weight loss test. This soot related wear test tells so little about an oils overall anti wear behavior.

That "marketing diagram" came from the September 2015 edition of Tribology & Lubrication Technology, which is the official publication of the Society of Tribologists and Lubrication Engineers. Additionally, the article it was used in was authored by contributing editior Dr. Neil Canter, who heads his own consulting company.

Are you publicly calling out the credibility of that organization and this individual?

Originally Posted By: Extreme-Duty
The thing is that some manufactures have decided to move to the "politically correct" ACEA E6 level of 800 ppm phosphorus in their CK-4 oils.

No, they didn't do it to be politically correct; they did it because the International Lubricant Standardization and Approval Committee (ILSAC) mandated that 5w/10w-30's satisfy the 800ppm phosphorus limit to claim passenger car approval (API SN) on the label.

 

[mbacfp]

Interesting info. Thanks TiredTrucker, let me see if there is a rep in my area...otherwise I can purchase from your rep. Appreciate your help. Thanks.

 

[njohnson]

Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
Originally Posted By: njohnson
and all our tractors are older, with none of the emission devices of new diesel engines.

Specifically, what makes/models?


We have a late 70's Case 2470, which is turbocharged. An 70's International Harvester 815 combine. A 90's Kubota L2900, and 2002 Kubota BX2230, and a 2006 Kubota turbocharged M105X.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

Originally Posted By: njohnson
We have a late 70's Case 2470, which is turbocharged. An 70's International Harvester 815 combine. A 90's Kubota L2900, and 2002 Kubota BX2230, and a 2006 Kubota turbocharged M105X.


Bulk CJ-4 15W-40. Cheapest stuff you can find.

 

[Extreme-Duty]

Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
That "marketing diagram" came from the September 2015 edition of Tribology & Lubrication Technology, which is the official publication of the Society of Tribologists and Lubrication Engineers. Additionally, the article it was used in was authored by contributing editior Dr. Neil Canter, who heads his own consulting company.

Are you publicly calling out the credibility of that organization and this individual?


Unfortunately I cannot find the September 2015 edition of this magazine anywhere. Can you spare me a link or do I have to sign up and spend +200$ per year to read it? Without knowing the context around this "marketing diagram" in that particular article, I am not calling out anybody's credibility. Right now, it is more like you are putting words in my mouth as well as in their mouths, because it is hard to imagine that the STLE says that fighting soot related wear is the same as fighting all sorts of adhesive wear seen in reciprocating engines. By posting the "marketing diagram" in every thread concerning CK-4 wear protection, you are showing that you are misinterpreting the Cummins ISM test. It is a valid test, but it only tells so much. Also, it is no secret that the API Cx-4 specifications do not require a whole lot in the adhesive wear department, simply because it has not been a real world concern so far. Let's face it, CJ-4 and cam wear in gasoline engines has been discussed on here before, but nobody is able to show us a worn out camshaft as a result of the exclusive use of well formulated CJ-4 oils, because these oils are far from being second class performers in this area, and this is not owed to their more traditional level of ZDDP alone. But how much has P really been reduced with the move to CJ-4? Between 0 and 15 percent!?! Not all HDEOs in this world used to be formulated with +1200 ppm P! Going all the way to 800 ppm with ACEA E6 (and Xw-30-API-SN) oils is something entirely different, but like I said earlier, they will be backward compatible and work like they are supposed to. They are, however, less likely to be a superior choice for people installing, say, performance camshafts in their gas engines. And no, an excellent performance in the sequence IVa test is not going to buy you a lot in this situation. I think if the "advanced approach 0,8% P" chemistry from the "marketing diagram" is superior to other more common "advanced +0,10% P" chemistries, ALL PCMOs, MC-oils and racing oils are going to have it soon. No more double up dose of ZDDP in M1 V-Twin and M1 0w-30R then!

I am sorry you did not get the irony and sarcasm targeted at "both sides" in: my reply to A_Harman. It is so weird with extra ZDDP guys on one side and pro 0,8% P advocates on the other. What sucks even more is how polarizing it is made. If I do not like low P oils, I simply have to be someone who likes to add ZDDP to oils already containing a healthy amount of it and vice versa. Just like the recent presidential election in the US.

Whether you care or not, Delvac 1 ESP CJ-4 or CK-4 is not available in Europe and the CJ-4 options over here are either less appealing, overpriced or not necessarily better for pre 2000 IH and Cummins engines vs. D1 CI-4+. Do you really think I am doing everything I can just to live in the past? Or that I do believe that more of something is always better? Or that I am the type of person altering the composition of well formulated oils? What I choose to say is that just because somebody or even an industry wants sell it this way, 800 PPM P is not an optimal level. And it is not going to become more optimal by publicly calling out the credibility of the Ford Motor Company


Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
No, they didn't do it to be politically correct; they did it because the International Lubricant Standardization and Approval Committee (ILSAC) mandated that 5w/10w-30's satisfy the 800ppm phosphorus limit to claim passenger car approval (API SN) on the label.


I can see how this is a need based decision to maintain a car's mandated emission system warranty. As long as your oil has less than 800 ppm P, it does not matter how API SN continues to accept fairly high volatility and oil consumption. The API is hardly going to develop a specification that cannot be met with petroleum based products - not anytime soon.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Extreme-Duty
I would try to avoid ACEA E6 spec. oils!

Yet, Ford has at least one E6 example on their old spec list. As for calling out the Ford Motor Company, as I've posted here before, this specification is new to the consumer, this wasn't a surprise to BITOGers or oil companies, and should not have caught any OEMs off guard. Look at the builder approval lists on any of the CK-4 oils, particularly the big names that are also E7, E9. They are exhaustive. The E6 oils sometimes even have more builder approvals. Ford is sounding an alarm about the current API spec, after the horse already left the barn, and when everyone else seems to have put the oils on their approval lists. And, as mentioned by several here already, the Ford spec will appear on several CK-4 examples.

njohnson: Do you have the manual for the old Case? If it's anything like the manual from the 1970s vintage Cases we used to run on the farm, any modern HDEO, CK-4 included, will be head and shoulders above what was originally specified.

 

[Ramblejam]

Originally Posted By: Extreme-Duty
By posting the "marketing diagram" in every thread concerning CK-4 wear protection, you are showing that you are misinterpreting the Cummins ISM test.

I'd appreciate you showing me where I posted it in this CK-4 thread.
You are the one who brought it up. You are the one who wants to talk phosphorus.

As for misinterpreting, here's a quote for you:
"Phosphorus reduction means that the best method to evaluate the efficacy of universal oils is through wear testing. The Cummins ISM engine test that measures engine wear and deposits under heavy-duty operating conditions is the desired technique to use. Shaw presents data from that test (your "marketing diagram") showing the results of an advanced approach. He says, “Use of ashless antiwear components in a balanced formulation affords better results than what are seen with conventional formulations. All other performance attributes also are met with this new formulation.”

My only post was to ask njohnson about his specific models, so I/we could have an informed discussion that's applicable to his equipment needs. If you want to have a discussion about phosphorus, I'd sure the OP would appreciate you starting a new thread.

Originally Posted By: njohnson
We have a late 70's Case 2470, which is turbocharged. An 70's International Harvester 815 combine. A 90's Kubota L2900, and 2002 Kubota BX2230, and a 2006 Kubota turbocharged M105X.

That's a nice mix you have there!
I can't think of any special needs/considerations with the Kubota trio.
Is the combine gas, or diesel powered?

Originally Posted By: Garak
njohnson: Do you have the manual for the old Case? If it's anything like the manual from the 1970s vintage Cases we used to run on the farm, any modern HDEO, CK-4 included, will be head and shoulders above what was originally specified.

If I'm thinking right, it should be the 505 Case, otherwise known as the 6C8.3 Cummins. You'll find a lot of ag guys (who love to live in the good 'ol days...) telling you to stick with old-school formulations; fortunately for you, the B5.9 Cummins test method is still an API requirement, including for CK-4 (B5.9/C8.3 share the mushroom/flat tappet arrangement).

One oil I've looked at lately that's compelling for old(er) equipment is this stuff: http://hd.valvoline.com/sites/default/files/valhd_with_mlt_1602_0.pdf

$14.97/gallon at Walmart, with 8% NOACK, and advertising better wear in a test directly relevant to your Case.

 

[Ramblejam]

Actually, scratch that...it had the 504 Case, not the latter Cummins.

 

[Boczech]

Originally Posted By: mbacfp
Interesting info. Thanks TiredTrucker, let me see if there is a rep in my area...otherwise I can purchase from your rep. Appreciate your help. Thanks.


What part of calif are you located ? I know a Sales Rep in the central valley and another one north of Sactown.


B

 

[mbacfp]

Hi Boczech,

I am in Ventura County. Appreciate any referral you have. Thanks.

 

[Linctex]

Originally Posted By: njohnson

We have a late 70's Case 2470, which is turbocharged. An 70's International Harvester 815 combine. A 90's Kubota L2900, and 2002 Kubota BX2230, and a 2006 Kubota turbocharged M105X.


The late 70's Case will be happy running any 15W-40 oil rated for diesel engine use. Even the cheapest generic (Harvest King/Super Tech)stuff is better than what was available in the late 70's. I run the Super Tech 15W-40 in my Case 504 engine.

The 815 has a D-414, yes? Same oil as recommended for the Case.

If it was the 392 V-8 Gas, you'd need fire extinguishers more than engine oil!

Honestly, I am seeing REALLY NICE Axial-Flow's selling for under $3,000-$4,000 and these are *several* orders of magnitude better than the 715, 815 and 915.

I think the Kubotas will all be happy with the same 15W-40 you feed the other machines.

 

[njohnson]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: Extreme-Duty
I would try to avoid ACEA E6 spec. oils!

Yet, Ford has at least one E6 example on their old spec list. As for calling out the Ford Motor Company, as I've posted here before, this specification is new to the consumer, this wasn't a surprise to BITOGers or oil companies, and should not have caught any OEMs off guard. Look at the builder approval lists on any of the CK-4 oils, particularly the big names that are also E7, E9. They are exhaustive. The E6 oils sometimes even have more builder approvals. Ford is sounding an alarm about the current API spec, after the horse already left the barn, and when everyone else seems to have put the oils on their approval lists. And, as mentioned by several here already, the Ford spec will appear on several CK-4 examples.

njohnson: Do you have the manual for the old Case? If it's anything like the manual from the 1970s vintage Cases we used to run on the farm, any modern HDEO, CK-4 included, will be head and shoulders above what was originally specified.


Yes, I have the manual for the Case. I know the modern HDEO have been improved in many ways compared to what was specified and what was available in the 70's. My concern is that the newest oil spec, CK-4, seems to really focus on emissions and fuel economy. When I read the oil companies are reducing some of the additives to protect the emission equipment, I get concerned that the oil won't protect as well.

 

[njohnson]

Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
Originally Posted By: Extreme-Duty
By posting the "marketing diagram" in every thread concerning CK-4 wear protection, you are showing that you are misinterpreting the Cummins ISM test.

I'd appreciate you showing me where I posted it in this CK-4 thread.
You are the one who brought it up. You are the one who wants to talk phosphorus.

As for misinterpreting, here's a quote for you:
"Phosphorus reduction means that the best method to evaluate the efficacy of universal oils is through wear testing. The Cummins ISM engine test that measures engine wear and deposits under heavy-duty operating conditions is the desired technique to use. Shaw presents data from that test (your "marketing diagram") showing the results of an advanced approach. He says, “Use of ashless antiwear components in a balanced formulation affords better results than what are seen with conventional formulations. All other performance attributes also are met with this new formulation.”

My only post was to ask njohnson about his specific models, so I/we could have an informed discussion that's applicable to his equipment needs. If you want to have a discussion about phosphorus, I'd sure the OP would appreciate you starting a new thread.

Originally Posted By: njohnson
We have a late 70's Case 2470, which is turbocharged. An 70's International Harvester 815 combine. A 90's Kubota L2900, and 2002 Kubota BX2230, and a 2006 Kubota turbocharged M105X.

That's a nice mix you have there!
I can't think of any special needs/considerations with the Kubota trio.
Is the combine gas, or diesel powered?

Originally Posted By: Garak
njohnson: Do you have the manual for the old Case? If it's anything like the manual from the 1970s vintage Cases we used to run on the farm, any modern HDEO, CK-4 included, will be head and shoulders above what was originally specified.

If I'm thinking right, it should be the 505 Case, otherwise known as the 6C8.3 Cummins. You'll find a lot of ag guys (who love to live in the good 'ol days...) telling you to stick with old-school formulations; fortunately for you, the B5.9 Cummins test method is still an API requirement, including for CK-4 (B5.9/C8.3 share the mushroom/flat tappet arrangement).

One oil I've looked at lately that's compelling for old(er) equipment is this stuff: http://hd.valvoline.com/sites/default/files/valhd_with_mlt_1602_0.pdf

$14.97/gallon at Walmart, with 8% NOACK, and advertising better wear in a test directly relevant to your Case.


The combine is a turbo-charged diesel. I was thinking about trying that very oil, since it seems to be a very robust and claims better wear protection.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: njohnson
Yes, I have the manual for the Case. I know the modern HDEO have been improved in many ways compared to what was specified and what was available in the 70's. My concern is that the newest oil spec, CK-4, seems to really focus on emissions and fuel economy. When I read the oil companies are reducing some of the additives to protect the emission equipment, I get concerned that the oil won't protect as well.

We all worry about these things, of course, but it's very often unfounded. We heard the same thing when CJ-4 came out. In fact, we heard a lot more here back then, and it never panned out. But, you do have plenty of options, which makes life a little easier.

By the way, from your manual, is it still pretty much wide open with some very dated oils? I've got an old manual somewhere, and posted a scan of it here somewhere once.

 

[Extreme-Duty]

Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
I'd appreciate you showing me where I posted it in this CK-4 thread.
You are the one who brought it up. You are the one who wants to talk phosphorus.

Funny how you knew you were the person I was referring to in my original post. Is that because you have a history of posting that “marketing diagram”? I bet I kept you from doing it this time. Looking back at my post, I did address the OP’s concerns around CK-4 and reduced additive levels, and I did not forget to mention that organic or metallo-organic components are used to replace P in certain formulations, especially in ACEA E6 products with 0.08% P. Claiming that such oils are adequate for any engine or any camshaft on earth, would have been wrong, so I gave the OP an example of a situation in which low P oils might not be the best choice. At the end, it would not have been fair to hide the fact that there is a good chance to avoid running into a low P CK-4 oil by avoiding a certain specification.

Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
"Phosphorus reduction means that the best method to evaluate the efficacy of universal oils is through wear testing. The Cummins ISM engine test that measures engine wear and deposits under heavy-duty operating conditions is the desired technique to use. Shaw presents data from that test (your "marketing diagram") showing the results of an advanced approach. He says, “Use of ashless antiwear components in a balanced formulation affords better results than what are seen with conventional formulations. All other performance attributes also are met with this new formulation.”
.

“Phosphorus reduction means that the best method to evaluate the efficacy of universal oils is through wear testing.” ….Yes, testing is the way to go, but please do not focus on a single test or on high soot tests only, if you wish to demonstrate wear protection per se!

“ The Cummins ISM engine test that measures engine wear and deposits under heavy-duty operating conditions is the desired technique to use.” ....This is one of multiple tests in current Cx-4 test protocols. Oftentimes, it is referred to as a high soot test. They forgot to add that! Why is this test desired and why are other relevant tests not desired? Is it because Chevron’s (or Oronite’s) advanced 0,08% P formulation looks particularly good in this test?

“Shaw presents data from that test (your "marketing diagram") showing the results of an advanced approach. He says, “Use of ashless antiwear components in a balanced formulation affords better results than what are seen with conventional formulations.”
..... Which conventional 0,12% formulation was it tested against? Are all 0,10 – 0,12% P formulations in the marketplace assumed to be “conventional” or is it possible that some of them indeed are “advanced approaches”? Where is the fourth bar in this “marketing diagram”, showing how Chevron’s ashless antiwear components perform if they incorporated in an 0,12% P formulation?

“All other performance attributes also are met with this new formulation”
.....I never said that this formulation (or any other new 0,08% P HDEO formulation) would be unable to meet API, ACEA or OEM requirements.

Finally, I am unable to see where the article or this quotation suggests that less wear in the Cummins ISM test equals lower wear in all other engine tests and lubrication scenarios. They selected the ISM test for two reason: Because it is an important test in the CJ-4/CK-4 protocol and because their new formulation stands out in this test. Perhaps, it stands out in other tests as well, but again, compared to what!?!

Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
My only post was to ask njohnson about his specific models, so I/we could have an informed discussion that's applicable to his equipment needs. If you want to have a discussion about phosphorus, I'd sure the OP would appreciate you starting a new thread.


I am surprised your recommendation for the OP’s equipment does not fully line up with your premise, but I can see it definitely comes closer to it vs. the product I am using. Otherwise you would have had to return to the OP, saying “Man, I bet you'd hate to see CI-4+ vs. CK-4 comparative wear testing. In other words, welcome to 2017...oils have come a long way with a different approach to wear reduction”.

As a matter of fact, it turns out our equipment is older than the OP’s. No more discussion about P for me, by the way! I have better things to do than calling you out for calling me out for using lubricants allowing high amounts of “wear” in our engines.

Originally Posted By: Garak
Yet, Ford has at least one E6 example on their old spec list. As for calling out the Ford Motor Company, as I've posted here before, this specification is new to the consumer, this wasn't a surprise to BITOGers or oil companies, and should not have caught any OEMs off guard. Look at the builder approval lists on any of the CK-4 oils, particularly the big names that are also E7, E9. They are exhaustive. The E6 oils sometimes even have more builder approvals. Ford is sounding an alarm about the current API spec, after the horse already left the barn, and when everyone else seems to have put the oils on their approval lists. And, as mentioned by several here already, the Ford spec will appear on several CK-4 examples.

Are you talking about Delvac 1 LE (CJ-4) being listed as meeting Ford WSS-M2C171-E? As a CJ-4 licensed oil, it can. That was before Ford felt a need to do some in house testing, I guess. If bigger names need more time to complete their approval list, it might be because they actually develop their top tier products themselves, whereas smaller companies are buying a finished, tested and OEM approved package from one of the 4 additive companies to acts as a “re-blender”. Even the smallest and most unknown companies were able to roll out OE-approved CJ-4/E6/E7/E9 5w-30 lubes in no time that way, not too long after D1 LE was upgraded to CJ-4. If these E6 oils have more approvals than CJ-4/E7/E9-ONLY or CK-4/E7/E9-ONLY products, it is mainly due to the fact that most of these extra approvals are based on ACEA E6 or will require a product meeting E6. What you have to ask is if E6 itself is more demanding than E4, or if E6 is a low SAPS version of E4. The same goes for OE specs. related to either E4 or E6.

Also, do not forget that Delvac 1 ESP CJ-4 used to be MAN M3277 and M3377 approved. Performance and application wise, the latter one is similar to M3677, but has nearly no SAPS limit. As far as I know, Rotella T6 and Delo 400 5w-40 CJ-4 never met a European long drain specification. D1 ESP CJ-4 was different from you ordinary CJ-4 oil, D1 CI-4+ is different from your ordinary CI-4+/SL oil.

 

[Ramblejam]

LOL. I'll stick to reading through reputable industry publications for data that'll support an evidence-based discussion. You stick with whatever it is you're doing.

Originally Posted By: njohnson
I was thinking about trying that very oil, since it seems to be a very robust and claims better wear protection.

Definitely worth a shot in old(er) equipment!

 

[TiredTrucker]

Originally Posted By: njohnson

Yes, I have the manual for the Case. I know the modern HDEO have been improved in many ways compared to what was specified and what was available in the 70's. My concern is that the newest oil spec, CK-4, seems to really focus on emissions and fuel economy. When I read the oil companies are reducing some of the additives to protect the emission equipment, I get concerned that the oil won't protect as well.


Actually the FA-4 is more economy focused. The CK-4 stuff is more focused on limiting oxidation and wear along with more shear stability. That seems to be a win as I see it. FA-4 is only for engines that haven't made it into the pipeline yet. They will this year. Shell is specifically saying that the FA-4's major focus is fuel economy. They are equally assertive that CK-4 is primarily for what I mentioned. Problem is, many folks are confusing the two different oils because they both fall under the PC-11 roof. But they are totally different critters.

There are a lot of CK-4's that Ford has already approved in the 15w40 and 10w30 viscosities. 5w40 hasn't made the grade yet in CK-4 according to Ford. Not quite sure why. Many of the heavy diesel OEM's all already pumping out approval lists for CK-4 oils. Cummins CES 20086 and Detroit 93K222 are their respective new CK-4 specs and the lists are already out an available on the web.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Extreme-Duty
As far as I know, Rotella T6 and Delo 400 5w-40 CJ-4 never met a European long drain specification. D1 ESP CJ-4 was different from you ordinary CJ-4 oil, D1 CI-4+ is different from your ordinary CI-4+/SL oil.

ACEA E7, E9 oils aren't that uncommon, and there are such products even in 15w-40 conventionals. And, E4 is obsolete. Yes, Delvac 1 5w-40 and Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40 are remarkable products, but that's really not the point.

The older Ford spec wasn't on a lot of oils, either, but it was on Delvac 1 LE 5w-30, but not the Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40.

 

[mbacfp]

Do the oil companies independently test for the manufactures specs then submit the results for approval (Ford) or do they have to finance manufacturers (Ford) to test in house? Are the tests with actual engines or just analyzing the oils for proper formulations? In my industry, there are plenty of pay to play arrangements which have jaded me quite dramatically. In Garak's post, did Mobil pay to have Delvac LE 5w-30 tested and not Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40 (for economic reasons I imagine). Economic benefit in having 5w-30 approved was greater than 5w-40?