For a Euro II spec'd engine is there a benefit in using CK-4 over a CI-4 oils?

[leoblack9]

I have two diesels that have Euro 2 spec'd engines that are equipped with an EGR and no DPF/SCR/Adblue. Is there any benefit in using a 10w-30 CK-4 over a 10w-30 CI-4 oil. Both are locally available though CI-4 is more common. One truck mostly gets driven highway and the other is used as a daily driver to and from office (so it sees extended idling in traffic).

Both have 7 liter sumps and I change both at 10k km or 1 year, whichever comes first.

Additional info: both diesels get fed Euro V diesel fuel exclusively. I live in a tropical region so cold starts are never an issue here.

Oils in question:
CK-4: Enoc 999x 10w-30 Semi-synth
CI-4: Zic X7 10w-30 Fully Synth

 

[Jetronic]

No, there's no benefit.

 

[fantastic]

Is there any benefit in using a 10w-30 CK-4 over a 10w-30 CI-4 oil.

Absolutely, There have been evolutionary improvements that CK-4 covers. One of which is CI-4.

API CK-4 oils exceed the performance criteria of API CJ-4, CI-4, CI-4 PLUS, and CH-4 and can effectively lubricate engines calling for those API Service Categories.

CI-4:
Intended for high speed 4-stroke diesel engines meeting 2004 US EPA on-highway emission standards implemented in 2002. Formulated to sustain engine durability where EGR is used. Intended for use with fuels having less than 0.5% sulfur.
In addition to providing control of the parameters listed for CH-4 oils, the classification provides additional control of:

• low temperature pumpability
• elastomer compatibility
• high-temperature/high-shear viscosity

CI-4 Plus:
Meets all requirements of CI-4 but includes increased resistance to oil thickening from soot and increased shear stability.

CJ-4:
Intended for high speed 4-stroke diesel engines meeting 2007 US EPA on-highway emission standards.
In addition to providing control of the parameters listed for CI-4 oils, the classification provides additional control of:

• sulfated ash, phosphorous and sulfur content

CK-4:
Intended for high speed 4-stroke diesel engines meeting 2017 US EPA on-highway emission standards.
In addition to providing control of the parameters listed for CJ-4 oils, the classification provides additional control of:

• engine oil aeration
• engine oil oxidation
• viscosity loss due to shear

 

[Jetronic]

It makes no difference if you're on a fixed oil change shedule.

In fact going from a full syn to a semi is likely a step backwards.

 

[Rand]

Absolutely, There have been evolutionary improvements that CK-4 covers. One of which is CI-4.
API CK-4 oils exceed the performance criteria of API CJ-4, CI-4, CI-4 PLUS, and CH-4 and can effectively lubricate engines calling for those API Service Categories.

Absolutely umm... NOT.

Generically, your answer appears true.
however in this specific instance
With the OP's engine
going from a CI-4 full syn to a CK-4 semi syn is not an upgrade.

 

[fantastic]

Absolutely umm... NOT.

Generically, your answer appears true.
however in this specific instance
With the OP's engine
going from a CI-4 full syn to a CK-4 semi syn is not an upgrade.

CK-4 covers CI-4 whether it's full or semi synthetic. Those evolutions of performance increased on CK-4. Tell us how much full/base oil ratios are in a modern CK-4 Semi Synthetic. Some of the biggest improvements our oil endures are via standards not semi-synthetic vs full synthetic. In this instance it went through 3 upgrade cycles that span over 13 years. Along with an additional, possible, improvement of base oil/additive package beyond 2017.

 

[Rand]

So let me get your argument straight..
Are saying a random conventional ck-4 oil is better than the HPL CI-4+ that @wwillson uses??

answer

quoted incase of editing:

CK-4 covers CI-4 whether it's full or semi synthetic. Those evolutions of performance increased on CK-4. Tell us how much full/base oil ratios are in a modern CK-4 Semi Synthetic. Some of the biggest improvements our oil endures are via standards not semi-synthetic vs full synthetic.

 

[fantastic]

So let me get your argument straight..
Are saying a random conventional ck-4 oil is better than the HPL CI-4+ that @wwillson uses??

answer

quoted incase of editing:

There is an argument for using CK-4 vs a CI-4 period. There are variations of base oils & Full vs Semi are not standardized. However, API category evolutions w/performance improvements are. There are plenty of members here that understand that. Does that mean a member here, you tagged, doesn't use a fantastic product that provides excellent UOA? Not sure where you are going with all of that but it will not be entertained.

 

[OVERKILL]

CK-4 covers CI-4 whether it's full or semi synthetic. Those evolutions of performance increased on CK-4. Tell us how much full/base oil ratios are in a modern CK-4 Semi Synthetic. Some of the biggest improvements our oil endures are via standards not semi-synthetic vs full synthetic.

Well, since, we have the material available to contrast them, let's see what differences there are:

- CI-4 under D7468, limits Crosshead % weight loss. CK-4 just says "Report"
- Under D5966, pin wear, CI-4 is more strict on run 2 (0.30/0.33/0.36 vs 0.30/0.54/0.36)
- CI-4 has Sequence IIIF and IIIG, they've been deleted from CK-4
- CK-4 has a lower Noack limit (13%) than CI-4 (15%)
- CK-4 did add D7422, which has piston and liner wear limits, not present in CI-4/CI-4+

Ultimately, the API sets the floor for performance, with OE approvals typically pushing up the performance requirements above and beyond that. It's certainly possible that a CI-4 full synthetic would perform better than an inexpensive CK-4 syn blend. On the PCMO side, if we look at oils like BWM 5W-30 or Castrol Euro 0W-30 which are SL, would we assume that they would perform worse than a cheap SP 0W-30/5W-30? No, because of course they meet more stringent OEM approvals.

So it's not a simple as "this one has a newer approval, so it's better by default".

 

[fantastic]

Lately with each API standard their has been team work between OEM's & oil blenders to reduce emissions with each standard. OP stated they have an EGR & from everything I've read into it appears CK-4 will handle soot load much better than a CI-4 would. Now, they don't have a DPF to clog up & it's not quite as drastic if the EGR clogs up. However, reducing maintenance on the EGR & soot management is still needed. Also, Some OEMs are going to Modern additive packages that favor fuel economy like how magnesium has shown to increase fuel consumption vs using calcium.

This article is old but it does have a CJ-4 vs CH-4.

https://www.equipmentworld.com/business/article/14943557/side-by-side-cj-4-vs-ci-4ci-4-plus-oil#:~:text=Previous categories included CI-4 PLUS, CI-4

“Regardless of the engine, CJ-4 is a superior oil, says Mark Betner, heavy duty product manager for Citgo Lubricants. “You have a more oxidative stable oil compared to CI-4 and CI-4 PLUS. And we’ve seen double the soot handling capability compared to CI-4 PLUS,” he says. “If you have a 2003 dump truck, CJ-4 would still be the better oil for it.”

”Cummins has said it will allow highway engine customers the flexibility of using CJ-4 with a projected DPF cleanout at 200,000 to 400,000 miles or CI-4 with a DPF cleanout every 150,000 to 350,000 miles."

https://www.oildepot.ca/blog/should-api-ck-4-oil-be-used-older-diesel-engine/#:~:text=The newer API CK-4 chemistry is
We asked AMSOIL Technical Services how the API CK-4 AMSOIL Heavy Duty 15W-40 might compare to an older generation product like the API CI-4+ “AME” AMSOIL Heavy Duty Diesel and Marine 15W-40. Their answer was “It’s not even close”.

Here's what Chevron Lubricants says:
What benefits does CK-4 offer fleets with older engines?
CK-4 oils are backward compatible, meaning they meet all requirements of the earlier API specifications and offer new API CK-4 performance benefits.

Lubrizol:
API CK-4 and API FA-4 engine oils will see major upgrades in performance. These oils offer improved fuel efficiency, oxidation performance, shear stability protection and resistance to aeration.

To classify the oils, a rigorous testing process must be undertaken. Figure 1 shows the various tests that have been carried out on lubricants in the past. The current generation does everything the previous generation did, and more.

“Almost all of the tests are carried over from CJ-4. What we’ve added are some more severe tests, such as the Mack T13, which will measure oxidation under higher temperature conditions, better simulating the higher temperatures seen in modern engines," notes Keith Corkwell, Lubrizol's heavy-duty diesel Global Business Manager. “Shear stability has seen a change in blending requirements, to ensure oils are less likely to thin out of grade. The CAT Aeration Test replaces the older Engine Oil Aeration Test (EOAT), which was based on hardware that isn’t available anymore.”

Manager for Citgo:
“CK-4 will provide significant improvements in wear protection, deposit control, shear stability and oil aeration control,” says Mark Betner, heavy-duty product line manager for Citgo. “These engine oils will also have up to 60% better oxidation resistance compared to API CJ-4, which aids in extended service intervals. CK-4 is designed for both over-the-road and heavy equipment and is also backward compatible.”

Director at Phillips66
Tony Negri, director of commercial products for Phillips 66, adds: “Simply put, CK-4 oils are the next natural extension of their CJ-4 predecessors with more robust performance in certain categories, as demonstrated through a few upgraded API test parameters and a few new OEM tests. CK-4 products will be completely back-serviceable to cover all of the same diesel applications that CJ-4 did, just with higher performance standards. There is an additional change that the new specification brings with regard to ‘universal’ engine oils [those which claim both ‘C’ categories for diesel and ‘S’ categories for gasoline engines].”

There is an endless list of examples of folks that actually are involved in the Industry & process that are saying CK-4 is an improvement vs older specifications. Do you think this is all smoke & mirrors?

 

[leoblack9]

Absolutely, There have been evolutionary improvements that CK-4 covers. One of which is CI-4.

API CK-4 oils exceed the performance criteria of API CJ-4, CI-4, CI-4 PLUS, and CH-4 and can effectively lubricate engines calling for those API Service Categories.

CI-4:
Intended for high speed 4-stroke diesel engines meeting 2004 US EPA on-highway emission standards implemented in 2002. Formulated to sustain engine durability where EGR is used. Intended for use with fuels having less than 0.5% sulfur.
In addition to providing control of the parameters listed for CH-4 oils, the classification provides additional control of:

• low temperature pumpability
• elastomer compatibility
• high-temperature/high-shear viscosity

CI-4 Plus:
Meets all requirements of CI-4 but includes increased resistance to oil thickening from soot and increased shear stability.

CJ-4:
Intended for high speed 4-stroke diesel engines meeting 2007 US EPA on-highway emission standards.
In addition to providing control of the parameters listed for CI-4 oils, the classification provides additional control of:

• sulfated ash, phosphorous and sulfur content

CK-4:
Intended for high speed 4-stroke diesel engines meeting 2017 US EPA on-highway emission standards.
In addition to providing control of the parameters listed for CJ-4 oils, the classification provides additional control of:

• engine oil aeration
• engine oil oxidation
• viscosity loss due to shear

Thanks, I wonder if it holds true despite the lowered ZDDP levels of CK-4 oil due to using ashless additives. I'm still reading on this topic and its an interesting point that Ford went against CK-4 and had their own standard for their current HDEOs, meaning CK-4 was probably lacking in something for their engines.

Absolutely umm... NOT.

Generically, your answer appears true.
however in this specific instance
With the OP's engine
going from a CI-4 full syn to a CK-4 semi syn is not an upgrade.

If I had the option to go full synth with a Ck-4 I would, its whats currently available on the market. The full synth option is Amsoil but their prices have been going up steadily (annually) and their options are no longer viable for my budget.

 

[fantastic]

Thanks, I wonder if it holds true despite the lowered ZDDP levels of CK-4 oil due to using ashless additives. I'm still reading on this topic and its an interesting point that Ford went against CK-4 and had their own standard for their current HDEOs, meaning CK-4 was probably lacking in something for their engines.

You're welcome & your concern can be solved by getting a CK-4 oil w/ Ford oil spec WSS-M2C171-F1 if you'd like.

 

[leoblack9]

Well, since, we have the material available to contrast them, let's see what differences there are:
View attachment 244029View attachment 244030
View attachment 244031
View attachment 244034

- CI-4 under D7468, limits Crosshead % weight loss. CK-4 just says "Report"
- Under D5966, pin wear, CI-4 is more strict on run 2 (0.30/0.33/0.36 vs 0.30/0.54/0.36)
- CI-4 has Sequence IIIF and IIIG, they've been deleted from CK-4
- CK-4 has a lower Noack limit (13%) than CI-4 (15%)
- CK-4 did add D7422, which has piston and liner wear limits, not present in CI-4/CI-4+

Ultimately, the API sets the floor for performance, with OE approvals typically pushing up the performance requirements above and beyond that. It's certainly possible that a CI-4 full synthetic would perform better than an inexpensive CK-4 syn blend. On the PCMO side, if we look at oils like BWM 5W-30 or Castrol Euro 0W-30 which are SL, would we assume that they would perform worse than a cheap SP 0W-30/5W-30? No, because of course they meet more stringent OEM approvals.

So it's not a simple as "this one has a newer approval, so it's better by default".

Holy information dump! That's very comprehensive. It goes full circle then when we go back to oil/base oil quality rather than approved standards. I would agree if both oils are fully synth but my choices are a synth and a full synth so its easier to decide at the moment.

 

[OVERKILL]

There is an endless list of examples of folks that actually are involved in the Industry & process that are saying CK-4 is an improvement vs older specifications. Do you think this is all smoke & mirrors?

No, but I think that you are missing the part that this is the baseline, otherwise, OEM's wouldn't find it necessary to have their own approvals on top of it. Mobil, for example, has been notorious for meeting the performance requirements of upcoming specs well in advance, sometimes several specs in advance. Cheap bulk oils produced at incredibly tight price points still meet CK-4, this is not some uber difficult bar to meet.

Take this bit:

“These engine oils will also have up to 60% better oxidation resistance compared to API CJ-4, which aids in extended service intervals.

CJ-4 limited KV40 via the choice of two different sequences:
IIIF at 275% across the board
or
IIIG at 150% across the board

Not overly stringent.

Let's then look at D8048 in CK-4 there, as it applies to oxidative thickening. KV40 viscosity increase limit (%):
Runs 1/2/3
75/80/90

So yes, that's more strict than CJ-4, but how likely do you think it is that a decent synthetic is going to increase in viscosity by 75%? let alone 90% or 150?

If we use the SK CI-4 oil the OP is looking at, which is 72.15cSt @ 40C, that's:
126.26/129.87/138.08 cSt at 40C.

Remember, you can blend a CK-4 10W-30 with 85% 5cSt Group II:

And that's likely the price point (or lower) that these limits are important improvements at.


But let's take a look at the products the OP is considering for context.

Here's the CK-4 product. Their website hasn't been updated since 2018:

Here's the CI-4 product. This is from SK, a brand which I assume everyone here is familiar with:

First thing that should stand out is that 228.51 caps phosphorous at 800ppm as does E6/E9. 228.3 does not cap phosphorous nor does E7, which may also explain why the CI-4 product is also SL and A3/B4.

These oils have markedly different recommended applications/specifications. The SK product seems like they've decided to combine a full-SAPS Euro oil with an HDEO and gone with the full-SAPS style HDEO recommendations along with the Euro ones.

Now, given the OP said he doesn't have a DPF:

I have two diesels that have Euro 2 spec'd engines that are equipped with an EGR and no DPF/SCR/Adblue.

the lower SAPS of the oil recommended for 228.51 and E6/E9 aren't necessary in his application.

I'd be inclined to use the SK product here, given the choice between the two. It doesn't bother me that it's CI-4, it's from a company that's well known with a current website, and I assume it has higher levels of phosphorous, based on the approvals it carries.

 

[leoblack9]

No, but I think that you are missing the part that this is the baseline, otherwise, OEM's wouldn't find it necessary to have their own approvals on top of it. Mobil, for example, has been notorious for meeting the performance requirements of upcoming specs well in advance, sometimes several specs in advance. Cheap bulk oils produced at incredibly tight price points still meet CK-4, this is not some uber difficult bar to meet.

Take this bit:


CJ-4 limited KV40 via the choice of two different sequences:
IIIF at 275% across the board
or
IIIG at 150% across the board

Not overly stringent.

Let's then look at D8048 in CK-4 there, as it applies to oxidative thickening. KV40 viscosity increase limit (%):
Runs 1/2/3
75/80/90

So yes, that's more strict than CJ-4, but how likely do you think it is that a decent synthetic is going to increase in viscosity by 75%? let alone 90% or 150?

If we use the SK CI-4 oil the OP is looking at, which is 72.15cSt @ 40C, that's:
126.26/129.87/138.08 cSt at 40C.

Remember, you can blend a CK-4 10W-30 with 85% 5cSt Group II:
View attachment 244099

And that's likely the price point (or lower) that these limits are important improvements at.


But let's take a look at the products the OP is considering for context.

Here's the CK-4 product. Their website hasn't been updated since 2018:
View attachment 244100
View attachment 244101

Here's the CI-4 product. This is from SK, a brand which I assume everyone here is familiar with:
View attachment 244102

First thing that should stand out is that 228.51 caps phosphorous at 800ppm as does E6/E9. 228.3 does not cap phosphorous nor does E7, which may also explain why the CI-4 product is also SL and A3/B4.

These oils have markedly different recommended applications/specifications. The SK product seems like they've decided to combine a full-SAPS Euro oil with an HDEO and gone with the full-SAPS style HDEO recommendations along with the Euro ones.

Now, given the OP said he doesn't have a DPF:


the lower SAPS of the oil recommended for 228.51 and E6/E9 aren't necessary in his application.

I'd be inclined to use the SK product here, given the choice between the two. It doesn't bother me that it's CI-4, it's from a company that's well known with a current website, and I assume it has higher levels of phosphorous, based on the approvals it carries.

Decided on Zic's products since I was thinking of going full SAPS for the best wear protection. The lowered zddp with the newer standards worries me and there has been no definite answer (except some anecdotes and a couple of UOAs) that it would provide the best protection for my specific engines (Toyota 2kd-ftv and Isuzu 4jj1-tcs). To be honest my two diesels require CF/CH4 oil in the manual so they're that old in design so probably any modern oil would be more than adequate. But having mild ocd I still find myself second guessing my decision most of the time. Thanks for the for the insightful post which helps in my decision for future ocis.

 

[userfriendly]

No, but I think that you are missing the part that this is the baseline, otherwise, OEM's wouldn't find it necessary to have their own approvals on top of it. Mobil, for example, has been notorious for meeting the performance requirements of upcoming specs well in advance, sometimes several specs in advance. Cheap bulk oils produced at incredibly tight price points still meet CK-4, this is not some uber difficult bar to meet.

Take this bit:


CJ-4 limited KV40 via the choice of two different sequences:
IIIF at 275% across the board
or
IIIG at 150% across the board

Not overly stringent.

Let's then look at D8048 in CK-4 there, as it applies to oxidative thickening. KV40 viscosity increase limit (%):
Runs 1/2/3
75/80/90

So yes, that's more strict than CJ-4, but how likely do you think it is that a decent synthetic is going to increase in viscosity by 75%? let alone 90% or 150?

If we use the SK CI-4 oil the OP is looking at, which is 72.15cSt @ 40C, that's:
126.26/129.87/138.08 cSt at 40C.

Remember, you can blend a CK-4 10W-30 with 85% 5cSt Group II:
View attachment 244099

And that's likely the price point (or lower) that these limits are important improvements at.


But let's take a look at the products the OP is considering for context.

Here's the CK-4 product. Their website hasn't been updated since 2018:
View attachment 244100
View attachment 244101

Here's the CI-4 product. This is from SK, a brand which I assume everyone here is familiar with:
View attachment 244102

First thing that should stand out is that 228.51 caps phosphorous at 800ppm as does E6/E9. 228.3 does not cap phosphorous nor does E7, which may also explain why the CI-4 product is also SL and A3/B4.

These oils have markedly different recommended applications/specifications. The SK product seems like they've decided to combine a full-SAPS Euro oil with an HDEO and gone with the full-SAPS style HDEO recommendations along with the Euro ones.

Now, given the OP said he doesn't have a DPF:


the lower SAPS of the oil recommended for 228.51 and E6/E9 aren't necessary in his application.

I'd be inclined to use the SK product here, given the choice between the two. It doesn't bother me that it's CI-4, it's from a company that's well known with a current website, and I assume it has higher levels of phosphorous, based on the approvals it carries.

What do you think of the thread starter throwing out the HD Diesel approvals and going with a synthetic A3/B4 instead?

 

[OVERKILL]

What do you think of the thread starter throwing out the HD Diesel approvals and going with a synthetic A3/B4 instead?

It's a thought, but the SK oil seems quite appropriate, and if he can get it at a reasonable price, and it's readily available, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

 

[Brian123]

Thanks, I wonder if it holds true despite the lowered ZDDP levels of CK-4 oil due to using ashless additives. I'm still reading on this topic and its an interesting point that Ford went against CK-4 and had their own standard for their current HDEOs, meaning CK-4 was probably lacking in something for their engines.


If I had the option to go full synth with a Ck-4 I would, its whats currently available on the market. The full synth option is Amsoil but their prices have been going up steadily (annually) and their options are no longer viable for my budget.

Here is my thought, and it is a thought, give Amsoil a call and see what they say, from everything I have looked at, Amsoil is a Superior Oil. There are probably only 2 other oils' out there that are as good or better than what Amsoil offers.

 

[leoblack9]

Here is my thought, and it is a thought, give Amsoil a call and see what they say, from everything I have looked at, Amsoil is a Superior Oil. There are probably only 2 other oils' out there that are as good or better than what Amsoil offers.

Already have used their signature series 5w30 (DHD) and 10w30 heavy duty diesel (ADN) without issue. Sadly their annual increasing costs (being a MLM) have put them out of my budget range. SK Zic is priced perfectly for my use case so I am using their products as of the moment.