Four API CK-4 Diesel Engine Oil Results

[Killer223]

Originally Posted By: motor_oil_madman
There is no such thing as a CJ-4/SN it's CJ-4/SM


you sure about that?

https://www.tractorsupply.com/tsc/produc...al?cm_vc=-10005

 

[claluja]

Originally Posted By: Garak
It's also interesting to note that this low phosphorus Delvac 15w-40 is on Ford's latest approved list.

Ok, I'll take the bait. Where is it on Ford's latest list?

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: claluja
Originally Posted By: Garak
It's also interesting to note that this low phosphorus Delvac 15w-40 is on Ford's latest approved list.

Ok, I'll take the bait. Where is it on Ford's latest list?
On the list that I found (assuming it is the latest and greatest--dated 06 April 2017) only Mobil HDEO is listed; if that is Delvac then OK, otherwise in the spirit of mysterious that Ford is championing these days, I am not sure.

Ford WSS-M2C171-F1 Approved Oils

 

[claluja]

Mobil 15w40 HDEO Commercial Lube approved

www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.hascooil.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/MOBIL-HDEO-15W-40-pds.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjiiKjy_MDTAhVBVyYKHetHCHEQFgglMAE&usg=AFQjCNFmTEO7fKFQgc8WsYB-LzfWsrlHrQ&sig2=gbVs3zdBZTfITaILp5CysA

 

[claluja]

The Mobil 15w40 HDEO Commercial Lube approved by Ford has different specs than Mobil 15w40 Delvac 1300. Sorry couldnt get link to work. No Delvac 1300 low P on Ford's approved list.

 

[4WD]

Is it Delvac MX ?

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: claluja
Originally Posted By: Garak
It's also interesting to note that this low phosphorus Delvac 15w-40 is on Ford's latest approved list.

Ok, I'll take the bait. Where is it on Ford's latest list?

You gave me your take. Of course, Ford doesn't make it exactly clear on their list; I've criticised the formatting of this list before. They say a 15w-40 entitled Mobil HDEO, and I'm not sure what that product is, until you show a link (and yes, your link works). Without product numbers or something like that, you could forgive an average customer from buying Delvac 1300 or Delvac Elite. Heck, this "Mobil HDEO 15w-40" isn't even on my sell sheets from Imperial Oil. If I want a 15w-40, my options are Delvac 1300 and Delvac Elite. If I can't get it, what is the average consumer who is used to Delvac 1300 going to do? They also say Wakefield 15w-40 HDEO, and Wakefield has four 15w-40 options in Canada.

Originally Posted By: 4WD
Is it Delvac MX ?

No, that's old enough to keep Ford happy all on its own.

 

[RLS]

Mobil™ HDEO 122433
Commercial Vehicle Lube Mobil, United States
Heavy Duty Engine Oil
Product Description
Mobil™ HDEO 15W-40 and 10W-30 are oils designed to meet warranty requirements for high-speed,
four-stroke heavy duty diesel engines. These products are formulated to maintain the durability of emission
control systems, including diesel particulate filters and other advanced aftertreatment systems.
Mobil HDEO meets or exceeds the requirements of API service classifications CK-4, CJ-4, CI-4 PLUS, CI-4
and CH-4. These products are also approved by major original equipment manufacturers (OEM).
Applications
Recommended for heavy duty diesel applications including low emission engine designs and those
featuring EGR.
Recommended for heavy duty diesel applications using older and naturally aspirated conventional designs.
Specifications and Approvals
API CK-4, CJ-4, CI-4 PLUS, CI-4, CH-4 X X
Caterpillar ECF-3 X X
Cummins CES 20086, 20081 X X
Mobil HDEO meets or exceeds the requirements of: 15W-40 10W-30
Volvo VDS-4.5, VDS-4 X X
Mack EOS-4.5, EO-O Premium Plus X X
Detroit Fluids Specification 93K222, 93K218 X X
Ford WSS-M2C171-F1 X X
MTU Oil Category 2.1 X
Renault Trucks RLD-4, RLD-3 X X
Mobil HDEO is approved by the following OEMs: 15W-40 10W-30
Mobil™ HDEO Page 1 of 3
https://www.mobil.com/English-US/Commercial-Vehicle-Lube/pds/GLXXMOBIL-HDEO?p=1 07.04.2017
Typical Properties
SAE Grade 15W-40 10W-30
Viscosity, ASTM D 445
cSt @ 40ºC 112 81.3
cSt @ 100ºC 14.2 11.9
Viscosity Index, ASTM D 2270 132 140
Density @ 15.6ºC kg/L, ASTM D 4052 0.874 0.867
Pour Point, ºC, ASTM D 97 -27 -36
Flash Point, ºC, ASTM D 92 225 225
Sulfated Ash, wt%, ASTM D 874 1 1
Total Base Number, mg KOH/g, ASTM D 2896 10 10
CCS, cP, ASTM D 5293 5900 @ -20C 6550 @-25C
MRV, cP, ASTM D 4684 20000 @ -25C 22600 @ -30C
HTHS @ 150ºC, cP, ASTM D4683 4 3.6
Mobil HDEO
Health and Safety
Based on available information, this product is not expected to produce adverse effects on health when used for
the intended application and the recommendations provided in the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) are
followed. MSDSs are available upon request through your sales contract office, or via the Internet. This product
should not be used for purposes other than its intended use. If disposing of used product, take care to protect
the environment.
All trademarks used herein are trademarks or registered trademarks of Exxon Mobil Corporation or one of its
subsidiaries unless indicated otherwise.
11-2016
Exxon Mobil Corporation
22777 Springwoods Village Parkway
Spring TX 77389
1-800-ASK MOBIL (275-6624)
Typical Properties are typical of those obtained with normal production tolerance and do not constitute a
Mobil™ HDEO Page 2 of 3
https://www.mobil.com/English-US/Commercial-Vehicle-Lube/pds/GLXXMOBIL-HDEO?p=1 07.04.2017
specification. Variations that do not affect product performance are to be expected during normal manufacture
and at different blending locations. The information contained herein is subject to change without notice. All
products may not be available locally. For more information, contact your local ExxonMobil contact or visit
www.exxonmobil.com
ExxonMobil is comprised of numerous affiliates and subsidiaries, many with names that include Esso, Mobil, or
ExxonMobil. Nothing in this document is intended to override or supersede the corporate separateness of local
entities. Responsibility for local action and accountability remains with the local ExxonMobil-affiliate entities.
© Copyright 2003-2017 Exxon Mobil Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
Mobil™ HDEO Page 3 of 3
https://www.mobil.com/English-US/Commercial-Vehicle-Lube/pds/GLXXMOBIL-HDEO?p=1 07.04.2017

 

[stoan]

Those Delo numbers are pretty disappointing for someone who has just put this stuff in two trucks. How can an oil this much weaker in additives provide 50% greater protection?

The Rotella actually looks better than the previous version. More boron and everything else about the same. Wonder if removing the gasoline rating allowed them to keep it comparatively stout?

 

[njohnson]

"Those Delo numbers are pretty disappointing for someone who has just put this stuff in two trucks. How can an oil this much weaker in additives provide 50% greater protection?"

I was wondering the same thing, Delo a few years ago was loaded with moly and boron, along with a good amount of zinc and phosphorous. Now, the levels have been lowered. Delo could be using some type of anti-wear that doesn't show up in a VOA.

Or maybe what is happening is that the new engines being built are using different materials and designs, where, even though the additives are being reduced in the HDEO, the wear is being improved? Like when the automakers went to roller followers on the camshafts, wear was reduced even though zinc and phosphorous was lowered to around 800.

I am disappointed the additives were lowered, but, I will wait for UOA to show how the new CK-4 work in different engines. I think they will work just fine in new and newer engines, the oil makers did a lot of R & D into the CK-4 and did a lot of testing, but, I want to see how they work in older equipment.

We live on a farm here in Indiana, and all our equipment is older, no emission systems to worry about. So, I like to see high levels of additives in the HDEO, just makes it more robust and offers more protection, IMHO, anyway.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: stoan
Those Delo numbers are pretty disappointing for someone who has just put this stuff in two trucks. How can an oil this much weaker in additives provide 50% greater protection?

Not all additives show up in a $30 VOA.

 

[TiredTrucker]

Well, I know the Delvac Extreme 10w30 CK-4 I tried in my legacy Detroit 60 12.7 pre-EGR did as well as any CJ-4 oil that had been used in that factory remanned engine for the previous 650,000 miles that I put on it. Across the board... wear numbers, TBN retention, shear stability, oxidation control, etc was as good or better than any CJ-4 the engine saw, which included Delo, Kendall, and primarily Schaeffer. Consumption also was identical as it had been since day one..... 2 qt in 20,000 miles. As whether the CK-4 provided greater protection, only long term results could confirm or destroy that notion. But short term thus far, I am comfortable with CK-4.

 

[jgturbo]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: stoan
Those Delo numbers are pretty disappointing for someone who has just put this stuff in two trucks. How can an oil this much weaker in additives provide 50% greater protection?

Not all additives show up in a $30 VOA.


I think you're right. I submitted an email to Chevron requesting more information about the new CK-4 Delo 400SDE. I specifically asked how they meet their claimed increases in wear protection (50% increase) with lower amounts of additives showing up on the elemental analysis. Here's their response. It sounds like the additive package they use isn't conventional and might not be showing up on the VOA. It was reassuring to hear that they stand behind their numbers:

Thank you for your inquiry! Chevron uses (and always has) a proprietary ashless additive package in it's Delo 400 HDMO product line. We were able to reduce zinc/phosphorus without compromising wear protection due to the efficiency (and advances made) of this additive. CK-4 oils were restricted to a certain amount of Zinc/phosphorus. Wear additive technology has advanced greatly in recent years. We didn't go lower because we had to, but because our additive package allows us to. We have been conducting extensive research and testing both in house, by outside labs, and by OEM's for several years before releasing our CK-4 product to market. Chevron fully stands behind it's new performance claims of our CK-4 oils. We would not sacrifice performance or our reputation as a leader in the HDMO market unless we were 100% certain of our products performance.

Best Regards,
Steve
Chevron LubeTek

 

[Garak]

Even look at a VOA of Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40 in the CJ-4 version. It looks very unremarkable, but there is much, much more that can't be seen.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: jgturbo
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: stoan
Those Delo numbers are pretty disappointing for someone who has just put this stuff in two trucks. How can an oil this much weaker in additives provide 50% greater protection?

Not all additives show up in a $30 VOA.


I think you're right. I submitted an email to Chevron requesting more information about the new CK-4 Delo 400SDE. I specifically asked how they meet their claimed increases in wear protection (50% increase) with lower amounts of additives showing up on the elemental analysis. Here's their response. It sounds like the additive package they use isn't conventional and might not be showing up on the VOA. It was reassuring to hear that they stand behind their numbers:

Thank you for your inquiry! Chevron uses (and always has) a proprietary ashless additive package in it's Delo 400 HDMO product line. We were able to reduce zinc/phosphorus without compromising wear protection due to the efficiency (and advances made) of this additive. CK-4 oils were restricted to a certain amount of Zinc/phosphorus. Wear additive technology has advanced greatly in recent years. We didn't go lower because we had to, but because our additive package allows us to. We have been conducting extensive research and testing both in house, by outside labs, and by OEM's for several years before releasing our CK-4 product to market. Chevron fully stands behind it's new performance claims of our CK-4 oils. We would not sacrifice performance or our reputation as a leader in the HDMO market unless we were 100% certain of our products performance.

Best Regards,
Steve
Chevron LubeTek



This response from Chevron may seem unique in terms of their outward statement, but it's not really secret or unknown. This has been the understanding for several years now. There are a slew of products that will not show up in a UOA, but can have a very positive effect on wear control. I'm not a chemist, but I have contact with many in the additive industry and I'm assured by them that this is how CK-4 is achieving it's goals, and how the future will progress forward. It may well make lubes cost a bit more; the typical historical additives such as Phos, Zn, Mg, Ca and such are reasonably cost effective, whereas some of the new proprietary additive packages are simply more expensive and will result in lubes that may cost a bit more. However they may also last longer in service, so the ROI may be as good or better.

Given that I accept these statements from Chevron and my insiders in the additive industry, it makes one wonder a few things:
1) Do the engineers at Ford not understand this concept of alternative additives still being capable of reducing wear?
2) Did Ford accidentally discover a condition whereas they make a product (6.7L diesel) that cannot tolerate the loss of one particular additive, even when it's supplanted by another, indicating they have a unicorn on their hands?


Finally, this also drives home a point I've (not quietly, I might add) been telling folks for years. THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS IN A UOA ARE NOT THE BASE LUBE PROPERTIES, BUT THE WEAR METALS. There will come a point when many of the poplar additives are going to be reduced or eliminated. And then where will all the brand-zealot oil bigots be when they cannot wail about this much Phos and that much Zn, etc? They will finally have to focus how on a lube performs in the crankcase, because they won't be able to see everything that's being put into the bottle. The future is rushing towards us; there will be a time when the traditional additives will be less and less important and we'll all be looking at 5 things; Fe, Al, Cu, Pb and Cr. What is more important, after all? Should it not be how well the lube reduces wear, regardless of how it is achieved?

 

[TiredTrucker]

And it is just that simple, folks!

 

[beanoil]

Still all boils down to if there is a problem with a Ford 6.7, Ford can analyze the oil, find less than their now well known and communicated PPM of Phosphorus, and deny a warranty claim on any lubricated part. If anyone thinks they would not extend their position to the turbo, oil pump, whatever, because they had valvetrain wear, think again. They have taken the position, and said no CK-4 dual rated oils, period. I can buy a a whole truckload of any other oil that has the 1000 of Phosphorus they want for the cost of that 17k engine. Probably a little less than a truck load for that gold plated variable vane turbo, but the point is still valid. It won't make any difference what proprietary, ashless, fairy dust that Chevron has added. For me,the removal of phos, moly, and boron from the mix, well known parts of a stout add pack, and the things that made Delo an industry leader, are more than just a reformulation to meet a spec. It looks like a dumbing down of a great oil.


I don't get the Chevron position. They still have 400LE that works available in bulk for those that want it. So two distinct streams, and the associated cost with it. They said in a letter, they did not want to leave Ford owners behind, yet they did exactly that in the retail market, while anyone can go to Farm and Home or TSC and get Harvest King off the shelf and motor on with an approved oil. Chevron abandoned part of their loyal customer base here, plain and simple. It appears Mobil did as well.


I said a while back, Ford's recommendations on fluids have never been spot on. Ford Gold in the 6.0: disaster.
Mercon, no MercV, now V is OK. Mercon SP or LV? No fuel adds recommended, but hey if you do, use Ford diesel supplement.
Oil blenders will eventually take part in the valvetrain wear test, and post the spec on the bottle, and we can all enjoy a cold one around the campfire singing a song. I'm covered through my warranty period with CJ-4 until we get to that point.