Fram UG XG in Navistar PowerStroke 6.0l

[sdude2k2000]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
My comment was about your statement of: "... what matters more? Higher filtration numbers? Or a properly functioning oil system?"

It sounded like you think that higher efficiency filters cause more restriction, and the they will cause the oiling system to not function correctly. They won/t unless they are so restrictive that they cause the PD oil pump to hit pressure relief ... which would take a lot of restriction in an oil filter.

Originally Posted by sdude2k2000
I fully understand how oil pumps work... I'm talking about the oil cap and filters not properly fitting beneath it - thus not properly actuating the bypass valve when needed. The HEUI system isn't that forgiving to poor oil pressure...


Pretty much every vehicle on the road has the oil pressure sensor located after the oil filter. Which means that as long as all the oil volume coming out of the PD pump (ie, the pump is not in pressure relief), then the oil pressure should be the same regardless if some of the oil is bypassing the oil filter. Now if the filter was clogged, and the bypass valve was suck and not opening like it should, then it's possible that could cause the PD pump outlet pressure to hit pressure relief which would cut oil volume and hence pressure at the oil pressure sensor. But as long as the flow is the same at the sensor then the oil pressure will be the same if the sensor is located after the filter.


K.

OEM Filter.

 

[dlundblad]

Originally Posted by LubricatusObsess
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by LubricatusObsess
Since I've been away 4 years, what's happened with Fram XG? It was the hands down consensus best filter back in 2015.


Pretty much still is.


What to make of dlundblad's post, then?


As I've said, it's been with European car cartridge filters, but IMO it's an issue nonetheless. This is of course assuming all of their cartridge filters are made the same way.

Consensus here for the most part is to use OE with cartridge filters regardless of make and model. It's personally what I do as well. They're much cheaper too. The XG for the Volvo in my signature is $27 at Walmart. The Mahle paper filter is $4.50 online. Even if prices were identical, I'd still use the Mahle filter.

The XG is still a good filter, but most here using them are using the spin on style, which as far as I can tell have been problem free.

 

[Mr Nice]

I'd just use the OEM filter.

 

[LubricatusObsess]

Wow - I wish the boy would have avoided this engine altogether. It is such a science fair engine - we knew it was when I was with Cummins the past 2-1/2 decades, but until I've had to research it now, I wasn't aware of the extent.

Anyway, appreciate the responses. I have a better appreciation for the difficulty of this design and application, and understand why users surrender and use the OEM filter - just as the OEM intended. Which irks me they found a way to get more aftermarket sales not on the merit of their quality, but on a unique design that doesn't add any value.

I bought the Motorcraft FL-2016. Thanks to all responders.

 

[mattd]

Many of the wix filters are too short, which do not depress the anti drain back valve.

OEM filter with a factory cap is your most fool proof option. Good decision

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by dlundblad
Originally Posted by LubricatusObsess
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by LubricatusObsess
Since I've been away 4 years, what's happened with Fram XG? It was the hands down consensus best filter back in 2015.

Pretty much still is.

What to make of dlundblad's post, then?

As I've said, it's been with European car cartridge filters, but IMO it's an issue nonetheless. This is of course assuming all of their cartridge filters are made the same way.

Consensus here for the most part is to use OE with cartridge filters regardless of make and model. It's personally what I do as well. They're much cheaper too. The XG for the Volvo in my signature is $27 at Walmart. The Mahle paper filter is $4.50 online. Even if prices were identical, I'd still use the Mahle filter.

The XG is still a good filter, but most here using them are using the spin on style, which as far as I can tell have been problem free.


You originally made a blanket statement, and didn't qualify the statement that you were talking specifically about cartridge filters. As some will say, many brands seem to have some kind of "issue" when it comes to cartridge filters. And also keep in mind that certain brand name cartridge filters are made by other companies "for" another company that sells them under their brand. Of course, any company who subs out manufacturing for them should be overlooking the end product quality and should take care of any issues that arise.

 

[sdude2k2000]

Originally Posted by LubricatusObsess
Wow - I wish the boy would have avoided this engine altogether. It is such a science fair engine - we knew it was when I was with Cummins the past 2-1/2 decades, but until I've had to research it now, I wasn't aware of the extent.

Anyway, appreciate the responses. I have a better appreciation for the difficulty of this design and application, and understand why users surrender and use the OEM filter - just as the OEM intended. Which irks me they found a way to get more aftermarket sales not on the merit of their quality, but on a unique design that doesn't add any value.

I bought the Motorcraft FL-2016. Thanks to all responders.


Nah - don't feel too bad! It really was just some silly decisions by International when they designed it. Using coolant that had silicates in it (for the Ford models anyway) was stupid point #1... it should have had a silicate free from the get go. Less maintenance for the consumer and no chances of the coolant plugging up the coolers unless some type of outside contamination occurred. Second issue was in the TTY head bolts while only having four bolts per cylinder... should have been like the 7.3 with 6 bolts, or just use studs instead. Luckily all of the weak points in the engine can all be resolved... it's just around the $5k point to do it (more if the heads ever need to be replaced). If that repair is ever needed/done though - the 6.0 is an amazing engine that can make some great power and be rather reliable overall believe it or not. Just stinks the buyer had to figure it out along the way and pay for it on their own dime. But hey - still cheaper than a new one @ $70k!

Oh - another pro-tip... try using 10w30 HD oil instead of 15w40 or 5w40. If you review any UOA - you'll find 40's would shear into a 30 within about 1k miles anyway since the HEUI applies so much pressure (bordering hydraulic) to the oil. The 30's didn't shear much if at all by comparison. My truck definitely liked it better on cold starts too. CAT actually back spec'd 10w30 into all of their HEUI systems for the average temperature range. And before anyone screams about emissions or CAFE - CAT isn't subjected to the same rules as over the road equipment (or wasn't at the time at least). They too found the 10w30 oils to be much better for the injectors.

 

[LubricatusObsess]

Thanks sdude2k2000.

I agree - with the price of a new truck, a gently used PS for a near college-grad is a usable vehicle. Which is why I asked for answers here in the 1st place. As long as you don't beat on it, tune it, and change oil regularly with good stuff, there's no reason it shouldn't last.

I appreciate the oil history here. In my other post, in HDEO's, responders are telling me to use 10W-30 oil without answering my original question. I get the HEUI sheardown thing - using an engine oil as a hydraulic oil to 4,000 psi isn't a base function of any engine oil, which was the fault with this design architecture. What does one do when you only run 10,000 miles a year, only have OCI access several times a year, and don't have access to a plug-in heater, in a climate from -20F to +100F?

I thought with the wss-m2c171-f1 Ford Spec to meet the antiwear needs of the HPOP, Rotella T 5W040 would work. In fact, Ford's most recent oil chart shows it as acceptable for older PS engines?

 

[sdude2k2000]

Take a look at this thread... https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3495982/1

The OP did a nice long comparison of multiple UOAs in his truck. He ran 7500mi OCIs on basic John Deere 10w30. The results helped show why HEUI and 10w30 were meant for each other.

Here's my Mobil 1 TDT 5w40 reports too... you can see what it did to the viscosity in no time. 10w30 ran way better in my truck than the 40s. https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...werstroke-4300mi-m1-tdt-5w40#Post3708174

 

[LubricatusObsess]

Thanks for the UOA referral. Yes, back in 2010, Deere had an exceptional supplier of engine oil, whoever that was. And this UOA @ 7,500 mile OCI instead of severe duty 5,000 mile OCI (which we have to do here for biodiesel mandate anyway).

Your UOA is just 5 years ago, using what I use in my Yanmar tractor engine - M1 TDT 5W-40. Yes, it sheared down from 40wt to 30 wt. The danger from this is VII shear varnishing of the HEUI injection plunger - pintle stiction. I'm aware of that. Are 2020 oils more shear stable? Read on....

Today in 2020, all these oils are @ API CK-4 now. They took some zinc & phos antiwear out to prevent catalyst poisoning. Ford checked some 15W-40 samples and found they didn't meet Ford wss-m2c171-f1 anti-wear spec, and wouldn't include on approved list, so some of those reformulated. Shell Rotella T6 was one such, from what I've read. Their CK-4 is now on Ford's approved list per their spec.

Point is - I can't go back and buy 2010 CI oil - I must use oil available today. They all claim this and that, which is why I got confused trying to understand new CK-4 oils retrofit to previous generation engines. Shell for instance claims they've reestablished the antiwear need for HEUI's HPOP, and increased shear stability. How much? Who the heck knows? I thought about putting it into the HTSF calculator for starters.

Below is Ford's current recommendation for diesel engines, including the Navistar's still in use. 10W-30 is valid to 0F only. I suspect pumpability to the injectors is an issue without synthetic flow. This truck would sit out all night without heaters. They also added 15W-40 and the synthetics. Why? Boy's truck is parked outside with no plug-ins available.
https://www.powerstrokediesel.com/docs/DieselFilterOilReferenceSheet.pdf

 

[dlundblad]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
You originally made a blanket statement, and didn't qualify the statement that you were talking specifically about cartridge filters. As some will say, many brands seem to have some kind of "issue" when it comes to cartridge filters. And also keep in mind that certain brand name cartridge filters are made by other companies "for" another company that sells them under their brand. Of course, any company who subs out manufacturing for them should be overlooking the end product quality and should take care of any issues that arise.


This is the first sentence of my OP. As for the rest of your garble with their other models getting subbed out, I believe that was covered in my second post. Something about "assuming they're made the same way."

Originally Posted by dlundblad
I'm not a fan of synthetic cartridge filters.

 

[sdude2k2000]

Originally Posted by LubricatusObsess
Thanks for the UOA referral. Yes, back in 2010, Deere had an exceptional supplier of engine oil, whoever that was. And this UOA @ 7,500 mile OCI instead of severe duty 5,000 mile OCI (which we have to do here for biodiesel mandate anyway).

Your UOA is just 5 years ago, using what I use in my Yanmar tractor engine - M1 TDT 5W-40. Yes, it sheared down from 40wt to 30 wt. The danger from this is VII shear varnishing of the HEUI injection plunger - pintle stiction. I'm aware of that. Are 2020 oils more shear stable? Read on....

Today in 2020, all these oils are @ API CK-4 now. They took some zinc & phos antiwear out to prevent catalyst poisoning. Ford checked some 15W-40 samples and found they didn't meet Ford wss-m2c171-f1 anti-wear spec, and wouldn't include on approved list, so some of those reformulated. Shell Rotella T6 was one such, from what I've read. Their CK-4 is now on Ford's approved list per their spec.

Point is - I can't go back and buy 2010 CI oil - I must use oil available today. They all claim this and that, which is why I got confused trying to understand new CK-4 oils retrofit to previous generation engines. Shell for instance claims they've reestablished the antiwear need for HEUI's HPOP, and increased shear stability. How much? Who the heck knows? I thought about putting it into the HTSF calculator for starters.

Below is Ford's current recommendation for diesel engines, including the Navistar's still in use. 10W-30 is valid to 0F only. I suspect pumpability to the injectors is an issue without synthetic flow. This truck would sit out all night without heaters. They also added 15W-40 and the synthetics. Why? Boy's truck is parked outside with no plug-ins available.
https://www.powerstrokediesel.com/docs/DieselFilterOilReferenceSheet.pdf


I know the TDT 5w40 I was using, and the subsequent 10w30, were CJ-4... and I'm fairly certain RoadRunner1 was also using CJ-4 (at least by the end of his run). I hear your point though... hard to know for sure how the newer oil specs will do with an older HEUI design. I can't help too much there as I've been out-of-touch with the diesel oil improvements since I sold my truck in 2015. There's no reason not to try a 5w40 and see how it does I suppose... stiction problems don't just happen over one run, but rather it's a buildup over time. There are some oil additives that have been shown to really help out stiction (Hot Shot's Secret Service for example), but I'd personally not use anything like that unless an issue actually develops. I never had any issues myself. But this is (yet again) another example of Ford being silly with design for some unknown reason. The 7.3 had mechanical assists on the injectors... so "lazy injectors" just was never a thing. The 6.0 relies solely on hydraulic pressure. Dumb.

In terms of viscosity grade - I also see what you're saying about "approved down to 0*F". Where I'm at in Southern Oregon, that's not an issue obviously as our winters are very mild. I can say with certainty that 10w30 is thinner at startup during our mild winters than any 5w40... so my truck absolutely turned over better on my cold starts. That's just trial and error in my opinion. Worst thing that will happen is the truck will romp to a start, but it should eventually start - haha. And if it does in fact get cold enough for things to get rough enough that it wont start, or it just nails too hard when it does, then I guess I'd figure out a way for a block heater to get incorporated somehow.

The engine may be a bit of a diva... needs constant attention, maintenance, etc to stay happy. But like most diva's... once you learn how to talk to her, she's still a star. Haha.

 

[LubricatusObsess]

Thanks much, sdude2k2000. I really appreciate your sharing your experiences. I know it will all be ok, just trying to do due diligence having little knowledge about this engine.

Since this is about the filters, if you're interested in the debate about current oils in old Powerstroke HEUI's, the thread is here...https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/5423980/re-ck-4-diesel-oil-for-old-6-0l-powerstroke#Post5423980

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by dlundblad
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
You originally made a blanket statement, and didn't qualify the statement that you were talking specifically about cartridge filters. As some will say, many brands seem to have some kind of "issue" when it comes to cartridge filters. And also keep in mind that certain brand name cartridge filters are made by other companies "for" another company that sells them under their brand. Of course, any company who subs out manufacturing for them should be overlooking the end product quality and should take care of any issues that arise.


This is the first sentence of my OP. As for the rest of your garble with their other models getting subbed out, I believe that was covered in my second post. Something about "assuming they're made the same way."

Originally Posted by dlundblad
I'm not a fan of synthetic cartridge filters.


My comments were about LubricatusObsess's original comment being a blanket statement, not your statement. So not really 'garble' ... sorry for any confusion.

 

[dlundblad]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by dlundblad
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
You originally made a blanket statement, and didn't qualify the statement that you were talking specifically about cartridge filters. As some will say, many brands seem to have some kind of "issue" when it comes to cartridge filters. And also keep in mind that certain brand name cartridge filters are made by other companies "for" another company that sells them under their brand. Of course, any company who subs out manufacturing for them should be overlooking the end product quality and should take care of any issues that arise.


This is the first sentence of my OP. As for the rest of your garble with their other models getting subbed out, I believe that was covered in my second post. Something about "assuming they're made the same way."

Originally Posted by dlundblad
I'm not a fan of synthetic cartridge filters.


My comments were about LubricatusObsess's original comment being a blanket statement, not your statement. So not really 'garble' ... sorry for any confusion.


No problem.