I looked through the list of unapproved oils and didn’t see Shell listed anywhere. No Mobil, Valvoline or even RP. Yet the woods are full of them or so we are lead to believe.
Synthetic Oil Brand and Weight for Powerstroke 6.7 HO
- Thread starter adam8833
- Start date
They may not have been involved in the audit. It's only a 3% audit. That means a particular oil has a random 97% chance of not being audited. Also, there's no major punishment if they do fail the audit. They get a fix-it ticket, and that's about it. Thus, it shouldn't be a surprise that brands in a race to the bottom would take the chance of not getting audited with an underperforming product. After all, the chances of getting randomly selected are quite low and no real punishment if you are selected and fail. (unless you don't fix it, in which case they can pull your license that 98% of people don't know even exists)
The list I saw was for oils that claimed API cert without actually having applied/been approved. Two different things. Counterfeit labels falsely claiming API vs meeting it and then changing the recipe.
There's even less of a penalty for the heralded boutique blenders that don't apply/submit for certifications in the first place. "Recommended for..."
That's where trust with the company comes into play. HPL, Amsoil, Red Line, and Driven's standards are far more stringent than API. They don't get certifications for good reasons. It's not a performance matter as they could easily ace those tests. It would be like giving someone with a masters in mathematics a quiz on basic multiplication tables. The main reason is it's cost prohibitive. API SP alone is well into the 6 figures for all of the testing. Note, the major brands don't pay for this either. It's done by the additive companies. The majors just buy the approved add pack, blend to the recipe it calls for, slap a starburst on it, and send it out the door. Secondly, they'd have to dumb down their formulas, intentionally hurt the performance of the oils, to meet API. This is due to the manner in which the certs are done by the additive companies. They're not going to do that. Thirdly, the cert locks them into that formula with no wiggle room. HPL frequently tests new chemistry to find where they can improve upon current formulas. If they were to find a better anti-oxidant and want to add it, they can't do it and keep the cert. They'd have to go through all of the cost prohibitive testing all over again for a standard that's far weaker than their own. It would be a substantial waste of time, money, and resources to end up with something that goes against the very fabric of their business model. They don't want to be forced in a small box. When it comes API certs, you either have to abide by the exact formula from the additive companies and accept the indirect ceiling on performance, or ditch the cert to make a better product. They chose to ditch it.
That is quite different from an oil that has the cert but fails to meet even its mediocre standards. That comes from shortcutting the add pack's recipe to reduce production cost / increase profit margins.
Last edited:
While the comparison is valid, comparing those three vs. oil companies such as XOM, Chevron, P66 would be better. It is not necessarily the standards or chemistry they pursue, nor the market they aim to cater to, but their reliance on adhering to the standards they claim to follow: A M1 that claims to carry 504/507 will carry the approval. The same cannot be said about shady API oils you get at the dollar store, small shops, etc. And those make a good percentage of the API oils in the wild.
To follow up on the OP's question, he could blindly use any oil that meets his "specs", from any of the majors. His engine will outlast the truck. That's the reality.
HPL, Amsoil would be a considerable upgrade, but not needed for a long and healthy engine life, as the 1000's of Semi you see on the road prove.
So on one hand, you DON'T trust the majors because on occasion, they fail a test.
On the other hand, you DO trust the minor players, because they've never failed the test that they've never taken. Makes perfect sense.
I guess project farm wear scar testing is the only comparison we have then.
Last I checked, the minors also purchased add packs from additive companies. If it's as simple as you say, they could claim the cert as well.
Last edited:
I don't blindly trust boutique blenders. I have ethics issues with Lucas and Penngrade on top of their products just not being anything special. I'm also not a big fan of LAT. Amsoil has a dyno cell in house with which they run tests more abusive than Sequence III-G or IVA and analyzed to tougher standards. HPL tests their oils to the most abusive environment they've encountered in the field which is well beyond the loads in API's tests. I like transparency.
They don't purchase exactly the same add packs. For example, HPL orders their add packs in a group III carrier while the typical approved API add packs are in a group I carrier. Typical API formulas have cheap ~35 SSI OCP where HPL uses much more shear stable (~3 SSI star) VII or no VII. They then top treat and test extensively, adjust, test, adjust, test, until they find the performance they're after. It's the difference in formulating to price point vs a performance point.
Again.... when your own standards are much stricter than API's standards, why would you waste the time, money, and resources testing to API's mediocre standards?
Here's how the certs work. The additive company puts together an add pack with the most cost effective base oil and VII blend they think will meet the standard, and submits it for testing. A couple add packs may have a little higher than the minimum standard in mind. The cost of Haltermann EEE fuel alone for the engine tests is insane. Imagine 90 hours at 3900 rpm with fuel that costs ~$22/gal. The additive companies take on that cost. When it passes, it's an approved add pack, but only to the formula used for the testing. If that recipe dictates a group III base oil with a 35-50 SSI OCP VII, the blender has to follow that in order to carry the license for the cert. There's not much wiggle room. Want to add some ester to the oil to improve solubility, oxidation resistance, and cleaning ability? If it's not in the testing criteria for that add pack, you can't do it and keep the cert. Want to top treat more MoDTC for oxidation resistance and lower friction further while decreasing LSPI risk, even if you're still within S/SA limits? Nope, recipe won't allow it. Want to use a star polymer to make it more shear stable in light of potential fuel dilution? Prohibited! You see the problem? You're forced into a small box. It's why most of the major brands' formulas are so close to one another. If you want to make a better product, you have to abandon the cert.
Last edited:
Is it a forever truck ?
Or just a ride till you trade again at 100K miles
If it’s forever spend the money for really good oil
If it’s a ride till you trade
Then buy whatever is on sale
So we've acknowledged that the certification testing actually has cost associated with it. These discussions usually make it sound like a nascar sponsorship where you write the big check and get the API endorsement and Amsoil simply hasn't written the check because they focus on delivering superior product rather than certification/endorsements. They also, don't do the testing which we suppose they would handily pass because "superior product." (Marketing can replace certification testing.)
I guess we could rely on project farm pinewood derby oil races:
I grasp the cost. When I worked in the injector factory the calibrated/synthetic diesel fuel working fluid we consumed was enormously expensive (but the motor oil we used was off-the-shelf). I'm sure amsoil and hpl have a test dyno in house and that their testing budget is miniscule (yet budgetarily burdensome) compared to the big motor oil suppliers. The test sequence cited below requires one to scrap a set of sleeves and rings. How often can we really do that?
On one hand, I get that Warren probably isn't sinking much development cost effort into their Mag1, Kirkland, Fram, and Supertech lines. Sure, they purchase a recipe from their AP supplier. I'm not convinced the big diesel oil four live in the same "small box." Economy of scale allows otherwise. Chevron delveloped Delo 600, surely with their AP supplier, unique (for now) to them. VOAs for big diesel suppliers come back slightly different in the details. If they were all the same, the OP wouldn't be limited in his choices of F1 certified 5w-40s (they'd all carry the same certs.) I'm sure big oil develops to cost or performance, but more likely both. I'm sure Amsoil is doing the same.
In one breath, this forum hates on Rotella because of their marketing budget. (It's a horrible oil but marketing feeds us lies!) When rebate Delo XSP/Rotella T6/Delvac Extreme/ESP can be had for $10 per gallon, how much of that really goes to marketing (vs development or production)? When Schaefers or Amsoil sell a diesel oil for $45 a gallon, how much of that goes into marketing and/or their multilevel marketing systems? We're asked to believe that the 4x price delta is because the ingredients are 4x more expensive and the product development effort (which results in product performance) is also 4x so the performance will be 4x?
Amsoil, for instance, claims that it exceeds the performance of DFS 93K222 (a pass-fail test) by 4x or 6x, which leads us to believe that other oils just barely pass. The fine print tells us the comparison was against worst-case representations. On one hand, I'm not smart enough to interpret the
https://www.swri.org/sites/default/files/dd13-engine-scuffing-test.pdf
Within the diesel bro smoky truck community, I feel less marketed to by Delvac and Delo than I do by Amsoil.
In the end, I'm sure amsoil makes a fine product, I just think the marketing and discussions around the product seeks to insult our intelligence as consumers. The Gale Banks four part video series doesn't really help.
I guess to the OP, he needs to decide how much the F1 certification matters to him, including presumed warranty implications. If it matters, pick a viscosity and narrow down your choices.
I want to stick with the F1 certification that Ford requires. I want to ensure there are no warranty concerns in the event of an issue. I'm not interested in Amsoil. At this point, based off the data I've seen, I'm most likely going to use the Shell Rotella T6 5w-40 or Valvoline Premium Blue Extreme 5w-40. Both oils meet the F1 requirements and will fit under the "severe duty" classification since I will be towing frequently. Also, both oils can are readily available locally at places like Walmart, NAPA, etc.
Last edited:
But hey, it was only $56 from WallyWorld and then add in a $25 rebate!! The rebuild is only about $10-12,000.
-Appalling.
Or you could use Amsoil (or some other "better" oil that was not tested/certified by the OEM in the development of that engine) and potentially foot a rebuild without warranty coverage. Instead of $50 oil changes it's $200 oil changes and voided warranty.
All the trouble Ford went through to list four grades on that graph, they could've added an additional bar that says "AMSOIL Signature Series 5w-40 (preferred)" and given us a temperature range for it.
I had a hard time making it to work this morning because of all the broken down trucks in my way.
-Appalling.
There’s one huge difference between truck diesels and semi diesels, though, that is a big reason why some oils aren’t great.
Trucks have about 13 quart capacity, roughly, varying between about 10-15 quarts. Semi’s are generally 10-15 gallons, so roughly 4x more oil. This keeps soot & insolubles at a much lower % of the lubricating fluid. All things equal, if you took a truck Cummins and a semi/bus Cummins, you’d almost certainly be correct to expect lower wear and longer life from the larger sump.
This means an oil that performs just well enough to meet semi standards (due to volume of oil) may not adequately protect a truck engine that’s otherwise identical besides capacity. And, there’s physical tear down data that @RDY4WAR has provided that’s shown Brotella does not perform in gas engines, most likely due to its terrible foaming. When every single bearing is wiped, that’s pretty good proof the oil itself can’t carry the load. Entrained air has really poor load carrying capacity.
Are you seriously suggesting that the Amsoil might cause damage to the engine?
No. I'm suggesting having a stack of amsoil receipts, hypothetically, may not be satisfactory when the ford warranty department asks if you were doing oil changes in accordance with the manual. OP doesn't want to live in that hypothetical space. Certainly Ford has tested boutiques. Why not list them as "preferred" lubricants?
https://dtnacontent-dtna.prd.freigh...fs/Lube_Oil_Coolant/DDC-SVC-BRO-0001_2021.pdf
See page 12-15. The 3x to 4x sump size multiplier is largely accounted in the OCI. Example of UOA limits on page 16.
Last edited:
4WD
$50 site donor 2025
The OP has stated he wants an approved lube. Of the 2 he mentioned - I’d go with what Cummins endorsed - Valvoline.
As for the other OTC “not approved” - Delvac is FF w/ DMax
As for the other OTC “not approved” - Delvac is FF w/ DMax
4WD
$50 site donor 2025
^Read^
4WD
$50 site donor 2025
Duh, and he’s not going to run AMS or HPL -
Last edited:
Only if the oil causes damage. That’s what the warranty is predicated on, damage. So if it won’t cause damage then this is just another phantom fear without any backing. Hypotheses are supposed to be based on something, not just baseless fears.
Sometimes I think Bitog needs another acronym- Amsoil Derangement Syndrome, or ADS.
Similar threads
