Updated Ford position on CK oils

Status
Not open for further replies.
I bet that stinks for a lot of powerstroke owners
frown.gif
 
That is really confusing, if I search on their site (https://www.fcsdchemicalsandlubricants.com/main/searchdiesel.asp) for Diesel Motor Oils Meeting WSS-M2C171-F1 I get:

Brand Name Viscosity
711 SynShield™ OTR Plus SAE 10w30 10W30
722 SynShield™ Ultra Performance SAE 10w30 10W30
Advantage HD DEO Synthetic Blend 10W30
Advantage Ultra Premium Plus 10w30 CK-4 10W30
Advantage Ultra Premium Plus 10w30 CK-4 10W30
All Fleet T SAE 10w30 10W30
All-Fleet Plus 10W30
All-Fleet Plus E900 10W30
Allied 10W30
Altra Fleet 10w30 CK-4 10W30
Bestbuy Diesel 10W30
Big Red 10W30
Blue Mountain Professional 10W30
CAM2 SYNTHETIC BLEND SUPER HD 10W30
Capital Bulk 10W30
CARQUEST 10W30
Carquest Premium Diesel 10W30
Chemlube Premium Multi-Fleet 10W30 CK4 Engine Oil 10W30
CITGARD® 700 Synthetic Blend Engine Oil 10W30
D-MO SAE 10w30 10W30
Doosan 10W30
Duragard 10W30
Duralect 10W30
Duralene Dura-Max SB 10w30 CK-4 10W30
Duron SHP 10w30 10W30
Dyna-Plex 21C SHPD 10W30
Eco Ultra Premium Diesel 10W30
EcoPower 10W30
ECOSE Horizon HD 10W30
ECOSE Horizon Synthetic Blend 10W30
Federal Maxxum LE Synthetic Blend 10w30 CK-4 10W30
Five Point 10W30
Fleet Pro Elite Synthetic Blend 10W30
Fleetrite Synthetic Blend 10W30
FS Suprex 10W30
Gibraltar Super S-3 LX 10w30 CK-4 10W30
Golden West 10W30
Gulf Super Duty Plus 10W30
Gulf Super Duty Plus SB 10W30
Harvest King 10W30
HyFilm LEO 10w30 10W30
Hyperion Blend 10W30
IDO Premium Plus 10W30
Kendall SUPER-D XA® w/ Liquid Titanium® 10w30 10W30
Kendall SUPER-D® EC 10w30 10W30
Klondike 10W30
Klondike Synthetic Blend 10W30
Lube King 10W30
LubeForce 10W30
Lubriguard 10W30
Mag 1 10W30
Mag 1 Synthetic Blend 10W30
Mahindra 10W30
Maxtron DEO 10W30
MFA OIL 10W30
Mobil HDEO 10W30
Monarch Diesel Ultra Semi-Syn 10w30 CK-4 10W30
Monarch Diesel Ultra Syn 10w30 CK-4 10W30
Monolec® Ultra Engine Oil 10W30
Motorcraft Super Duty Diesel Motor Oil 10W30
Mystik® JT-8® Synthetic Blend Super Heavy Duty Engine Oil 10W30
Napa Value 10W30
Navi-Guard Extreme Synthetic Blend CK-4 10w30 10W30
Navi-Guard Premium Fleet Plus CK-4 10w30 10W30
Oilzum Special CK-4 10w30 10W30
Parts Master 10W30
PEAK Heavy Duty 10w30 10W30
PEAK Heavy Duty Synthetic Blend 10w30 10W30
Performance Plus 10W30
Phillips 66 FLEET SUPREME EC® 10w30 10W30
Phillips 66 GUARDOL ECT® w/Liquid Titanium® 10w30 10W30
Pro Guard Premium 10W30
ProSpec V Synthetic Blend 10w30 10W30
Purezone Premium Diesel 10W30
PURUS Synthetic Blend 10w30 10W30
Reliant 10w30 10W30
Rotella T4 Triple Protection 10W30
Royal Purple Duralec Super 10w30 10W30
Sinclair 10W30
Sonic D-MO SAE 10w30 10W30
Sunoco Super C Gold 10w30 CK-4 10W30
SUPER S FG-2000 SYNTHETIC BLEND 10W30
Superline™ 10w30 10W30
Superlube TMS 10W30
THRIVE HEAVY DUTY DIESEL CK-4 10w30 10W30
Titan SAE 10w30 10W30
TOTAL Rubia Optima 1100 FE 10W30
TOTAL Rubia Optima 1100 FE 10W30
Tune-It 10W30
Ultra Fleet HD Synthetic 10w30 10W30
United Super Diesel 10W30
United Super Premium Fleet 10W30
Universal Dezol 10W30
Wakefield Diesel Engine Oil 10w30 CK-4 10W30
Williams Titan 800 Synthetic Blend 10w30 CK-4 10W30
Xtreme Fleet 10W30 CK-4 10W30


So they have a blanket statement that NO 10w30 meets their spec, but then give you this huge list of ones that are approved? I'd not want to own a brand new one of their pickups right now, I feel like there is no way to weave through this without "getting it wrong" somewhere.
 
So they stand by the previous statement.

Unlike Delo and their bSDE, Rotella cut the FA (CK/SN) and the CK down the middle, dropping the gas cert and not recomending their diesel oils in gas engines. Some may say otherwise, but I did not see anything out of line when comparing T6 from the CJ era to the current non-gas approved T6 (CK), considering the margin of error for oil analysis.
 
The letter was printed BEFORE the approved list was published to include 10w30 CK-4. As long as one refers to the approved list before changing oil there should be no worries.
 
Won't stop some as saying "use the oil" (that doesn't meet standards) with confidence!
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: another Todd
I suspect all those oils are CJ-4...they do not specify.


Suspect you did not look at the list. Quite a few CK-4 oils in that list, and 10w30 ones to boot.
 
This is the kind of rubbish I'm talking about. They clarify something in a bit of a logical fashion. They basically acknowledge that they are concerned about dual rated 10w30 options. We BITOGers know those face the reduced phosphorus limitations. Fine.

The last paragraph is a real kicker, though. Although perhaps technically following warranty requirements for Ford gasoline engines, and their own specifications, I suppose every VW, Mercedes, and BMW gasoline engine on the planet is at huge risk for using an oil without the Starburst on the front of the bottle. Mobil is wrong about their Delvac recommendations. Shell's stance on their MV 5w30 is obviously a moment of madness on Shell's part, too. And, I'm terribly doomed.

I guess a CK-4/SN oil, particularly in 5w30 or 10w30 and following E6 and ILSAC type phosphorus guidelines, somehow magically doesn't have enough phosphorus for Ford diesel engines, yet has too much phosphorus for gasoline engines, all at the same time. That's a pretty neat trick. I'm still unsure how 800 ppm phosphorus in Pennzoil Conventional is okay for gassers, but 800 ppm phosphorus in Rotella 5w30 is too much. Next time Ford wants to hand out oil memos, it might be prudent to have them written by someone who actually understands the API regime, at least nominally.

Once again, as time marches forward, Ford turns the clocks back.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
This is the kind of rubbish I'm talking about. They clarify something in a bit of a logical fashion. They basically acknowledge that they are concerned about dual rated 10w30 options. We BITOGers know those face the reduced phosphorus limitations. Fine.

The last paragraph is a real kicker, though. Although perhaps technically following warranty requirements for Ford gasoline engines, and their own specifications, I suppose every VW, Mercedes, and BMW gasoline engine on the planet is at huge risk for using an oil without the Starburst on the front of the bottle. Mobil is wrong about their Delvac recommendations. Shell's stance on their MV 5w30 is obviously a moment of madness on Shell's part, too. And, I'm terribly doomed.

I guess a CK-4/SN oil, particularly in 5w30 or 10w30 and following E6 and ILSAC type phosphorus guidelines, somehow magically doesn't have enough phosphorus for Ford diesel engines, yet has too much phosphorus for gasoline engines, all at the same time. That's a pretty neat trick. I'm still unsure how 800 ppm phosphorus in Pennzoil Conventional is okay for gassers, but 800 ppm phosphorus in Rotella 5w30 is too much. Next time Ford wants to hand out oil memos, it might be prudent to have them written by someone who actually understands the API regime, at least nominally.

Once again, as time marches forward, Ford turns the clocks back.

Its what I say about these engineers. They may do a good at designing and engineering products. They supposed to be the guys that know better than use. But I believe that the people in the oil industry, some BITGO people understands oil then some engineers do. They may be on behind in what they know about oil.
 
I'm not even wanting to be too hard on the engineers, but obviously there's some gap in even basic understanding. I'm wondering how much of it is marketing and lawyering, as it were. Between them having an E6 lube on their previous list and now blaming low phosphorus, and that hideous last paragraph, someone in Ford has really risen well above their ability.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
I'm not even wanting to be too hard on the engineers, but obviously there's some gap in even basic understanding. I'm wondering how much of it is marketing and lawyering, as it were. Between them having an E6 lube on their previous list and now blaming low phosphorus, and that hideous last paragraph, someone in Ford has really risen well above their ability.
So you are saying they previously approved a low phosphorus oil or ZDDP and now they are blaming that for premature valve train wear? I am not studying this extensively, but I questioned the whole "you can use a CJ-4 oils, but not a CK-4 oil without are approval". If there is a lawyer or lawyers involved, we sure could reduce his/her or there credibility. A good lawyer would say that Ford would need to drop any requirements for using any API diesel ratings with a C, because they are backwards compatible.
 
This is looks like it has become a big mess. I was told that Ford is issuing "provisional" approvals based on how close your CK-4 formula is to your CJ-4 formula. I believe they are also developing an engine test which will be released at the same time as their new Motorcraft oil (listed in this letter for Q1 2017) and that new formulas will be tested and if they pass they will get on the official OEM approval list.

I'm sure this will all blow over once they have an actual test in place. But wow somebody really got their pants in a wad and piling on top isn't helping.
What's that saying - it's better to remain silent and a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt...
 
Originally Posted By: NH73
So you are saying they previously approved a low phosphorus oil or ZDDP and now they are blaming that for premature valve train wear?

Yes, Delvac 1 LE 5w30 was, in fact, the only Delvac 1 product with the Ford spec with the "E" suffix. Now, low phosphorus has them in a knot. And I agree with you completely. Ford isn't making an even remotely credible argument here. They use the API regime, but all of a sudden, they want to exclude backwards compatibility. Ford worries about low phosphorus for all Ford engines, including past ones, yet have a low phosphorus lube on the previous list. They have a very tenuous grasp on the concept of which viscosities and specifications are actually required to have lower phosphorus.

Solarent: I think their last paragraph removed a lot of the doubt you mention.
wink.gif
Clearly, Ford needs to find a bigger lubricant partner, someone who will really hold their hands through this mess and explain things to them. The next person writing a memo for them really needs to read a lubricant handbook first.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: NH73
So you are saying they previously approved a low phosphorus oil or ZDDP and now they are blaming that for premature valve train wear?

Yes, Delvac 1 LE 5w30 was, in fact, the only Delvac 1 product with the Ford spec with the "E" suffix. Now, low phosphorus has them in a knot. And I agree with you completely. Ford isn't making an even remotely credible argument here. They use the API regime, but all of a sudden, they want to exclude backwards compatibility. Ford worries about low phosphorus for all Ford engines, including past ones, yet have a low phosphorus lube on the previous list. They have a very tenuous grasp on the concept of which viscosities and specifications are actually required to have lower phosphorus.

Solarent: I think their last paragraph removed a lot of the doubt you mention.
wink.gif
Clearly, Ford needs to find a bigger lubricant partner, someone who will really hold their hands through this mess and explain things to them. The next person writing a memo for them really needs to read a lubricant handbook first.
Talking about past engines, 2009 and before were all bought from Navistar. yet, Navistar did not raise no alarms. They really only talked about there 6.7L engine. So for those Navistar engines, I wouldn't listen to this mess and use a CK-4 oil.
 
Agreed. Ford seems to have decided, however, to raise the alarm bells about everything. But, then again, it would be pretty obvious where the fault lay had Ford only stated that one engine could be problematic.
whistle.gif
 
I suspect Ford raised the alarm bells to support their own spec. That way they can sell more Motorcraft because folks are afraid to use other brands. The OEMs make a ton of money when you have no choice but to use the stealerhip for service.

GM did it with DEXOS. Now they get licensing dollars from anyone wanting to put the logo on their bottle.
 
Originally Posted By: EP777
I suspect Ford raised the alarm bells to support their own spec. That way they can sell more Motorcraft because folks are afraid to use other brands. The OEMs make a ton of money when you have no choice but to use the stealerhip for service.

GM did it with DEXOS. Now they get licensing dollars from anyone wanting to put the logo on their bottle.




I agree whole heartedly. Don't know if we are right, but that's my position.
 
This is exactly what I would expect from a company that spent 8 years with a well-earned reputation of having the worst diesel engines in the business, and is now running an in-house clean-sheet design.

Ford is not taking any chances. Any screw-ups now, and Ford runs the possibility of losing the reputation of its diesel portfolio forever.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

O
CK-4
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
johnmyster
V
L5P Duramax Oil
Replies
7
Views
2K
FreedomOne
L
For a Euro II spec'd engine is there a benefit in using CK-4 over a CI-4 oils?
Replies
18
Views
4K
leoblack9
O
1kzte - any oils to specifically avoid?
Replies
11
Views
1K
OM617YOTA
K
Mobil HDEO oil for multiple applications? thru Rhinehart.
Replies
9
Views
631
Killer223
Back
Top Bottom