Which of the big three in 15W-40 CK4

[jrmason]

Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker

Originally Posted By: Ramblejam

Originally Posted By: Dak27

Exactly, CK-4. FA-4 is for new generation motors, as I've read, 2017 motors and beyond.

Detroit has already approved FA-4 back to EPA10 engines (DD13/DD15/DD16).

Post confirmation article or news that Detroit has approved FA-4 for EPA 2010 DD engines. I have not seen that anywhere. As was stated by others, I have only seen that FA-4 is approved for 2017 engines. Engines require different bearing metallurgy to work with FA-4. Even the newest offering by International, the A26 engine, they are factory filling with CK-4, but only will fill with FA-4 per a request by the buyer. Just was involved in a webinar with the lead engineer on that engine and the CK-4 / FA-4 thing was discussed. I got the gist from what was being said, that they prefer the CK-4 over FA-4 for maximum engine life, but recognize that FA-4 would offer a edge on fuel economy. As a commercial truck owner, that says it all. I will only concern myself with CK-4. Risking a $30,000 engine with FA-4 in the hopes that I can save a few hundred a year in fuel. Not the risk I am willing to take. I can actually save more in fuel by better driving practices, lower rolling resistance tires, better gearing, and other things more than any FA-4 is ever going to be able to deliver. FA-4 is a solution in search of a problem. I know I have run my first complete OCI on my Detroit 60 with Delvace Extreme 10w30 CK-4 and was very pleased with the results. A slight down tick in all wear numbers by a few points and a little lower oxidation. Viscosity remained totally unchanged. A solid performer. Still same 2 qt oil consumption in 20,000 miles as previously with CJ-4.

I've noticed in the past you've been partial to Schaeffer, is there a specific reason you've switched up? They have a few different flavors of CK4 10w30. Just curious more than anything

 

[Solarent]

Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker

Post confirmation article or news that Detroit has approved FA-4 for EPA 2010 DD engines.

Source: Shrader Tire and Oil CCJ Digital

Quote:

DETROIT DIESEL - APPROVED API CK-4: DFS 93K222 API FA-4: DFS 93K223 Detroit Diesel (Diamler owned) has approved the backwards compatible API CK-4 for older engines in Freightliner & Western Star trucks API FA-4 is approved for new GHG’17 model engines along with EPA 10 and EPA 13 older model diesel engines No announcement has been made on oil drain extensions, but recommends using the new products in new engines Detroit Diesel will factory-fill new model engines with API FA-4 & DFS 93K223 approved oil starting December ’16

Source: Freightliner.com

Quote:

2.3 API FA-4 Versus API CK-4 and API CJ-4 Versus API CI-4 Plus API Service Category FA-4 oils are designed primarily for use with EPA10, GHG14, and GHG17 compliant engines equipped with cooled EGR and exhaust aftertreatment devices operating on Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) fuel (below 15 ppm).

 

[jrmason]

Interesting that Cummins has approved extension of oil service intervals by 10k miles with FA4 oils - I wonder what the driver is behind that.

 

[Garak]

The local Shell guy was very confused when I brought up Rotella Multi-Vehicle 5w-30. I'd hate to see the confusion a mention of FA-4 would cause.

 

[atoalson]

Stopped by my local Wal-Mart on Friday, they still have quart, gallon and 2.5 gallon containers of Delo 15W-40 CJ4 on the shelf. Will probably grab some for the boat as it needs an oil change soon. They also had 2.5 gallon container of Delo 5W-40 CJ4 still on the shelf. Everything else was CK4.

 

[Solarent]

I just want to point out to everyone that thought CK-4 wouldn't transition very quickly and that CJ-4 would still be out in force for a year, we are just barely 4 months in and already the big brands are out in force and the CJ-4 bottles are quickly disappearing

 

[TiredTrucker]

Originally Posted By: jrmason

Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker

Originally Posted By: Ramblejam

Originally Posted By: Dak27

Exactly, CK-4. FA-4 is for new generation motors, as I've read, 2017 motors and beyond.

Detroit has already approved FA-4 back to EPA10 engines (DD13/DD15/DD16).

Post confirmation article or news that Detroit has approved FA-4 for EPA 2010 DD engines. I have not seen that anywhere. As was stated by others, I have only seen that FA-4 is approved for 2017 engines. Engines require different bearing metallurgy to work with FA-4. Even the newest offering by International, the A26 engine, they are factory filling with CK-4, but only will fill with FA-4 per a request by the buyer. Just was involved in a webinar with the lead engineer on that engine and the CK-4 / FA-4 thing was discussed. I got the gist from what was being said, that they prefer the CK-4 over FA-4 for maximum engine life, but recognize that FA-4 would offer a edge on fuel economy. As a commercial truck owner, that says it all. I will only concern myself with CK-4. Risking a $30,000 engine with FA-4 in the hopes that I can save a few hundred a year in fuel. Not the risk I am willing to take. I can actually save more in fuel by better driving practices, lower rolling resistance tires, better gearing, and other things more than any FA-4 is ever going to be able to deliver. FA-4 is a solution in search of a problem. I know I have run my first complete OCI on my Detroit 60 with Delvace Extreme 10w30 CK-4 and was very pleased with the results. A slight down tick in all wear numbers by a few points and a little lower oxidation. Viscosity remained totally unchanged. A solid performer. Still same 2 qt oil consumption in 20,000 miles as previously with CJ-4.

I've noticed in the past you've been partial to Schaeffer, is there a specific reason you've switched up? They have a few different flavors of CK4 10w30. Just curious more than anything

I didn't switch up, over, or down. I ran a batch of Mobil Delvac 10w30 CK-4 because I needed an oil change and didn't have Schaeffer on hand at the time.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Solarent

I just want to point out to everyone that thought CK-4 wouldn't transition very quickly and that CJ-4 would still be out in force for a year, we are just barely 4 months in and already the big brands are out in force and the CJ-4 bottles are quickly disappearing

I wasn't surprised. I remember how quickly the CJ-4 rollout happened in this province. Imperial Oil had the CJ-4 stuff out very quickly, and the Esso XD-3 stuff disappeared very quickly, merged into the Delvac line. Shell here, however, is struggling, to say the least, with their own product line. I realize their local warehouse isn't anything compared to Imperial Oil's. But, the local Shell guy only gets to sell Rotella and Formula Shell, so he has significantly fewer offerings to carry.

 

[jrmason]

I think Schaeffers planned for the obsolescence of CJ4 - my local rep says he can now only get it in drums, no more gallons. All CK4 from here which is just fine with me. I have absolute faith my engines will not seize up on the first oil change

 

[TiredTrucker]

I had no doubts either. Was apprehensive to some degree how much change there would be in the UOA, but all the wear numbers were within a few points of what I had traditionally gotten on CJ-4. Oxidation was lower on CK-4, and viscosity change held real tight over the 20K mile interval. A 10w30 CK-4 in a MY2000 Detroit pre-emission engine that had been factory remanned and has racked up 673,000 miles on the reman. I am pretty well convinced that folks need not let their paranoia gland get too enlarged over the CK-4 thing. Now the engine is getting Schaeffer CK-4. Didn't even bother checking on availability of CJ-4.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker

... I am pretty well convinced that folks need not let their paranoia gland get too enlarged over the CK-4 thing.

Agreed TT. If not for Ford's recent position, I don't think it would have mattered much. But they have a niche-market industry all up in arms; the LD diesel PSD community is in a tizzy. And rightfully so. Not because of facts, but because of misinformation and secrecy. Ford claims to see higher wear with the CK-4, but has yet to put out any proof. Anyone can make a claim, but for it to be credible, there needs to be solid, reliable, trustworthy information sharing, with details, as applied with accepted standards. So far, Ford has just rung a gong and started the panic, but not put forth one iota of solid data to back up their claim, that I'm aware of. I believe that the CK-4 transition would have echoed the CJ-4 move form CI-4+. If most recall, there was an (infamous) TDR "article" (opinion piece) about how the drop in additives would result in the death of all things diesel. Never happened; it just didn't materialize. In most instances, whereas you could debate if wear may have improved, there was CLEAR EVIDENCE that wear didn't degrade! The prognostication simply was a failure. Talk about the little boy that cried wolf! So now Ford steps in and does the same thing. They claim to have run tests (presumably only on the 6.7L, as they don't produce the former PSD variants) that show accelerated wear. Well let's see the details!!!!!!! If Ford ends up being right, it will be monumental. If Ford is wrong, then they will go down in the annals of the paranoid, and lose what little diesel credibility they have left. Want me to believe that CK-4 is a risk? Show me the proof. Do this: a) show me real raw data from many UOAs, which can conclusively indicate a statistically denoted shift in wear, in micro-analysis (proof of wear trend shift) b) show me real raw data from many UOAs, which can conclusively indicate a statistically denoted shift in wear, in macro-analysis (proof of wear trend shift) c) show me tear-down photos and dimensional measurements indicating excessive degradation relative to the exposure duration (proof of high wear rates) and most importantly ... d) show me that the item(s) of claimed wear concern were induced by the API lube change and NOT by a design flaw of the engine lube system or part/component design or material selection I am not saying they are wrong. I am saying they have shown absolutely zilch to prove they are right, and at this point, I can only consider it paranoid prophesy. Frankly asked of Ford: Put up or shut up! There are three kinds of lube buyers ... 1) those that don't know or care; they purchase whatever seems right at the time and either DIY or have a shop do it, and it could not matter less to them as long as the vehicle does not die on them 2) those that actually pay attention to OEM information; they are not necessarily truly knowledgeable, because they only regurgitate what they are told (i.e. the Ford example here ...) 3) the truly informed, that seek out real information, and do not accept it with blind faith, but vet it against credible standards and view with a jaundiced eye, so that when agreement comes, it does so with a very high degree of confidence that a proper selection was made, without undue efforts past what is reasonable Which one are you all? .

 

[jrmason]

Dnewton, by no means an expert on the matter but I suspect Ford will be able to do no such thing. If they do have evidence of wear unfortunately it's likely from a shortfall in their specific head design rather than an oil formula. I understand how the thought of that can upset owners but of all the hundreds of millions of miles of collective testing done by the major players (Cat, Cummins, DD, Paccar, Mack, etc.etc.) not one of them have had a similar issue.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

There are three kinds of lube buyers ... 1) those that don't know or care; they purchase whatever seems right at the time and either DIY or have a shop do it, and it could not matter less to them as long as the vehicle does not die on them 2) those that actually pay attention to OEM information; they are not necessarily truly knowledgeable, because they only regurgitate what they are told (i.e. the Ford example here ...) 3) the truly informed, that seek out real information, and do not accept it with blind faith, but vet it against credible standards and view with a jaundiced eye, so that when agreement comes, it does so with a very high degree of confidence that a proper selection was made, without undue efforts past what is reasonable Which one are you all?

4) Those who have paid tens of thousands of dollars for a new Ford diesel and a few thousand more for an extended warranty and who do not wish to engage in a potentially costly legal battle with Ford to prove/disprove that CK-4 is the root of any hypothetical engine problem they may encouter and simply follow Ford recommendations and use CJ-4 until there is enough main stream CK-4 oil that meets the new Ford WSS-M2C171-F1 specification.

 

[BrocLuno]

If I had a new zillion dollar Ford light duty diesel, I'd just go buy a drum of CJ oil and call it good. Should last until what 20 oil changes or more. That ought to get to 100,000 miles or so. By then it ought to be well sorted... If you hurry, I'll bet the local distributors still have some drums left on the loading docks

 

[claluja]

I'm No. 4). Thanks 2015_PSD. I also tend to believe Ford. As a matter of common sense, this is very painful and expensive for Ford. The easy thing for Ford would have been to go with the flow and brush it under the rug. It's difficult to imagine that they would have brought this up if there hadn't been some significant wear issues. Ford's marketing guys and bean counters must be hating this. BrocLuno, that drum thought is a good one!

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: jrmason

If they do have evidence of wear unfortunately it's likely from a shortfall in their specific head design rather than an oil formula. I understand how the thought of that can upset owners but of all the hundreds of millions of miles of collective testing done by the major players (Cat, Cummins, DD, Paccar, Mack, etc.etc.) not one of them have had a similar issue.

I'd agree with that, and that's why Ford won't say a word. If there is a problem, it's in the mirror, and not in the oil, as it were.

 

[dnewton3]

What is possible is that Ford has a design in it's current product (6.7L PSD) that might actually be so sensitive that it needs a few hundred more ppm of Phos. Possible? Yes. Probable? We don't know because they won't share info. Why not share the details? The list is nearly endless ... If Ford has discovered a component(s) issue that is sensitive to CK-4, then they have a moral responsibility to speak up; I applaud that. But the other half of that obligation is to speak out about WHY it's now a directive to avoid the CK-4. What I find a bit disingenuous is that they make a blanket statement about all PSDs; don't use CK-4 at all. At least given the info I've read posted in many places to date, it leads one to believe that CK-4 is to be avoided in all previous diesel engines. Am I to believe that they have done extensive testing on older 7.3L, 6.0L and 6.4L PSDs with CK-4? Is the same failure mode present in former engine designs? (I.E. do all manner of PSD have the same failure mode, or does each have a unique failure mode? Cams, bearings, rockers, rings, whatever ....) Have we seen a statement from Navistar about the previous three generations of LD diesels that they in fact designed and manufactured? There are plenty of trucks and buses still running the older engines in fleet ops; what is Navistar's position? Admittedly, the split between Ford and Navistar was not pleasant, so they are not really concerned with the opinion of the other ... Further, now that they have their (secret) data, what do they do with it? They make a new Ford oil spec. Are they going to put any effort into addressing the core issue? Cannot they find a means to make their components compatible with CK-4? Does a component material spec need to be updated? A rocker arm redesigned? A cam lobe profile changed? A bearing widened? Whatever the root cause, are they going to address it moving forward, or just blame the CK-4 and then mandate the oil be compatible or else?????? It would be nice to know how quickly this problem manifests itself. Will one OCI of CK-4 start the problem, so much so that degradation is eminent to a point of true component failure? Or, will it take 50k miles of CK-4? Or 100k miles of use? or only 20k miles of use? Again- because Ford won't share, we're at a loss here. I don't see a good exit for Ford here. There is no way out without some form of penalty in loss of credibility. They either cried wolf and made a mistake, or they have a component/system problem on their hands and their easy solution is to blame another industry. I understand that Ford may have stumbled onto a true concern here, but until they speak up fully, giving details (even at the risk of real sales pain), they are just a cautionary tale. If I owned on of these engines, I would tend to agree that the prudent thing would be to not use the CK-4 at the moment. But I'd also be beating on my dealer, and every point of Ford Customer Service contact I could find, and encouraging every other owner I know, to demand full disclosure of the issue. I doubt it will ever come, though. I suspect what we'll eventually see is that Ford will address the issue in the mechanical sense; they will update/upgrade some component(s) to be compatible with CK-4. But their current position allows them a very valid way out of class action lawsuits. Ford can essentially state this: We made a product (6.7L) that was compatible with another industry's product (CJ-4). That industry changed the product quicker than we were able to fully vet the effects, and now know the successor fluid (CK-4) is not compatible with our 6.7L product design parameters. We're currently engaged in efforts to make our product compatible with CK-4. We made the concern known in public broadcast and offered an alternative so as owners can avoid the failure mode. Any undue failures based on use of unapproved lubes is not our fault. We told you so. Caveat Emptor. - GM/Allison went through this, although it was an internal lube change and not an industry change. Depending on who you talk to (Whitewolf or TJ), you're going to get a different version of the event. But the end result was that GM updated a seal to be compatible with a potential chemistry issue in DEX VI. Allison established a serial number cut-off and informed customers about the concern in detail (" ... on units prior to # xxx-yyyy, DEX VI may harden/crack a pump seal under certain conditions"). Although internal corporate sources may diverge in their opinion as to it's true effect, at least the OEM gave owners a reasonable explanation and made a product change to assure compatibility moving forward. - GM also did a similar thing with the same transmission in terms of the high-idle warm-up feature and non-PAO fluids. At uber cold temps, the use of the Duramax warm-up protocol may cause the trans to heat non-PAO fluids to a point of significant fluid expansion and it will burp fluid out the vent. So GM advised it's owners and dealers of the root cause of the issue, and told them how to avoid it by offering a lube alternative and/or altering fluid levels and/or altering operational parameters (avoiding prolonged high-idle periods). Ford could take a few notes from GM here. The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem; Ford did that. However their statement is devoid of significant details. The rest of the solution is to describe the concern fully and publicly, and then also commit to a change with nullifies the concern. It's OK for Ford to state not to use something, in the short term. But tell us WHY the concern exists, in detail. Then tell us what you're doing to fix it in the long term. And the answers better not include blaming someone else. .

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

There are three kinds of lube buyers ... 1) those that don't know or care; they purchase whatever seems right at the time and either DIY or have a shop do it, and it could not matter less to them as long as the vehicle does not die on them 2) those that actually pay attention to OEM information; they are not necessarily truly knowledgeable, because they only regurgitate what they are told (i.e. the Ford example here ...) 3) the truly informed, that seek out real information, and do not accept it with blind faith, but vet it against credible standards and view with a jaundiced eye, so that when agreement comes, it does so with a very high degree of confidence that a proper selection was made, without undue efforts past what is reasonable Which one are you all?

4) Those who have paid tens of thousands of dollars for a new Ford diesel and a few thousand more for an extended warranty and who do not wish to engage in a potentially costly legal battle with Ford to prove/disprove that CK-4 is the root of any hypothetical engine problem they may encouter and simply follow Ford recommendations and use CJ-4 until there is enough main stream CK-4 oil that meets the new Ford WSS-M2C171-F1 specification.

I would state that your category 4 actually falls into my category 2, with a hope for #3. You've essentially made a hybrid out of #2 and #3 (you are doing what you're told until an acceptable informed alternative comes along). You are paying attention to the OEM info; but you are not knowledgeable because Ford has not shared any details. It is not my intent to imply you are stupid or foolish; merely unable to understand why to not use the product BECAUSE they don't tell you. You can mimic their recommendation, but you have no ability as to describing why, because the info is missing. Sure - you paid a lot of money and rightfully want to avoid a problem. I think that is prudent. The cost/effort of finding a CJ-4 or equivalent Ford-approved fluid is FAR LESS than having legal issues and downtime. But your "new" category fits exactly into what I stated in #2, with a future desire for #3. You are doing what Ford told you to do, but you have no ability to describe why other than the Ford mantra of "Because I said so". I don't know that anyone can fairly claim to be in category #3 for this particular Ford PDS lube issue. Too many unknowns at this time. My establishment of the categories was a broader-sense description of the vehicle/lube world. Most people pay very little attention overall. Some people pay close attention to what the OEM tells them. Few people put efforts in past the first two. You can exist in category #2 for one of two reasons a) you're not interested in finding out anything deeper b) you want more info, but it's not available yet (this would be where I'd place you; you're not dumb, you're just in the dark because Ford is being childish and took their football home rather than play nice with others ....) Perhaps I should have better delineated the #2, into "a" and "b" initially. Didn't mean to imply you won't get to #3 in this Ford diesel topic eventually, but until Ford fesses up, you're only able to regurgitate what they tell you, which isn't much at this point. You know what do to, but you have no idea as to why you're doing it other than avoiding an undisclosed risk, or how often it happens, and to what magnitude. Just because you (and all of us) want more info, does not mean we'll ever get a satisfactory answer. And so you're stuck in category #2, s/s(b). I realize we all WANT to be in category 3 in this topic, but at this point no one can claim to be there. Your category #4 isn't a new classification. Rather it's a good explanation as to why you're stuck in #2, with the desire to get into #3. (Your use of the word " ... until ..." indicates you're desire to move on, but you cannot pending better info and/or acceptable alternatives from the aftermarket). You've given good reasons to follow the OEM recommendations to this point (spent a lot of money and don't want legal hassles). Those are not a new category; they are a reason to logically be in #2 until you can transition into #3. .

 

[zeng]

Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD

4) Those who have paid tens of thousands of dollars for a new Ford diesel and a few thousand more for an extended warranty and who do not wish to engage in a potentially costly legal battle with Ford to prove/disprove that CK-4 is the root of any hypothetical engine problem they may encouter and simply follow Ford recommendations and use CJ-4 until there is enough main stream CK-4 oil that meets the new Ford WSS-M2C171-F1 specification.

+1 For once, I'm with an OEM.

 

[beanoil]

I don't know if I" a 1, 3, 2a, or whatever... (Wife says I'm a 10, but she getting older, and eyesight ain't so good, so that info is accurate as Ford's) I do know I found a couple boxes of CJ-4 Valvoline at Menards for 9.99 a gallon last night, so those are in the stash now. The book says 15w40 or 5w40 if bio fuel, and CJ-4, so VPB 15w40 is my choice for now. Ford puts up their defenses, I put up mine. After warranty, I'll probably switch to a 10w30 whatever shows good results in a UOA. Common sense tells me that Ford has a hot mess on their hands. They haven't durability tested 7.3, 6.0, and likely no 6.4 on CK-4 to make a blanket statement that no CK-4 is OK in any PSD. But they can say "this is what we require" in a new truck, and use that to deny a warranty claim for any lubrication issue if they want, and never disclose why. OTOH, there was more than one company packaging CK-4 in CJ-4 bottles early on (November last year) so there is no doubt that CK-4 dual rated oil has made it into more than a few PSD. As well, VPB is on the approved list, BUT the new CK-4 is dual rated CK-4/SN, so the list contradicts itself. And that list... what a screwy deal. The cheapest Harvest King (recently on sale for 12.99 for a 2 gallon jug) made the list but a couple of well known, proven majors did not? Or at least the majors are not called out by name if they did... What the heck is up between Ford and Shell? Conoco-Phillips makes the Motorcraft, but Ford is having some kind of affair with SOPUS considering the Shell statements regarding testing and Ford approval for Rotella. Crazy.