Yet another reason why buying a new vehicle today is a more miserable experience than in days past. And some say mankind is progressing.
Which of the big three in 15W-40 CK4
- Thread starter atoalson
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
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.
Honestly, not speaking up could provide as much of a sales pain. We are told there's a problem with their engines and the current oil specification. That doesn't exactly want to send me jumping out of my chair to the Ford dealership to buy a new diesel truck.
beanoil: I'm not surprised that there is a CK-4/SN that would meet Ford's specification and actually winds up on the list, like the VPB you mentioned. Once this mess sorts itself out, we'll see more of that. As I've mentioned, the old list had a specific low phosphorus lube on it, which makes much of Ford's wording over this seem overly sensational, not to mention contradictory in the first place. You can't use a low phosphorus lube in any Ford diesel past or present, yet Ford approved Mobil Delvac 1 LE 5w-30 E6 for the last version of the list, not to mention it's in a viscosity not mentioned in any of their manuals. Okay.
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.
Honestly, not speaking up could provide as much of a sales pain. We are told there's a problem with their engines and the current oil specification. That doesn't exactly want to send me jumping out of my chair to the Ford dealership to buy a new diesel truck.
beanoil: I'm not surprised that there is a CK-4/SN that would meet Ford's specification and actually winds up on the list, like the VPB you mentioned. Once this mess sorts itself out, we'll see more of that. As I've mentioned, the old list had a specific low phosphorus lube on it, which makes much of Ford's wording over this seem overly sensational, not to mention contradictory in the first place. You can't use a low phosphorus lube in any Ford diesel past or present, yet Ford approved Mobil Delvac 1 LE 5w-30 E6 for the last version of the list, not to mention it's in a viscosity not mentioned in any of their manuals. Okay.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2010
- Messages
- 9,807
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Sure - you paid a lot of money and rightfully want to avoid a problem. I think that is prudent.
It is not only prudent, it would be stupid to do anything else--unless of course, one cares nothing about the cost of the vehicle and warranty and is prepared to engage with Ford on whatever level they (Ford) deem necessary since they control all aspects of said warranty and its conditions. IMHO, the majority of the remainder of your reply is semantics and word play though, I would find a better descriptor than "you're only able to regurgitate what they tell you" because there is an implication other than what you intend and "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." since the vehicle owners are not responsible to perform a risk analysis to rebutt the many reasons why Ford is right/wrong/indifferent about CK-4. Otherwise, thanks for the post.
Sure - you paid a lot of money and rightfully want to avoid a problem. I think that is prudent.
It is not only prudent, it would be stupid to do anything else--unless of course, one cares nothing about the cost of the vehicle and warranty and is prepared to engage with Ford on whatever level they (Ford) deem necessary since they control all aspects of said warranty and its conditions. IMHO, the majority of the remainder of your reply is semantics and word play though, I would find a better descriptor than "you're only able to regurgitate what they tell you" because there is an implication other than what you intend and "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." since the vehicle owners are not responsible to perform a risk analysis to rebutt the many reasons why Ford is right/wrong/indifferent about CK-4. Otherwise, thanks for the post.
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Sure - you paid a lot of money and rightfully want to avoid a problem. I think that is prudent.
It is not only prudent, it would be stupid to do anything else--unless of course, one cares nothing about the cost of the vehicle and warranty and is prepared to engage with Ford on whatever level they (Ford) deem necessary since they control all aspects of said warranty and its conditions. ....
And yet very few flinch when someone (dare I say many?) here wants to "upsize" an oil filter because they perceive it's "better" ('cuz bigger always be better in Amurika, right?). OEMs and Aftermarket filter makers have specific dos and don'ts, but some pay no attention to that. But when it comes to a VERY ambiguous, tumultuous, yet-to-be-substantiated Ford lube recommendation, it's all the rage and MUST be followed?
If it's "stupid" to not follow a lube recommendation, then it's also stupid to not use the prescribed lube filter, or to run oversized tires, or ...... whatever.
Just applying the logic evenly across all things automotive.
That's not directed at you personally, but MANY here who venture willingly off the reservation when it suits their own prescribed view of OK, but then get itchy about other things if even a whiff of incorrect application is in the air. Simply put; hypocrisy.
There is no proof that CK-4 is a risk in 6.7L PSDs. The claim is seen, but the evidence is absent. Ford has rung the bell of public alert, but not proven where the fire is.
There is no proof that running an oversized filter is beneficial, yet also admittedly very little proof of risk of doing such, as seen by a bazillion examples here on BITOG.
This is why I delineated those three groups of people.
1) those who don't really care much and just wing it
2) those that strictly follow OEM criteria, but really don't know why other than they are told to do so
3) those that research deeper and make informed decisions that meet their own criteria
Until we have enough info and data to understand this Ford claim of avoiding CK-4, we can only be no further advanced than group 2. You made the right decision for you, and I would tend toward that same arena if it were mine at this point. But I'd not stop there; I'd be bugging the ever-living-manure out of Ford Cusotmer Service and Tech support, wanting proof of such. And to me this is a cautionary tale that would hurt Ford sales (at least here on BITOG; most of the world doesn't much pay attention like we do.)
One man's stupid is another man's smart.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Sure - you paid a lot of money and rightfully want to avoid a problem. I think that is prudent.
It is not only prudent, it would be stupid to do anything else--unless of course, one cares nothing about the cost of the vehicle and warranty and is prepared to engage with Ford on whatever level they (Ford) deem necessary since they control all aspects of said warranty and its conditions. ....
And yet very few flinch when someone (dare I say many?) here wants to "upsize" an oil filter because they perceive it's "better" ('cuz bigger always be better in Amurika, right?). OEMs and Aftermarket filter makers have specific dos and don'ts, but some pay no attention to that. But when it comes to a VERY ambiguous, tumultuous, yet-to-be-substantiated Ford lube recommendation, it's all the rage and MUST be followed?
If it's "stupid" to not follow a lube recommendation, then it's also stupid to not use the prescribed lube filter, or to run oversized tires, or ...... whatever.
Just applying the logic evenly across all things automotive.
That's not directed at you personally, but MANY here who venture willingly off the reservation when it suits their own prescribed view of OK, but then get itchy about other things if even a whiff of incorrect application is in the air. Simply put; hypocrisy.
There is no proof that CK-4 is a risk in 6.7L PSDs. The claim is seen, but the evidence is absent. Ford has rung the bell of public alert, but not proven where the fire is.
There is no proof that running an oversized filter is beneficial, yet also admittedly very little proof of risk of doing such, as seen by a bazillion examples here on BITOG.
This is why I delineated those three groups of people.
1) those who don't really care much and just wing it
2) those that strictly follow OEM criteria, but really don't know why other than they are told to do so
3) those that research deeper and make informed decisions that meet their own criteria
Until we have enough info and data to understand this Ford claim of avoiding CK-4, we can only be no further advanced than group 2. You made the right decision for you, and I would tend toward that same arena if it were mine at this point. But I'd not stop there; I'd be bugging the ever-living-manure out of Ford Cusotmer Service and Tech support, wanting proof of such. And to me this is a cautionary tale that would hurt Ford sales (at least here on BITOG; most of the world doesn't much pay attention like we do.)
One man's stupid is another man's smart.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2010
- Messages
- 9,807
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
If it's "stupid" to not follow a lube recommendation, then it's also stupid to not use the prescribed lube filter, or to run oversized tires, or ...... whatever. Just applying the logic evenly across all things automotive.
From my point of view, it depends on whether or not those things and others in the realm of "going off the reservation" either void the warranty directly or may cause one to become involved in a legal battle to prove/disprove the impact of the change. I have made my choice--I have zero desire to give Ford a reason to void my warranty (which unfortunately in the Ford Diesel world does not appear to require much on the part of the owner), it is for others to make his or her own choices about using CK-4 oil in their 6.7L Powerstroke.
If it's "stupid" to not follow a lube recommendation, then it's also stupid to not use the prescribed lube filter, or to run oversized tires, or ...... whatever. Just applying the logic evenly across all things automotive.
From my point of view, it depends on whether or not those things and others in the realm of "going off the reservation" either void the warranty directly or may cause one to become involved in a legal battle to prove/disprove the impact of the change. I have made my choice--I have zero desire to give Ford a reason to void my warranty (which unfortunately in the Ford Diesel world does not appear to require much on the part of the owner), it is for others to make his or her own choices about using CK-4 oil in their 6.7L Powerstroke.
I've been using NAPA Universal Fleet 15-40 in my power equipment and my Yamaha 115 four stroke. It's made for them by Valvoline so I'm thinking it is a good oil. Everything comes back good from Blackstone. Now that my 5 banger Canyon has 110,000 miles I'm probably going to use it there also. One oil for everything is a lot easier.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Dak27
I believe Rotella still offers an SM rated 15W40. I'm not sure if Mobil Delvac does, but I know Chevron Delo's conventional CK-4 15W40 is an SN dual rated oil.
I'm a bit concerned about the lowered phosphorus in the SN rated HDEO's too. ..
No so with Valvoline Premium Blue, for some reason, Valvoline is always left out, most underated oils on the market.
Actually for anyone concerned about the lowered levels of Zinc and Phos in the new CK4 oils, just go Valvoline Blue 15w40.
Still over 1000 ppm of each.
Click here for a recent UOA ... of Valvoline Blue
Click here, from Valvolines website
and here too ...
I believe Rotella still offers an SM rated 15W40. I'm not sure if Mobil Delvac does, but I know Chevron Delo's conventional CK-4 15W40 is an SN dual rated oil.
I'm a bit concerned about the lowered phosphorus in the SN rated HDEO's too. ..
No so with Valvoline Premium Blue, for some reason, Valvoline is always left out, most underated oils on the market.
Actually for anyone concerned about the lowered levels of Zinc and Phos in the new CK4 oils, just go Valvoline Blue 15w40.
Still over 1000 ppm of each.
Click here for a recent UOA ... of Valvoline Blue
Click here, from Valvolines website
and here too ...
Just did my oil change on my 2000 factory remanned Detroit 60 engine with 743,000 miles now on the reman. Oil changed just over 21,000 miles on the oil. Sample sent in, not back yet. This makes the 5th load of CK-4 in that engine. With those miles, compared to the typical 2 qt of oil usage in the same number of miles, it used less than that this go around and I never put in any top off oil. Was just a bit below the full mark on the stick when I changed it. I am far past any concerns I might have had with CK-4. The first batch of CK-4 in the engine was Delvac Extreme 10w30 blend. The rest has been Schaeffer CK-4 blend, the brand I primarily have used for the life of the engine.
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2009
- Messages
- 7,262
Tired trucker I noticed the same thing. My truck didn't burn a drop this time. Most times it's 2 qts low. Although id say 1 of that is still in the filter. I just base it off of what goes back into the gallon jugs.
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Just did my oil change on my 2000 factory remanned Detroit 60 engine with 743,000 miles now on the reman. Oil changed just over 21,000 miles on the oil. Sample sent in, not back yet. This makes the 5th load of CK-4 in that engine. With those miles, compared to the typical 2 qt of oil usage in the same number of miles, it used less than that this go around and I never put in any top off oil. Was just a bit below the full mark on the stick when I changed it. I am far past any concerns I might have had with CK-4. The first batch of CK-4 in the engine was Delvac Extreme 10w30 blend. The rest has been Schaeffer CK-4 blend, the brand I primarily have used for the life of the engine.
Hi, TT! Is the Schaeffer 10W30 that you're running a dual rated oil?
I sent Schaeffer an email a week or so back to get more info on their products, and hopefully to find a Sales Rep. in my area.
I'm coming up on 270,000 miles on my Series 60. I used Mobil Delvac products for the first year, and I switched over to Chevron Delo products a year ago. Both oils have shown very little, - if not zero oil consumption.
Question for you: Is it too late in my engine's life to switch oil brands?
I ask because I've read and have heard conflicting opinions on doing it.
I like the fact Schaeffer includes oil sampling kits in the price of their products, and from what I'm seeing, the price per gallon on the series of oil interested in isn't really that big of a jump in price than Delo, - all things considered.
Thanks as always for the info, and I hope all is well with you and yours.
Just did my oil change on my 2000 factory remanned Detroit 60 engine with 743,000 miles now on the reman. Oil changed just over 21,000 miles on the oil. Sample sent in, not back yet. This makes the 5th load of CK-4 in that engine. With those miles, compared to the typical 2 qt of oil usage in the same number of miles, it used less than that this go around and I never put in any top off oil. Was just a bit below the full mark on the stick when I changed it. I am far past any concerns I might have had with CK-4. The first batch of CK-4 in the engine was Delvac Extreme 10w30 blend. The rest has been Schaeffer CK-4 blend, the brand I primarily have used for the life of the engine.
Hi, TT! Is the Schaeffer 10W30 that you're running a dual rated oil?
I sent Schaeffer an email a week or so back to get more info on their products, and hopefully to find a Sales Rep. in my area.
I'm coming up on 270,000 miles on my Series 60. I used Mobil Delvac products for the first year, and I switched over to Chevron Delo products a year ago. Both oils have shown very little, - if not zero oil consumption.
Question for you: Is it too late in my engine's life to switch oil brands?
I ask because I've read and have heard conflicting opinions on doing it.
I like the fact Schaeffer includes oil sampling kits in the price of their products, and from what I'm seeing, the price per gallon on the series of oil interested in isn't really that big of a jump in price than Delo, - all things considered.
Thanks as always for the info, and I hope all is well with you and yours.
Last edited:
- Status
