Will FA-4 5W-30 be the ultimate 5W-30?
- Thread starter addyguy
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: zeng
Is FA-4 a CAFE version of HDEO ...... equivalent to gasoline ILSAC GF5 ? ..... with high VII's (of high SSI and quantity) , high Noack etc , and likely perpetuating rings sticking ?
Yup
Is FA-4 a CAFE version of HDEO ...... equivalent to gasoline ILSAC GF5 ? ..... with high VII's (of high SSI and quantity) , high Noack etc , and likely perpetuating rings sticking ?
Yup
Originally Posted By: slybunda
so is this oil any good then for track use?
I wouldn't ... You want a thin'ish track oil I'd consider Chevron Delo400 15W-30 Severe Duty (SD), or Motul 300V, or Redline.
so is this oil any good then for track use?
I wouldn't ... You want a thin'ish track oil I'd consider Chevron Delo400 15W-30 Severe Duty (SD), or Motul 300V, or Redline.
I finally located the CK-4 & FA-4 specifications. You need to Google....
June 2, 2016 TO: API Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System (EOLCS) Licensees API Lubricants Group Other ...
...and download the PDF.
A couple of things I thought pertinent, especially after I was accused of being cynical (moi?)...
First off, FA-4 might be all about truck fuel economy but as far as I can tell, there is no fuel economy test in the specification. I wonder why not? Might it be that the illustrative examples in glossy publications aren't as 'typical' as some might have you believe? Might it be that comparing a 3.9 HTHS 15W40 (ie somewhat over the min HTHS) to a 10W30 with a bang-on-the-limit 2.9 HTHS, gives you an over optimistic idea of the savings you will get in reality?
Second, if the legitimate perceived risk of moving to a low viscosity HDDO is damaging your bearings while chugging uphill at high torque/low speed, then I might have expected to see some kind of bearing test in FA-4. Maybe I'm missing something but I can't see anything of the kind in the specification. I can see a lot of piston cleanliness tests, the new oxidation test (yippee!!) and loads and loads of elastomer twanging tests but nothing with the words 'bearing wear' in the title. Maybe they just want you to take this on trust?
Or is that just me being cynical again?
June 2, 2016 TO: API Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System (EOLCS) Licensees API Lubricants Group Other ...
...and download the PDF.
A couple of things I thought pertinent, especially after I was accused of being cynical (moi?)...
First off, FA-4 might be all about truck fuel economy but as far as I can tell, there is no fuel economy test in the specification. I wonder why not? Might it be that the illustrative examples in glossy publications aren't as 'typical' as some might have you believe? Might it be that comparing a 3.9 HTHS 15W40 (ie somewhat over the min HTHS) to a 10W30 with a bang-on-the-limit 2.9 HTHS, gives you an over optimistic idea of the savings you will get in reality?
Second, if the legitimate perceived risk of moving to a low viscosity HDDO is damaging your bearings while chugging uphill at high torque/low speed, then I might have expected to see some kind of bearing test in FA-4. Maybe I'm missing something but I can't see anything of the kind in the specification. I can see a lot of piston cleanliness tests, the new oxidation test (yippee!!) and loads and loads of elastomer twanging tests but nothing with the words 'bearing wear' in the title. Maybe they just want you to take this on trust?
Or is that just me being cynical again?
Good find, SonoJoe, Thanks!
FA-4/SN = Dexos1
D7109 test for xW30...9.3 for both CK-4 and FA-4.
http://www.shell-livedocs.com/data/published/en/d7e93186-a89a-474b-b468-85c101083c51.pdf
http://www.shell-livedocs.com/data/published/en/e8053d09-1494-48fc-82cc-9e271de0f5a3.pdf
FA-4/SN = Dexos1
D7109 test for xW30...9.3 for both CK-4 and FA-4.
http://www.shell-livedocs.com/data/published/en/d7e93186-a89a-474b-b468-85c101083c51.pdf
http://www.shell-livedocs.com/data/published/en/e8053d09-1494-48fc-82cc-9e271de0f5a3.pdf
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
A couple of things I thought pertinent, especially after I was accused of being cynical (moi?)...
I put
at the end of my sentence because it was said with a smile! You mentioned being cynical in the post I was referencing...no harm meant. Is your last name Clarkson? You remind me of Jeremy Clarkson of Top Gear fame and I get a kick out of him so please take that as a compliment.
As far as FE improvement using an ultra low viscosity oil, I could never, ever measure it because a large truck is so easily affected by the slightest climatic change, a slight breeze for instance. Other factors apply as well. I would have to trust that the oil companies and engine builders are correct when they speak of the possible increases in FE. I'm only saying that I would consider the thin oil if the engine manufacturer says it's fine to do so because of the potential for fuel savings.
As far as the bearings surviving with the extra thin oil film, that is up to the engine manufacturers to determine and I wouldn't expect the API to concern themselves with that. Volvo/Mack has said no to using the FA-4 but Detroit and Cummins say that the new engines will be good with it.
I have no hard core belief in any type of oil, but I'm willing to give a little credit to these oil companies that put so much time and money into the research.
A couple of things I thought pertinent, especially after I was accused of being cynical (moi?)...
I put
As far as FE improvement using an ultra low viscosity oil, I could never, ever measure it because a large truck is so easily affected by the slightest climatic change, a slight breeze for instance. Other factors apply as well. I would have to trust that the oil companies and engine builders are correct when they speak of the possible increases in FE. I'm only saying that I would consider the thin oil if the engine manufacturer says it's fine to do so because of the potential for fuel savings.
As far as the bearings surviving with the extra thin oil film, that is up to the engine manufacturers to determine and I wouldn't expect the API to concern themselves with that. Volvo/Mack has said no to using the FA-4 but Detroit and Cummins say that the new engines will be good with it.
I have no hard core belief in any type of oil, but I'm willing to give a little credit to these oil companies that put so much time and money into the research.
Originally Posted By: Lex94
Good find, SonoJoe, Thanks!
FA-4/SN = Dexos1
D7109 test for xW30...9.3 for both CK-4 and FA-4.
http://www.shell-livedocs.com/data/published/en/d7e93186-a89a-474b-b468-85c101083c51.pdf
http://www.shell-livedocs.com/data/published/en/e8053d09-1494-48fc-82cc-9e271de0f5a3.pdf
Thanks for these Shell oil PDS's.
First the FA-4 10W30. I see it has a KV100 of 10. It would have been nice if they could have added in a decimal point here because as this reads, we don't know if this '10' is 9.6 rounded-up, 10 dead or 10.4 rounded-down. If for the sake of argument we assume it's 10.0, then I might question what the HTHS of this oil is...as in...I might expect it to be higher than 2.9 (I'd guess around 3.0 to 3.1?). In which case the fuel economy savings may be less than Shell's illustrative example suggests.
Second, the 10W30 CK-4 oil. It has a KV100 of 12 (again no decimal point). This is consistent with it having a HTHS of 3.5 min (although with Shellvis VII this is always marginal). I'm sure there's nothing wrong with the oil per se but this oil begs the question, why??? It's hardly a fuel economy oil and will show little over and above a standard 15W40. Maybe the 10W cold start is worth something to someone in Canada or Finland but to the great bulk of truckers it will mean little. And then there's the downsides of moving from 15W to 10W. I know you can cheat Noack and reduce VII by moving to GTL but that must come as cost over and above standard Group II 15W40.
Oh and regarding the KO shear limits, just bear in mind that a shear test, however severe is not a substitute for a proper wear test.
Good find, SonoJoe, Thanks!
FA-4/SN = Dexos1
D7109 test for xW30...9.3 for both CK-4 and FA-4.
http://www.shell-livedocs.com/data/published/en/d7e93186-a89a-474b-b468-85c101083c51.pdf
http://www.shell-livedocs.com/data/published/en/e8053d09-1494-48fc-82cc-9e271de0f5a3.pdf
Thanks for these Shell oil PDS's.
First the FA-4 10W30. I see it has a KV100 of 10. It would have been nice if they could have added in a decimal point here because as this reads, we don't know if this '10' is 9.6 rounded-up, 10 dead or 10.4 rounded-down. If for the sake of argument we assume it's 10.0, then I might question what the HTHS of this oil is...as in...I might expect it to be higher than 2.9 (I'd guess around 3.0 to 3.1?). In which case the fuel economy savings may be less than Shell's illustrative example suggests.
Second, the 10W30 CK-4 oil. It has a KV100 of 12 (again no decimal point). This is consistent with it having a HTHS of 3.5 min (although with Shellvis VII this is always marginal). I'm sure there's nothing wrong with the oil per se but this oil begs the question, why??? It's hardly a fuel economy oil and will show little over and above a standard 15W40. Maybe the 10W cold start is worth something to someone in Canada or Finland but to the great bulk of truckers it will mean little. And then there's the downsides of moving from 15W to 10W. I know you can cheat Noack and reduce VII by moving to GTL but that must come as cost over and above standard Group II 15W40.
Oh and regarding the KO shear limits, just bear in mind that a shear test, however severe is not a substitute for a proper wear test.
Great bulk of truckers? Possibly fleets, whose drivers have little input on what is used in the trucks. Every class 8 engine is, and has been for a few years, factory filled with 10w30 CJ-4 oil. it has been the current recommendation. I would love to know those downsides of moving from a 15wXX to a 10wXX or even a 5wXX. As for cost, a 10w30 is the same price as a 15w40. I have several samples of my factory remanned Detroit S60 (MY 2000) using several fills each of 15w40, 10w30, and 5w40 in it. 626,000 miles and still running as well as the day that reman engine got put in my truck. Curiosity and the prodding of my oil supplier caused me to take a shot at trying all those grades and seeing the results.
Yes, it does beg the question, why CK-4? Well, look at what they say as for why.... better oxidation control, decreased wear, shear stability over CJ-4 oils.
And you must not have ever been to the midwest or west during a winter in America. One hardly needs to be in Canada or Finland to have oil be like molasses and fuel gelled up and plugging filters. Even with all my precautions I take with my commercial truck, I always have spare fuel filters and tools to change them out. And most of us like to do the engine off thing even in the winter to save fuel and other issues. Cold starting a 15L diesel at -25F can be tough if one does not have the right oil, prepped fuel, etc.
Yes, it does beg the question, why CK-4? Well, look at what they say as for why.... better oxidation control, decreased wear, shear stability over CJ-4 oils.
And you must not have ever been to the midwest or west during a winter in America. One hardly needs to be in Canada or Finland to have oil be like molasses and fuel gelled up and plugging filters. Even with all my precautions I take with my commercial truck, I always have spare fuel filters and tools to change them out. And most of us like to do the engine off thing even in the winter to save fuel and other issues. Cold starting a 15L diesel at -25F can be tough if one does not have the right oil, prepped fuel, etc.
Joe, the 3.5 HTHS 10W30 is said to improve FE by "up to" 1% in heavy duty diesels and around 2.5% in medium duty diesels. That's coming from Shell and Chevron. Granted, that's not stunning but combined with all of the other little things that are available, you can reduce operating costs. It all adds up to a substantial amount when you cover 130-140k miles per year. Lousy drivers throw all of the possible increases and much more out the window but those of us with skill and care, can take advantage of everything and excel in fuel economy.
Here in the lower 48, we don't get down to -60F or lower like northern Canada or Alaska but we do get down to -40 and -10 to -30F is common. I can say from experience that cold starts are much easier with 10W30, saving the starter and batteries.
Here in the lower 48, we don't get down to -60F or lower like northern Canada or Alaska but we do get down to -40 and -10 to -30F is common. I can say from experience that cold starts are much easier with 10W30, saving the starter and batteries.
I do not have mid-west winters, or Canada. The ranch trucks mostly stay in the barn during the winter to become mouse habitats (even with bait
). Some go out and haul hay or move equipment...
They're all old school Cummins or the odd Detroit and do not growl down the road at 1,300. We zing them to 2250 to grab a gear on a grade in the summer in 100+ heat. So there will NEVER be an FA4 oil in those engines, ever ...
Mostly Delo400 SAE 30 HD because we can. We can start all our stuff on HD 30. So I feel lucky and blessed. Not the windshield or the bug in this mess ...
They're all old school Cummins or the odd Detroit and do not growl down the road at 1,300. We zing them to 2250 to grab a gear on a grade in the summer in 100+ heat. So there will NEVER be an FA4 oil in those engines, ever ...
Mostly Delo400 SAE 30 HD because we can. We can start all our stuff on HD 30. So I feel lucky and blessed. Not the windshield or the bug in this mess ...
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
