I was just reading on a Shell website that in order for the new CK-4 oils to meet the standards of the SN requirements, it will have to lower the Z and P to to the levels of other auto oils. So, the way I understand it, is that if we want higher zinc, we need to watch for CK spec'd only, not CK/SN. Am I wrong?
ZDDP in new CK-4 oils
- Thread starter old1
- Start date
- Status
Don't know how to word it but xW-40s will have higher P / Z since its a 40 weight oil even though its CK-4/SN. The CK-4 in 10w30 will have the lower level since its CK-4/SN. Forget the reasoning why but it's something about being a 40 weight.
Its just that API doesn't restrict the phosphorus levels in 10w30 and below. So SAE 40s and above are exempt from the phosphorus restrictions.
Don't you mean that the API DOES restrict the phos. levels in 10w30 and below?
Originally Posted By: old1
I was just reading on a Shell website that in order for the new CK-4 oils to meet the standards of the SN requirements, it will have to lower the Z and P to to the levels of other auto oils. So, the way I understand it, is that if we want higher zinc, we need to watch for CK spec'd only, not CK/SN. Am I wrong?
You are right.
This is even true of 15W40 oils, as the previous waiver that applied to non-ilsac grades have been removed from the SN licensing options.
I was just reading on a Shell website that in order for the new CK-4 oils to meet the standards of the SN requirements, it will have to lower the Z and P to to the levels of other auto oils. So, the way I understand it, is that if we want higher zinc, we need to watch for CK spec'd only, not CK/SN. Am I wrong?
You are right.
This is even true of 15W40 oils, as the previous waiver that applied to non-ilsac grades have been removed from the SN licensing options.
I have a related question, but in regards to CJ-4 hdeos. Comparing the anti-wear agents in Chevron Delo 400 LE 15W40 conventional to Chevron's Delo 400 5W40 synthetic in VOA's, it appears their conventional oil has higher anti-wear numbers compared to their synthetic, especially Zinc and Molybdenum. Sorry, I'm a complete novice to this. I'm guessing a synthetic basestock doesn't require as many anti-wear agents, or as high of a percentage of them compared to a conventional basestock?
There are also alternative chemistries. Note that all the majors have CJ-4 low phosphorus lubes in 5w30, with heaps of builder approvals. They have basically the same phosphorus content as ILSAC lubes.
Tom NJ
$100 Site Donor 2026
Ford has taken a position on CK-4 and will not allow its use in Ford diesels due to inadequate wear protection. Instead Ford is switching to a Ford OEM specification or CJ-4.
Ford Letter on CK-4
Tom NJ
Ford Letter on CK-4
Tom NJ
Tom NJ: I wonder about fords oils they tested. I guess for doesn't think too highly of this new diesel oil spec eh? Least that's how I view it; maybe I'm wrong
I am confident my oil supplier will have may back covered in all of this regarding my commercial diesels.
Seems a shame that products we need are being dis-improved in the misguided concept of progress.
I also use CJ-4 lube in gasoline engines and perhaps I should shun SN oil there too. Sounds as if the new grade will NOT be backward compatible for me.
prs
I also use CJ-4 lube in gasoline engines and perhaps I should shun SN oil there too. Sounds as if the new grade will NOT be backward compatible for me.
prs
We went through that with the CJ-4 lubes. They weren't less capable than their predecessors.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
