One of our experts may be able to answer that better than I can, but I would suspect part of it could simply be timing. The previous iteration of Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40 was CJ-4/SM. Delvac 1 LE 5w-30 is CJ-4/SN. Perhaps Mobil doesn't like playing musical chairs with specifications, and simply left everything much the same since the CJ-4 rollout. You got on the data sheet, or you did not, with no stragglers. They didn't make any effort to be CJ-4/SN in the 5w-40, so maybe they saw no reason to either go after or accept the Ford specification. The 5w-40 was a nice stable product for a while, with no ACEA E sequence changes in the interim, either.
CK-4 in older diesel tractors?
- Thread starter njohnson
- Start date
- Status
Well, it's just a guess on my part. I still am interested in seeing how all the sheets come out in the wash as CK-4 rolls out. The Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40 CK-4 sheet came out, and I was less than impressed, to say the least. Now, it's been yanked from the searchable database, so I'm not sure what's going on right now.
Delvac 5w-40 CJ4 is some great oil. Combine it with a Napa sale at $20 a gallon and Delvac $12 a gallon rebate...I have to say this is the best oil I have purchased for the money. We'll see about CK4...can't run it anyway until Ford figurus itself out.
Last edited:
I certainly can't fault the pricing up here. They spank everyone else on their synthetic HDEOs, and not by a few cents per litre, either.
Originally Posted By: Garak
ACEA E7, E9 oils aren't that uncommon, and there are such products even in 15w-40 conventionals. And, E4 is obsolete.
WT*%#§??? NO! E4 IS NOT obsolete! Please take a look at this: ACEA oil sequences DECEMBER 2016
You will notice I made a wrong claim too, by indicating that E6 might not be more demanding than E4. As opposed to E4, E6 actually requires to pass the Mack T10 or T12 test on an ACEA E7 level, but most E4 oils these days are E4/E7 dual rated anyway. ACEA E4 continues to define the core performance level for several European LONG DRAIN (sometimes aka UHPD) specifications, such as MB228.5, MTU TYPE 3 and Deutz DQC-IV-10, especially in terms of TBN 12 and piston cleanliness in the “new” OM501LA or in the “old” OM441LA engine test. Their Low SAPS counterparts are ACEA E6, MB 228.51, MTU TYPE 3.1 and Deutz DQC-IV-10LA and logically, E6 has no TBN 12 requirement. While MAN’s “normal SAPS” UHPD specifications (M3277 and M3377) appear to be exempted from the TBN rule, they still demand the higher level of piston cleanliness found in E4. Pre CJ-4 mineral HDEOs hardly ever provided an UHPD level of piston cleanliness. Mobil however claimed that Delvac MX 15w-40 CI-4+/SL (not the European Gr. I CI-4/SL) exceeds the E4 limit in the older OM441LA. Gr. I-only ACEA E7 HDEOs cannot - not at all! A number of mineral or syn blend CJ-4/E9 oils have the potential to, but the only claims I have seen are from Shell, for their Rotella T5 and Rimula R5 LE. CK-4 could change everything though. Regarding this OM646LA outlet cam wear test, plenty of E6 product/marketing literature proudly presents results in the 40 – 50 micron ball park and nobody expects CI-4/E7 or CJ-4/E9 oils to exceed the E4/E6 limit - even A5/B5 are supposed to beat the 120 micron mark. All that said, I wish to emphasize that ACEA E7 and E9 are not universally better than E4. Oil specifications can coexist, be mutually exclusive, or complement each other.
Originally Posted By: Garak
Yes, Delvac 1 5w-40 and Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40 are remarkable products, but that's really not the point
You are suggesting that ACEA E6 oils like Delvac 1 LE 5w-30 CJ-4 are superior to Delvac 1 ESP, or at least to most CJ-4/E7/E9 HDEOs, because of their longer list of approvals, which happen to be nothing but ACEA E6 based approvals. The demanding part of these specifications (piston cleanliness) can basically be met by Delvac 1 CI-4+ (because of the E4 performance) and by Delvac 1 ESP CJ-4 (confirmed by the MAN M3277 and M3377 approvals). So YES, IT IS THE POINT, especially if people believe that it takes CJ-4/E6 or CK-4/E6 to "enjoy" an ACEA E4 or UHPD performance level! I will say though, that the lower amount of VIIs in the 5w-30 will help control turbo charger deposits, which is quite a hurdle if you want to step up to a Deutz DQC-IV-10LA level. DQC-IV-10 wants it even cleaner. Neither list ever had a 5w-40. Delvac 1 ESP CK-4 is almost a 5w-30 and has received an ashless TBN boost, so if Mobil has done a real good job, it has a potential for Deutz DQC-IV-10, but I have my doubts, because the reformulation was a wonderful opportunity to move to a cheaper basestock blend.
ACEA E7, E9 oils aren't that uncommon, and there are such products even in 15w-40 conventionals. And, E4 is obsolete.
WT*%#§??? NO! E4 IS NOT obsolete! Please take a look at this: ACEA oil sequences DECEMBER 2016
You will notice I made a wrong claim too, by indicating that E6 might not be more demanding than E4. As opposed to E4, E6 actually requires to pass the Mack T10 or T12 test on an ACEA E7 level, but most E4 oils these days are E4/E7 dual rated anyway. ACEA E4 continues to define the core performance level for several European LONG DRAIN (sometimes aka UHPD) specifications, such as MB228.5, MTU TYPE 3 and Deutz DQC-IV-10, especially in terms of TBN 12 and piston cleanliness in the “new” OM501LA or in the “old” OM441LA engine test. Their Low SAPS counterparts are ACEA E6, MB 228.51, MTU TYPE 3.1 and Deutz DQC-IV-10LA and logically, E6 has no TBN 12 requirement. While MAN’s “normal SAPS” UHPD specifications (M3277 and M3377) appear to be exempted from the TBN rule, they still demand the higher level of piston cleanliness found in E4. Pre CJ-4 mineral HDEOs hardly ever provided an UHPD level of piston cleanliness. Mobil however claimed that Delvac MX 15w-40 CI-4+/SL (not the European Gr. I CI-4/SL) exceeds the E4 limit in the older OM441LA. Gr. I-only ACEA E7 HDEOs cannot - not at all! A number of mineral or syn blend CJ-4/E9 oils have the potential to, but the only claims I have seen are from Shell, for their Rotella T5 and Rimula R5 LE. CK-4 could change everything though. Regarding this OM646LA outlet cam wear test, plenty of E6 product/marketing literature proudly presents results in the 40 – 50 micron ball park and nobody expects CI-4/E7 or CJ-4/E9 oils to exceed the E4/E6 limit - even A5/B5 are supposed to beat the 120 micron mark. All that said, I wish to emphasize that ACEA E7 and E9 are not universally better than E4. Oil specifications can coexist, be mutually exclusive, or complement each other.
Originally Posted By: Garak
Yes, Delvac 1 5w-40 and Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40 are remarkable products, but that's really not the point
You are suggesting that ACEA E6 oils like Delvac 1 LE 5w-30 CJ-4 are superior to Delvac 1 ESP, or at least to most CJ-4/E7/E9 HDEOs, because of their longer list of approvals, which happen to be nothing but ACEA E6 based approvals. The demanding part of these specifications (piston cleanliness) can basically be met by Delvac 1 CI-4+ (because of the E4 performance) and by Delvac 1 ESP CJ-4 (confirmed by the MAN M3277 and M3377 approvals). So YES, IT IS THE POINT, especially if people believe that it takes CJ-4/E6 or CK-4/E6 to "enjoy" an ACEA E4 or UHPD performance level! I will say though, that the lower amount of VIIs in the 5w-30 will help control turbo charger deposits, which is quite a hurdle if you want to step up to a Deutz DQC-IV-10LA level. DQC-IV-10 wants it even cleaner. Neither list ever had a 5w-40. Delvac 1 ESP CK-4 is almost a 5w-30 and has received an ashless TBN boost, so if Mobil has done a real good job, it has a potential for Deutz DQC-IV-10, but I have my doubts, because the reformulation was a wonderful opportunity to move to a cheaper basestock blend.
Last edited:
I'll be! I stand corrected. I thought E4 was obsolete. I have a terrible habit of calling a specification obsolete, for some reason, if I don't see it in the wild at least once a month. In any case, well, I'll call it dated. I've never come across a such a lubricant in recent memory in North America, particularly since even CJ-4 and E4 have significantly different SA levels along with the E4 having the really high TBN; the E7 is what you'll see with CJ-4 (and CK-4) here.
The last hint of E4 I came across were from old, misprinted Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40 labels, using old claims, rather than the appropriate E7, E9. I think I'd have a great difficulty in getting an E4 product from Imperial Oil here. Even a CI-4 or CI-4+ product from them is an uphill battle.
I'm not saying that Delvac 1 LE 5w-30 is superior than Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40, nor the other way around. My point was really a dig at Ford, who seem to be chasing their tails with respect to phosphorus. They don't want a low phosphorus CK-4 lube, but have an E6 low phosphorus lube on their approved list.
As for the CK-4 version of Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40, Imperial Oil yanked the data sheet, after posting those terribly unremarkable numbers. I hope there were some errors there, or something is being improved, that is, reverted to the way it was. And yes, the pour point they were showing did indicate they may have taken this wonderful opportunity to move to a cheaper basestock blend.
The last hint of E4 I came across were from old, misprinted Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40 labels, using old claims, rather than the appropriate E7, E9. I think I'd have a great difficulty in getting an E4 product from Imperial Oil here. Even a CI-4 or CI-4+ product from them is an uphill battle.
I'm not saying that Delvac 1 LE 5w-30 is superior than Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40, nor the other way around. My point was really a dig at Ford, who seem to be chasing their tails with respect to phosphorus. They don't want a low phosphorus CK-4 lube, but have an E6 low phosphorus lube on their approved list.
As for the CK-4 version of Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40, Imperial Oil yanked the data sheet, after posting those terribly unremarkable numbers. I hope there were some errors there, or something is being improved, that is, reverted to the way it was. And yes, the pour point they were showing did indicate they may have taken this wonderful opportunity to move to a cheaper basestock blend.
I'm sure we'll see more of it. The timing was just atrocious, though, and made for really bad optics. A new spec comes out, and Ford has people chasing their tails over their favourite oil brands, or their hated oil brands, whatever the case may be.
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2008
- Messages
- 591
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: njohnson
Yes, I have the manual for the Case. I know the modern HDEO have been improved in many ways compared to what was specified and what was available in the 70's. My concern is that the newest oil spec, CK-4, seems to really focus on emissions and fuel economy. When I read the oil companies are reducing some of the additives to protect the emission equipment, I get concerned that the oil won't protect as well.
We all worry about these things, of course, but it's very often unfounded. We heard the same thing when CJ-4 came out. In fact, we heard a lot more here back then, and it never panned out. But, you do have plenty of options, which makes life a little easier.
By the way, from your manual, is it still pretty much wide open with some very dated oils? I've got an old manual somewhere, and posted a scan of it here somewhere once.
This is exactly what I was thinking. I was driving a Duramax when the CJ-4 oils hit the shelf to meet all the new emissions standards coming our way. It was touted that these oils were less than ok and your engine would grenade sooner than later....never happened.
Originally Posted By: njohnson
Yes, I have the manual for the Case. I know the modern HDEO have been improved in many ways compared to what was specified and what was available in the 70's. My concern is that the newest oil spec, CK-4, seems to really focus on emissions and fuel economy. When I read the oil companies are reducing some of the additives to protect the emission equipment, I get concerned that the oil won't protect as well.
We all worry about these things, of course, but it's very often unfounded. We heard the same thing when CJ-4 came out. In fact, we heard a lot more here back then, and it never panned out. But, you do have plenty of options, which makes life a little easier.
By the way, from your manual, is it still pretty much wide open with some very dated oils? I've got an old manual somewhere, and posted a scan of it here somewhere once.
This is exactly what I was thinking. I was driving a Duramax when the CJ-4 oils hit the shelf to meet all the new emissions standards coming our way. It was touted that these oils were less than ok and your engine would grenade sooner than later....never happened.
- Status
Similar threads
