For those who may be interested:
https://www.hemmings.com/sponsored?prx_t=M54CA0yoNAEtQMA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsZJhOAfwgk
https://www.hemmings.com/sponsored?prx_t=M54CA0yoNAEtQMA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsZJhOAfwgk
Motorcraft Develops CK-4 Oil Alternative
- Thread starter CELICA_XX
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2009
- Messages
- 7,261
How do they know the accelerated wear isn't just their pos engine design? They dont do valve lash adjustments, they just replace the rocket arms at 100,000-150,000 miles. Lol
Maybe they should just get with Chrysler/Fiat and specify Rotella 5w-40 for everything diesel.
Originally Posted By: motor_oil_madman
How do they know the accelerated wear isn't just their pos engine design? They dont do valve lash adjustments, they just replace the rocket arms at 100,000-150,000 miles. Lol
Oh I think they know for sure. Whether they publish it is a different story.
How do they know the accelerated wear isn't just their pos engine design? They dont do valve lash adjustments, they just replace the rocket arms at 100,000-150,000 miles. Lol
Oh I think they know for sure. Whether they publish it is a different story.
dnewton3
Staff member
More of Ford's paranoid schizophrenia, now in video format ... I wonder how they came to this conclusion of "accelerated wear"? ALTs? I have a general dislike of ALTs; they often skew things towards a desired result or, at the very minimum, induce a bias never experienced by Joe trucker. ALTs do a great job of showing a disparity in performance for some condition that rarely if ever sees the light of day in real life.
Further, if I understand the video, they only tested the new CK-4 on the 6.7L engine. They did not show, nor mention, any testing on the 7.3L, 6.0L, 6.4L engines. But they make the blanket statement to not use the new CK-4 in "any Ford diesel engine" (video at 2:00 mark). How do they know that ALL their engines are affected, if they didn't test them? Also, they said "... some CK-4 formulations" oil were tested, not ALL CK-4 oils. (Likely because they only tested one or two lubes and not the entire market place offering).
I must confess I don't know details about how Delvac, Rotella, Delo, VPB and others are actually field tested, but I suspect that they are often put into large OTR fleets and large earth moving units, and spend very little time in light-duty diesel engine tests. The primary market for Big Oil HDEO is big equipment, not LD pickups. But I do find it more than a bit perplexing the contradiction of Big Oil claiming less CK-4 wear, and Ford claiming more CK-4 wear. Has Ford unintentionally discovered a way to make a diesel engine so narrowly focused that it's that susceptible to the nuance of shifting a few hundred ppm of Phos? And that the other things in CK-4 cannot compensate for this change, in the 6.7L design? Typically, when an engine design has an Achilles heel, it's universal and not brand/grade specific. Of the engine issues we know of (Saturn SL ring coking, Toyota engine sludging, 6.0L PSD oil cooler issues, etc), there is no propensity for any brand/grade selection to become the savior where all else failed. Did Ford stumble upon a design that is so singular that it is the only design that cannot tolerate CK-4? I find that hard to believe, but not impossible. I would need to see the raw data, and understand the testing, to put my faith into their statements. I am not saying they are wrong; I'm just not convinced they are right, in the absence of details. And it does not go unnoticed by me that Ford blankets CK-4 without any attention for base stocks. So take note, ye whom profess that a syn can overcome any obstacle! Not in Ford's wheelhouse, anyway.
What will be interesting to see is how many of the lube companies try to either fudge their way around this topic, or comply and make a specific Ford-licensed offering? I'm sure some company (likely Conoco?) will make Ford's official "Motorcraft" oil any way that Ford pays to have it put in a bottle. But on the open market, which of the big companies (XOM, SOPUS, Ashland, Chevron, etc) are willing to take their CK-4 fluids, and then tweak them to comply with the Ford product spec, officially gaining license rights? If I understand it correctly, Ford wants more Phos, above the new CK-4 phos limit? Is that right? You cannot have a product that meets a hard limit, but also exceeds that limit, right? IOW - there will be two options for Big Oil to respond with:
a) make two diesel oils moving forward; one that is licensed to Ford spec levels, and one to CK-4 levels for the rest of the market
b) make one oil for all, and take the "meets/exceeds and is recommended for ..." approach, not paying for Ford's approval but offering coverage of application anyway
Ford is a big player in the diesel pick-up market; no denying that. They have some ability to leverage customers with statements of "recommendation". But they are not THE BULLY they'd like to believe they are in the entire diesel engine market. Mack, Volvo, Cat, Kubota, Deere, Cummins, and a whole host of others all have a say in their own right. If the majority of the market is going to accept CK-4 as is, then Ford is going to be very lonely sitting in a corner by themselves. And they are going to make their customers very itchy, wondering why their engines are so unique that they cannot play well with other lubes. Or, why cannot Ford address this, and update the design/component/material to make it more universally friendly to CK-4?
GM got away with it, sort of, for a while, with DEX VI. But now there are companies that are realizing the risks of not being licensed are overblown. Most customers (read as most non-BITOG lube bigots) don't pay much attention to these topics. If a product says "universal" and has a brand name they recognize (such as Prestone or Valvoline), that's good enough for them.
Time will tell.
Further, if I understand the video, they only tested the new CK-4 on the 6.7L engine. They did not show, nor mention, any testing on the 7.3L, 6.0L, 6.4L engines. But they make the blanket statement to not use the new CK-4 in "any Ford diesel engine" (video at 2:00 mark). How do they know that ALL their engines are affected, if they didn't test them? Also, they said "... some CK-4 formulations" oil were tested, not ALL CK-4 oils. (Likely because they only tested one or two lubes and not the entire market place offering).
I must confess I don't know details about how Delvac, Rotella, Delo, VPB and others are actually field tested, but I suspect that they are often put into large OTR fleets and large earth moving units, and spend very little time in light-duty diesel engine tests. The primary market for Big Oil HDEO is big equipment, not LD pickups. But I do find it more than a bit perplexing the contradiction of Big Oil claiming less CK-4 wear, and Ford claiming more CK-4 wear. Has Ford unintentionally discovered a way to make a diesel engine so narrowly focused that it's that susceptible to the nuance of shifting a few hundred ppm of Phos? And that the other things in CK-4 cannot compensate for this change, in the 6.7L design? Typically, when an engine design has an Achilles heel, it's universal and not brand/grade specific. Of the engine issues we know of (Saturn SL ring coking, Toyota engine sludging, 6.0L PSD oil cooler issues, etc), there is no propensity for any brand/grade selection to become the savior where all else failed. Did Ford stumble upon a design that is so singular that it is the only design that cannot tolerate CK-4? I find that hard to believe, but not impossible. I would need to see the raw data, and understand the testing, to put my faith into their statements. I am not saying they are wrong; I'm just not convinced they are right, in the absence of details. And it does not go unnoticed by me that Ford blankets CK-4 without any attention for base stocks. So take note, ye whom profess that a syn can overcome any obstacle! Not in Ford's wheelhouse, anyway.
What will be interesting to see is how many of the lube companies try to either fudge their way around this topic, or comply and make a specific Ford-licensed offering? I'm sure some company (likely Conoco?) will make Ford's official "Motorcraft" oil any way that Ford pays to have it put in a bottle. But on the open market, which of the big companies (XOM, SOPUS, Ashland, Chevron, etc) are willing to take their CK-4 fluids, and then tweak them to comply with the Ford product spec, officially gaining license rights? If I understand it correctly, Ford wants more Phos, above the new CK-4 phos limit? Is that right? You cannot have a product that meets a hard limit, but also exceeds that limit, right? IOW - there will be two options for Big Oil to respond with:
a) make two diesel oils moving forward; one that is licensed to Ford spec levels, and one to CK-4 levels for the rest of the market
b) make one oil for all, and take the "meets/exceeds and is recommended for ..." approach, not paying for Ford's approval but offering coverage of application anyway
Ford is a big player in the diesel pick-up market; no denying that. They have some ability to leverage customers with statements of "recommendation". But they are not THE BULLY they'd like to believe they are in the entire diesel engine market. Mack, Volvo, Cat, Kubota, Deere, Cummins, and a whole host of others all have a say in their own right. If the majority of the market is going to accept CK-4 as is, then Ford is going to be very lonely sitting in a corner by themselves. And they are going to make their customers very itchy, wondering why their engines are so unique that they cannot play well with other lubes. Or, why cannot Ford address this, and update the design/component/material to make it more universally friendly to CK-4?
GM got away with it, sort of, for a while, with DEX VI. But now there are companies that are realizing the risks of not being licensed are overblown. Most customers (read as most non-BITOG lube bigots) don't pay much attention to these topics. If a product says "universal" and has a brand name they recognize (such as Prestone or Valvoline), that's good enough for them.
Time will tell.
Last edited:
This is beginning to get reminiscent of the "noise" complaints with the Nissan/Infiniti 3.7 engines. Come up with a special oil, do a reflash, advise the driver to wear earplugs, fling whatever and the problem and hope something sticks.
You're absolutely right. I highly doubt that many of those who buy these for fleet use (or currently are using any Ford diesel engines for fleet use) are going to be so concerned so as to go to the dealer to buy special oil all of a sudden. It's already been shown in these threads that we don't even have dealers following the advice of the manual or these TSBs. Like you say, a whack of these are getting filled with 10w-30 anyhow, and that's it.
Maybe Ford should pay a little closer attention to what's going on in the HDEO world right now instead of writing memos. Some of the new CK-4 10w-30 examples now lack the gasoline ratings. Have they investigated some of these, or are they going to continue to write CYA memos and make CYA videos?
You're absolutely right. I highly doubt that many of those who buy these for fleet use (or currently are using any Ford diesel engines for fleet use) are going to be so concerned so as to go to the dealer to buy special oil all of a sudden. It's already been shown in these threads that we don't even have dealers following the advice of the manual or these TSBs. Like you say, a whack of these are getting filled with 10w-30 anyhow, and that's it.
Maybe Ford should pay a little closer attention to what's going on in the HDEO world right now instead of writing memos. Some of the new CK-4 10w-30 examples now lack the gasoline ratings. Have they investigated some of these, or are they going to continue to write CYA memos and make CYA videos?
Originally Posted By: CELICA_XX
For those who may be interested:
https://www.hemmings.com/sponsored?prx_t=M54CA0yoNAEtQMA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsZJhOAfwgk
Great post! REALLY interesting.
You know, I am ALWAYS amazed when some people in this forum are shown proof, real proof, real tests from any company OR individual, they automatically trash the person (RAT) or Company (Ford) and replace it with their own thoughts unsupported by any facts and plenty of innuendo.
There is nothing wrong with Ford diesels, they have been running great on CJ4 oil and ALL FORD IS SAYING is you should continue to use CJ4 oil and pass on the CK4 because they ACTUALLY have done tests.
My god, a new API oil comes out, a company proves there is an issue and people trash the company that discovers the issue. *LOL* ... laughable.
If Ferrari, Porsche or Maserati, even BMW said something is wrong with CK4 in our engines, everyone would be trashing the new API CK4 oil.
But when Ford says it, people say its their [censored] engines that dont run good on a new oil OR Ford is trying to make money on their own standard. Possible but GM was the worst offender with DEXOs oil, you know? No GM engine will survive without it
).
Any, thanks for the post, for me, I will not be using a CK4 oil in my motorcycle which requires CH4 or higher, Ill be sure to not go past CJ4. I fugured, seeing the SN on the bottles that we are really cutting back on PHOS?
For those who may be interested:
https://www.hemmings.com/sponsored?prx_t=M54CA0yoNAEtQMA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsZJhOAfwgk
Great post! REALLY interesting.
You know, I am ALWAYS amazed when some people in this forum are shown proof, real proof, real tests from any company OR individual, they automatically trash the person (RAT) or Company (Ford) and replace it with their own thoughts unsupported by any facts and plenty of innuendo.
There is nothing wrong with Ford diesels, they have been running great on CJ4 oil and ALL FORD IS SAYING is you should continue to use CJ4 oil and pass on the CK4 because they ACTUALLY have done tests.
My god, a new API oil comes out, a company proves there is an issue and people trash the company that discovers the issue. *LOL* ... laughable.
If Ferrari, Porsche or Maserati, even BMW said something is wrong with CK4 in our engines, everyone would be trashing the new API CK4 oil.
But when Ford says it, people say its their [censored] engines that dont run good on a new oil OR Ford is trying to make money on their own standard. Possible but GM was the worst offender with DEXOs oil, you know? No GM engine will survive without it
). Any, thanks for the post, for me, I will not be using a CK4 oil in my motorcycle which requires CH4 or higher, Ill be sure to not go past CJ4. I fugured, seeing the SN on the bottles that we are really cutting back on PHOS?
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
You know, I am ALWAYS amazed when some people in this forum are shown proof, real proof, real tests from any company OR individual, they automatically trash the person (RAT) or Company (Ford) and replace it with their own thoughts unsupported by any facts and plenty of innuendo.
There is nothing wrong with Ford diesels, they have been running great on CJ4 oil and ALL FORD IS SAYING is you should continue to use CJ4 oil and pass on the CK4 because they ACTUALLY have done tests.
My god, a new API oil comes out, a company proves there is an issue and people trash the company that discovers the issue. *LOL* ... laughable.
If Ferrari, Porsche or Maserati, even BMW said something is wrong with CK4 in our engines . . .
We've actually reached the point of calling real test results, by real companies, by real engineers, on real engines "paranoid schizophrenia." Lol.
You know, I am ALWAYS amazed when some people in this forum are shown proof, real proof, real tests from any company OR individual, they automatically trash the person (RAT) or Company (Ford) and replace it with their own thoughts unsupported by any facts and plenty of innuendo.
There is nothing wrong with Ford diesels, they have been running great on CJ4 oil and ALL FORD IS SAYING is you should continue to use CJ4 oil and pass on the CK4 because they ACTUALLY have done tests.
My god, a new API oil comes out, a company proves there is an issue and people trash the company that discovers the issue. *LOL* ... laughable.
If Ferrari, Porsche or Maserati, even BMW said something is wrong with CK4 in our engines . . .
We've actually reached the point of calling real test results, by real companies, by real engineers, on real engines "paranoid schizophrenia." Lol.
Last edited:
^^^ Well said
Some the posts in this thread are a very good illustration of one of today's most intractable problems, the inability to discern truth from error based upon the most basic of science and analytics.
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
There is nothing wrong with Ford diesels, they have been running great on CJ4 oil and ALL FORD IS SAYING is you should continue to use CJ4 oil and pass on the CK4 because they ACTUALLY have done tests.
My god, a new API oil comes out, a company proves there is an issue and people trash the company that discovers the issue. *LOL* ... laughable.
But, API certification doesn't work that way. All the newer specifications are backwards compatible, unless otherwise stated, and CK-4 is no exception. You really can't have it both ways. You can't have a manual say to use the current API specification, but then stop at a certain point. When you specify oils based upon the API regime, you get the whole package. You accept backwards compatibility.
Or, Ford could just get off the pot and enforce that oils with the specification be used, regardless of API certification; this has been done in Europe for years, without any of Ford's hand waving. Then, there's no debate, other than Ford's bizarre and self-contradictory viscosity requirements, which could also be settled very easily if they wrote the specification properly. All they have to say is that Ford Spec X will meet these test requirements, and will be of this viscosity (or of these viscosities), instead of certifying oils of a viscosity that are never mentioned in anyone's Ford manual.
There is nothing wrong with Ford diesels, they have been running great on CJ4 oil and ALL FORD IS SAYING is you should continue to use CJ4 oil and pass on the CK4 because they ACTUALLY have done tests.
My god, a new API oil comes out, a company proves there is an issue and people trash the company that discovers the issue. *LOL* ... laughable.
But, API certification doesn't work that way. All the newer specifications are backwards compatible, unless otherwise stated, and CK-4 is no exception. You really can't have it both ways. You can't have a manual say to use the current API specification, but then stop at a certain point. When you specify oils based upon the API regime, you get the whole package. You accept backwards compatibility.
Or, Ford could just get off the pot and enforce that oils with the specification be used, regardless of API certification; this has been done in Europe for years, without any of Ford's hand waving. Then, there's no debate, other than Ford's bizarre and self-contradictory viscosity requirements, which could also be settled very easily if they wrote the specification properly. All they have to say is that Ford Spec X will meet these test requirements, and will be of this viscosity (or of these viscosities), instead of certifying oils of a viscosity that are never mentioned in anyone's Ford manual.
But ... but ... but ... )
Ford is saying API is wrong and all CK4 oils are not backward compatible with their engines as the API claims.
In time this will work out but there are 2 sides of the story, one is right and one wrong. Ford is saying API is wrong.
Time will tell, in the meantime if I had a Ford, I would listen to them over API as I always believed the manufacturer should know what oil is better for their product.
I dont think this is unique to just Ford.
Ps, as far as overseas, if you are referring to ACEA, I am certainly no expert on ACEA but they seem to have A LOT more classifications and oils available there then we do here. I only realized that with my Harley which requires a 20/50 diesel oil not easily found at reasonable cost in the US except one company, a 15/50 semi, overseas many are available, if I remember correctly.
)Ford is saying API is wrong and all CK4 oils are not backward compatible with their engines as the API claims.
In time this will work out but there are 2 sides of the story, one is right and one wrong. Ford is saying API is wrong.
Time will tell, in the meantime if I had a Ford, I would listen to them over API as I always believed the manufacturer should know what oil is better for their product.
I dont think this is unique to just Ford.
Ps, as far as overseas, if you are referring to ACEA, I am certainly no expert on ACEA but they seem to have A LOT more classifications and oils available there then we do here. I only realized that with my Harley which requires a 20/50 diesel oil not easily found at reasonable cost in the US except one company, a 15/50 semi, overseas many are available, if I remember correctly.
Last edited:
dnewton3
Staff member
I worked for Ford for 16 years. I now work for another major OEM in a different industry; one of the largest players in the market.
I can assure you that "testing" (especially ALTs) is subjective at times. Ever hear of the (infamous) GM filter test? Lots of people think that proved something. To me, it only proves how little most folks ask questions or can think for themselves.
I never said Ford was wrong. I do find their circumstances very contradictory to the rest of the entire diesel engine market. Do we hear CAT, Cummins, Mack, Kubota, Volvo, Navistar, and others whining about wear with CK-4? I question Ford's results only because I am the kind of person that wants to see the details of the test, the parameters, the raw data, and I'll make my own conclusion.
At least one of these must be true:
a) they have managed to design an engine with such unique features that it cannot tolerate what the rest of the entire diesel industry can
b) they have managed to develop a test that no one else is capable/aware of which is revealing something that no one else has seen
c) they have managed to create confusion based upon some circumstantial evidence they quickly disseminated, and need to spend more time understanding, perhaps corroborating efforts with the API
Which do you think is most likely?
.
I can assure you that "testing" (especially ALTs) is subjective at times. Ever hear of the (infamous) GM filter test? Lots of people think that proved something. To me, it only proves how little most folks ask questions or can think for themselves.
I never said Ford was wrong. I do find their circumstances very contradictory to the rest of the entire diesel engine market. Do we hear CAT, Cummins, Mack, Kubota, Volvo, Navistar, and others whining about wear with CK-4? I question Ford's results only because I am the kind of person that wants to see the details of the test, the parameters, the raw data, and I'll make my own conclusion.
At least one of these must be true:
a) they have managed to design an engine with such unique features that it cannot tolerate what the rest of the entire diesel industry can
b) they have managed to develop a test that no one else is capable/aware of which is revealing something that no one else has seen
c) they have managed to create confusion based upon some circumstantial evidence they quickly disseminated, and need to spend more time understanding, perhaps corroborating efforts with the API
Which do you think is most likely?
.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
At least one of these must be true:
a) they have managed to design an engine with such unique features that it cannot tolerate what the rest of the entire diesel industry can
b) they have managed to develop a test that no one else is capable/aware of which is revealing something that no one else has seen
c) they have managed to create confusion based upon some circumstantial evidence they quickly disseminated, and need to spend more time understanding, perhaps corroborating efforts with the API
Which do you think is most likely?
.
My guess, pure speculation, is a combination of (a) and (b).
However, seems like there is another, hopefully unlikely, possibility:
(d) Ford is/was the only company with balls enough to call out CK-4.
I'm guessing that the engine/automakers look at CK4 as a way to help them in the marketplace and meet certain EPA regulations that are either in place or were expected at the time relating to MPG, emissions, etc.???
At least one of these must be true:
a) they have managed to design an engine with such unique features that it cannot tolerate what the rest of the entire diesel industry can
b) they have managed to develop a test that no one else is capable/aware of which is revealing something that no one else has seen
c) they have managed to create confusion based upon some circumstantial evidence they quickly disseminated, and need to spend more time understanding, perhaps corroborating efforts with the API
Which do you think is most likely?
.
My guess, pure speculation, is a combination of (a) and (b).
However, seems like there is another, hopefully unlikely, possibility:
(d) Ford is/was the only company with balls enough to call out CK-4.
I'm guessing that the engine/automakers look at CK4 as a way to help them in the marketplace and meet certain EPA regulations that are either in place or were expected at the time relating to MPG, emissions, etc.???
Last edited:
Well, it could be that Ford has the stones to call out CK-4, but they have far less to lose if CK-4 is a failure compared to Volvo/Mack, Cummins, Detroit, and Paccar do. What all the Ford engines in America cumulatively use in volume of motor oil is a spit in the bucket compared to the over 2 million heavy commercial trucks running around America daily. And a motors for those rapidly approach $30K just sitting on the crate, not installed yet. Yet, all of them have endorsed CK-4. Given those factors, it does give the impression that Ford is overreacting. Who knows, they could be right. But if CK-4 was going to be an issue, it should have showed up in other diesels already. The Mack dealership near me has been using CK-4 oil since early last fall, a fair time before the spec kicked in on the shelf. Their bulk supply shifted over to CK-4 back then and they have been putting it in most all the commercial trucks that come in for oil changes. And all the engines mentioned above have come thru there. And each of them has probably racked up 50-60,000 miles on the CK-4 by now. Legacy engines like my Detroit 60 even. When I stopped by there a little over a week ago, a truck was getting an oil change that had one of those legacy engines....a 3406E Cat. 4th oil change on that using CK-4.
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
But ... but ... but ...)
Ford is saying API is wrong and all CK4 oils are not backward compatible with their engines as the API claims.
Then, it's time for Ford to pull out of the API regime, and do as I stated in my previous post, full stop.
With respect to ACEA specifications, most of the major 15w-40 and 5w-40 examples already have ACEA E7, E9. And, the low phosphorus Delvac 1 LE 5w-30 on Ford's list for the previous specification was CJ-4/SN and E6, E7, E9.
Originally Posted By: claluja
(d) Ford is/was the only company with balls enough to call out CK-4.
Then Ford should have been addressing this earlier on, not, as I've mentioned here before, running out with a clipboard waving their arms frantically while the trucks are leaving the lot loaded with new CK-4 oils for distribution.
If Ford is petrified of where the API is headed, they have the freedom to do something else, as I mentioned above. They can build something based upon ACEA E4, if they like, and enjoy the consequences.
But ... but ... but ...
)Ford is saying API is wrong and all CK4 oils are not backward compatible with their engines as the API claims.
Then, it's time for Ford to pull out of the API regime, and do as I stated in my previous post, full stop.
With respect to ACEA specifications, most of the major 15w-40 and 5w-40 examples already have ACEA E7, E9. And, the low phosphorus Delvac 1 LE 5w-30 on Ford's list for the previous specification was CJ-4/SN and E6, E7, E9.
Originally Posted By: claluja
(d) Ford is/was the only company with balls enough to call out CK-4.
Then Ford should have been addressing this earlier on, not, as I've mentioned here before, running out with a clipboard waving their arms frantically while the trucks are leaving the lot loaded with new CK-4 oils for distribution.
If Ford is petrified of where the API is headed, they have the freedom to do something else, as I mentioned above. They can build something based upon ACEA E4, if they like, and enjoy the consequences.
Garak: great point and thanks for your valuable info
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I worked for Ford for 16 years. I now work for another major OEM in a different industry; one of the largest players in the market.
I can assure you that "testing" (especially ALTs) is subjective at times. Ever hear of the (infamous) GM filter test? Lots of people think that proved something. To me, it only proves how little most folks ask questions or can think for themselves.
I never said Ford was wrong. I do find their circumstances very contradictory to the rest of the entire diesel engine market. Do we hear CAT, Cummins, Mack, Kubota, Volvo, Navistar, and others whining about wear with CK-4? I question Ford's results only because I am the kind of person that wants to see the details of the test, the parameters, the raw data, and I'll make my own conclusion.
At least one of these must be true:
a) they have managed to design an engine with such unique features that it cannot tolerate what the rest of the entire diesel industry can
b) they have managed to develop a test that no one else is capable/aware of which is revealing something that no one else has seen
c) they have managed to create confusion based upon some circumstantial evidence they quickly disseminated, and need to spend more time understanding, perhaps corroborating efforts with the API
Which do you think is most likely?
.
Based on my experience with (many) Ford products, my vote is SOLIDLY "C"!
I worked for Ford for 16 years. I now work for another major OEM in a different industry; one of the largest players in the market.
I can assure you that "testing" (especially ALTs) is subjective at times. Ever hear of the (infamous) GM filter test? Lots of people think that proved something. To me, it only proves how little most folks ask questions or can think for themselves.
I never said Ford was wrong. I do find their circumstances very contradictory to the rest of the entire diesel engine market. Do we hear CAT, Cummins, Mack, Kubota, Volvo, Navistar, and others whining about wear with CK-4? I question Ford's results only because I am the kind of person that wants to see the details of the test, the parameters, the raw data, and I'll make my own conclusion.
At least one of these must be true:
a) they have managed to design an engine with such unique features that it cannot tolerate what the rest of the entire diesel industry can
b) they have managed to develop a test that no one else is capable/aware of which is revealing something that no one else has seen
c) they have managed to create confusion based upon some circumstantial evidence they quickly disseminated, and need to spend more time understanding, perhaps corroborating efforts with the API
Which do you think is most likely?
.
Based on my experience with (many) Ford products, my vote is SOLIDLY "C"!
- Status
Similar threads
