I am concerned about the new CK-4 oil in my ford trucks. I have a 2001 7.3 and 2 IDIs. I changed the oil recently to Rotella T6 and I just noticed it had the CK-4 rating on it. Is it okay to use or should I dump it and go back to my Cen-pe-co?
CK-4 oil okay to use in 7.3 powerstroke and IDI??
- Thread starter jfairchild327
- Start date
- Status
I found about it.,,, http://www.api.org/products-and-services...-oil-categories
Oil blenders can either exceed or just meet the wear requirement of CK-4. Does Rotella exceed the CK-4 wear requirement?
Is Ford using a reference CK-4 oil that just meets CK-4 to compare it to something else?
Did Ford come up with a new trick to start gaining sales numbers of Motorcraft oil?
Who is Cen-Pe-Co? I'm guessing they buy a base stock and buy an additive package they didn't invent, blend it and market it
like it's the best oil since the wheel was invented, I don't know.
Is Ford using a reference CK-4 oil that just meets CK-4 to compare it to something else?
Did Ford come up with a new trick to start gaining sales numbers of Motorcraft oil?
Who is Cen-Pe-Co? I'm guessing they buy a base stock and buy an additive package they didn't invent, blend it and market it
like it's the best oil since the wheel was invented, I don't know.
Last edited:
IMO, it will be foolish for a company like Shell to create their own oil that does not backward compatible with the previous oil spec.
I can be wrong, though.
Like my diesel truck only good spec for CF oil but I still use whatever oil spec available now.
CF spec oil is not available anywhere.
The funny things about it is the truck is not blowing up yet due to oil spec.
Do you know if Ford in 2001 may have manufactured truck that can only use a certain spec oil?
IIRC, that was only CI spec oil and you used CJ oil?
If that is the case, then you may want to drain the oil and go back to Cen Pe Co.
Anyway, let's think logically.
I can be wrong, though.
Like my diesel truck only good spec for CF oil but I still use whatever oil spec available now.
CF spec oil is not available anywhere.
The funny things about it is the truck is not blowing up yet due to oil spec.
Do you know if Ford in 2001 may have manufactured truck that can only use a certain spec oil?
IIRC, that was only CI spec oil and you used CJ oil?
If that is the case, then you may want to drain the oil and go back to Cen Pe Co.
Anyway, let's think logically.
Last edited:
its not really shell creating the oil as much as its the govs/feds/api or whoever mandating the new oil spec. Im just concerned because i remember when they reduced the sulfur content in diesel fuel and said it was backwards compatible.... well fuel lift pumps and injectors later I realized it was not. Thats all I'm saying
I would use an oil that's on Ford's approved oil list. My guess is Shell will work with Ford to get the oil approved for Powerstroke engines.
You could guess that 1/3 of the T6 oil sold at Walmart
You could guess that 1/3 of the T6 oil sold at Walmart
In an IDI, especially a non-turbo, you can run a lot of different oils, lots of oils are rated CF (although later specs are better at handling soot than the older ones). The CK-4 oils are supposed to be backwards compatible, & since the 7.3 PSD (and 6.0 & 6.4 HEUI engines) have a more conventional valvetrain than the 6.7 (which is where the CK-4 issues are), I wouldn't hesitate to run CK-4 in an older Ford diesel.
Originally Posted By: JMJNet
IMO, it will be foolish for a company like Shell to create their own oil that does not backward compatible with the previous oil spec.
I can be wrong, though.
Like my diesel truck only good spec for CF oil but I still use whatever oil spec available now.
CF spec oil is not available anywhere.
The funny things about it is the truck is not blowing up yet due to oil spec.
Do you know if Ford in 2001 may have manufactured truck that can only use a certain spec oil?
IIRC, that was only CI spec oil and you used CJ oil?
If that is the case, then you may want to drain the oil and go back to Cen Pe Co.
Anyway, let's think logically.
I can find CF oil, it's the CE that was originally specified for my '89 & '93 IDIs in my sig that I can't find anywhere! So I just use CH-4 Delo 400 SAE 30 (from my stash), or CJ-4 Delvac 1300 15W40, or whatever I can find cheap. The '93 6.2 actually has older Synpower 10W30 that was rated SM/CF in it now, jugs were starting to leak, so in it went for the winter.
IMO, it will be foolish for a company like Shell to create their own oil that does not backward compatible with the previous oil spec.
I can be wrong, though.
Like my diesel truck only good spec for CF oil but I still use whatever oil spec available now.
CF spec oil is not available anywhere.
The funny things about it is the truck is not blowing up yet due to oil spec.
Do you know if Ford in 2001 may have manufactured truck that can only use a certain spec oil?
IIRC, that was only CI spec oil and you used CJ oil?
If that is the case, then you may want to drain the oil and go back to Cen Pe Co.
Anyway, let's think logically.
I can find CF oil, it's the CE that was originally specified for my '89 & '93 IDIs in my sig that I can't find anywhere! So I just use CH-4 Delo 400 SAE 30 (from my stash), or CJ-4 Delvac 1300 15W40, or whatever I can find cheap. The '93 6.2 actually has older Synpower 10W30 that was rated SM/CF in it now, jugs were starting to leak, so in it went for the winter.
Last edited:
Thanks, I can't wait to see some oil analysis on the new oils
Originally Posted By: jfairchild327
its not really shell creating the oil as much as its the govs/feds/api or whoever mandating the new oil spec. Im just concerned because i remember when they reduced the sulfur content in diesel fuel and said it was backwards compatible.... well fuel lift pumps and injectors later I realized it was not. Thats all I'm saying
The same went with unleaded gas. But you're looking at different things. The government mandated lower ULSD, and unleaded gas. They didn't mandate CK-4. The API is made up of representatives of the oil industry.
its not really shell creating the oil as much as its the govs/feds/api or whoever mandating the new oil spec. Im just concerned because i remember when they reduced the sulfur content in diesel fuel and said it was backwards compatible.... well fuel lift pumps and injectors later I realized it was not. Thats all I'm saying
The same went with unleaded gas. But you're looking at different things. The government mandated lower ULSD, and unleaded gas. They didn't mandate CK-4. The API is made up of representatives of the oil industry.
Here is the results from recent UOA of Delvac Extreme 10w30 CK-4 in my Detroit 60 with 658,297 miles on the engine and 20,056 miles on the oil. Fe is on the lower end of the spectrum compared to previous samples. It typically runs around 17-25 ppm. Lead typically at 3 ppm. The 658K miles on the engine are miles after a factory reman. I think CK-4 is more than up to the task.
Originally Posted By: Garak
The government mandated lower ULSD, and unleaded gas. They didn't mandate CK-4. The API is made up of representatives of the oil industry.
This is important to note. API in reality IS the biggest one or two oil companies. The CEOs from the biggest one or two oil companies control API and make all API policy decisions - for $ purposes. The little oil companies are just along for the ride, as they contribute relatively little funding to API.
So . . . CK4 was introduced because the big oil companies saw an opportunity to make more $, including cheaper production costs. They don't care about what Ford thinks. Ford told them for a year before CK4's release that it increased wear, and they ignored Ford. Ford tried to get CK4 bottles labeled either high or low Phosphorous, so consumers like me would know whether it was bad for a 6.7 Powerstroke, and API told Ford to F off. And then, knowing all this, Shell sneaks new CK4 low Phosphorous T6 5w40 oil in CJ4 jugs for months knowing that it's the most popular 6.7 Powerstroke oil. Me thinks Ford ain't the bad guy here. Sorry for the rant.
The government mandated lower ULSD, and unleaded gas. They didn't mandate CK-4. The API is made up of representatives of the oil industry.
This is important to note. API in reality IS the biggest one or two oil companies. The CEOs from the biggest one or two oil companies control API and make all API policy decisions - for $ purposes. The little oil companies are just along for the ride, as they contribute relatively little funding to API.
So . . . CK4 was introduced because the big oil companies saw an opportunity to make more $, including cheaper production costs. They don't care about what Ford thinks. Ford told them for a year before CK4's release that it increased wear, and they ignored Ford. Ford tried to get CK4 bottles labeled either high or low Phosphorous, so consumers like me would know whether it was bad for a 6.7 Powerstroke, and API told Ford to F off. And then, knowing all this, Shell sneaks new CK4 low Phosphorous T6 5w40 oil in CJ4 jugs for months knowing that it's the most popular 6.7 Powerstroke oil. Me thinks Ford ain't the bad guy here. Sorry for the rant.
Last edited:
Certainly, the little oil companies have little to say about what goes on with oil specifications. I don't dispute that. But, as to CK-4 being devised to make things cheaper for the oil companies? I hardly think so. Combine this with new ACEA standards and likely updated builder approvals. Cheaper isn't going to happen. Further, saving production costs by cutting a bit of ZDDP isn't going to save a lot of money.
Nonetheless, the HDEO API regime is far more advanced than the API gasoline regime, at least with respect to robust specifications. The ACEA stuff is built upon the API HDEO specification, rather than the other way around.
Okay, Ford claims a problem. Yet, you grab a 15w-40 or 5w-40 from one of the majors, and it's going to be CK-4 or CK-4/SN, along with ACEA E7, E9. There will also be a boatload of builder approvals.
So, we have a situation where Ford claims a problem and no one else does, which is a very good reason why the API would ignore what Ford has to say. And, if Ford knew about this over a year ago, Ford should have released their own specification earlier and mandated it, rather than having ridiculous, confusing manual wording compounded by a confusing memo. But, I suppose that having their [at the time] current specification on Mobil's E6 lubricant would leave them with egg on their faces when complaining that low phosphorus is the problem. In fact, the only Delvac 1 synthetic product that did have their certification was the explicitly low phosphorus product, Delvac 1 LE 5w-30.
This is why it's hard to take Ford seriously over this. They certify a product whose viscosity isn't listed in any of their literature, be they manuals or TSBs. The only Mobil synthetic they certify is an E6 low phosphorus product, all the while claiming the ills of low phosphorus HDEOs. Ford hasn't been able to string together two consecutive sentences in their manuals or TSBs that don't conflict with something else they've said or done at the same time.
Ford ain't the bad guy at all. They're just pushing a snowblower through a pile of manure and seeing what sticks.
Nonetheless, the HDEO API regime is far more advanced than the API gasoline regime, at least with respect to robust specifications. The ACEA stuff is built upon the API HDEO specification, rather than the other way around.
Okay, Ford claims a problem. Yet, you grab a 15w-40 or 5w-40 from one of the majors, and it's going to be CK-4 or CK-4/SN, along with ACEA E7, E9. There will also be a boatload of builder approvals.
So, we have a situation where Ford claims a problem and no one else does, which is a very good reason why the API would ignore what Ford has to say. And, if Ford knew about this over a year ago, Ford should have released their own specification earlier and mandated it, rather than having ridiculous, confusing manual wording compounded by a confusing memo. But, I suppose that having their [at the time] current specification on Mobil's E6 lubricant would leave them with egg on their faces when complaining that low phosphorus is the problem. In fact, the only Delvac 1 synthetic product that did have their certification was the explicitly low phosphorus product, Delvac 1 LE 5w-30.
This is why it's hard to take Ford seriously over this. They certify a product whose viscosity isn't listed in any of their literature, be they manuals or TSBs. The only Mobil synthetic they certify is an E6 low phosphorus product, all the while claiming the ills of low phosphorus HDEOs. Ford hasn't been able to string together two consecutive sentences in their manuals or TSBs that don't conflict with something else they've said or done at the same time.
Ford ain't the bad guy at all. They're just pushing a snowblower through a pile of manure and seeing what sticks.
Not sure why this is an issue. I don't have it in front of me, but someone had posted a link to the latest FoMoCo oil approval list and there was several CK-4 oils on the list. So there are products to choose from. It sure isn't like one is blind in this regard, and sure isn't like Ford is blanket rejecting CK-4. I think both the OEM and the public are making too much of this, to the point where now conspiracy theories are being introduced. Isn't that the way it usually goes though?
And it is always so easy to blame the oil companies. Actually, the heavy commercial truck engine folks were the main pusher of the new PC-11 specs (CK-4 and FA-4). They needed more protection for their after treatment emission systems and engines temps internally were higher due to the designs to meet the EPA emissions. A DPF filter for a heavy commercial truck is about $5000 alone before actual installation.
And the results of CK-4 that I posted were from an engine that originally had a CI-4 specification recommendation when it was originally built. CI-4+ and CJ-4 were later. So it seems evident that CK-4 is indeed quite capable of addressing modern concerns and still taking care of legacy engines.
And it is always so easy to blame the oil companies. Actually, the heavy commercial truck engine folks were the main pusher of the new PC-11 specs (CK-4 and FA-4). They needed more protection for their after treatment emission systems and engines temps internally were higher due to the designs to meet the EPA emissions. A DPF filter for a heavy commercial truck is about $5000 alone before actual installation.
And the results of CK-4 that I posted were from an engine that originally had a CI-4 specification recommendation when it was originally built. CI-4+ and CJ-4 were later. So it seems evident that CK-4 is indeed quite capable of addressing modern concerns and still taking care of legacy engines.
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Not sure why this is an issue. I don't have it in front of me, but someone had posted a link to the latest FoMoCo oil approval list and there was several CK-4 oils on the list. So there are products to choose from. It sure isn't like one is blind in this regard, and sure isn't like Ford is blanket rejecting CK-4. I think both the OEM and the public are making too much of this, to the point where now conspiracy theories are being introduced. Isn't that the way it usually goes though?
And it is always so easy to blame the oil companies. Actually, the heavy commercial truck engine folks were the main pusher of the new PC-11 specs (CK-4 and FA-4). They needed more protection for their after treatment emission systems and engines temps internally were higher due to the designs to meet the EPA emissions. A DPF filter for a heavy commercial truck is about $5000 alone before actual installation.
And the results of CK-4 that I posted were from an engine that originally had a CI-4 specification recommendation when it was originally built. CI-4+ and CJ-4 were later. So it seems evident that CK-4 is indeed quite capable of addressing modern concerns and still taking care of legacy engines.
I am also questioning Ford's issue here, when none of the large diesel mfg. are. But the CK-4 oils that are on there list pass there specs. But what gets me is that if Ford wants to tell customers not to CK-4 oil, they need to drop recommending an API rating at all, because allowing CJ-4 oils is also allowing CK-4 oils, because it backwards compatible. Tell me if I am wrong.
Not sure why this is an issue. I don't have it in front of me, but someone had posted a link to the latest FoMoCo oil approval list and there was several CK-4 oils on the list. So there are products to choose from. It sure isn't like one is blind in this regard, and sure isn't like Ford is blanket rejecting CK-4. I think both the OEM and the public are making too much of this, to the point where now conspiracy theories are being introduced. Isn't that the way it usually goes though?
And it is always so easy to blame the oil companies. Actually, the heavy commercial truck engine folks were the main pusher of the new PC-11 specs (CK-4 and FA-4). They needed more protection for their after treatment emission systems and engines temps internally were higher due to the designs to meet the EPA emissions. A DPF filter for a heavy commercial truck is about $5000 alone before actual installation.
And the results of CK-4 that I posted were from an engine that originally had a CI-4 specification recommendation when it was originally built. CI-4+ and CJ-4 were later. So it seems evident that CK-4 is indeed quite capable of addressing modern concerns and still taking care of legacy engines.
I am also questioning Ford's issue here, when none of the large diesel mfg. are. But the CK-4 oils that are on there list pass there specs. But what gets me is that if Ford wants to tell customers not to CK-4 oil, they need to drop recommending an API rating at all, because allowing CJ-4 oils is also allowing CK-4 oils, because it backwards compatible. Tell me if I am wrong.
Sounds logical.
Originally Posted By: claluja
Originally Posted By: Garak
The government mandated lower ULSD, and unleaded gas. They didn't mandate CK-4. The API is made up of representatives of the oil industry.
This is important to note. API in reality IS the biggest one or two oil companies. The CEOs from the biggest one or two oil companies control API and make all API policy decisions - for $ purposes. The little oil companies are just along for the ride, as they contribute relatively little funding to API.
So . . . CK4 was introduced because the big oil companies saw an opportunity to make more $, including cheaper production costs. They don't care about what Ford thinks. Ford told them for a year before CK4's release that it increased wear, and they ignored Ford. Ford tried to get CK4 bottles labeled either high or low Phosphorous, so consumers like me would know whether it was bad for a 6.7 Powerstroke, and API told Ford to F off. And then, knowing all this, Shell sneaks new CK4 low Phosphorous T6 5w40 oil in CJ4 jugs for months knowing that it's the most popular 6.7 Powerstroke oil. Me thinks Ford ain't the bad guy here. Sorry for the rant.
With Shell Rotella T6 having lowered zinc and phosphorous, and the new Delo lowering theirs as well, I was wondering what was going to happen to the Mobil 1 TDT.
Thankfully, for now, it looks like Mobil is having it with zinc at 1300 and phosphorous at 1100.
https://mobiloil.com/~/media/amer/us/pvl/files/pdfs/mobil-1-oil-product-specs-guide.pdf
But, it could change at any time. Those are the levels as of now.
Originally Posted By: Garak
The government mandated lower ULSD, and unleaded gas. They didn't mandate CK-4. The API is made up of representatives of the oil industry.
This is important to note. API in reality IS the biggest one or two oil companies. The CEOs from the biggest one or two oil companies control API and make all API policy decisions - for $ purposes. The little oil companies are just along for the ride, as they contribute relatively little funding to API.
So . . . CK4 was introduced because the big oil companies saw an opportunity to make more $, including cheaper production costs. They don't care about what Ford thinks. Ford told them for a year before CK4's release that it increased wear, and they ignored Ford. Ford tried to get CK4 bottles labeled either high or low Phosphorous, so consumers like me would know whether it was bad for a 6.7 Powerstroke, and API told Ford to F off. And then, knowing all this, Shell sneaks new CK4 low Phosphorous T6 5w40 oil in CJ4 jugs for months knowing that it's the most popular 6.7 Powerstroke oil. Me thinks Ford ain't the bad guy here. Sorry for the rant.
With Shell Rotella T6 having lowered zinc and phosphorous, and the new Delo lowering theirs as well, I was wondering what was going to happen to the Mobil 1 TDT.
Thankfully, for now, it looks like Mobil is having it with zinc at 1300 and phosphorous at 1100.
https://mobiloil.com/~/media/amer/us/pvl/files/pdfs/mobil-1-oil-product-specs-guide.pdf
But, it could change at any time. Those are the levels as of now.
Originally Posted By: njohnson
With Shell Rotella T6 having lowered zinc and phosphorous, and the new Delo lowering theirs as well, I was wondering what was going to happen to the Mobil 1 TDT.
Thankfully, for now, it looks like Mobil is having it with zinc at 1300 and phosphorous at 1100.
https://mobiloil.com/~/media/amer/us/pvl/files/pdfs/mobil-1-oil-product-specs-guide.pdf
But, it could change at any time. Those are the levels as of now.
Thanks for posting that. Good info. Wonder why Delvac 1 isn't on that list?
Mobil seems to have done a good job anticipating Ford's issue and is taking efforts to promote the 1100 ppm phosphorous in TDT 5w40. Hoping, since this is Mobil'S CK4 version, that it won't change anytime soon. Mobil even has TDT 5w40 popping up as the first oil recommended on its website when you type in a 6.7 Powerstroke. Btw, Mystik 5w40 CK4 is also above 1000 ppm P.
With Shell Rotella T6 having lowered zinc and phosphorous, and the new Delo lowering theirs as well, I was wondering what was going to happen to the Mobil 1 TDT.
Thankfully, for now, it looks like Mobil is having it with zinc at 1300 and phosphorous at 1100.
https://mobiloil.com/~/media/amer/us/pvl/files/pdfs/mobil-1-oil-product-specs-guide.pdf
But, it could change at any time. Those are the levels as of now.
Thanks for posting that. Good info. Wonder why Delvac 1 isn't on that list?
Mobil seems to have done a good job anticipating Ford's issue and is taking efforts to promote the 1100 ppm phosphorous in TDT 5w40. Hoping, since this is Mobil'S CK4 version, that it won't change anytime soon. Mobil even has TDT 5w40 popping up as the first oil recommended on its website when you type in a 6.7 Powerstroke. Btw, Mystik 5w40 CK4 is also above 1000 ppm P.
Originally Posted By: claluja
Thanks for posting that. Good info. Wonder why Delvac 1 isn't on that list?
Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40 was never on their list. Delvac 1 LE 5w-30, the low phosphorus E6 product, was on the previous iteration of their list. You can still see that approval on the Delvac 1 LE 5w-30 TDS.
Thanks for posting that. Good info. Wonder why Delvac 1 isn't on that list?
Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40 was never on their list. Delvac 1 LE 5w-30, the low phosphorus E6 product, was on the previous iteration of their list. You can still see that approval on the Delvac 1 LE 5w-30 TDS.
- Status
