Updated Ford position on CK oils

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: NH73
So you are saying they previously approved a low phosphorus oil or ZDDP and now they are blaming that for premature valve train wear?

Yes, Delvac 1 LE 5w-30 was, in fact, the only Delvac 1 product with the Ford spec with the "E" suffix. Now, low phosphorus has them in a knot. And I agree with you completely. Ford isn't making an even remotely credible argument here. They use the API regime, but all of a sudden, they want to exclude backwards compatibility. Ford worries about low phosphorus for all Ford engines, including past ones, yet have a low phosphorus lube on the previous list. They have a very tenuous grasp on the concept of which viscosities and specifications are actually required to have lower phosphorus.

Solarent: I think their last paragraph removed a lot of the doubt you mention.

Clearly, Ford needs to find a bigger lubricant partner, someone who will really hold their hands through this mess and explain things to them. The next person writing a memo for them really needs to read a lubricant handbook first.

They (Ford) needs a Lubricant Consultant.

Here is what I suspect in terms of the chain of events: A Paralegal was given the task of writing this Technical Memo with just enough technical information from Marketing to make it confusing. Someone in Engineering wanted to make it clear what was needed in the Interim but was overruled by Legal and Marketing.

 

[NH73]

Originally Posted By: EP777
I suspect Ford raised the alarm bells to support their own spec. That way they can sell more Motorcraft because folks are afraid to use other brands. The OEMs make a ton of money when you have no choice but to use the stealerhip for service.

GM did it with DEXOS. Now they get licensing dollars from anyone wanting to put the logo on their bottle.



Auto makers have been doing there own specs. for years and for about everything. This is nothing new for Ford either. Although a lot of times they may still let you use an appropriate API rated oil. Its how Ford handled it that makes them look like a laughing stock. GM with dexos just went a step further and did that licensing to make more money, although there test tended to be more stringent than API.

 

[bullwinkle]

Originally Posted By: EP777
I suspect Ford raised the alarm bells to support their own spec. That way they can sell more Motorcraft because folks are afraid to use other brands. The OEMs make a ton of money when you have no choice but to use the stealerhip for service.

GM did it with DEXOS. Now they get licensing dollars from anyone wanting to put the logo on their bottle.



Wouldn't bet too highly on that-for a while the MOTORCRAFT CK-4 oil WASN't EVEN APPROVED for the 6.7! I would be afraid to have a newer Ford diesel, they already used their customers for field testing on the earlier 6.0 PSDs, with devastating warranty & buyback costs.

 

[Solarent]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
They (Ford) needs a Lubricant Consultant.

Here is what I suspect in terms of the chain of events: A Paralegal was given the task of writing this Technical Memo with just enough technical information from Marketing to make it confusing. Someone in Engineering wanted to make it clear what was needed in the Interim but was overruled by Legal and Marketing.


I'm pretty sure they actually have a guy who is pretty knowledgeable running their Motorcraft and lubricant specifications. I can't remember exactly his name but I read an interview with him sometime last year in LubesnGreases. I'll see if I can track it down.

I agree with MolaKule's chain of events. I'd even be willing to bet that the lubricants guy probably threw up his hands and said "Fine, I'll do whatever you want" all the while knowing all the hand-wringing this would cause in the internet forums.

Seriously though once there is a full engine test attached to the specification all this becomes moot.

 

[Garak]

I would ask why they wouldn't have this specification and engine test matter in order ages ago. The timing of this kerfuffle is absolutely atrocious. They would have been well served to enforce their specification solely, then clarify and attend to it after their engine test and so forth were all in order. But, as you and Mola speculate, they got people involved who really don't know any better, and a memo like that hits a place like this, and they get taken to task over it.

 

[Ramblejam]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
They (Ford) needs a Lubricant Consultant.

Ron Romano.

 

[pwr2tow]

Originally Posted By: Garak
kerfuffle is absolutely atrocious.

You watch too much Judge Judy.
smileface

 

[Garak]

I spoke like that before she did, well, at least on TV, because I should hope she's older than me.

 

[Solarent]

Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
They (Ford) needs a Lubricant Consultant.

Ron Romano.

That's his name! I was thinking it was Ray Romano, and I was looking for Ray in my search. I was thinking the Romano part was wrong.

Thanks that has been bugging me since yesterday.

 

[Solarent]

This is old but:

 

[Solarent]

Originally Posted By: Garak
I would ask why they wouldn't have this specification and engine test matter in order ages ago. The timing of this kerfuffle is absolutely atrocious. They would have been well served to enforce their specification solely, then clarify and attend to it after their engine test and so forth were all in order. But, as you and Mola speculate, they got people involved who really don't know any better, and a memo like that hits a place like this, and they get taken to task over it.


I think they were trying to get it included in the CK-4 upgrade without a test. Unfortunately as it is a heavy duty spec, the rest of the OEM's don't really care about the 6.7L's valve train wear. And being as it takes years to develop a test, get it proven in multiple labs and have it be properly repeatable, so maybe if it's coming out in a couple of months, they just didn't get it done on time.

As an alternate to the test, I've heard that a good way to rank oils is with a modified Timkin OK load - maybe between that and the phosphorus limit they could have something in a couple of days.

>

 

[Garak]

I'm sure that can give them all the answers.

 

[bbslider001]

Are any of you guys using this in the 7.3or other older diesel engines? I tend to not panic, but this change seems to be bigger than the previous ones.

 

[Ramblejam]

Originally Posted By: bbslider001
Are any of you guys using this in the 7.3or other older diesel engines? I tend to not panic, but this change seems to be bigger than the previous ones.

The only specific concern you have with that architecture is the HEUI system; CJ-4 was validated against ASTM D6894, which used your exact engine. CK-4 has gone to the new Caterpillar C13A test, which is an ever tougher standard.

In other words, CK-4 is perfectly fine for your Power Stroke.

 

[RLS]

Ford has updated the list of diesel motor oils. Their are still several name brands not on the list.
https://www.fcsdchemicalsandlubricants.com/main/additionalinfo/dieseloilsWSSM2C171F1.pdf

 

[beanoil]

https://www.fcsdchemicalsandlubricants.com/main/searchdiesel.asp
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Interactive searchable list.

 

[dnewton3]

Not that it would surprise anyone, but after multiple attempts to get information (chat line, emails, phone calls) Ford is only willing to say this about the CK-4 testing results:

" ...that information that is considered proprietary in nature to the Ford Motor Company is unavailable to the public. The company is unable to share such information with the public."

(Note that I believe "unwilling" is a much more appropriate description of their attitude; they most certainly could share, but chose not to. Don't tell me you're "unable" when "unwilling" is the correct term. Ford can share; they just don't want to.)



So if I came out with my own study, but was unwilling to show any proof of my testing, and declined any request for testing methodology description, would you believe me? What if I claimed drinking 1% milk is bad for you, but didn't give you any data or specifics as to how it is harmful, or how quickly problems will manifest, or the severity of such results, or how I tested the product and came to such conclusions, would you have faith in my statement? And also, what if I said " ... but if you drink my approved milk-fat products, it will be OK and no harm will come of it", then how would you feel?


Is Ford right? I am skeptical.
Has Ford lost what little credibility I might have awarded them here? For me - yes.


When the entire lube industry sees a general acceptability of the new level product (CK-4) and major OEMs such as Mack, Cummins, Volvo, etc all say it's OK to use, based on many hundreds of hours of lab tests and probably millions of miles of field testing, who's really got the problem here? I suspect there's nothing wrong with the CK-4 lube; there's something "wrong" (sensitive, compromised, insert whatever term you want) in the Ford Scorpion design that this "new" lube has revealed. Like Ford needs another debacle after the "PowerChoke Sick.Ohhhh" days ....


.

 

[zeng]

Originally Posted By: Solarent
I think they were trying to get it included in the CK-4 upgrade without a test. Unfortunately as it is a heavy duty spec, the rest of the OEM's don't really care about the 6.7L's valve train wear. And being as it takes years to develop a test, get it proven in multiple labs and have it be properly repeatable, so maybe if it's coming out in a couple of months, they just didn't get it done on time.

As an alternate to the test, I've heard that a good way to rank oils is with a modified Timkin OK load - maybe between that and the phosphorus limit they could have something in a couple of days.

+1

Edit:I have faith in Ford's position on non-acceptance(blanket) of CK4 and imposing additional Ford requirements in WSS-M2C171-F1 specifications.

 

[A310]

I haven't been following what ford says and been using the new Rotella T6 5W40 in my 6.4 with no problems. Mind you I've only added 2 quarts so far to a 20 quart system, but I'm confident that it will be fine. I've been running Shell oil in all my cars and trucks for over 30 years and have never had any issues to date. I'm sure Ford will come around and include it in their approved list.

 

[TiredTrucker]

Makes me wonder if what Ford did was some testing on FA-4 (since it is in the same PC-11 oil camp along with CK-4) and confused it with CK-4. That assumes that Ford actually did some testing, but that is purely conjecture at this stage. There is considerable difference between those two specs. But even with that, Detroit just announced it is factory filling with FA-4 and International will offer it as factory fill for their new A26 at customer request with no hesitation. Detroit has approved CK-4 (93K222) even on it's legacy engines like the Series 50/60 and MBE engines from last century. Yes, some of those have factory warranties, like mine, if it is a factory reman. As best I can tell, Ford is the only player that has an issue with CK-4. Not a peep of concern from any other diesel engine maker in the U.S.