Chevron Delo 400 SDE 15W-40

[ytech]

Hey all,
I am a bit concerned...
I have been running the Delo 400 LE in my 1991 Mercedes-Benz 300CE (3.0L I6 DOHC 24V gas engine) since it has a very good additives pack that suits the needs of my old engine. At my last oil change I didn't pay enough attention to realize I used the new version of the Delo 400, aka Delo SDE. I noticed the reduced amount of zinc (but they claim it has a 50% better wear protection) which drove me crazy and concerned, I know it is "backwards compatible" BUT what do you guys think about this oil? any oil analysis to back up Chevron's claim?

Thanks

 

[JHZR2]

What aspect of your engine would justify the need for elevated zinc? Just asking...

 

[spasm3]

Don't know the spring pressures, but i think that engine is flat tappet lifters?

 

[ytech]

Originally Posted By: spasm3
Don't know the spring pressures, but i think that engine is flat tappet lifters?
Exactly, the hydraulic cam followers.

 

[Linctex]

Just because it has a flat tappet cam doesn't necessarily mean anything.

Most stock engines don't run "aggressive" valve spring pressures.

 

[Garak]

I wouldn't worry in the least.

 

[BrocLuno]

Well, I'm pretty trusting of most things Chevron. Had buds that worked in the refinery in Richmond (CA), and hauled their stuff back in the day. Have always had good service from Delo products. Delo SD (w/o the E) is my go-to oil for cam break-in in new hot rod motors (not race engines - that's whole nuther game).

So I'm pretty sure that all the Delo products up till now were decent in the area of cam/lifter protection, and I have the personal experience to make me happy. And, they have been playing with their add-pak chemistry including some organic calcium additives that seem to be decent AW components. But, these may not show up in VOA or UOA's.

I know marketing is hype, but I can't really believe that Chevron would step out that far on a limb and un-equivocally state 50% wear reduction if they did not have some serious science behind it ...

For us small boys, yeah sure it's marketing. But for UPS, FedEx, and all the big fleet managers who have enough lawyers on their side to make life tough for a refiner, it would be foolish to state that and not be able to back it up ...

So, bottom line; 1.) you are running oem spring pressures - no biggie for most modern lubes. 2.) there has to be something going on to adequately offset the ZDDP reduction. There are just too many older fleet engines still out there getting beat on every day. I'll have to side with Chevron here - they have a new gimmick and it must work

 

[BlakeB]

I'm running the SDE in a LML Duramax, an Iseki 3 cylinder diesel, and for top off in various engines. I have been getting the 1 and 2.5 gallon jugs of SDE for the Duramax and the Iseki, for everything else I'm using the 5 gallon buckets which is still the Cj-4. I have been topping the duramax off with the CJ-4 when I'm out of SDE (mixing the SDE CK-4 and CJ--4) with no issues. I figure the 5 gallon buckets will be Ck-4 before too long, so at that point that is what I'll start using in everything, even some original (over 12k hours) John Deere engines as old as the early 80's.

Bottom line: I think the SDE is good oil and I'm not worried about using it in anything I have that takes a diesel oil. I think all the fear of Ck-4 oil started with Ford.... I don't think Fords apparent issues with CK4 had anything to do with the oil honestly. We had 2 6.7 powerstrokes and they ran on rotella T6 5w-40 Cj-4 and we had fits with both of them, I think they had engineering and emissions related problems, not oil related. I feel like the transition to CK-4 oils was just their scapegoat to point all their problems at... but I'm biased and left Ford with a bad a taste in my mouth.

 

[PiperOne]

Ford's CK-4 issue was valvetrain wear from CK-4/SN oils with lower Phosphorus levels (under 1000ppm)...even though some of the oils on the "approved list" are lower phos. Ford looks pretty silly in all of this.