Meets or Exceeds DD 93K214

[Shannow]

A small bunch of threads have mentioned this spec, and the boutiquers who provide it while not seeking formal specifications.

an older one that lacked any actual promised answers should have had me gone looking instead of asking what, where and how the meets or exceeds is actually tested, met, and exceeded.

Here's the spec in question, and the typical values...

And some recommendations....

Amsoil ACD HTHS 3.4, claims 93K214, missing by at least 0.3Cp, almost 10%.


Schaeffers #711 SUPREME 7000 SYNTHETIC PLUS DIESEL SAE 10W-30 HTHS 3.25, but claims 93K218 (and E7/E9), both of which have 3.5 minimum

 

[Garak]

Yep, that's a little odd, isn't it? It would appear that Amsoil only claims to meet an older specification, whereas the Schaeffer's is actually on the certified list. Perhaps this needs to be brought up somewhere more official. With an HTHS of 3.25, it's not even CJ-4 compliant, much less DD compliant.

 

[Shannow]

Garak,
that's the rub with these claims of "meets or exceeds", and suitable for.

Was doing some work on Cat T0-4, and realised that CAT doesn't test the oils, they hold the oil manufacturer responsible.

Looks like DD do as well...italics mine.

Quote:
DDC Power Guard 93K214 Approved Oils List
DISCLAIMER: Product registration means the manufacturer or marketer has faithfully collected information pertinent to the requirements of the specification and with the full intention to conform to the specification. However, it is still the responsibility of the manufacturer or marketer to ensure satisfactory performance of its products in all aspects at all times. Registration for DDC Power Guard Oil Specification 93K214 does not waive the liability of the manufacturer or the marketer. DDC does not warrant the performance of non-DDC products, registered or not.


They are trusting the oil manufacturer to test and comply, they don't actually test it.

Makes the claims even more sneaky/smelly IMO.

 

[Shannow]

https://extranet-ddc.freightliner.com/Su...index4print.asp

Here's the list (and the disclaimer)

 

[Doug Hillary]

Hi,
Shannow - DD's 7SE270 was the forerunner of these
Specs during the 1990s. Then, TBN was given as "Above 7.0"and Zinc as "Above 700ppm"

The Specs also included (separately) the two stroke lubricants, they were especially important for these engine families (53,71,92), SA was 1.0 Max - many issues were caused by Owners who disregarded this Spec. Of course these were CF2 mono-grades (30, 40, 50)

I had Technical Management of the largest Fleet of these engine families outside the US.in the early 1980s - Finemores at Wagga Wagga, you may remember them?, another large user too - Heggies Transport in Woolongong and in NZ with various Earthmoving Companies using Terex Dozers and Scrapers including some twin engined (TS24)

Meets or Exceeds is always an issue for me - I've seen large performance differences between lubricants in the DD two stroke families - some certainly didn't cut the mustard!!

 

[Shannow]

Doug,
Finemores doesn't make is a small world (trucks everywhere), but my wife worked for Heggies locally some years ago.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Garak,
that's the rub with these claims of "meets or exceeds", and suitable for.

Where I've got Schaeffer's right within my sights is over their non-compliance with the API standards. That's something that can and would be policed. And, it clearly doesn't meet the ACEA specifications it claims, either. Unfortunately, those, too, are self-policed.

So, with all the experts that are supposedly in the employ of that company, I'd wonder why one of them didn't pick up an HTHS of 3.25 on an oil that is supposed to be 3.5 or higher and has the API CJ-4 specification. I wonder how they also missed the out of spec shear stability under ACEA E7, E9.

What a farce.

 

[Doug Hillary]

Hi,
Garak - As you probably have deduced I've always promoted the OEM's minimum HTHS requirement as possibly the most important of all - aligned of course with their other Specification points (refer ACEA)

When I first posted here my insistence on this point caused many posting "wars"!!

Of course this was always based on my OEM Technical experience, working for Chevron and lubricant field testing for some well known Oil Companies

 

[Garak]

There we have it. Thanks, Doug. Given that we do see 5w-30 and 10w-30 HDEOs, I'd think it would be very important that those grades have the minimum HTHS as per CJ-4 and E6, E7, and E9, as the case may be, rather than allowing that number to switch to ILSAC or A1/B1 range.

 

[salesrep]

Posted td sheet of Schaeffer's Oil 711 is form 03/2010
Current TD sheet on Schaeffers dated 03/2015 for schaeffers 10-30 711 Schaeffers HDEO 711 10-30 HTHS shows 3.52

 

[Shannow]

13% loss in HTHS but only 9.2 in KV after 90 cycles ???

 

[Garak]

You link is broken, but I figured it out. In any case, if the HTHS was a misprint, I'm still wondering why KV100 is falling out of the 30 grade limits, contrary to E7, E9 requirements.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
13% loss in HTHS but only 9.2 in KV after 90 cycles ???

That doesn't seem to make much sense, either, does it?

 

[Shannow]

That's what shook me...the stuff that I've seen s that oils are more likely in testing to fall out of KV grade well before they fall out of HTHS "grade".

 

[Garak]

Yes, wasn't that a significant impetus for the use of the HTHS parameter in the first place?

 

[TiredTrucker]

Think you need to relook at the Schaeffer 711 product. I just looked on their TD sheet for it and it shows 3.52, not 3.25 as OP posted.

http://www.schaefferoil.com/documents/230-711-td.pdf

Either way, there are lot of fleets using the stuff in their Paccar MX, Cummins ISX, Detroit DD15, Volvo D13, and Mack MP8 engines. I personally know two fleets, with mixed OEM trucks, that are pleased with the results they are getting from the Schaeffer 711. One of them is Trans Am out of Olathe, KS.

Could be they are getting good results because they are not afflicted with oil OCD as some are. All the specs on paper are one thing. Results on the ground is another.

 

[Garak]

The 3.52 HTHS did get explained. However, we still haven't heard any answer about the discrepancy between the KV and the HTHS shear, nor about the KV shearing out of grade, contrary to the E7, E9 specifications it claims.

 

[Dak27]

Total newbie here, I use Mobil Delvac 1300 Super 15w40 in my Detroit Series 60 motor. Mobil's website, 1300's product label, and DD's online material all show it meets the DD Spec., but after looking at this info, I can't tell if 1300 Super isn't up to snuff or not.

Any info will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Dak

 

[TiredTrucker]

1300 Super is just fine for the 60. Used by thousands of truck owners.

 

[dustyroads]

Originally Posted By: Dak27
Total newbie here, I use Mobil Delvac 1300 Super 15w40 in my Detroit Series 60 motor. Mobil's website, 1300's product label, and DD's online material all show it meets the DD Spec., but after looking at this info, I can't tell if 1300 Super isn't up to snuff or not.

Any info will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Dak


Dak, no worries..the delvac 15W40 has HTHSV of 4.3 which is well above the required minimum of 3.7 (to meet DD's spec). That's very important. I can't vouch for flashpoint or sulfur content, but the phos and zinc levels are up to par with required specs. You're good to go with 1300.