I've Entered A New Level of BITOG'ers...

[1JZ_E46]

I used to be against stashing but I decided to pick up 3 oil changes worth of EDGE 0W-30 while Advance Auto had it for $5.50. Glad I did as it's now almost $10 a quart at AA and anywhere I can find.

For general SN, dexos, GF5 oil I'd say stashing isn't worth it, there's always a deal, but for hard to find and typically expensive oils it's time well spent.

 

[ArcticDriver]

Onug,

That is sure something to be on the lookout for, isn't it?

Very interesting.

 

[Merkava_4]

A lot cheaper than collecting Snap-on ...

 

[CKN]

Less than 10% of active posters hoard oil.

It's a small "club" here on BITOG.

 

[Brons2]

I don't consider myself a hoarder, I have about 35 quarts and 8 filters.

That doesn't qualify, right?

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: ArcticDriver
I'm not sure where that information came from, but that is inaccurate. API labels are to always reflect the correct specification. If the jug says CJ-4, it is still CJ-4. If it says CK-4, it is CK-4. [/i]

Well, it's within API guidelines. Shell does it (with CK-4 and with SN at its rollout), and one of our posters noted a very different coloured Mobil Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40 near the end of the CJ-4 life cycle. Mobil isn't being quite correct with what's actually required, and they had better take a look at some of their labels with errors over the years very carefully, including that very product.

Of course, the person who answered the email may or may not be correct; that's a different matter than what's allowed and what's not.

 

[ArcticDriver]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: ArcticDriver
I'm not sure where that information came from, but that is inaccurate. API labels are to always reflect the correct specification. If the jug says CJ-4, it is still CJ-4. If it says CK-4, it is CK-4. [/i]


Well, it's within API guidelines. Shell does it (with CK-4 and with SN at its rollout), and one of our posters noted a very different coloured Mobil Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40 near the end of the CJ-4 life cycle. Mobil isn't being quite correct with what's actually required, and they had better take a look at some of their labels with errors over the years very carefully, including that very product.

Of course, the person who answered the email may or may not be correct; that's a different matter than what's allowed and what's not.


Come on...really?

Its within API guidelines.

What is? The response was Mobil policy and not API guidelines.

Shell does it.

What does that have to do with Mobil? Apparently Shell has a different and less stringent policy than Mobil. This is not an, "If A then B" equation.

One of our posters noted a very different colored Delvac-1 near the end of the CJ-4 cycle.

That is the premise of your accusal? Some guy said the color appeared darker? Did said poster have the oil analyzed before making such a claim? Wise individuals do not make unsupported allegations nor do they believe them.

Mobil isn't being quite correct with what's actually required, and they had better take a look at some of their labels with errors over the years very carefully, including that very product.

Mobil did not say what is actually required. The representative stated what the Mobil policy is concerning my specific question of CK-4 product in CJ-4 marked containers. You are creating a different narrative to defend a flimsy and unsupported alleged observation by an absent 3rd party.

Of course, the person who answered the email may or may not be correct; that's a different matter than what's allowed and what's not.

At this point, with an absense of any NOA and the single claim of one customer about the perceived color of his oil vs the statement of a Mobil representative, I know where my trust lies. Maybe this one customer had a light burned out in his garage. Maybe it was a cloudy day. Maybe he forgot he was wearing his sunglasses.

Maybe he enjoys conspiracies.

Regardless, I have a 5-gallon bucket of Delvac-1 and received a $60 rebate for what is one of the best oils on the market.
Life is Good.

 

[Garak]

Read their email again, at least this part, where they said that "API labels are to always reflect the correct specification." It is permissible to have CK-4 oils in CJ-4 bottles, just not the other way around. So, they may be talking about their policy, but that can be read either way.

As for another poster, it was a very significant difference, and was at about the right time for a possible overlap. A VOA won't tell you whether it's CJ-4 or CK-4. I believe he compared side to side, but I don't recall the specifics, and it's really not that important.

With respect to Mobil labelling errors, I'm just pointing out that it's happened before, and for extended periods of time, with that specific product. They want the API specification to be correct, but they don't mind flubbing up the ACEA side of things?

I don't doubt you have a fine product at a good price, and that's not at issue. My point is fairly simple. When it comes very close to the rollout point of a new API specification, and one wants to get the previous specification, there really isn't any guarantee about which they're getting, and there's no way to determine it, either.

 

[ArcticDriver]

No disrespect is intended.
My point is very simple as well.

BITOG is the "go-to" source for all things related to machinery fluids and is the leading "authority" for this subject; therefore, members have a responsibility to not accidentally spread rumors and when making a disparaging statement it is vitally important to not base it on only speculation or hearsay.

At this time there is no evidence that Mobil had filled CJ-4 containers with CK-4 product AND a Mobil representative has confirmed that Mobil has only placed Delvac-1 5w40 CJ-4 oil in containers marked CJ-4 and filled CK-4 only into containers marked CK-4.

In a follow-up email, that same Mobil tech has warned me not to use the CK-4 version of this product in my Ford Powerstrokes.

 

[ArcticDriver]

I don't understand.
Can someone explain why an Oil Analysis can't identify differences between Delvac-1 5w40 ESP CJ-4 and CK-4 ?


If any of my data entry is incorrect please make corrections.

..............................................................CJ-4...............(CK-4)

Mobil Delvac 1 ESP 5W-40
SAE Grade 5W-40
Viscosity, ASTM D 445
cSt @ 40ºC.................................................98..............(81.1)
cSt @ 100ºC .............................................14.7 ..........(13.56)
Viscosity Index, ASTM D 2270 .................156 ............(170)
Sulfated Ash, wt%, ASTM D 874 ..............1.0 .............(1)
Total Base #, mg KOH/g, ASTM D 2896....10.1 ............(12.1)
Pour Point, ºC, ASTM D 97 .......................-48 ............(-33)
Flash Point, ºC, ASTM D 92 ......................249 ............(222)
Density @ 15ºC kg/l, ASTM D 4052 ..........0.85 ............(0.857)

HT/HS @ 150*C cP ASTM D4683........................ ...............(3.7)

CJ-4 found here: http://products.petrochoice.com/system/documents/3243/1/delvac_1_esp_5w-40.pdf?1443463183

CK-4 found here: https://www.mobil.com/English-US/Commercial-Vehicle-Lube/pds/GLXXMobil-Delvac-1-ESP-5W40

 

[Garak]

Yes, a VOA will have difficulty telling the difference. Note that the data given on a sheet is generally called "typical of current production and does not constitute a specification." Batches have variance, and so do labs. SA will not be tested for, and is irrelevant as that hasn't changed. Pour point and density aren't checked. HTHS isn't checked. Different labs use different TBN and flash point methods, so those numbers can be all over the place, with TBN being at least +/- 1, and that's being generous. We've seen people here post VOAs from the same product from the same bottle at different labs, and we've seen massive differences.

The easiest way to tell the difference in a VOA would be if we knew something changed massively during formulation, like a change from a magnesium to a calcium based package, or a huge reduction in phosphorus (even a small reduction would be difficult to determine versus lab error or batch variation). We have no indication that any of that is the case.

As for emails, well, I always take what marketing people say with a grain of salt. You send emails to three marketing people and you get four different responses. And, as I mentioned, I'm not convinced about their labelling accuracy, given errors I've seen in the past on this product.

I'm not casting aspersions on the product or anything (aside from the flashpoint and pour point going down the toilet on the CK-4 version). I use Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40, after all. Whenever an API specification (or even a significant proprietary one) rolls over, I just generally consider it safe to assume there's a transition period. In any event, that's part of the beauty of an API spec being backwards compatible, Ford's latest HDEO panic notwithstanding.

 

[userfriendly]

I'm with ArcticDriver on this one, and I figured out from this thread who is spreading the Delvac CK-4 in CJ-4 labeled containers rumor.

 

[Garak]

No one's spreading a rumour. I speculated it was a distinct possibility. Generally speaking, if one oil company openly admits to doing so, it's quite within the realm of possibility that other oil companies are doing or have done the same thing.

But, I'm sure XOM simply took every extraneous CJ-4 label for recycling, or ordered the exact correct amount for the life cycle of the specification.

 

[userfriendly]

...Your anything but a Ford Diesel engine needs an oil change. Walmart has 3 selections of 15w40 on the shelf from one company, CI-4, CJ-4 & CK-4. They could all have the same oil in the pails, but at different prices. So what do you do if you need CK-4, but only have enough money in your pocket for the cheapest CI-4?
Would you extend the service of the oil in your engine that requires CK-4, or change the oil using the CI-4 product?

You own a Ford. Canadian tire has 4 choices of 15w40, all CK-4 at different price points. They could all be the same oil in different containers.
You go to Walmart and they are sold out of CJ-4. Too many Ford guys shopping for oil today.

 

[1JZ_E46]

Has anyone actually done a side-by-side UOA on a Powerstroke engine to prove that CK-4 is inferior to a CJ-4?

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: 1JZ_E46
Has anyone actually done a side-by-side UOA on a Powerstroke engine to prove that CK-4 is inferior to a CJ-4?

What would you look for in the UOA to tell you that?

 

[1JZ_E46]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: 1JZ_E46
Has anyone actually done a side-by-side UOA on a Powerstroke engine to prove that CK-4 is inferior to a CJ-4?

What would you look for in the UOA to tell you that?


I guess I should have asked, has anyone actually done a side-by-side UOA on a Powerstroke to prove that CK-4 causes more wear than a CJ-4.

To your question, I would be looking for things like iron, lead, tin, aluminum, and copper increases. Would also be looking at viscosity stability.

 

[kschachn]

The thing is, to be meaningful such a test would have to be run under identical conditions which is impossible in everyday driving. You can do it all day long in a laboratory but outside of that I don't see what it would show.

 

[1JZ_E46]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
The thing is, to be meaningful such a test would have to be run under identical conditions which is impossible in everyday driving. You can do it all day long in a laboratory but outside of that I don't see what it would show.


One test case, yeah you're probably right, except in limited scenarios (delivery drivers with set routes, taxis, etc). But with a few tests, I think you could make an assertion one way or the other depending on how the UOAs came back.

 

[ArcticDriver]

Originally Posted By: 1JZ_E46
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: 1JZ_E46
Has anyone actually done a side-by-side UOA on a Powerstroke engine to prove that CK-4 is inferior to a CJ-4?

What would you look for in the UOA to tell you that?


I guess I should have asked, has anyone actually done a side-by-side UOA on a Powerstroke to prove that CK-4 causes more wear than a CJ-4.

To your question, I would be looking for things like iron, lead, tin, aluminum, and copper increases. Would also be looking at viscosity stability.


I think several Powerstroke forums will be posting UOAs in the coming months and years that will shed light on whether CK-4 oils were designed for the benefit of newer vehicles at the cost of older vehicles was a legitimate concern and if hoarding all the CJ-4 they are doing was worth the effort or not.

From all of the literature I have been reading, I would prefer to stick with the proven track record of CJ-4 oils at this time but I will remain open-minded and hope the UOAs for the new CK-4 line up have positive results. What choice do I have really.