CK-4 RT6: What have they done?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
8,361
Location
Michigan
I'll tell you what they've done. They've taken an oil I've run successfully for years, and turned it into some kind of a wimpy near-beer.

From Polaris Laboratories:
KV100: 14.6 cSt
TAN: 2.68
Silicon: 5 ppm
Sodium: 3
Potassium: 2
Titanium: 1
Boron: 186
Magnesium: 80
Calcium: 1978
Phosphorous: 944
Zinc: 1109

These are all the metals that were present. Where is Moly?
The zddp content has really dropped off.
Magnesium is almost gone, compared to the previous formulation.
This doesn't look like a long life oil anymore.

I think I need to start considering alternatives.
 
Last edited:
It's not surprising right? Environmentally friendly has somehow beat superior protection, and we have to live with the results of this policy.

Is the batch you test dual rated for gas engines and SN? Or still SM?

And is there a way you can change the title so it says "Roellta T6" instead of RT6? (for future search purposes -- we don't all know the same acronyms)
 
Before anyone else parrots the nonsense...
"There are things that don't show up in an oil analysis."
I agree with A_Harman. CK-4's look weak, and whether or not things show in an analysis or not, what we have judged by for a long time is long gone.
I must have missed the "Save the DPF's" flyers somewhere....
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: beanoil
Before anyone else parrots the nonsense...
"There are things that don't show up in an oil analysis."
I agree with A_Harman. CK-4's look weak, and whether or not things show in an analysis or not, what we have judged by for a long time is long gone.
I must have missed the "Save the DPF's" flyers somewhere....


So can you just spike the oil with a good zddp additive? Or is that not the same?
 
Yep weak. Still p!sses me off how they snuck this new CK4 in their CJ4 bottles for months knowing that Ford was telling their diesel customers not to use the CK4. I was a loyal RT6 guy - never again.
 
Last edited:
OP, where is your objective evidence to substantiate your claims that it is not a long life oil, or that it won't protect as well? If it is meant to be environmentally friendly, if anything, it will be a longer life oil. I don't see any current specs being less stringent than older ones...

I get it if you have some older vehicles, the zddp and flat tappet cam issue may be a concern...
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
OP, where is your objective evidence to substantiate your claims that it is not a long life oil, or that it won't protect as well? If it is meant to be environmentally friendly, if anything, it will be a longer life oil. I don't see any current specs being less stringent than older ones...

I get it if you have some older vehicles, the zddp and flat tappet cam issue may be a concern...


Cummins B-series engine has a flat-tappet cam.
 
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
I'll tell you what they've done. They've taken an oil I've run successfully for years, and turned it into some kind of a wimpy near-beer.

These are all the metals that were present. Where is Moly?
The zddp content has really dropped off.
Magnesium is almost gone, compared to the previous formulation.
This doesn't look like a long life oil anymore.

I think I need to start considering alternatives.


I dont understand why you are complaining. In the UOA you posted your wear metals are lower than previous samples. Other than a slightly lower TBN, the oil is working just fine.
 
Plating an engine only work if wire touch (main ground isn't enough to achieve this. Yes oil maker had to reformulate. We all see how oil do from now on with all electrical wire air gaped
 
Originally Posted By: czbrian
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
I'll tell you what they've done. They've taken an oil I've run successfully for years, and turned it into some kind of a wimpy near-beer.

These are all the metals that were present. Where is Moly?
The zddp content has really dropped off.
Magnesium is almost gone, compared to the previous formulation.
This doesn't look like a long life oil anymore.

I think I need to start considering alternatives.




I dont understand why you are complaining. In the UOA you posted your wear metals are lower than previous samples. Other than a slightly lower TBN, the oil is working just fine.


Didn't we all agree never to mention UOA metals as valid indicators of wear ever again?...I could have sworn....
 
Originally Posted By: yvon_la
Plating an engine only work if wire touch (main ground isn't enough to achieve this. Yes oil maker had to reformulate. We all see how oil do from now on with all electrical wire air gaped
 
Originally Posted By: czbrian
I dont understand why you are complaining. In the UOA you posted your wear metals are lower than previous samples. Other than a slightly lower TBN, the oil is working just fine.


Note the difference in P and Zn, between the UOA and this VOA.
 
Originally Posted By: Ducked
Didn't we all agree never to mention UOA metals as valid indicators of wear ever again?...I could have sworn....


My point is why complain about a difference formulation if we have no actual evidence that it doesnt work.
 
Just a note:
A few year ago, BITOG have seen an oil with NO detectable metallic element in compound** show virtually NO wear on UOA (that do not by nature evidence "rubbing" wear). UOA evidence protection. Though Acids would put metals in sol UOA eveidence THAT.
Copious H-O-H in sump can be bad stuff.

-Ken

** FUCHS (?)
 
Originally Posted By: czbrian
Originally Posted By: Ducked
Didn't we all agree never to mention UOA metals as valid indicators of wear ever again?...I could have sworn....
My point is why complain about a difference formulation if we have no actual evidence that it doesnt work.
I suppose it is because most everyone is skeptic by nature and so it must be proven to work...
 
Originally Posted By: czbrian
My point is why complain about a difference formulation if we have no actual evidence that it doesnt work.


Ford's testing. Doubt Ford tested RT6, but they certainly found wear problems with too much wear for certain new CK4 formulations per their statements. That's enough to make me a skeptic.
 
Last edited:
I see why people maybe upset but as stated earlier, where is the empirical evidence that shows this is not a long life oil or that it is inferior to CJ-4? Lets see some UOA's to prove or disprove this.

I certainly hope we are worrying for nothing as old stock CJ-4 will not be around for ever.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top