CK-4 vs CJ-4

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
1,291
Location
Texas
Is the chemistry on CK-4 oil better than CJ-4? I am assuming there are other compounds to make up for lowered Phosphorus, Zinc, etc. Someone perhaps thought adding some Redline engine break-in additive to boost those levels (I am not considering that myself). Was just curious if it is that simple or is the chemistry behind the two (CK-4 and CJ-4) night and day different? Appreciate it.
 
This is a great question and I have yet to see an explanation of what makes CK-4 a better product.

I respect the various wear test results but I wish the chemistry would be explained.
 
Originally Posted By: dblshock
but some are low SASP content.


SAPS stands for sulfated ash, phosphorus and sulfur.

Looks like the Rotella kept a decent level of phosphorus.
 
Originally Posted By: Linctex
Originally Posted By: dblshock
but some are low SASP content.


SAPS stands for sulfated ash, phosphorus and sulfur.

Looks like the Rotella kept a decent level of phosphorus.
Only the 15W-40 flavor if I remember correctly. The 5W-40 and 10W-30 versions are less than 1000ppm phosphorus.
 
I was going to run rotella but couldn't find it at walmart, so just got the delo ck4 one thing I noticed when changing the oil was that it didn't burn a drop compared to the cj4. Normally I'd be about 1.5qts low.
 
Originally Posted By: dblshock
but some are low SASP content.

CJ-4 and CK-4 are both low SAPS, by ACEA E sequence definitions. They all already had a SA of 1.0 or less for years.
 
Originally Posted By: Neely97
The ck4 Delo reduced the zinc so much I will stop using it in the Cummins .


Same here, waiting for the dust to settle and see some more "CK-4" VOA's to help decide which still has a strong add pack. There will be no "CK-4/SN" going in my Cummins.

I know Schaffer changed the status of there 7000 15w40 diesel to "race engine oil" and kept the Z & P ppm still very high which may be an option. Although the 9000 5w40 diesel went CK-4, waiting to see a VOA to see what may have changed.
 
It amazes me that boutique oil producers are still going to ck-4 ans not keeping both. I believe they will still sell the cj-4 oila
 
Originally Posted By: ArcticDriver
This is a great question and I have yet to see an explanation of what makes CK-4 a better product.

I respect the various wear test results but I wish the chemistry would be explained.



I've been giving this some thought since I have been using CK4 RT6 in my Cummins Dodge for about 48000 miles. I had a VOA done on the CK4 and was bemoaning the lower ZDDP content that has apparently dropped from ~1200 to ~1000 ppm. At the same time, TBN has decreased in RT6 from 10.6 to 8.8. Magnesium is almost gone, and Calcium has been increased. I think what is going on with this oil is that even though the antiwear additive has been decreased, so has TBN, by about the same amount (20%). It has long been noted on BITOG that Antiwear and DI additives compete for surfaces within the engine. So by decreasing both the same amount, the additive package remains balanced. High TBN is no longer needed in this era of Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel, so Shell is taking advantage by lowering DI additives, and then Antiwear in the same proportion. I did a 30,000 mile OCI on my truck earlier this year, and the oil still had usable TBN at the end. Iron wear metal has stayed about at the same as the UOA's with CJ4 RT6 that I did back in the 2013 time frame. I have 18000 miles rolled up on a new fill of CK4 RT6, and will be sending in a sample for analysis in a few days.
 
Last edited:
I have been on CK-4 since December. I have racked up about 70,000 miles since then, not on the same oil, just cumulative. I have seen nothing to cause concern. And that is in a factory remanned Detroit 60 originally built in 2000 with now almost 723,000 miles on the reman. Wear numbers really unchanged and still uses about 2 quart of oil in 22,000 miles like before. I use a 10w30 CK-4 in winter and a 15w40 CK-4 in summer. Except for viscosity difference, no noticeable difference between results.
 
Originally Posted By: mbacfp
Is the chemistry on CK-4 oil better than CJ-4?... I


Apparently, Ford Motor Company believes it's not.

API FA-4
Due to its low viscosity FA-4 should not be used in any Ford diesel vehicles at this time.


API CK-4
Ford will not be recommending the use of CK-4 motor oils in any Ford diesel engines,
new or old. Ford testing has shown some CK-4 type formulations have shown
inadequate wear protection compared to CJ-4 formulations developed and licensed
before 2016.
Ford now recommends using oils that meet...


Complete official statement:

Ford Statement on CK-4
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top