+100,000,000,000
Best synthetic oil for 2017 Ford F250 6.7L Diesel
- Thread starter trod30
- Start date
- Status
Here is a useful definition of severe service. Figure out your fuel mileage on the highway. Take a look at your mileage when you are towing. If you’re burning twice as much fuel as when not towing, that is severe service.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2010
- Messages
- 9,807
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Ford cannot deny coverage when you comply with the proper specification. They can delay coverage, if they want to, but an arbiter will not find in their favor.
Guess who suffers during the delay?
Ford cannot deny coverage when you comply with the proper specification. They can delay coverage, if they want to, but an arbiter will not find in their favor.
Guess who suffers during the delay?
My F550 is always towing and carrying a motorhome weight..9 - 11 mpg. I mentioned on here a while back the Ford truck center that did my warranty work doesn't even carry 40 weight. I got funny looks when I mentioned I was running 5w-40 and they said 10w-30 is all they use. This place works with severe service trucks all day long. What Ford says and does are two different things...I guess?
Last edited:
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Ford cannot deny coverage when you comply with the proper specification. They can delay coverage, if they want to, but an arbiter will not find in their favor.
Guess who suffers during the delay?
Who suffers during the delay? The consumer.
Who can also ask for reasonable compensation of damages directly related to any delay? The consumer.
Who can be awarded reasonable compensation for damages directly related to any delay or denial? The consumer.
Big corporations have a mighty hand and are sloth like when it comes to dealing out any justice. We all know that.
We, as consumers, also have the ability to seek compensation, and have been awarded as such. Informed consumers that are well prepared and understand the M/M Act (it's benefits and limitations) typically can fare well.
Your point is valid, but it's also only one sided.
I had actually been involved with a deep, prolonged warranty issue with a Ford back in 1989-90. I also fully engaged the IN Atty General as my advocate for a "lemon law" claim. I've actually been down this road; most here have not. I know what's it's like more than most. The process is slow, regardless of what you do or don't do; irrespective of what you use or don't use as a product. The inference I take from your comment is that warranty claims would be "slower" in regard to the grade issue? I can assure you that it's hard to measure anything slower than a process already akin to molasses in January ...
If we accept the concept that SOCs are to be honored if even lightly brushed against as an experience, would put just about EVERY user in a SOC.
- if you sit in traffic occasionally, you "idle" your truck. SOC!
- do you tow something, ever, regardless of how much it weighs? SOC!
- as you drive down a country road amidst the dust of a combine harvesting beans a few days a year, your "dusty"? SOC!
- do you haul some lumber in your truck bed because you're building a deck on the back of your house? SOC!
Etc ...
And I would have to ask how manly your truck really is, if it is engineered to a feathery edge so close that it NEEDS a syn lube to survive in life. If a dealer told me that the vehicle NEEDS a syn, and that warranty will be denied if syn is not used, I'd not even buy the vehicle in the first place. How manly is one's truck if it's rated to tow 30,000 pounds all day every day using a syn, but it cannot handle pulling a pontoon boat to/from the dock on a weekend jaunt using a dino 10w-30?
If we accept the premise that even occasional exposure to a SOC is a reason to always be considered an SOC for the entire OFCI, then 5w-40 syn should be factory fill, and it should be the ONLY thing on the approved F1 list. But it's not the only approved grade; there are lots of grades and lots of group II, II+, III, and IV on the list. Why? BECAUSE THEY WILL ALL DO THE JOB WELL. "Recommending" a 5w-40 is Ford's way of hedging a bet against itself in regard of it's own warranty risks; a suggestion that costs them absolutely nothing.
If Ford believed that a syn were truly necessary, believing that all of life is a SOC, syns would be factory fill.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Ford cannot deny coverage when you comply with the proper specification. They can delay coverage, if they want to, but an arbiter will not find in their favor.
Guess who suffers during the delay?
Who suffers during the delay? The consumer.
Who can also ask for reasonable compensation of damages directly related to any delay? The consumer.
Who can be awarded reasonable compensation for damages directly related to any delay or denial? The consumer.
Big corporations have a mighty hand and are sloth like when it comes to dealing out any justice. We all know that.
We, as consumers, also have the ability to seek compensation, and have been awarded as such. Informed consumers that are well prepared and understand the M/M Act (it's benefits and limitations) typically can fare well.
Your point is valid, but it's also only one sided.
I had actually been involved with a deep, prolonged warranty issue with a Ford back in 1989-90. I also fully engaged the IN Atty General as my advocate for a "lemon law" claim. I've actually been down this road; most here have not. I know what's it's like more than most. The process is slow, regardless of what you do or don't do; irrespective of what you use or don't use as a product. The inference I take from your comment is that warranty claims would be "slower" in regard to the grade issue? I can assure you that it's hard to measure anything slower than a process already akin to molasses in January ...
If we accept the concept that SOCs are to be honored if even lightly brushed against as an experience, would put just about EVERY user in a SOC.
- if you sit in traffic occasionally, you "idle" your truck. SOC!
- do you tow something, ever, regardless of how much it weighs? SOC!
- as you drive down a country road amidst the dust of a combine harvesting beans a few days a year, your "dusty"? SOC!
- do you haul some lumber in your truck bed because you're building a deck on the back of your house? SOC!
Etc ...
And I would have to ask how manly your truck really is, if it is engineered to a feathery edge so close that it NEEDS a syn lube to survive in life. If a dealer told me that the vehicle NEEDS a syn, and that warranty will be denied if syn is not used, I'd not even buy the vehicle in the first place. How manly is one's truck if it's rated to tow 30,000 pounds all day every day using a syn, but it cannot handle pulling a pontoon boat to/from the dock on a weekend jaunt using a dino 10w-30?
If we accept the premise that even occasional exposure to a SOC is a reason to always be considered an SOC for the entire OFCI, then 5w-40 syn should be factory fill, and it should be the ONLY thing on the approved F1 list. But it's not the only approved grade; there are lots of grades and lots of group II, II+, III, and IV on the list. Why? BECAUSE THEY WILL ALL DO THE JOB WELL. "Recommending" a 5w-40 is Ford's way of hedging a bet against itself in regard of it's own warranty risks; a suggestion that costs them absolutely nothing.
If Ford believed that a syn were truly necessary, believing that all of life is a SOC, syns would be factory fill.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2010
- Messages
- 9,807
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
If we accept the concept that SOCs are to be honored if even lightly brushed against as an experience, would put just about EVERY user in a SOC.
- if you sit in traffic occasionally, you "idle" your truck. SOC!
- do you tow something, ever, regardless of how much it weighs? SOC!
- as you drive down a country road amidst the dust of a combine harvesting beans a few days a year, your "dusty"? SOC!
- do you haul some lumber in your truck bed because you're building a deck on the back of your house? SOC!
Etc ... [...] If Ford believed that a syn were truly necessary, believing that all of life is a SOC, syns would be factory fill.
Ford "weasels" far too much on this issue and there have been many claims in the Powerstroke forums on the web of denied warranties due to this topic. It takes nothing (in Ford's eyes) to be in a SOC classification--run biodiesel? There you are.
I highly doubt that Ford would require a synthetic--why should they--the burden of the entire situation lies solely on the shoulders of the owner. For me, with the rebates and sales, there is NO WAY I am going to even consider saving $20 an oil change to use anything other than synthetic in my PSD. Everyone else must make their own decisions.
If we accept the concept that SOCs are to be honored if even lightly brushed against as an experience, would put just about EVERY user in a SOC.
- if you sit in traffic occasionally, you "idle" your truck. SOC!
- do you tow something, ever, regardless of how much it weighs? SOC!
- as you drive down a country road amidst the dust of a combine harvesting beans a few days a year, your "dusty"? SOC!
- do you haul some lumber in your truck bed because you're building a deck on the back of your house? SOC!
Etc ... [...] If Ford believed that a syn were truly necessary, believing that all of life is a SOC, syns would be factory fill.
Ford "weasels" far too much on this issue and there have been many claims in the Powerstroke forums on the web of denied warranties due to this topic. It takes nothing (in Ford's eyes) to be in a SOC classification--run biodiesel? There you are.
I highly doubt that Ford would require a synthetic--why should they--the burden of the entire situation lies solely on the shoulders of the owner. For me, with the rebates and sales, there is NO WAY I am going to even consider saving $20 an oil change to use anything other than synthetic in my PSD. Everyone else must make their own decisions.
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
...Ford "weasels" far too much on this issue and there have been many claims in the Powerstroke forums on the web of denied warranties due to this topic. It takes nothing (in Ford's eyes) to be in a SOC classification--run biodiesel? There you are.
Not that I doubt you, but I'd like to see these claims for myself.
Can you point me towards some specific threads please?
I want to understand the conditions first hand.
Are these denials based SOLELY on the lube, or other inputs that might be a more stringent reason of disagreement such as tuners, bio-fuel above 20%, etc?
Again, I seem to have to repeat this over and over and over again ...
In arbitration, and court cases, "recommendations" are only that, they are a suggestion and not (NOT NOT NOT) a legally binding action "requirement". There are scores of M/M arbiter rulings that have repeatedly shown that recommendations are not binding to the consumer.
Ford cannot "recommend" you do something, and then successfully defend the denial of warranty based solely on that. Assuming you were to use a product off the approved F1 list, they would have to show, as a burden upon them, that the condition necessitated such use of a 5w-40 syn. And if they can prove that, then the consumer is justified to ask "if it's so important, what is it not "required" and only "recommended"? To which the arbiter would likely find in favor of the consumer. The entire point of the M/M Act is to allow an OEM to protect itself from unlimited claims, but it also recognizes and defines the rights of consumers.
The concept of this is akin to criminal proceedings; there are statutory laws and then subsequent case decisions that refine those laws as interpretations.
In civil law, the same applies.
In warranty claims, the same still applies.
There are many warranty claim decisions from both courts and arbiters that define "recommendations". "Recommendations" are only that; they are suggestions that are NOT binding.
"Requirements" (specifications or "mandatory" statements) are that; they are binding in terms of warranty conditions. We're supposed to be informing people about the facts of this topic; not the emotion of how some are willing to acquiesce.
There is no reason you cannot "upgrade" at your own discretion to the use of syn 5w-40. But it cannot be a point of successful denial in arbitration because it is only a "recommendation". If Ford made 5w-40 a "required" fluid, then they would have to provide it as FF and then either disavow any lube not meeting that grade, or create a separate spec unique to that fluid that would apply only to the SOCs.
Ford is unwilling to pay for FF being a syn; they count on the consumer's ignorance of warranty torte law to skews things in their favor.
Generally, the small-market and/or individual consumers are the ones whom over-pay for over-maintaining their vehicles; it makes them feel good.
But it's not a mandatory condition in the least bit in the eye of courts and arbiters.
Goliaths succeed because there are too few informed David's in the consumer world.
Most bullies will back down if you are well prepared and willing to take on the fight.
A dealer is generally only an agent of Ford; a representative and not a direct employ. Dealers will tell folks all manner of garbage; it starts with shoddy sales, marketing tricks, financing gimmicks akin to slight-of-hand diversion, and it continues on into the service counter.
You are obligated to engage the dealer first, but they are not the decision point. If the dealer tells you something and you agree to it, well .. there you are. But they are NOT the entity that decides warranty claims. Ford has a whole slew of folks trained to deny you that at a higher level. But once you engage them, armed with facts and case examples, they realize they're not going to push you over easily and negotiate much more fairly.
Some of the more recent examples come from (not surprisingly) Harley-Davidson warranty. HD dealers push their branded products heavily; HD oil and filters. But they have lost a few notable arbitration cases in the last two decades. Dealers tell folks "You must use our HD oil and filters for warranty to apply" and the koolaid drinking faithful lap that up. But that is "tie in sales" and completely illegal.
Anything that is branded as "tied in" to warranty must be provided free of cost.
Anything that is "required" must be written as a condition thereof. (Specifications are an example; such as WSS-M2C171 F1 ...)
Anything that is "recommended" is not "required".
...Ford "weasels" far too much on this issue and there have been many claims in the Powerstroke forums on the web of denied warranties due to this topic. It takes nothing (in Ford's eyes) to be in a SOC classification--run biodiesel? There you are.
Not that I doubt you, but I'd like to see these claims for myself.
Can you point me towards some specific threads please?
I want to understand the conditions first hand.
Are these denials based SOLELY on the lube, or other inputs that might be a more stringent reason of disagreement such as tuners, bio-fuel above 20%, etc?
Again, I seem to have to repeat this over and over and over again ...
In arbitration, and court cases, "recommendations" are only that, they are a suggestion and not (NOT NOT NOT) a legally binding action "requirement". There are scores of M/M arbiter rulings that have repeatedly shown that recommendations are not binding to the consumer.
Ford cannot "recommend" you do something, and then successfully defend the denial of warranty based solely on that. Assuming you were to use a product off the approved F1 list, they would have to show, as a burden upon them, that the condition necessitated such use of a 5w-40 syn. And if they can prove that, then the consumer is justified to ask "if it's so important, what is it not "required" and only "recommended"? To which the arbiter would likely find in favor of the consumer. The entire point of the M/M Act is to allow an OEM to protect itself from unlimited claims, but it also recognizes and defines the rights of consumers.
The concept of this is akin to criminal proceedings; there are statutory laws and then subsequent case decisions that refine those laws as interpretations.
In civil law, the same applies.
In warranty claims, the same still applies.
There are many warranty claim decisions from both courts and arbiters that define "recommendations". "Recommendations" are only that; they are suggestions that are NOT binding.
"Requirements" (specifications or "mandatory" statements) are that; they are binding in terms of warranty conditions. We're supposed to be informing people about the facts of this topic; not the emotion of how some are willing to acquiesce.
There is no reason you cannot "upgrade" at your own discretion to the use of syn 5w-40. But it cannot be a point of successful denial in arbitration because it is only a "recommendation". If Ford made 5w-40 a "required" fluid, then they would have to provide it as FF and then either disavow any lube not meeting that grade, or create a separate spec unique to that fluid that would apply only to the SOCs.
Ford is unwilling to pay for FF being a syn; they count on the consumer's ignorance of warranty torte law to skews things in their favor.
Generally, the small-market and/or individual consumers are the ones whom over-pay for over-maintaining their vehicles; it makes them feel good.
But it's not a mandatory condition in the least bit in the eye of courts and arbiters.
Goliaths succeed because there are too few informed David's in the consumer world.
Most bullies will back down if you are well prepared and willing to take on the fight.
A dealer is generally only an agent of Ford; a representative and not a direct employ. Dealers will tell folks all manner of garbage; it starts with shoddy sales, marketing tricks, financing gimmicks akin to slight-of-hand diversion, and it continues on into the service counter.
You are obligated to engage the dealer first, but they are not the decision point. If the dealer tells you something and you agree to it, well .. there you are. But they are NOT the entity that decides warranty claims. Ford has a whole slew of folks trained to deny you that at a higher level. But once you engage them, armed with facts and case examples, they realize they're not going to push you over easily and negotiate much more fairly.
Some of the more recent examples come from (not surprisingly) Harley-Davidson warranty. HD dealers push their branded products heavily; HD oil and filters. But they have lost a few notable arbitration cases in the last two decades. Dealers tell folks "You must use our HD oil and filters for warranty to apply" and the koolaid drinking faithful lap that up. But that is "tie in sales" and completely illegal.
Anything that is branded as "tied in" to warranty must be provided free of cost.
Anything that is "required" must be written as a condition thereof. (Specifications are an example; such as WSS-M2C171 F1 ...)
Anything that is "recommended" is not "required".
Last edited:
I NEED a like button for dnewton.
As always, the lifeboat of reality in a sea of bovine scat.
As always, the lifeboat of reality in a sea of bovine scat.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
...Ford "weasels" far too much on this issue and there have been many claims in the Powerstroke forums on the web of denied warranties due to this topic. It takes nothing (in Ford's eyes) to be in a SOC classification--run biodiesel? There you are.
Not that I doubt you, but I'd like to see these claims for myself.
Can you point me towards some specific threads please?
I want to understand the conditions first hand.
Are these denials based SOLELY on the lube, or other inputs that might be a more stringent reason of disagreement such as tuners, bio-fuel above 20%, etc?
Again, I seem to have to repeat this over and over and over again ...
In arbitration, and court cases, "recommendations" are only that, they are a suggestion and not (NOT NOT NOT) a legally binding action "requirement". There are scores of M/M arbiter rulings that have repeatedly shown that recommendations are not binding to the consumer.
Ford cannot "recommend" you do something, and then successfully defend the denial of warranty based solely on that. Assuming you were to use a product off the approved F1 list, they would have to show, as a burden upon them, that the condition necessitated such use of a 5w-40 syn. And if they can prove that, then the consumer is justified to ask "if it's so important, what is it not "required" and only "recommended"? To which the arbiter would likely find in favor of the consumer. The entire point of the M/M Act is to allow an OEM to protect itself from unlimited claims, but it also recognizes and defines the rights of consumers.
The concept of this is akin to criminal proceedings; there are statutory laws and then subsequent case decisions that refine those laws as interpretations.
In civil law, the same applies.
In warranty claims, the same still applies.
There are many warranty claim decisions from both courts and arbiters that define "recommendations". "Recommendations" are only that; they are suggestions that are NOT binding.
"Requirements" (specifications or "mandatory" statements) are that; they are binding in terms of warranty conditions. We're supposed to be informing people about the facts of this topic; not the emotion of how some are willing to acquiesce.
There is no reason you cannot "upgrade" at your own discretion to the use of syn 5w-40. But it cannot be a point of successful denial in arbitration because it is only a "recommendation". If Ford made 5w-40 a "required" fluid, then they would have to provide it as FF and then either disavow any lube not meeting that grade, or create a separate spec unique to that fluid that would apply only to the SOCs.
Ford is unwilling to pay for FF being a syn; they count on the consumer's ignorance of warranty torte law to skews things in their favor.
Generally, the small-market and/or individual consumers are the ones whom over-pay for over-maintaining their vehicles; it makes them feel good.
But it's not a mandatory condition in the least bit in the eye of courts and arbiters.
Goliaths succeed because there are too few informed David's in the consumer world.
Most bullies will back down if you are well prepared and willing to take on the fight.
A dealer is generally only an agent of Ford; a representative and not a direct employ. Dealers will tell folks all manner of garbage; it starts with shoddy sales, marketing tricks, financing gimmicks akin to slight-of-hand diversion, and it continues on into the service counter.
You are obligated to engage the dealer first, but they are not the decision point. If the dealer tells you something and you agree to it, well .. there you are. But they are NOT the entity that decides warranty claims. Ford has a whole slew of folks trained to deny you that at a higher level. But once you engage them, armed with facts and case examples, they realize they're not going to push you over easily and negotiate much more fairly.
Some of the more recent examples come from (not surprisingly) Harley-Davidson warranty. HD dealers push their branded products heavily; HD oil and filters. But they have lost a few notable arbitration cases in the last two decades. Dealers tell folks "You must use our HD oil and filters for warranty to apply" and the koolaid drinking faithful lap that up. But that is "tie in sales" and completely illegal.
Anything that is branded as "tied in" to warranty must be provided free of cost.
Anything that is "required" must be written as a condition thereof. (Specifications are an example; such as WSS-M2C171 F1 ...)
Anything that is "recommended" is not "required".
Anyone familiar with our legal system knows full well that the letter of the "law" and the "facts" of a given case are often meaningless. If a judge doesn't like a particular side for political reasons, that judge will "find a way" for that side to lose, regardless of the facts and regardless of the law. Likewise, if Ford doesn't want to honor a warranty claim for any reason, it will "find a way" to deny it regardless of the law and facts. This is reality. Politics and practicality sometimes matter more than what the law actually says.
Certainly don't blame PSD2015 for wanting to have one more arrow in the warranty quiver. . . Following Ford's "recommendations" falls into the category of common sense and practicality which makes the truck owner look responsible.
Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
...Ford "weasels" far too much on this issue and there have been many claims in the Powerstroke forums on the web of denied warranties due to this topic. It takes nothing (in Ford's eyes) to be in a SOC classification--run biodiesel? There you are.
Not that I doubt you, but I'd like to see these claims for myself.
Can you point me towards some specific threads please?
I want to understand the conditions first hand.
Are these denials based SOLELY on the lube, or other inputs that might be a more stringent reason of disagreement such as tuners, bio-fuel above 20%, etc?
Again, I seem to have to repeat this over and over and over again ...
In arbitration, and court cases, "recommendations" are only that, they are a suggestion and not (NOT NOT NOT) a legally binding action "requirement". There are scores of M/M arbiter rulings that have repeatedly shown that recommendations are not binding to the consumer.
Ford cannot "recommend" you do something, and then successfully defend the denial of warranty based solely on that. Assuming you were to use a product off the approved F1 list, they would have to show, as a burden upon them, that the condition necessitated such use of a 5w-40 syn. And if they can prove that, then the consumer is justified to ask "if it's so important, what is it not "required" and only "recommended"? To which the arbiter would likely find in favor of the consumer. The entire point of the M/M Act is to allow an OEM to protect itself from unlimited claims, but it also recognizes and defines the rights of consumers.
The concept of this is akin to criminal proceedings; there are statutory laws and then subsequent case decisions that refine those laws as interpretations.
In civil law, the same applies.
In warranty claims, the same still applies.
There are many warranty claim decisions from both courts and arbiters that define "recommendations". "Recommendations" are only that; they are suggestions that are NOT binding.
"Requirements" (specifications or "mandatory" statements) are that; they are binding in terms of warranty conditions. We're supposed to be informing people about the facts of this topic; not the emotion of how some are willing to acquiesce.
There is no reason you cannot "upgrade" at your own discretion to the use of syn 5w-40. But it cannot be a point of successful denial in arbitration because it is only a "recommendation". If Ford made 5w-40 a "required" fluid, then they would have to provide it as FF and then either disavow any lube not meeting that grade, or create a separate spec unique to that fluid that would apply only to the SOCs.
Ford is unwilling to pay for FF being a syn; they count on the consumer's ignorance of warranty torte law to skews things in their favor.
Generally, the small-market and/or individual consumers are the ones whom over-pay for over-maintaining their vehicles; it makes them feel good.
But it's not a mandatory condition in the least bit in the eye of courts and arbiters.
Goliaths succeed because there are too few informed David's in the consumer world.
Most bullies will back down if you are well prepared and willing to take on the fight.
A dealer is generally only an agent of Ford; a representative and not a direct employ. Dealers will tell folks all manner of garbage; it starts with shoddy sales, marketing tricks, financing gimmicks akin to slight-of-hand diversion, and it continues on into the service counter.
You are obligated to engage the dealer first, but they are not the decision point. If the dealer tells you something and you agree to it, well .. there you are. But they are NOT the entity that decides warranty claims. Ford has a whole slew of folks trained to deny you that at a higher level. But once you engage them, armed with facts and case examples, they realize they're not going to push you over easily and negotiate much more fairly.
Some of the more recent examples come from (not surprisingly) Harley-Davidson warranty. HD dealers push their branded products heavily; HD oil and filters. But they have lost a few notable arbitration cases in the last two decades. Dealers tell folks "You must use our HD oil and filters for warranty to apply" and the koolaid drinking faithful lap that up. But that is "tie in sales" and completely illegal.
Anything that is branded as "tied in" to warranty must be provided free of cost.
Anything that is "required" must be written as a condition thereof. (Specifications are an example; such as WSS-M2C171 F1 ...)
Anything that is "recommended" is not "required".
Anyone familiar with our legal system knows full well that the letter of the "law" and the "facts" of a given case are often meaningless. If a judge doesn't like a particular side for political reasons, that judge will "find a way" for that side to lose, regardless of the facts and regardless of the law. Likewise, if Ford doesn't want to honor a warranty claim for any reason, it will "find a way" to deny it regardless of the law and facts. This is reality. Politics and practicality sometimes matter more than what the law actually says.
Certainly don't blame PSD2015 for wanting to have one more arrow in the warranty quiver. . . Following Ford's "recommendations" falls into the category of common sense and practicality which makes the truck owner look responsible.
Last edited:
+1 on the dnewton like button...always great info...thanks dnewton. However, given rebates and being able to stock up on CJ-4 5w-40, I am in the 2015_PSD camp at least through the warranty period. I stocked up with 5w-40 rather cheaply (which gets me past warranty) before I was enlightened by you all. Great discussion.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
[
If we accept the concept that SOCs are to be honored if even lightly brushed against as an experience, would put just about EVERY user in a SOC.
- if you sit in traffic occasionally, you "idle" your truck. SOC!
- do you tow something, ever, regardless of how much it weighs? SOC!
- as you drive down a country road amidst the dust of a combine harvesting beans a few days a year, your "dusty"? SOC!
- do you haul some lumber in your truck bed because you're building a deck on the back of your house? SOC!
Etc ...
Just answer the question in a way of achieving the rightful results. Like you towed a couple 100 miles out of 50,000 miles, then just answer no, rather than explain it.
[
If we accept the concept that SOCs are to be honored if even lightly brushed against as an experience, would put just about EVERY user in a SOC.
- if you sit in traffic occasionally, you "idle" your truck. SOC!
- do you tow something, ever, regardless of how much it weighs? SOC!
- as you drive down a country road amidst the dust of a combine harvesting beans a few days a year, your "dusty"? SOC!
- do you haul some lumber in your truck bed because you're building a deck on the back of your house? SOC!
Etc ...
Just answer the question in a way of achieving the rightful results. Like you towed a couple 100 miles out of 50,000 miles, then just answer no, rather than explain it.
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: NH73
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
[
If we accept the concept that SOCs are to be honored if even lightly brushed against as an experience, would put just about EVERY user in a SOC.
- if you sit in traffic occasionally, you "idle" your truck. SOC!
- do you tow something, ever, regardless of how much it weighs? SOC!
- as you drive down a country road amidst the dust of a combine harvesting beans a few days a year, your "dusty"? SOC!
- do you haul some lumber in your truck bed because you're building a deck on the back of your house? SOC!
Etc ...
Just answer the question in a way of achieving the rightful results. Like you towed a couple 100 miles out of 50,000 miles, then just answer no, rather than explain it.
If you answered "Only occasionally" (rarely, not very often, etc), then you'd not be in violation of the stated Ford use anyway.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
[
If we accept the concept that SOCs are to be honored if even lightly brushed against as an experience, would put just about EVERY user in a SOC.
- if you sit in traffic occasionally, you "idle" your truck. SOC!
- do you tow something, ever, regardless of how much it weighs? SOC!
- as you drive down a country road amidst the dust of a combine harvesting beans a few days a year, your "dusty"? SOC!
- do you haul some lumber in your truck bed because you're building a deck on the back of your house? SOC!
Etc ...
Just answer the question in a way of achieving the rightful results. Like you towed a couple 100 miles out of 50,000 miles, then just answer no, rather than explain it.
If you answered "Only occasionally" (rarely, not very often, etc), then you'd not be in violation of the stated Ford use anyway.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: NH73
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
[
If we accept the concept that SOCs are to be honored if even lightly brushed against as an experience, would put just about EVERY user in a SOC.
- if you sit in traffic occasionally, you "idle" your truck. SOC!
- do you tow something, ever, regardless of how much it weighs? SOC!
- as you drive down a country road amidst the dust of a combine harvesting beans a few days a year, your "dusty"? SOC!
- do you haul some lumber in your truck bed because you're building a deck on the back of your house? SOC!
Etc ...
Just answer the question in a way of achieving the rightful results. Like you towed a couple 100 miles out of 50,000 miles, then just answer no, rather than explain it.
If you answered "Only occasionally" (rarely, not very often, etc), then you'd not be in violation of the stated Ford use anyway.
The bottom line is the person needs, I will say have to, be not deceptive of the consumer. They need to ask those questions in a way that conforms to what the owner manual says. Instead of asking, "did you drive through dust?, it should be, Did you drive through dust? and How much have you?
Originally Posted By: NH73
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
[
If we accept the concept that SOCs are to be honored if even lightly brushed against as an experience, would put just about EVERY user in a SOC.
- if you sit in traffic occasionally, you "idle" your truck. SOC!
- do you tow something, ever, regardless of how much it weighs? SOC!
- as you drive down a country road amidst the dust of a combine harvesting beans a few days a year, your "dusty"? SOC!
- do you haul some lumber in your truck bed because you're building a deck on the back of your house? SOC!
Etc ...
Just answer the question in a way of achieving the rightful results. Like you towed a couple 100 miles out of 50,000 miles, then just answer no, rather than explain it.
If you answered "Only occasionally" (rarely, not very often, etc), then you'd not be in violation of the stated Ford use anyway.
The bottom line is the person needs, I will say have to, be not deceptive of the consumer. They need to ask those questions in a way that conforms to what the owner manual says. Instead of asking, "did you drive through dust?, it should be, Did you drive through dust? and How much have you?
T6 isn't the best 5W40 to be comparing to other diesel oils anyway-it has a high NOACK and burns off pretty quickly compared to other syn HDEOs. Need big $ oil to protect that Indian made crankshaft!
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Locked
- Locked