Delo CK4 still a no go from Ford?

[Linctex]

FROM:

https://noln.net/2017/08/21/clearing-up-fords-diesel-oil-statement/


Clearing Up Ford’s Diesel Oil Statement
August 21, 2017 by Staff Writers
In the July issue of NOLN, page 34, in the article titled “The New Diesel Engine Oil Standards and Ford’s Reaction to them,” you’ll find the statement: “At this time, according to Ford, SAE 10W-30 oils showing CK-4/SN cannot meet WSS-M2C171-F1 and should be avoided.” This statement may cause some confusion for some, so we reached out to a diesel oil expert to offer some clarification.

Dan Arcy is the Global OEM Technology manager for Shell Global Solutions and has years of experience working with diesel oils and diesel oil specifications. Here’s his insight into Ford’s statement.
“The statement, ‘At this time, according to Ford, SAE 10W-30 oils showing CK-4/SN cannot meet WSS-M2C171-F1 and should be avoided’ is correct. However, as stated, it can be misinterpreted easily. This statement pertains to multi-vehicle oils that meet both the API CK-4 specification for diesel engines and the API SN specification for gasoline engines. The statement does not pertain to heavy-duty engine oils that meet CK-4 only and are not intended for use in gasoline engines.

The details:

• Ford recommends oils that meet and are approved against their WSS-M2C171-F1 specification.
• Ford’s primary recommendation is 10W-30 viscosity grade. (Ford also allows other viscosity grades, as long as they meet WSS-M2C171-F1.)
• Ford WSS-M2C171-F1 requires an oil to contain between 1,000 ppm and 1,200 ppm phosphorus.
• This is where the distinction between the “C” category (CK-4) and the “S” category (SN) is important.
• To meet API SN, an SAE 10W-30 grade oil’s phosphorus level must be below 800 ppm. (This is Ford’s concern.)
• An oil meeting API CK-4 only in a 10W-30 viscosity can meet the 1,000-1,200 ppm phosphorus levels required by WSS-M2C171-F1; however, it obviously cannot ALSO meet the less-than-800 ppm phosphorus levels required by SN.
• Remember too that not all CK-4 only SAE 10W-30 heavy-duty engine oils are approved against Ford WSS-M2C171-F1.
• For instance, Rotella T4 Triple Protection 10W-30, which meets CK-4 only (not SN) and has approximately 1,150 ppm of phosphorus, meets and is approved against Ford WSS-M2C171-F1.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Linctex
Delvac 1 ESP is for Emission control Systems Protection (Low SAPS) anyway.......

The SAPS is 1.0, just like every CJ-4 and CK-4 HDEO on the market, so nothing to worry about.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Linctex

• Ford recommends oils that meet and are approved against their WSS-M2C171-F1 specification.
• Ford’s primary recommendation is 10W-30 viscosity grade. (Ford also allows other viscosity grades, as long as they meet WSS-M2C171-F1.)
• Ford WSS-M2C171-F1 requires an oil to contain between 1,000 ppm and 1,200 ppm phosphorus.
• This is where the distinction between the “C” category (CK-4) and the “S” category (SN) is important.
• To meet API SN, an SAE 10W-30 grade oil’s phosphorus level must be below 800 ppm. (This is Ford’s concern.)
• An oil meeting API CK-4 only in a 10W-30 viscosity can meet the 1,000-1,200 ppm phosphorus levels required by WSS-M2C171-F1; however, it obviously cannot ALSO meet the less-than-800 ppm phosphorus levels required by SN.
• Remember too that not all CK-4 only SAE 10W-30 heavy-duty engine oils are approved against Ford WSS-M2C171-F1.
• For instance, Rotella T4 Triple Protection 10W-30, which meets CK-4 only (not SN) and has approximately 1,150 ppm of phosphorus, meets and is approved against Ford WSS-M2C171-F1.

It's still a Ford engine issue, and not an oil issue. Delvac 1 LE 5w-30, a low phosphorus CJ-4 lube, is technically suitable because of CJ-4. It was also on their "E" list.

 

[Weezybabydoll]

So 5w40 oils all meet the phosphorus rating? Correct me if I'm wrong but the only oil Ford was worried about was the 10w30 oils?

 

[claluja]

Originally Posted By: Garak
It's still a Ford engine issue, and not an oil issue. Delvac 1 LE 5w-30, a low phosphorus CJ-4 lube, is technically suitable because of CJ-4. It was also on their "E" list.


There is no reason to confuse people. We all know that oil is not on Ford's F approved list.

Also interesting that other engines (not just Ford's) are showing higher wear with CK4 with reduced add packs. CK-4 is big oil's play to provide additional protection to emissions equipment and cafe, at the expense of increased engine wear. Not saying this is a bad approach - but lets call it for what it truly is.

 

[claluja]

Originally Posted By: Weezybabydoll
So 5w40 oils all meet the phosphorus rating? Correct me if I'm wrong but the only oil Ford was worried about was the 10w30 oils?


No. Some 5w40s have P under 1000 ppm. If you want more than 1000 ppm P in a 5w40, use an oil on Ford's F approved list such as Mystik, T6 5w40, or Valvoline. Amsoil SS 5w40 also has more than 1000 ppm P. There are others.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: Donald
Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
Originally Posted By: Garak
Or perhaps Chevron isn't interested?
They did not meet the previous specification, so my guess is you are correct.
I use the Delo CJ-4 5W40. Still easy to find at Walmart. That meets the Ford diesel spec right?
I am are taking about the actual Ford specification which was WSS-M2C171–E (CJ-4). The new specification is WSS-M2C171-F1 (CK-4).

Delo did not meet WSS-M2C171-E so I have little reason to think it will meet WSS-M2C171-F1. In fact, very few (only Rotella and Kendall) oils that I have used had the WSS-M2C171-E specification listed on them. With that said, the "real" specification is CJ-4 and as long as you use that OR a CK-4 oil that meets WSS-M2C171-F1, you are all set in Ford's eyes.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: claluja
There is no reason to confuse people.

Tell Ford that; they've caused all the confusion. It's a CJ-4 lube and is therefore automatically approved, despite low phosphorus.

 

[claluja]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Tell Ford that; they've caused all the confusion. It's a CJ-4 lube and is therefore automatically approved, despite low phosphorus.


We all know that Ford doesn't want it's diesel customers using oil with less than 1000 ppm P. No confusion there. You have been repeatedly citing this single old unicorn CJ4 oil with low P (which is not on Ford's approved F list) for the past two years to create confusion where there should be none. Dont know what you have against Ford, but come on . . . .

Not trying to be a [censored], but this is not helpful to those trying to use this board to figure out what oils to use.

 

[mbacfp]

Garak is one my favorite people on here and is just showing how silly this all is. Trying to understand all of this is a fools game. Glad this forum is here to help.

 

[dustyroads]

Originally Posted By: claluja
Originally Posted By: Garak
It's still a Ford engine issue, and not an oil issue. Delvac 1 LE 5w-30, a low phosphorus CJ-4 lube, is technically suitable because of CJ-4. It was also on their "E" list.


There is no reason to confuse people. We all know that oil is not on Ford's F approved list.

Also interesting that other engines (not just Ford's) are showing higher wear with CK4 with reduced add packs. CK-4 is big oil's play to provide additional protection to emissions equipment and cafe, at the expense of increased engine wear. Not saying this is a bad approach - but lets call it for what it truly is.


To say that CK-4 is about "emissions equipment protection and CAFE" is just your opinion (I'm guessing that the Powerstroke forums are overflowing with such opinions). The new FA-4 spec is definitely aimed at improving fuel economy and the lower emissions that come with less fuel burned. The CK-4 is said to possibly help with fuel economy as a side effect of higher performing additives and not oxidizing into a thicker oil, but it's not the headline.

The CK-4 oils are still allowed the same level of SAPS as CJ-4 oils; nothing changed. The engine builders and oil companies worked together to develop oils to allow hotter running engines with longer intervals while still maintaining good wear protection.

The aim was for better oxidation stability, better shear stability and improved aeration control. There were a couple of tests added to the CJ-4 suite of tests, as well as new engine builder's internal tests. Detroit Diesel added their own scuffing test for cylinder wear. At the moment, the other new tests elude my memory but there were more.

Some oils are low phosphorus (800 PPM max) for the sake of claiming the SN category used with gasoline engines. It's not about protecting diesel emissions equipment. Again, the same level of SAPS is allowed in the new oils.

I am most happy with how well the CK-4 oil is doing in my truck. ( I happen to be using one of the low phos versions). I have no way of testing aeration, but my oil samples have shown great wear and viscosity control in long intervals. The heavy duty engine builders have increased drain intervals considerably because of the improved oils and I have results that show that they are working as advertised.

 

[Dak27]

Claluja, I use both Delo 400 15W40 SDE and 10W30 XLE in my Detroit diesel. I've been searching for data on increased wear numbers since CK4's launch, but I haven't been able to find anything.

If you don't mind, can you please post some links?

Thank you.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: claluja
We all know that Ford doesn't want it's diesel customers using oil with less than 1000 ppm P. No confusion there.

First off, I've owned and driven many Ford over the years, with mileage into the hundreds of thousands, and will drive more. And no, we don't know what Ford really wants here. Ford is okay with CJ-4 being used in its engines, period, without being on the list. And that is not the only unicorn out there with low phosphorus and CJ-4. I can provide an example from every major oil company on the planet and some not so major. Shell's, which is in my sump, is CK-4, though they probably have had a CJ-4 E6 lube in Europe. The confusion that Ford has created is that they claim a low phosphorus lube is not recommended for any Ford diesel, despite them certifying Delvac 1 LE on the last list, and despite that CJ-4 is already okay by them.

I just get annoyed that every twenty years, almost on the dot, Ford gets wadded up about HDEOs. This is the third go around I've seen. Last time, it was foaming. This time, it's phosphorus. The first time, it was even more confusing than anything they've dumped on us before, with warnings in the late 1980s about using dual rated engine oils in gassers, despite the fact that Ford lacked cats on many vehicles.

The confusion is of Ford's making. You either insist upon an oil on Ford's list, or you don't. You either accept API backspecing, or you drop API specs from your manuals. That's where the confusion is. Mercedes says use an oil on Mercedes sheet XXX.XX and that's that, irrespective of viscosity or API markings. Nissan says use one of these viscosities in API SM or newer, without warning against using SN or SN+. What builder since Kubota has ever warned against using a newer oil spec? At least they had the excuse that their engines could regularly be found in places without ULSD.

And as mbacfp points out, it's silliness. If Ford wants to insist on their specification, I'll back them on that 100%. If they want to go the API route and follow those rules, I'll back them 100%. This dithering position, however, is unacceptable and confusing. The OCD customers out there are confused and running to Ford to buy Motorcraft. The other OCD owners are on here. The rest of the world is ignoring what Ford is saying altogether, and the entire debate is being held in a boardroom of people who don't even drive these vehicles and have no idea what phosphorus is, and then, by proxy, in places like BITOG.

Additionally, I don't try to confuse people on the board. I've made my position very clear many times since this debacle started. I've told people to use an approved lube as their first choice. If they're not concerned about Ford's approval, my recommendation has been to simply choose one of the majors, preferably with E7, E9 ratings as well. Never once did I say that someone should ignore what Ford says and grab a low phosphorus lube ahead of every other option on the table. I've never once recommended my current sump fill, a CK-4/SN E6 for them, because it clearly doesn't mesh with what Ford thinks Ford wants.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: dustyroads
To say that CK-4 is about "emissions equipment protection and CAFE" is just your opinion (I'm guessing that the Powerstroke forums are overflowing with such opinions).

Exactly. CK-4 doesn't reduce HTHS, doesn't reduce phosphorus, and doesn't reduce SA.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Garak
The first time, it was even more confusing than anything they've dumped on us before, with warnings in the late 1980s about using dual rated engine oils in gassers, despite the fact that Ford lacked cats on many vehicles.

My typo, should have read, "with warnings in the early/mid 1980s...."