Not sure where this fits into the equation - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAdGTsOeQVQ
Did oil really get better?
- Thread starter jfairchild327
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted by ofelas
Ah, dustyroads, gotcha re the DD13, thought you were speaking about the F150 in your signature
BTW, there's CK4 oils with plenty zinc & phos too, I don't believe the 40 grades are are subject to the low levels restriction?
Right, the 5W-40 and 15W-40 oils are limited to 1200 ppm phosphorus. I had contemplated trying Delo XLE in my F150, but I'm very happy with Castrol Edge in the coyote.
Originally Posted by ofelas
Not sure where this fits into the equation - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAdGTsOeQVQ
As much as I like CK-4 oils, even I wouldn't use it for a high performance gas engine with flat tappets during a break in, nor after break in. I'd use an application specific oil for such an engine. His mentioning that CK-4 oil produced/allowed twice as much wear as CJ-4, well..... He left the door wide open with no information whatsoever. I didn't see any signs of a follow up, either.
Maybe the day will come when I truly regret using the low P oils, but it sure seems to be working fine so far. The proclaimed benefit of improved oxidation stability is proving true in my usage of CK-4.
Ah, dustyroads, gotcha re the DD13, thought you were speaking about the F150 in your signature
BTW, there's CK4 oils with plenty zinc & phos too, I don't believe the 40 grades are are subject to the low levels restriction?
Right, the 5W-40 and 15W-40 oils are limited to 1200 ppm phosphorus. I had contemplated trying Delo XLE in my F150, but I'm very happy with Castrol Edge in the coyote.
Originally Posted by ofelas
Not sure where this fits into the equation - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAdGTsOeQVQ
As much as I like CK-4 oils, even I wouldn't use it for a high performance gas engine with flat tappets during a break in, nor after break in. I'd use an application specific oil for such an engine. His mentioning that CK-4 oil produced/allowed twice as much wear as CJ-4, well..... He left the door wide open with no information whatsoever. I didn't see any signs of a follow up, either.
Maybe the day will come when I truly regret using the low P oils, but it sure seems to be working fine so far. The proclaimed benefit of improved oxidation stability is proving true in my usage of CK-4.
To clear up my own words above, any CK-4 oil can use as much as 1200 ppm of phosphorus. It's only if it's XW-30, that it's limited to a maximum 800 ppm of P if the blender wants to add the SN rating.
Interesting, especially the oxidation stability, which I don't seem to wrap my head around.
The current CK4 0w40 HDEO in my flat tappet 91 6bt (signature below) has 1200/1300/100 of Phos/Zinc/Boron.
It also has an SN+ rating, which befuddles me.
Duly noted as far as that youtube blanket statement + non-follow up video goes.
The current CK4 0w40 HDEO in my flat tappet 91 6bt (signature below) has 1200/1300/100 of Phos/Zinc/Boron.
It also has an SN+ rating, which befuddles me.
Duly noted as far as that youtube blanket statement + non-follow up video goes.
Originally Posted by ofelas
Interesting, especially the oxidation stability, which I don't seem to wrap my head around.
What do you mean? How it's accomplished or something else?
All I know, is that CJ-4 seemed to be improved over CI-4/CI-4+ with regards to thickening and CK-4 is just amazing. For my Detroit DD13, the CJ-4 recommended OCI was 50k miles or 1200 hours. Because of the improved oxidation resistance of CK-4, the interval went up to 55k-65k miles with no limit on the number of hours. I still haven't come close to the limit of what the oil can do.
Interesting, especially the oxidation stability, which I don't seem to wrap my head around.
What do you mean? How it's accomplished or something else?
All I know, is that CJ-4 seemed to be improved over CI-4/CI-4+ with regards to thickening and CK-4 is just amazing. For my Detroit DD13, the CJ-4 recommended OCI was 50k miles or 1200 hours. Because of the improved oxidation resistance of CK-4, the interval went up to 55k-65k miles with no limit on the number of hours. I still haven't come close to the limit of what the oil can do.
I am OCD enough to drain the 6 month old 0w40 CK4 DZF from the first vehicle in my signature, and replace it with CI4+ 15w40 AME.
Only because I found a couple more cases of the AME in one of the sheds.
It's going to be a hard weekend fighting the above impulse.
Only because I found a couple more cases of the AME in one of the sheds.
It's going to be a hard weekend fighting the above impulse.
Originally Posted by jfairchild327
Looking at the old CI oil I use, the Zinc and Phosphorus levels were around 1600/1400. And calcium was around 3500. Now the CK oil is 1000/900 and calcium around 2000. Delo and Delvac even lower. So my question is, how is this better? I understand new equipment might have different engine designs, but what about the older stuff?
I guess one would ask the question back of -
Why would one think Zinc and Phos of around 1600/1400 , calcium around 3500 better?
After oil, the best anti wear agent in any engine is the oil itself, so maybe todays oil is better refined, better film strength, better resistance to oxidation and better additives then those old school additives that you mention.
)
Looking at the old CI oil I use, the Zinc and Phosphorus levels were around 1600/1400. And calcium was around 3500. Now the CK oil is 1000/900 and calcium around 2000. Delo and Delvac even lower. So my question is, how is this better? I understand new equipment might have different engine designs, but what about the older stuff?
I guess one would ask the question back of -
Why would one think Zinc and Phos of around 1600/1400 , calcium around 3500 better?
After oil, the best anti wear agent in any engine is the oil itself, so maybe todays oil is better refined, better film strength, better resistance to oxidation and better additives then those old school additives that you mention.
)
Originally Posted by Garak
Originally Posted by racin4ds
Now its all about EPA, economy, don't pollute the CAT or DPF etc.
The OEMs wanted that, not the EPA, particularly with respect to cat, DPF, and so forth.
Uh......no.
If the EPA etc didn't set the rules the OEM's would still be selling us truck engines without DPF's etc. that had fuel consumption numbers under .3 lbs/hp/hr...like the .295 a 1995 Detroit Series 60 could get (and live for a million)..engines customers loved. Now a very good engine will get around .34 lbs/hr/hr and spend (if you get a good one) around 10% of it's life in for emission system repairs and we are told to be happy about it.
Originally Posted by racin4ds
Now its all about EPA, economy, don't pollute the CAT or DPF etc.
The OEMs wanted that, not the EPA, particularly with respect to cat, DPF, and so forth.
Uh......no.
If the EPA etc didn't set the rules the OEM's would still be selling us truck engines without DPF's etc. that had fuel consumption numbers under .3 lbs/hp/hr...like the .295 a 1995 Detroit Series 60 could get (and live for a million)..engines customers loved. Now a very good engine will get around .34 lbs/hr/hr and spend (if you get a good one) around 10% of it's life in for emission system repairs and we are told to be happy about it.
I agree the OEMs didn't want the emissions controls. What I meant was that the OEMs wanted to ensure the the oils were not polluting said emissions controls, since the warranty on such items is significantly long. The OEMs are responsible to meet emissions targets and emissions systems warranties. They have reasonable latitude with how they accomplish that, and that includes lubrication specification.
The real question to ask, does it make the oil better by removing all the good old additives of years past? So which would be better oil with zero additive package or with a good additive package? I'd say they are slowly approaching a zero additive package as years go by. I guess that is one way to be sure the internal combustion engines are all gone in the future.
I don't think they are passing the wear tests set up in older iterations by removing those "good old additives of years past" without also adding something different to compensate.
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
