The Diesel Stop banner

41 - 60 of 122 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,028 Posts
Personally, I highly doubt Shell have been packaging CK-4 in CJ-4 bottles. That could create a law suit if something happened anyone's engine and it was due to this false labeling/advertising. Plastics can be recycled very easily now days, so, why would Shell risk a law suit? Think this is merely a myth following about the internet.

Why not call Shell and ask them?

Have a Technical Question about a Shell Lubricant Product?

  • 800-237-8645

Shells info page on CK-4


What is PC-11? Now Called CK-4 & FA-4 | Shell ROTELLA®
This issue has been covered extensively on BITOG and other sites.
There is no risk of a successful lawsuit since this CK-4 is considered a superior product and it DOES meet all the requirements of the API CJ-4 rating.

The only issues with false labeling are when an inferior product is packaged to indicate it has features it does not. For instance, if the CK-4 were not backward compatible (but it is) or if they had placed CI-4 in a jug labeled CJ-4.

Here is a deal for you. I will bet you the cost of an Oil Analysis that the new design gallon jugs labeled CJ-4 actually have CK-4 in them :winking:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,501 Posts
That jug in the photo is not a newly designed jug....it is the same jug as I have had on the shelf in my shed for almost 2 years. Doesn't matter to me, I have enough CJ-4 on the shelf for minimum of 3 oil changes.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,028 Posts
T-6 is great oil if FORD makes claims that LOW PHOS oils increase wear they had better be able to provide what additive level it was cause at, (NOT the rating's) T-6 has high levels of Moly, Zinc. which decrease wear and increase protection, even if the PHOS was cut for 900PPM to 300PPM T-6 additive is still one of the best lubes in the world... I believe this is deception on Fords part. Until Ford publishes the additive levels its just more corporate BS.
Yes, T-6 is an excellent oil.

As for corporate BS. Here is another angle on that. Its called Gov't BS and it trumps corporate BS most every time.

The EPA could care a less about keeping an old truck on the road. They are not interested in how much energy is consumed or pollution is created in the manufacture and delivery of a new vehicle. All they care about is emissions and fuel economy standards. That is their narrow focus--clean air and "energy conservation". One might even argue that the EPA has an interest in getting older diesel engines off the road due to their lack of modern emissions equipment.

Is running a 20W oil in your diesel better for the engine than running a 30W ? Most mechanics would argue that it is not; however, the EPA says it is because it results in better fuel economy.

Vehicle manufacturers have an interest in not having expensive warranty issues hit them over the next several years due to premature engine wear as a result of lubrication deficiencies of EPA requirements.

These are arguments that have been presented in different forums. How each of us wishes to interpret these different views and motivations is another story. :thumbsup:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,028 Posts
That jug in the photo is not a newly designed jug....it is the same jug as I have had on the shelf in my shed for almost 2 years. Doesn't matter to me, I have enough CJ-4 on the shelf for minimum of 3 oil changes.
The jug in the photo of Post #36 ?

You have had that style jug for 2 years?

I didn't realize it had been around that long since I was still finding the now old style jug until 10/2016.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
193 Posts
Yes, T-6 is an excellent oil.

As for corporate BS. Here is another angle on that. Its called Gov't BS and it trumps corporate BS most every time.

The EPA could care a less about keeping an old truck on the road. They are not interested in how much energy is consumed or pollution is created in the manufacture and delivery of a new vehicle. All they care about is emissions and fuel economy standards. That is their narrow focus--clean air and "energy conservation". One might even argue that the EPA has an interest in getting older diesel engines off the road due to their lack of modern emissions equipment.

Is running a 20W oil in your diesel better for the engine than running a 30W ? Most mechanics would argue that it is not; however, the EPA says it is because it results in better fuel economy.

Vehicle manufacturers have an interest in not having expensive warranty issues hit them over the next several years due to premature engine wear as a result of lubrication deficiencies of EPA requirements.

These are arguments that have been presented in different forums. How each of us wishes to interpret these different views and motivations is another story. :thumbsup:


I'm with you on this... We build (Race) engines and spec the oil to the engine....If you go loose 50W you go tight 20/50... don't this to your builder and its 10s of thousands in repairs. I know of many tried things already done thinking can over come change only to find out it thousands $ in losses.


Arctic I think you would agree With Me on this FORD should Publish the package they want, If the EPA/GOV has there's Ford has it clearly spell out. Ford playing the game of blame is My guest? What ha Think.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
348 Posts
  • Like
Reactions: ArcticDriver

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,028 Posts
Is there an assumption being made that the shape of the bottle designates the contents as CJ-4 or CK-4 ?

I have not read on any forum that the bottle shape is in any way indicative of the API.

Given that it is not economic or efficient for a refinery to switch formulas back & forth between CJ-4 and CK-4 products AND since its not practical to throw away thousands of plastic jugs simply because they have an old design, my money is that packaging does not mean much. This position is supported by oil analysis posted on BITOG.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
348 Posts
Is there an assumption being made that the shape of the bottle designates the contents as CJ-4 or CK-4 ?
Not on my part. The first jug I posted clearly shows CK-4 in the specifications on the Rotella website. I have many of the second jug on my shelf and have seen it locally at stores and none of them have CK-4 on them--only CJ-4. With that being said, it has been noted on more than one forum (even by Shell if memory serves) that the old jugs may or may not have CK-4 in them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ArcticDriver

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,501 Posts
Does it matter?...We will run what we can buy when the time comes...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
The Walmarts here still have Delo in the CJ-4 rating. IIRC, Chevron was rolling there CK-4 out in April.

Cale
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
348 Posts
  • Like
Reactions: ArcticDriver

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
Clifnotes version for the tldr posts:

Ford's Position statement on CK-4/FA-4
https://jobbersworldblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/ford-motor-company-ck-4-position-statement.pdf

FA-4 viscosity is too low for adequate protection. (Ford Believes) FA-4 has fuel economy benefits that are only witnessed in 2017 and newer designed powerplants. (Multiple OEM's)

CK-4 phosphorous is reduced to assist in reducing ash buildup in DPF systems. (check) Reduced phosphorous content in CK-4 application ~20% less, does not provide adequate wear protection. (Ford Believes)

There are CJ-4/CK-4 approved lubricants with different viscosity grades on the market. There are CK-4/CJ-4 lubricants that are cross applicable on the market.
API | Latest Oil Categories

CK-4 specification beats CJ-4 in:
-Stability and protection against oxidation
-Resistance to foaming
-Improved shear stability and film strength
https://commercial.lubrizoladditives360.com/moving-up-to-api-ck-4/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
348 Posts
FA-4 viscosity is too low for adequate protection. (Ford Believes) FA-4 has fuel economy benefits that are only witnessed in 2017 and newer designed powerplants. (Multiple OEM's)
As far as I have seen and read there are no Light Duty Diesel Ford FA-4 engines being manufactured at this point in time so it is a correct statement that FA-4 viscosity IS too low for adequate protection in existing engines. The arguments around CK-4 are a bit more nebulous especially since CK-4 is fully backwards compatible with CJ-4. Bottom line, if you have a warranty, then use CJ-4 (without the CK-4 designation on the bottle--which will be harder to find as time goes on) or use one of the oils that meets Ford specification WSS-M2C171-F1.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
As far as I have seen and read there are no Light Duty Diesel Ford FA-4 engines being manufactured at this point in time so it is a correct statement that FA-4 viscosity IS too low for adequate protection in existing engines. The arguments around CK-4 are a bit more nebulous especially since CK-4 is fully backwards compatible with CJ-4. Bottom line, if you have a warranty, then use CJ-4 (without the CK-4 designation on the bottle--which will be harder to find as time goes on) or use one of the oils that meets Ford specification WSS-M2C171-F1.


Lookout for "The Lion", possible FA-4 candidate in the future.
Ford F-150 to Receive 3.0L Lion V-6 Diesel
Ford Reveals 3.0L V6 Diesel F-150 | GM Authority
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,028 Posts
As far as I have seen and read there are no Light Duty Diesel Ford FA-4 engines being manufactured at this point in time so it is a correct statement that FA-4 viscosity IS too low for adequate protection in existing engines. The arguments around CK-4 are a bit more nebulous especially since CK-4 is fully backwards compatible with CJ-4. Bottom line, if you have a warranty, then use CJ-4 (without the CK-4 designation on the bottle--which will be harder to find as time goes on) or use one of the oils that meets Ford specification WSS-M2C171-F1.
Does "backwards compatible" mean "every bit as good as"?

Could CJ-4 be a superior product for older engines even though CK-4 is promised to be "backward compatible"?

My 7.3 was born with many modern day bad habits.

It was weaned on sulphur in its fuel.
It likes phosphorous in its oil.
It has no delicate DPF.
It likes 30W base oils.
It used to enjoy an ash habit in its CH-4.

My 7.3 has never been and has no desire to participate in this politically correct world.:grin2:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,036 Posts
I bought a 1997 Crew Cab 4X4 F350 SRW 7.3 brand spanking new in 1997. It has had nothing but Amsoil in it since new. It just turned 500,000 miles. I gave it to my Dad in 2002 with 300K miles on it. It has 4.10 gears and a 5 speed in it. Still gets 17-18 mpg all day long and runs great…NO BLOWBY whatsoever. He drives it almost everyday and still makes trips from Texas to Iowa every other month. Other than maintenance… a new set of injectors a couple years ago, a couple water pumps, starters, alternators, 1 turbo and clutch. No programmers…straight exhaust. I look forward to getting it back one day. Best damn truck I have ever bought….white and gold and still gets compliments everywhere it goes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
348 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
348 Posts
Does "backwards compatible" mean "every bit as good as"?

Could CJ-4 be a superior product for older engines even though CK-4 is promised to be "backward compatible"?

My 7.3 was born with many modern day bad habits.

It was weaned on sulphur in its fuel.
It likes phosphorous in its oil.
It has no delicate DPF.
It likes 30W base oils.
It used to enjoy an ash habit in its CH-4.

My 7.3 has never been and has no desire to participate in this politically correct world.:grin2:
Now Arctic--you know the score as well as I do! :grin2:
 
  • Like
Reactions: ArcticDriver

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,028 Posts
Clifnotes version for the tldr posts:


CK-4 phosphorous is reduced to assist in reducing ash buildup in DPF systems. (check) Reduced phosphorous content in CK-4 application ~20% less, does not provide adequate wear protection. (Ford Believes)

CK-4 specification beats CJ-4 in:
-Stability and protection against oxidation
-Resistance to foaming
-Improved shear stability and film strength
https://commercial.lubrizoladditives360.com/moving-up-to-api-ck-4/
Reactor,

Welcome to the forum !

I thought the amount of phosphorous found in CK-4 is quite a bit less than that found in CJ-4 products. Something around CJ-4 allowed 0.12% (1200-ppm) and CK-4 has no more than 0.08% (800-ppm).

Rotella T6 CJ-4 had 1200-ppm Zinc and 1100-ppm Phosphorus, which was already lower than the CI+ that it replaced around 10 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_Rotella_T

Of side interest is that the Rotella T-6 used to be very popular with motorcycle owners because it lacked friction modifiers and it was much less expensive than motorcycle rated oils. I wonder what oil will be used now?

Thanks very much for your posts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
Reactor,
Welcome to the forum !
I thought the amount of phosphorous found in CK-4 is quite a bit less than that found in CJ-4 products. Something around CJ-4 allowed 0.12% (1200-ppm) and CK-4 has no more than 0.08% (800-ppm).
Rotella T6 CJ-4 had 1200-ppm Zinc and 1100-ppm Phosphorus, which was already lower than the CI+ that it replaced around 10 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_Rotella_T
Of side interest is that the Rotella T-6 used to be very popular with motorcycle owners because it lacked friction modifiers and it was much less expensive than motorcycle rated oils. I wonder what oil will be used now?
Thanks very much for your posts.
Duly noted for the T6 info, seems to prelude the current trends: lower metal count, lower volatility, lower ash, lower visc, and higher HTHS. Phosphorous content is not solely indicative of wear protection/friction inhibition.
Here is a rudimentary video on the new split categories:


It is to your advantage to move to a CK-4 rated engine oil over the old CJ-4 rating for increased oxidation protection, film strength, fuel economy, wear protection, and lower foaming potential in nearly all applications.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ArcticDriver
41 - 60 of 122 Posts
Top