I just got finished doing a T4, CK-4 run in my truck and got my oil analysis back a couple hours ago - Quite pleased with what I saw. Once I get home I will be sharing the results.

 

Awesome, excited to see the results!

 

Looking forward to the results...

 

Sorry, got real busy after class the other night!

Here are my results, the only concerning number is the silicon, which may be due to either an air leak or all the prior injector work I had to do prior to running this change. The high Boron/Moly numbers along with the slight thicker viscosity makes sense due to the additive I used. The additive helped my idle shimmy a bit, but running Schaeffer's oil instead of just their additive has helped it significantly.

The left column is my truck after running CK4 (Rotella T4, 2500 Miles w/Moly additive), and the right column is CJ4 (Rotella Tripe Protection).

 

I look forward to the results also! But am I going to have to be an oil engineer analyst to understand it? I also have some questions I hope you folks will be able to help me get figured out. Maybe I am making to big a deal out of it but neither do I want my engine to destruct prematurely.
I have tried desperately to use some of the provided links from Shell & Ford sites among others to get answers but seem to be getting more confused on the whole subject. Here are the facts of my application: 2003 7.3 L E-350. Original owners manual called for API of CH rating. At the time Rotella's 15W-40 CH labeled oil was also considered as meeting (WSS-M2C171-E). I have been running (it) year round.
I live in the NE & oil change intervals make it impracticable to change weights for summer & winter use.
I'm VERY confused. Ford put out a statement, that IIRC said " I am NOT to use the new CK-4 oil. What does NOT seem clear is if they were meaning for just newer than 2003 (the new 6.....L line of engines). NOWHERE have I seen it spelled out in plain simple English words...."This applies to 2004 & up engines, Older 7.3's without DEF systems or catalytic converters are O.K. to use the new CK-4 designated oils in THIS WEIGHT!"
There is a REAL LONG lists of oils on the Ford web site. But if I scroll down to 15W-40 to Rotella brand it only lists TWO products...
Rotella T3 Fleet (don't know what that is). AND
Rotella T5 Synthetic Blend. (Not really interested in a syn. blend).
Obviously, as you see the old (standard) 15W-40 T4 (organic) is not included.
But if you go to the Shell "statement" site it reads like you CAN use the (NEW) CK-4
just as you have been using the old CH, CI, CI Plus & CJ API rated oils. This term
"backwards compatible" is added in there to justify all this.
Then a lot of information about soot reduction & lower viscosity's to meet new EPA regulations...
But when reading a lot of the more technical stuff written here by some of YOU GUYS, There seems to be the same level of confusion and distrust of just about anything you read from either Ford or Shell!
Oh, One more thing.....The new bottle of Rotella 15W-40 T4 with the CK-4 API rating does NOT list the FORD SPECIFICATION (WSS-M2C171-E). BUT it DOES bother to print/label that it meets a number of other specifications. Cummins, Caterpillar, Volvo Detroit & of interest (INTERNATIONAL), to mention a few. But NOTICEABLY absent from the list is FORD!
So with that I ask......
1. Ford saying NOT to use this in ANY of their diesel engines? (They have taken the time to put out a "statement" about (wear issues) but seem to leave a lot of unanswered questions.
2. Do I now have to start a search for a new oil to use?
3. Let's not forget the (convenience factor) of getting your oil at any Wally World or Advanced Auto Parts... in the area. Most of these places only have a limited selection for HD deisel oils in ANY weight.
4. Is the problem with this new CK-4 oil something to do with it being of a lower viscosity (therefor the wear issues Ford supposedly found), or is it more complicated than that? (The "formula" and lack of ZDDZ or other factors?
Can anyone put this stuff into perspective for me?
Anyone able to write in "layman's" terms.
I'm not an IDIOT! I can read AND comprehend the English written word.
I am also NOT a mechanic or someone that has any reason to have studied oil composition. Didn't live in the South and work in the oil field industry of anything close to that.
But it sure seems to me there is something VERY SUSPECT going on with this new oil specification and just what engines (new & old) can use it safely.
It all seems a bit to much like a (pay to play) situation.
ANYONE????? Buller? Buller? DDT

 

dieseldogtom,
The thinner oils are referring to the ones that carry the FA-4 spec, as they now come in 10W-30 along with some other weights for diesel engines (FA-4 is for next-gen engines only). A CK-4 oil weighted at 15W-40 is the same weight as a CH-4 15W-40. The main reason Ford shunned it was due to finding lower Phosphorous numbers causing sleeve wear-issues in the 6.7Ls.

Personally I may be going back to the T4 route dependent on what my next results are. If they show similar or better results, I will more than likely continue to run Schaeffer's vs Rotella. My results can be seen in my previous post.

 

So what is everyone running right now. I just used up the last of my rotella I had on the shelf in the excursion and the trucks due for a change this weekend. Let me know what I should run, I've used the rotella for years either t6 or the rotella ch-4 oil. Thanks.

 

Well there was just released a Ford list Dated 8-30-2017 that NOW includes the
Rotella T4 15W-40 Triple Protection CK-4 Diesel engine oil! So if (we) can TRUST these statements and lists I guess (we), that like the convenience and availability of the Rotella, Can go ahead and use it.
Thanks IDI-Charlie for the information. I am starting to get the difference. It's a bit confusing because of the similarities in terms between NEW API rating "FA-4" and
the ENDING of the Ford specification... WSS-M2C171-"F1".
Add to that needing to understand the progression of that ENDING part of the WSS- specification. MY original supplemental owners manual refers to a " WSS.... "-E".
Now that was printed for 2003 model year 7.3 engine. I'm not sure what the difference is or when & why it changes to the "-F1" ending. My assumption is that it came into play with the new line of 6 Liter engines.
Do you know what the progression of "-" endings has been since 2003?
Does it have any relationship to the progression of CH, CI,CJ and CK ?????
As I believe I have read elsewhere, There was never considered to be a problem with the CH, Ci, CJ designations (that would be, oil formula changes), As they were at the time just doing (something) that helped with soot reduction. There was NEVER this problem or confusion with conflicting statements between Ford & (some) of the oil manufactures as has come about with this NEW CK-4 (formula). This all seems to be a combination of issues from reducing the Phosphorous numbers which as Charlie mentions was the cause of Fords negative reaction to the use of the CK-4's. As well there seems to be the issue created because the (formula) of the CK-4 oils is being changed to (accommodate) the exhaust systems of the newer engines. I guess that can be read as their needing to keep up with the EPA requirements for new diesel engines. But that "requirement" and "formula change" may not have really cared to much about the needs of the people with the OLD ENGINES!
And I don't think it's above the Oil Companies OR the Vehicle Manufactures to (collude) or (conspire) together in an attempt to phase out the older engines.
You can see how easy this would be to do by not producing an oil that TRULY meets the necessary requirements of the older engines but DOES satisfy the newer engines that seem (by design) to run on lower viscosity oils (read as...meet EPA mileage requirements) as well as these exhaust systems with the catalytic converters and DEF additives designed into them (read as.....Meet EPA exhaust admittance requirements). All these things being the need for the new oil formula (CK-4).
But to (pacify) us who are trying to keep our old (polluters) running & alive they throw out the old "backwards compatible" line so we will feel safe running these INFERIOR oil blends (formula's)(CK-4) in our old polluters and we will never know that over the long run of miles that we have worn out the most expensive parts of the engine and ruined them to the point that it's just is not cost effective to repair them. So we will be FORCED to buy one of the new (environmentally acceptable) diesel engines.
Yep, I know, I sound nuts writing this. Such things just don't happen! Not in OUR COUNTRY! not with all the moral & upstanding CEO's & Politicians.
There are way to many people with their heads buried in the sand when it comes to understanding just what twisted & deep thoughts & plans some (think tank group) can devise. Oh, you don't realize there are groups of people who's sole purpose in life is to sit in a room and come up with ideas just like this!?????
# Sand/Heads/buried. O.K. Tinfoil hat off now and stepping down from the soap box. DDT

 

Please post a link so we can reference it. Thanks

 

https://www.fcsdchemicalsandlubricants.com/main/additionalinfo/dieseloilsWSSM2C171F1.pdf.

The list sure seems like it has grown since the last update. From the original Ford position statement on CK-4, it now looks like darn near anything will work.

 

I am still running T6, and have enough for 2 more oil changes in the basement. After that supply is gone, I plan to switch to Rotella T5 Synthetic Blend 15W-40 and see how that does.

Even though T6 is now on the list...

 

Clickable: https://www.fcsdchemicalsandlubrican...SSM2C171F1.pdf

Thank you.

With something as important as oil to our trucks, it's important that we always document any claims made by people or companies (ie Ford).

Sooo....

Was all this oil alarm just Ford making noise, or did companies have to adjust their formulas to get back onto Ford's list?

Red Herring comes to mind

 

Thanks for that list, I fully expected that things would be straightened out before my 2nd oil change (have enough CJ-4 on the shelf for the next one).

 

Just dumped in Mobil delvac 5-40 ck4 for the second time. I'm blaming my dipstick flange falling apart on the new ck4 since it happend the first time I ran it.... Not really. Was going to send off a sample for analysis but can't now.

 

I think this whole thing REALLY has been quite a scam! And I still think part of it is an attempt to eliminate any old (holdouts) of older diesel engines. The EPA has it's nose so far up the *** of the auto manufactures visa'vi Emissions & MPG that they forced this new oil formula. I STILL don't know what the FU#* to do or use, OR who to believe!
First Ford says not to use ANY of the CK4 oils AT ALL!
Then they start with a list of approved oils.
Then the list grows to include so many oils that 80% of them most of us have never even heard of!
Then they try to pacify us (older vehicle guys) with the old "It's backwards compatible bulls#*$.
All the while they (FORD) keeps whispering in our ear that to be safe we should use their Motorcraft brand and all will be right with the world.
I was in WallyWorld the other day and was looking closely at the available HD diesel oils available. Rotella 15W-40 (CK-4) was there in great supply. It also just recently was added to the (BIG LIST) from Ford. So I (guess) I could use that if I thought I could trust Ford or Shell. Then I started thinking about the (new) WSS-M2C171-F1 Specification Ford says the CK-4 oils must meet. And I realize I STILL don't know what the difference is between that and the 2003 SPECIFICATION WSS-M2C171-E
That is called out for in my 2003 owners manual for "oil needs to meet"?
Then I pick up a bottle of Valvoline Blue ???? 15W-40 Synthetic Blend and start reading it's (Ratings...). I see / read it IS labeled with the OLD designation of WSS-M2C171-E AND IIRC also said CH-4 (along with other API designations!
So I sit there scratching my ***** thinking maybe I am going to have to change to this Valvoline Synthetic blend vs. my old regular Rotella T4 15W-40. It was only about a dollar more. But I had to wonder when I came back in to Wallyworld 8 months from now looking for another 4 gallons of it if I would find it on the shelves.
Rotella is ALWAYS there. But Shell / Rotella seems to not want to write anything on their bottles (or web sites) that says it meets FORDS WSS..... They are apperently leaving the liability of it all to Fords list.
All I really (think) I know (or have learned) so far is that the new CK-4 oil formulas don't seem to have the amount of Phosphorous in them and this (somehow) is the cause of excessive wear. Now I believe that wear was in the 6.7L engines VALVE & LIFTER area (NOT the sleeve area), But who knows. And do I need to care since I am not running a 6.7L BUT a 7.3L? IIRC I read about this top end area ( pushrods & lifters) of the 6.7's being a known design deficiency even without the introduction of the CK-4 oils and their (reported) problems with supplying enough wear protection.
So why can't it just be spoken plainly by (someone).
Is the EPA creating such strict emission & MPG requirements that the auto makers & oil company's are at the edge of their technological limits?
Are they all trying to balance between the losses of (In Warranty claims) against longevity of their product and their reputations for producing a quality product?
FOR REAL, What the hell is the truth here!!!!!!!!!
For God's Sake, Is this Friggin oil change thing going to cause me a heart attack!
I'm embarrassed to admit it but I bought 4 gallons of Rotella a few weeks ago in anticipation of my next oil change and then found that Ford approved list that DIDN'T have the Rotella 15W-40 on it at THAT TIME. So I FRIGGING RETURNED IT!
A few days later I got the link to the "UPDATED LIST" and there it was listed now.
PLEASE, SOMEONE GIVE ME SOME GOOD INFORMATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DDT