No conspiracy theory here.
I just believe that the change is an
effort by oil manufacturers to help increase the
MPG capabilities... For the upcoming EPA mandated MPG requirements for light duty diesel trucks. SO how is that not government
involvement.

 

I posted API's stated reason for the new CK-4 specification.

If that smack's of government regulations and/or mandates to you, then so be it.

As I said, my purpose in life is not to convince you otherwise.

 

From API.org About Us page:

We speak for the oil and natural gas industry to the public, Congress and the Executive Branch, state governments and the media. We negotiate with regulatory agencies, represent the industry in legal proceedings, participate in coalitions and work in partnership with other associations to achieve our members’ public policy goals.

How can you say that no one is mandating anything? I have an engine in my truck that was designed to work with CJ-4 oil and Ford has demonstrated that the CK-4 standard does not provide adequate protection. So I go to Walmart, Amazon, Napa, Autozone, and everyone else only to find out CJ-4 oil is no longer available. The labels on the oil I can find tells me not to worry about this new watery stuff because it is backward compatible.

I'm not talking hypotheticals or CH-4 here. I'm talking about an engine that was designed to work with CJ-4 and does not last as long on CK-4. There is no way anyone can tell me that this is a market-driven product or an industry trying to make their products better. API's own statement says it works closely with the gubmint in "negotiations". That's just another way of saying that the mandate comes down and the API gets everyone together for a hand holding session and tries to minimize the damage. The API is far from independent and is becoming part of the problem.

 

No you didn't. You ignored the reason for CK4 and posted their justification.

 

You are correct. There is that government mandate again.

I guess the parts about engine wear, shear/viscosity stability, oil aeration and piston deposits are of minor importance.

But as I have said, if you believe that the new CK-4 designation is solely the result of a government mandate, OK by me, I will still sleep very soundly tonight.

 

You question the veracity of my statement then post a blatant falsehood yourself.

The list of CK-4 oils approved by Ford is several pages long. Buy anyone of them and you will be just fine.

Ford has never said all CK-4 oils are bad. Only some of them.

What you are saying, in essence, is that the fact that several oil manufacturers (Shell Rotella, for example) screwed up and started selling oil that does not meet Ford's specifications is the result of government action.

Conceding for the sake of argument that CK-4 oil is the result of a government mandate, Rotella T6 not meeting Ford's specs is a result of a f*** up at Shell, not Washington, DC.

But if it makes you feel better to blame the government, please go right ahead.

 

If you believe that an industry trade group lobbying for/against and negotiating rules and regulations with the government is the same as the government rule making by mandate, who am I to disagree?

 

WELL this part of the statement seems to be the part that goes along with your agenda or point of view and not the hole story.
But hey there is a lot of that going around today.



But I'll sleep good also!!!

 

If you consider the mpg and emissions regulations that were negotiated between the government and manufactures a mandate, the fact that the industry members of the API decided, among other changes, to reformulate the oil specifications to help meet this mandate still does not demonstrate that the oil specifications were a direct result of the mandate.

To simplify, the government never told API to come up with CK-4. API came up with CK-4 all on its own albeit to help engine manufactures meet other government regulations.

So to say the government specifically mandated CK-4 is quite a stretch.

And it is even a further stretch to suggest that some oil blenders screwing up and missing Ford's spec is a direct result of any government action.

 

I'm sleeping good tonight also. I've got enough 5w-40 CJ-4 to do 7 more oil changes. That should get me thru 2 years and enough time for this to sort out.

 

My initial comment was simply a complaint that the CK-4 spec exists only because government MANDATED specifications exist. CK-4 is the industry's response to the requirement and is not a market driven product. It's not a stretch at all. Rather it is a direct result of the EPA's requirements. The industry has been compelled to develop and deliver CK-4 in an attempt to comply. I personally prefer engineering solutions, not political ones.

 

Ford says you can use a CK-4 oil that meets their latest oil specification Ford WSS-M2C171-F1

Here's the links to Shells oil OEM Specifications that meet Ford WSS-M2C171-F1:


Shell ROTELLA® T5 Synthetic Blend Heavy Duty Engine Oil | Shell ROTELLA®


Shell ROTELLA® T4 Triple Protection | Shell ROTELLA®

 

WSS-M2C171-F1 contains all the requirements of CK- 4 with additional Ford requirements for added engine protection.

 

Very well said. Lots of false info being posted about CK-4 oils not being approved. I don't know how many threads I have posted the list. But EpicCowlick keeps posting false info about the CK-4. The list is very clear of which CK-4s are approved by FORD!!!

I wish the mods would Pin the posts with the list of CK-4/ WSS-M2C171-F1 oils that are approved and we wouldn't be beating a deadhorse.

 

To be clear, my position is a wait and see with regards to the new spec. My opinion was formed by the first letter Ford published last fall which was very clear than ALL CK-4 oils were not approved due to insufficient wear protection. Ford even made a video with a CK-4 symbol that had a big red circle with a line through it. That left a pretty clear impression. Their opinion was based on actual testing in various diesel engines. In some other document (which I don't want to look up now) equated the new formulation to a 0W oil. That was also a flinch moment.

Step forward a couple of months and Ford releases the list you are referring to that identifies acceptable CK-4 formulations. So what changed between fall and January? Did they test each of those oils in engines or did they evaluate them some other way? Did Ford have to lower their wear standards so the new oil will pass? I have no idea but there are simply too many questions. When new information becomes available, we can take it all in then. But for now, I'm using the oil that the engine designers intended. There is no false information here, just observations.