When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
No apologies needed! I run T6 because it's synthetic and my truck needs that for cold temp starting. It's also sold at Walmart and sometimes on sale. I have used Traveller oil products and am sure they are fine in your case!
I throw my hat in the ring here. I live in Montana and it gets cold up here. I have ran many different oils and weights. The cj-ck thing is not a concern to me. First off T6 5w-40 is awesome when it’s cold.... easier starts and quieter running. I do not like the 5-40 when it gets hot outside and oil temps rise. Seems to really thin out vs 15-40 which I know shouldn’t make a difference but in my experience does. Also price of the T6 is that a concern..... expensive! So in the warmer months I run T4 15w-40. I like it, it’s reasonably priced and available. Now since it’s starting to get colder I recently tried rotellas new T6 15-40. So far I love it. But once again price is a concern but for now I’m sticking with it. I ran LE oil for few years and it was great oil as well but I was tired of paying the shipping price and having to order oil to have on hand. Rotella oil is tough to beat day in and day out.
This article doesnt make sense against what i know in my feeble mind. I thought they reduced additives in CJ oil like zinc not to harm after treatment, however this states it has more of a robust additive package including zinc, and more aeration resistance (id think good for us).
Is the traveller not ci-4 plus? I havent been able to find out what that means in relation to regular cj-4? see the api stamp?
Good question—and one that hasn’t been explained in detail by professionals or lubricant manufacturers. We’ll discuss the benefits of CK4 vs CJ4 in a moment, but if you’re curious about the chemistry, the closest thing you’ll get to an answer is comparing labels on various heavy duty engine oils. You’ll find that CK4 oils tend to have higher total base numbers (TBNs). They are also higher in calcium, zinc, boron, and phosphorus. Plus, they tend to be lower in SAPS. But, considering those levels in CJ4 oils are fairly low anyway, lower additive content isn’t a huge issue.
Comparing CK4 vs CJ4
You don’t really need to understand the chemistry to appreciate the benefits of CK4 vs CJ4. The new oils provide better oxidative stability, more aeration resistance, and enhanced shear stability. In fact, in order to meet the CK4 oil API standards, lubricants must prove themselves through two new tests: the CAT Aeration test and the Mack T13 test.
This sounds like a good thing for heui engine? ^^^^^
Last edited by KubotaOrange76; 11-13-2020 at 01:16 PM.
Reason: eyes playing tricks, meant Ci not cj-4 plus
If anyone can help me understand something because I am confused, it happens a lot though...
What makes oil CJ-4 and CK-4 oil not CK-4 when the back of the bottle states it is CK-4?
Frankly, I will be trying the Travellers 15w40 and if the 7.3L doesn't like it, I will be going to Rotella T4, but I would like to clear this up in my head first as I am usually a stickler for the details. I was planning to use LE products, but as CJFarm11 mentioned it is a pain to get ahold of at times. CJFarm11 is one of the FTE'rs I corresponded with in order to get a good POC for the LE line of oils.
Non-CK4 comment from another thread when referring to the Traveller 15w40 oil (pictured below) blend for reference:
I meant it's the only CJ-4 "non" CK-4 out there....meaning they haven't gone CK-4 yet.
Images below provided as visual aids only lending to the education of myself and anyone else interested in the matter.
Hmmm, the last batch of Travellers I bought was CJ-4. Chris, are you saying you found the CK oils had more robust additive packages? I thought it was determined they had less? Thai would be good to know. If I had my way, I d go back to CI-4+ if it could be found LOL.....
What makes oil CJ-4 and CK-4 oil not CK-4 when the back of the bottle states it is CK-4?
Frankly, I will be trying the Travellers 15w40.
The Petroleum Quality Institute of America (PQIA) published the following test results of the CJ-4 (2015) and CK-4 (2018) versions of Tractor Supply Company's Traveller 15W-40 All Fleet Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Oil.
A comparison can be made of the back labels and the accompanying analysis report of each version of Traveller oil, as seen in the four (4) photos attached below. (Images and data by PQIA)
CJ-4
CK-4
The word "FORD" in the chart identification title is to denote that this Traveller CK-4 oil is listed and Approved by Ford as meeting WSS-M2C171-F1.
The PQIA erroneously described the CK-4 oil as meeting "SN." However, as can be seen in PQIA's own photo of the bottle of CK-4 oil they caused to have analyzed, there is no API Service Designation Mark that denotes this oil meets the SN standard for gasoline engines. This is a critical distinction.
By contrast, the PQIA is correct in describing the previous CJ-4 oil as meeting "SM." The concurrent API Service Marks for both Diesel (CJ-4) and Gas (SM) oils can be confirmed by reviewing the 2015 era label of the CJ-4 Traveller bottle of oil that PQIA had analyzed. This is again, important to understand. The previous SM standard did not impinge on the lubrication and anti-wear additive chemistry (or performance characteristics) that Ford required of diesel engine oils. So it is not an issue for CJ-4 oil to also have a service mark of SM.
However, it MIGHT be a concern for certain viscosities of CK-4 oils to have a concurrent service mark of SN. 10w-30, in particular, is a viscosity that shouldn't have SN on the bottle. However, with other common multigrade viscosities, such as the Traveller's 15w-40 oil currently being discussed, the concurrent SN rating may or may not be of any concern. It depends on viscosity, and now, Ford's own method of testing. That's why the list is convenient... it saves us from having to guess.
For example, owners of Ford Powerstroke Diesel Engines should NOT use the Shell Rotella T6 Full Synthetic Diesel Engine Oil shown below:
As a self-test to see if the distinction is understood, carefully review the photo immediately above to see why this T6 oil is not recommended by Ford. This Rotella T6 oil is NOT on Ford's list.
Now let's take a look at another well known name brand diesel engine oil, a newer CK-4/SN version of Chevron Delo 400:
Yep. That price was right. Just $5 a gallon for FULL SYNTHETIC CHEVRON DELO 400 XSP 5W-40. That's 10 cents a gallon better than @ArmyLifer 's recent score on dino 15W-40 Traveller.
There are now nearly 400 CK-4 oils on Ford's approved list. But this Chevron Delo 400 XSP Full Synthetic oil isn't one of them. And it isn't as if Chevron doesn't have any money to pay for the Ford test regimen. So let's take a look at the back side of that bottle...
Note the lack of any mention of meeting Ford's WSS-M2C171-F1 specification.
From the back of the bottle photo, it is clear that the multi use oils having concurrent designations of CK-4/SN simultaneously do not have problem meeting heavy duty diesel engine oil specifications of Caterpillar, Mack, Volvo, Cummins, Deutz, Mercedes Benz, Renault, etc. But Ford states there is an issue with Ford diesel engines.
What this could mean is that other engine companies may have invested more in the use of more costly, less wear prone, more extensively treated materials in valves and valve seats, cam lobes, injector parts, and other components, such that the need for anti-wear additives in the oil is not as great.
Or it could mean that Ford, which sells more units of diesel engines in North America than any other auto or truck manufacturer that I can think of, has more warranty liability exposure, since those engines, sold in the millions now, are warranted for 5/100.
Or it could mean that some oil companies don't consider Ford to be a big enough player in the market to be bothered with meeting Ford's standard.
Or it could mean that Ford really cares about us, more so than the other engine companies.
Pick whatever scenario suits your sensibilities.... but one thing we don't have to worry about picking is the right oil. Ford provides a list. If the oil under consideration is on Ford's list, then the oil has had an extra layer of testing regimen, which should offer anyone concerned about the CJ vs CK issue the assurance that that issue, stemming back from 2016 when CK first entered the market, is dead. Really.
There is no CJ-4 Plus standard (previously stated in another member's post that was subsequently edited), and there is no need for any oil formulator to continue to produce CJ-4. There is nothing wrong with CK-4. There is an issue with only some viscosities of CK-4 rated oils that have dual designations as SN rated oils. To my knowledge, those viscosities are 10w-30 and 5w-30, and any other viscosity, including 5w-40 and 15w-40, that doesn't also meet Ford's WSS-M2C171-F1 oil specification.
That's where Ford's list comes in handy, to identify whether or not any given oil has passed the test Ford devised to protect the way Ford engines are built. Or underbuilt. Depending on how blue one bleeds.
Im still not sure what the ci-4 plus means in the api stamp? does that mean this oil is backwards compatable up to the ci-4 spec (dpf friendly)?
CI-4 was introduced in 2002 in order to meet the then future 2004 US EPA on-highway emission standards which were in discussion since 1998 and finally enacted in 2002.
CI-4 was formulated to sustain engine durability where EGR is used, and in anticipation of the use of diesel fuels having less than 0.5% sulfur.
CI-4 is backward compatible with CH-4, CG-4, CF-4, CE, and CD, but over and above the then latest standard of CH-4 of 1998, the 2002 CI-4 provides additional control of:
low temperature pumpability
elastomer compatibility
high-temperature/high-shear viscosity
CI-4 Plus was introduced shortly thereafter, in 2004, to add increased resistance to oil thickening from soot (think EGR again)
CI-4 Plus also added more shear stability to the oil.
CI-4 Plus is indeed backwards compatible with, and meets all the requirements of the previous CI-4 standard.
@Y2KW57 , once again your explanation was very thorough and well written, but has raised more questions in my mind at least.
It makes sense that Ford has the CK-4 certification based on their findings within the PSD running conditions and repairs they are conducting on a daily basis. Was the 2016 update to CK-4 and the new WSS-M2C171-F1 list because of the newer 6.7L PSD's or was it because it took this long for Ford to say what should be used in the 7.3L, 6.0L and 6.4L PSD's. I don't know...
I took the snips that Y2KW57 pictured above and found them on the PQIA website. I then put them on a single spreadsheet to compare Traveller 15w40 from CJ-4 2/15/2015 and CK-4 6/27/2018. The snip of my spreadsheet is below... I have also attached the spreadsheet as for anyone that is having trouble reading it and is interested in seeing the data accumulated by the PQIA regarding Traveller oil from 2015 and 2018.
Now, someone a lot smarter than I am can tell me/us what the real difference is in the oil besides the numbers in the spreadsheet. What was changed that caused all the uproar from older PSD owners that claimed to enjoy the CJ-4 oil that they can no longer enjoy with the CK-4 oil?
Should and are those same people in an uproar using additives like Archoil or ZDDPPlus to enrich the seemingly substandard CK-4 oil that they are now being forced to use by the communist regime that dictates what they put into their red, white and blue smoke bellowing 7.3L engine?
Is the zinc level in CK-4 really that much less than what it was in CJ-4? Is 63 ppm less enough to cause an uproar? I don't know and I am not smart enough to know unless I read it or hear it from a reliable source.
Is the phosphorus level in CK-4 really that much less than what it was in CJ-4? Is 59 ppm less enough to cause an uproar? I don't know and I am not smart enough to know unless I read it or hear it from a reliable source.
Based on what my failing memory tells me, these are the two CJ-4 oil components/ingredients that are most desired, but I could be wrong.
Does a product like Archoil or ZDDPPlus really bring the CK-4 "back to the future" and restore the CJ-4 properties that are sought after? Is this really necessary when Ford says the newish CK-4 standard is what we should be using after so many years of not using this standard? I don't know...
My question which was quoted above by Y2KW57 was rooted in my own confusion as to how an oil can be identified as NOT CK-4 when it clearly says CK-4 on the bottle. I am under the impression that CI-4 was superseded by CJ-4, CJ-4 was superseded by CK-4 and one of these days we will have CL-4 and so on. But, I don't know every thing and I miss a lot, so maybe I missed something or misread the quote below, which is the original cause for my confusion and posting my question which led to Y2KW57 blowing up our minds, once again.
I meant it's the only CJ-4 "non" CK-4 out there....meaning they haven't gone CK-4 yet.
Are the seekers of CI-4 and CJ-4 wasting their time or is the CK-4 truly backwards compatible even though the composition/ingredients of the oil has changed with the newer PSD's coming out?
EDIT: I added CK-4 2018 Rotella T4 and CJ-4 2014 Rotella T6 to the spreadsheet just for comparison sake.
Traveler Premium 15/40 All Fleet Diesel Engine Oil meets WSS-M2C171-F1. So if you prefer a more expensive engine oil, that's up to you. I prefer to use Traveler as it meets WSS-M2C171-F1 and is much less expensive than name brand overpriced oils that meet the same WSS-M2C171-F1.
Go ahead, if you prefer brand name over lower priced documented WSS-M2C171-F1 - more good cheap oil for me!
I guess my TSC does not have CK-4 yet. The last 8 one gallon jugs I bought two weeks ago have CJ-4 on them...no CK-4 designation. I don't care. Oil is oil as long as it is diesel rated....plenty of good oils out there.
This is what I purchased today from TSC. IS This the older blend as it doesn't say CK-4. It was on sale for $14.99 for 2.5 gallons.
I will check the other jugs and see if the label changes. Just to confirm, this appears to be pre CK-4 and our engines liked this blend as it had good ZDDP.. Just wanted to make sure as I dont want to deal with the hassle of returning it.
It takes a long time for oil to "go bad", so there is no concern there from the CJ-4 oil that cclgeo has purchased and plans to run.
After re-reading the post from @Y2KW57 above, it appears that the "SN" identifier on the cclgeo CJ-4 oil is not a concern. The only time the "SN" identifier is a concern for us as diesel owners is when it is on the CK-4 oil and even then it is an "issue with only some KK-4 rated oils". I take this to be good and reliable information that I cannot and would not dispute.
Obviously the stock of oil that cclgeo found is good news for him, but is it bad news for ArmyLifer? Even when comparing Rotella T4 CK-4 oil to Traveller CK-4, the Traveller blend is better off in Zinc and Phosphorus (ZDDP). I found this to be great news because the Traveller is much better on my budget and cheap good oil is better than expensive good oil in my opinion.
Again, I get it that some people don't care and don't like to write out long posts that dissect the information and gets into the nuts and bolts or ppm of things, but some people do. This is how F0rdc0wb0y recently found himself with a Leece Neville 230A alternator under his hood a couple of weeks ago. This is how some people have found a KC balanced turbine with a Riffraff 4/4 billet wheel under their hood. So, please let the conversation progress if not for the benefit of those interested in the results (or lack there of), but for those in the future interested in the results that may find this thread in search of more information about "CK vs CJ oils".
-------------------------------------------------- In my mind, using the Ford WSS-M2C171-F1 list is a good start, but not the end of the selection process. Some people don't care about what oil they run, that is fine and that is their prerogative, I do care and need my truck to last. I don't want to buy a new truck and that is a good thing because I cannot afford a new truck even if I wanted to buy one. I am a details person, which is only one of the reasons why I made the spreadsheet above. I plan to see about finding other test results for other oil and compare the ppm ratings even if I have to hand jam them in. This to me is doing my due diligence in selecting the best oil for my application, budget and availability.
In my previous life I was told what to do a lot and was telling people what to do a lot in order to accomplish the mission. In my current life I can ask why and why not... So that is what I am going to do now and for the rest of my days. It doesn't hurt anyone to skip over this information or digest the information in order to broaden their knowledge base. They can choose to ignore it and stack in line single file like the general population does when lining up for food rations in a camp. Knowledge is power and ignoring the ability to broaden knowledge, well that is the opposite, choose your own word.
--------------------------------------------------
Back on topic, looking further into the ZDDP of the Travellers CK-4 vs CJ-4, which is the title of this thread that was resurrected from July of 2017. What is the breaking point of ZDDP being an element in the oil? Is it the 1129 ppm phosphorus in the CJ-4 or is it the 1070 ppm phosphorus in the CK-4? Is it the 1244 ppm zinc in the CJ-4 or is it the 1181 ppm in the CK-4?
Should someone that is running the CK-4 Traveller oil be looking at a product such as ZDDPPlus in order to bolster the ZDDP content in the CK-4 Traveller oil?
The ZDDPPlus site has this to say about ZDDP:
Originally Posted by ZDDPPlus Site
Directly measuring the amount of ZDDP in an additive is extremely difficult due to the mixture of different alcohols used in its manufacture, and the resulting range of atomic weights of the ZDDP molecules. The most common way to indirectly measure the ZDDP content is to use one of several ASTM test methods to measure the phosphorus and zinc content. Zinc can often be added to oils as an acid neutralizing agent, so zinc is not a reliable indicator of ZDDP. Since phosphorus is found in oils predominantly in the form of ZDDP, we use it as the measurement criteria for ZDDP. If you are using a phosphorus test result as an indicator, the correct way to state ZDDP level is to state an amount of ZDDP that results in a certain phosphorus level. Phosphorus is also the element identified as most potentially compromising to the catalytic converter, so there is a maximum 800 ppm or 0.08% phosphorus level specified in the SM oil classification. SF oil was in common use back in the time of older high-performance cars with flat tappets and higher than current valve-spring pressures. The best heavy-duty oils of that time contained a level of ZDDP which resulted in a phosphorus level measured in the range of 1200 to 1600 ppm. Recent testing of modern SM oils reveals that many contain around 600 ppm of phosphorus. Therefore, to accurately estimate the total amount of phosphorus in the final oil, we add this 600 ppm to the amounts due to the additives. Once we have figured out the phosphorus level, zinc can be calculated in the same manner if desired.
The anti-wear additive simply referred to as zinc by most car enthusiasts is actually short for Zinc Dialkyl Dithiophosphates or ZDDP. Its primary role is to prevent metal-to-metal contact between engine parts by forming a protective film. Despite being referred to as zinc, ZDDP also contains phosphorus, which helps to perform the anti-wear function in the motor oil.
If ZDDP is so good for engines metal to metal wear/contact, why on Earth would it be removed from oils?
The Valvoline site has this to say about removing ZDDP from oil:
Originally Posted by Valvoline site
With ever increasing limits on emissions, automobile manufacturers have tightened emission control systems on newer vehicles. This is one of several factors considered when the American Petroleum Institute (API) sets standards for motor oil with zinc. The current API standard is SN, which replaced the previous SM classification. Because phosphorus can poison a vehicle's emission system, the level of zinc is lower for current motor oil. Valvoline uses a new type of zinc/phosphorus that maintains the prior level of wear protection of the engine while reducing the impact on the emission system.
I would consider the Valvoline site a reliable source and would probably consider the ZDDPPlus site as a good source of information as what they have told us is somewhat common knowledge for people in the know.
So, what about higher end oils like Schaeffer's and Lubrication Engineers? I don't know what their ZDDP content is as I have been unable to find a breakdown thus far, but if I find one then I will add it to the spreadsheet in a side by side comparison.
Again though, this does not bring us to the breaking point or what is too little ZDDP for our 20 year old 7.3L engines. Going back even further than that if you consider the OBS 7.3L...
Do products like Archoil and ZDDPPlus really make much of a difference? I don't know...
Are products like Archoil, ZDDPPlus or even fuel additives like Stanadyne Lubricity Formula really worth the cost and effort? I don't know...
What is the breaking point ppm of ZDDP we should keep an eye out for when the next CL-4 rating comes out based on what the next round of emissions standards will have us doing? I don't know...
Granted, this measurement and breaking point of ZDDP is most likely engine dependent. Not 7.3L vs. 6.0L vs. 6.4L vs. 6.7L, but say FTN's engine vs. KubotaOrange76's engine vs. Y2KW57's engine. So, maybe there is no breaking point for ZDDP levels in a new oil, perhaps all of this knowledge is resting on a UOA baseline and continuing UOA from a reputable testing facility.
Is this a waste of time to ponder and research for some people, yup... Not for me though and not for some others that are genuinely trying to do the right thing for their 7.3L in this everchanging world of diesel engine oils. I welcome any discussion that anyone has to offer regarding these points that any of us have brought up in this thread. This is a great education and familiarization thread for anyone interested in selecting the best oil for their application.
11-12-2020 | 05:26 PM
