CK vs CJ oil
#46
I would welcome that and any other oil to the spreadsheet I have built and posted as an image and attachment above. I checked the PQIA site and around the interwebs for a moment, but was not able to find a CI-4 ppm chart as of yet.
#48
Directly measuring the amount of ZDDP in an additive is extremely difficult due to the mixture of different alcohols used in its manufacture
It isn't so much that the mere presence of phosphorus is bad... it is that phosphorus can partially volatize during engine operation, and volatile phosphorus in the exhaust output poisons the expensive catalysts in the exhaust after-treatment systems that are mandated to remain effective at reducing emissions for between 100,000 to 150,000 miles, depending on vehicle class and area of jurisdiction. For purposes of distinguishing the presence of phosphorus (effective contributor to anti wear properties) from the volatization of phosphorus (effective destroyer of exhaust catalysts), let us use an academic acronym called PEI, which stands for Phosphorus Emissions Index, to denote the bad aspect of phosphorus in engine oils.
It is at the point where 7.3L owners wish to turn away and tune out this part of the discussion. Since many (but not all) 7.3L owners don't have diesel aftertreatment systems, they couldn't care less about poisoning catalysts, (Certain 7.3L's were equipped with a DOC, depending on transmission, year, and state where originally sold). But this discussion is ultimately about the balance of chemistry of oil, which makes what oil refiners do to the oil relevant to even those of us who don't have any of the aftertreatment systems that the newer oils were formulated to protect.
So, hear this out, as what remains of this very narrow window of an example is quite brief.
One would logically think that less phosphorus = less volatization of phosphorus = less PEI. Right? Not so! The obvious logic proved not to be true. I say "proved" because this was actually tested in the field, not just theorized and instrumented in a chemistry lab. And Ford Motor Company was principally involved in the field testing that proved the following shocking revelation: Phosphorus volatility is not related to engine oil volatility, nor is it related to phosphorus content in the engine oil. Wow!
So having lots of good stuff does not directly correlate to having lots of bad consequences.
A timely analogy might be like collecting an entire pillow case full of Halloween candy does not directly correlate to getting a mouth full of cavities, even if one eats all the candy in the pillow case. There are other factors involved here. Perhaps the type of toothpaste. Or if a glass of water is consumed between each piece of candy. Or the amount of calcium and other minerals consumed in the diet. Intervals of time between consumption. In other words, the cause of a given effect is more complex than just the presence or lack thereof of any given element. It is how all interacting elements work with and against each other in combination. It is chemistry.
In the present case of the narrow consideration of chemistry that we are just briefly touching on with engine oil, the pillowcase full of initial phosphorus concentration (sweet and delicious for anti wear properties), and its unexpected lack of correlation to PEI (painful trips to the dentist) were proven to be due to the concurrent chemical contributions of other engine oil additives, and, more specifically, the variations in the phosphorus additive chemistry of the ZDDP package, which in the study examples I'll include from an ASTM study on this topic below, included various combinations of alcohols.
The chart above readily illustrates that a ZDDP formulated with 2-Methyl-4-Pentanol has 1064 ppm phosphorus content, but with a PEI of only 9. On the other hand, a ZDDP formulated with 2-Ethyl Hexanol has only 981 ppm phosphorus content, but has double the PEI at 18. That's like getting more cavities, with less candy. Chemistry matters. Whether the mix is above or below stoichiometric matters. Other agents in the additive package matter. Homogeneity and miscibility matters. It all matters.
And none of it matters. Because by using the list that Ford provides, we don't need to moonlight as amateur armchair chemists without a lab. The Ford specification, and the Caterpillar specification (think HEUI), and the Navistar specification (also think HEUI) are performance standards measured by results derived from operating the oil in test engines. The T444E was a test engine. So was the C13.
Yet Sous makes an enduring point. While we can take comfort in using any oil that Ford approves on Ford's list (which numbers in the hundreds now, so lots of options), some approved oils may still be better than other approved oils. Therefore the discussion continues... in the effort to find the best oils for the lowest price. And like the wine community, there is this curious demand for "vintage" oils, bottled no later than 2016!
What I want to know is what oil refiner produces the actual oil found in the Traveller branded bottle? Tractor Supply Company is merely a retailer. Who actually makes the oil?
#51
@Sous , I would make the case that the SN rating is relevant.
Unless I am mistaken, SN limits zinc and phosphorous to a degree where the SN rated oils are NOT Ford -F1 rated. Indeed, if we look at the two Travellers labels, we see that the earlier one makes specific reference to 'API SN' and does not have the Ford certification. In the later, CK-4 bottle, the SN magically vanishes and the Ford approval appears.
Now the interesting question is: given the CJ-4 oil test in the spreadsheet you posted, how did that oil get SN approval? It is literally impossible. The only thing that comes to mind is that even at the time there must have been two different stocks of oil both being sold as Travellers 15W40. One SN rated.. the other not SN rated.
And the long and the short of the Ford spec (and many others) is that these older engines really like having a lot of ZDDP in the oil, without it they run into trouble (or at least premature wear).
Then, as @Y2KW57 pointed out, we can discuss the fact that not all oils on the Ford list are the same otherwise... but it's also true that the stock 7.3 could probably run on corn oil with enough friction preventers (ZDDP) in it. Of course, once the engine is no longer stock and/or it gets used at high average fuel rates because of towing etc. things change. Especially if one changes oil at longer intervals.
Unless I am mistaken, SN limits zinc and phosphorous to a degree where the SN rated oils are NOT Ford -F1 rated. Indeed, if we look at the two Travellers labels, we see that the earlier one makes specific reference to 'API SN' and does not have the Ford certification. In the later, CK-4 bottle, the SN magically vanishes and the Ford approval appears.
Now the interesting question is: given the CJ-4 oil test in the spreadsheet you posted, how did that oil get SN approval? It is literally impossible. The only thing that comes to mind is that even at the time there must have been two different stocks of oil both being sold as Travellers 15W40. One SN rated.. the other not SN rated.
And the long and the short of the Ford spec (and many others) is that these older engines really like having a lot of ZDDP in the oil, without it they run into trouble (or at least premature wear).
Then, as @Y2KW57 pointed out, we can discuss the fact that not all oils on the Ford list are the same otherwise... but it's also true that the stock 7.3 could probably run on corn oil with enough friction preventers (ZDDP) in it. Of course, once the engine is no longer stock and/or it gets used at high average fuel rates because of towing etc. things change. Especially if one changes oil at longer intervals.
#52
Since the oil companies/manufacturers seem to hold the content of their oil close to their hearts where prying eyes cannot see them, we can only speculate. We can only speculate unless someone like PQIA takes on the burden of analyzing the oil contents and make up. Even for those of us (myself included) that are armchair chemists, this information can have it usefulness.
I for one am not really concerned about the PEI consequences that a CJ-4/CI-4 oil may have on the emissions systems of modern vehicles when considering the 7.3L, but I understand the need to comply with federal regulations. My other vehicles though, it is a concern, be it a small one. I understand the need for organizations like the EPA, CIA and IRS. Times change and regulations change. Just like engine designs change and what may have been good (caramel apple given at halloween) 20 years ago is unheard of now.
It is not that "I DON'T CARE" or "I WILL RUN WHAT FORD SAYS IS GUUUD", it is that I prefer to make informed decisions based on 3rd party research, experience and knowledge shared from reliable sources. This not only saves me time and money now, but it saves me time and money down the road. Say when CL-4 or CM-4 comes out... I will have a baseline of what I need to keep my 7.3L running healthy and smooth. Perhaps as CL-4 comes out I will need to purchase some Archoil from Bill Hewitt, but not today.
Do people just take the word of Ford as gospel, some do yes and if that fits their lifestyle I am happy for them. But a lot of us here have second guessed a lot of things Ford has said or done. Just look at some of the signatures of the members posting in this thread alone. You will see where the word of Ford has been questioned or changed to suit their needs. Why would oil not have the same consideration? How many of us would not trust a Ford dealer with a worn tire off our trucks? People are passionate about their 7.3L, 20 year old truck and that is why they are a member on this forum and participating in this discussion. A discussion like this is a broadening of a knowledge base that may or may not assist the reader with making a choice in the future that may or may not save them time and money in the future. We can usually get more money, but time is something that we cannot get more of.
People do care about what they put in or on the engine. This is why we have parts like Riffraff boots, CNC 4 way fuel feed, Denso starters, billet turbo wheels and the list goes on. People do care what they put in or on their engine, otherwise they would not be reading and/or posting in this thread. They have a vested interest in the health of the engine that tows their family and belongings around.
My take away so far from this conversation is that despite what Bill Hewitt thinks about Archoil or what Joe Schmoe thinks about ZDDPPlus, if someone has the money and desire to run it, run it. If they sleep better at night because they enjoy spending money on additives for their 20 year old 7.3L, have at it. Through this discussion In my mind, I have confirmed that just because an oil costs more or has a certain name on it does not mean it is better for the 7.3L. This is good news to me and I am glad I paid attention to this thread.
I will not run an additive in my oil because I don't see the cost vs. benefit playing out in my favor. Again, someone else may feel differently and they should do what works best for their application. I spend money on stupid crap too, like an Android head unit or a Borg Warner turbo. We have to do something with it and everyone should do what they think is right based on their needs and the needs of their family.
I will purchase the "cheap" Traveller oil and use it instead of the T4, which was a possibility since using my stockpiled T6. I will purchase the "cheap" Travller oil and use it instead of the T6, which is what I have been running for the past 7+ years. I understand that the 5w40 properties of the T6 are beneficial to some, but for my application it makes no difference. I have a set of core injectors waiting for the 255,000 mile injectors that run great to crap the bed. When that happens, Alliant will get my business.
I am grateful for the information this thread has shared with me and many other FTE'rs that were questioning their oil purchases now and in the future. I am grateful to have identified a good oil for a good price. I am grateful for the FTE and thank each and everyone here for taking time out of their day to educate me and other perfect strangers.
I for one am not really concerned about the PEI consequences that a CJ-4/CI-4 oil may have on the emissions systems of modern vehicles when considering the 7.3L, but I understand the need to comply with federal regulations. My other vehicles though, it is a concern, be it a small one. I understand the need for organizations like the EPA, CIA and IRS. Times change and regulations change. Just like engine designs change and what may have been good (caramel apple given at halloween) 20 years ago is unheard of now.
It is not that "I DON'T CARE" or "I WILL RUN WHAT FORD SAYS IS GUUUD", it is that I prefer to make informed decisions based on 3rd party research, experience and knowledge shared from reliable sources. This not only saves me time and money now, but it saves me time and money down the road. Say when CL-4 or CM-4 comes out... I will have a baseline of what I need to keep my 7.3L running healthy and smooth. Perhaps as CL-4 comes out I will need to purchase some Archoil from Bill Hewitt, but not today.
Do people just take the word of Ford as gospel, some do yes and if that fits their lifestyle I am happy for them. But a lot of us here have second guessed a lot of things Ford has said or done. Just look at some of the signatures of the members posting in this thread alone. You will see where the word of Ford has been questioned or changed to suit their needs. Why would oil not have the same consideration? How many of us would not trust a Ford dealer with a worn tire off our trucks? People are passionate about their 7.3L, 20 year old truck and that is why they are a member on this forum and participating in this discussion. A discussion like this is a broadening of a knowledge base that may or may not assist the reader with making a choice in the future that may or may not save them time and money in the future. We can usually get more money, but time is something that we cannot get more of.
People do care about what they put in or on the engine. This is why we have parts like Riffraff boots, CNC 4 way fuel feed, Denso starters, billet turbo wheels and the list goes on. People do care what they put in or on their engine, otherwise they would not be reading and/or posting in this thread. They have a vested interest in the health of the engine that tows their family and belongings around.
My take away so far from this conversation is that despite what Bill Hewitt thinks about Archoil or what Joe Schmoe thinks about ZDDPPlus, if someone has the money and desire to run it, run it. If they sleep better at night because they enjoy spending money on additives for their 20 year old 7.3L, have at it. Through this discussion In my mind, I have confirmed that just because an oil costs more or has a certain name on it does not mean it is better for the 7.3L. This is good news to me and I am glad I paid attention to this thread.
I will not run an additive in my oil because I don't see the cost vs. benefit playing out in my favor. Again, someone else may feel differently and they should do what works best for their application. I spend money on stupid crap too, like an Android head unit or a Borg Warner turbo. We have to do something with it and everyone should do what they think is right based on their needs and the needs of their family.
I will purchase the "cheap" Traveller oil and use it instead of the T4, which was a possibility since using my stockpiled T6. I will purchase the "cheap" Travller oil and use it instead of the T6, which is what I have been running for the past 7+ years. I understand that the 5w40 properties of the T6 are beneficial to some, but for my application it makes no difference. I have a set of core injectors waiting for the 255,000 mile injectors that run great to crap the bed. When that happens, Alliant will get my business.
I am grateful for the information this thread has shared with me and many other FTE'rs that were questioning their oil purchases now and in the future. I am grateful to have identified a good oil for a good price. I am grateful for the FTE and thank each and everyone here for taking time out of their day to educate me and other perfect strangers.
#53
@Sous , I would make the case that the SN rating is relevant.
Again, not being a dick, I just don't know and I would like to understand more about what I have learned over the past 48 hours concerning CI-4 through CK-4 oils. I appreciate your participation and respect your knowledge in the field of things that I don't understand, but I am a details and numbers freak. Hence why I spent a week making a spreadsheet on which Android head unit was the best for my application. Silly right... I would agree, very silly...
I look forward to how you might broaden my understanding of the oils available to us as consumers today and in the future.
#55
@Sous I can't quantify 'a lot' in 7.3 land because, well, I'm not familiar with the engine enough to have a definitve opinion.
However, I do know that the SN oils are limited to <800. And they're out of spec according to Ford. What I would venture to suppose (for now) is that like other engines which have similar issues, the 'generally accepted' number is 1000 PPM of ZDDP. Below that, BMW M20s tend to start eating camme journals and lifters, Porsche GT1 engines tend to eat intermediate shafts (though for this latter newer chemistry seems to have ameliorated the issues, we're going ferociously OT however), Perkins Sabre M225/M250Tis tend to have head/camme issues etc.
Thus, if you were to put a gun to my head and ask me for a number at the present time I would say: so long as you change your oil every 5-6k mi, assuming the 7.3 isn't entirely different from the majority of the other engines out there, I'd say that ceteris paribus an oil needs to have >1000 PPM ZDDP to keep the engine happy long term. Would I be upset if this were 1200 instead of 1000? No, I wouldn't be, of course. But the engine is otherwise quite forgiving of oil quality so I would assume that it would be no worse than others. And that 1000 level seems to suffice so long as you change the oil reasonably frequently and are not in 'absurdly heavy usage' territory. Of course, this is my 'moderately informed' opinion for now. Give me a few more years swearing at this thing^W^W^W^Wenjoing the lovely opportunities presented by Ford and I'll have a more precise idea.
If you ONLY take your truck out with a 20,900 lb GVWR and start towing every morning at 15F hitting WOT by the time you're halfway down your driveway, results may vary (and in that case, TBH, I'd worry about other issues before a higher ZDDP level)
However, I do know that the SN oils are limited to <800. And they're out of spec according to Ford. What I would venture to suppose (for now) is that like other engines which have similar issues, the 'generally accepted' number is 1000 PPM of ZDDP. Below that, BMW M20s tend to start eating camme journals and lifters, Porsche GT1 engines tend to eat intermediate shafts (though for this latter newer chemistry seems to have ameliorated the issues, we're going ferociously OT however), Perkins Sabre M225/M250Tis tend to have head/camme issues etc.
Thus, if you were to put a gun to my head and ask me for a number at the present time I would say: so long as you change your oil every 5-6k mi, assuming the 7.3 isn't entirely different from the majority of the other engines out there, I'd say that ceteris paribus an oil needs to have >1000 PPM ZDDP to keep the engine happy long term. Would I be upset if this were 1200 instead of 1000? No, I wouldn't be, of course. But the engine is otherwise quite forgiving of oil quality so I would assume that it would be no worse than others. And that 1000 level seems to suffice so long as you change the oil reasonably frequently and are not in 'absurdly heavy usage' territory. Of course, this is my 'moderately informed' opinion for now. Give me a few more years swearing at this thing^W^W^W^Wenjoing the lovely opportunities presented by Ford and I'll have a more precise idea.
If you ONLY take your truck out with a 20,900 lb GVWR and start towing every morning at 15F hitting WOT by the time you're halfway down your driveway, results may vary (and in that case, TBH, I'd worry about other issues before a higher ZDDP level)
#56
@Sous I can't quantify 'a lot' in 7.3 land because, well, I'm not familiar with the engine enough to have a definitve opinion.
Going off the SN rating being limited to 800ppm in ZDDP, I initially thought someone was wrong then between the PQIA and the API, but there appears to be another oil standard lurking in the shadows. Looking at the image below and specifically the API stamp on the right, you can clearly see it says "CJ-4/SN". Y2KW57 warned us above about CK-4 oils that were SN rated.
Now, going back to SN limiting ZDDP to 800ppm or less, the PQIA sampled and analyzed Traveller 15w40 CJ-4 oil on 2/5/15 and saw 1129ppm phosphorus and 1244ppm zinc. I thought, well this cannot be right, so I went back and looked at where the PQIA sampled and analyzed Traveller 15w40 CJ-4 oil on 2/5/13 and saw 1053ppm phosphorus and 1226ppm zinc. Hang on a second... What is up with the values being registered at more than what the SN rating says they should be according to what you have said.
Well, here is the catch... The PQIA tested two different samples of Traveller CJ-4 oil, one in 2013 and one in 2015. But, and that is a big BUTT, there were NOT SN rated oils...
This is an image taken from the 2015 PQIA sampling of Traveller CJ-4 oil...
Hang on a second... That says SM and not SN... Kind of reminds me a bit of this post...
Taking another snip from the PQIA site, I found this gem... I have highlighted the differences for those above that are not following along as well I would like to think they may be.
Now compare that to the image that @cclgeo posted above...
That is strange... Let's look at the image that @BBslider001 posted above...
Am I wrong to assume that there are more than two blends of Traveller 15w40 CJ-4 oil available to us as consumers? Am I wrong to assume that anyone purchasing and using the CJ-4/SN oil is using oil that is WORSE for their engine than the CK-4 oil that is NOT SN rated and will have much more ZDDP by the ppm in it than the sought after CJ-4 oil?
Below is an image from the Traveller 15w40 oil bottle that @ArmyLifer just stocked up on. Which probably changed his FTE name to "TravellerOilLifer". Look at that... No SN rating by the API, which as you said means that the CK-4 oil that ArmyLifer purchased which was thought to be "no bueno" is actually "mucho bueno" over the Travller CJ-4/SN oil that the other two gentlemen mentioned above purchased...
Before jumping on that bandwagon, I thought I would do some research on "API SN ZDDP" and go from there. I found some good information at this link which goes to "mototribology". I don't know for sure if this is a reputable source or not, but they seemed to be quoting numbers that were relevant. As I was skimming through the different S ratings by the API, I did not see anything mentioning the limiting of 800ppm of ZDDP. As I was skimming through the numbers and words put together to create an article, I also remembered what a trusted source to me told us earlier about ZDDP, detergents, PEI, etc...
What I would venture to suppose (for now) is that like other engines which have similar issues, the 'generally accepted' number is 1000 PPM of ZDDP. Below that, BMW M20s tend to start eating camme journals and lifters, Porsche GT1 engines tend to eat intermediate shafts (though for this latter newer chemistry seems to have ameliorated the issues, we're going ferociously OT however), Perkins Sabre M225/M250Tis tend to have head/camme issues etc.
Thus, if you were to put a gun to my head and ask me for a number at the present time I would say: so long as you change your oil every 5-6k mi, assuming the 7.3 isn't entirely different from the majority of the other engines out there, I'd say that ceteris paribus an oil needs to have >1000 PPM ZDDP to keep the engine happy long term. Would I be upset if this were 1200 instead of 1000? No, I wouldn't be, of course. But the engine is otherwise quite forgiving of oil quality so I would assume that it would be no worse than others. And that 1000 level seems to suffice so long as you change the oil reasonably frequently and are not in 'absurdly heavy usage' territory. Of course, this is my 'moderately informed' opinion for now. Give me a few more years swearing at this thing^W^W^W^Wenjoing the lovely opportunities presented by Ford and I'll have a more precise idea.
I will give you all of the time you desire sir. If you figure something out going forward, by all means resurrect this thread. It was created in 2017 over 3 years ago and here we are now, educating ourselves.
I have learned even more from this thread than what I took away last time. I thought that was it... But, I found that some of the CJ-4 may not be good, this so far has been unverified in my own mind. It seems that the CK-4 that was thought to be "bad oil" may be much, much better than the CJ-4/SN "good oil". I will attempt to find the SN restriction on ZDDP to 800ppm in my free time, but will not search too hard if I am being honest. The information that Y2KW57 relayed to us above should have a consideration in this if anyone is considering it or staring at their CJ-4/SN oil in disbelief or with questions on their mind.
The CK-4 Traveller oil that ArmyLifer purchased is what I was looking at going forward anyway and I do care about the choices I make. What a great and educational thread this developed into. I am grateful for the images people all over the country provided, the opinions and facts people provided and the drive to learn something they may not have known just a few moments before. I really hope others will have a takeaway or two from this thread, I know I have. I feel that having as much information as possible offers better results more often than making a decision on a whim, misinformation or internet lore even. I am a detail person and did not notice the details on the bottle before this thread provided me the path forward when selecting an oil for my dinosaur 7.3L.
#57
@Sous thank you for clearing that up! In a previous message in this thread I was perplexed exactly by that inconsistency, the fact that a supposed SN oil was tested at 1100+ ZDDP. Now we know what happened.
Yes, by the by, sorry for the shorthand: it is my understanding that one of the requirements of API SN classification, which is new compared to SM, is that the oil have < 800 ppm of ZDDP, because of the supposed issues in emissions that @Y2KW57 detailed in another thread - I say supposed because as he pointed out, there are factors other than mere concentration that affect emissions results.
And you're entirely correct from the data provided: Traveller is selling at least two blends, only identified by the small print on the back of the bottle, one of which has insufficient ZDDP for our purposes.
Now, trying very hard to forget that you chose the S4 over the M3 , I am trying to recall where I saw the SN spec details. I suspect it might have been over on rennlist, during the 84212th 'what oil do we put in these things' discussion, naturally.
Finally, yes, this thread like others has provided a wealth of knowledge - and has personally caused me, together with the other oil thread, to check the Delvac 1300s specs and to choose NOT to put it into the truck as well as into another engine, which is very worthwhile indeed...!
Yes, by the by, sorry for the shorthand: it is my understanding that one of the requirements of API SN classification, which is new compared to SM, is that the oil have < 800 ppm of ZDDP, because of the supposed issues in emissions that @Y2KW57 detailed in another thread - I say supposed because as he pointed out, there are factors other than mere concentration that affect emissions results.
And you're entirely correct from the data provided: Traveller is selling at least two blends, only identified by the small print on the back of the bottle, one of which has insufficient ZDDP for our purposes.
Now, trying very hard to forget that you chose the S4 over the M3 , I am trying to recall where I saw the SN spec details. I suspect it might have been over on rennlist, during the 84212th 'what oil do we put in these things' discussion, naturally.
Finally, yes, this thread like others has provided a wealth of knowledge - and has personally caused me, together with the other oil thread, to check the Delvac 1300s specs and to choose NOT to put it into the truck as well as into another engine, which is very worthwhile indeed...!