Just about all the diesel engines of today and 10 to 30 years ago have in common is the all run on diesel. Technology and lubrication requirements change. Oil you used 4 years ago even if it is the correct weight has been replaced with a new specification.

 

CJ-4 in the appropriate weight still has Fords approval for the 6.7.
.

 

i would use coconut oil and not support the big oil company's!

 

 

To state that CK-4s should not be used, as a blanket statement, is misleading. There are LOTS of CK-4 certified lubes on Ford's approved list.
I agree with using a Ford approved lube, but their entire statement and position is dubious at best.

 

 

 

 

Their initial statement was about valve-train wear. I emailed many sources at Ford when that first came out, and no one would ever give a detailed response. I asked for data; real proof. They would share nothing and only give me a canned answer; don't use CK-4. I'm not saying they are wrong, or over-reacting, but when you make a claim you should be able/willing to back it up! So they warned against CK-4 oils; use only CJ-4 lubes they said. Yet now, as pointed out, there's lots of CK-4 lubes on the list; LOTS of them are CK-4.

So what changed? Did the entire API certified lube market bow down to Ford and suddenly start adding in more phos? Nope. I can only surmise that Ford realized that they were way too zealous in their initial statement. Now they don't speak of the valve-train wear at all, and have approved many, many CK-4 lubes. But for warranty purposes, you can only use one on their approved list, if you want no hassles in their warranty process. Their formal statement was that the drop in Phos below 1000 ppm was detrimental to valve-train wear; so NO CK-4 lubes should be used. Ford not only said to not use CK-4 on the 6.7L, but ALL PowerStroke diesels. Hmmmmmmm ...... As if they took the time to fully and thoroughly test CK-4 lubes on the old 7.3L, 6.0L or even the 6.4L?????? Yeah ... right .... they didn't do that at all. I worked for Ford for 16 years. I now work in the HVAC industry. I have friends that work for GM, Chrysler, Navistar, 3M, Kodak, and a host of other big companies. There is no company that worries about testing fluids on products (engines) they have not made or warrant for more than a decade!!!!! But Ford just plopped down a wet-blanket statement that all CK-4 lubes were to be avoided in all PSD engines. And yet now, there's a slew of CK-4 approved lubes on the current list. Again - what's more likely? Did the entire lube industry decide to move towards Ford, or did Ford sheepishly decide that it may have over-reacted and now approves many lubes it previously warned against using?

I concur with you. I think Ford threw out a blanket statement before looking at the details. CK-4 lubes that are only diesel rated still have plenty of Phos. Dual rated lubes in thinner grades have a lower limit, as you state.

The Ford statement made a LOT of people start clammoring for CJ-4 lubes; snatching up all the stock they could find on the shelves and hoarding it. When the reality is that there's nothing wrong with a diesel-spec CK-4.

Is there a concern for valve-train wear using a lube with lower Phose (800ppm)? I don't know, and Ford won't tell. But let's suppose that's actually true; that the 6.7L (and presumably all former PSDs) cannot tolerate less Phos. What does that say of the Ford/Navistar engines, when the rest of the entire diesel market (Cummins, GM in light duty; Volvo, Mack, Cummins, Navistar, etc in the OTR market) have never said one bad word about the CK-4 lubes? Are we to assume that all diesel engines Ford ever sold us in pickem-up-trucks are just weak-kneed and cannot take a lube that the rest of the entire diesel industry seems to be able to handle in stride? Is THAT notion good for the Ford truck image??????

If you look at that "statement" link on their fluids/chemicals site, it has been updated to warn against "CK-4/SN" oils. That was NOT the original statement when it came out. I printed it out when it first came out, and that ain't what it said. You'll note that they've updated the statement for more clarity, but oddly (suspiciously) they didn't put a "date" on the updated letter. I do believe their statement letter now is much more informative and delineates between single and dual rated lubes, but the damage is already done! Folks panic'd and only heard "don't use CK-4" in a Ford ... ever. But to be honest, they still need to clean up the wording; here it is as of today ...
https://www.fcsdchemicalsandlubrican...0Statement.pdf
"Ford will not be recommending the use of CK-4 motor oils in any Ford diesel engines, new or old. Ford testing has shown some CK-4 type formulations have shown inadequate wear protection compared to CJ-4 formulations developed and licensed before 2016."
OK - they state, still to this day, to not use CK-4 oils, but they their approved list if FULL of them!
Talk about hypocrisy!!!!



I see this as one of two things ...
1) they over-reacted before really vetting the lube, or
2) they truly have a problem with wear, but are afraid to speak out now because the rest of the diesel world apparently knows how to make engines that are NOT susceptible to CK-4 concerns
Neither is a flattering view of Ford's public lube campaign.
Hence, my comment about dubious fluid statements coming from Ford.

 

On the other hand some testing done by Ford may have indicated questionable wear in certain areas and the engineering analysis concluded that in order to err on the side of caution this would be the official position of Ford at this time. As further qualification testing is conducted on the unapproved oils Ford accepts that data that will mitigate the concerns and a license will be granted. The official position will in fact change as seen in the current approved usage lists from the ones published in prior years.

If you worked for Ford then you understand why they do not release detailed internal proprietary engineering analysis data to the public--it would be a legal nightmare because once someone put it out there it is there forever.

The only constant in life is change and Ford as time goes on will likely as more manufacturers pay them to be a part of the "approved" list will add them. It is all about the $$$$ to a certain extent lol. Ford is on the ropes right now and needs all of the revenue it can generate.

 

 

I live in Pa, close to same temp range, was 11 here this week. I use 10w30 for winter, 15w40 for summer.

 

I don't know what wear test they are using.
However, there are CK-4 lubes on their "approved" list that have less than 1000ppm of phos.
It's so convoluted it's crazy!
They say "don't use CK-4" and "must have 1000ppm phos", but then they approve CK-4s with less than that amount of phos .... talk about schizophrenic double-speak !!!!
And don't forget that the entire rest of the diesel world has absolutely no issue with CK-4 lubes overall. Not Mack, Volvo, GM, Caterpillar, Cummins, DD, etc. Just Ford ...

Again - one of only a few things can be true here:
1) they DO have a valve-train wear problem with some CK-4 lubes, and it's because of some "iffy" mechanical composition property of the metals they use
2) they don't have a wear issue, but thought they did, and now are quietly approving things they previously warned would be unacceptable

There are so many "approved" lubes on that list it would probably easier just to name the few that didn't pass the test; probably a very short list.

 

If your lube has a >1,000PPM of phosphorous Ford basically rubber stamps the certification approval. If your lube has <1,000PPM of phosphorous your lube has to pass a Ford derived testing procedure to be certified. Also the wear issue by an unknown CK4 oil reported by Ford was at the pivot point on the rocker arms since it's design has a small surface area and allows point loading which causes increased wear rates.

 

Curious, do you find any difference in fuel economy between the different weight oils?