Sous well said sir. I agree completely. I have been running LE 8700 15-40 with great results and have great confidence in its ability to perform in our engines as well as the 6.0L. Having said that I’m turning to Rotella due to shipping costs of the LE oil. I have been running Archoil in both my 7.3’s and 6.0L’s and will continue to do so. It gets cold where I live and the Archoil without a doubt helps with cold starts. I’m thinking of trying the Rotella T-4 15-40. I change engine oil every 3,300 miles so I’m sure it will be fine. Millions and millions of miles have been ran running that oil and I can’t imagine it not performing.

 

all oil companies change their products specs over time as the standards are constantly evolving.

the last update was 2016 and for a period of time the rotella brand did not have fords approval on its containers. having no idea what future products shell will introduce to the market place with the rotella brand in it the safe bet is to simply confirm the ford spec is on whatever package of oil you get at the time of purchase.

here is what took place with recent API updates.
https://www.api.org/products-and-ser...oil-categories

i recall a ford news release addresses the rotella non compliance at the time but don't have it handy, i will post it if i come across it.

 

i will find the Ford news release at some point but for now here is Shells public response to the ford news release saying the new formulations did not meet their spec.

shell was basically is saying our new oil is great and sooner or later it will meet the new ford spec but until then use the old stuff.

https://rotella.shell.com/en_us/medi...statement.html

 

Your right, when the new WSS-M2C171-F1 specification came out a couple years ago there was an unwarranted mass hysteria surrounding the list and what was on it, or not on it... The list was very sparsely populated when it first came out based on what Motorcraft had evaluated and what it had not evaluated at the time of initial release. Since then and over the past couple of years, things have calmed down and many, many more oil manufacturers have had time to have their products vetted and tested.

Yes, all oil companies change their products specs in order to stay on top of the competition or to at the very least look more appealing to their customer base. It makes sense right... Although, if they changed their product in a way that would no longer allow for their product to be on the approved WSS-M2C171-F1, well that is a whole different conversation.

Again, most oil were not "have Ford's approval" when the WSS-M2C171-F1 listing came out. Things are much different now and this does not change that fact that Motorcraft has said not to use WSS-M2C214-B1 compliant lubricants in the 7.3L PSD. I don't want to keep harping on this, but in my opinion this is how internet lore gets started and debates get out of control. We are lucky enough here on the FTE to be able to have intelligent and well thought out debates about things we see differently than others. I am grateful for this ability and will continue to foster constructive discussion for as long as I can here on the FTE.

The WSS-M2C171-F1 appears to be updated somewhat often by Motorcraft, who was your original source of information. Perhaps quarterly or bi-annually? As you can see from the image below the last update was 9/20/2019. This would lead me to believe again that each of the Shell Rotella T6 products (0w40, 5w40, 15w40) are still on the approved WSS-M2C171-F1 listing. I don't know for sure, but I would suspect that there is some sort of agreement between Motorcraft and Shell that if they change their formula by a certain margin, they would again have to go through the Motorcraft WSS-M2C171-F1 evaluation process.



If you happen to run across this "Ford news release" that states Rotella non-compliance, we would LOVE to see it as it would shed some light on different choices for some of us. I would also be inclined to try and submit the Ford news release to the Motorcraft Chemicals and Lubricants Catalog webmaster for editing. If they cannot keep their own specification list straight between Ford and Motorcraft, they have some internal problems they need to work out and it is no wonder why their credit rating has been downgraded...

 

I see we were both typing at the same time doing our best to sort out the confusion between the new WSS-M2C171-F1 and outdated WSS-M2C214-B1 lubrication specifications...

I read through your link (quoted above) which comes directly from Shell Lubricants concerning the Motorcraft WSS-M2C171-F1 specification. The problem is with this link is that it is exactly what happened that I described above. When the WSS-M2C171-F1 first came out, very few lubricants were on the list. This is no longer the case and I will not put the FTE through the pain of repeating myself from a post one above.

The date on the Shell Lubricants press release (public response) is outdated and A LOT has happened since Nov 10, 2016...




Lastly, I still stand by my original statement...

I will leave it at that for now as I think I have beat this horse to death and then beat it a little more. Even though I am a strong supporter of the ASPCA...

 

Wow. Little explosion... well. Its gonna save me money, since it would seem i shouldnt need the additive. The whole oil convo sent me off to check my mobile 1300 super rating.... its a firm maybe.... sheesh.

 

Sir, I would like to formally and publicly apologize for steering your thread about oil additives. Although, I felt it was important to make sure the facts concerning the side discussion were obvious and clearly identified for those reading your thread.

Again, my apologies sir!

 

I knew i was risking a pandoras box. But i also did not 'want' to spend an extra 27$ on additive, unless it would actually help. So, it was worth it. I have found hijacked threads tend to have a lot of learning i can glean from, so, its all good sir.

 

It helps no question about it. Cold starts are where I noticed it the most. Which is why I run it. Great product

 

Thank you Sous. This is great info. I have run T6 for 20+ years and never had an issue. Thanks Pal.

 

I noticed Wally (diesel) 15w-40 oil complies with WSS-M2C171-F1 specs.

 

the simple point and fact is this.

the US federal .gov wants old diesel technology engines ( like the 7.3 ) off the road and they WILL accomplish their goal by continuing to advance the emissions standards by which vehicle manufacturers must adhere to, as these incremental changes occur the oil industry must continue to develop ever more sophisticated lubricants to meet the demands of the new engines. at some point the oil companies WILL stop including the additive our 7.3 requires into their marquee product lines that are currently widely available and on the shelf in major parts stores.

brands like Rotella will cater to the current engines of the day since that is where the volume will be and leave the needs of speciality oils like the 7.3 needs to niche producers.

in 2016 when the last round of oil specs came out and the rotella product did not meet the ford spec the 7.3 requires it was by no means certain shell would integrate the ford spec into their rotella product, they eventually did and currently do, but there is no guarantee that the rotella brand of tomorrow will. i will wager that it will not. but only time will tell when shell finally decides to stop supporting the ford spec for the 7.3 in the rotella brand. you can choose to ignore this or not, your choice. i choose to shop by spec not brand. just my way of knowing i am getting what i want in a oil.

a perfect example of what i just laid out is the oil required in cars designed to burn leaded premium gasoline. motor oils of that era where high in zinc content where as oils of today have little to no zinc in them.

if your old lead gas guzzler needs high zinc content oil you have to get it from somebody like Amesoil or Redline that still offer High Zinc content oil. major brands that once had high zinc no longer have it and do not meet the specs of those old engines. same thing is happening to diesels. look no further then todays Low sulphur diesel fuel for additional proof.
it is happening as we discuss it.

 

This is the last time I will respond to your posts in this thread as I think you realize what has happened... If you would like to discuss this further, I would recommend you send me a PM so that we are not cluttering this thread up any further with information that does not pertain to the OP thoughts, ideas and questions. I would be willing to share "simple points and facts" with you from your own sources of information...

Nothing is "simple" when dealing with the U.S. Government or state governments like CA, NY or CT. I agree that "they" want old diesel technology off the road, but "they" also would like to see all fossil fuel burning engines off the road and out of the air. That may or may not happen in my lifetime, but playing chicken little today in 2020 is a bit too soon don't you think... Until "they" figure out another way to move the products and goods that we as a nation of consumers purchase and expect to be brought to our doorsteps by large diesel trucks, I am not too concerned about it. Even drones were brought up as an alternative, but the FAA has recently put into action very restrictive guidelines that all but kills the drone ideas. I live in the country where I can do what I want, so I would not see drones anytime soon, so I will continue to meet an 18 wheeler at an agreed upon location.

Besides, "they" can come and take my truck when they come for my firearms, but they better bring backup and a sack lunch, and I stand firm on that...

Oil companies may or may not "stop including the additives" we need for the 7.3L in the future. Currently there are still MILLIONS of 7.3L vehicles on the road, and this is still a good sized market share and a vested interest for oil companies to continue to pursue. Case in point is the WSS-M2C171-F1 specification that came out in 2016, which you have changed your previous post to reflect after I brought some "facts" to light. When this new specification was released to the public, very few companies (including Shell Rotella) were on the list. That is why you linked your press release from Shell Rotella above from 2016 as an attempt to prove your point, which is now and has been outdated for a while. Companies will continue to go where the largest market share of customers are, that is "simple" business strategy and economics. I am not concerned for the next few years of lubrication production, but who knows what the future holds in store for us as a species or a nation of consumers. Perhaps CA will lead the charge and not allow the dirty or old oil into the state, maybe they will be the first to lead this parade. I don't know... I do know these are first world problems and I am grateful to have these problems instead of problems I have seen first hand around the world.

Until the preferred oil of the 7.3L is not available via mail order or off the shelf, I will continue to drive my 7.3L with oil in the WSS-M2C171-F1 specification and NOT in the WSS-M2C214-B1 like you originally stated and then went back and edited (see posts #4, #8 and #9) to reflect the new WSS-M2C171-F1 specification. That is a "simple" point that I have made several times and I think it is clear now... I make mistakes and am big enough to admit it when I do. Mistakes are not what define us, how we learn and move on from them is just one small piece of how we are defined.

No arguments from me on this... Although, I will hold onto my 7.3L for as long as mechanically/feasibly possible or until some jackass runs into it and totals it... You will not see me selling my truck because of what might happen in the future.

My brain is old, but from what I remember when the 2016 WSS-M2C171-F1 specification came out there were less than a couple dozen (24) oil brands/blends on the approved list. Clearly now by looking at the WSS-M2C171-F1 list there are far, far more. I mean, that is "simple" to see and understand right?

Motorcraft comes out with a new specification and the oil companies follow suit and change their recipes a bit in order to be in compliance. Just like automobile manufacturers do when the EPA releases new standards and guidelines. Sure, some of the oil was already in compliance, but it is unrealistic to expect different companies to be in bed with Motorcraft during their research and development. That is "simple" product development and business practices that we can all see, even if we did not attend Harvard business school.

People were literally selling their oil because it did not meet the standards set forth all of a sudden. Even though the 6.7L PSD had been out for a few years, now the oil customers had been running in their engines was no longer good. I don't buy that, not even with your money. Consumer paranoia can be a strong marketing tool and we see it time and time again.

Yes, things typically progress and develop into bigger and better versions, but that does not mean that as soon as a new standard is released the old standard is bad and should be expelled from the planet. The old stuff will become less and less available as people buy up the old stock of "good stuff" from around the world, but whatevs... When the new WSS-M2C171-F1 specification came out, I bought enough Rotella T6 for 5 oil changes, and here we are today. We have Rotella T6 0w40, 5w40 and 15w40 available to us. So I say great job Motorcraft on giving me more options to put into my 7.3L that adhere to the WSS-M2C171-F1 specification and NOT the WSS-M2C214-B1 which has mysteriously disappeared from this thread except for where I have mentioned it.

Leaded fuel was beginning to be phased out in the early 70's. In my opinion a comparison of 20-17 (older if you include the OBS, etc) year old trucks to a nearly 50 year old federal mandate is a bit of a reach. I see where you are grabbing for, but come on man...

By this same principle, we could probably just go to a 3rd party for the oil additive we require if we are still driving 7.3L's around. Who knows what could happen... It is still possible to purchase oil additives that the 7.3L was designed to use, but do most of us do it, nope. Just the other day there was a post about a truck with 1.36 million miles on it on the original engine. I wonder if he is using additives in his fuel or oil. I don't have any problems with adding a 3rd party additive to my oil changes that happen every 5000 miles if it comes down to that, but who knows what will happen. That is the price I will pay to own and drive a 7.3L diesel. Alternatively I can pay the higher price of a 6.7L and drive the banks truck around and feel all warm and fuzzy that it does not currently require any additives. Watch out for the Bosch fuel pump though, she is a tricky one...

Time waits for no man, woman or thing. That is a "simple" point to be made as well. We don't have to look further than the low sulfur diesel because if we want a diesel fuel that reminds us and our 7.3L of yesteryear, then we can use a 3rd party additive like Stanadyne Lubricity or many of the others out there. I have linked a small chart below in order to provide a few more examples than Stanadyne, which is my product of choice when filling up with low sulfur diesel. I buy the Lubricity formula in 64 oz bottles at a deeply discounted rate and it comes out to pennies on the dollar for each use. Even then, with my new to me TSD fuel card, I save ~30% on my diesel fuel, so the additive is a wash.

Diesel Fuel Lubricity Chart

My issue is not what you are currently saying and yelling chicken little about, my issue is with what you have said in the past in this thread, and then gone back and changed some of it. That is my fault, I should have quoted you more instead of simply replying, but I make mistakes every day and I live and learn from them. I will not make that same mistake in the future if the opportunity presents itself.

You said...

I will not repeat myself yet again in an effort to relay to you that what you wrote was incorrect and just not "simple" and factual. You get on many others about their spreading of internet lore and providing such egregious information, but you have done the same thing. So, it appears that there are three fingers pointing back at you while you were pointing your finger at others.

Clearly and simply pointing out that I cause confusion and eluding to what I have said is a cause of debate. Where in fact you were the one that was wrong in what you wrote and tried to walk it back by changing the course of the discussion by quoting outdated and no longer valid information and editing your previous post.

No one knows what is going to happen with the oil specifications. Maybe the current WSS-M2C171-F1 will be around for the next 10 years, maybe not. Maybe Yellowstone will blow up and all of this is for nothing because there will be nothing left in the continental United States.

Do you see my "simple point" and easily identifiable "facts" based on your very own sources now... If not, PM me and I will be glad to help you understand...

 

 

LMAO

honestly not even going to bother reading that.
if you don't want to get it you won't.
no skin off my back. carry on.