Rotella 15w40 vs Rotella 15w40 Full Synthetic

nelstomlinson

Full Access Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2015
Posts
1,077
Reaction score
690
Location
Delta Junction AK
Funny Sinopec has to make it to US standards or it wouldn't get the API approval or approval from detroit / cummins / mercedez / Ford / Caterpillar / Diamler / Deutz / MAN / Renault / Allison / MTU / Volvo / or Mack as it has already been tested and approved by these companies many are US based...
The Chinese companies are entirely capable of making good products, and entirely willing to cheat. It is entirely possible that they would make a batch of up-to-spec oil for testing, and then sell something cheaper that is far from spec. It would never occur to them not to do that, if it were possible.
... and again the USA Chevron Refinery makes the Sinopec T700 ...
If that's being made in USA, it's much less likely that the oil isn't being made to spec, unless the plant management is imported from China. In that culture, not cheating is not done.
 

stick_witch

Full Access Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2020
Posts
151
Reaction score
89
Location
Homer, Alaska
Ford no longer recommends API CK4 oils for their diesels, new or old. There is a list of oils which meet the Ford spec for their 6.7L engine. For what it's worth, I don't see Chevron or Sinopec on that list. That list is from 2016, probably pre-dates the Sinopec-Chevron ties?

In any event, we should think twice about using a CK oil which isn't on that list.
Valid, but one mistake, these engines weren’t built by Ford, they were built by International/Navistar and thrown into a Ford shell. Ford has no credibility when it comes to this motor, which you can quickly find out by taking your rig into a Ford dealership...

Currently, IH/Navistar doesn’t have an OEM oil standard separate from API standards like Ford now has on their motors, so CK-4 is totally fine to use in these trucks.

But, it’s an easy misconception in Ford’s rhetoric to assume when they say engines before 2016 that the new standard, WSSM2C171F1, would then apply to the idi’s. But, it doesn’t, it only applies to the 6.7s built before 2016 and after, because the 6.7 psd is the only diesel ford produced itself. Before 2010, all the diesels for Ford were produced by IH/Navistar. I also bet that the 6.7 is the only motor they actually tested oil on for this new OEM standard, so I don’t think this statement has anything remotely to do with our diesels or any other psd’s for that matter. Heck, most guys at Ford probably don’t even know that our engines existed before the 7.3 psd.

In the real world, Chevron is just as proven in these trucks as Shell, and has been for years and years, and I don’t think some exclusive tests on Ford’s modern and complex 6.7 psd has any validity on what is best to put in these prehistoric diesel dinosaurs built by IH nearly 3-4 decades ago. These engines are a lot more forgiving than all the newer crap anyway. They don’t have near the needy preferences that newer engines seem to “require”. But, again, some of this “preference” is tested truth, some of it is just buisness ploy. Companies are going to endorse those who are in bed with them, and reject those who are not, and make up a story that covers up the ploy.

But, I share your concern with Sinopec, but again, you can’t know until you try. It would be cool to do a Project Farm style test of Sinopec and see how it stacks up against Rotella T6 and Delo Synthetic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

nelstomlinson

Full Access Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2015
Posts
1,077
Reaction score
690
Location
Delta Junction AK
Stick_witch, Ford made that new spec because the new CK4/SN oils didn't provide the same protection the old CJ4 oils did. Yes, the IDIs and earlier powersmokes weren't Ford engines. That doesn't change the fact that the CK oils aren't always backwards compatible. Ford gave us a list of CK oils that still sort-of-meet the older CJ spec, and those are better for ALL the engines which rely on oils meeting the CJ and earlier specs - even our International IDIs.
 

CBRF3

Full Access Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2020
Posts
238
Reaction score
158
Location
Southern Illinois
Stick_witch, Ford made that new spec because the new CK4/SN oils didn't provide the same protection the old CJ4 oils did. Yes, the IDIs and earlier powersmokes weren't Ford engines. That doesn't change the fact that the CK oils aren't always backwards compatible. Ford gave us a list of CK oils that still sort-of-meet the older CJ spec, and those are better for ALL the engines which rely on oils meeting the CJ and earlier specs - even our International IDIs.


I already covered this CJ4 had more specific oil testing that CK4 eliminated and those testing procedures are critical for many engines this is why ford on 6.7's removed the support of CK4 also CJ4 had more zinc and such which our motors love.

https://www.oilburners.net/posts/1066092/ as proof I already covered this some oil manufacturers kept the CJ4 testing in place and added the CK4 testing on top of it so that these gaps in testing coverage didnt come back to bite them in the you know where.
 
Last edited:

stick_witch

Full Access Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2020
Posts
151
Reaction score
89
Location
Homer, Alaska
Stick_witch, Ford made that new spec because the new CK4/SN oils didn't provide the same protection the old CJ4 oils did. Yes, the IDIs and earlier powersmokes weren't Ford engines. That doesn't change the fact that the CK oils aren't always backwards compatible. Ford gave us a list of CK oils that still sort-of-meet the older CJ spec, and those are better for ALL the engines which rely on oils meeting the CJ and earlier specs - even our International IDIs.
I get that, but the validity of using just Ford’s word on this matter is what concerns me. You have companies saying this and then companies saying the complete opposite with no real context. So essentially OEMs are sending consumers through smoke and mirrors with OEM approvals and endorsements.

On one side you have Ford cutting out all Chevron CK-4 synthetics, and then major heavy diesel manufactures like Cat, Volvo, Navistar, Mack, Cummins, etc. totally endorsing CK-4 Delo. So what can you realistically make out of that, contextually, as a consumer? Literally nothing. If OEM’s across the board or the API were coming out and releasing documents saying “these CK-4 oils provide similar protection to that of oils from the previous CJ-4 standard, and these oils don’t and here’s the VOA comparisons and real world test results to prove it” than I would be more open to just going with Ford’s word on it, but we haven’t seen this yet, and Ford provided us with merely a couple page list of oils with absolutely no data at all.

So, all we can really know is that the CK-4 standard is not as rigorous as the previous CK-4 standard that was tried and true, and therefore oil has gone into the market that does not meet the requirements of our rigs under the CK-4 standard. But, currently we have absolutely no valid, single, popular claim to tell us which oils these are IMO, and won’t until there is a consensus reached by the majority of diesel manufacturers, oil manufactures, the API, or someone can produce and share VOA comparisons and tests to prove a claim. Ford merely saying “we did some tests and we like these oils” and not providing any data has no more validity to me than Chevron endorsements made by the major heavy diesel manufacturers.

So, IMO, the best option for us IDI guys at this point in time is still to do our own research and oil tests, and share and exchange information and experience, exactly like were doing here. Rather than trust the vague, confusing and deceiving rhetoric of huge corporations that we have no way of fully understanding or pulling truth from. This has always been the best strategy we’ve had, and is why we have forums like OB.

I respect that you’re content with Ford’s word on the matter, and thats totally fine, I’m sure there is validity in it and it will most likely serve you and your truck great for years to come. Personally, Ford’s word is just rhetoric to me, and I need data and hands on experience to feel like I’ve made a good consumer decision when it comes to things like oil. Either stance I can pretty much guarantee will keep the wheels turning, so cheers to keeping the wheels turning![emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

stick_witch

Full Access Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2020
Posts
151
Reaction score
89
Location
Homer, Alaska
So, to get back to the subject of the thread...lol... maybe what we really should be debating is whether to use new, CK-4 synthetics in our trucks at all? Given the protection concerns of the new standard. Maybe dino + additive is the way to go now?? Thoughts?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

stick_witch

Full Access Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2020
Posts
151
Reaction score
89
Location
Homer, Alaska
https://www.oilburners.net/posts/1066092/ as proof I already covered this some oil manufacturers kept the CJ4 testing in place and added the CK4 testing on top of it so that these gaps in testing coverage didnt come back to bite them in the you know where.

You wouldn’t happen to know what companies are doing this would you? I’m getting mixed rhetoric from Sinopec advertisement that the T700 is both CJ-4 and CK-4 rated, which seems to go along with what you were saying, but again totally doesn’t correlate with Ford’s statement. Which is my concern. Either Ford is picking and choosing on a basis that has nothing to do with oil protection, and CJ-4/CK-4 approved oil, or Sinopec is producing false advertisement for their oil, but it seems like you have already debunked this theory with your own data and experience.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

CBRF3

Full Access Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2020
Posts
238
Reaction score
158
Location
Southern Illinois
You wouldn’t happen to know what companies are doing this would you? I’m getting mixed rhetoric from Sinopec advertisement that the T700 is both CJ-4 and CK-4 rated, which seems to go along with what you were saying, but again totally doesn’t correlate with Ford’s statement. Which is my concern. Either Ford is picking and choosing on a basis that has nothing to do with oil protection, and CJ-4/CK-4 approved oil, or Sinopec is producing false advertisement for their oil, but it seems like you have already debunked this theory with your own data and experience.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The info I got is the Sinopec TULUX T700 goes thru both CJ4 and CK4 testing procedures I was same way after finding out some issues I was having was caused from CK4 oils ( OUR IDI's are suddenly eating lifters with some CK4 oils ) I am still testing my theories and well after 1 cam and 3 sets of lifters all OEM International NOS parts having this issue I wanted to convert to something that tested both standards ( because it was hurting my wallet if you get my meaning ) and from info I gathered the Sinopec T700 does both. I got some connections in the oil community and so far they are impressed with this oil and many converted to it which is why I followed after issues I was having.

delo oil is just CK4 tested from my understanding as is the rotella so far redline / royal purple / amsoil are the oils mainly testing both on our diesel oils a bit scary yes and from info I got european mobil diesel oil is tested for both but USA version is not so there are so many questions out there and its stupid hard to get the info needed and after a few years of trial and error and well personal experience and crazy amounts of research. I have landed on the Sinopec TULUX T700 as it covers the critical issues the others didn't and well amsoil / redline / royal purple those are just not a feesable oil for me because I know my engine is a dirty engine LOL old school mechanical indirect injected coal roaling machine and well it fouls the oil to fast to be spending that kind of cash so I was looking for middle ground and well found a super cheap alternative that was very good aka what i mentioned the Sinopec TULUX T700.

The main thing I have found is the lack of the Zinc is our big issue with the CK4 oils and our motors Zinc is a huge part of our engines wear without it alot of parts are poorly lubricated / protected our engines love ZDDP Zinc dialkyldithiophosphate and modern oils remove it because it fouls the exhaust catalyst systems and DPF's so the new CK4 standard really leaves our engines out in the cold waiting to die from internal failures because of it this is why i went down road I went and I seen a oil conversation about the oils I found issues with and made the input ( AKA this thread ) I made its a simple research of why our motors love ZDDP and modern oils removed it.
 
Last edited:

nelstomlinson

Full Access Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2015
Posts
1,077
Reaction score
690
Location
Delta Junction AK
I
On one side you have Ford cutting out all Chevron CK-4 synthetics, and then major heavy diesel manufactures like Cat, Volvo, Navistar, Mack, Cummins, etc. totally endorsing CK-4 Delo. So what can you realistically make out of that, contextually, as a consumer?
We can make out that Ford wanted oils which still really met the old CJ spec, in the old way, for their 6.7 engine, same as we want for our old internationals. Ford gave us a list of CK oils that still have lots of ZDDP, stillprotect the way the old CJ oils did. That sure is handy for us, even though it's Ford doing it.

We can also make out that some of the other engine manufacturers didn't need the old levels of ZDDP in their oils, for their particular engine designs. Finally, we can make out that either:
a) Ford will eventually change their design to match the modern oils, which will stink for us, or
b) the API will eventually make a diesel-only spec that keeps the higher protection from the higher ZDDP.

Option b) is plausible: API has already made a different spec series, the FA-4 oils.
I’m getting mixed rhetoric from Sinopec advertisement that the T700 is both CJ-4 and CK-4 rated, which seems to go along with what you were saying, but again totally doesn’t correlate with Ford’s statement.
It totally correlates with Ford's statement. Older oils met the CJ spec by using lots of ZDDP. High ZDDP levels were a feature that apparently wasn't formally part of the CJ and earlier specs. Now, some CK oils meet the minimum requirements of the CJ spec with less ZDDP. That technically meets the CJ spec, but doesn't provide the same kind of protection as the CJ and previous oils did. We want to avoid these new oils, but the other new oils with plenty of ZDDP are OK.

For now, we can just stick to the Ford list, or just avoid any oils which meet both CK and SN specs.

Back to CBRF3's Sinopec T700 oil, if it claims to meet the CK and CJ specs, if it does NOT claim to meet the SN spec, then it's probably fine, since it's made in the USA. Not being on Ford's list could just mean that they haven't provided Ford a sample.
 

CBRF3

Full Access Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2020
Posts
238
Reaction score
158
Location
Southern Illinois
We can make out that Ford wanted oils which still really met the old CJ spec, in the old way, for their 6.7 engine, same as we want for our old internationals. Ford gave us a list of CK oils that still have lots of ZDDP, stillprotect the way the old CJ oils did. That sure is handy for us, even though it's Ford doing it.

We can also make out that some of the other engine manufacturers didn't need the old levels of ZDDP in their oils, for their particular engine designs. Finally, we can make out that either:
a) Ford will eventually change their design to match the modern oils, which will stink for us, or
b) the API will eventually make a diesel-only spec that keeps the higher protection from the higher ZDDP.

Option b) is plausible: API has already made a different spec series, the FA-4 oils.

It totally correlates with Ford's statement. Older oils met the CJ spec by using lots of ZDDP. High ZDDP levels were a feature that apparently wasn't formally part of the CJ and earlier specs. Now, some CK oils meet the minimum requirements of the CJ spec with less ZDDP. That technically meets the CJ spec, but doesn't provide the same kind of protection as the CJ and previous oils did. We want to avoid these new oils, but the other new oils with plenty of ZDDP are OK.

For now, we can just stick to the Ford list, or just avoid any oils which meet both CK and SN specs.

Back to CBRF3's Sinopec T700 oil, if it claims to meet the CK and CJ specs, if it does NOT claim to meet the SN spec, then it's probably fine, since it's made in the USA. Not being on Ford's list could just mean that they haven't provided Ford a sample.

The thing is they can reduce ZDDP and such and put another additive in its place that works without fouling the catalyst system in the exhaust the big issues is the testing that was removed with the CK4 standard that was in the CJ4 testing routine ( applies to the ENGINES we have and are talking about in this thread not the powerstroke 6.7l or any powerstroke you keep bringing up and injecting into the conversation ) is not used by most companies a few do both but those few are usually in the super expensive elite oil tier. The point is Sinopec TULUX T700 does the CK4 testing and the CJ4 testing so we know it passes the requirements our motors ( AKA 6.9 / 7.3 IDI International Harvester / Navistar diesel ) need and has a high POA oil content aka group IV true synthetic unlike rotella and delo synthetic which are group III and were the oils in question by the thread poster / starter on the 6.9 / 7.3 idi international harvester / navistar diesel so me giving this info out and then you just muddying the thread with the powerstroke this and that or 6.7L kind of side steps the thread even if alot of good info comes out of it NEWER diesel engine stuff doesn't matter to us as we are not looking for oil for the newer engines like the 6.7L powerstroke the info we are only needing here applies to our 6.9 / 7.3 IDI international harvester / Navistar diesels not the 6.7l powerstroke or any powerstroke at all which you keep injecting into the conversation.


The point is 90% of us guys running these 6.9 / 7.3 IDI's do so out of hatred for the powerstrokes and theyre unreliable electronics and theyre stupid complication we want simplicity / reliability also ability to work on our own trucks without needing to take it to a stealership all the time or a having to buy special diagnostic tools to figure out simple issues and the other 10% of us run alternative fuels like WMO / WVO which again is not something easily done with any powerstroke with any form of reliability and a ton of complications this is why we run these trucks with these motors and have these forums / threads most of us take offense when someone injects powerstroke stuff into our threads on our IDI's I am not trying to be mean here just flustered how you keep steering it to a powerstroke thread when its a obviously a IDI international harvester / navistar thread.
 
Last edited:

stick_witch

Full Access Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2020
Posts
151
Reaction score
89
Location
Homer, Alaska
We can make out that Ford wanted oils which still really met the old CJ spec, in the old way, for their 6.7 engine, same as we want for our old internationals. Ford gave us a list of CK oils that still have lots of ZDDP, stillprotect the way the old CJ oils did. That sure is handy for us, even though it's Ford doing it.

We can also make out that some of the other engine manufacturers didn't need the old levels of ZDDP in their oils, for their particular engine designs. Finally, we can make out that either:
a) Ford will eventually change their design to match the modern oils, which will stink for us, or
b) the API will eventually make a diesel-only spec that keeps the higher protection from the higher ZDDP.

Option b) is plausible: API has already made a different spec series, the FA-4 oils.

It totally correlates with Ford's statement. Older oils met the CJ spec by using lots of ZDDP. High ZDDP levels were a feature that apparently wasn't formally part of the CJ and earlier specs. Now, some CK oils meet the minimum requirements of the CJ spec with less ZDDP. That technically meets the CJ spec, but doesn't provide the same kind of protection as the CJ and previous oils did. We want to avoid these new oils, but the other new oils with plenty of ZDDP are OK.

For now, we can just stick to the Ford list, or just avoid any oils which meet both CK and SN specs.

Back to CBRF3's Sinopec T700 oil, if it claims to meet the CK and CJ specs, if it does NOT claim to meet the SN spec, then it's probably fine, since it's made in the USA. Not being on Ford's list could just mean that they haven't provided Ford a sample.
Fair enough. So im curious, is ZDDP the only variable that is affecting our trucks? Could this potentially be resolved by just adding a ZDDP supplement into our oil? What kind of Zinc levels should we be seeing in our oil? 1500ppm?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

CBRF3

Full Access Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2020
Posts
238
Reaction score
158
Location
Southern Illinois
Fair enough. So im curious, is ZDDP the only variable that is affecting our trucks? Could this potentially be resolved by just adding a ZDDP supplement into our oil? What kind of Zinc levels should we be seeing in our oil? 1500ppm?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No there are other options some oil companies add a different additive that is compatible and has same effect with a also having the lower ZDDP amount so is good to go the thing is the ones doing this are the elite top tier oils like amsoil / redline / royal purple and such and those are bit to pricey in my eyes for our older coal rollers as we need to change our oil more often so and the Sinopec TULUX T700 has the additive package alternative with the low ZDDP that our motors need. This is why I converted as I found failures caused with the rotella and delo both synthetic and dino CK4 version and looked for alternatives after 1 cam and 3 sets of lifters and tons of research I pulled the trigger on the Sinopec T700 and have been doing alot of trouble free towing with a few rigs and alot of miles without issues and even recently tore 1 of them apart and inspected it to find the cam wear and lifter wear was nearly gone with this oil compared to the delo / rotella.


as for the amount of ZDDP that is a unknown as i said alot of oils use alternatives to the ZDDP now so it makes it even more complicating to analyze or find straight answers after my testing and results and several oil tests and many miles in many rigs under hard towing I have came to conclusion the sinopec TULUX T700 is a good oil for our motors others brands and such are a crap show as to whether it offers the protection we need because of all the crazy unknown and missing testing often done with CJ4 that CK4 removed and the changing of the norm for additive packages hince removal of ZDDP and such its pretty well chaos or a crap show on getting the info and understanding all of it.
 
Last edited:

stick_witch

Full Access Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2020
Posts
151
Reaction score
89
Location
Homer, Alaska
No there are other options some oil companies add a different additive that is compatible and has same effect with a also having the lower ZDDP amount so is good to go the thing is the ones doing this are the elite top tier oils like amsoil / redline / royal purple and such and those are bit to pricey in my eyes for our older coal rollers as we need to change our oil more often so and the Sinopec TULUX T700 has the additive package alternative with the low ZDDP that our motors need this is why I converted as i found failures caused with the rotella and delo both synthetic and dino CK4 version and looked for alternatives after 1 cam and 3 sets of lifters I pulled the trigger on the Sinopec T700 and have been doing alot of trouble free towing with a few rigs and alot of miles without issues and even recently tore 1 of them apart and inspected it to find the cam wear and lifter wear was nearly gone with this oil compared to the delo / rotella.
Gotcha. So, but theoretically, couldn’t you run Rotella or dello with a ZDDP additive supplement and get similar results?? Just curious about zddp supplement in general. Is it effective?

Also whats the alternative additive, do you know? What kind of levels are you getting of the anti-wear additive in your oil analysis?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

CBRF3

Full Access Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2020
Posts
238
Reaction score
158
Location
Southern Illinois
Gotcha. So, but theoretically, couldn’t you run Rotella or dello with a ZDDP additive supplement and get similar results?? Just curious about zddp supplement in general. Is it effective?

Also whats the alternative additive, do you know? What kind of levels are you getting of the anti-wear additive in your oil analysis?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That is a complicated question to much ZDDP is bad and to little is also bad as for the alternative additives well again all has to be balanced in a chemical balance as to not counteract other additives or cause other issues so I try to avoid adding other additives to a oil with a set additive package out the jug oil chemistry is a very tricky subject and is borderline on the rocket science scale of skills LOL so i try to find a oil that has the testing and additives straight from the jug I need for my engine if you get my point as adding seperate additive can throw the chemistry way off causing all kinds of problems again this is my experience so i flat out buy it and put it in as it is to meet my requirements.
 
Top