question regarding multi weight motor oil

What about ck4 oil being more shear resistant? Ck-4 is not all about making the emission equipment last, but needing a tougher oil to survive the harsher conditions of modern diesel.
Some of the additives are really not needed in the higher levels of yesteryear. Main reason for reducing calcium is low sulfur fuel lowers oil acidity.
Really needs to address why oil engineers believe ck4 is backwards compatible and why reduced oil drain intervals are specified with newer engines when using cj4 compared to ck4. Is there anything in the newer oils that can compensate for lower zinc and phosphorus?
I may have been to one to many seminars explaining ck4 oil.

I don't think the degradation of shear strength isn't much of a concern in the IDIs with normal oil change intervals. It's pretty good in all the oils and there really isn't a process inside that tears it up like the HPOPs and HEUI injectors do in the newer PS.

I don't know enough on the technical side about how to compare the chemistry components but soot and combustion gasses mixing with oil in the crankcase are where most of the wear comes from. Soot because the particles are smaller than what a stock filter catches and so pass through and continue wearing the internals. The blow-by mixes into the oil and ups the acidity which IIRC causes a chemical breakdown of the base oil. Even a freshly rebuilt IDI engine produces these in spades compared to the newest engines with much tighter tolerances, more efficient injection and additional emissions restrictions. I'll have to dig up some of my old oil analysis to reread but I don't remember sulfur being described as major contributor to the oil acidity. I thought it was more related to inefficient combustion from low cylinder temps like with long idle times. I think these are reasons to want the older style additive levels for these older engines.

The newer oils are labeled as backward compatible, but when accepting that I think it's even more important to stick to the recommended change intervals for your truck's driving conditions because there isn't likely as much wiggle room in the additive package as there used to be. Also, all these engines are far outside the warranty so there isn't the big hand of the OEMs to stand up and say these newer oil specs might be causing problems for older engines because they aren't paying any attention to them after they've past warranty.

Here are a couple videos where an Amsoil Lube guy discusses the changes in oil requirements from 2k to current. He's speaking mostly about how they relate to the newer engines and why bypass filtration is cost effective but he has some comments about the previous mid 90s oils as well and why the changes have had to be made. It kind of ties in with what the PDD guy was discussing.




And here's Gale Banks discussing Soot in oil causing the destruction of the anti wear additive zincdiphyo??????????? from about 2:30. He says soot goes up as the engine works harder, which translates to more wear on components in a given oil change interval.

bobistheoilguy.com is the site I use for oil questions.

Found this last night.
Obviously, there’s a lot of wear when there’s not much ZDDP. As you can see to the left of the chart, no zinc equals no anti-wear protection and lots of abrasive and adhesive wear occurs.
Abrasive wear comes from metal on metal contact because there’s no ZDDP film to protect it. Those wear particles then travel through the engine and cause more wear. But, if you add the correct amount of ZDDP to an oil, you combat abrasive wear and very little wear happens. All good.So, if one is good, two must be better right? Wrong. If you have too much ZDDP, you start to see corrosive wear and cause another problem. Adding an excess causes the oil to become acidic, and before you know, you’re wearing cams, bearings and bushings because of too much ZDDP. https://aaoil.co.uk/123579-2/

Ford did not reject ck4 oils. They rejected 10w30 ck-4/sn oils. Sn oils being the gasoline standard and having a lower phosphorus content. Everyone saw the ck-4 and ignored the rest.

hce said:

Found this last night.
Obviously, there’s a lot of wear when there’s not much ZDDP. As you can see to the left of the chart, no zinc equals no anti-wear protection and lots of abrasive and adhesive wear occurs.
Abrasive wear comes from metal on metal contact because there’s no ZDDP film to protect it. Those wear particles then travel through the engine and cause more wear. But, if you add the correct amount of ZDDP to an oil, you combat abrasive wear and very little wear happens. All good.So, if one is good, two must be better right? Wrong. If you have too much ZDDP, you start to see corrosive wear and cause another problem. Adding an excess causes the oil to become acidic, and before you know, you’re wearing cams, bearings and bushings because of too much ZDDP. https://aaoil.co.uk/123579-2/

Click to expand...

Remember, when talking about cam wear and sliding friction, we are talking about flat tappet cams and lifters.
We have roller lifters, so as long as there is an oil film there, you aren't getting any wear.
And that's exactly what I see - Cams just plain do not wear in an IDI.

The part i *have* seen wear on, is the mechanical lift pump lobe which the lift pump arm /slides/ on.
However, that's also not a critical part - it *only* drives the lift pump, and isn't going to kill the engine. You can always use an alternative lift pump if this becomes a problem, and it takes a *ton* of wear for it to be a problem.
I also think it's not a hardened steel part(or at least not case hardened and polished), which is probably why I've seen wear there...

DaveBen said:

bobistheoilguy.com is the site I use for oil questions.

Click to expand...

,but I believe we all like making noise here with members we know.

Macrobb said:

Remember, when talking about cam wear and sliding friction, we are talking about flat tappet cams and lifters.
We have roller lifters, so as long as there is an oil film there, you aren't getting any wear.
And that's exactly what I see - Cams just plain do not wear in an IDI.

Click to expand...

My old John Deeres and Listers do have flat tappets, so I try to stick to diesel oils which will work in them all. I think CJ is my best bet for that.

hce said:

Found this last night.
Obviously, there’s a lot of wear when there’s not much ZDDP. As you can see to the left of the chart, no zinc equals no anti-wear protection and lots of abrasive and adhesive wear occurs.
Abrasive wear comes from metal on metal contact because there’s no ZDDP film to protect it. Those wear particles then travel through the engine and cause more wear. But, if you add the correct amount of ZDDP to an oil, you combat abrasive wear and very little wear happens. All good.So, if one is good, two must be better right? Wrong. If you have too much ZDDP, you start to see corrosive wear and cause another problem. Adding an excess causes the oil to become acidic, and before you know, you’re wearing cams, bearings and bushings because of too much ZDDP. https://aaoil.co.uk/123579-2/

Click to expand...

Thanks for the chart, that's good to know as well. I agree that more is not always better. I guess my point is that PDD states on their oil info page that their oil is based on the CI4+ formulation which is closer to the formulation that was spec'd back when these engines newer but even CI4 was in the era of catalytic converters which indicates to me the reduction of zinc was already beginning. I believe the results of that chart have been known for quite some time and I think that the older formulations were probably targeted around the lowest point of that curve and not too far to the right. Unfortunately there's no numbers on it to come to a more accurate conclusion. I do think that the reduction of some of the key components of the additive package is significantly related to the addition of emissions equipment and after treatment on newer engines starting with the 7.3 powerstroke catalytic converter. We do not have to be concerned with those problems so I like the idea of the increased zinc. I don't think that the new oils have moved out of the green section of that chart but I do think they are pushing it as far to the left as they think they can to help emissions and yet still be able to get the warranty mileage out of the engines, again primarily because of the emissions reductions.

We are a unique group of owners that seem to be intent to drive the same truck until we die or the truck does as opposed to keeping up with the Jones' crowd. To that end I think the older oil spec of CI4 or older will do nothing but help me in that endeavor. Especially if that oil is in the price range of the premium oil I'm already buying to try to achieve the same goal.

nelstomlinson said:

My old John Deeres and Listers do have flat tappets, so I try to stick to diesel oils which will work in them all. I think CJ is my best bet for that.

Click to expand...

Consider the large base circle, large lifter diameters, low lift, low spring pressure, low rpm, and large oil reserve on the JD I wonder if the oil film is ever broken through. On the other hand lifters, cam, down time is expensive and if cj is readily available its cheap insurance.
Also sliding friction on a flat tappet camshaft is a little misleading, if everything is correct the cam lobe better be spinning the lifter. More of a point loading rolling friction.

Hce, my Deers are more modern than I think you think they are. They are late '70s crawler loaders, operate at almost the same RPM as my IDIs, and I don't think the cam is any larger than the IDI cam.

nelstomlinson said:

Hce, my Deers are more modern than I think you think they are. They are late '70s crawler loaders, operate at almost the same RPM as my IDIs, and I don't think the cam is any larger than the IDI cam.

Click to expand...

Idi a roller does not matter. I venture they are much larger then the problematic child small block chevy, really all others makes are much more forgiving to break in and continued zinc levels. Your valvetrane by comparison is a behemoth.

Ya our roller lifters should be ok on ck4. Maybe not the rocker fulcrums?

Found this. When they say .06% this equates to 600ppm.

Prior to the CK-4 spec coming out, I never saw bearing failures in the idit engines. Since it’s come out, I’ve seen 4 so far in the last few years. That’s not hard data, but I plan on doing some oil analysis comparisons between the pdd oil and delo 400 ck4 if I can get some time to put an engine together for the shop truck.