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