Jump to content

CK-4 problem for Duramax?

calgator73

Recommended Posts

calgator73 Senior Enthusiast

calgator73

Posted
Posted

Ford noticed issues with Ford 6.7L due to intro of CK-4. They attribute the issues to lower lubricity caused by low phosphorus content. Has anyone heard of this impacting LMLs?

 

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

redwngr Senior Enthusiast

redwngr

Posted
Posted

I think it's the CP4 you're referring to.

 

Yes, there are issues with them on the LML.

 

Widely discussed on several Dmax related forums. Most think/feel that the problem is not as common on the LML as it is on the Fords. I have no Ford info, but am passing on info from the Dmax forums I follow.

 

One of the forums has a poll, showing about 7% failure rate over 500+ responding. (which is probably higher than the real rate, since some only join/respond because thay have had a problem.)

calgator73 Senior Enthusiast

calgator73

Posted
  • Author
Posted

No ....API specification CK-4. It replaced CJ-4 in December. Biggest change is a reduction in phosphorus to 800ppm.

 

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Arth Enthusiast

Arth

Posted
Posted

I don't know about the LML but I wonder about the LP5.

 

 

No ....API specification CK-4. It replaced CJ-4 in December. Biggest change is a reduction in phosphorus to 800ppm.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

sdeeter19555 Senior Enthusiast

sdeeter19555

Posted
Posted

I think wires are getting crossed, one is talking oil spec, the other is talking injection pump...

 

I would have assumed this would have been addressed by the oil manufacturer before the oil was released...is there really a TSB or something from Ford, or is this Internet lore?

 

Keep in mind the same thing took place with the change from CI-4+ to CJ-4, I bet there are still some Dodge guys with a 100 gallon stockpile of CI-4+ because CJ-4 was so bad...it was supposed to cause premature engine failures, issues with the oil-lubed high pressure pumps, eat seals, etc. That oil turned out to be better in the long run than CI-4+!

 

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

sdeeter19555 Senior Enthusiast

sdeeter19555

Posted
Posted

I'd like to see how they "tested" to show this is oil related...if it only affects one brand of truck....

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

Cowpie Senior Enthusiast

Cowpie

Posted
Posted

I ran a load of Mobil Delvac Extreme 10w30 syn blend CK-4 thru my Detroit 12.7L for 20,000 miles. The UOA on the oil was as good the previous 653,000 miles on CJ-4. Lots of paranoia over CK-4, but it has been really run thru the grinder and tested to make sure it will be a positive and exceed the previous CJ-4. I have been following the development over the last 2 years.

 

The key thing to look for.... some CK-4 HDEO's also have API SN gasoline ratings. Those have the significantly reduced phosphorus. The CK-4 oils that do not claim API SN tend to not cut out so much of the ZDDP. Check the back of the jug anytime you buy.

Cowpie Senior Enthusiast

Cowpie

Posted
Posted

Over at BITOG, we have seen a pattern on all of this. If the HDEO CK-4 oil also lays claim to being SN gasoline rated, it typically has the lower phosphorous. For instance, Schaeffer CK-4 oils are on the Ford approved list. Unlike Schaeffer's previous CJ-4 diesel oils, these no longer lay claim to being gasoline engine rated oils on their spec sheets. So a pattern is emerging..... if the CK-4 oil does not also claim the gasoline API SN rating, it is probably higher than 1000 ppm in phosphorous.

 

HDEO's have traditionally also had gasoline API ratings in the past. Now, some do and some don't, as it pertains to CK-4. Those that do not seem to be the ones to look for.

  • 6 months later...
Cowpie Senior Enthusiast

Cowpie

Posted
Posted

Well, on the 5th load of CK-4 in my factory remanned Detroit engine with 754,000 miles now on the reman, over 100,000 miles since the switch to CK-4 last winter.  One is going to have a real tough time convincing me that CK-4 is not up to the task.   My oil samples on CK-4 have been within a few points of any of the previous dozens of samples on CJ-4.  Oil consumption the same as it has been since I dropped the motor in the truck.  About 2 qts on 20-22,000 mile oil change intervals.

 

If the Dmax doesn't do well on CK-4, it would speak more to the poor quality of the motor than the oil.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Grumpy Bear
      Transmission Temperature Hitting 220s

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Most thermostatically controlled ATF systems use a 'wax' pill just like the one in your water thermostat. They work on the expansion volume of the wax and the pill is constructed in such a way as to limit the travel to remain within that range. This means it has an opening temperature often called the 'cracking temperature' and a fully open temperature. For whatever reason oil is designated by it's fully open temperature and water by it's cracking temperature.    Between the two it the "Regulating Temperature" The entire range is about 20 F from closed to open. In your example the lower limit, opening point of 145 F then has a fully open temp of 165 F and a throttling temperature of 155 F.    Thing is, the throttling temperature needs two things to work properly. Enough system load high enough to reach the minimum and a heat sink (cooler/exchanger) large enough to prevent any load applied from exceeding the fully open temperature.    If your system exceeds the fully open temperature it is screaming MORE COOLER.    Here is the silly part of the whole thermostat system where the oil is cooled/heated by the radiator. Nothing is flowing to that system until the oil temperature reaches the cracking temperature unless it is equipped with a minimum flow bypass orifice or a bypass built into the seating surface of the plunger. That system meant to get it up to temp quicker isn't doing a thing until WORK drives if from ambient to cracking temp. One a cold winter day, like zero F, it may never get hotter than about 110 F. Sometimes not even that.    People forget or are young enough to not know that until this millennia transmissions were cooled by the radiator cold tank alone and without a thermostat at all.  In the 50's they weren't even cooled. OEMs learn everything the hard way.    When an OEM tells you the trans "Works best" between 175 F and 220 F it means works best for THEM. The transmission thermostat is fuel play. If you watch you trans temps like I do you will learn that it may take a hundred miles if you are not towing and not driving more than say 55-60 mph on a zero F day to even reach 120 F and it might sit there all day if it's colder. Yet if functions perfectly over about 100 F. It may need to get a bit warmer for the fuel and spark maps to go without an multiplier.    Worry more about too hot. Use a cooler large enough to put that thermostat in range.         
    • KARNUT
      Gas Prices

      By KARNUT · Posted

      Around 2008 if memory serves they took sulfur out. That was when diesel went up. 
    • richard wysong
      Gas Prices

      By richard wysong · Posted

      Question for you Grumpy, why is diesel so much more than gasoline? Seems to me that it may be slightly a little less refined than gas and it doesn't have 10% alcohol which presumably lowers the price of gas
    • TrueBlue
      Transmission Temperature Hitting 220s

      By TrueBlue · Posted

      Thanks, so being a different beast altogether, anyone know what the "optimal" temp is for the 10L80/90 for proper shifting?
    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      How many years have I pointed out every point in that link to the folks here and been avalanched with criticisms and outright hostilities at times? I ran counter to even the great CUSTOMBOSS and Lake Speed Jr and the half dozen experts on YouTube and in the final.....GM, Physics (Stribeck) backs that Grumpy old Bear.    Honestly, I never said a thing engineering hadn't studied silly and laid in concrete during WWII. But I'm old, the information is old and yet, the Laws of Physics are eternal.    Okay there is one exception. I vehemently disagree with their use of the word 'tolerances' when what it meant is "clearance".   The clearance is the distance between two objects. The tolerance is the degree of acceptable variation permitted in that clearance. I.E., piston to bore clearance is 0.004" with a tolerance of +/- .0002" so the clearance is in specification if it lies between 0.0038" and 0.0042". Cutting that 'tolerance in half has ZERO impact on lubrication requirements. Makes for more difficulty in manufacturing.  But a tighter clearance 'MAY'. Depends on finish. Anyway....   It's one of those statements made by people to make themselves look smarter than they are to convince people who are as un-enlighten as they seem to manipulate their behaviors. But hey, the blind leading the blind puts them both in the pit. 

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...