I was going to add archoil 9100 at the next oil change so I order it. I noticed that it had a high level of Boron. So I decided to check with ArchOil to see if would cause damage to the DPF system. Below is the email I received from them. Just sharing.

FROM ArchOil








AR9100 does not fit Fords new requirements for engine oil, but our product is safe for your DPF. Our product uses an additive package that contains Boron. Boron will show up as contributing to sulfated ash content in the ASTM D874 test which technically will disqualify it to be used according to Fords specification, but in application the product is compatible with the DPF. While boron contributes to sulfated ash in the ASTM test, in field testing boron will be absent from after-treatment systems including particulate filters equipped on diesel vehicles. Because of these inconsistencies between the ASTM test results and field results, the use of the ASTM D874 test has been criticized by several researchers.


I hope you can gain further confidence in our product attributed to the fact that AR9100 has been installed in DPF equipped vehicles for ~half a decade with no DPF failures reported.


Let me know if you have further questions,





From SAE on sulfated ash




Abstract:

In order to study and evaluate the effect of sulfated ash in different diesel engine lubricants on the performance and durability of diesel particulate filter (DPF), the two engine oils of API CI-4 and CJ-4 with different sulfated ash levels are used respectively in the durability tests of two DPF systems. Moreover, the pressure drop, ash loading and filtration efficiency of the two DPFs, deposits in the inlets and outlets of the DPFs, intake flow rate and fuel consumption rates of engine are measured and compared. The test results show that: Compared to the API CI-4 which has more ash in the formulation than the API CJ-4, the API CJ-4 shows a markedly excellent performance on the lower ash loading and longer service interval and life for DPF, as well as lower fuel consumption rate for the diesel engine with DPF.

 

Not sure I am following that. They say sulfated ash will not cause a problem, then quote a research paper that says, in fact, it will?

 

Basically confirmation that an oil additive isn't needed.

 

Clarification Arch Oil says it does not affect the DPF, but it is not approved by ford.









I then went to SAE and checked the information and they said it does affect the DPF.



I trust SAE more then Arch Oil by a long shot. So I have won't be using that product.


Donovan

 

The new Ford spec came out this December because the new CK-4 did not meet Ford's wear requirements. Since the spec was not out until now, I don't see how it affects the use of AR9100 in 2016 and prior Powerstrokes unless you are using the new CK-4 oil. I have enough CJ-4 for the next two oil changes. I won't use AR9100 after that but because the oil itself has changed, not because of the DPF. It should be interesting to see if Archoil comes out with a new product, but with no stiction problem now and the new oil spec is supposed to extend oil life, Archoil may not see the need. I wonder what other products might be affected?
Edit: Almost all the major CK-4 oil now meets Ford's specs. I saw a list that included Delo, Rotella, Valvoline, etc.

 

This has probably been mentioned before but the big Archoil kick came from stiction problems on the 6.0 powerstroke. The injectors on a 6.7 don't have stiction issues. Totally different design. I wouldn't be putting it in my engine unless it's a 6.0.

 

I had two 6.0's and never experienced "stiction" and have always been against any oil additives. Personally I feel that an oil additive can upset the additive package within the oil itself and I haven't ever seen a need for it.

Choose the proper oil and run it, no extra additives needed.

 

Your experience is different than many. I had rough cold start on my '06 6.0. Missed on one cylinder for about 2 mins until engine warmed up a little. Tried archoil, and completely eliminated the issue with stiction and rough cold start. Was just up in the mountains with temp in the high 20's and perfect starts every day.

As said above, this is a good product for those with 6.0'stiction issues but not sure I'd invest the money using it on a 6.7 as they don't have this problem.

 

This is the best post in this thread. ^^^^^^


Find any authenticated independent study that proves oil additives prolong the life of an engine. Hint: none exist.


These motors, and the approved motor oil, are designed to work together for maximum life and longevity. There is no such thing as an oil additive on the market that is proven to further increase that life and longevity. Hence.... oil additives are not needed as roadrunner pointed out.


In the case of the 6.0L stiction, oil additives are used to change the properties of the oil itself in order to overcome a mechanical design flaw. So rather than fixing the flaw, the additives act as a bandaid to reduce or eliminate the effects of the flaw. But at what cost to the rest of the motor? If you're changing the properties of the engine oil, does that change cause problems elsewhere? Something to think about.

 

Adding lubricity packages or chemicals the remove varnish isnt a big risk. Working in the oil industry for nearly 40 years, some of the best anti-scuff/wear additives have slowly been eliminated- not because they don't work but because they impact emissions. Refiners continue to search for similar performing additives but additives like zinc were hard to beat and effective. These weren't designed to extend the life (shearing and resulting molecule breakdown determines this) but rather to prevent metal to metal damage and wear. Try running an old flat tappet cammed engine on today's oil without a friction modifier- Even the cam makers advise against it.

Would I run archoil if I didnt have a stiction issue? No- plain and simple. BUT I'd rather spend $30 a few times a year rather than tear apart the injectors to polish up the spool valves every so often so call me lazy, or whatever. For me the stuff worked period.

Now in my old hotrods and dirtbikes I regulary use a zinc additive to improve the lubricating quality of the oil...

 

Hello,

I would like to elaborate on the information that I shared with forum member Donovan. I am the tech support member at Archoil who originally shared with Donovan that our product will not contribute to sulfated ash buildup in the DPF. I would like to cite some relevant research that confirms our position. Numerous studies have been done which analyze DPF ash contents, and these studies have confirmed that Boron does not contribute to sulfated ash buildup in the DPF. Further confirmation comes from the many thousands of customers, mechanics and dealers who buy and use our products. Nobody has reported any issues with DPF’s.

Please take the time to go over some of the evidence I have gathered which supports my statement.

On page 8 of ‘Real-time Method for Making Engine Exhaust Ash Measurements’

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf

The author writes:
“Studies done on chemical composition of ash found in the DPF showed that calcium and phosphorus were the key elements present in the DPF (Takeuchi et al., 2003). They also found no boron in the DPF sample concluding that boron doesn’t affect the performance of the DPF”

‘Lubricant-Derived Ash – In-Engine Sources and Opportunities for Reduction’, also has lots of information on boron and DPF compatibility.

https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/han...pdf?sequence=2

On page 8 the author writes “Boron contributes to sulfated ash but is absent from after treatment system ash. On the other hand, phosphorus does not contribute to sulfated ash but it is found in abundance in aged after treatment systems.”

This shows that the ASTM test is not a good representation of additives interactions with the DPF in application. Notice Phosphorus, one of the primary ingredients in ZDP antiwear additives which are most commonly used in engine oils, is found ‘in abundance’ in after treatment systems while boron is not found in DPF ash despite showing up in the ASTM sulfated ash test. The ASTM sulfated ash test allows harmful levels of phosphorus to be included in diesel engine additive packages while restricting beneficial boron from the additive packages.

On page 56 of the paper the author writes:
“Interestingly, no boron was found in the DPF, although it was present in the lubricants. This result indicated that boron was passing through the DPF.”

It is understood by researchers that boron ash is not captured in the DPF.

The author finishes up on page 211 with the following:
“A more representative alternative to the Sulfated Ash tst (ASTM D874) is needed to characterize the potential impact of lubricant formulations on aftertreatment systems – The results this study show that the sulfated ash measurement does not correlate well with the emissions of ash related elements from lubricants. The test consistently over estimates potential ash emissions. Sulfated ash also has a different composition from the ash found in DPFs (i.e. Boron is contained in sulfated ash, but has never been found in DPF ash). As a result, the concentrations of beneficial additives that do not contribute to DPF ash are constrained by the sulfated ash requirements in lubricant specifications. A more representative test method will help formulators create lubricants that are optimized for enhanced protection of engine components, while also minimizing the impact on DPFs.”

The author has made the very relevant observation that ‘concentrations of beneficial additives that do not contribute to DPF ash are constrained by the sulfated ash requirements in lubricant specifications.’ Our product is very beneficial, but you won’t see it in OEM recommended engine oils because of the ASTM D874 test. A more representative DPF ash content evaluation method indeed needs to be developed so that consumers such as yourself can receive the best possible protection for your engines.
Let me know if you have any questions on this information.

-Alex