Amsoil needs to stay out of this discussion.

Thanks,

Keith

 

Well since I am so good at aiding in getting threads steered off topic, I'll help this one get back on track.

Getting down to specifics like add packs, (the base oil is very similar I would suspect) just what is missing from the 5W50, save the soot control addatives? Many people are going to disable the poorly thought out emissions crap on these sooner or later anyway, (offroad, dragstrip ect.) many already have. So why not get the best oil for the engine minus all the extra crap they had to add to get the oil to hold up to the excessive exhaust gas re-circulation? With time being on our side, we will start seeing more and more regular component wear. This might be a good thread to get one of the Lube Geeks involved in.

 

You are on to just exactly my thoughts here.

I KNOW for a fact that the 50 weight will be a benefit at the high temperatures my engines usually see, and that the thinness of the 5-weight will help prevent oil pump cavitation; other than that, everything else is speculation at this point.

Jeff and myself have been discussing some specific issues over PM concerning the subject, but I think its going to come down to contacting someone at Conoco Phillips and/or API to concrete info on it. The Blackstone will provide good insight to how its holding up in the real world, but not much into how well its protecting from deposits, which is still a concern even in low-mileage-life engines as far as aftermarket injectors and high pressure systems are concerned.

I also need to correct something I posted earlier, it is a CF rated oil....quite ancient. But it is SL spec for gas engines, and has the very latest specific gas engine specifications. The two seem to contradict themselves, and seeing that it is designed for a 30 thousand dollar engine to begin with (the GT) I can't imagine it not being of the highest quality and design standards.

It comes down to this for me - did the oil not pass CI-4 because it wasn't good enough, or simply because it wasn't ever tested, due to lack of need and cause?

Anyone have any specific thoughs as to who to contact about it? Jeff? Anyone?

 

I'm glad you reopened this topic. I was getting worried this forum was headed in the same direction as one of the other forums, with taboo subjects like talk about disabling EGR's or cats. I think it's productive every so often to remind users, especially new members about the slippery marketing practices of Amsoil.

 

If you spend much time talking to people about performance gasoline engines they bemoan the fact that antiscuff additives such as zinc have been reduced in the SM,SL gasoline engine oils and many advocate the use of 15W-40 diesel oil for better protection in their gasoline engines.
It seems ironic that diesel people would now consider the use of these oils, that have compromised their additive packages for the sake of gasoline engine catalytic convertor life, in their diesel engines.

 

Matt, check out the thread below about diesel oil ratings (API ratings).

https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/5...oil-specs.html

The CF is a very old diesel oil rating and I would be afraid that all of the diesel motor designers improved upon it for a reason? It does not have the proper additive package for diesel motors (even though before the EGR equipped motors). I would assume that this oil was never tested and there is no need for...???

The 15W-40 grade oil works well for 90% of the diesels out there and have been certified and tested to some very strict testing per Catapillers, Mack, Volvo and Cummins to name a few. The oil you are testing/using would probably not hold up to these tests... and there is not enough of a market (profits) to do so - "marketing 101".

Viscosity is not everything in an oil... just look at the all the 5W-20 being used and sold for cars now days, and heck, 10W-30 for diesels (in the winter). If one changes their oil and filter on a regular basis the difference between 5W-40, 10W-40 and 5W-50 is not a huge difference, but there is in the Add Packs and the blending (and types) of base stocks and additives.

Remember, if one does not need a thinner oil for cold weather operation, then 15W-40 is the way to go. A 15W-40 oil is a 15 weight oil with VI additives in it to function like a 40 weight... but if the oil breaks down... it could become a 15 weight oil... but sludge helps maintain viscosity (catch 22). This is why most air-cooled lawn mowers and the like state to use a straight 30 weight... since it can never break down... it is a 30 weight warm or cold.

Good luck Matt, but please look at the link above, as I would be one to vote for using a high quality CJ4 motor oil as it was designed for reduced shearing over CI4+ oils... and it is available in 5W-40 synthetic (Citgo for now).

 

Two things come to my mind on this: Yes you could be right and it was never tested or it is has inadequit detergent additives for a diesel engine. But this raises the question for me, didnt the older diesels run with alot more soot? Has the newer specs (Over that very old spec) brought extended drain intervals over the last 20 or so years? I for one would keep a very diligent eye wrt oil analysis and do them every 1000 miles. WRT the new specs are they not taking zinc out of them too for Catylitic converter compatibility as well. If that is the case the SM isnt such a bad thing, if that is not the case and it is only sulfur and ash I would suggest you add some of this stuff:

http://www.valvoline.com/pages/produ...asp?product=21

My last question is what are you paying for the 5W-50? Is there a savings over the CJ4 Syn?

Point to Beach: Your radial graph doesnt indicate any better shear stability or wear characteristics yet everything I have read indicates it is all round better, is it just marketing hype because it is backwards compatible?

 

To duffman and Jeff:

You both raise a point that I want to consider.

If the oil truly only meets CF specifications (due to the add. packs), you are right, it is not worth using for the 50 weight benefit.

My main question at this point is just this : did it meet the CF by default (does all SL spec meet CF standards?) and wasn't tested at all for diesel use, or did it meet it because it WAS tested and it just didn't hold up any better?

If its the former, I really want to do some testing and research to see if it would meet the later model criteria. If not, it needs to go in the trashcan, and I'll stick with CI-4+ and CJ4.

PS to duffman: Its 8 dollars a quart at invoice through the dealership So no, there is no cost savings. Quite frankly I don't care what it costs, I just want whatever is going to keep my engines alive for 10k miles rather than 7500

 

Even if it does go bad, please keep us posted on the results. The purpose here is to learn and even if not successful at least you tried something and I will give you some rep for that when we see the results. That link I provided for you will restore the zinc back to your oil (I have researched this for use with flat tappet cams on Bob's the oil guy site). Seriously though get those oil analysis done often and early on that first oil change and good luck.

 

Thanks for the info.

The Blackstone sample went out yesterday; will hopefully have it back before the end of next week.

 

Jeff, Matt, Duff. The thing is this, Matt (as well as Ford hence the reason for the 05E15 injector cycling flash) has seen injectors sticking with the oil we are using now. I apperciate where Matt is going with this. As I too am of the school that a flash to cycle injectors to keep them from sticking isn't cutting it, there is another problem here, and I full well believe it is the lubricant we are using, or are forced to use via the ratings game and the owners manual. (CI-4, CI-4+, now CJ-4 all in less than 3 years ought to tell you something) The thought crosses my mind that the reason the 5W50 was not tested to meet CI or CJ is because like its cousin Mercon SP, the price is high. (few customers would use it except when it is manditory like in the GT) It may have additives that are not compatible with the current emissions systems on our 6.0. Or from an environmental and legality standpoint API might have recommended against it. (the GT 500 comes with an emissions/gas guzzler penalty tax right on the window sticker)

 

In the link below (post #8), I raised the same question?

https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/5...oil-specs.html

I think the graph is wrong... as too much money and testing has gone into this new oil spec (CJ4) for it to be just marketing!!!

Just posted a new graph that I came accross comparing CI4 to CJ4... and it does reflect major improvements... so check out the thread above and look at the latest graph I posted.

 

the main issue is that the 6.0 uses a dual 48 volt coil to operate the injector. the 73 used a 115 volt circuit. so i have felt this is a issue from the get go. but, the new flash does make the problem of sticking injectors ease to some degree. but it all boils down to proper oil and proper interval changes.

 

Recieved my Blackstone Analysis back on the 5w-50 today. I've attached a copy of the PDF file; just download it if you would like to view it.

The SUS viscosity and flashpoint were just a bit below normal, but that was due to the 2% fuel content (thanks to an original set of C94 injectors pushing well over 170,000 miles now). I am very happy about Blackstone's comments concerning the additive package and soot capacity, that being my main concern. From the looks of the TBN I should be able to run close to, if not, a 10,000 mile service interval.

I do believe I have found my new oil; especially for the higher rpm modified engines.

Edit- the attachment doesn't seem to want to work; I will give it an hour or so and try to repost it.

 

Ok, I've attached the Blackstone report here since the attachments are working now.