Originally Posted by arvicola-amphibius
Fair enough comment - consumer protection is alive and well, in the USA at least.
But, playing devil's advocate: Suppose some-one wishing to 'feel good' put an additive in during the early life of the engine. It does not run-in the way it should - for whatever reason. The engine is serviceable, but oil consumption is excessive. The manufacturer makes no guarantees about maximum oil consumption - we have just come expect it to be almost minimal in today's engines.
I don't think anyone could be held to blame for that except the owner.
I would think that a company in business for a very long time, with a solid reputation for standing behind their product, ( if you use Lucas or Power Service anti gel treatment in a semi and it gels they pay the tow bill), and a proven benefit to the engine would not be the cause of some mystery damage. Like I said before, some things you add because they work, they give the benefit they claim to give, I like sweet tea, I add an additive purported to sweeten things, it works just like it is supposed with no surprise after taste, it is called sugar. When I want to reduce the bacteria in my fuel tank I add Power Service Diesel Kleen, when I want good adhesion to surfaces from my oil at all temperatures I add Lucas. These things I add because they do as they are advertised to do by the manufacturer. CYA guy from Mack Boring has to say things that way because he is paid to say what he is told, but if you contact Cummins, Mack, Caterpillar, Detroit, or any other engine manufacturer and ask them specifically about using Power Service or Lucas they will not tell you that those things are bad for the engine.
Rotella is designed for diesels, is used by several manufacturers as the OEM engine oil, but it is not CF-4 because CF-4 was declared obsolete in 2007.
API: CF-4 Diesel Oil Now Obsolete
By Lisa Tocci
WASHINGTON, D.C. – API CF-4, a heavy-duty diesel engine oil category
that debuted 17 years ago and continues to hold a sliver of the market,
was declared obsolete yesterday by the American Petroleum Institute's
Lubricants Committee at its semi-annual standards meeting here.
Beginning immediately, no new licenses for the category will be accepted or
The demise of CF-4 was pretty much a given, since one key engine test for
the category – the 600-hour Mack T-6 test that measures piston and ring
wear, viscosity change and oil consumption – is no longer available. API
had asked ASTM, which defines the test, whether the newer Mack T-12 test
might be an acceptable substitute, but ASTM's Heavy Duty Engine Oil
Classification Panel came back with a firm negative. There's no data to
support a correlation between the two tests (they use different engines and
measure different performance parameters), so this option is not open, the
The Engine Manufacturers Association, which represents the interests of
diesel engine builders, has already agreed that without the test to support
it, API CF-4 licensing needs to be discontinued, Kevin Ferrick of API told the
meeting. The engine builders also requested that API encourage its
licensees to upgrade their products to at least CH-4, the performance
standard that was introduced in December 1998 and is fully backward
compatible with the expiring category.
Would you really trust a manufacturer's representative who was six years behind the curve on his knowledge of lubricants? Not so much.