CJ-4 class Diesel Oils

[philip]

[philip]

Another relevant tidbit from Conoco about diesel engine oil, particularly current generation diesels having "Cooled EGR" systems.

http://lubes.conoco.com/NR/rdonlyres/26 ... yFINAL.pdf

"Another way to illustrate the added benefits of API CI-4 oils, versus current API CH-4 oils, is to
describe how API CI-4 oils have been upgraded to meet demands of cooled EGR engine designs.
With cooled EGR, a part of the exhaust gas stream is diverted, cooled, then recirculated and
combined with fresh air, as intake to the combustion process. This combined intake stream is lower
in oxygen content than fresh air alone. The lower oxygen content leads to lower peak temperatures
and pressures at combustion, which in turn, leads to less production of NOx pollutants.
However, by lowering peak temperatures of combustion in this manner, engine builders have
unfortunately created conditions that have adverse effects on the lubricating oil. Cooled EGR
conditions lead to condensation of water in the EGR cooler, which combines with other
combustion byproducts, subsequently forming acids which are aerosoled into the intake manifold.
Through increased alkalinity, API CI-4 oils provide enhanced anti-corrosion protection for bearings
to combat the effect of acids being ingested in the combustion process. This anti-corrosion
protection is particularly important towards the end of long oil drain intervals. Cooled EGR
systems can also lead to higher soot loadings in the crankcase oil. When compared to API CH-4
oils, API CI-4 oils provide improved viscosity control of soot-laden oil, which helps keep the oil in
grade and also retains good oil pumpability."

[Zoltan]

My comments and a question to the article above:

I have apprehensions about new oil standards... They are geared towards the newest engines and the old ones have to live (and die) with them. Now should I stock up on CI-4 Plus Rotella before the CJ-4 comes out?

To illustrate my case:I own a 1985 BMW K100 motorcycle and when it was made it required SF grade oil, which in the BMW bottle, had high zinc content (1500ppm). As standards advanced they lowered zinc and phosphorous in SM oils and, guess what, the old SF grade oil would provide much better engine protection than the new SM oils.

I wonder if our old SD22s would be better off running with old-standard oil in them rather than the new CJ-4 standard... ?
I know that lower sulfur in diesel fuel means less sulfuric acid forming in the exhaust and hence no need so much alkalic stuff in the oil, but would the sulfated ash harmful to our old trucks if it was left in the oil ?
Higher levels of sulfated ash and phosphorous provides better lubrication and, after all, we don't have to worry about fouling sensitive exhaust catalists and clean up systems that the new diesel automobiles and trucks will come equiped with.

[philip]

My comments and a question to the article above:

I have apprehensions about new oil standards... They are geared towards the newest engines and the old ones have to live (and die) with them.
SNIP
I wonder if our old SD22s would be better off running with old-standard oil in them rather than the new CJ-4 standard... ?
I know that lower sulfur in diesel fuel means less sulfuric acid forming in the exhaust and hence no need so much alkalic stuff in the oil, but would the sulfated ash harmful to our old trucks if it was left in the oil ?
Higher levels of sulfated ash and phosphorous provides better lubrication and, after all, we don't have to worry about fouling sensitive exhaust catalists and clean up systems that the new diesel automobiles and trucks will come equiped with.

Anything that goes out the exhaust also accumulates in the engine oil. There are more costly substances that will do what sulphated ash (known to crust up the piston crown and top ring groove) and phosphorus/zinc do now. That's where oil formulation is going.

Addressing your concerns (fears), you could stock up on CI-4 or you might find a specific oil suppliment. The latter is the approach I take with regard to fuel lubricity (additive).

[ecomike]

I for one have stocked up on the CI-4 oils for both my diesel and gas engines. I have also stocked up on the rapidly disapearing, possibly soon to be extinct, aftermarket ZDDP additives.

I love a good experiment, but not with the oil in my SD22 and 4.0 gassers!

[philip]

As usual, AMSOIL has some interesting information:

http://www.ultimatesyntheticoil.com/syn ... el_oil.htm

[ecomike]

Good point, somehow I got so wrapped up with the ZDDP issue, I missed the signifgance of the TBN issue. I also missed that page on Amsol last time I looked them over. Lots of good points he makes there.

[Zoltan]

The original thread is here.

What folks are looking at is the additization level for CJ-4 vs. CI-4. CJ-4 simply has lower treat levels of traditional anti-wear packages (zinc dithiophosphate, etc.) along with lower TBN levels. And yes, all major oil companies are reporting advantage advantage for the new CJ-4 formulation in terms of wear minimization, soot control and oxidation resistance. With the new ULSD, the need for high TBN is rather a moot point as the primary source of acid generation came from the sulfur in the old diesel fuel formulation. With ULSD, little or no sulfur, little or no acid..

So, the jury is still out a bit on just how good this new CJ-4 formulation is in the real world. All majors claim millions of miles of testing with superb, superior results vs. CI-4+.. But, then again looks at those significantly reduced zinc/phos numbers and........

Moreover, one cannot go wrong with either choice but also the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" may also apply as the CI-4+ formulations are superb oils indeed.. And the synthetic versions creme de la creme.

George Morrison, STLE CLS

Just cruised around the local suppliers, and all of them are selling the new CJ-4 oil only, except for a grocery store that still has Castrol 15w40 fleet oil which is CI-4. For me it would be cheaper to buy the CJ-4 oil so I think I will switch to CJ-4. The sticker on the new Rotella T with Triple Protection (15W40) claims "27-88% less engine wear than before" and "Our biggest technological leap in engine oil formulation in 30 years" I am mostly using biodiesel these days. It's cheaper than the ULSD, and found a good source on my way to town. I will spend some money on oil analysis for the next couple of oil changes. I wonder what company Phillip sends his vials to. My local NAPA does not sell oil analysis kits.

[asavage]

I am mostly using biodiesel these days. It's cheaper than the ULSD, and found a good source on my way to town.

Lucky you! I am paying $3.65/gal. for ASTM BD now. And I run B99 constantly.

My local NAPA does not sell oil analysis kits.

They can certainly get one for you.

[philip]

For this past week, I took a drive up to Portland OR and back. One little truck stop on I-5 in OR had this post card ... (Look closely)



I also happened to notice they had Chevron Delo 100, 30wt.

From Chevron:

"Chevron Delo® 100 Motor Oils SAE 20, 30, 40, 50

Chevron Delo 100 Motor Oils are high-performance crankcase oils formulated to protect and preserve diesel engines. These motor oils meet API Service Classifications CF-2* and CD-II* (SAE 30, 40, 50) and CF and CD (all grades). All grades also comply with Detroit Diesel Corporation's two-cycle engine recommendations, including the 0.8% ash limit for DDC Series 149 engines.

The motor oils have special extreme-pressure, anti-wear properties and excellent high-temperature deposit control. They protect against rust, corrosion, varnish and sludge.

In addition to their on-highway applications, Chevron Delo 100 Motor Oils are recommended for use in two- and four-cycle diesel engines in farm machinery, marine service, construction equipment and other off-highway applications.

Chevron's primary recommendation for two-cycle diesel engines is Chevron Delo 100 Motor Oil SAE 40 or 50. Specifically for the Detroit Diesel Series 149 engine, we recommend Chevron RPM Heavy Duty Motor Oil SAE 40 or 50. Chevron Delo 400 SAE 30, 40 and 50 meet the requirements of API CF-2 and are also recommended for two-cycle diesel engines."

[asavage]

"Chevron Delo® 100 Motor Oils SAE 20, 30, 40, 50 . . . These motor oils meet API Service Classifications CF-2* and CD-II* (SAE 30, 40, 50) and CF and CD (all grades). "

Gack. CF = antique.

[philip]

The older days had much more ZDDP so ... there. Those old SD had flat tappets on the cams instead of roller tappets.

In the 1982 owner manual ....

[asavage]

I know that -- the current, 25-year-on oils all exceed what the SD requires. I'm pointing out that the oil you found is several spec revisions out of date, and that's not for the good.

That said, there is NO way for a single-viscosity oil to meet some newer specs, it just can't be done. Ever notice how there is a dearth of single-viscosity synthetic oils? Even without VI improvers (additives), synth oils peform in the range of a multi-visco mineral oil.

[philip]

I know that -- the current, 25-year-on oils all exceed what the SD requires. I'm pointing out that the oil you found is several spec revisions out of date, and that's not for the good.

Sorry Al. The newer oils "exceed" specs also means there is less and less ZDDP. This is why all engines (beginning mid 1990's) having flat tappets changed to roller tappets ... both gas and diesel (the exception is in engines having cam / buckets). Same for street motorcycles.

[asavage]

I contend that lower levels of Zinc do not adversely affect the SD: the spring rate and camshaft/tappet loading is very light and slow -- an SD is not your motorcycle. Newer oil specs are just fine for the SD, and I would not run a CF-rated oil in my SD if there was a better choice available -- nor a single-viscosity oil, which won't lubricate well during warmup, esp. in our northern climate. Heavy oils are terrible for the valvetrain up here.

IOW, the lower level of Zinc additive is a non-issue to me. Zinc is not the only additive available to combat wear in the last-resort stages of lubrication. I believe I mentioned this upthread, so this shouldn't come as a surprise. I am surprised that you find this antique oil spec single-viscosity Chevron stuff a boon or at all desirable. I might use it to help start a trash fire (we can still burn trash & yard waste in the open here, unlike the banishment of backyard incinerators in your overcrowded part of the world, back in the 60's?), but disdain putting it in a crankcase.

The newer oils "exceed" specs also means there is less and less ZDDP . . .

How does this affect synthetic oils? Probably not at all. Yet another way that lower ZDDP is a non-issue for me.

Welcome back; we've missed you