The new oil as on January 2007 CI-4 rated and the previous oil is CI-4 PLUS , is the CI-4 PLUS have more zinc and anti wear agents in it? the CI-4 has the "low emissions" label on the bottle and the CI-4 plus does not.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
CI-4 or CI-4 PLUS Ratings
- Thread starter e anderson
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Quote:
The new oil as on January 2007 CI-4 rated and the previous oil is CI-4 PLUS , is the CI-4 PLUS have more zinc and anti wear agents in it? the CI-4 has the "low emissions" label on the bottle and the CI-4 plus does not.
CI-4 and CI-4+ were out a couple years ago. The "+" was basically a corrective action to tweak CI-4 because it wasn't originally working as well in as it was designed for. The NEWEST rating is CJ-4. It has a lower limit of phosphorous and Zinc and the Sulfated ash is capped a 1.0% unlike the previous 1.5%. There are some other differences too. Many think because the phosphorous and Zinc are lower, that the oil has gone backwards in performance. the truth is that wear is better because of the use of more modern ashless anti-wear chemistry as well as the use of better better base oils.
Hammer
Also just a little thing I noticed, when we got the UOA's done on out 6.0L powerstroke, at 5k the CI4 would shear quite a bit with absolutly no margin left. 5500k miles would probably push it over. When delvac released the CI4+, there was a little room left at 5k but not much more.
There was never a TBN performed, but with new C95 injectors and minimal fuel dillution the 6.0L's were notorius for, the viscosity was extemely low.
We have not analyzed the CJ4 yet.
There was never a TBN performed, but with new C95 injectors and minimal fuel dillution the 6.0L's were notorius for, the viscosity was extemely low.
We have not analyzed the CJ4 yet.
Originally Posted By: jmac
The latest Compression Ignition (C) rating that you are talking about is CJ, developed for low emissions diesels,
superseding CI-4 plus.
The API "C" category stands for Commercial, not compression ignition.
http://www.api.org/certifications/engineoil/categories/upload/EngineOilGuide2006.pdf
The latest Compression Ignition (C) rating that you are talking about is CJ, developed for low emissions diesels,
superseding CI-4 plus.
The API "C" category stands for Commercial, not compression ignition.
http://www.api.org/certifications/engineoil/categories/upload/EngineOilGuide2006.pdf
Originally Posted By: Rock_Hudstone
Originally Posted By: jmac
The latest Compression Ignition (C) rating that you are talking about is CJ, developed for low emissions diesels,
superseding CI-4 plus.
The API "C" category stands for Commercial, not compression ignition.
http://www.api.org/certifications/engineoil/categories/upload/EngineOilGuide2006.pdf
API ought to know what the "C" stands for. Yet "S" for Spark and "C" for Compression is widely known. So it says "commercial" in one place? Possibly a typo.
Originally Posted By: jmac
The latest Compression Ignition (C) rating that you are talking about is CJ, developed for low emissions diesels,
superseding CI-4 plus.
The API "C" category stands for Commercial, not compression ignition.
http://www.api.org/certifications/engineoil/categories/upload/EngineOilGuide2006.pdf
API ought to know what the "C" stands for. Yet "S" for Spark and "C" for Compression is widely known. So it says "commercial" in one place? Possibly a typo.
Originally Posted By: Hammer
CI-4 and CI-4+ were out a couple years ago. The "+" was basically a corrective action to tweak CI-4 because it wasn't originally working as well in as it was designed for. The NEWEST rating is CJ-4. It has a lower limit of phosphorous and Zinc and the Sulfated ash is capped a 1.0% unlike the previous 1.5%. There are some other differences too. Many think because the phosphorous and Zinc are lower, that the oil has gone backwards in performance. the truth is that wear is better because of the use of more modern ashless anti-wear chemistry as well as the use of better better base oils.
Hammer
My question on CJ4 is this "If it wears better, has better base stock, and has an improved additive package - why didn't the cost go up from the CI4+ pricing?"
I know that the change was required for the 6.4L and the Particulate filters. Seems like it is too good to be true - A change that was required, which reduced a proven additive, that just happens to be better for the previous applications also - AND we get it all with NO price increase. I am still a little skeptical, but still open minded.
CI-4 and CI-4+ were out a couple years ago. The "+" was basically a corrective action to tweak CI-4 because it wasn't originally working as well in as it was designed for. The NEWEST rating is CJ-4. It has a lower limit of phosphorous and Zinc and the Sulfated ash is capped a 1.0% unlike the previous 1.5%. There are some other differences too. Many think because the phosphorous and Zinc are lower, that the oil has gone backwards in performance. the truth is that wear is better because of the use of more modern ashless anti-wear chemistry as well as the use of better better base oils.
Hammer
My question on CJ4 is this "If it wears better, has better base stock, and has an improved additive package - why didn't the cost go up from the CI4+ pricing?"
I know that the change was required for the 6.4L and the Particulate filters. Seems like it is too good to be true - A change that was required, which reduced a proven additive, that just happens to be better for the previous applications also - AND we get it all with NO price increase. I am still a little skeptical, but still open minded.
Last edited:
Perhaps they are keeping the price low for now to encourage people to make the switch.
Hi,
IMHO and as I see it CI-4+ was the precursor to CJ-4
It was an interim measure and is centered on improved soot handling and the Mack T11 test - perhaps this tells the story
I would expect CI-4+ to disappear in favour of CJ-4
Regards
Doug
IMHO and as I see it CI-4+ was the precursor to CJ-4
It was an interim measure and is centered on improved soot handling and the Mack T11 test - perhaps this tells the story
I would expect CI-4+ to disappear in favour of CJ-4
Regards
Doug
Originally Posted By: Hammer
Quote:
The new oil as on January 2007 CI-4 rated and the previous oil is CI-4 PLUS , is the CI-4 PLUS have more zinc and anti wear agents in it? the CI-4 has the "low emissions" label on the bottle and the CI-4 plus does not.
CI-4 and CI-4+ were out a couple years ago. The "+" was basically a corrective action to tweak CI-4 because it wasn't originally working as well in as it was designed for. The NEWEST rating is CJ-4. It has a lower limit of phosphorous and Zinc and the Sulfated ash is capped a 1.0% unlike the previous 1.5%. There are some other differences too. Many think because the phosphorous and Zinc are lower, that the oil has gone backwards in performance. the truth is that wear is better because of the use of more modern ashless anti-wear chemistry as well as the use of better better base oils.
Hammer
Tell all this to Chuck...
Quote:
The new oil as on January 2007 CI-4 rated and the previous oil is CI-4 PLUS , is the CI-4 PLUS have more zinc and anti wear agents in it? the CI-4 has the "low emissions" label on the bottle and the CI-4 plus does not.
CI-4 and CI-4+ were out a couple years ago. The "+" was basically a corrective action to tweak CI-4 because it wasn't originally working as well in as it was designed for. The NEWEST rating is CJ-4. It has a lower limit of phosphorous and Zinc and the Sulfated ash is capped a 1.0% unlike the previous 1.5%. There are some other differences too. Many think because the phosphorous and Zinc are lower, that the oil has gone backwards in performance. the truth is that wear is better because of the use of more modern ashless anti-wear chemistry as well as the use of better better base oils.
Hammer
Tell all this to Chuck...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 18
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 31
- Views
- 5K
- Replies
- 18
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 2K
