Why was the CJ-4 spec such a big deal as opposed to other specs in the past. Did companies have to make big changes to meet CJ-4 and if they did what were the changes? Did it effect base oils?
Cj-4 Difference
- Thread starter Richard_Thomas
- Start date
- Status
Not the base oils, just the additive packages. More pollution controls on diesels so less phosphorus and zinc.
Page 15 of this Mobil Delvac online brochure visually defines the minimum performance requirements that have changed from CI-4 Plus to CJ-4.
http://www.mobildelvac.com/usa-english/files/Mobil_Delvac_1300_Super_brochure.pdf
http://www.mobildelvac.com/usa-english/files/Mobil_Delvac_1300_Super_brochure.pdf
Hi,
all API changes in recent times since CF have been quite major. Until the early 1990s the changes made by the API were reactive. They learnt from this and since then they have become pro-active
This is primarily due to pressures applied by the US engine manufacturers during the 1980s, and from the early 1990s by the formation of ACEA. Many US engine makers have Parent Companies in Europe and/or have very closely integrated engine design linkups with others. As well of course CAT has had their own standards since the 1930s - so has MB and etc in Europe
The engine Manufacturers who now dominate formulation changes around the World (dictated by many factors - emerging technogies and emission management and etc) are bringing to the marketplace modern lubricants that IMHO are much better than those of the past. But correct application is very important
It is worth remembering that many heavy diesel engines are sold with 1m miles (and etc) Warranties subject to such things as the use of Manufacturer Approved and Listed lubricants. This has been the case for some years now and especially so with the largest such engine manufacturer Mercedes Benz in all its guises
I have been quite involved with HDs (HDEO's) since the late 1950s when the CAT Series 3 and supplements and the MIL-L2104A ruled the roost alongside the progressively superceded API's DS-DM-DS quality standards. This is especially so regarding their use in petrol engines - mainly with BMC-Leyland, VW, Porsche, Ford Taunus (Germany), Volvo and Opel in the 1960-1970s. This was at a time when these engines and others were subject to sludging and excessive wear due to an incorrect or substandard lubricant choice
Since the introduction of the latest API's ratings (CD>) most changes were due to the API's instigation for various reasons. The CE rating was a turning point as it was a reaction to the difficulties Cummins experienced with their new (then) L10 engines (and now used as the M11, ISM, ISB test protocols). Later changes were assisted by the engine Manufacturers who quickly developed their own stand alone Approval standards - similar to what CAT and MB had done in the 1930s!
All changes from the CF to present have been driven by the engine Manufacturers, Recently the API has moved to standardise their ratings alonside the ACEA's "C" quality ratings - driven by the engine Manufacturers!
So IMHO the changes from CF forward have all been positive for the end user when the lubricant is used as intended and endorsed correctly be the engine's Manufacturer
This become very important and I quote from two Detroit Diesel sources;
1 - "A marketer is required to licence his oil wih the API in order to display the symbol"
Beware that some marketers may indicate that their products "meet" API requirements. This is not adequate"
2 - "DD advises that the use of an oil meeting API Classifcation CH-4 is mandatory for 1999 Series 60 and Series 50 engines" and sic,
"Verify the oil drain interval with periodic used oil analysis"
"Stocks of CG-4 oils may still be used in Pre 1999 engines"
This was because some Fleets used CG-4 lubricants in the later engine which caused excessive wear through poor soot handling and other issues!
There are many more such Manufacturer to end user and Dealer Memos in existence
So, IMHO with the API's CJ-4 quality rating (when used in the appropriate application and in the Manufacturer recommended viscosity) we have a very advanced formulation lubricant that is performing very well in service exactly as was intended by the engine Manufacturers. It is a product of the Manufacturer's wishes and needs and a further step in "harmony" with the ACEA "C" ratings
As "mixed fleet" HDEO's API's CJ-4 quality licensed lubricants will perform very well in the appropriate petrol engine application too
all API changes in recent times since CF have been quite major. Until the early 1990s the changes made by the API were reactive. They learnt from this and since then they have become pro-active
This is primarily due to pressures applied by the US engine manufacturers during the 1980s, and from the early 1990s by the formation of ACEA. Many US engine makers have Parent Companies in Europe and/or have very closely integrated engine design linkups with others. As well of course CAT has had their own standards since the 1930s - so has MB and etc in Europe
The engine Manufacturers who now dominate formulation changes around the World (dictated by many factors - emerging technogies and emission management and etc) are bringing to the marketplace modern lubricants that IMHO are much better than those of the past. But correct application is very important
It is worth remembering that many heavy diesel engines are sold with 1m miles (and etc) Warranties subject to such things as the use of Manufacturer Approved and Listed lubricants. This has been the case for some years now and especially so with the largest such engine manufacturer Mercedes Benz in all its guises
I have been quite involved with HDs (HDEO's) since the late 1950s when the CAT Series 3 and supplements and the MIL-L2104A ruled the roost alongside the progressively superceded API's DS-DM-DS quality standards. This is especially so regarding their use in petrol engines - mainly with BMC-Leyland, VW, Porsche, Ford Taunus (Germany), Volvo and Opel in the 1960-1970s. This was at a time when these engines and others were subject to sludging and excessive wear due to an incorrect or substandard lubricant choice
Since the introduction of the latest API's ratings (CD>) most changes were due to the API's instigation for various reasons. The CE rating was a turning point as it was a reaction to the difficulties Cummins experienced with their new (then) L10 engines (and now used as the M11, ISM, ISB test protocols). Later changes were assisted by the engine Manufacturers who quickly developed their own stand alone Approval standards - similar to what CAT and MB had done in the 1930s!
All changes from the CF to present have been driven by the engine Manufacturers, Recently the API has moved to standardise their ratings alonside the ACEA's "C" quality ratings - driven by the engine Manufacturers!
So IMHO the changes from CF forward have all been positive for the end user when the lubricant is used as intended and endorsed correctly be the engine's Manufacturer
This become very important and I quote from two Detroit Diesel sources;
1 - "A marketer is required to licence his oil wih the API in order to display the symbol"
Beware that some marketers may indicate that their products "meet" API requirements. This is not adequate"
2 - "DD advises that the use of an oil meeting API Classifcation CH-4 is mandatory for 1999 Series 60 and Series 50 engines" and sic,
"Verify the oil drain interval with periodic used oil analysis"
"Stocks of CG-4 oils may still be used in Pre 1999 engines"
This was because some Fleets used CG-4 lubricants in the later engine which caused excessive wear through poor soot handling and other issues!
There are many more such Manufacturer to end user and Dealer Memos in existence
So, IMHO with the API's CJ-4 quality rating (when used in the appropriate application and in the Manufacturer recommended viscosity) we have a very advanced formulation lubricant that is performing very well in service exactly as was intended by the engine Manufacturers. It is a product of the Manufacturer's wishes and needs and a further step in "harmony" with the ACEA "C" ratings
As "mixed fleet" HDEO's API's CJ-4 quality licensed lubricants will perform very well in the appropriate petrol engine application too
Last edited:
hey Doug you mentioned Detroit Diesel and I still get calls for straight 40 wt CD oil for them and the guys will not take CJ-4 let alone CI-4.
bruce
bruce
Two or four stroke Detroits? The older ones still spec a straight 40, and most oil manufacturers make straight 40s with the "screaming Jimmies" in mind. I think CF-2 oils were the end of the line for them. 0.85% ash or lower, straight 40 weight.
Last edited:
Hi,
Bruce - Yes, the 53, 71, and 92 Series 2 cycle engines of course take monograde SAE40 (SAE50 in cases where the "coolant out" temperature is constant around/above 94C). SAE30 and SAE 15w40 lubricants can be used in very cold start situations (
DD only endorses CF-2 lubricants with a minimum TBN of 7 with a SA level below 1% and preferably around 0.8%
I have used 2 cycle DD engines in the high mountains in NZ (min temps -20C) in Dozers, Scrapers and Graders, and they start OK on SAE40 viscosity with a little sniff of ether. Too much and they can counter-rotate!!!!
They are the most beautiful sounding engines of all IMHO when on "full song"
They became too complex/costly to produce and I was involved with the first electonically injected version ("Green" 92 series DDEC1 in 1985 - setting the ECM via a Laptop) - it was the last engine series. Penske concentrated on the Series 30/40/50/55/60 4 cycle range when he took over DD before Mercedes Benz eventually took over.
The 4 cycle Series engines are truely excellent now about 21 years after their introduction
Bruce - Yes, the 53, 71, and 92 Series 2 cycle engines of course take monograde SAE40 (SAE50 in cases where the "coolant out" temperature is constant around/above 94C). SAE30 and SAE 15w40 lubricants can be used in very cold start situations (
DD only endorses CF-2 lubricants with a minimum TBN of 7 with a SA level below 1% and preferably around 0.8%
I have used 2 cycle DD engines in the high mountains in NZ (min temps -20C) in Dozers, Scrapers and Graders, and they start OK on SAE40 viscosity with a little sniff of ether. Too much and they can counter-rotate!!!!
They are the most beautiful sounding engines of all IMHO when on "full song"
They became too complex/costly to produce and I was involved with the first electonically injected version ("Green" 92 series DDEC1 in 1985 - setting the ECM via a Laptop) - it was the last engine series. Penske concentrated on the Series 30/40/50/55/60 4 cycle range when he took over DD before Mercedes Benz eventually took over.
The 4 cycle Series engines are truely excellent now about 21 years after their introduction
As a side note the LZ additive system I use for CAT TO-4 oils also qualifies in a 40wt as a CF-2.
bruce
bruce
Hi Bruce,
interesting as it is a fact that some lubricants certainly perform better than others in DD 2 cycle engines
After trying many the most successful lubricant in that perticular application was made by Castrol and called "CRB" at the time. It proved to be the most capable of forming an insulating ash deposit above the top ring which seemed to reduce oil consumption. As you know these engines like to drink as much as they like to leak!!
The other high performing lubricants were from Mobil, Caltex and Shell at the time - in about that order
The local Charter boat operators here still seem to prefer the Castrol product. Many DD Marine 2 cycle installations still exist
in this area at least
interesting as it is a fact that some lubricants certainly perform better than others in DD 2 cycle engines
After trying many the most successful lubricant in that perticular application was made by Castrol and called "CRB" at the time. It proved to be the most capable of forming an insulating ash deposit above the top ring which seemed to reduce oil consumption. As you know these engines like to drink as much as they like to leak!!
The other high performing lubricants were from Mobil, Caltex and Shell at the time - in about that order
The local Charter boat operators here still seem to prefer the Castrol product. Many DD Marine 2 cycle installations still exist
in this area at least
Last edited:
If they aren't leaking they aren't running right. Something has to pave the roads.
Hi,
MGregoir - Correct, but don't ya love 'em??
The only other thing - you always needed to check the coolant and oil levels after they had sat for a day or three. Often you had lotsa oil and just a little coolant - d^&% liner and other seals!
MGregoir - Correct, but don't ya love 'em??
The only other thing - you always needed to check the coolant and oil levels after they had sat for a day or three. Often you had lotsa oil and just a little coolant - d^&% liner and other seals!
Last edited:
Yeah, they are liquidating old transit buses here (late 1970s GM New Looks) and a friend of mine is considering getting one because all the parts can still be had. They are so old that Mexico doesn't want them apparently, and I have seen them being trucked out on blocks, so they must be headed to the scrap heap. I don't know what will keep the roads oiled here anymore.
This summer my uncle traded a 1980s Ford Louisville gravel truck with an older Cat (I am not sure what was contemporary then, a 475? maybe comes to mind) to my grandfather for a early 1970s vintage Champion grader. It had a working transmission, but the transmission was from a different model so the linkage did not function properly. I had to follow it to his shop in a service truck on the highway with the beacons on (of course the small stretch of highway it was on had to be the hilliest, curviest section for miles). Lots of fun and cursing and swearing beating on the linkage with hammers trying to find a gear and then getting it out on the roadway. No silencer and it was just about loud enough I wanted muffs in the chase truck. There was nothing polite about those engines, they always sounded like they meant business and nothing less.
My uncle was really impressed once we got it off the highway after crawling along that there was a governed minimum speed plus a foot throttle to pick up the pace.
My experiences with a variety of different engines comes more from the natural gas stationary end of things rather than heavy diesels, although a good portion of my family is in the heavy equipment business. My dad has been lead operator for a natural gas company here since the early 1980s, and I have worked there as well so the toys get to be big Waukeshas down to as small as 3306N Caterpillars. A different kind of straight 40 oil. I mostly just delivered fluids, did some maitenence and helped out the mechanic as needed.
This summer my uncle traded a 1980s Ford Louisville gravel truck with an older Cat (I am not sure what was contemporary then, a 475? maybe comes to mind) to my grandfather for a early 1970s vintage Champion grader. It had a working transmission, but the transmission was from a different model so the linkage did not function properly. I had to follow it to his shop in a service truck on the highway with the beacons on (of course the small stretch of highway it was on had to be the hilliest, curviest section for miles). Lots of fun and cursing and swearing beating on the linkage with hammers trying to find a gear and then getting it out on the roadway. No silencer and it was just about loud enough I wanted muffs in the chase truck. There was nothing polite about those engines, they always sounded like they meant business and nothing less.
My uncle was really impressed once we got it off the highway after crawling along that there was a governed minimum speed plus a foot throttle to pick up the pace.
My experiences with a variety of different engines comes more from the natural gas stationary end of things rather than heavy diesels, although a good portion of my family is in the heavy equipment business. My dad has been lead operator for a natural gas company here since the early 1980s, and I have worked there as well so the toys get to be big Waukeshas down to as small as 3306N Caterpillars. A different kind of straight 40 oil. I mostly just delivered fluids, did some maitenence and helped out the mechanic as needed.
Hi,
MGregoir - You have had an interesting time! We had V6 DD 2cycle Lousivilles here. Drivers would take the inner air filter out so they could "breat" better - engine life was measured in weeks!!
I loved the older Canadian Champion Graders - I6 DD 2 cycle engines. I learned to operate those with pleasure but firstly via a CAT 12G - interesting!!!
MGregoir - You have had an interesting time! We had V6 DD 2cycle Lousivilles here. Drivers would take the inner air filter out so they could "breat" better - engine life was measured in weeks!!
I loved the older Canadian Champion Graders - I6 DD 2 cycle engines. I learned to operate those with pleasure but firstly via a CAT 12G - interesting!!!
- Status
Similar threads
