CJ-4 vs CI-4

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jul 24, 2005
Messages
4
Location
Alabama
I'm new to diesels so bear with me here.

Can CJ-4 diesel oil's be used in place of CI-4. What are the downsides. I ask because I have a Kubota Mower with their 26 HP diesel. It says CJ-4 oils are not to be used but All I can find around here are dual rated CI-4 and CJ-4.
 
That Kubota statement to NOT USE CJ-4 OILS in their tractors has caused lots of arguments on other forums.

I seldom lurk there anymore, but try checking out the compact tractor forum tractorbynet.com and see if they discovered any resolution (I know they discussed it).

Please share your findings if you learn anything.

Thanks.

EDIT: A quick google search turned this up from Kubota: http://www.kubota.com/service/LubricantMaintenance.aspx

Seems that they changed their stance. I use CJ-4 in all of my workplace John Deeres and would not hesitate to use it in a Kubota, having read my posted link.

Another Edit: Read the post by Wayne in this thread: http://www.orangetractortalks.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4363 This sounds plausible....does DNewton agree?????:

STATEMENT MADE PRE - THE 2012 LINK I POSTED ABOVE REGARDING KUBOTA'S REASON FOR NO CJ-4
"CJ-4 oils outperform CI-4 oils in every erea of performance EXCEPT in countries that still use poor quality diesel that has high sulfer in it. I'd take a well-formulated CJ-4 oil over any CI-4 oil with the fuel that we have in the states. CJ-4 oil is far better at handling soot in the oil caused by EGR systems. It also has proven over and over to be better at preventing valvetrain wear and handling high-heat from turbos. Kubota is playing it safe by just not reccommending CJ4 because of the various markets they sell in have different levels of sulfer in it."
 
Last edited:
It's easy for some companies to get stuck in a mentality, and not spend time/money to change. Kubota probably didn't recommend CJ-4 lubes because they never spent the time to test the new lubes. It's easy to recommend a product that you know works, and ignore other options. Hence, they don't recommend CJ-4 (or at least didn't at some point; I'm not sure if they do so now).

I would agree that in some manner, Kubota's interested are world-wide fuels is an issue; the sulphur content is not to be completely ignored. However, I find that a bit amusing, because the sulphur content of fuel in third-world countries is the LAST thing I'd worry about. The general poor quality of fuel (including processing, storage, dirty transportation containers, etc, and not the least of which is folks that just "cut" the fuel with cheaper things such as other distillates ....) and then there's the poor lubes in third world countries. Not that there are not good quality lubes around the world; I'm questioning the practices of people in the villages around the world. Even if CH-4 or CI-4 or CJ-4 lubes would be available, that does not stop them from adding PCMOs and (quite litterally) anything that even looks like lube, into the crankcase. And therefore I find the topic of "other" applications of lubes and fuels on other continents a bit amusing. In Europe, where fuel and lube quality is much better and rivals ours in North America, then I'd say it might be a topic worthy of discussion ... but,

Real world data can answer questions that the OEMs are not interested in.

The API certifications show the CJ-4 successfully is backwards compatible.

Additionally, I've run CJ-4 lubes in my Kubie since they came out. My used oil analysis shows that there is no risk whatsoever. And there a more folks like me that track their wear data. And there are a LOT more folks who use CJ-4 lubes in their tractors, and don't ever track wear data. And not one Kubota or Deere died from such use.
 
Originally Posted By: BoiseRob
Plus... CJ is a better product than CI...


Interesting opinion. I don't recall Cummins ISB engines regularly wiping out rocker arms and shafts until after CJ-4 became the standard.....
 
Originally Posted By: MaxPF
Originally Posted By: BoiseRob
Plus... CJ is a better product than CI...


Interesting opinion. I don't recall Cummins ISB engines regularly wiping out rocker arms and shafts until after CJ-4 became the standard.....


I've not seen clear evidence that CJ-4 is specifically the cause of the problems you're attributing to, either.

Do you have specific data that shows CJ-4 results in an escalation of rocker and shaft issues, or is this just a regurgitation of hearsay? Can you point to clear studies that show the CJ-4 inferior, and show teardown evidence that would conclusively exhibit the lube exclusively at fault, rather than manufacturing or maintenance causation?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: MaxPF
Originally Posted By: BoiseRob
Plus... CJ is a better product than CI...


Interesting opinion. I don't recall Cummins ISB engines regularly wiping out rocker arms and shafts until after CJ-4 became the standard.....


If there is a problem with the above could it be with the EGR system? With my 2004.5 the EGR came on full bore yet the OCI was listed as 15,000 miles. With my 2007.5 the OCI came down to 7500 miles. Granted the DPF came in with the 2007.5 but would that do anything within the engine?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: GBL
Originally Posted By: MaxPF
Originally Posted By: BoiseRob
Plus... CJ is a better product than CI...


Interesting opinion. I don't recall Cummins ISB engines regularly wiping out rocker arms and shafts until after CJ-4 became the standard.....


If there is a problem with the above could it be with the EGR system? With my 2004.5 the EGR came on full bore yet the OCI was listed as 15,000 miles. With my 2007.5 the OCI came down to 7500 miles. Granted the DPF came in with the 2007.5 but would that do anything within the engine?


DPF equipped engines would also reach higher temperature and fuel dilution when active regeneration took place, reducing oil life.

Also, some 2007.5 Engines would be equipped to take in even more exhaust gas than previous EGR engines, further reducing oil life.
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Additionally, I've run CJ-4 lubes in my Kubie since they came out. My used oil analysis shows that there is no risk whatsoever.

Having assisted a buddy in his Kubota oil selection, I always wondered if Kubota even stocked a pre-CJ-4 lube on their shelves at the time; after all, CJ-4 was already prevalent.
 
My Kubota is a 2004? I cannot recall for sure.

The manual states to use a CH-4 or something antiquated like that. Clearly Kubota simply is not interested in testing newer lubes. That doesn't mean newer lubes won't work; they just don't want to put time into testing them. CH-4 was outdated when the 2004 models came out. Of course, my 2006 Dmax manual states the same thing for CH-4, but at least they throw out the "or better" statement.
 
I think my friend's was a bit new than 2004, definitely closer or into the CJ-4 specification. Realistically, do they have to convince themselves of CJ-4? I realize they're ultimately responsible for the engine under warranty, but CJ-4 is backwards compatible, and it's not like Kubota engines were something that required some special, niche lube, either.
wink.gif


If they're not interested in testing newer lubes, it might pay to simply have some trust in the certification bodies. Of course, just about every other manufacturer does ample testing.
 
I have a relative that spent some time in third-world countries after college. I was told some seemingly shocking stories about the "lubes" (and I'm using that term loosely) used in vehicles in those forsaken places. And yet those tractors and trucks still run. Certianly they degrade a bit quicker and probably wear more and don't last as long. But if they had any sensible serivce, they'd last forever. They are abused by neglect and wrong lubes, etc. And yet they continue to run.

By contrast, any lube here in NA that meets current API specs, given any specific application, is nothing to worry about at all. BITOGers spend way too much time fussing of the silliest of things. Generally, we over-maintain our equipment, and fuss over nothing. This thread, about what oil to use in a Kubota (one of the more robust small tractor brands out there), is essentially meaningless in the overall lifecycle of the tractor. I recall a similar debate about a year ago; where a guy was trying to decide if he "needed" synthetic in his Kubota in NJ, IIRC. Really? As if the lifecycle of that tractor (used only to mow a field) was going to be irrevocably harmed by the use of "normal" oil?

For this thread, and this tractor, is there any REAL expectation that either a CJ-4 or CI-4 lube will result in any tangible shift in lifespan of the equipment? NO!!!!!! It will be pampered; it will probably be used for far fewer hours than it's design life will attest to.

I cannot see his owner's manual, so I cannot comment about his claim of:
Quote:
It says CJ-4 oils are not to be used ...

Does it specifically rule out CJ-4 lubes, or does it just not list them as acceptable? Two entirely differnt issues there. To rule out CJ-4 as "not to be used" would infer that CJ-4 was tested and found unacceptable; I find that hard to believe. What is more likely is that CJ-4 was not tested, and therefore is not recommended. And because he does not see it on the "approved" list, he presumes it to be "not used" as if something evil would happen if CJ-4 were used. I believe Kubota simply doesn't care, and doesn't spend time worrying about this silliness.

I run multi-year OCI cycles in my Kubota and my Dmax and Scag. No harm done. I run my Kubota on CJ-4 and have had no ill effects, and fine used oil analysis.


Allow me to quote myself from some time ago ....
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Two BITOGers could argue the merits of differences in Skim and 2% milk, relative to the viscosity of fat content, relating to the ability to swallow one's breakfast cereal ...




.
 
One thing that needs to be addressed is in many 3rd world countries , where these tractors are used is 2 things ,NO low sulpher fuel and oils that are not the same standards as we have in North America or the EU ,this is why you will see CD CF or CF4 oils as the recommended oil.
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Does it specifically rule out CJ-4 lubes, or does it just not list them as acceptable? Two entirely differnt issues there.

That last Kubota manual I read actually explicitly forbade the use of CJ-4 lubricants. Nonetheless, I recommended my friend ignore that hogwash. CJ-4 is backwards compatible, after all. Finding an actual CI-4 or CI-4+ lube isn't impossible, but it's not exactly an easy task, either, and that's here in a rather agricultural area. Imperial Oil (our XOM) discontinued all the pre-CJ-4 stuff some time ago. Petro-Canada and Co-op do list some CI-4 and CI-4+ data sheets, but that doesn't mean they're available. Imperial Oil listed such lubes until very, very recently, even though they haven't been available for years.

I told him that if he was really concerned, to go to the Kubota dealership itself and see what they had on the shelves or used as a service fill. I told him I'd bet it was a CJ-4 product. In any case, you're quite right. A mower that does less than 25 hours per season is not likely to have any lube related issues whatsoever assuming some reasonably sensible lubricant is used in conjunction with reasonable OCIs.

I'm really sure the city's parks department religiously made sure their Kubotas only saw CI-4 lubes for their lifespan. After all, the parks aren't littered with dead Kubotas.
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: MaxPF
Originally Posted By: BoiseRob
Plus... CJ is a better product than CI...


Interesting opinion. I don't recall Cummins ISB engines regularly wiping out rocker arms and shafts until after CJ-4 became the standard.....


I've not seen clear evidence that CJ-4 is specifically the cause of the problems you're attributing to, either.

Do you have specific data that shows CJ-4 results in an escalation of rocker and shaft issues, or is this just a regurgitation of hearsay? Can you point to clear studies that show the CJ-4 inferior, and show teardown evidence that would conclusively exhibit the lube exclusively at fault, rather than manufacturing or maintenance causation?


The timing fits. 24V Cummins ISB engines have used the same rocker arm setup since 1998, but the problem only really became commonplace after 07. This has affected both existing older, high mileage/hour engines as well as newer low mileage/hour units. If the problem only affected newer engines I would suspect a manufacturing issue. However, since both older and newer engines seem affected, the problem became much more common after 07, and the individuals with worn rockers all report running CJ-4 oils for many miles/hours prior to failure, it does tend to implicate the oil.
 
Weird that CJ-4 would cause more rocker wear-that spec is supposed to be BETTER at soot dispersal than the older CI-4 was-guess I'm lucky to be using older CI-4+ Mobil 1 Turbo Diesel Truck oil in my '06.
 
Well, first off "soot dispersal' simply means the soot is held in suspension in the oil, rather than settling out in passages, the pan, etc and turning into sludge. It doesn't actually go anywhere - it still gets pumped through every lubricated part of the engine. Ultimately, the only way to remove the soot is to change the oil, which is why I am not a particular fan of extended oil change intervals.

I don't claim to be a lubrication expert, but it is known that detergents and AW additives are competitive for surface area. Zinc phosphate compounds have been reduced in CJ-4 oils, while detergency has been increased. This suggests that the amount of AW additives on the surface of parts is going to be much lower than just the decrease in ZP compounds would imply. The lube engineers are trying to use more low/no ash AW additives, but everything I have read suggests that these AW additives are not as effective as zinc phosphates. And they still have to compete with the detergents.

My guess is that the lubrication of ISB rocker arms was borderline with CH-4 and CI-4 oils, and that CJ-4 is simply the proverbial straw. If you check the tests performed for CJ-4 oil certification you will find that there are three ISB tests: Cam wear, tappet wear, and valve bridge wear. Rocker wear is NOT part of the test protocol. This is an unfortunate oversight, IMO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom