CJ4 oil still available?

[m37charlie]

One can always up the Zn/P (represents ZDDP = antiwear) and Ca containing detergent with a calculated amount of Redline Breakin Additive. Harmless if you don't have DOC and DPF.

 

[Fraser434]

Originally Posted by SR5

Come to Australia, I still see this stuff on sale everywhere Valvoline Super Diesel 15W40 mineral oil API CH-4/SJ, ACEA A3/B3 Cheap and old school

Sure thing, and i'll take a donner kebab too and a sausage roll too. I was in Saudi for 5 months this year, the newest spec oil they had was CI-4 rated. Pretty sure nothing out there runs a DPF. Saw equipment rolling coal everywhere. Still have 500ppm sulphur diesel I think . Alot of Shell Rimula R6 and Mobil Delvac XHP 10W40 out there.

 

[Fraser434]

Originally Posted by dustyroads

Originally Posted by 53' Stude

I highly DOUBT CK4 diesel engine oils are weak or "not good" If that was the case member dustyroads wouldn't be using DELO 10W30

You're correct Adam. I've put Delo XLE (a "low phosphorus" CK-4) to the test in real world use and it has worked marvelously. However it's fruitless to say anymore. I've given up on trying to get people to understand the benefits of the new oils. Then again, not many people use their diesel vehicles in a way that pushes the oil and it doesn't matter to them. For me, CK-4 has been a true benefit to my business.

Possibly i'll take that challenge.

 

[loneryder]

I'm always suspicious when changes are made that are required by the government. Government requirements never take into account consequences or unintended consequences.

 

[dustyroads]

Originally Posted by loneryder

I'm always suspicious when changes are made that are required by the government. Government requirements never take into account consequences or unintended consequences.

No argument from me on the post above, but the required changes to CK-4 from CJ-4 are improvements in performance and not some direct government mandate. Yes, indirectly, the government had a hand in the need for better oils by requiring cleaner burning engines that run hotter. There's also the push for better fuel economy which brought the new FA-4 category. The oil/additive companies worked with the engine manufacturers to develop oils that could handle the extra heat while still maintaining wear protection and to do so for much longer intervals. They come with better shear stability, aeration control and especially better oxidation control. The engine builder approvals go above and beyond the API testing. The new oil category has proven very capable in my OTR trucking business. I'm over 450k miles now on my little DD13 and still no oil consumption. Sure, the piston/piston ring design must be really well done, but I've been running OCIs of considerable miles, hours and several thousand gallons of fuel with no ill effects whatsoever. I just said I was giving up on trying to help people see the benefits of the new oils and what do I do? Try again....

 

[dustyroads]

Originally Posted by Fraser434

Originally Posted by dustyroads

Originally Posted by 53' Stude

I highly DOUBT CK4 diesel engine oils are weak or "not good" If that was the case member dustyroads wouldn't be using DELO 10W30

You're correct Adam. I've put Delo XLE (a "low phosphorus" CK-4) to the test in real world use and it has worked marvelously. However it's fruitless to say anymore. I've given up on trying to get people to understand the benefits of the new oils. Then again, not many people use their diesel vehicles in a way that pushes the oil and it doesn't matter to them. For me, CK-4 has been a true benefit to my business.

Possibly i'll take that challenge.

I use Delo products because the carrier I do business with uses them. They change my oil and filters, grease the chassis and do a DOT inspection for about $250. That's just a deal too good to pass up. If they switched to some other brand, I'd be fine with that, too. I've posted my UOAs and Chevron's strategy seems to be working fine. You have plenty of options whether you want oil with a little more phosphorus like Ford recommends or a dual rated oil like I've been using. Just don't fear CK-4.

 

[bbslider001]

So, instead of umpteen million threads about the merits or lack thereof regarding CK-4 oils, why doesn't someone just produce a UOA that shows wear numbers to end all the arguments, doubts, questions, and concerns? I gladly, but am not using CK-4 oils yet.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted by bbslider001

So, instead of umpteen million threads about the merits or lack thereof regarding CK-4 oils, why doesn't someone just produce a UOA that shows wear numbers to end all the arguments, doubts, questions, and concerns? I gladly, but am not using CK-4 oils yet.

Because the oil analysis companies have shown that there isn't a statistically valid correlation between "wear numbers" in a UOA and the oil. You measure wear by measuring wear, not through ICP and a $30 UOA.

 

[bbslider001]

Originally Posted by kschachn

Originally Posted by bbslider001

So, instead of umpteen million threads about the merits or lack thereof regarding CK-4 oils, why doesn't someone just produce a UOA that shows wear numbers to end all the arguments, doubts, questions, and concerns? I gladly, but am not using CK-4 oils yet.

Because the oil analysis companies have shown that there isn't a statistically valid correlation between "wear numbers" in a UOA and the oil. You measure wear by measuring wear, not through ICP and a $30 UOA.

So a UOA, showing wear numbers and "x" engine has nothing to do with the oil being used? I gotta disagree. What a UOA would how, no matter the oil, is any excessive wear. I kinda see what you're saying, but compare same "x" engine with a CJ-4 oil run and then a CK-4 oil run. See if the numbers change in any drastic manner. It would at leats be somewhat of a baseline to look at, no?

 

[Garak]

There isn't one tribologist, engineer, physicist, chemist, mathematician, or formulator on the board that would agree with that. Different oils may show different numbers based upon a multitude of things. Trying to divine which oil is wearing better within approved lubes by UOA isn't going to work.

 

[53' Stude]

Originally Posted by Garak

There isn't one tribologist, engineer, physicist, chemist, mathematician, or formulator on the board that would agree with that. Different oils may show different numbers based upon a multitude of things. Trying to divine which oil is wearing better within approved lubes by UOA isn't going to work.

Well said

 

[bbslider001]

Originally Posted by Garak

There isn't one tribologist, engineer, physicist, chemist, mathematician, or formulator on the board that would agree with that. Different oils may show different numbers based upon a multitude of things. Trying to divine which oil is wearing better within approved lubes by UOA isn't going to work.

Understood.....let the CK-4 discussion continue....

 

[Garak]

CK-4 meets all the requirements of every manufacturer except one, and that one has known, problematic engines and hasn't done a diesel engine right in years. We went through the same thing with CJ-4. CK-4 doesn't actually reduce any additive levels or alter SA. It's a step up. Yes, some companies chose to reduce phosphorus. There have been low phosphorus HDEOs available for years already. Ford even has one on its "E" iteration of its HDEO list, which is another reason I really don't buy their stance.

 

[SteveG4]

Originally Posted by Garak

CK-4 meets all the requirements of every manufacturer except one, and that one has known, problematic engines and hasn't done a diesel engine right in years. We went through the same thing with CJ-4. CK-4 doesn't actually reduce any additive levels or alter SA. It's a step up. Yes, some companies chose to reduce phosphorus. There have been low phosphorus HDEOs available for years already. Ford even has one on its "E" iteration of its HDEO list, which is another reason I really don't buy their stance.

Are you sure you're not a Cardassian spy for Chevy or Ram Trucks?

 

[Garak]

Yes, I'm plotting against the Ford engines. They don't need my help to spread the confusion, though!