Originally Posted By: Donald
Originally Posted By: BlackRam
Go to your local Chevron lubricants distributor and get Chevron DELO 400 in the CI-4+ formulation. This will be superior to the CJ-4 oils formulated for the post 2007 low-emissions diesels. About $17/gal in 5 gal pails.
This information has my curiosity up. Can you expand more on the comment?
Yes - do tell, please.
How is CI-4+ "superior" to CJ-4? What proof do you have that would circumvent the millions of miles of testing done by the lube makers that show CJ-4 reduces wear over its predecessor, and also controls soot better? And please speak to all the stellar CJ-4 UOAs we have here that show excellent wear protection from over-the-counter CJ-4 lubes. How would those have been "inferior" to other UOAs had CI-4+ been used?
And PUH-LEEZE do not link the now infamous TDR "article" as proof; that is mostly bunk based upon supposition.
Don't speak to inputs; show us results!
I would counter with this information:
* up to 38% less Fe wear over CI-4+ at Shell
http://www.shell.com/home/content/rotella/products/tpl_pro/
Mobil and Castrol have similar studies showing wear reduction over the predecessor.
If CJ-4 is so inferior, please explain these UOAs:
nearing 20k miles on dino CJ-4 and a normal filter -
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2179591&page=1
my UOA with merciless heat soaking and no make up oil on dino 10w-30 -
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2323660&page=1
another "thin" 10w-30 dino CJ-4 in a Cummins -
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2231310&page=1
Now, I'm not saying that previous generations of lubes are terrible; that's simply not true. But to infer (with no proof) that CJ-4 lubes are inferior to CI-4+ is simply baseless. Conversely, both the lubes makers millions of testing miles, and most UOAs here, show CJ-4 lubes are good for nearly any application. And are in no way "inferior" to CI-4+ lubes.