So basically, they played hinky games with the oil and transmission programming to try to eke out a tenth mpg, and ended up destroying engines. Got it.
Ram changes the recommended oil on 2016 EcoDiesel
- Thread starter njohnson
- Start date
- Status
Kinda hard to imagine that one of the modern 10w30's would not be up to the task on this little diesel. 13L thru 15L heavy commercial truck engines have been doing fine on 10w30. Many UOA's on this site show it. Get the feeling it wasn't due to some "thin" oil but poor metallurgy and build quality?
Originally Posted By: wemay
Originally Posted By: Kuato
Too-thin oil again...
It would appear so.
It sure looks that way, and/or a band aid as already mentioned.
Originally Posted By: Kuato
Too-thin oil again...
It would appear so.
It sure looks that way, and/or a band aid as already mentioned.
Originally Posted By: roadrunner1
From what I understand this engine is proven in delivery vehicles and also in marine use, just a screw up with FCA programming.
Watched the news tonight and FCA is under investigation again for unintended roll aways with 1/2 ton trucks and durangos, I don't know if this is another programming issue or transmission malfunction.
I heard that too, I believe it is the 8 speed ZF in question.
From what I understand this engine is proven in delivery vehicles and also in marine use, just a screw up with FCA programming.
Watched the news tonight and FCA is under investigation again for unintended roll aways with 1/2 ton trucks and durangos, I don't know if this is another programming issue or transmission malfunction.
I heard that too, I believe it is the 8 speed ZF in question.
It wasn't a 10w-30 that was specced for this engine, it was the 5w-30L Euro spec. I agree a 10w-30 CJ-4 should have held up fine in this engine, but wasn't used.
Originally Posted By: edyvw
Rotella has much higher SAPS level, and if it was specd. for passenger vehicles it would be high SAPS oil since SA is at 1%.
What's the SA level of Pennzoil Euro L 5w-30?
BTW, what is the official definition of "high SAPS"? To me, something like M1 0w-40 with SA level of 1.34% would be considered high/full SAPS. SA of 1% is more like mid SAPS.
Rotella has much higher SAPS level, and if it was specd. for passenger vehicles it would be high SAPS oil since SA is at 1%.
What's the SA level of Pennzoil Euro L 5w-30?
BTW, what is the official definition of "high SAPS"? To me, something like M1 0w-40 with SA level of 1.34% would be considered high/full SAPS. SA of 1% is more like mid SAPS.
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: edyvw
Rotella has much higher SAPS level, and if it was specd. for passenger vehicles it would be high SAPS oil since SA is at 1%.
What's the SA level of Pennzoil Euro L 5w-30?
BTW, what is the official definition of "high SAPS"? To me, something like M1 0w-40 with SA level of 1.34% would be considered high/full SAPS. SA of 1% is more like mid SAPS.
I think 1% is limit. I would say M1 is more exception because all High-SAPS are around 1.1-1.15%
Euro L has to be below 0.8% since it meets VW 504.00/507.00
However, if that does not make difference why using it?
If FCA thinks that Rotella will work fine and no issues with DPF, then there is no reason using C3 in DPF diesels at all apparently, or FCA is not telling customers all the story and betting that RAM users are using truck for heavy duty applications which will create more passive regeneration.
Originally Posted By: edyvw
Rotella has much higher SAPS level, and if it was specd. for passenger vehicles it would be high SAPS oil since SA is at 1%.
What's the SA level of Pennzoil Euro L 5w-30?
BTW, what is the official definition of "high SAPS"? To me, something like M1 0w-40 with SA level of 1.34% would be considered high/full SAPS. SA of 1% is more like mid SAPS.
I think 1% is limit. I would say M1 is more exception because all High-SAPS are around 1.1-1.15%
Euro L has to be below 0.8% since it meets VW 504.00/507.00
However, if that does not make difference why using it?
If FCA thinks that Rotella will work fine and no issues with DPF, then there is no reason using C3 in DPF diesels at all apparently, or FCA is not telling customers all the story and betting that RAM users are using truck for heavy duty applications which will create more passive regeneration.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Kuato
Too-thin oil again...
I don't think that's it. It's still an HTHS of 3.5 or higher. I wouldn't be surprised if there were 30 grade HDEOs that met Chrysler's spec. Going way too low SAPS for the application and intervals might have been their problem.
Quattro Pete: The ACEA definitions of high and low SAPS are a little different in the E sequences than the C sequences with SA of 1.0 and lower being called low SAPS, which is certainly different than what we'd be thinking of when we're talking A/B or C sequences. So, an E7, E9 type lubricant as is now specified is low SAPS by HDEO standards. Maybe the new Rotella 5w-30 would be perfect.
Too-thin oil again...
I don't think that's it. It's still an HTHS of 3.5 or higher. I wouldn't be surprised if there were 30 grade HDEOs that met Chrysler's spec. Going way too low SAPS for the application and intervals might have been their problem.
Quattro Pete: The ACEA definitions of high and low SAPS are a little different in the E sequences than the C sequences with SA of 1.0 and lower being called low SAPS, which is certainly different than what we'd be thinking of when we're talking A/B or C sequences. So, an E7, E9 type lubricant as is now specified is low SAPS by HDEO standards. Maybe the new Rotella 5w-30 would be perfect.
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: Kuato
Too-thin oil again...
I don't think that's it. It's still an HTHS of 3.5 or higher. I wouldn't be surprised if there were 30 grade HDEOs that met Chrysler's spec. Going way too low SAPS for the application and intervals might have been their problem.
Quattro Pete: The ACEA definitions of high and low SAPS are a little different in the E sequences than the C sequences with SA of 1.0 and lower being called low SAPS, which is certainly different than what we'd be thinking of when we're talking A/B or C sequences. So, an E7, E9 type lubricant as is now specified is low SAPS by HDEO standards. Maybe the new Rotella 5w-30 would be perfect.
Yeah, Rotell if you look A, B and C sequence would be high-SAPS oil.
As for HTHS, it is 4.0.
Originally Posted By: Kuato
Too-thin oil again...
I don't think that's it. It's still an HTHS of 3.5 or higher. I wouldn't be surprised if there were 30 grade HDEOs that met Chrysler's spec. Going way too low SAPS for the application and intervals might have been their problem.
Quattro Pete: The ACEA definitions of high and low SAPS are a little different in the E sequences than the C sequences with SA of 1.0 and lower being called low SAPS, which is certainly different than what we'd be thinking of when we're talking A/B or C sequences. So, an E7, E9 type lubricant as is now specified is low SAPS by HDEO standards. Maybe the new Rotella 5w-30 would be perfect.
Yeah, Rotell if you look A, B and C sequence would be high-SAPS oil.
As for HTHS, it is 4.0.
Like I said before I would use fallowing oils in RAM since they are more friendly to DPF and EGR:
-Motul X-Clean 5W40
- Pentosin 5W40
- Valvoline 5W40 MST
RAM owners: Pentosin is on sale in SOME Auto Zone's at $2 per liter!
-Motul X-Clean 5W40
- Pentosin 5W40
- Valvoline 5W40 MST
RAM owners: Pentosin is on sale in SOME Auto Zone's at $2 per liter!
I'd strongly recommend using MS-10902 oil if anyone else has one of these. In the event of a failure, nobody is going to be looking out for you. Make sure you have receipts that meet FCA's requirement.
The dealers around here are using T6.
The dealers around here are using T6.
Originally Posted By: Kuato
Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
So basically, they played hinky games with the oil and transmission programming to try to eke out a tenth mpg, and ended up destroying engines. Got it.
That's it in a nutshell.
Takes some of the wind out of the "only look at the owners manual, the engineers know what they're doing" argument you see so much of.
Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
So basically, they played hinky games with the oil and transmission programming to try to eke out a tenth mpg, and ended up destroying engines. Got it.
That's it in a nutshell.
Takes some of the wind out of the "only look at the owners manual, the engineers know what they're doing" argument you see so much of.
And proof that the engineers, irregardless of competence, have little say in what the OEM or someone who writes the manuals ends up telling the customer. I am sure there are many things that the engineers know that should be done, but end up not being done.
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: Kuato
Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
So basically, they played hinky games with the oil and transmission programming to try to eke out a tenth mpg, and ended up destroying engines. Got it.
That's it in a nutshell.
Takes some of the wind out of the "only look at the owners manual, the engineers know what they're doing" argument you see so much of.
It sure does. We can't always blame the engineers though, they might have their hands tied, although they do on occasion screw up. Taking the owners manual as Gospel apparently can be a problem though. Tough call, sometimes common sense and past experience is the best thing to go by.
I feel bad for some of these Eco Diesel owners. Maybe if the EPA lightens up a bit these engines will improve.
Originally Posted By: Kuato
Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
So basically, they played hinky games with the oil and transmission programming to try to eke out a tenth mpg, and ended up destroying engines. Got it.
That's it in a nutshell.
Takes some of the wind out of the "only look at the owners manual, the engineers know what they're doing" argument you see so much of.
It sure does. We can't always blame the engineers though, they might have their hands tied, although they do on occasion screw up. Taking the owners manual as Gospel apparently can be a problem though. Tough call, sometimes common sense and past experience is the best thing to go by.
I feel bad for some of these Eco Diesel owners. Maybe if the EPA lightens up a bit these engines will improve.
Originally Posted By: hatt
Takes some of the wind out of the "only look at the owners manual, the engineers know what they're doing" argument you see so much of.
No doubt. Right now, that "idiot" who never flipped through the manual and said "It's a diesel. It needs Rotella!" is laughing his butt off all the way home.
Takes some of the wind out of the "only look at the owners manual, the engineers know what they're doing" argument you see so much of.
No doubt. Right now, that "idiot" who never flipped through the manual and said "It's a diesel. It needs Rotella!" is laughing his butt off all the way home.
Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
Originally Posted By: hatt
Takes some of the wind out of the "only look at the owners manual, the engineers know what they're doing" argument you see so much of.
No doubt. Right now, that "idiot" who never flipped through the manual and said "It's a diesel. It needs Rotella!" is laughing his butt off all the way home.
And how.
Originally Posted By: hatt
Takes some of the wind out of the "only look at the owners manual, the engineers know what they're doing" argument you see so much of.
No doubt. Right now, that "idiot" who never flipped through the manual and said "It's a diesel. It needs Rotella!" is laughing his butt off all the way home.
And how.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: Kuato
Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
So basically, they played hinky games with the oil and transmission programming to try to eke out a tenth mpg, and ended up destroying engines. Got it.
That's it in a nutshell.
Takes some of the wind out of the "only look at the owners manual, the engineers know what they're doing" argument you see so much of.
It sure does. We can't always blame the engineers though, they might have their hands tied, although they do on occasion screw up. Taking the owners manual as Gospel apparently can be a problem though. Tough call, sometimes common sense and past experience is the best thing to go by.
I feel bad for some of these Eco Diesel owners. Maybe if the EPA lightens up a bit these engines will improve.
I don't blame the engineers at all. Their hands are tied most of the time.
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: Kuato
Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
So basically, they played hinky games with the oil and transmission programming to try to eke out a tenth mpg, and ended up destroying engines. Got it.
That's it in a nutshell.
Takes some of the wind out of the "only look at the owners manual, the engineers know what they're doing" argument you see so much of.
It sure does. We can't always blame the engineers though, they might have their hands tied, although they do on occasion screw up. Taking the owners manual as Gospel apparently can be a problem though. Tough call, sometimes common sense and past experience is the best thing to go by.
I feel bad for some of these Eco Diesel owners. Maybe if the EPA lightens up a bit these engines will improve.
I don't blame the engineers at all. Their hands are tied most of the time.
This type of thing happens a bit too often at FCA along with its predecessor company Chrysler/Jeep. Not wrong viscosity oil per say, but bringing something into the market without enough R/D.
I am not bashing but I made my mind up after the '97 3/4 ton Dodge I owned I would never own another, it doesn't seem to matter who owns them these type of things keep popping up.
I have a very good friend who is a retired engineer from Ford. One of his jobs with his team over the years was to completely disassemble a competitors car/truck and compare individual parts to what ford was using. His own words were Chrysler/Jeep parts had a much higher failure rate than anyone else, whether it was window regulators or knobs on the dash or electronics under the hood.
I am well aware they make some very nice looking vehicles currently, but with the unintended roll away investigation currently and the 1/2 ton diesel problems it just seems as much as things change they somehow stay the same.
I am not bashing but I made my mind up after the '97 3/4 ton Dodge I owned I would never own another, it doesn't seem to matter who owns them these type of things keep popping up.
I have a very good friend who is a retired engineer from Ford. One of his jobs with his team over the years was to completely disassemble a competitors car/truck and compare individual parts to what ford was using. His own words were Chrysler/Jeep parts had a much higher failure rate than anyone else, whether it was window regulators or knobs on the dash or electronics under the hood.
I am well aware they make some very nice looking vehicles currently, but with the unintended roll away investigation currently and the 1/2 ton diesel problems it just seems as much as things change they somehow stay the same.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
