Why is CJ-4 considered "bad" for older engines?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Sep 5, 2006
Messages
446
Location
NV
Why is CJ-4 oil considered bad for older diesel engines? What is new on new diesels that are specified for CJ-4?

Obviously there is a push for cleaner emissions and I believe they are also trying to wipe the older rigs off the streets as fast as possible. With the introduction of these new oils and ULSD, it's like killing two birds with one stone.
 
CJ-4 has reduced TBN, ash content and ZDDP versus CI-4+ in order to protect exhaust aftertreatment devices like particulate filters and catalytic converters.

Reduced ZDDP (about a 15% reduction to 1200 ppm which is still pretty healthy) reduces one of the better anti-wear additives and anti-oxidants (prevents thickening of oil at high temperatures but to an extent it has been replaced by other additives.

Reduced TBN is due to a reduction in calcium detergents (calcium sulfonate) and certain other additives, which means the oil may not have as long of service life as CI-4+ rated HDEO. ULSD has helped with this to an extent though, as it does not form as many acidic byproducts from blowby, helping to protect the oil.

Both are part of the reduction in sulfated ash overall to 1%, as any oil and additive consumed is hard on those aftertreatment devices that the manufacturer must back for an EPA mandated amount of time.

ULSD is somewhat harder on injectors, fuel pumps and upper cylinders beacuse of reduced lubricity but those paying enough attention to keeping them on the road for a long time were likely running something like Lucas UCL already. I don't think they intended to wipe them out and slow wear is a pretty long term way to do it.
 
Originally Posted By: tpitcher
Well, do/can most of them add a lubricity agent??


They say they have added lubricity to their new formulas. I don't have the new emissions, so I stick with the CI+4 from Amsoil (AME). I've also heard good things about Schaeffer's oil. Unfortunately I have not seen any independent evaluations of the oil.
 
Originally Posted By: wcbcruzer
Why is CJ-4 oil considered bad for older diesel engines? What is new on new diesels that are specified for CJ-4?

Obviously there is a push for cleaner emissions and I believe they are also trying to wipe the older rigs off the streets as fast as possible. With the introduction of these new oils and ULSD, it's like killing two birds with one stone.


You should be fine to run CJ4...Take it for what you will, but the oil companies claim lower wear.
 
Thanks, that's some great info. I DO think that they surely don't care about older engines though. They're like, "This new oil isn't as good for older engines but it will still work in them." Heck, it's a good thing to them if the old smokey engines die faster. Oh well, what can you do. There's always a push for cleaner air. Not a bad thing I guess. I always add a 1/2-oz/gallon of 2-stroke oil to my diesel (as if it's not expensive enough). I'm not willing to buy more expensive additives especially since the 2-stroke oil has shown to be amongst the top 3 best diesel additives you can add. It won't help for gelling or cleaning, but good for lubrication. Opti-lube is also supposed to be very good as well as offering cold protection and some other stuff. I'm not as concerned (having a 12v) as say someone with a 24v. I don't even know about older Fords or Chevys. I'm sure they don't like the ULSD diesel either.
 
Hi,
wcbcruzer - You said:
"I DO think that they surely don't care about older engines though. They're like, "This new oil isn't as good for older engines but it will still work in them."

This is a Commercial API Quality rating for diesel engines. The people that formed the Panel to agree on the formulation - the engine makers/additive suppliers - have a vested interest in rearwards compatability. The Oil Companies certainly do
Their fleet application testing will have confirmed it too!

These lubricants go into Fleets that are vitally dependant on rearwards compatability. Many Fleets have vehicles that may be twenty years old or older
 
Fleet testing with class 8 vehicles hasn't confirmed parity in several of our studies (n=160 with fuel quality monitored, operating conditions managed and multiple UOA's per vehicle) compared to the baseline CI-4+ lubricants of the same brand. It (CJ-4) costs more and the oil must be changed out earlier for parity protection against acidic micro-corrosion in older vehicles even when running ULSD. I'm still waiting for version 2.0 of this oil platform before I, and my fleet clients, are convinced that it is "equal". Two of my clients now have both CI-4+ oils and a smaller amount of CJ-4 on site to lower their overall operating costs. The only group that recommended consolidation in the early phases of this conversion were those with interest in selling/certifying this revised oil. Granted we have seen that CJ-4 and CI-4+ are at parity in terms of the general wear function early in the oil's life, but TBN decrease and TAN cross over definitely were not at parity in the two major brands we examined. I personally believe that it will get better over time, but right now I'm not prescribing to the group think/marketing hype that is associated with this wholesale changeover. The data collected in multiple organizations simply says it WAS different and had a higher cost.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: pickled
This is the last time I'm posting about the CJ-4 oil switch other than commenting upon UOA's.


lol... Thanks for posting. I understand there must be lots of discussion on CJ-4 oil. However, I felt my question was different than the usual. Also, I did search but once threads get old, it gets really hard to find what you're looking for.

Anyway, I like the second link you posted. Wish more people did that so we can get multiple results. Good to see that it's a linear curve so even if you overshoot your OCI, at least it won't be as bad as if the TBN depreciated exponentially.
 
Outside of emissions friendliness, there are several other advantages of CJ-4 vs CI-4 Plus. See Mobil's visual depiction - pg 14 of 16:
http://mobildelvac.com/usa-english/files/Mobil_Delvac_1300_Super_brochure.pdf

True they reduced the amount of the cheap, yet effective ZDDP additive, but the minimum performance hurdle was made more difficult at the same time. They have to use different, more expensive anti-wear additives now that have less of an impact on sulfated ash.

Starting TBN is lower across the board for CJ-4 oils, but depending on the CJ-4 formula you look at, some CJ-4 oils may hold onto their TBN longer than premium CI-4 Plus oils; cheaper ones may not. Starting TBN is of little value - how long you hold onto sufficient TBN reserve is most important.

Raw ULSD from the refinery has lower lubricity than LSD, but none of us run raw ULSD. At the rack, a lubricity additive is added to the raw ULSD to bring the lubricity levels back up to LSD levels.
 
No man i wasn't venting on your question it was different and legitimate. I'm just getting tired of posting data only to see folks keep coming back towing the marketing line of "all is great". I believe in the not-so-distant future all will be great, and for the average Joe running CJ-4 at factory drain intervals in a pick-up life will be copacetic. The problem is when you look at large fleets that had previously optimized their extended intervals the product isn't allowing them to maintain the status quo. They are taking it in the shorts on this change over. If they pay close attention to their UOA data(vs. trusting the company marketing statement) they will lose time between lubricant change outs when using the largest selling fleet oils here in North America. As far as lubricity improvers some are finding safe haven for their injector pumps by using additives like Power Service or Lucas.
 
Hi,
pickled - My comment on rearwards compatibilty is oviously understood by you

However it is also well known that forward compatibity is a negative. For instance a CF lubricant would not "live" in the latest series engines very long at all without causing serious issues. I spent much of the late 1990s investigating these issues in Fleets. Some Service Managers often believe that they "know best"

As for OCIs, some claims made such as Pablo's 400k OCI are very hard to believe and in Pablo's case - to substantiate

As you know UOA trending within engine families is the only way. Even with Delvac 1 5W-40, a Mann-Hummel centrifuge, 30micron Stainless Steel (or Synteq) FF filters I could not get beyond 130kkms befor the lubricant reached either Iron or Soot condemnation levels. My engine where DDEC4 500hp/1650ftlbs Series 60s in Interstate Linehaul work. Many engine reache over 2m kms without component replacement

IMHO CJ-4 lubricants from the major Oil Companies are doing their intended job very well indeed. Their job will always be a compromise of course
 
Wow Doug you certainly pulled out all the stops to extend your OCI's in your Detroit 60's didn't you
01.gif
! I have browsed through your archive on the truckers forum and enjoyed the wealth of data that you had very generously provided. All and all I look forward to see how the CJ-4 formulations evolve from their current state and how the OEM's will take advantage of some of the new features that this class brings with them. I am also looking forward to seeing what the reliability curve of the various DPF's and treatment devices proves out to be in the field. I guess we will just have to sit back and keep collecting data!
36.gif
 
Hi,
pickled - I agree. Whilst I had no "faith" in the way the API reacted to the engine manufacturer's needs in the 1970s early 1980s their Committee approach has worked well (at the Manufacturer's insistance)since the late 1980s - but after many failures when working in almost total isolation. This period produced the NA engine Manufacturer's own standards - like Benz, MAN and etc had had for decades. ACEA certainly spurred the API into action too!

Each formulation change onward from the CG-CH era has produced a better product IMHO. There will always be a need for some compromises with such a sophisticated Commercial product

That is why I always promote using a suitably "certified" product of the correct specification! The brand matters little
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top