'70 Farmall 826, RT 15W40, 3-YEARS, 126 hours

[Jim Allen]

1970 Farmall 826
Neuss D358 Diesel
8279 hours on engine
126 hour OCI
3-year time interval
CJ-4 Rotella-T 15W40
Wix 51768 Oil Filter (25u nominal)

TBN- 9.3
Insol- 0.4
Fuel- TR
Flash- 390
Visc @ 100C- 16.99
Added Oil- 4 Quarts (over three years)

Alum.- 3
Chrome- 2
Copper- 3
Iron- 25
Moly- 2
Potassium- 8
Silicon- 3
Sodium- 6
Calcium- 2548
Magnesium- 9
Phos- 1031
Zinc- 1211

I won't bother repeating Blackstone's comments. Basically, they said "normal." My own interpretation is that, once again, it's been shown that moderately long time intervals have little to no effect on oils in an engine that gets a reasonable operational cycle. This tractor is only used when hard work is needed and then it's used for hours on end. Otherwise it's parked. The fuel trace is probably due to my warming it up with light work before changing the oil and taking the sample.

You will notice that the oil thickened considerably, which is a sign of soot buildup as evidenced by the 0.4 insolubles. This oil is doing a good job of keeping that soot suspended... a plus for CJ-4 oils in general. The 9.3 TBN is amazing to me. This is the longest run, both in time and hours, I've made with this engine. I think as it stands, considering the soot and insolubles, 126 hours was a skosh higher than ideal (calls for 100 hours in the manual) but well inside the "envelope." Considering the number of hours this engine has (the equivalent of over 500,000 road miles), it's a great report. I wish the rest of the tractor was holding up as well as the engine ( : < ). The last quart of added oil was installed at the beginning of this season in May and it was due for another when I changed it.

If I don't trade this old timer in next year, which is not not likely, it will get a bypass system and I be posting again in another three years. If interested, I believe there are two other reports on this engine posted.. just look up my posts.

 

[beast3300]

Those are pretty impressive results. What did you refill it with?

 

[HM12460]

Jim, the TBN surprises me too, good tractor!

 

[Jim Allen]

Originally Posted By: beast3300
Those are pretty impressive results. What did you refill it with?


Why jump off a known good horse? To be honest. if you go back and look at al the results from this oil/tractor combo, they have been good.

 

[beast3300]

Agreed. I was just curious if Bitog-itis got to you and you wanted to try something else.

 

[sdan27]

What kind of conversion factor are you using for hours to miles? I've read somewhere that one hour is equivalent to about 33 miles which would put it at about 273,000 miles. I'd be looking to keep a tractor like that around. Doubtful it would have much trade in value at this point.

 

[Jim Allen]

I've always used either 50 or 60 miles. IIRC, one of those is the equivalent for tractors which normally run at about 75 percent of rated speed (i.e. 50 or 60 mph). Willing to be corrected if that's not the case.

As to keeping the tractor... it's strictly dollars and cents (or sense). It's been one powertrain or hydraulic issue after another and now the TA started slipping. That's a big deal to fix. Also, I don't have a big barn. For something new to come in, something old has to go out.

 

[dnewton3]

Stellar report, Jim.

When will the nay-sayers understand that the calendar has little affect on oil and filters?

The Fe is high compared to the other wear items, but makes perfect sense given the long, hard use your describe, even if it is infrequent. I'd say the Fe is perfectly in line with your useage and nothing to be concerned of.

The insolubles and vis definitely point to the CJ-4 formulation doing exactly what it's supposed to do; catch stuff and suspend it!

The TBN is clear evidence that the engine gets up to temp and runs hard, burning off any residual moisture, hence, little acids to fight the TBN. Also, 4 qrts top off certainly helps. But overall, a very impressive result.

I marvel at today's fluids, frankly, and don't understand why some others cannot relinquish the short OCI mentality.

As for the hour/miles conversion, I look at the useage and try to figure it based upon a percentage of 60 mph at rated engine speed and loading factor. For example, my Kubota is used 90% of the time for mowing grass at rated PTO speed. So, I figure on an average of 54 mph for each hour (60 mph x .9 = 54mph). If one does a lot of short start/stop and idle cycles, that can have a negative effect. Idling in between continuous long hard runs isn't nearly as detrimental.

 

[Jim Allen]

Dave- Your hrs/miles conversion seems logical. Is it a standard formula or something you came up with?

My situation is a little more complicated. For tillage, I run at approximately 83 percent of rated speed and no less than a 75 percent load, say 75-85 percent (that's how I sized the implements and ballasted the tractor). For spraying with a 46' pull-behind, I'm at 90 percent of rated speed but only a 30 percent load, or less.

 

[dnewton3]

Gosh, Jim, I just somewhat "winged it" on the formula.

Here's my logic:

Wear will come from a few sources; heavy loading at full throttle, excessive idling, and cold starts. We can't do much about the cold starts, except to reduce them to as few as practical. The excessive idling can also be controlled, but if the engine is a good design, then there should be enough oil pressure for the light crankshaft and con-rod loads. That leaves heavy use at high throttle settings as the likeliest heavy wear contributor.

I consider "rated pto speed" to the be top advisable continuous operational engine speed. Sure, you might redline higher, but PTO speed is the typical limit. So I consider that to represent 100% of my loading factor. If I never ran anything but that, I would estimate my mileage at 100% of 60 mph. Since I do some putting around occasionally 10% of the total elapsed time, I subtract that from the 100%; hence 90% of 60 mph is 54 mph, times the number of house accumulated.

For me, the forumla isn't soley based upon the rpm, but moreso the typical, most prominent rpm when viewed at the heaviest load. The tillage you do is akin to heavy loading as well. So if you do that for a protracted time frame, I would consider that your 100% factor. If you till most of the time, that loading is viewed as the conventional "60 mph" equivilant. Then figure the time you don't spend at that load factor, and subtract the remaining "easy use". If you till 85% of the time, then take away your 15% easy use, and your total hourly average is roughly 51 mph (60 mph x .85 = 51mph).

With the old mechanical hour meters that were driven off the rpm, then it was harder to tell what your true time factor was. But since the (long ago) advancement of electrical gages on equipment, the "time" factor becomes a true linear exposure. So the only real issue we have to determine is what is the highest "load" factor, and then base our relative "time" exposure at that load. Anything that falls outside that heavy use factor makes for less accumulated mileage. It's NOT a perfect forumla, but it works.

I fully admit the formula is probably over simplified; it does not take into account mixed use. You can dabble with the forumla and start to add multiple use factors. Here's an example:
Say that you do 40% heavy use mowing at rated PTO, 30% tillage at 70% rated PTO, and 30% easy loader lifts just above idle.
Even though the mowing and tillage occur at different rpm, I suspect the loading is nearly equal so I would combine them to a 70% factor. The light lifts have very little wear at all. So:
60mph x 70% = 42mph average.

Now, please understand that there are a whole lot of contributing factors that my formula simply ignores. We all would agree that nearly every engine has a "sweet spot" for power, and conversely a "gulch" that might represent high wear. We also know that long, sustained idling can also accelerate wear as well. Short, cold trips can accelerate wear. Further, there are different kinds of "wear" in an engine. I'd prefer to experience some cylinder Fe wear over Cu and Pb from bearings any day of the week. Heavy loading will always shed a bit of Fe, but I've seen lots of UOAs from lots of equipment last thousands of hours with Fe being the predominant wear metal due to the heavy loading factor, but the equipment continues to soldier on with aplomb. OTOH, show me continuing high Pb and Cu and I'll walk away in a hurry. That is bearing wear and it's going to be destructive soon.

I personaly don't fear the used equipment that has high accumulated hours on the meter, if I know that it has been well cared for, and operated at the "sweet spot" for most of it's lifecycle.

Generators are a good example. A friend recently purchased a small used Kubuta generator with 3200 hours on it. His dad freaked out and wanted to know why he got such a "piece of used junk". It did not start well at all, nor would it run well. I knew that the fuel system needed a rebuild. But I also knew that the generator got good annual service. And, generators typically run at rated rpm for long periods of time, but rarely at full load. Long story made short; he had the fuel pump and injectors reman'd, and it's like new again. He put $500 into the genset for the purchase, another $500 into the reman work, and $200 of misc stuff like glow plugs, etc. Now he has a fantastic little genset for $1200 that will run circles around most other stuff you could buy for that money. New, that thing would have cost $4500 or so. That genset may have the equivliant of (60mph x .7 load factor x 3200 hours) 135K miles on it. That mileage is nothing to a good little liquid cooled diesel engine. Smart buy!

What we don't really know (that OEMs might be able to tell us) is where the wear and rpm factors cross over. High rpm at light loads may or may not give as much wear as lower rpm with heavier loads. We simply don't know for sure. Further, as I mentioned, the kind of wear is also important to know. If we really want to know for sure, we would have to own and operate three identical pieces of equipment in different manners, and then do a tear down analysis on the entire engine for study. I presume that you, like me, don't have the $$$ to do such a study. So, in lieu of that, we postulate these "formulas" as estimates.

Feel free to adjust and manipulate the formula as you see fit; it's not scientific by any means; just good SWAGs.

 

[Jim Allen]

By the way, here is a test done some 28 hours and just about a year earlier on the same oil fill. Different lab but it's still useful for comparison. This sample was taken with a suction gun.


Neuss D358 diesel, 98 hours on R-T 15W40, Wix 51768 Filter (rated at 25u Nominal), 8251 hrs on engine.
Note: Metals are in MG/L not PPM!

Soot- 0.814
Oxidation- 21.9
Nitration- 10.3
TBN- 11.24
Fuel Dilution- 0.09
Visc- 15.72
Iron- 18
Chrome- 2
Lead- 1
Copper- 2
Aluminum- 3
Silicon- 1
Sodium-1
Potassium- 8
Boron- 28
Calcium- 2350
Zinc- 1272
Phosphorus- 971
Magnesium- 7
Sulphur- 3842

Particle Count
Note: Listed by size in counts/100mL

4-6u- 20,699,202/mL
6-14u- 2,869,403/mL
14-21u- 46,838/mL
21-38u- 1,695/mL
38-70u- 0
>70u- 0
ISO Code- 25/22/16

 

[pcfxer]

Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
1970 Farmall 826
Neuss D358 Diesel
8279 hours on engine
126 hour OCI
3-year time interval
CJ-4 Rotella-T 15W40
Wix 51768 Oil Filter (25u nominal)

TBN- 9.3
Insol- 0.4
Fuel- TR
Flash- 390
Visc @ 100C- 16.99
Added Oil- 4 Quarts (over three years)

Alum.- 3
Chrome- 2
Copper- 3
Iron- 25
Moly- 2
Potassium- 8
Silicon- 3
Sodium- 6
Calcium- 2548
Magnesium- 9
Phos- 1031
Zinc- 1211

I won't bother repeating Blackstone's comments. Basically, they said "normal." My own interpretation is that, once again, it's been shown that moderately long time intervals have little to no effect on oils in an engine that gets a reasonable operational cycle. This tractor is only used when hard work is needed and then it's used for hours on end. Otherwise it's parked. The fuel trace is probably due to my warming it up with light work before changing the oil and taking the sample.

You will notice that the oil thickened considerably, which is a sign of soot buildup as evidenced by the 0.4 insolubles. This oil is doing a good job of keeping that soot suspended... a plus for CJ-4 oils in general. The 9.3 TBN is amazing to me. This is the longest run, both in time and hours, I've made with this engine. I think as it stands, considering the soot and insolubles, 126 hours was a skosh higher than ideal (calls for 100 hours in the manual) but well inside the "envelope." Considering the number of hours this engine has (the equivalent of over 500,000 road miles), it's a great report. I wish the rest of the tractor was holding up as well as the engine ( : < ). The last quart of added oil was installed at the beginning of this season in May and it was due for another when I changed it.

If I don't trade this old timer in next year, which is not not likely, it will get a bypass system and I be posting again in another three years. If interested, I believe there are two other reports on this engine posted.. just look up my posts.


Useless test, if you want to test time you need to test TAN.

 

[Jim Allen]

Originally Posted By: pcfxer


Useless test, if you want to test time you need to test TAN.


On the contrary, TBN and TAN are inverse. Low TBN=high TAN & vice versa. Very well documented phenomenon. For that reason, I saved money by not doing both tests.

 

[Doug Hillary]

Hi,
Jim - Good stuff and wise TBN choice

The German derived Neuss engines are great - they just need to be looked after as you know

Best wishes

 

[Doug Hillary]

Hi,
for what it is worth I ran an hour meter on all of my trucks (ECMs record this too)

My average over many many years on Interstate work was 1hr = 80kkm (or near enough) - this is 50 miles in your lingo!