I would expect that we will still see A3/B4 carry the SN because they are more typically passenger car diesels. But there is an ACEA sequence update for 2016, I'm not sure when it will be released but there will be some changes - especially in the HDDEO "E" category.
Shell Shows Off New Portfolio of CK-4 Oils
- Thread starter CarbonSteel
- Start date
- Status
What I'm getting at is in the hypothetical CK-4/SN 15w-40 you mentioned, you mentioned lower phosphorus numbers. So, would they have to technically follow the SN limits of phosphorus for ILSAC grades, even though it's not an ILSAC grade? Will there be differences in phosphorus limits when you compare a hypothetical CK-4/SN 10w-30 and a CK-4/SN 15w-40, or would they both face the same, lower limit?
That's why I would wonder what would happen to an A3/B4 5w-40 or 0w-40 with phosphorus well above the 30 grade limits, since the 5w-40 and 0w-40 A3/B4 lubricants usually have an SN rating. Something like Castrol 5w-30 A3/B4 or 0w-30 A3/B4 obviously uses the older S spec to avoid problems, whereas a current CJ-4/SM or CJ-4/SN 10w-30 doesn't have to worry about it, with the CJ-4 being listed first.
Of course, the usual 5w-30 HDEOs I've seen are E6, and have limited phosphorus in the first place, so I would gather that it wouldn't affect those E6 lubes that are dual rated. Oddly enough, the Castrol version in North America is not dual rated.
With respect to changes in E sequences, well, I'd be confident continuing with my current lube in my G37, or any E7, E9 lubricant (even if it didn't show a nominal SM or SN specification) for that matter, assuming that the sequences don't change drastically.
That's why I would wonder what would happen to an A3/B4 5w-40 or 0w-40 with phosphorus well above the 30 grade limits, since the 5w-40 and 0w-40 A3/B4 lubricants usually have an SN rating. Something like Castrol 5w-30 A3/B4 or 0w-30 A3/B4 obviously uses the older S spec to avoid problems, whereas a current CJ-4/SM or CJ-4/SN 10w-30 doesn't have to worry about it, with the CJ-4 being listed first.
Of course, the usual 5w-30 HDEOs I've seen are E6, and have limited phosphorus in the first place, so I would gather that it wouldn't affect those E6 lubes that are dual rated. Oddly enough, the Castrol version in North America is not dual rated.
With respect to changes in E sequences, well, I'd be confident continuing with my current lube in my G37, or any E7, E9 lubricant (even if it didn't show a nominal SM or SN specification) for that matter, assuming that the sequences don't change drastically.
I think it went to a vote a month or two ago (sans marketing people), where it was decided that SN labeled engine oils had to obey SN guide lines.
That does not mean we can't have CK-4/SM. After Brexit, which country will be next to drop the "E", as in E6, Etc?
That does not mean we can't have CK-4/SM. After Brexit, which country will be next to drop the "E", as in E6, Etc?
Originally Posted By: Solarent
if someone comes out with 15W40 CK-4/SN it will have lower phosphorus for sure. in Shell's case it doesn't look like that will be happening as the only "universal" oil they listed was the 5W30 CK-4 SN. Like Garak says, the antiwear chemistry is different (and so are the detergents, dispersants and pretty much everything else). this is because under the new regime of 800ppm phophorus for SN for all grades, a different - and argueably better - formulating approach has to be taken.
In case someone out there wants to run a 15W40 in their car but want lower Phosphorus levels, there is Delvac Elite 15W40 available. I used it for 30K miles in one of my Volvo trucks a couple years ago.
The uoa came back great. It was a typical Delvac add-pack with a mix of magnesium, calcium,and a little moly. The phosphorus was 758 ppm and zinc was 910 ppm. If I remember correctly, it (15W40) is dual rated whereas the Elite 10W30 is not and has a typical high phos/zinc level.
if someone comes out with 15W40 CK-4/SN it will have lower phosphorus for sure. in Shell's case it doesn't look like that will be happening as the only "universal" oil they listed was the 5W30 CK-4 SN. Like Garak says, the antiwear chemistry is different (and so are the detergents, dispersants and pretty much everything else). this is because under the new regime of 800ppm phophorus for SN for all grades, a different - and argueably better - formulating approach has to be taken.
In case someone out there wants to run a 15W40 in their car but want lower Phosphorus levels, there is Delvac Elite 15W40 available. I used it for 30K miles in one of my Volvo trucks a couple years ago.
The uoa came back great. It was a typical Delvac add-pack with a mix of magnesium, calcium,and a little moly. The phosphorus was 758 ppm and zinc was 910 ppm. If I remember correctly, it (15W40) is dual rated whereas the Elite 10W30 is not and has a typical high phos/zinc level.
Originally Posted By: userfriendly
After Brexit, which country will be next to drop the "E", as in E6, Etc?
Would Brexit have anything to do with it? They're generally just a baseline for other specifications, or use other specifications as a starting point themselves. In this case, they're useful in differentiating a cheap 15w-40 (i.e. TuneIt) versus a 15w-40 from the big players versus the new low phosphorus 5w-30 HDEOs, all of which are still CJ-4. The TuneIt has no ACEA specs, so may have lower starting TBN. The E7, E9 15w-40 will have the higher TBN. The E6 lube will be the lower phosphorus one.
After Brexit, which country will be next to drop the "E", as in E6, Etc?
Would Brexit have anything to do with it? They're generally just a baseline for other specifications, or use other specifications as a starting point themselves. In this case, they're useful in differentiating a cheap 15w-40 (i.e. TuneIt) versus a 15w-40 from the big players versus the new low phosphorus 5w-30 HDEOs, all of which are still CJ-4. The TuneIt has no ACEA specs, so may have lower starting TBN. The E7, E9 15w-40 will have the higher TBN. The E6 lube will be the lower phosphorus one.
I always thought Tune-it were re-refined products from www.safety-kleen.com
Last year I bought a 20L pail of house brand SAE40 from Newfie Speed 'n Custom (CT), and it smelled like an old inner-tube.
Last year I bought a 20L pail of house brand SAE40 from Newfie Speed 'n Custom (CT), and it smelled like an old inner-tube.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
I still think the best way to reduce soot loading on the DPF (and the engine itself for that matter) is to shut the EGR off via a ECM tune. That would do far more to reduce regens than a low SAPS oil could ever do. It is just plain criminal to make a diesel eat its own feces.
Except that (for light duty diesel pickup trucks):
1. It is just plain criminal to tamper with the emissions system on any modern diesel pickup truck.
2. EVERY single aftermarket ECM tune produces more emissions and brings back that familiar diesel smell and black smoke laden exhaust.
3. It positively voids the warranty on the vehicle.
4. Depending on the locality/state can render the vehicle unable to be legally sold.
5. Most of these tunes/deletes are very expensive and are very problematic.
#1... Wrong. At most a civil penalty, irregardless of a pickup truck or a semi truck. Nothing is removed or blocked. No components are tampered with. Doubtful anyone who was checking could actually tell anything changed.
#2... Only if power levels are changed, so, no EVERY single tune does not do as you describe. And smoke would only occur if DPF system also removed. I only mentioned shutting off EGR completely via ECM, not trying to blow the heads with power changes or setting up a rolling coal scenario. EGR does not open all the time anyway. Under certain power and altitude conditions, the EGR is left closed as part of the original OEM tuning with EPA blessing. A modified tune as I am suggesting would just leave it closed all the time.
#3... No removal of parts. All emission components left intact and operational. Any tune would only stop the opening activation of the EGR, not delete it. OEM tune easily restored prior to having dealer work done on the vehicle.
#4... Tune easily removed for resale. Original OEM tune reinstalled.
#5... Most not much more than $500 for what I describe... a simple code change to shut off EGR activation. EGR de-activation (also known as a EGR disable) is probably the easiest of all code changes to an ECM and the least problematic. There are more problems with EGR function as designed.... increased soot loading of the engine, EGR cooler developing leaks and introducing engine coolant into the cylinders via the intake. Many times necessitating a engine overhaul.
You really need to do a little research and find out what is going on in this arena. A good area to start is this link. It describes various techniques of approaching EGR. I am referring to a EGR disable.
http://www.kennedydiesel.com/docs/Durama...GR%20Delete.pdf
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
I still think the best way to reduce soot loading on the DPF (and the engine itself for that matter) is to shut the EGR off via a ECM tune. That would do far more to reduce regens than a low SAPS oil could ever do. It is just plain criminal to make a diesel eat its own feces.
Except that (for light duty diesel pickup trucks):
1. It is just plain criminal to tamper with the emissions system on any modern diesel pickup truck.
2. EVERY single aftermarket ECM tune produces more emissions and brings back that familiar diesel smell and black smoke laden exhaust.
3. It positively voids the warranty on the vehicle.
4. Depending on the locality/state can render the vehicle unable to be legally sold.
5. Most of these tunes/deletes are very expensive and are very problematic.
#1... Wrong. At most a civil penalty, irregardless of a pickup truck or a semi truck. Nothing is removed or blocked. No components are tampered with. Doubtful anyone who was checking could actually tell anything changed.
#2... Only if power levels are changed, so, no EVERY single tune does not do as you describe. And smoke would only occur if DPF system also removed. I only mentioned shutting off EGR completely via ECM, not trying to blow the heads with power changes or setting up a rolling coal scenario. EGR does not open all the time anyway. Under certain power and altitude conditions, the EGR is left closed as part of the original OEM tuning with EPA blessing. A modified tune as I am suggesting would just leave it closed all the time.
#3... No removal of parts. All emission components left intact and operational. Any tune would only stop the opening activation of the EGR, not delete it. OEM tune easily restored prior to having dealer work done on the vehicle.
#4... Tune easily removed for resale. Original OEM tune reinstalled.
#5... Most not much more than $500 for what I describe... a simple code change to shut off EGR activation. EGR de-activation (also known as a EGR disable) is probably the easiest of all code changes to an ECM and the least problematic. There are more problems with EGR function as designed.... increased soot loading of the engine, EGR cooler developing leaks and introducing engine coolant into the cylinders via the intake. Many times necessitating a engine overhaul.
You really need to do a little research and find out what is going on in this arena. A good area to start is this link. It describes various techniques of approaching EGR. I am referring to a EGR disable.
http://www.kennedydiesel.com/docs/Durama...GR%20Delete.pdf
Originally Posted By: userfriendly
I always thought Tune-it were re-refined products from www.safety-kleen.com
They are. They're certified and so forth, but one obviously isn't going to have the same builder approvals and specifications with something like that versus Delvac 1300 15w-40, for instance. And, we have seen some CJ-4 15w-40 options with lower TBN than others. It's probably not a huge deal, of course, but I'm just pointing out it's nice to be able to have some differentiation within the CJ-4 category.
I always thought Tune-it were re-refined products from www.safety-kleen.com
They are. They're certified and so forth, but one obviously isn't going to have the same builder approvals and specifications with something like that versus Delvac 1300 15w-40, for instance. And, we have seen some CJ-4 15w-40 options with lower TBN than others. It's probably not a huge deal, of course, but I'm just pointing out it's nice to be able to have some differentiation within the CJ-4 category.
I thought your buddies at Brandt Tractor, HO Regina, could supply you with the latest 'n greatest from www.valero.com ValPar brand lubricants.
I think they can, and I'm pretty sure one or two of my other suppliers might have some, too. I have no problem with Imperial Oil's pricing on HDEOs, though.
Originally Posted By: Garak
What I'm getting at is in the hypothetical CK-4/SN 15w-40 you mentioned, you mentioned lower phosphorus numbers. So, would they have to technically follow the SN limits of phosphorus for ILSAC grades, even though it's not an ILSAC grade? Will there be differences in phosphorus limits when you compare a hypothetical CK-4/SN 10w-30 and a CK-4/SN 15w-40, or would they both face the same, lower limit?
The Limits for Phosphorus etc are not part of the ILSAC GF-5 portion. Universal oils are not necessarily GF-5, they are often API SN only (not resource conserving) and as such do not display the starburst. Up until now, in Annex G - Table G5 - API SN the following footnote gives a waver to the limits(f):
Originally Posted By: API 1509 Annex G
For all viscosity grades: If CH-4, CI-4 and/or CJ-4 categories precede the "S" category and there is no API Certification Mark, the “S” category
limits for phosphorus, sulfur, and the TEOST MHT do not apply.
In the most recent revision (Addendum 5, which deals with CK-4/FA-4 products) the footnote has been changed to:
Originally Posted By: API 1509 Annex G
For all viscosity grades: If CH-4, CI-4 and/or CJ-4 categories precede the "S" category and there is no API Certification Mark, the “S” category
limits for phosphorus, sulfur, and the TEOST MHT do not apply. However, the CJ-4 limits for phosphorus and sulfur do apply for CJ-4 oils. This
footnote cannot be applied if CK-4 or FA-4 is also claimed. Note that these “C” category oils have been formulated primarily for diesel engines and
may not provide all of the performance requirements consistent with vehicle manufacturers' recommendations for gasoline-fueled engines.
Although technically in Table G-5, it appears that if you are not claiming resource conserving, and are not using SAE 0W-16, SAE 5W-16, SAE 0W-20, SAE 5W-20, SAE 0W-30, SAE 5W-30, SAE 10W-30 then there is no maximum limit on phosphorus for the SN claim (although the CJ-4 or CK-4 Limits still do apply). In practical terms however typically a blender would use the same DI for 10W-30 as they would for 15W40 and if you want SN on 10W30 you have to meet the phosphorus and sulfur limits for both. Odds are in CK-4 we won't see anyone claiming SN without sticking to the lower phos limits.
Originally Posted By: Garak
That's why I would wonder what would happen to an A3/B4 5w-40 or 0w-40 with phosphorus well above the 30 grade limits, since the 5w-40 and 0w-40 A3/B4 lubricants usually have an SN rating. Something like Castrol 5w-30 A3/B4 or 0w-30 A3/B4 obviously uses the older S spec to avoid problems, whereas a current CJ-4/SM or CJ-4/SN 10w-30 doesn't have to worry about it, with the CJ-4 being listed first.
5W40 and 0W40 are technically in the "ALL OTHER GRADES" category which does not require the maximum phosphorus of 800ppm unless you are displaying the resource conserving. so hypothetically nothing changes here - although again with CK-4 most of these products will be likely low phosphorus.
Originally Posted By: Garak
Of course, the usual 5w-30 HDEOs I've seen are E6, and have limited phosphorus in the first place, so I would gather that it wouldn't affect those E6 lubes that are dual rated. Oddly enough, the Castrol version in North America is not dual rated.
This is true and I expect to see the same with CK-4 5W30 HDEO's as well.
What I'm getting at is in the hypothetical CK-4/SN 15w-40 you mentioned, you mentioned lower phosphorus numbers. So, would they have to technically follow the SN limits of phosphorus for ILSAC grades, even though it's not an ILSAC grade? Will there be differences in phosphorus limits when you compare a hypothetical CK-4/SN 10w-30 and a CK-4/SN 15w-40, or would they both face the same, lower limit?
The Limits for Phosphorus etc are not part of the ILSAC GF-5 portion. Universal oils are not necessarily GF-5, they are often API SN only (not resource conserving) and as such do not display the starburst. Up until now, in Annex G - Table G5 - API SN the following footnote gives a waver to the limits(f):
Originally Posted By: API 1509 Annex G
For all viscosity grades: If CH-4, CI-4 and/or CJ-4 categories precede the "S" category and there is no API Certification Mark, the “S” category
limits for phosphorus, sulfur, and the TEOST MHT do not apply.
In the most recent revision (Addendum 5, which deals with CK-4/FA-4 products) the footnote has been changed to:
Originally Posted By: API 1509 Annex G
For all viscosity grades: If CH-4, CI-4 and/or CJ-4 categories precede the "S" category and there is no API Certification Mark, the “S” category
limits for phosphorus, sulfur, and the TEOST MHT do not apply. However, the CJ-4 limits for phosphorus and sulfur do apply for CJ-4 oils. This
footnote cannot be applied if CK-4 or FA-4 is also claimed. Note that these “C” category oils have been formulated primarily for diesel engines and
may not provide all of the performance requirements consistent with vehicle manufacturers' recommendations for gasoline-fueled engines.
Although technically in Table G-5, it appears that if you are not claiming resource conserving, and are not using SAE 0W-16, SAE 5W-16, SAE 0W-20, SAE 5W-20, SAE 0W-30, SAE 5W-30, SAE 10W-30 then there is no maximum limit on phosphorus for the SN claim (although the CJ-4 or CK-4 Limits still do apply). In practical terms however typically a blender would use the same DI for 10W-30 as they would for 15W40 and if you want SN on 10W30 you have to meet the phosphorus and sulfur limits for both. Odds are in CK-4 we won't see anyone claiming SN without sticking to the lower phos limits.
Originally Posted By: Garak
That's why I would wonder what would happen to an A3/B4 5w-40 or 0w-40 with phosphorus well above the 30 grade limits, since the 5w-40 and 0w-40 A3/B4 lubricants usually have an SN rating. Something like Castrol 5w-30 A3/B4 or 0w-30 A3/B4 obviously uses the older S spec to avoid problems, whereas a current CJ-4/SM or CJ-4/SN 10w-30 doesn't have to worry about it, with the CJ-4 being listed first.
5W40 and 0W40 are technically in the "ALL OTHER GRADES" category which does not require the maximum phosphorus of 800ppm unless you are displaying the resource conserving. so hypothetically nothing changes here - although again with CK-4 most of these products will be likely low phosphorus.
Originally Posted By: Garak
Of course, the usual 5w-30 HDEOs I've seen are E6, and have limited phosphorus in the first place, so I would gather that it wouldn't affect those E6 lubes that are dual rated. Oddly enough, the Castrol version in North America is not dual rated.
This is true and I expect to see the same with CK-4 5W30 HDEO's as well.
The reason I mentioned ILSAC grades is because we will see the products like Mobil 1 0w-40 in SN with elevated phosphorus, whereas the 0w-20, 5w-20, 0w-30, 5w-30, and 10w-30 (which I call the ILSAC grades, whether they have the Starburst or not) will have the reduced phosphorus as ILSAC grades. Yet, you don't see 5w-30 A3/B4 with SM or newer.
Originally Posted By: Solarent
Although technically in Table G-5, it appears that if you are not claiming resource conserving, and are not using SAE 0W-16, SAE 5W-16, SAE 0W-20, SAE 5W-20, SAE 0W-30, SAE 5W-30, SAE 10W-30 then there is no maximum limit on phosphorus for the SN claim (although the CJ-4 or CK-4 Limits still do apply).
This was essentially what I was clumsily trying to say. And, from your coloured note and interpretation thereof, it would seem that the basic gist of the matter is that HDEOs will be treated much like the Euro lubes. If you want to be a CK-4/SN and be one of the "ILSAC grades" you had better have your phosphorus in order. So, if they wanted to make Delvac 1 LE 5w-30 CK-4/SN instead of the current CJ-4/SN, all other things being equal, the phosphorus content is good enough given the E6 rating. Changing a 10w-30 CJ-4/SM to CK-4/SN might be a different matter altogether, though. Does that sound reasonably correct?
Originally Posted By: Solarent
Although technically in Table G-5, it appears that if you are not claiming resource conserving, and are not using SAE 0W-16, SAE 5W-16, SAE 0W-20, SAE 5W-20, SAE 0W-30, SAE 5W-30, SAE 10W-30 then there is no maximum limit on phosphorus for the SN claim (although the CJ-4 or CK-4 Limits still do apply).
This was essentially what I was clumsily trying to say. And, from your coloured note and interpretation thereof, it would seem that the basic gist of the matter is that HDEOs will be treated much like the Euro lubes. If you want to be a CK-4/SN and be one of the "ILSAC grades" you had better have your phosphorus in order. So, if they wanted to make Delvac 1 LE 5w-30 CK-4/SN instead of the current CJ-4/SN, all other things being equal, the phosphorus content is good enough given the E6 rating. Changing a 10w-30 CJ-4/SM to CK-4/SN might be a different matter altogether, though. Does that sound reasonably correct?
Yes I would say so. Time will tell how this all shakes out, but I expect basically everything that claims SN to have max 800ppm phos from here on out. I also expect that with GF-6 the "all other grades" column will also disappear - so that means everything will have to have their phosphorus in order if they want to claim it can be used in a passenger car. Like you said, the same (or similar) treatment as Euro lubes.
Yes, I think how it shakes out is the real issue. As I suggested, a 15w-40 CK-4/SN wouldn't technically be limited the way a 10w-30 CK-4/SN, but as you point out that it's silly to use two treat rates for two different viscosities meeting the same specification, unless there were some other overriding reason for a different formulation.
On the latter comment about GF-6, I would suggest that API be careful, though, so as not to make themselves too irrelevant. They already have lubes like GC clinging to some rather dated specifications for some rather tenuous reasons. If they were to do the same to all the A3/B4 lubricants, if I were Castrol, Mobil, or Shell, I'd simply tell the API to take a hike with respect to those lubricants and not bother certifying them through API at all. It will save a few (very few) dollars, and at least they'll be able to ignore a set of guidelines that really has limited utility for the lubricant target market in any event.
After all, if we're going to see at least some CK-4 lubricants drop the SN specification, it isn't a big stretch to be dropping the API spec altogether from an A3/B4 lubricant. If the oil companies are willing to roll the dice on mixed fleet sales, I see it as far less of a gamble to tell API to pound sand over Euro lubes, at least the A3/B4 ones.
On the latter comment about GF-6, I would suggest that API be careful, though, so as not to make themselves too irrelevant. They already have lubes like GC clinging to some rather dated specifications for some rather tenuous reasons. If they were to do the same to all the A3/B4 lubricants, if I were Castrol, Mobil, or Shell, I'd simply tell the API to take a hike with respect to those lubricants and not bother certifying them through API at all. It will save a few (very few) dollars, and at least they'll be able to ignore a set of guidelines that really has limited utility for the lubricant target market in any event.
After all, if we're going to see at least some CK-4 lubricants drop the SN specification, it isn't a big stretch to be dropping the API spec altogether from an A3/B4 lubricant. If the oil companies are willing to roll the dice on mixed fleet sales, I see it as far less of a gamble to tell API to pound sand over Euro lubes, at least the A3/B4 ones.
You must be a heck of a chess player Garak. Mixed fleet in NA will line up with XW30 FA-4 and across the pond, XW30 E6.
5w-30 E6 would work fine here, too. I'm not sure what I'd think about using a 30 grade FA-4 in a gasser yet. I know the viscosity is absolutely fine and phosphorus levels would be nothing to be alarmed about, assuming that the vehicle in question is fine with ILSAC type viscosities.
I'm just wondering how different something like a 30 grade FA-4 would look from a 5w-30 SN/GF-5 in other ways. The viscosity might be relatively close. I'm usually not one to be alarmed about phosphorus, and this case would be no exception. But, I'd really wonder what the differences would be that could preclude a dual rating. Will the main differences be the detergent/dispersant packaging.
Basically, if there's no gas rating, well, I'm too curious and that's not good enough of a reason not to use it. And saying it isn't optimal isn't really sufficient, either. Castrol says their 5w-30 C3 meets the specifications for my G37 to the letter, as does Delvac 1 LE 5w-30 CJ-4/SN, or any 5w-30 SN/GF-5 PCMO. They can't all be optimal at the same time. Of course, an A3/B4 5w-30 isn't on the list at all.
I'm just wondering how different something like a 30 grade FA-4 would look from a 5w-30 SN/GF-5 in other ways. The viscosity might be relatively close. I'm usually not one to be alarmed about phosphorus, and this case would be no exception. But, I'd really wonder what the differences would be that could preclude a dual rating. Will the main differences be the detergent/dispersant packaging.
Basically, if there's no gas rating, well, I'm too curious and that's not good enough of a reason not to use it. And saying it isn't optimal isn't really sufficient, either. Castrol says their 5w-30 C3 meets the specifications for my G37 to the letter, as does Delvac 1 LE 5w-30 CJ-4/SN, or any 5w-30 SN/GF-5 PCMO. They can't all be optimal at the same time. Of course, an A3/B4 5w-30 isn't on the list at all.
Duron UHP 5W30 comes to mind, but it is still HTHS >3.50. Duron E 10W30 is 3.6, but phos is >1100 so if I understand, it can't be labeled CK-4/SN. UHP may suit mixed fleet Euro applications. Also take a look at Duron UHP 10W40 synthetic E6. That oil may give us insight into up coming additive packages in NA.
What is the latest news on Suncor Energy selling Petro-Canada Lubricants Division? I thought it would make a good fit with Berkshire Hathaway. Conflict of interest issues?
What is the latest news on Suncor Energy selling Petro-Canada Lubricants Division? I thought it would make a good fit with Berkshire Hathaway. Conflict of interest issues?
Haven't heard any updates yet. As for the PC lineup, well, they've all get something interesting. Shell just has taken forever to come out with something E6.
Love Truck stop has the T6 on sale for $28 for 2 gallons
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2010
- Messages
- 9,807
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
#1... Wrong. At most a civil penalty, irregardless of a pickup truck or a semi truck. Nothing is removed or blocked. No components are tampered with. Doubtful anyone who was checking could actually tell anything changed.
True on the civil penalty, but (apparently) unlike you, I have no desire to give the government an additional $37,500 of my money if found guilty of emissions tampering. However, what I really meant is that it is "criminal" to modify an emissions system to reduce its effectiveness in the search of gains--be they power, MPG or otherwise. I can remember the days in Houston where a brown fog hung in the air for hours during the morning commute. I prefer not to breathe that air which is why I will not modify my emission system--it all adds up and it is the rare occasion when someone only disables the EGR on a diesel.
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
#2... Only if power levels are changed, so, no EVERY single tune does not do as you describe. And smoke would only occur if DPF system also removed. I only mentioned shutting off EGR completely via ECM, not trying to blow the heads with power changes or setting up a rolling coal scenario. EGR does not open all the time anyway. Under certain power and altitude conditions, the EGR is left closed as part of the original OEM tuning with EPA blessing. A modified tune as I am suggesting would just leave it closed all the time.
True; except in every online forum I have visited, no one stops with just an EGR "modification" most, if not all, disable or remove all of the emissions systems.
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
#3... No removal of parts. All emission components left intact and operational. Any tune would only stop the opening activation of the EGR, not delete it. OEM tune easily restored prior to having dealer work done on the vehicle.
We both are preceding from the knowledge of our respective vehicles. You with GM and me with Ford. In my case, it matters not if nothing was removed. Ford can absolutely tell if the PCM has been modified in any way--even if the OEM tune has been restored and this can/will void the warranty.
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
#4... Tune easily removed for resale. Original OEM tune reinstalled.
True; if that is all that is done--which is not the case more often than not. **Most** people remove the DEF system to reduce weight/eliminate the need for DEF and the DPF/SCR system as well and install a full blown programmer with multiple stages of tunes--normal, towing, performance, coal rolling, etc.
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
#5... Most not much more than $500 for what I describe... a simple code change to shut off EGR activation. EGR de-activation (also known as a EGR disable) is probably the easiest of all code changes to an ECM and the least problematic. There are more problems with EGR function as designed.... increased soot loading of the engine, EGR cooler developing leaks and introducing engine coolant into the cylinders via the intake. Many times necessitating a engine overhaul.
Except that most people do not only do this as I said above, they do not stop there. In addition, (at least in Ford's case), the problems with the EGR cooler seem to be fixated on the 6.0/6.4 platform and not so much with the 6.7 platform. I cannot speak to GM or Dodge's state of operation.
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
You really need to do a little research and find out what is going on in this arena. A good area to start is this link. It describes various techniques of approaching EGR. I am referring to a EGR disable. http://www.kennedydiesel.com/docs/Durama...GR%20Delete.pdf
I do not need to do any further research. I have read all about the gains, but more importantly the losses, associated with modifying emissions systems on modern diesels. I will not waste my time or money and place my vehicles warranty at risk by tampering with the emissions/PCM. You, of course, are free to do whatever you like.
#1... Wrong. At most a civil penalty, irregardless of a pickup truck or a semi truck. Nothing is removed or blocked. No components are tampered with. Doubtful anyone who was checking could actually tell anything changed.
True on the civil penalty, but (apparently) unlike you, I have no desire to give the government an additional $37,500 of my money if found guilty of emissions tampering. However, what I really meant is that it is "criminal" to modify an emissions system to reduce its effectiveness in the search of gains--be they power, MPG or otherwise. I can remember the days in Houston where a brown fog hung in the air for hours during the morning commute. I prefer not to breathe that air which is why I will not modify my emission system--it all adds up and it is the rare occasion when someone only disables the EGR on a diesel.
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
#2... Only if power levels are changed, so, no EVERY single tune does not do as you describe. And smoke would only occur if DPF system also removed. I only mentioned shutting off EGR completely via ECM, not trying to blow the heads with power changes or setting up a rolling coal scenario. EGR does not open all the time anyway. Under certain power and altitude conditions, the EGR is left closed as part of the original OEM tuning with EPA blessing. A modified tune as I am suggesting would just leave it closed all the time.
True; except in every online forum I have visited, no one stops with just an EGR "modification" most, if not all, disable or remove all of the emissions systems.
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
#3... No removal of parts. All emission components left intact and operational. Any tune would only stop the opening activation of the EGR, not delete it. OEM tune easily restored prior to having dealer work done on the vehicle.
We both are preceding from the knowledge of our respective vehicles. You with GM and me with Ford. In my case, it matters not if nothing was removed. Ford can absolutely tell if the PCM has been modified in any way--even if the OEM tune has been restored and this can/will void the warranty.
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
#4... Tune easily removed for resale. Original OEM tune reinstalled.
True; if that is all that is done--which is not the case more often than not. **Most** people remove the DEF system to reduce weight/eliminate the need for DEF and the DPF/SCR system as well and install a full blown programmer with multiple stages of tunes--normal, towing, performance, coal rolling, etc.
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
#5... Most not much more than $500 for what I describe... a simple code change to shut off EGR activation. EGR de-activation (also known as a EGR disable) is probably the easiest of all code changes to an ECM and the least problematic. There are more problems with EGR function as designed.... increased soot loading of the engine, EGR cooler developing leaks and introducing engine coolant into the cylinders via the intake. Many times necessitating a engine overhaul.
Except that most people do not only do this as I said above, they do not stop there. In addition, (at least in Ford's case), the problems with the EGR cooler seem to be fixated on the 6.0/6.4 platform and not so much with the 6.7 platform. I cannot speak to GM or Dodge's state of operation.
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
You really need to do a little research and find out what is going on in this arena. A good area to start is this link. It describes various techniques of approaching EGR. I am referring to a EGR disable. http://www.kennedydiesel.com/docs/Durama...GR%20Delete.pdf
I do not need to do any further research. I have read all about the gains, but more importantly the losses, associated with modifying emissions systems on modern diesels. I will not waste my time or money and place my vehicles warranty at risk by tampering with the emissions/PCM. You, of course, are free to do whatever you like.
- Status
Similar threads
