Cannot find CI4 rated oil?

[Jeff Knight]

I just put CJ4 in my Kubota tractor. I will use the same in my truck.

 

[klenger]

So, if my engine dies at 450,000 miles instead of 500,000 miles becasue I use CJ4, should I be concerned? My newborn grandson will be driving my truck before that happens.

 

[Buffalo]

Gary-K7GLD,



Your last post was exactly what I've been thinking. However, you said it much better than I could have.



Thank You.



Joe F. (Buffalo)

 

[roperteacher]

My oil analysis just came back with Shell Rotella CJ4 and it was PERFECT!

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

My oil analysis just came back with Shell Rotella CJ4 and it was PERFECT!

Just to maintain perspective, concerns expressed about the CJ stuff is related to LONG TERM USAGE - that is, lots of miles on the oil and how well the additive package will CONTINUE to protect critical surfaces - and that sort of protection probably won't be seen on a 3000 mile oil analysis.



Try it for 7K or 10 K, then get a better picture as related to how many members have been running the CI4 stuff with good reports.



I've read that professional racers use oils designed specifically for their specialized use, and that those oils contain few, if any, additives - focusing instead upon the pure ability of the oil to lubricate. They are not concerned about anti-oxidants, viscosity stabilizers and such - their engines are run within relatively tight temperature limits, and only for a few miles between changes - so the additives only "get in the way" of the actual lube qualities they are most interested in.



The concern of some like me, is that the new CJ oils are also "throw away" oils, designed for relatively short drain intervals with new additive limits and types applied purely as a protection device for the new sensitive exhaust particulate filters - in other words, more interest in particulate filter protection than ENGINE protection - at least as far as extended oil usage is concerned.



Time will tell!

 

[steved]

Try it for 7K or 10 K, then get a better picture as related to how many members have been running the CI4 stuff with good reports.

You mean like this one??

And before anyone chimes in with the iron being slightly elevated, remember this was almost 10k of WINTER driving, some of which was cold start at temps well below zero *F.

Oh, and because the report doesn't state it, this was CJ-4 Rotella 15w40.

steved

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

You mean like this one??



And before anyone chimes in with the iron being slightly elevated, remember this was almost 10k of WINTER driving, some of which was cold start at temps well below zero *F.



Oh, and because the report doesn't state it, this was CJ-4 Rotella 15w40.



steved

HMMmm - I assume that run was with the Amsoil bypass? And yes, Iron and other wear metals ARE a bit higher than similar bypass-equipped setups I usually see on a fully seated engine - dunno how much the colder winter temps affect wear numbers - California temps never got that cold where we lived previously, but my next sample will also include zero degree driving from here in eastern Oregon.



I've used Rotella in the past, on my '91 truck, it seemed every bit as good as the Delo in regards to oil analysis at that time, but the Delo was a bit easier to find in gallon jugs, and the later inclusion of Molybdenum and Boron in the Delo 400 was a big plus for me - and now that I have over 50K miles on my engine, it should be pretty well stabilized in wear metals.



Here's the last analysis on the oil now in my truck (Delo 400 15/40), done on 12/04/06 - 5K miles on the oil, lots of RV towing, engine still settling in on wear metals, and some zero degree winter weather driving - TBN was 11. 1 for this analysis:



#ad




Since this next analysis will be done at over 10K on that same oil, and it will be nearly a year since my last oil change, I'll do another particle count as well to compare against the other 2 I have done in the past. It'll be several weeks before I get my next analysis done, after our 10 day RV outing over at Diamond Lake south of Bend.



Regards - Gary

 

[steved]

One thing *we* seem to forget is the fact that the readings in PPM mean that a bypass filter won't necessarily remove the contaminant... I use a 0. 45u (absolute) filter for sampling ground water and still get elevated metals in the 1k+ PPM range. While they are particles, they are also a lot smaller than any filter can catch...



The only way a filter could effectively remove the contaminant is if it adhered to an agglomerated soot particle that was pulled out of the oil stream or was actually absorbed into the filter media (sort of like what a carbon filter does with hydrocarbons).



steved

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

One thing *we* seem to forget is the fact that the readings in PPM mean that a bypass filter won't necessarily remove the contaminant... steved

YUP - and another thing many are unaware of, is that most oils have varying percentages of contaminants right outta the bottle - here's a pair of samples of NEW Delo 400 - look at the bottom 2:



#ad




The trace of Iron - and the Aluminum and Silicon seen above are pretty much as high as many owners see after 5-10K miles on their oil - and MANY new oils are far WORSE than those above!

 

[MA2LA]

well in the last batch of oil I pruchased the rotela 15-40 was cj-4 but the 5-40 synthetic was still CI-4. I plan on picking up a couple cases next week so i'll have to see what the supplyers are getting now. I had been getting all of my oil from walmart but it sems like every time i go to get it they are out of it so I call a local shell supplyer and its about 1. 50 a gallon cheaper.

 

[jjdiesel]

If I may, I'd like to squeeze this in between all this tech talk, (which I enjoy by the way)... ... The Cummins distributors still carry a ton of CI-4 oil, Premium Blue. . $10. 50/gallon. Just an FYI, if one is really wanting to stick with the CI-4... . they have it by the skidload if you want.

 

[AKaiser]

I can't see any negatives, aside from a possibly reduced mileage between oil changes, in using CJ-4 versus CI-4+ which is due to a less robust TBN package to protect the exhaust system. The question is "How great of a reduction in mileage between oil changes?"



http://www.valvoline-technology.com/upload/dynamic/API CJ-4 Heavy Duty Engine Oil.pdf



Quotes from the link

"The performance of CJ-4 is designed to be a

significant upgrade over CI-4 and CI-4 plus

lubricants. "



Benefits of using CJ-4



Improved Soot Handling

- The use of increase EGR creates more soot. To

minimize the negative effects, the soot dispersancy

capability of CJ-4 oils has been boosted.



Improved Oxidation Control

- Higher EGR rates result in increased operating

temperatures that accelerate oil oxidation. CJ-4 oils

have been formulated with improved hightemperature

anti-oxidants that reduce oxidation



Superior Valve-train Wear Protection

- CJ-4 oil category includes Cummins B-engine test

that measures the oil's capability to reduce tappet

wear. CJ-4 oils have boosted wear protection for the

mid-range engines.





Backward Compatibility

- CJ-4 oil category is designed to be backward

compatible. It is designed to meet the performance

properties of previous categories and is compatible

with older engines.



Enhanced Low Temperature Pumpability

- API CJ-4 oils must meet new low-temperature

requirements through selected engine tests. This

ensure that they provide better low-temperature

pumpability than previous categories.



Lower Levels of Oil Consumption

- Formulated with superior Group II base-stocks which

helps lower oil volatility

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

I can't see any negatives, aside from a possibly reduced mileage between oil changes, in using CJ-4 versus CI-4+ which is due to a less robust TBN package to protect the exhaust system. The question is "How great of a reduction in mileage between oil changes?"



http://www.valvoline-technology.com/upload/dynamic/API CJ-4 Heavy Duty Engine Oil.pdf



Quotes from the link

"The performance of CJ-4 is designed to be a

significant upgrade over CI-4 and CI-4 plus

lubricants. "



Benefits of using CJ-4



Improved Soot Handling

- The use of increase EGR creates more soot. To

minimize the negative effects, the soot dispersancy

capability of CJ-4 oils has been boosted.

The above paragraph does not particularly benefit, or apply to older non-EGR engines.

Improved Oxidation Control

- Higher EGR rates result in increased operating

temperatures that accelerate oil oxidation. CJ-4 oils

have been formulated with improved high temperature

anti-oxidants that reduce oxidation

That also does not especially benefit or apply to older engines...

Superior Valve-train Wear Protection

- CJ-4 oil category includes Cummins B-engine test

that measures the oil's capability to reduce tappet

wear. CJ-4 oils have boosted wear protection for the

mid-range engines.





Backward Compatibility

- CJ-4 oil category is designed to be backward

compatible. It is designed to meet the performance

properties of previous categories and is compatible

with older engines.



Enhanced Low Temperature Pumpability

- API CJ-4 oils must meet new low-temperature

requirements through selected engine tests. This

ensure that they provide better low-temperature

pumpability than previous categories.



Lower Levels of Oil Consumption

- Formulated with superior Group II base-stocks which

helps lower oil volatility

Those last 4 paragraphs will be interesting to verify as time goes by - the Delo I personally use has already been highly touted as an "ISO/SYN' lube - with many characteristics of a synthetic oil:



From Chevron's website:

Chevron Delo 400 Multigrade is formulated with ISOSYN™ base stocks, which rival synthetics in critical engine tests and an optimal blend of the latest technology in dispersant, detergent, oxidation inhibition, antiwear, corrosion inhibition, viscosity improver, and defoaming additives.

- and is also supposedly refined from "superior grade base stocks", so will Chevron improve base stocks even further with the CJ stuff? What about other brands?

 

[AKaiser]

Those last 4 paragraphs will be interesting to verify as time goes by ...

I find it interesting that you and others here cast aspersions at CJ-4 and I'd like to know just what you and others base your negativity on, aside from the obvious and necessary reduction in TBN to protect the emissions systems. If the company claims CI-4+ backward compatibility, they had to perform the tests to back up the claim.



As to your contention that the first two (Improved Soot Handling and Oxidation Control) aren't applicable on non-EGR engines, I think you're mistaken. If anything, they should theoretically increase the useful life of the oil even in non-EGR engines due to their ability to keep crap (soot handling) out of the system and prevent oxidation of the oil, which happens in non-EGR systems as well. The thing people need to understand about oxidation reactions is their temperature dependency is on a curve, not based on some magic number where at X degrees F it doesn't oxidize, and add 10 degrees and *poof* now it does. Increased high temp stability would also imply increased stability at lower temps as well. That's simple chemistry.

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

I find it interesting that you and others here cast aspersions at CJ-4 and I'd like to know just what you and others base your negativity on, aside from the obvious and necessary reduction in TBN to protect the emissions systems. If the company claims CI-4+ backward compatibility, they had to perform the tests to back up the claim.



As to your contention that the first two (Improved Soot Handling and Oxidation Control) aren't applicable on non-EGR engines, I think you're mistaken. If anything, they should theoretically increase the useful life of the oil even in non-EGR engines due to their ability to keep crap (soot handling) out of the system and prevent oxidation of the oil, which happens in non-EGR systems as well. The thing people need to understand about oxidation reactions is their temperature dependency is on a curve, not based on some magic number where at X degrees F it doesn't oxidize, and add 10 degrees and *poof* now it does. Increased high temp stability would also imply increased stability at lower temps as well. That's simple chemistry.

First, I don't particularly "cast aspersions" at the new stuff - merely state my own personal opinions and concerns - which seem to be shared by at least a few others.



What I *DON'T DO*, is blindly swallow corporate hype hook, line and sinker! :-laf



You are free to do so if you choose, with NO criticism from me...



"Benefits" to older engines from "new" additives intended and included specifically for EGR engines (as though those additives weren't ALREADY included in the CI lubes... )? Perhaps - but still another "wait and see" item.



BUT, as I've openly stated here before, my own PERSONAL opinion is that the new lubes will for most users be totally adequate for their use and expectations - but that the EPA mandated engine/exhaust changes virtually FORCED the oil and additive companies to scramble to modify and redefine the way they produce their currently existing appropriate lubes - I further believe that SOME of the hype we are reading about the "wonderful" benefits of the new lubes is just that - HYPE!



Otherwise, it's much as though by some miracle of coincidental research and production, that we suddenly have all these new lube "benefits" at JUST the time the EPA has mandated their use - if these new benefits WERE known, beneficial and available, WHY were they being held back by the oil companies? Have the oil companies REALLY been holding back a superior lube formulation - or actually just scrambling to modify as needed, and repackage an OLD one in a new wrapper merely to meet new requirements?



In the case of Chevron's Delo, it had only relatively recently been upgraded from it's previous CI4 classification to CI4-Plus - sorta odd they'd go to that effort, development, re-packaging and distribution, only to suddenly come out with a totally and even "newer and better" formulation a short time later...



We pretty well know the new stuff has a reduced additive package that effectively reduces the drain intervals - what we DON'T know, is whether that is the ONLY price to be paid with the new stuff! And I, for one, really don't expect the EPA or oil companies to focus upon or brag about reduced oil change intervals as a plus or "benefit" of the new stuff, as they have with the other claimed "improvements" - what else might they not be bragging about with the new stuff...



And finally, NONE of the opinions or comments in this thread are really worth much excitement or getting hot about - it's all pretty much just informational stuff that interests a few of us - especially guys like me who are always on the lookout for that last extra bit of quality or protection in a product. Many guys simply buy or take whatever suitable lube is available where their truck is serviced, drive it a few years, then trade it off for another - and those guys will never know or CARE about one brand/type oil or the protection and extended wear it provided as compared with another!



Perhaps THEY are the ones to be envied! :-laf:-laf

 

[MJFOL]

I too grabbed the last cases of Delo CI-4 at Costco a while back. I am impressed that oil analysis seems to be saying ok things about CJ-4 in a diesel so far.

I am involved with a group that plays with high performance air cooled engines. Often the valve springs are 220+ pounds at the nose. An article I read in an automotive magazine called ZDDP (Zincdithiophosphate) “the most effective anti-wear anti-corrosion agent available. ” Coincidental with the reduction of ZDDP in motor oil there have been many instances of premature cam lobe and lifter failure in these flat tappet HP engines. Many guys have taken to adding General Motors EOS (Engine Oil Supplement) or Hughes Engines Extreme Pressure Oil Additive to protect the cam lobes from wear, especially during breakin. Engines with roller followers seem to fare ok with the CJ-4. This would seem to suggest that CJ-4 isn't as strong as CI-4. Personally, I sometimes tow 14K pounds and prefer to stay with CI-4 until the new CJ-4 formulation develops a longer history.

 

[amsoilman]

Steve,



Your oil sample in terms of Iron wear is NOT elevated by any means!



Each engine manufacturer has data on the “normal” wear of each of the elements for a given oil drain interval.



Example: Cummins Iron (Fe) 50.

GMC 6. 2 Iron (Fe) 250.

Mack Iron (Fe) 150.



Remember in reviewing a report, ask yourself; is the elemental level proportional to the time on the oil?

Example: 6,000 miles on oil, Iron at 25 PPM is OK for the above engines.



12,000 miles on the same oil, Iron at 40 PPM is still OK.



3,000 miles on the oil, Iron at 40 PPM would be poor. Still within limits, but poor.

 

[steved]

Well, I just bought a 5-gallon pail of Rotella CJ-4 for $65... oil is running nearly $14/gallon around here now.



The only CI-4/CI-4+ oil on the shelves was straight SAE30 or synthetic 5w40. All the 15w40 in the three stores I checked were CJ-4 (Rotella, Delo, Valvoline, and Pennzoil).



If it goes much higher, I may change to synthetic since the price difference is getting close between the two.



steved

 

[macdaddy]

Royal Purple is still CI-4 Plus. Just picked up four cases.



Mac

 

[ChrisM]

I just happen to stop in at a Tractor Supply store in FLA. and they have about 250 gallons out on a display in the 5 gallon buckets so you might try looking if you have one close by