CJ Oil Upgrade Additive?

[GregSmith]

Many past postings have discussed the short-comings of the new CJ-rated oils, especially when compared to the old CI oil. I have unopened bottles of General Motors Engine Oil Supplement (the old formula), which is loaded with minerals, like zinc, missing from the CJ oils. Can a quantity of this be added to the CJ oils in a 5. 9 without damage? If so, what would be the correct amount? (Disclaimer-I know this would not be appropriate for the 6. 7. ) Thanks for your help.

 

[steved]

Unless you intend to really extend your oil change interval, the CJ-4 oil holds up just fine based on current use oil analyses...



There is a blurb on GM's thoughts on additives...





"A higher level of ZDP was good for flat-tappet valve-train scuffing and wear, but it turned out that more was not better. Although break-in scuffing was reduced by using more phosphorus, longer-term wear increased when phosphorus rose above 0. 14%. And, at about 0. 20% phosphorus, the ZDP started attacking the grain boundaries in the iron, resulting in camshaft spalling. "





I personally would not add anything to oil... adding to it might actually cause a detrimental effect. You do not know if the additive might actually cause the oil to degrade from interaction.



Again, unless you're planning on extended drains (longer than recommended by the owner's manual), the current CJ-4 seems to work just fine.



steved

 

[amsoilman]

Many past postings have discussed the short-comings of the new CJ-rated oils, especially when compared to the old CI oil. I have unopened bottles of General Motors Engine Oil Supplement (the old formula), which is loaded with minerals, like zinc, missing from the CJ oils. Can a quantity of this be added to the CJ oils in a 5. 9 without damage? If so, what would be the correct amount? (Disclaimer-I know this would not be appropriate for the 6. 7. ) Thanks for your help.

I will SECOND what Steved said above! I will NEVER add anything to engine oils, as you could upset the chemical balance of it and really mess it up. Oil Companies spend millions of dollars to formulate and test their oils for the application they will be used in.



Wayne

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

LEST we get TOO carried away with the "Sacredness" of oil formulations as used by the refiners, let's DO sorta keep things in perspective... :-laf



WERE the ORIGINAL CI oils "perfect" as far as refiners - and their customers - were concerned - and if NOT "perfect", what might be done to make them BETTER?



WELL, a number of them next introduced the "Latest and greatest", and called it CI4 Plus...



And WHAT did they change to make the newer stuff "better"? They (GASP!) included new ADDITIVES to the existing package, in the case of Chevron Delo, that was Molybdenum and Boron - which made the CI4 Plus, in my opinion, the absolute BEST Dino-based oil available for use in my truck!



Keep in mind that oil companies are forced by circumstances and government regulations, to provide pretty much a SINGLE oil formulation in various grades, that will MOST CLOSELY provide the best service in a wide variety of climates and uses - from constant heavy loads in desert heat, to light usage in Arctic cold - as well as to conform to emission regulations.



Do any here REALLY think that a SINGLE grade oil will give the absolute BEST service in so widely differing scenarios - and that there couldn't POSSIBLY be any available benefit from addition of carefully selected additives to more closely "tailor" a specific oil to specific engine usages or customer goals?



Additives using stuff like Moly and Boron had been available LONG before Chevron Delo started using them in their own refining process - was it "Snake oil" prior to that time, or just not as acceptable, Politically Correct, UNTIL the oil companies "blessed" it, and started to use it themselves?



Sure, care and caution need to be exercised in adding to or changing what our oils already provide - but are those oil company formulations REALLY "Sacred", with NO likelihood of improvement in specific applications? I seriously doubt it - JUST AS I also seriously doubt that EPA dictates that have now REMOVED various former protective additives, have magically made them BETTER than before... :-laf

 

[steved]

I have two questions Gary: Do you know what the additives are in both the snake oil and the actual oil, and do you know how they will interact???





I think you dumb it down too much, while you make it sound like it is simply "this" or "that" in the oil, those "this" or "that" are bound up in compounds, and without knowing how they interact, you may cause more damage than plain oil alone.



Let alone whatever the base stock that these compounds are carried in. Hmmm, let me add a quart of Group 1 oil with some AW additives to my highly refined Group 3 synthetic... why did I buy synthetic?



Just because we say "it has Boron", do we really know what the compound each particular oil manufacturer is using to add said Boron?? We generalize too much sometimes...



Not saying you aren't correct to a point, but it is something to take into consideration.



steved

 

[Buffalo]

STEVED,



If memory serves me right, you have gotten good extended oil drain intervals with the new Shell Rotella CJ-4 (10,000 miles), which, disputes what others have been saying about the "weak" formula. What I have been wondering is, are you using ULSD consistently? If so, your oil doesn't have to deal with a high quantity of sulphur normally found in LSD. I believe you also qualified these results with Used Oil Analysis testing.



It would make sense that the CJ-4 would last longer when not having to deal with the sulphur.



Here in Phoenix, LSD is still quite available at truck stops (Flying J, Quick Trip, etc. ), & that is what I've been using.



Do you believe that you are getting good results with the new CJ-4 because of using ULSD, only?



Thanks, Steved.



Joe F. (Buffalo)

 

[DPellegrin]

Gary-K7GLD-Sorry steved got it pretty well. You have way over-simplified the efforts of the oil companies in formulating their product. Do you really think that an oil company like Chevron just puts a little of this and a little of that then submits it to $250,000 worth of API qualification testing in order to secure their API licence? I think not!!

 

[steved]

STEVED,



If memory serves me right, you have gotten good extended oil drain intervals with the new Shell Rotella CJ-4 (10,000 miles), which, disputes what others have been saying about the "weak" formula.



What I have been wondering is, are you using ULSD consistently? If so, your oil doesn't have to deal with a high quantity of sulphur normally found in LSD. I believe you also qualified these results with Used Oil Analysis testing.



It would make sense that the CJ-4 would last longer when not having to deal with the sulphur.



Here in Phoenix, LSD is still quite available at truck stops (Flying J, Quick Trip, etc. ), & that is what I've been using.



Do you believe that you are getting good results with the new CJ-4 because of using ULSD, only?



Thanks, Steved.



Joe F. (Buffalo)

Joe:



I have ran upwards of 10k per UOA... the last one was 30k, however I was changing the bypass every 10k (which is 33% of the total sump/change). The last sample was the worst, but I attribute it to heavy towing with a failing injector... the oil was still suitable for continued use according to Blackstone.



While most of the fuel around here is ULSD, I do travel extensively and run a mix of ULSD and LSD (as determined by the markings on the pump). I know I ran over half the fuel during the summer (trip to TX and back) as LSD, as that was what most of the stations had...



While I do agree that it would make sense that CJ-4, combined with ULSD, would be the anticipated combination; especially since the oil was intended to be used in the newer trucks using a DPF and ULSD...



I have not seen a difference running LSD or ULSD in my UOAs. If there is a difference, it is not apparent in UOAs of CJ-4 Rotella using a bypass filter.



So you can take that for what its worth, I would not hesitate to use this inferior CJ-4 oil with LSD.



steved

 

[JHardwick]

Many past postings have discussed the short-comings of the new CJ-rated oils,

and Ford owns Cummins ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

 

[steved]

and Ford owns Cummins ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

No, Ford own Cummings... :-laf

 

[JHardwick]

No, Ford own Cummings... :-laf

hehe, oh yeah, I forgot!

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

Keep in mind that oil companies are forced by circumstances and government regulations, to provide pretty much a SINGLE oil formulation in various grades, that will MOST CLOSELY provide the best service in a wide variety of climates and uses - from constant heavy loads in desert heat, to light usage in Arctic cold - as well as to conform to emission regulations.



Do any here REALLY think that a SINGLE grade oil will give the absolute BEST service in so widely differing scenarios - and that there couldn't POSSIBLY be any available benefit from addition of carefully selected additives to more closely "tailor" a specific oil to specific engine usages or customer goals?

No one here so far has stepped up to the plate to reply to that above - anyone care to comment now? :-laf



NO, I'm not "oversimplifying anything - just pointing out that often, what many so eagerly consider "Snake oil" when it comes from an aftermarket auto store bottle, suddenly becomes TOTALLY acceptable and grand, as soon as a major oil refiner starts including in their own oils. .



Don't try to make something out of that statement that's not there! :-laf:-laf

 

[GregSmith]

The question that started this thread was based on the oil test article printed in the TDR magazine a couple of issues ago. The author's recommendation, if I recall correctly, was for 5. 9 owners to continue using CI-rated oils if you can find them. This was due to the deletion of important additives from the CJ oil formula. Since there appears to be no more CI stock in SoCal, I posed the question regarding the use of additives in CJ oil to replace these crucial "missing ingredients". Is the author's conclusion that CJ oils don't messure up to CI oils for use in 5. 9s a bogus finding?

 

[steved]

Is the author's conclusion that CJ oils don't messure up to CI oils for use in 5. 9s a bogus finding?

No, I believe it is more the point that the newer oils, while showing less additives in the VOA, are performing quite well in real world use.



As many people have noted; that assessment, based solely on a VOA, is not going to really show what said oil is going to do in the real world. VOAs don't tell the whole story...



steved

 

[DPellegrin]

No one here so far has stepped up to the plate to reply to that above - anyone care to comment now? :-laf



NO, I'm not "oversimplifying anything - just pointing out that often, what many so eagerly consider "Snake oil" when it comes from an aftermarket auto store bottle, suddenly becomes TOTALLY acceptable and grand, as soon as a major oil refiner starts including in their own oils. .



Don't try to make something out of that statement that's not there! :-laf:-laf

So Let's see if I'm understanding you, your saying new API licenced oils are now the same formulation of what used to be called "snake oil"? You gotta be kidding me!!? API licences basically come from a complete formulation of base stock and additive package. I'm sorry that I offended you about the over-simplification issue, but it sure seems that way. Oil companies use different base stocks now with the new CJ oils. Yes, may be as part of their additive package, they use moly or phosphous that at one time was in someone's bottle of "snake oil". But I'm guessing it was not the same concentration or any where near the same chemistry. We are talking about some fairly precise formulations to get an API licence.



You can mix up your custom home recipe if you like and put it in your very expensive Cummins engine, but in my opinion that's a huge risk on your part.



Respectfully,

 

[pwr2tow]

A question for steved,
How can you compare UOA as a base on how an oil will stand up if your using a by-pass filter? Most of us do not use a by-pass filter. Wouldn't the by-pass give false information compared to a stock system? Really trying to sort out this cj vs ci oil stuff. Maybe you were not using a by-pass filter when you first did the UOA and I missed it?

 

[steved]

A question for steved,

How can you compare UOA as a base on how an oil will stand up if your using a by-pass filter? Most of us do not use a by-pass filter. Wouldn't the by-pass give false information compared to a stock system? Really trying to sort out this cj vs ci oil stuff. Maybe you were not using a by-pass filter when you first did the UOA and I missed it?

The bypass filter only filters the solids out, the wear metals are not affected by the filter. Even without a bypass filter, I doubt it would change much... and besides, we have JHardwick running extended changes without a bypass...





One thing I want to STRESS, every single "expert" report I have read states the main issue with the new formulation of CJ-4 is the fact it might not be able to handle extended oil change intervals... my response to this is "what's extended?"



How many people on this board actually run their oil a full 7500 miles? How many run it 15k? How many are stuck in the outdated 3k change interval? JHardwick has a run of 21k (if I remember correctly) that wasn't bad at all...



steved

 

[Buffalo]

STEVED,



Thanks for the reply. It's kind of hard to argue with the success you're having with the CJ-4.



l've heard of guys in the midwest that race/pull with their tr5ucks & were having problems with the valves & cam lobes wearing, prematurely, with the CJ-4. They went back to the CI-4+ & the problems went away.



Maybe the CJ-4 doesn't work well in SUPER rough conditions. I really don't know, myself.



I, however, do feel better after seeing your results.



Thanks, again.



Joe F. (Buffalo)

 

[JHardwick]

How many people on this board actually run their oil a full 7500 miles? How many run it 15k? How many are stuck in the outdated 3k change interval? JHardwick has a run of 21k (if I remember correctly) that wasn't bad at all...

steved

I usually run 12-15k loaded miles per oil change. The same interval that I used with the CI+4 oil ... ... ... ... and with similar results.

I once ran well over 20k, but I chickened out and did 2 filter changes with 4qt of makeup oil ... ... ... ... ..... those results came back normal as well.

It appears that while the TBN starts out lower in the CJ oil, it doesn't drop off as fast under what I consider fairly heavy use.

Not only are all of my miles loaded, but I idle the heck out of this truck too. If I'm on the road for a week, it runs for a week!

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

As far as I'm concerned, Steve and JH have both well demonstrated that the New CJ lubes are for the vast most part, totally adequate in new OR older engines. Perhaps not quite as "robust" in all areas of extreme longevity or protection, but certainly very adequate. I'd have no problems making the switch when it becomes absolutely necessary...



(Especially if I can include one of those nifty aftermarket additives to help out!) :-laf:-laf:-laf