FCA Jeep/Ram changed Oil spec on Ecodiesel

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: Jetronic
Originally Posted By: edyvw
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
Originally Posted By: edyvw
This is patching engineering problem with heavier oils. What is going to happen once DPF's start to fail?
Who is going to cover that?
Why BMW's, MB's diesels do not have issues with 5W30 C3's?
70% of Europe runs on C3 5W30's running 100+mph etc on HWY's, but RAM's have issues?





What makes you think rams and jeeps have the same issues in Europe?

Well, you cannot buy RAM in Europe, but you can some cars with same engine, and they are not popular at all.
FIAT diesel go to engine above 200hp in Europe is not V6, but 2.4 JTD 5cyl, which is much better engine (owned one of the earlier models with 150hp).
As for issues in Europe, my point is that it is not C3 oil, because I saw some posts about how all this is because of CAFE and EPA. 70% of cars in EU are diesels, mostly running on C3 oils, and everything is fine, running much longer OCI's then here in the U.S.
It is either problem in dealerships where mechanics cannot distinguish between oil for HEMI and oil for diesel, or there is engineering problem with engine.


The 2.4 hasn't been available for 6 years now. But I agree, most likely they just got dealer bulk oil which will not have been C3 or A3/B4. I'm not sure, did Chrysler/Dodge ever use Mercedes engines requiring MB229.5 or 229.51 oils?

Ram can be bought here, btw. I think it's the most popular of the American trucks. But most aren't diesels as the reason for wanting such a truck is usually the V8 engine.

I say there are some issues with C3 oil, from observation, but it's more to do with running longer than conditions allow and doesn't result in throwing rods. Gas powered cars are more affected.

The v6 diesel is quite popular with Maseratis, I think about half of them might have this engine (pushing 275 hp). Haven't heard about issues, so far.

I know 159 was coming with 2.4, I did not know they kicked out that engine. That is a shame.

 

[loneryder]

So what about the DPF with the higher saps oil? Are they just sacrificing it to save their engines? Is low saps oil really necessary with these DPF engines? I'm asking because I have a MB v6 diesel.

 

[chrisri]

Originally Posted By: edyvw
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
Originally Posted By: edyvw
This is patching engineering problem with heavier oils. What is going to happen once DPF's start to fail?
Who is going to cover that?
Why BMW's, MB's diesels do not have issues with 5W30 C3's?
70% of Europe runs on C3 5W30's running 100+mph etc on HWY's, but RAM's have issues?





What makes you think rams and jeeps have the same issues in Europe?

Well, you cannot buy RAM in Europe, but you can some cars with same engine, and they are not popular at all.
FIAT diesel go to engine above 200hp in Europe is not V6, but 2.4 JTD 5cyl, which is much better engine (owned one of the earlier models with 150hp).
As for issues in Europe, my point is that it is not C3 oil, because I saw some posts about how all this is because of CAFE and EPA. 70% of cars in EU are diesels, mostly running on C3 oils, and everything is fine, running much longer OCI's then here in the U.S.
It is either problem in dealerships where mechanics cannot distinguish between oil for HEMI and oil for diesel, or there is engineering problem with engine.


Mind that the ULSD in US still have double the amount of sulphur compared with EU (not max allowed values, but average). Maybe it has some impact on combustion byproducts and oil ability to keep with that. Different fuel trimming (less nox) ad to oil pollution.

I suspect this VMs are just fine in EU.

 

[Jetronic]

Originally Posted By: loneryder
So what about the DPF with the higher saps oil? Are they just sacrificing it to save their engines? Is low saps oil really necessary with these DPF engines? I'm asking because I have a MB v6 diesel.


In my experience, saps level is not an issue, and a former bitog resident who formulated oils did agree with that. It's not the saps level per sé that's important, but rather the exact chemistry used.

I went off from mid-saps (MB229.51) and went to full saps for my diesel (MB229.5). Bought a lifetime supply of full saps oil so I'm comitted, lol.

 

[Jetronic]

Originally Posted By: edyvw

I know 159 was coming with 2.4, I did not know they kicked out that engine. That is a shame.


Deemed to large and heavy. Fiat Marine offered this engine with 260 bhp for boats for a while

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: Jetronic
Originally Posted By: edyvw

I know 159 was coming with 2.4, I did not know they kicked out that engine. That is a shame.


Deemed to large and heavy. Fiat Marine offered this engine with 260 bhp for boats for a while

I think they are still using that engine in military vehicles that is produced by FIAT> I know Bosnian military bought bunch of them with 2.4JTD engine and I think 125hp.

 

[TiredTrucker]

Originally Posted By: chrisri

Mind that the ULSD in US still have double the amount of sulphur compared with EU (not max allowed values, but average). Maybe it has some impact on combustion byproducts and oil ability to keep with that. Different fuel trimming (less nox) ad to oil pollution.

I suspect this VMs are just fine in EU.


That is not true. EU sulfer content is limited to 10 ppm, US is 15 ppm, not nearly the double you claim. And a lot of diesel in the U.S. is spiked with biodiesel, which has 0 ppm. And when you consider the max allowed in 15 ppm, most of the diesel coming out of the refinery is lower than the 15 ppm limit so that if contaminated somewhere in the pipeline or terminal, it won't exceed 15 ppm. I would be willing to bet my next paycheck that diesel coming out of the refinery pretty much matches EU requirements. And that can be supported by the fact that a lot of diesel we refine is exported to the EU.

When we get to those sulfur levels, even quibbling about differences between the U.S. and EU is like straining at gnats. The whole argument is nonsensical.

 

[Popsy]

Originally Posted By: edyvw
I think they are still using that engine in military vehicles that is produced by FIAT> I know Bosnian military bought bunch of them with 2.4JTD engine and I think 125hp.

Isn't it rather the 4 cyl 2,3L ?
Wish I had the 2,4L (TD with Bosh mechanical pump or JTD) in my Marea instead of the 1,9L

 

[chrisri]

Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Originally Posted By: chrisri

Mind that the ULSD in US still have double the amount of sulphur compared with EU (not max allowed values, but average). Maybe it has some impact on combustion byproducts and oil ability to keep with that. Different fuel trimming (less nox) ad to oil pollution.

I suspect this VMs are just fine in EU.


That is not true. EU sulfer content is limited to 10 ppm, US is 15 ppm, not nearly the double you claim. And a lot of diesel in the U.S. is spiked with biodiesel, which has 0 ppm. And when you consider the max allowed in 15 ppm, most of the diesel coming out of the refinery is lower than the 15 ppm limit so that if contaminated somewhere in the pipeline or terminal, it won't exceed 15 ppm. I would be willing to bet my next paycheck that diesel coming out of the refinery pretty much matches EU requirements. And that can be supported by the fact that a lot of diesel we refine is exported to the EU.

When we get to those sulfur levels, even quibbling about differences between the U.S. and EU is like straining at gnats. The whole argument is nonsensical.


So it have 50% more sulphur than Eurodiesel. Sulphur is only one component in what makes good fuel a good fuel.
Why do you think your refineries don't offer low sulphur petrol /gasoline? Clearly, advantages of using ULSP are well acknowledged, both for environment and for vehicles / owners.

 

[TiredTrucker]

Now you want to throw gasoline in the mix. Since you were wrong on the diesel fuel thing, you want to obfuscate the discussion and turn it into a fuels discussion.

If EU diesel only had 1 ppm of sulfur, and the U.S. had 2 ppm sulfur, that would mean the U.S. had 100% more sulfur. But it would mean very little in reality. The same with 10 vs 15. It is just arguing for the sake of arguing. If it were like several years ago, when the EU was 50 and the U.S. was 500, then it would be a major difference. Arguing over 10 vs 15 is arguing for the sake of arguing. It is straining at gnats.

 

[pb379]

So, are Cummins CES 20081 and MS-10902 the exact same spec?

This is more like a horsefly to me

 

[Jetronic]

Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Originally Posted By: chrisri

Mind that the ULSD in US still have double the amount of sulphur compared with EU (not max allowed values, but average). Maybe it has some impact on combustion byproducts and oil ability to keep with that. Different fuel trimming (less nox) ad to oil pollution.

I suspect this VMs are just fine in EU.


That is not true. EU sulfer content is limited to 10 ppm, US is 15 ppm, not nearly the double you claim. And a lot of diesel in the U.S. is spiked with biodiesel, which has 0 ppm. And when you consider the max allowed in 15 ppm, most of the diesel coming out of the refinery is lower than the 15 ppm limit so that if contaminated somewhere in the pipeline or terminal, it won't exceed 15 ppm. I would be willing to bet my next paycheck that diesel coming out of the refinery pretty much matches EU requirements. And that can be supported by the fact that a lot of diesel we refine is exported to the EU.

When we get to those sulfur levels, even quibbling about differences between the U.S. and EU is like straining at gnats. The whole argument is nonsensical.


I buy my fuel at a local Gulf station. The owner of the Gulf brand here has his own tankers and imports fuel from the US. So I think you're right. But the Cetane lower limit here is 51, so maybe they have to add cetane booster.

 

[bullwinkle]

Originally Posted By: pb379
So, are Cummins CES 20081 and MS-10902 the exact same spec?

This is more like a horsefly to me

Believe CES 20081 is the same as CJ-4, SA limits of 1%-FCAs MS-10902 is different, somebody's going to have to get FCA to answer, maybe similar to MB's 229.51? Things were MUCH simpler when Daimler owned Chrysler-although I still had dealers that didn't know their [CENSORED] from a hole in the ground when it came to diesels, it took 3 Dodge dealers to diagnose a failing VP44 IP under warranty, I finally gave up & drove it with the lift pump disconnected to make it throw a code!

 

[pb379]

Originally Posted By: bullwinkle
Originally Posted By: pb379
So, are Cummins CES 20081 and MS-10902 the exact same spec?

This is more like a horsefly to me

Believe CES 20081 is the same as CJ-4, SA limits of 1%-FCAs MS-10902 is different, somebody's going to have to get FCA to answer, maybe similar to MB's 229.51? Things were MUCH simpler when Daimler owned Chrysler-although I still had dealers that didn't know their [CENSORED] from a hole in the ground when it came to diesels, it took 3 Dodge dealers to diagnose a failing VP44 IP under warranty, I finally gave up & drove it with the lift pump disconnected to make it throw a code!


Thanks Bullwinkle.

I've been told from both Chevron and Mobil that MS-10902 and Cummins CES 20081 are the same, or at least CES 20081 can be used where MS-10902 is called for.
From Mobil
Quote:
That is what I believe to be true, yes. Our Products Technical Advisor told me that the CES 20081 oil can be use where the MS-10902 specification is used.

Steve W. Scott
Americas Technical Help Desk
ExxonMobil Products Technology



It does seem very much like the MS-11106 vs MB 229.51 debate. Those specs ended up being not the same.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3508862/1
I've got an inquiry in to Chrysler, so maybe by Christmas I'll hear something from them.

 

[pb379]

The TSB for this change is out for MY 2016 EcoDiesels.
It can be found here-
http://www.ram1500diesel.com/forum/ram-1...html#post182449

 

[Bandito440]

I wonder why it's only for 2016...

 

[pb379]

If you keep reading the thread, GDE gives one possible explanation. Eventually it will follow for '14-'15.

 

[demarpaint]

Reading the TSB leads me to believe they changed OCI algorithm to shorten it, thickened the oil, and changed the shift points because the 8 speed was shifting too soon lugging the engine and ruining the bearings. They also programmed the fan to come on sooner and run longer because the oil was getting too hot. The thicker oil, raising the shift points, and running the fan sooner and longer are most likely to save the bearings.

I wonder if having all these gears is bad for the engine, long term, especially a gasser. The few I've driven felt like they were lugging at times, quite often, long term that might not be so good for the bottom end of the engine.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Reading the TSB leads me to believe they changed OCI algorithm to shorten it, thickened the oil, and changed the shift points because the 8 speed was shifting too soon lugging the engine and ruining the bearings. They also programmed the fan to come on sooner and run longer because the oil was getting too hot. The thicker oil, raising the shift points, and running the fan sooner and longer are most likely to save the bearings.

I wonder if having all these gears is bad for the engine, long term, especially a gasser. The few I've driven felt like they were lugging at times, quite often, long term that might not be so good for the bottom end of the engine.

Same transmission is in BMW and VW/Audi.
It is great piece of work, however, each company sets up transmission to its own needs.
I found that it works best in BMW. It works like it is not same ZF like in Audi or FCA.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: edyvw
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Reading the TSB leads me to believe they changed OCI algorithm to shorten it, thickened the oil, and changed the shift points because the 8 speed was shifting too soon lugging the engine and ruining the bearings. They also programmed the fan to come on sooner and run longer because the oil was getting too hot. The thicker oil, raising the shift points, and running the fan sooner and longer are most likely to save the bearings.

I wonder if having all these gears is bad for the engine, long term, especially a gasser. The few I've driven felt like they were lugging at times, quite often, long term that might not be so good for the bottom end of the engine.

Same transmission is in BMW and VW/Audi.
It is great piece of work, however, each company sets up transmission to its own needs.
I found that it works best in BMW. It works like it is not same ZF like in Audi or FCA.


I haven't driven a BMW, VW or Audi equipped with it so I can't comment. The GC, and Ram I drove felt like they were lugging at times, especially in the 25-40 mph range. I was driving very easily which might have contributed to the problem. Hopefully the re-flash fixes it. IMO the more gears you have the more torque you need, the diesel should have plenty of that.