dnewton3
Staff member
Topic for discussion ...
I helped a friend change his engine oil in his new Kubota L3240GST over the weekend. Found some verying interesting wording in the owners manual. Now, please understand I don't have this manual with me, so I'm paraphrasing from memory, rather than quoting directly, so be kind.
The manual specifically stated to use a CF-4, CH-4, or CI-4; OK, that seems reasonable. But what caught my eye is that in big bold print, it said NOT to use CJ-4 oil. It specifically acknowledged the issue of EGR in today's on-road diesel engines, and the need for CJ-4 oils in those vehicles. It also went on to state that in the North American markets, ULSD fuel is being mandated, and the use of special fuels that meet other specs (can't remember them offhand) should be considered for cold weather operation, rather than the typical on-road ULSD stuff.
So, the perplexing topic becomes this; if the API, and the manufacturers such as Mobil and Shell and Chevron all say that CJ-4 oils are backwards compatible, (and that testing shows improved performance regarding wear for the CJ-4's), then why the big warning from Kubota? Is Kubota unaware of the improvements? Does Kubota have direct testing that shows CJ-4 inferior (which I doubt), or has their legal department scared them because they haven't tested the CJ-4s, and they don't want to warranty something they haven't tested?
Now, I for one, believe that the new CJ-4 oils, with very few excpetions, will perform at least as well, if not better, than the preceeding standards. I do understand that some additives have been reduced, but I also understand that other components, complimentary to the package as a whole, have been bolstered to compensate for the loss of other additives. It's reasonable to understand that the CJ-4 base stocks may be improved to also compensate for the loss of the lubricating properties of the lost sulphur arromatics and other stuff. Further, CJ-4 oils offer an advantage over the others, in my opinion. Due to the ever-increasing use of EGR, the oils are bolstered with more soot-controling additives (anti-agglomerates). That would only help any engine. And if your engine doesn't have EGR, such as the Kubota, it can still benefit from the higher soot-control package, would it not?
The reality of all this is that it didn't stop us from loading up the CJ-4 Delvac 1300 15w-40; I have faith in that oil after viewing many good UOAs in various equipment.
I have a Kubota L3430GST bought a few years ago, before CJ-4 came into being. Obviously, there was no warning in my manual for a product that didn't exist yet. So, would the same concern extend to my Kubota by default? Even if it does, I doubt it will effect my decision.
Just food for the topic of discussion. Let's not get into brand wars, but rather concentrate on the API vs. Kubota conflict.
I helped a friend change his engine oil in his new Kubota L3240GST over the weekend. Found some verying interesting wording in the owners manual. Now, please understand I don't have this manual with me, so I'm paraphrasing from memory, rather than quoting directly, so be kind.
The manual specifically stated to use a CF-4, CH-4, or CI-4; OK, that seems reasonable. But what caught my eye is that in big bold print, it said NOT to use CJ-4 oil. It specifically acknowledged the issue of EGR in today's on-road diesel engines, and the need for CJ-4 oils in those vehicles. It also went on to state that in the North American markets, ULSD fuel is being mandated, and the use of special fuels that meet other specs (can't remember them offhand) should be considered for cold weather operation, rather than the typical on-road ULSD stuff.
So, the perplexing topic becomes this; if the API, and the manufacturers such as Mobil and Shell and Chevron all say that CJ-4 oils are backwards compatible, (and that testing shows improved performance regarding wear for the CJ-4's), then why the big warning from Kubota? Is Kubota unaware of the improvements? Does Kubota have direct testing that shows CJ-4 inferior (which I doubt), or has their legal department scared them because they haven't tested the CJ-4s, and they don't want to warranty something they haven't tested?
Now, I for one, believe that the new CJ-4 oils, with very few excpetions, will perform at least as well, if not better, than the preceeding standards. I do understand that some additives have been reduced, but I also understand that other components, complimentary to the package as a whole, have been bolstered to compensate for the loss of other additives. It's reasonable to understand that the CJ-4 base stocks may be improved to also compensate for the loss of the lubricating properties of the lost sulphur arromatics and other stuff. Further, CJ-4 oils offer an advantage over the others, in my opinion. Due to the ever-increasing use of EGR, the oils are bolstered with more soot-controling additives (anti-agglomerates). That would only help any engine. And if your engine doesn't have EGR, such as the Kubota, it can still benefit from the higher soot-control package, would it not?
The reality of all this is that it didn't stop us from loading up the CJ-4 Delvac 1300 15w-40; I have faith in that oil after viewing many good UOAs in various equipment.
I have a Kubota L3430GST bought a few years ago, before CJ-4 came into being. Obviously, there was no warning in my manual for a product that didn't exist yet. So, would the same concern extend to my Kubota by default? Even if it does, I doubt it will effect my decision.
Just food for the topic of discussion. Let's not get into brand wars, but rather concentrate on the API vs. Kubota conflict.
Last edited:
