Japan not too happy with GF-4 Oils ?
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
Many Toyota 4 cylinder engines use chains.
What change from GF-3 to GF-4 would cause increased vulnerablility for timing chains? GF-4 is supposed to be more shear stable and maintain the same protection levels using less ZDDP to avoid poisoning the cats.
Since the same manufacturers specify GF-4 use in the manuals and use them in their shops, the spec itself is okay. Maybe they want to specify a test because there is some fear that the ZDDP replacement won't work as well in the anti-wear department long term for some oils?
Since the same manufacturers specify GF-4 use in the manuals and use them in their shops, the spec itself is okay. Maybe they want to specify a test because there is some fear that the ZDDP replacement won't work as well in the anti-wear department long term for some oils?
First the companies change from 20w-50 or 10W-40 oils to 20 and 30 weight oils, casting caution to the wind and engine longevity in order to get .000001 better mpg, now they are doing the same thing, risking multi hundred dollar engine repairs on timing chains (per incident)in order to cut down on catalytic converter ($100 per cat) poisioning ?
Does anyone else feel like people are beeting a dead horse when it comes to focusing fuel efficiency measures on motor oil? I mean, what about Cd, vehicle weight, transportation infrustructure, system effectiveness and efficiency, etc.? It's all about matters of transtportation (and pleasure)!
Perhaps the related cat. poisoning and emissions concerns leads this area as a focus since work is already started, but by no means is this to be THE focus.
All I can say is, "wake-up and expand your view." I'll admit, money may or may not be sitting at the other side of the door here if you catch my drift, so...
Perhaps the related cat. poisoning and emissions concerns leads this area as a focus since work is already started, but by no means is this to be THE focus.
All I can say is, "wake-up and expand your view." I'll admit, money may or may not be sitting at the other side of the door here if you catch my drift, so...
Couldn't agree more. Unfortunetally the Federal Government and most of the States are **** near in bankruptcy, or at least they spend money they don't have on more important
Hi,
Curious Kid - you said this;
"Does anyone else feel like people are beeting a dead horse when it comes to focusing fuel efficiency measures on motor oil? I mean, what about Cd, vehicle weight, transportation infrustructure, system effectiveness and efficiency, etc.? It's all about matters of transtportation (and pleasure)!"
You are on the right tram!!!
I have owned/operated a fleet of heavy trucks for 14 years. I have also been involved Internationally with Truck technolgy (consulting) since the early 1970s
This has involved Scania,Volvo-White,Mercedes-Freightliner-Ford,MANN Iveco and most engine Manufacturers (but mainly Cummins & Detroit)in the USA, Japan and Europe and of course many many fleets in NZ and Australia
The biggest advances in trucking fuel economy over the last 35 years has been due to;
1 - engine design
2 - gearing (related to 1))
3 - aerodynamics
4 - radial tyre use
Oil type has played an insignificant role! Its biggest influence has been in the drive line rather than the engine too!!!
Since about 1978 Australia's Interstate trucking Industry's fuel efficiency has risen from 5mpg (Imperial) to 6mpg. At the same time the average gross mass of these vehicles has risen from 36tonnes to 42.5tonnes. The axle number has risen from five to six and the maximum speed has risen from 50mph to 62mph in that time!
About 3% of heavy trucks here run synthetic engine oils! Many now use synthetics in the driveline
I ALWAYS doubt those Oil Company claims of better economy in heavy trucking. The variables are simply too great to factor in in the REAL WORLD!
Regards
Doug
Curious Kid - you said this;
"Does anyone else feel like people are beeting a dead horse when it comes to focusing fuel efficiency measures on motor oil? I mean, what about Cd, vehicle weight, transportation infrustructure, system effectiveness and efficiency, etc.? It's all about matters of transtportation (and pleasure)!"
You are on the right tram!!!
I have owned/operated a fleet of heavy trucks for 14 years. I have also been involved Internationally with Truck technolgy (consulting) since the early 1970s
This has involved Scania,Volvo-White,Mercedes-Freightliner-Ford,MANN Iveco and most engine Manufacturers (but mainly Cummins & Detroit)in the USA, Japan and Europe and of course many many fleets in NZ and Australia
The biggest advances in trucking fuel economy over the last 35 years has been due to;
1 - engine design
2 - gearing (related to 1))
3 - aerodynamics
4 - radial tyre use
Oil type has played an insignificant role! Its biggest influence has been in the drive line rather than the engine too!!!
Since about 1978 Australia's Interstate trucking Industry's fuel efficiency has risen from 5mpg (Imperial) to 6mpg. At the same time the average gross mass of these vehicles has risen from 36tonnes to 42.5tonnes. The axle number has risen from five to six and the maximum speed has risen from 50mph to 62mph in that time!
About 3% of heavy trucks here run synthetic engine oils! Many now use synthetics in the driveline
I ALWAYS doubt those Oil Company claims of better economy in heavy trucking. The variables are simply too great to factor in in the REAL WORLD!
Regards
Doug
Nissan is using steel time chains in the QR25DE, 320K kms or 210K miles prior to changing it. In my 1980 Datsun with 200K I just changed its primitive time chain. This 1980 Datsun/Nissan time chain actually had two adjustments on sprocket to tighten chain, after the two adjustments were spent I bought a "Crappy Tire" after market chain for $100.00 Can funds, been running it quite a while now, long time before I do the first sprocket adjustment to tight it a bit. On my 1986 Accord it seemed I had to change $75.00 time belts + labor like socks, the steel time chain costs lot less and on the QR25DE they are hard to hear, takes real trained ear.
On my new QR25DE I dont use Energy Conserving oil, on breakin I am using XD3 HDEO 5-30 CF/SH dino, after breakin I will use heavy 0-30 XD3 syn HDEO CI-4/SL in my Nissan. Nissan engines seems to like a heavier oil, this heavy oil has to be good for that steel chain too.
Cyprs
On my new QR25DE I dont use Energy Conserving oil, on breakin I am using XD3 HDEO 5-30 CF/SH dino, after breakin I will use heavy 0-30 XD3 syn HDEO CI-4/SL in my Nissan. Nissan engines seems to like a heavier oil, this heavy oil has to be good for that steel chain too.
Cyprs
Cyprs does your manual indicate a matinence interval for your chain? My 04 frontier ka24de has a chain and the website always said matinence free steel timing chain.
I figured they should last the life of the engine with good oil and good change intervals.
I figured they should last the life of the engine with good oil and good change intervals.
Unfortunately, some timing chain tensioners over time fail to provide sufficient tension at start-up (the tensioner plunger is pressured by the oil system) and one gets a pronounced rattle until the vehicle is warmed as in the Nissan VQ30. Replacing the tensioner, with its minuscule access cover on the timing chain cover is akin to neurosurgery
I have 6 Subaru's in the family 'fleet'. All but 2 have belts. $55 every 100k miles doesn't seem like much to me
The other 2 have chains and the manual does seem to imply they're a lifetime part (that's a LONG time for a soob, so I doubt they'll truly last that long). The only time we ever get any rattle out of the chains is the first 2 seconds after an OC. Even then, that can be reduced to zero if I change the oil cold rather than hot. Seemed counter-intuitive at first, but my guess is it's because the chain is shorter when cold (it's a LONG chain, 4 cam shafts, so any minor percentage of 'shrink' due to temp may take up quite a bit of slack).
Dave
Dave
chains are supposedly more durable than belts and do not normally have to be replaced. However, they are heavier (more inertia and hp loss), noisier, and have associated parts that increase overall cost and weight. They can also stretch over time, although slight it can cause slight timing problems.
If given a choice, I would prefer a chain. However, I would not put chain -vs- belt very high on a list of considerations, there are too many other ones more important (to me).
If given a choice, I would prefer a chain. However, I would not put chain -vs- belt very high on a list of considerations, there are too many other ones more important (to me).
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Sticky
- Locked
