Originally Posted By: ArcticDriver
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Originally Posted By: ArcticDriver
I agree with Matt.
For older diesel engines the CJ-4 is a great product.
Yeah, suppose it is. If the price point is good also. But I have been using CK-4 rated oil in a Detroit 12.7L pre-egr engine this year and it is doing just fine also. On it's third load of CK-4 oil in the engine and will get changed in a couple of weeks.
It will be great to see the UOAs from your first 2 oil changes that are doing fine.
I am sure many people will have similar experience but the fact remains the API CK-4 was a response to the needs of newer diesels and not as an intentional improvement for older diesels. The end goal was not, "Listen guys, we need to figure out a way to improve lubrication of CJ-4 for older vehicles in an effort to keep them in service".
It was, "Listen guys, we need to figure out a way to make engine oil compatible with newer trucks and equipment and make it quit destroying newer vehicle emission equipment like CJ-4 is currently doing".
OFcourse, we all will be saying, "Yep, have run CK-4 in my older diesel engines and they haven't blown up" as CJ-4 stocks continue to be depleted but I don't see a reason to switch if I can get ahold of CJ-4 at an equal or lesser price since its been doing great in my diesel equipment and on-road vehicles for many years.
Why does CK-4 provide such better protection? What is this new chemistry promising 50% better wear protection in some instances? Maybe it does what they say but why don't they say how? Why can't we see the reason for this improved lubrication on a VOA or UOA? Its not an increase in traditional additives such as Phosphorus, Zinc, Moly.
That is a question I am hoping someone will answer here on BITOG.
Thanks.
I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, but the CK-4 oils blended with the lower phosphorus and zinc, also have ashless chemistry that we can't see in the basic analysis available to us. I happen to be using Delo XLE 10W30 (CK-4) that meets the API SN requirements and I'm trusting that Chevron didn't take shortcuts in their development and testing. Chevron has said that their mixture of ashless anti-wear and the traditional phos/zinc has shown better results in testing.
The main things that I remember reading during the development of CK-4 was a goal of improved oxidation stability (for hotter running engines and longer oci's), better shear stability (better wear protection), and better aeration control. I think better exhaust treatment protection was a bonus, but I don't recall it being a focus. I may be forgetting, though.
I can tell you that Detroit Diesel has bumped up the oci recommendation for their DD series of engines. In OTR use, the recommendation for CJ-4 (Detroit 93K218 spec), is 50k miles or 1280 hours (whichever comes first). With CK-4 (93K222 spec), I can go 55k-65k miles (depending on fuel economy) with no hours listed (at least not yet). I could even run the FA-4 oils if I wanted to.
I'm not aware of CJ-4 causing problems in the exhaust treatment of heavy duties. I've had a few DPF's cleaned and all was well. No trouble with the trucks and the DPF's were in good shape so cleaning wasn't a problem. CJ-4 caused a lot of hand wringing and many stocked up on CI-4+ for fear of the "weak oil" that was on the way. It turned out fine (at least in heavy duty diesels). If the pickup trucks and medium duty trucks are having problems with the after treatment, I'd guess that it's from a lack of load generated heat.
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Originally Posted By: ArcticDriver
I agree with Matt.
For older diesel engines the CJ-4 is a great product.
Yeah, suppose it is. If the price point is good also. But I have been using CK-4 rated oil in a Detroit 12.7L pre-egr engine this year and it is doing just fine also. On it's third load of CK-4 oil in the engine and will get changed in a couple of weeks.
It will be great to see the UOAs from your first 2 oil changes that are doing fine.
I am sure many people will have similar experience but the fact remains the API CK-4 was a response to the needs of newer diesels and not as an intentional improvement for older diesels. The end goal was not, "Listen guys, we need to figure out a way to improve lubrication of CJ-4 for older vehicles in an effort to keep them in service".
It was, "Listen guys, we need to figure out a way to make engine oil compatible with newer trucks and equipment and make it quit destroying newer vehicle emission equipment like CJ-4 is currently doing".
OFcourse, we all will be saying, "Yep, have run CK-4 in my older diesel engines and they haven't blown up" as CJ-4 stocks continue to be depleted but I don't see a reason to switch if I can get ahold of CJ-4 at an equal or lesser price since its been doing great in my diesel equipment and on-road vehicles for many years.
Why does CK-4 provide such better protection? What is this new chemistry promising 50% better wear protection in some instances? Maybe it does what they say but why don't they say how? Why can't we see the reason for this improved lubrication on a VOA or UOA? Its not an increase in traditional additives such as Phosphorus, Zinc, Moly.
That is a question I am hoping someone will answer here on BITOG.
Thanks.
I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, but the CK-4 oils blended with the lower phosphorus and zinc, also have ashless chemistry that we can't see in the basic analysis available to us. I happen to be using Delo XLE 10W30 (CK-4) that meets the API SN requirements and I'm trusting that Chevron didn't take shortcuts in their development and testing. Chevron has said that their mixture of ashless anti-wear and the traditional phos/zinc has shown better results in testing.
The main things that I remember reading during the development of CK-4 was a goal of improved oxidation stability (for hotter running engines and longer oci's), better shear stability (better wear protection), and better aeration control. I think better exhaust treatment protection was a bonus, but I don't recall it being a focus. I may be forgetting, though.
I can tell you that Detroit Diesel has bumped up the oci recommendation for their DD series of engines. In OTR use, the recommendation for CJ-4 (Detroit 93K218 spec), is 50k miles or 1280 hours (whichever comes first). With CK-4 (93K222 spec), I can go 55k-65k miles (depending on fuel economy) with no hours listed (at least not yet). I could even run the FA-4 oils if I wanted to.
I'm not aware of CJ-4 causing problems in the exhaust treatment of heavy duties. I've had a few DPF's cleaned and all was well. No trouble with the trucks and the DPF's were in good shape so cleaning wasn't a problem. CJ-4 caused a lot of hand wringing and many stocked up on CI-4+ for fear of the "weak oil" that was on the way. It turned out fine (at least in heavy duty diesels). If the pickup trucks and medium duty trucks are having problems with the after treatment, I'd guess that it's from a lack of load generated heat.
