New 2012 cummins Oil Choice

[LargeCarManX2]

quote from dnewton3:


Are you suggesting that only a synthetic holds soot in suspension?
Are you suggesting that there is measurable differences in starting in a new, common-rail injected, intake-heater equipped diesel engine, where the syn will "start the engine faster" than a dino?
Are you suggesting that the fuel dilution is so great that a dino would never be able to tolerate even one-tenth of one-percent of dilution? end quote:

No, I am not suggesting this, my statement is synthetic just does it better!
LCM

 

[Pablo]

Mostly ignored in these written gymnastics is the cleanliness of the engine.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: LargeCarManX2
quote from dnewton3:


Are you suggesting that only a synthetic holds soot in suspension?
Are you suggesting that there is measurable differences in starting in a new, common-rail injected, intake-heater equipped diesel engine, where the syn will "start the engine faster" than a dino?
Are you suggesting that the fuel dilution is so great that a dino would never be able to tolerate even one-tenth of one-percent of dilution? end quote:

No, I am not suggesting this, my statement is synthetic just does it better!
LCM



I also asked for tangible proof; where is the supporting evidence to back up your claim?

"Better" is so often very poorly defined here on BITOG. Please be more specific, and then back up your claim with data from credible sources (please no marketing sales hype).

 

[m37charlie]

For Alberta during the winter:
unless the truck is always parked in a heated garage or has an oil pan heater, I would use a 5Wxx (5W40 preferable IMHO). I second Pablo's recommendation of DEO.
I can tell you from very personal experience there is a very big difference between 5W40 and 15W40 at -20C or colder as far as cranking speed, quick starting, and rate of oil pressure buildup.
Of course if I had a new Cummins Ram I'd do an EGR/DPF/SCR delete (EGR delete in particular is doing your engine a favor in the wear/longevity dept.) and then you could use any CH4 or CI4 oil of the viscosity you see fit.
I believe PetroCanada makes a Duron 5W40, in both CI4+ and CJ4 forms.
Examine the specs for their 15W40 and 5W40 to see the low temp differences in performance:
http://lubricants.petro-canada.ca/en/products/603.aspx

Charlie

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
Mostly ignored in these written gymnastics is the cleanliness of the engine.



I'm not ignoring it; I'm intentionally dismissing it.
What often goes unchallenged is marketing hype that is unsubstantiated with real, documented proof.

In a normal OCI, I don't think there is much difference, if any, in "cleanliness" between a robust dino oil and a good synthetic. The "new" (now several years old) CJ-4 lubes have a very healthy detergent/dispersent package in them due to the EGR use, and the next generation of lubes will even be more so. I doubt there is much if any difference in "cleaning" ability between any dino and any syn HDEO, in a normal OCI.

We could look at PDS/VOA data and imply something, but there really is no quantifiable data to say how well a product would "clean" from a results driven perspective.

First, we'd have to define what "clean" means.
Then we'd have to find a way to measure "clean".
Only then could we study the true effects of a product's ability to "clean".

So, while I cannot prove that dinos clean as well as syns in normal applications, you could also not prove they do not. I see this as marketing hype.

Further, I've used this analogy several times, but it's obvious it's time to bring it back out again ...

I'm going to presume we are starting with a healthy, decent engine, and not one that is absued/neglected.

"Cleaning" can only occur when there is dirt (my generic term here for this example). If no dirt exists, no cleaning can occur. And when dirt does exist, there must be some level of dirt contribution rate, to the environment. It's not like dirt just suddenly comes from the sky and is trashed immediately; it accumulates over time. Therefore, there is a "contamination rate" that exists for the environment.

Example:
An elderly couple live in a decent home. They have a maid come and "clean dirt" once a week. The contamination rate they create is satifactorily removed by one maid, in one week intervals. The dirt accumlates during the week (not unlike soot production in an engine) and the maid comes once a week to clean (not unlike an OCI).

As long as the contamination rate is reasonably controlled, then the "need" for "more" cleaning is a waste. You can send in more maids, but they cannot "clean" any faster, or any more quantity, than the couple of old folks creates in their daily activity. I don't care how many maids you send in, it does not make the old folks create "more" dirty dishes, laundry or dust. The only way to alter the "need" for cleaning is to send in the grandchildren. That is altering the contamination rate. Only then would you "need" more maids, more often. Get it?

Same goes for a decent HDEO product. You can heavily dose in more add-pack, but that does NOT change the rate of soot production or insolubles made. That heavily dosed add-pack cannot "clean" any faster than what is produced.

In short, cleaning agents can only remove what exists; they don't produce "dirt", they only remove what is presented to them. Therefore, they don't affect the contamination rate. As long as the chosen product can keep up, there is no real benefit to "more" cleaning agents.

So if the dino oil is fully capable of cleaning at the "normal contamination rate" , then any "more" than that capability level is unused capacity. Period.

Conceptually, this is not unlike the topic of filtration capacity. NOT efficiency, but capacity. You can find filters with more holding capacity, but that does NOT make they clean "better". They will however, given a reasonably consistent contamination rate, clean for a longer period of time, because they can hold more before becoming overwhelmed (saturated).

Therefore, what a high-end oil (with a heavy add-pack) can do is last LONGER in service. Any lube (does not matter which base stock) that has "more" cleaning agents, can last for a longer OCI before it becomes overwhelmed (saturated).

But that goes right back into everything else I've ever said about dinos and syns. Syns are not "better"; they last LONGER in service. And if you don't extend the OCI to a point where the dino oil is compromised, then there is no true advantage to the syn. Any product (oil, toothpaste, orange juice, etc) can only have an advantage or benefit over another product, if that competing product is overwhelmed in some defined, measurable criteria or characteristic.

How can any lube (regardless of base stock) create a "cleaner" engine, when they cannot affect the contamination rate???

Engine cleanliness is a function of the OCI. If your engine is "dirty", it's because you extended the OCI too far, relative to the lube used.

Even a synthetic, even the "best" synthetic, would eventually leave an engine dirty, if used past a reasonable limit.

BTW #1: just so we're clear here, I'm not picking on Amsoil. I'm being generic to syns.

BTW #2: heavily-dosed detergent packages can have an adverse affect on wear rates. In SAE study 2007-01-4133 there is evidence that shows the add-packs can actually inhibit or scrub away the beneficial tribochemical anti-wear layer that develops on the part surfaces as the OCI ages the lube. And believe it or not, oxidation is key to that anti-wear layer developing. IOW - some amount of lube oxidation is a GOOD thing. Obviously, too much oxidation is bad, but some amount is truly beneficial. Allow me to quote a very short concept from that study:
"However, when a dispersant is added, the film is removed and the film thickness stabilizes at a lower value. The antagonistic behavior of the detergents is well-known and one of the possible mechanisms was believed to be the competition between dispersant and ZDDP modecules to absord on availble surface sites." And it continues in more detail ...
My point is that this whole BITOG mentality of "if some level of characteristic is good, then more of it MUST be better" is total hogwash. While it may be true in some circumstances, there are ALWAYS trade-offs in almost any product. The "better" products, strike a nice balance in their performance, due to a well met level of achievement, relative to the design intent. High end synthetics such as Amsoil can last a very long time and do a great job; we've seen many supporting UOAs that prove this. But, they can also be of no benefit, and actually detrimental (not harmful, but in comparison to the alternative) in shorter OCIs. They likely will not clean any better, because they cannot affect the contamination rate. And the heavy dose of cleaning package they carry is detracting from the very anti-wear layer that is so important, which is probably why most syns (PCMOs and HDEOs) don't really show any "improvement" in wear reduction in short-to-moderate OCI durations versus a decent dino oil.

I would challenge anyone to show proof of claim that a syn is going to clean better in a normal OCI:
1 - how do you define clean?
2 - how do you measure clean?
3 - what proof (studies or UOAs) do you have that substantiates the claim inferred?
4 - extra credit bonus question; what trade-offs are you willing to accept for "better" cleaning?

I am results-driven; I don't want to read marketing hype or see PDS/VOA data. I want to see the real-world proof of claim.

 

[LargeCarManX2]

quote from dnewton3:

"Cleaning" can only occur when there is dirt (my generic term here for this example). If no dirt exists, no cleaning can occur. And when dirt does exist, there must be some level of dirt contribution rate, to the environment. It's not like dirt just suddenly comes from the sky and is trashed immediately; it accumulates over time. Therefore, there is a "contamination rate" that exists for the environment. end quote:

Oxidation of oils tend to leave varnish, an engine can be a healthy engine, no intake of external dirt and still be varnished up on the inside. Diesel engines with the tremendous heat from the compression ratio tend to oxidate the oil and cause varnish. Synthetic oil has shown to fight oxidation better than mineral oil/thus a cleaner internal engine is the result of this. Ring packs stay cleaner etc....ask any diesel engine tech whom has torn down both types of engines with mineral and synthetic oil run. On a second note, I don't believe a 5w or 0w X 40 oil can be made out of mineral oil.
And it is true, a 5 weight spins quite a bit easier than a 15 weight in cold conditions.

 

[Pablo]

Which engines pop up as sludged or dirty on BITOG and in real life using standard, recommended OCI's? While the data of course is not normalized in any way, most if not all cases, albeit (again) anecdotal - the engines are being run on standard petroleum oil or lower cost Group III oils. Take the 3.5L VTEC A7 variant Honda engine. In most cases this engine can be quite hard on oil. But in cases where people ran lower grade group III oil, the oil maybe looked OK in a UOA, but the engines were very filthy. Whereas, people running a group IV/V or even a III/IV/V/other type, the engines remain quite clean - all within the guidelines of the OLM.

 

[dnewton3]

As I have said, ANY lube can be over or under utilized.

Synthetics do not clean "better", they clean for longer periods of time. In fact, they pretty much do everthing "longer".

And nothing you have stated would contravert my claims. You've shown nothing that shows your topic to be true.


There are anecdotal examples that do go the other way, as well. My dad owned a vulcan 3.0 Taurus he eventually sold to me. He was a religious 3mo/3k mile OCI man. When I popped the valve covers, that engine was so clean inside it was almost as if you could eat off it. How much "cleaner" do you think a syn could have made it? Sludge is often a factor moreso of the engine design (or more accurately, a poor design) and not so much an OCi mandate. But any lube does have a real, practical limit. Syns just tend to be capable for a longer duration of exposure.

Again - contamination rates are what contribute to dirt/sludge/varnish, etc. Any lube cannot clean any faster or better than what is presented. If you choose a lube with a good add pack, and you stay within it's OCI capability, it cannot be usurped by some other more/better fluid until it is overcome by the conditions in which it operates.

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
As I have said, ANY lube can be over or under utilized.

Synthetics do not clean "better", they clean for longer periods of time. In fact, they pretty much do everthing "longer".

And nothing you have stated would contravert my claims. You've shown nothing that shows your topic to be true.



I clearly stated within the recommended OCI or OLM.
Who said anything about cleaning? I certainly didn't. I said KEEPING an engine clean. There is a difference. Look at the Mobil1 evidence buster posted.
"Contravert" is not really a word. Controvert is. Nothing you have posted has disproved what I and many others know to be true. You know very well it's difficult to choke up a series of engine pictures, but in this case I actually believe Mobil1.

 

[TiredTrucker]

Originally Posted By: LargeCarManX2
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Yes - I know what OLM/IOLM is.

My comment is that I don't understand the logic of spending a lot of money on Amsoil if one is going to follow the OEM OCI (even if by using the OLM). The OLM is NOT predicated on using synthetic fluids. Synthetics are much more capable (in most circumstances) than conventional lubes in OCI extension. Amsoil is a particularly well respected high-quality syn. So why OCI with the OLM with a syn? You said
Quote:
"....you might after warranty push up the OCI."


If you suggest to wait until "after warranty" to push out the OCI, then why spend all that money during the first 161k km on Amsoil?

That is what I meant by "wasteful".





I would not call $ 7.80 a quart for 5w40 or $5.15 a quart for Oe 15w40 wasteful? He wants to run Amsoil.

Shell T-6 5w40 is $29.00 a gallon and Amsoil 5w40 about $31.00. Running a superior oil that suspends soot, starts the engine faster, holds up better with fuel dilution etc... is cost effective.


And I buy Delo 400 LE 5w40 syn for $19.95 a gallon at my local Wally World.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
Who said anything about cleaning? I certainly didn't. I said KEEPING an engine clean. There is a difference. ... Nothing you have posted has disproved what I and many others know to be true. You know very well it's difficult to choke up a series of engine pictures, but in this case I actually believe Mobil1.

And I clearly addressed this in my old-folks example. What do you counter with? Semantics. Your position is weak. I showed a very good analogy that addresses the concept on contamination rate. Any lube is going to have some reasonable level of capacity to scrub and hold soot/insolubles and resist oxidation.

Let me make up an example with some bogus numbers just for the sake of clarity. We start with a decently clean and well maintained engine.
Consider two lubes; a dino and syn with good add-packs.
- Perhaps the dino has the ability to successfully scrub and hold 100 grams of insolubles in suspension before it becomes overwhelmed and would start to allow deposits to form.
- Perhaps the syn has the ability to successfully scrub and hold 200 grams of insolubles in suspension before it becomes overwhelmed and would start to allow deposits to form.
If the engine produces 10 grams of contamination per 1k miles, then the dino oil would be reasonably useful for 10k miles. The syn would be good for 20k miles.
But can the syn "clean" any "better" than the dino? NO!!!
How can an oil "clean better" when it cannot affect the contamination rate?
If the engine is producing 10g/1k miles, and you're at 5k miles, then there would be a contamination level of 50 grams at 5k miles. That is below the threshold capacity limit of both fluids, so PUH-LEEZE explain to me how the syn can clean something "better" when neither fluid has reached their capacity limit?
What the syn can do is clean LONGER. But it cannot affect the contamination rate; it cannot clean what does not yet exist. Conceptually, I cannot fathom how that escapes most folks.

The question is how long can it do this in relation to the OCI duration?
What proof do you have that shows a syn is going to keep an engine "cleaner" in a normal OCI? Data please.
1) how do you define clean
2) how do you measure clean
3) what threshold is the condemnation limit
Until you can answer those questions clearly, with data to support them, your answer is rhetoric and you know it. Otherwise, you would not be avoiding it. You don't know it to be true; you suspect it to be true.


Originally Posted By: Pablo
"Contravert" is not really a word. Controvert is. .

Yes - I occasionally mispell words when I'm in a hurry. Thanks for pointing that out. I'll put it right up there with you telling me I think and type too much, and calling me names in the past. When the facts are in your favor, you argue the facts. When not, you attack the opponent. I can see where your position lies in this debate.

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

What the syn can do is clean LONGER. But it cannot affect the contamination rate; it cannot clean what does not yet exist. Conceptually, I cannot fathom how that escapes most folks.


Absolutely an oil affect the "contamination rate". You always miss an important point - from our past discussions, it usually comes from a weakness in your knowledge of chemistry and motor oil, not your rhetoric and typing skills. You are very correct about the "longer" statements, and that does hit close to the point. When an engine does get dirty where does the sludge the filth come from? Yes some comes from the outside world, but not that much, and some such as varnish starts with gasoline and it's various unburned and marginally oxidized cleaved components. But most of the heavy, measurable stuff comes from the oil itself. Simply put the oil does effect contamination with oxidized, polymerized compounds that did not last as long as planned and these breakdown compounds came from the oil. And yes it happens within the recommended OCI.

 

[dnewton3]

I certainly understand where insolubles come from. While I can admit to learning here and elsewhere, do not presume me to be a fool, sir.

You have yet to address the concept of cleaning as a metric.
I really don't care WHERE the contamination comes from; I am fully aware that it is a byproduct of many things including oxidation and incomplete hydrocarbon combustion. But that does NOT address the concept I put forth.

Any lube has some ability to control contamination; it has an add-pack that is capable at some level. Regardless if the oil self-degrades along the way, the add-pack is designed to help control that degredation. You can heavily load detergents and dispersants into the lube, but that does not make it clean faster or more sigificantly than the rate in which contaminatino is introduced, REGARDLESS of the origin of the contamination.

In a "normal" OCI, when one artfully manipulates the inputs and skillfully interprets the outputs, the OCI duration can be maintianed to a level where any lube will be successfully controlled in the total maintenance plan.

That in mind, a "normal" OCI for this Cummins will not be "cleaner" by using a syn.

BTW - the "newest" Cummins coming out this year has a 15k mile OCI from the OEM. Not one requirement for syntehtics to meet that duration; just any CES 20081 approved lube. And the Cummins targeted lifecycle is B50 @ 300 (50% bearing life estimated at 300k miles) IIRC. So, with 15k mile OCIs, Cummins expects their engines to have decent remaining bearing life at 300k miles. Don't you suppose they took sludge and insolubles into account in that 15k mile OCI? What good would it do to have have designed the lube system to protect bearings out to 300k miles if the engine were sludged up at 100k miles? Or would it be your position that they are wrong and are a fly-by-night hap-hazard organization that does no clinical lab studies or field testing?

Many of todays gasser engines have either dumb OLMs at 7.5+k miles or IOLMs that show 10+k miles are doable. Many of those vehicle OLMs are predicated on simple conventional lubes.

Here is what you said:
Quote:
Mostly ignored in these written gymnastics is the cleanliness of the engine.

Your inference, so lightly veiled, is that synthetics are superior in cleaning. Don't deny your thrust there; you had a point you were trying to make, and now you want to play games (as typical) with the semantics of the topic. I am not the one who made an inference (a veiled claim) that syntehtics were superior in cleanliness; you are. It is not up to me to prove my dissatisfaction with your position; it is up to you to prove your claim to be true, or else it's just mythology and rhetoric.

Again, answer these quetsions, if you can:
1) how do you define clean
2) how do you measure clean
3) what condemnation levels do you set for clean

If you cannot answer these, then you're espousing rhetoric.

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3


Here is what you said:
Quote:
Mostly ignored in these written gymnastics is the cleanliness of the engine.

Your inference, so lightly veiled, is that synthetics are superior in cleaning. Don't deny your thrust there......


Don't need to deny anything. Synthetic oil keeps engines cleaner. Period.

 

[dnewton3]

Thanks. So very insightful; it will take me a while to digest it all.

The rest of us will have to trundle on with facts and supportive data.

 

[yucca]

For the OP. We have 60 Dodge trucks in the fleet mostly 08-12's cummins and 5.7's. For the diesels we use the Chevron Delo 15w40 LE without issue.

 

[LargeCarManX2]

Originally Posted By: yucca
For the OP. We have 60 Dodge trucks in the fleet mostly 08-12's cummins and 5.7's. For the diesels we use the Chevron Delo 15w40 LE without issue.



Chevron is also claiming this oil is equal with semi-synthetic diesel oils in both protection and extended drain intervals.

 

[bmwtechguy]

I want to interject one thing I have observed with the use of synthetic oils vs conventional. It has been my experience that engines that are run consistently with a quality name brand synthetic oil and filter with a reasonable oil change interval have better compression and power many miles down the road. I recently purchased a Yukon XL with 213k miles on it, and it has nearly the power and compression of a brand new engine, zero oil leaks or consumption. Owner bought it new and used that purple synthetic oil and changed it every 5000 miles. That's not to say an engine with perfect maintenance on conventional oils would not run well, but after all these years and vehicles I have seen, owned and worked on, that has been my experience. Do I have datasets to share? No. I think that in the hottest place that the oil lives in an engine is in the piston ring lands (and turbo bearings in a turbo engine), that synthetic oil makes a noticeable difference over a long period of time. And by keeping things cleaner and more free in the ring lands, it is possible to maintain better oil control and compression for a longer time, plus with that better sealing, comes less contamination (blowby) into the crankcase, keeping the oil cleaner longer as well. All you need is one super long oci in an engine on conventional, and it's a game changer for the piston ring lands. I have seen this several times. Engine goes from consuming almost no oil to a qt every 2000 miles or worse. Synthetic oils provide a bit more protection against this kind of neglect or if engine runs hot a few times, etc.

With the quality of conventional lubes coming up substantially over the years, I would say the effect would be less and less noticeable, but I have noticed undeniable (to me) differences in results between consistent use of conv vs syn lubes. I use both however and decide based on application, type of use, and oci.

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: bmwtechguy
I want to interject one thing I have observed with the use of synthetic oils vs conventional. It has been my experience that engines that are run consistently with a quality name brand synthetic oil and filter with a reasonable oil change interval have better compression and power many miles down the road. I recently purchased a Yukon XL with 213k miles on it, and it has nearly the power and compression of a brand new engine, zero oil leaks or consumption. Owner bought it new and used that purple synthetic oil and changed it every 5000 miles. That's not to say an engine with perfect maintenance on conventional oils would not run well, but after all these years and vehicles I have seen, owned and worked on, that has been my experience. Do I have datasets to share? No. I think that in the hottest place that the oil lives in an engine is in the piston ring lands (and turbo bearings in a turbo engine), that synthetic oil makes a noticeable difference over a long period of time. And by keeping things cleaner and more free in the ring lands, it is possible to maintain better oil control and compression for a longer time, plus with that better sealing, comes less contamination (blowby) into the crankcase, keeping the oil cleaner longer as well. All you need is one super long oci in an engine on conventional, and it's a game changer for the piston ring lands. I have seen this several times. Engine goes from consuming almost no oil to a qt every 2000 miles or worse. Synthetic oils provide a bit more protection against this kind of neglect or if engine runs hot a few times, etc.

With the quality of conventional lubes coming up substantially over the years, I would say the effect would be less and less noticeable, but I have noticed undeniable (to me) differences in results between consistent use of conv vs syn lubes. I use both however and decide based on application, type of use, and oci.


You have simply observed what many of us have observed over time. Does not make any of us right and others of us wrong, not sure why BITOG always has to be like that - life certainly isn't always like that. Just so people don't assume I'm just hyping Amsoil:

http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Synthetics/Mobil_1_Sludge_Protection.aspx

 

[bullwinkle]

Originally Posted By: bmwtechguy
I want to interject one thing I have observed with the use of synthetic oils vs conventional. It has been my experience that engines that are run consistently with a quality name brand synthetic oil and filter with a reasonable oil change interval have better compression and power many miles down the road. I recently purchased a Yukon XL with 213k miles on it, and it has nearly the power and compression of a brand new engine, zero oil leaks or consumption. Owner bought it new and used that purple synthetic oil and changed it every 5000 miles. That's not to say an engine with perfect maintenance on conventional oils would not run well, but after all these years and vehicles I have seen, owned and worked on, that has been my experience. Do I have datasets to share? No. I think that in the hottest place that the oil lives in an engine is in the piston ring lands (and turbo bearings in a turbo engine), that synthetic oil makes a noticeable difference over a long period of time. And by keeping things cleaner and more free in the ring lands, it is possible to maintain better oil control and compression for a longer time, plus with that better sealing, comes less contamination (blowby) into the crankcase, keeping the oil cleaner longer as well. All you need is one super long oci in an engine on conventional, and it's a game changer for the piston ring lands. I have seen this several times. Engine goes from consuming almost no oil to a qt every 2000 miles or worse. Synthetic oils provide a bit more protection against this kind of neglect or if engine runs hot a few times, etc.

With the quality of conventional lubes coming up substantially over the years, I would say the effect would be less and less noticeable, but I have noticed undeniable (to me) differences in results between consistent use of conv vs syn lubes. I use both however and decide based on application, type of use, and oci.
Don't get me wrong-I love syn oils in the right (out of warranty/extended OCI) application-but 5K OC's with Royal Purple over 213K?? It wouldn't have taken much more $ to buy another engine!