Rotella CJ-4 might not be holding up...

Status
Not open for further replies.
I wouldn't say it is garbage either...for what it is, I typically see UOAs that meet/exceed that of synthetics. And even though it "changes", the UOAs still show minimal wear metals.

That's the main reason I never changed to synthetics to begin with, UOAs didn't show it was needed.
 
Originally Posted By: deeter16317
I wouldn't say it is garbage either...for what it is, I typically see UOAs that meet/exceed that of synthetics. And even though it "changes", the UOAs still show minimal wear metals.

That's the main reason I never changed to synthetics to begin with, UOAs didn't show it was needed.


Agreed...except in wintertime up here in Edmonton where syn is an advantage in cold temps.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: D-Roc

Agreed, except with my Pinto which I drag occasionally...need the absolute best.



LOL.gif
 
Hi,
IMHE it is how the lubricant reacts to a number of things that determines its longevity in a certain task and engine family

For instance do you know what the bulk oil temperature is? This is a critical area to investigate as oil cooling may be inadequate for the task set
What were you cruise engine revs? What is the HP and Torque of the engine and at what revs and etc

There is no doubt in my mind that in on-road diesel engines, synthetics generally perform much better than mineral lubricants. This is not only at the upper and lower temperature levels it is also in the way in which the handle soot and in the way they tolerate shear (maintaining viscosity for long periods for example) and maintain "condition"

And not all synthetic HDEOs are built equal either!

My engines held Pyro readings of 1500f for long periods climbing and ran around
You can PM me if you wish
 
Last edited:
I'm going to go at a bit of a tangent.

I think the cj-4 rotella holds soot a lot better then previous oils. What I think happened is the cj-4 rotella "cleaned out" your engine.

Soot = heat

Change the oil, I'll bet it won't happen again.
 
allan5oh might be onto something here.

The CJ-4 spec is certainly geared towards today's newer exhaust controlled, DPF type vehicles. I know from reading on the Rotella, Delo and Delvac pages that the products are aimed squarely at controlling soot better than previous generations.

It's possible that these new formulations are going "look" different visually, because they're now picking up soot in quantities that previously had been allowed to drop out. Now, they are holding it in suspension better, and therefore the appearance of the oil is going to be different.

Further, after the trip, if you continued use of the same oil, would the GC bypass filter eventually clean the soot from the oil? Since there is likely more in suspension, it might take longer to get it back to some state that you visually recongnize.

Let's also remember that since CJ-4 was primarily biased towards the emmisions-control aspect of oil, that other characteristics were only slightly changed, even if not by intent. I.E. - the lubricating properties and emmision control properties of CJ-4 over CI-4+ have been touted by all the major companies. But heat control wasn't part of the EPA mandate, and therefore there's no reason to think that the characteristics of heat tolerance have changed much, if any.

It makes sense to me that, while you're attributing the visual changes of the oil to a percieved increase in heat, it's more likely that increased capability of soot suspension is the real cause of the changes you see.
 
EGT is an indicator of engine heat but do you know the oil was actually overheated. The cummins have an oil cooler, a large volume of oil and a good cooling system. I don't think 1000 EGT (I assume pre-turbo???) is enough to fry the oil lubricating the turbo when it's coming in a large volume. If it were me, I would get an oil temp gauge set up and see that part of the equation.
 
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
IMHE it is how the lubricant reacts to a number of things that determines its longevity in a certain task and engine family

For instance do you know what the bulk oil temperature is? This is a critical area to investigate as oil cooling may be inadequate for the task set
What were you cruise engine revs? What is the HP and Torque of the engine and at what revs and etc

There is no doubt in my mind that in on-road diesel engines, synthetics generally perform much better than mineral lubricants. This is not only at the upper and lower temperature levels it is also in the way in which the handle soot and in the way they tolerate shear (maintaining viscosity for long periods for example) and maintain "condition"

And not all synthetic HDEOs are built equal either!

My engines held Pyro readings of 1500f for long periods climbing and ran around
You can PM me if you wish



The oil temp is unknown, but the 5.9L Cummins has an oil cooler (oil to water) built in...unlike a gasser with no external cooling. So it should not exceed engine coolant temperatures by much.

The cruise RPMs in that 100 mile stretch were around 3k RPM...I redline against the governor at 96mph/3200RPM. Again, bucking a decent headwind, gearing, and speed were my enemies...

The engine is a 325HP/600TQ version, the only mods are 40HP injectors, a FASS, slight timing advance, modified airbox, and straight 4" exhaust (no cat). There is no programmer/chip...it is more less stock except the injectors.
 
Originally Posted By: allan5oh
I'm going to go at a bit of a tangent.

I think the cj-4 rotella holds soot a lot better then previous oils. What I think happened is the cj-4 rotella "cleaned out" your engine.

Soot = heat

Change the oil, I'll bet it won't happen again.



I've been running CJ-4 for almost 100k. Besides, this is the second time it has happened...and I did change the oil to get it out of the engine. Now I'm back to that point (in one single 100 mile run).

Besides, any appreciable soot in this engine would theoretically be removed by the GCF (this is a true 0-1, not the little frantz-like version)...I've had bypass filtration since around 60k...currently have 157k. I've also had the valve cover off this engine, there isn't enough "dirt" to even wipe off with your finger on the inside, all parts are clean.
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
allan5oh might be onto something here.

The CJ-4 spec is certainly geared towards today's newer exhaust controlled, DPF type vehicles. I know from reading on the Rotella, Delo and Delvac pages that the products are aimed squarely at controlling soot better than previous generations.

It's possible that these new formulations are going "look" different visually, because they're now picking up soot in quantities that previously had been allowed to drop out. Now, they are holding it in suspension better, and therefore the appearance of the oil is going to be different.

Further, after the trip, if you continued use of the same oil, would the GC bypass filter eventually clean the soot from the oil? Since there is likely more in suspension, it might take longer to get it back to some state that you visually recongnize.

Let's also remember that since CJ-4 was primarily biased towards the emmisions-control aspect of oil, that other characteristics were only slightly changed, even if not by intent. I.E. - the lubricating properties and emmision control properties of CJ-4 over CI-4+ have been touted by all the major companies. But heat control wasn't part of the EPA mandate, and therefore there's no reason to think that the characteristics of heat tolerance have changed much, if any.

It makes sense to me that, while you're attributing the visual changes of the oil to a percieved increase in heat, it's more likely that increased capability of soot suspension is the real cause of the changes you see.



While you are correct about the oils characteristics with regards to soot handling, even my GCF will not bring the oil "back to life" after this perceived "damage".

And to add, the viscosity increased (in the previous sample) while insolubles remained the same as always (0.3%). Neither time it has happened has the GCF been able to bring the oil back.

I do not think soot is my problem...if it was, my oil should be fine right now as that 100 mile run was over 1500 miles ago...the oil has not improved. And if it was soot, then I should have seen a significant spike in the insolubles in the UOA that also had increased viscosity, right?

I'm only perceiving what causes it to change...higher RPM, higher than normal load, higher EGTs. I am not pointing at one single thing, but I feel of the things that could damage oil in a Cummins, heat is probably the most likely suspect in my case...
 
Your wear numbers weren't actually that bad, Steve. But that aside with the other numbers you are concerned about may be an idea to go ahead and run syn...that or if you know you have a long heavy trip coming, change your oil out to be sure, if you have a decent amount of mileage on the change. I don't think anything is wrong, probably just worked the engine good with a decent amount of mileage on that oil change...
 
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
EGT is an indicator of engine heat but do you know the oil was actually overheated. The cummins have an oil cooler, a large volume of oil and a good cooling system. I don't think 1000 EGT (I assume pre-turbo???) is enough to fry the oil lubricating the turbo when it's coming in a large volume. If it were me, I would get an oil temp gauge set up and see that part of the equation.



Temps are pre-turbo...

I'm not sure...but what else could cause oil viscosity to increase? Excessive soot loading and boil-off are the only things I'm aware of...shearing should cause viscosity to decrease. I don't seem to have a soot problem based on UOAs.

I'll see if I can locate a temp probe, I think I still have a place I can access on the filter head.

I'm not saying EGTs are the cause, but maybe the oil can't take sustained heat?

Again, this is the second time this has happened...the first was 5000ish miles of moderate towing (not sure when it actually became "damaged"), and now this 100 mile run at higher than normal engine load. And to state this point, this wasn't abnormal use...no where near max weights or towing capacity of the truck/engine.
 
Originally Posted By: D-Roc
I don't think anything is wrong, probably just worked the engine good with a decent amount of mileage on that oil change...



But, but, but...I'm shooting for the GCF zero-OCI for a million miles!

I'll probably break down and buy some synthetic...but it will pain me the first time I'm forced to change expensive oil for the same reason...
 
I should also add (if I already didn't say it), my sump is jut a little less than 5 gallons now...3 gallons in the pan, a touch over 1.5 gallons in the GCF housing.
 
I hear ya, I don't like changing my oil either...but sometimes its necessary to maintain your standard of maintenance. We all put our trucks through something once in a while that is over and above the normal operation. Bottom line here is, that UOA caught something that could have ended up much bigger than it is now.
Hey Steve, if you're ever close to the border head across to a Wally and see about getting yourself some Esso...I know you wanted to try it out. You seem to put a lot of miles across country.
 
Originally Posted By: D-Roc
I hear ya, I don't like changing my oil either...but sometimes its necessary to maintain your standard of maintenance. We all put our trucks through something once in a while that is over and above the normal operation. Bottom line here is, that UOA caught something that could have ended up much bigger than it is now.
Hey Steve, if you're ever close to the border head across to a Wally and see about getting yourself some Esso...I know you wanted to try it out. You seem to put a lot of miles across country.



The only thing the UOA really indicated was bad was the increased vicosity...the wear metal numbers still looked good for what I put the oil through, even with the oil thickened.

I'd love to try Esso...but the closest I've been to the border was last week...southern Washington state! I heard someone mention they found a source in KY, but I never saw a follow up.

I only average about 35k/year now...I did average almost 50k/year at one point, but work has slowed a bit.
 
I have to agree with you Steve, soot isn't your problem. The oil thickened due to heat. I've had ci-4 rotella thicken up to 16.90 cst when my motor was new with no abnormal wear, probably due to a short oci. I would think the average oil temp in your sump is pretty low due to the long run to the GCF and added sump capacity. But high egts still taxes the small amount of oil cooling the pistons. Still jealous of your sump size and GCF.
 
Originally Posted By: Harley Anderson


But high egts still taxes the small amount of oil cooling the pistons.

Still jealous of your sump size and GCF.



Didn't they increase the piston oil jets for these CR engines??

I'm not sure the added sump does a whole lot...it provides more oil to "wear", but does nothing for cooling it since it is such a low volume passing through. On my previous bypass, I had an oil cooler installed and found it was a waste because there is such a little volume of oil being cooled.
 
I thought they added the piston oil jets to the CR motors, primarily the HO and 600 series. Thats what I thought, and as to why the SO Cr motors couldn't handle higher egts.
 
I'm sure they've all had the cooling nozzles...that's what killed a few early 24-valves, when the Fram filters fell apart and clogged the nozzles.

I thought I remembered reading they either increased the number of nozzles or the size of the nozzle for the HO/600 to get more oil to the piston for cooling...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top