New Oil for ULSD

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 9, 2004
Messages
60
Location
Union, MO
In reading about the new ULSD that the EPA is about to spring on us and checking both the Delo and Cummins websites, I have a couple of questions.

1.) I still have enough Delo 400 CI-4 for two oil changes (every 7.5K) which will last me well into the ULSD era. My engine is an '03 HO Cummins in a Dodge Ram. In everyone's opinion will my engine be harmed by continuing to use the Delo 400 or would I be better off getting the new oil ASAP?

2.) Both the Cummins and Delo websites said that oil change frequency may be affected by the new ULSD. Has anyone heard what they might be for the Cummins in the Ram?

Many thanks for your input.

Mike
 
No and No. Doesn't affect you in terms of motor oil at all, only the new EGT/Cat equipped engines. I would however highly recommend reviewing your fuel add regimen (if any) to ensure the injection system is getting enough lubrication.
 
You can run the CI-4/+ oil without harm to your 03. In fact, I would continue to run that oil as long as it is available. The reason for the new oil is similar to the newer spec for gas engines, the OEM's are primarily concerned about emission systems compatibility. The Teir II level III emissions engines will have catalysts and particulate filters and most engines will also have active management of the cat. Just like in gassers, ZDDP has been reduced so the CI-4 oils are superior in EP protection, primarily for the valve train.

Most engine manufactures are saying that OCI's will go back to their standard intervals and they will not support the long drains that they do currently (although they still have time to change their exact requirements). This will only affect engines that are REQUIRED to use ULSD and these shortened OCI's are a result of the emissions equipment, not the fuel itself. Basically what it amounts to is continue doing what you are doing currently if it works. The only thing that I would do is run some type of lube additive for the fuel. Either Stanadyne Lubricity Formula or run a small blend of biodiesel.
 
I have been using Stanadyne Performance Formula since the truck was new and intend on continuing to use it. Glad to hear that my CI-4+ oil will still be OK since I found a deal on case quantities at Sam's Club last month :^).
 
The new emission control equipment on diesel engines on vehicles over 10,000# GVWR (not 1-ton pickups) requires the new CJ-4 oil which has lower sulfated ash, phosphorus and sulfur. These elements would contaminate the emission control equipment in the new engines.

Terry says that the CJ-4 oil will be an excellent product. At this time I see no reason to prefer CI-4. He says that when CJ-4 oils are available in lighter viscosities, they'll offer very strong engine protection for gasoline engines.

--quote--
Does Chevron Delo 400 LE protect older engines as well as Chevron Delo 400 (API CI-4 Plus)?
Yes, Delo 400 LE is designed for use in new engines as well as older models and vintages, and when using both 15 ppm and 500 ppm
sulfur fuel. In pre-2007 engines, Delo 400 LE will provide the latest in protection, including improved wear protection, high temperature
oxidation control, and soot handling, which will enhance engine durability, performance, and cleanliness. As always, users should seek guidance
from their engine or vehicle manufacturer regarding specific service and oil drain recommendations.
--end quote--
http://www.delobike.com/Chev CJ4 Q_A.pdf


Ken
 
I would agree, Ken2, that the new CJ-4 oil will be good oil. Based on past experience in gas engine oil and articles I have read on the CJ-4 oils leads me to believe that the wear additive package on the CI oils will probably perform better. Of course you can only run this oil in NON Tier II, Level III engines. Since this oil has no tract record it is really hard to say with any certainly just how it will perform. Since I have had excellent results with several CI oils, I would recommend continuing to use them.

1 ton's will be subject to the new emissions standards. This is the entire reason behind the new 6.7L ISB and the stroked VT365 (now a 6.4L Twin Turbo – this is the Ford PowerStroke. Currently 6.0L which is 365CI) is to comply with those standards. The Ford and Dodge trucks will have active catalysts and particulate traps along with on engine emissions equipment. Cummins has released information regarding their new ISB engines which can be reviewed on their website. Navistar has also released information regrading medium duty diesels and their compliance with the next level emissions standards, however it's much more difficult to come by.
 
I think you'll see TBN's in the 8-10 range for the new CJ-4 oils, vs 10-12+ for the older CI-4+ formulations. This is based primarily in the reduction in sulphated ash that's required by this spec, ie a maximum of 1.0%. The phosphorus limit for CJ-4 is still a high 1200 ppm, so I don't expect a big impact there. However the zinc and phosphorus do contribute to the production of sulphur and metallic ash. So the actual amount of P in these new formulations will probably be more like 900-1100 ppm.

I see the biggest impact of CJ-4 being slightly reduced service intervals, where higher sulphur fuels are still being used. As Ken2 mentioned, they actually have more stringent performance requirements for wear/deposits.

TS
 
I still think my original statement stands as far as the original poster is concerned in that he can continue to run the oil he has without worry after the introduction of the new fuel. TooSlick, CJ-4 limits are 1.0% ASH/0.12 Phosphorus/0.4 Sulfur. CI-4 ASH limits are 1.2-1.5%/0.14 Phosphorus/ No limit on Sulfur. This is enough of a reduction to wait for someone else to do the real world testing. I do know that some of the deposit formation tests are much more stringent tests, but I’m more concerned with how the oil performs in service as a whole. The major deposit test is using a C13 with closed crankcase venting which loads the oil more. This is not a concern since I do not run any diesels that have CCV’s and most pre-07 engines do not have CCV’s (although a few do have them). Mid-life teardowns (for inspection) on current engines show that we are not having deposit problems with CI oils. In that light, I would continue to run good CI-4/+ oil until CJ oils PROVE their performance. I know what current oils work well and I’m not going to trust my 7-30 thousand dollar engines to new, unproven oil. When CJ-4 oil shows it works equally as well as current offerings I will switch happily. I’m sure that this oil will work fine, however most technological changes made for emissions result in reduced component life. After about a decade of customer paid R&D they finally make it work right.
cheers.gif
 
TooSlick, you’re speaking about an emissions engine again. Yes, I would also expect the lower ash to help with piston and egr deposits. However this is not as big a concern with a non-EGR engine. EGR valve usually fail (in a diesel engine) due to soot. In the mid-life teardowns I have been a part of on our 600k mile+ Cummins engines the only visible deposits on the pistons were on the crown from combustion gases.

ULSD will not lower soot levels. ULSD may significantly lower soot levels in older diesels, pre EGR. The EGR and Teir II, LIII engines will have an increase in soot due to the emissions systems. We have already had reps from Detroit, CAT and Cummins telling us about new OCI and soot loading problems we should be watching for. I grant that this is not the ULSD itself, but they fuel and new emissions systems go hand in hand.

I’ve read the press releases from Lubrizol and their claims. Again, I’m not totally disagreeing with you. However even some engine manufactures are hinting at increased top end wear with the newer engines. Since the valve train hasn’t changed much, if any, and the emissions equipment has no direct affect on the valve train I would assume it’s oil related as they hinted. Since I can’t produce any hard evidence you’ll have to take that for what it’s worth. Again, I’m sure that CJ-4 will prove to be a good oil, especially in the new engines. I’m not convinced that it will be the best choice for older engines. At least I’m not convinced yet, keep trying though
grin.gif

cheers.gif
 
Well, Lubrizol claims improved performance for their CJ-4 additive chemistry, but I guess we'll see like you said.

If anything I'd expect the reduced ash levels to reduce piston and EGR deposits.

The new ULSD fuel will only improve things from the oil perspective, since it will lower acid and soot levels in the oil. In fact, the 15 ppm, ULSD fuel is why I don't think you'll see a reduction in OCI's with the new oils for on-road use. Off road and Marine engines using higher sulphur fuels should probably stick with CI-4+.

TS
 
I have a 2003 Dodge with the Cummins, and it has a shorter oil change interval than the '48 state' engine due to the lower engine temps from being a 'CA' engine, as it was designed for lower NOx output. From what I've read the shorter OCI is due to greater soot output.
 
Yes, they run lower combustion temps on the new engines to reduce NOx. The reduced combustion temps along with the cooled EGR systems and now the post main event injections are all contributing to very high soot loading. A bypass filter that is capable of removing soot would be very helpful on the new engines, IMO. Cummins has revised their 2007 OCI several times, looks like they have settle on 15K mile normal service, 7,500 mile severe duty. From what I have seen of the Tier II engines, I would use UOA to determine whether 15K is really acceptable. The new oil will certainly have to have excellent soot dispersant capabilities.
 
JHZR2, I should have qualified my statements as applying to medium and heavy duty engines. The new electronic engines with EGR are worlds apart from the mechanical car engines of the past. At work we have already seen problems relating to EGR and new VGT turbo’s in the Tier II engines. Tier III has several components that will make the situations worse. I don’t doubt that the new oil will have excellent soot dispersant ability. My major concern is how well the wear additive package will perform. As I have said, we have already had “warnings” of increased top end wear from engine manufactures on the Tier III engines. I will admit that soot is a key factor here, as high soot will really beat up a crosshead – but so will in adequate EP adds.

UOA’s are always a good idea on diesel engines. No matter what vintage the engine or application a UOA is the only way to know what the best OCI’s is. I’m not willing to jump on the API bandwagon just because they say the new oil is better. My personal vehicles that are diesel’s will continue to get CI-4+ until CJ-4 proves it’s worth in older engines. If you have an 07 Tier III engine then I would use the CJ-4 and not look back as I’m sure it’s a good oil, but it may not be the best oil for older engines. But what do I know, I’m still trying to figure out how to turn the lights off in the turbo shop
grin.gif
 
very well... as I said, apples to oranges
cheers.gif


Though, out of curiosity, besides power density and duty, do you really think there is THAT BIG of a difference between an old mechanical _EGR_ engine of the past, and a new electronic EGR engine now??? Seems to me that if you couple the fact that EGR was done and still runs like new on lots of these old mechanical diesels (so you have some history), with the fact that electronic control seems to makea world of difference for the better when implemented right (as we seem to see on ga$$er engines), particularly in terms of combustion efficiency, cleanliness, and oil quality, then we have some sort of an analog. This is why I have to wonder if CJ-4 is really that bad for older engines running on cleaner combusting fuels, given that theyre designed for harsher conditions and higher loadings, for which older oils proved their worth in the LD world years ago with poorer controlled mechanical EGR engines... As for EP adds, it seems that the gas/car world is starting the validate the ability of non-standard EP adds to more than take up the duty, as compared to what used to be utilized. Of course apples to oranges again, and running the experiment will be the only way to tell... but it sure seems that we can start to learn some things from analogs in other universes, like my oil EGR-equipped MB diesel
smile.gif


Just curious... i love diesels, and love to learn what folks in the know think!

Thanks!

JMH
 
I see quite a few failures with the newer engines. Again, EGR works on passenger cars which see intermittent duty. The flow rate on the passenger car EGR systems (mechanical diesel) are typically not a high as the newer engines either. Right now there are 3 6.0L PowerStrokes, 1 VT365, 4 ISX's and 2.5 Series 60's that are in the shop for EGR related failures. EGR is not common on HD diesels. In fact it wasn't until a few years ago that EGR systems started appearing for EPA Tier II. EGR systems on HD diesels have been toyed with for quite a while, and yes, Euro engines have had them for a while but for the most part EGR were relegated to passenger cars since they fall into a different set of emissions standards. Now, with Tier III the EGR has to contend with double, or more, the flow rates that were introduced with Tier II. In addition, soot production is going to increase dramatically as a result of the excessive fuel being introduced into the exhaust as part of the catalyst management program.

I completely agree that non traditional EP additives are proving their worth in the gas engines/oils. GC is a good example. However it doesn't seem that many HDEOs have gone to non-traditional EP additives, they have just reduced the levels of the normal additives. (I haven't studied the additive types and levels at any indepth level however, just what I have gathered during my overview research of new spe'c). It just seems strange all the “hints” that are being dropped about increased wear where the EP additives are in play. Even some introductory information from Lubrizol danced around the issue, at least they did IMO. Our Cummins reps came right out and said they expect shorter life from rockers and crossheads with the '07 engines. We have seen in the past where formulation changes due to emissions are not always beneficial to older engines. SM oils seem to not provide enough protection in older pushrod/flat tappet engines – which I have seen on the fleet level and in Street/Strip type engines. In the case of gas engine oils, the API and the oil manufactures said the new oil is better and can be used in everything. They promptly cut or stopped production of the oil API service oils. I find it interesting that in the case of CI-4 and CJ-4 they did not do that. It cannot be totally customer driven either. From the fleet standpoint I would complain about have to use a more expensive oil in my entire fleet when only the '07+ engines require that oil, but it has never stopped the API or manufactures from forcing me to do this in the past.

I suppose my point is, how can we say that this oil is better than CI-4, and furthermore that it will service CI-4 engines with the same or better performance when the oil is just now being released? I simply cannot take the manufactures word when it comes to my own engines. On the fleet level I'm more than happy to run the CJ-4 oils in those engines that require it. As a test I plan on selecting several older units and running the CJ-4 oil in them. However, since we are getting 650K+ miles out of the current engines on CI-4 it will take a while for the test to run it course. Obviously UOA's are the best way to determine how well an oil, filter and intervals are performing. I really like the increased soot loading ability the new oil is supposed to have and the harder piston deposit tests are a bonus, but the deposit tests aren't as big an issue since most older diesels don't have CCV's. When CJ-4 has been in service in '07 engines and we see how it performs I'll be more willing to try it in other applications. Until that time I'll continue to do what has been working and producing good UOA's, and then you can tell me I told ya so.
grin.gif


JHZR2, I love dieles as well and have several of them. I'm working on swapping a Cummins 4BT into my Ranger pickup. If it doesn't smoke black...Take it back.
cheers.gif
 
apples to oranges to some extent, but how many EGR equipped MB (and perhaps vw) diesels have been run on CI-4 and lesser oils, and in particular in the MB case, to 500k+ miles, without issue?

Given the power ratings of the engines in the older (my 83 has an EGR, FWIW) cars, coupled with their weights, Id venture to say that the engines dont exactly have an easy life, though perhaps not as stressed in some situations, as a 1 ton pickup would see.

by all of this, in extension, I figure that:
-older egr diesels will now have an oil that is optimized for their operation
-non-egr diesels will have a relatively overbuilt oil, which should handle extended OCI fine, especially given less corrosive loading, and less amounts of polyaromatic coke and soot precursors in the fuel
-egr engines in newer high power density engines will have at least a semi-optimized (i say this because its relatively a first shot for this application, unlike the well-proven older EGR equipped diesels) oil that should protect well and can be extended with UOA validation.

In the end all, the name of the game is UOA with soot and TBN measurement, to determine how YOUR OCI couples to YOUR driving profile, engine and fuel quality. UOA is more important in a diesel than a ga$$er, and I dont see any good reason to not do them at least semi-regularly.

JMH
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top