CJ-4 versus CF-2

[Paul H.]

Re: CJ-4 versus CF-2

I use Shell Rotella 15W 40 in my old Vettes. CJ-4 is what is most widely available now. Auto Zone carries the gallon containers in my neck of the woods (Mass.).

[Duke W.]

Re: CJ-4 versus CF-2

Here is a side-by-side compilation of phosphorous and ash content, in per-cent by weight:

BRAND..............Delo 400LE............Delo400LE...........Delo100...... ....Supreme.........Delo400
VISCOSITY.........10W-30................15W-40..............SAE30............various.......... .various
API SERVICE.........CJ-4....................CJ-4.................CF-2................SL...............CF/SL
PHOSPHOROUS....0.11...................0.12........ ........0.098.............0.078............0.116
ASH....................1.00...................1.00 ................ 0.76................0.80.............1.35

Almost there. Look at the sheet for Delo 400 Multigrade.

https://www.cbest.chevron.com/generated/MSDS/PDS7668690.PDF

It's a 15W-40 CI-4 Plus and the P concentration is 0.136%. Change the last column to Delo 400 Multigrade 15W-40 CI-4 Plus with its data, and the chart is complete.

This P level is the maximum that should be run in a road engine to avoid long term corrosion mechanisms that have been observed if the P concentration exceeds .14%.

Note that as P and Zn concentrations increase, so does the ash, which could lead to more rapid plug fouling on engines with high oil consumption.

This product is still preferred for older non-catalyst off-road diesels that still use high sulpher fuel, so it also has a higher Base Number to neutralize acid formation, but this high BN is not necessary for gasoline engines, nor is the very high level of P necessary for a vintage OE valvetrain, but neither will do any harm. Can you add another row with the BN data?

The Walmart SuperTech 15W-40 CI-4 mentioned earlier in this thread likely has a similar analysis (although I have never seen a data sheet), so for the price, it is a very good deal. I have also purchased this product.

Don't forget to change the Supreme API category to SM. With these changes the chart will show an excellent at-a-glance comparison of the various primary (first listed) API service categories.

Duke

[Joe C.]

Re: CJ-4 versus CF-2

Here is a side-by-side compilation of phosphorous and ash content, in per-cent by weight:



BRAND.....................Delo 400............Delo 400LE............Delo400LE.............Delo100.... .........Supreme............Delo 400 Multigrade
VISCOSITY................SAE30...............10W-30...............15W-40................SAE30...............various..... .............15W-40
API SERVICE..............CF/SL................CJ-4/SM..............CJ-4/SM...............CF-2/CF..............SM...................CI-4 PLUS/SL
PHOSPHOROUS.........0.116..................0.11... ...............0.12...................0.098....... .......0.078...................0.136
SULFATED ASH..........1.35...................1.00.......... ........1.00....................0.76.............. ..0.80.....................1.41


0.10% = 1000ppm

[Duke W.]

Re: CJ-4 versus CF-2

Here is a side-by-side compilation of phosphorous and ash in percent by weight and Base Number for various Chevron engine oil products. "Supreme" is designed for currently produced automotive spark ignition engines. All "Delo" products are designed primarily for various vintage and service diesel engines, but Delo 400LE and Delo 400 Multiviscosity are the best choices (among Chevron's engine oil products) for vintage spark ignition engines with sliding surface valvetrains because of their higher P concentration compared to SM-rated Supreme. Delo 100 (CF-2) is formulated for two-stroke diesels that have not been produced for at least a decade, but many are still in service (mostly in off-road and marine applications), so Chevron continues to offer a CF-2 specification product which dates to 1994.



BRAND...................Delo 400...Delo 400LE...Delo 400LE...Delo 100...Supreme...Delo 400 Multiviscosity
SAE VISCOSITY...........30..........10W-30........15W-40.........30.........various............15W-40
API SERV CAT...........CF/SL........CJ-4/SM.......CJ-4/SM......CF2/CF........SM............CI-4 PLUS/SL
BASE NUMBER...........10.1............8.7.............. .9.6............7.0...........8.0................. 12.2
SULFATED ASH, %.......1.35..........1.00.............1.00....... ... 0.76.........0.80.................1.41
PHOSPHOROUS, %....0.116.........0.11.............0.12.......... .0.098.......0.078...............0.136

0.10% = 1000 ppm


So what we have here is a good comparison of various currently available API Service Category engine oil products. Any other brand product with the same primary (first listed) API Service Category will have similar characteristics. The reason for using Chevron product data is that they offer the most comprehensive data, easily accessible on the Internet, for all API service category engine oil products.

Delo 400 Multiviscosity (CI-4 Plus) has a very high base number because it is designed for use with high sulfur diesel fuel, which is no longer legal for over-the-road use. Off-road only. Gasoline has low sulfur and does not need a high base number, but a high base number does no harm.

The most commonly available diesel engine oils from automotive parts and "big box" stores in the national brands is 15W-40 CJ-4, but Walmart's SuperTech 15W-40 is rated CI-4, so it's an excellent value since it is usually priced less than the national brand CJ-4s.

If you want a national brand CI-4 Plus or a 10W-30 CJ-4, contact a local distributor for the brand of your choice and ask them how you can procure the product.

Duke

[Brian T.]

Re: CJ-4 versus CF-2

http://www.roushoil.com/news_20080806.html

Try this!
Just came in a flyer to our shop recommending the 10W-30 or 10W-40 for "classics, hot rods, high zinc"

[Dick W.]

Re: CJ-4 versus CF-2

http://www.roushoil.com/news_20080806.html

Try this!
Just came in a flyer to our shop recommending the 10W-30 or 10W-40 for "classics, hot rods, high zinc"

Probably nothing more that an existing product relabeled and at twice the price of off the shelf CJ or CI oil.

[Patrick H.]

Re: CJ-4 versus CF-2

Probably nothing more that an existing product relabeled and at twice the price of off the shelf CJ or CI oil.

Actually, it's SL or SM rated.
Nothing special at all - except, likely, the price.

[Dick W.]

Re: CJ-4 versus CF-2

Smart marketing with all the buzz about oil for vintage vehicles. I have two vehicles in my collection that originally used a HD non-detergent, but seen to do well with Rotella 15-40

[Clem Z.]

Re: CJ-4 versus CF-2

i think this is more of a camshaft quailty problem than a oil problem. JMHO

[Michael F.]

Re: CJ-4 versus CF-2

Clem may be on to something, I have oftened wondered about camshaft and lifter quality now vs back in the day. my 93 chevy p/u with 350 has flat tappets and when I replace intake gaskets I will look at lifters and do measurement of cam....I have always just used QState, Valvoline, castrol 10-30 oil in it since new.

[Duke W.]

Re: CJ-4 versus CF-2

Even though there are hundreds of SB and BB aftermarket cam designs, all the flat tappet versions are ground on a single blank for each engine family provided by the CWC Division of Textron

My understanding is that the lobes are hardened by CWC, so that limits the amount of material that can be removed (and also increases grind time). If you grind beyond the relative thin hardened material near the surface, the cam probably won't survive. That's why Crane could not grind my "Special Mechanical Lifter" cam design. It had long duration and a wide LSA (like modern LSx cams), but the blank is cast for "traditional" narrower LSAs of vintage OE and early aftermarket cams.

GM cast a unique blank for each OE cam to minimize grinding. Then after finish grinding the lobes were hardened and Parkerized.

So, though you may be able to buy an exact replica of a vintage OE cam from an aftermarket cam grinder, the manufacturing process is different than OE.

As long as you stick to an OE design with OE valvesprings and C-category oil, there will likely be no problems, but reliability suffers when you get into aggressive dynamics and very high force/rate valve springs.

Duke

[Clem Z.]

Re: CJ-4 versus CF-2

parkerizing is a extra cost option from some aftermarket cam grinders

[Duke W.]

Re: CJ-4 versus CF-2

parkerizing is a extra cost option from some aftermarket cam grinders

Crane Parkerized the two "Special 300 HP" cams they ground to my specs. It was part of the deal, not extra.

Parkerizing, in particular, aids breakin and helps reduce infant mortality.

Duke

[Patrick H.]

Re: CJ-4 versus CF-2

Parkerizing, in particular, aids breakin and helps reduce infant mortality.

Duke

Really???

I'm sitting here studying for my every-7-year retake of the Boards and I hadn't seen this piece of info included in my Peds review.



Patrick

[Duke W.]

Re: CJ-4 versus CF-2

We used the term "infant mortality" in the aerospace industry. In particular electronic piece parts (at least back in the seventies) can exhibit a relative high failure rate early on. Then it settles down to a very low level, not rising again until end of life.

For spacecraft that were designed for long life on orbit or years on interplanetary missions, most electronic parts went through a "burn-in" to weed out these early failures.

Mechanical systems (engines and transmissions) and their individual components typically follow a similar pattern.

If a camshaft gets though its first few minutes to few hours of operation without problems, then it will usually last a long time.

Duke