[sohccammer427]

It's a CK-4, (also meets ACEA E9) Per spec sulphated ash is <= 1%

For ACEA C3 is specked for <= .8

So a CK-4 could be not more that .2% higher in ash. Not a significant amount.

 

[JeffreyG]

So a CK-4 could be not more that .2% higher in ash. Not s significant amount.

When you say "It's only 0.2 percentage points more ash" it sounds insignificant. When you say "It's 20% more ash" it sounds like a lot.

Be careful comparing small absolute numbers.

 

[6speedTi]

From what I have read, in Australia, this same Colorado truck, same 2.8L engine, comes from the factory with 5W40 Dexos2 in it, not 5W30. The hotter climate over there makes you say “hmmmm.....”

Actually it's because they drive on the left side of the road. 😆

 

[sohccammer427]

I would also recommend Mobil Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40 as an option. I can get it locally for $21/gal, Mobil 1 TDT is $33/gal at Advance and $24/gal when Walmart has it.

That's an excellent price for that oil. Mobil Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40 is one of the best.

 

[DieselDrax]

That "based on" is carrying a lot of water though. I worked directly on a project with the VM Motori 2.8L engine in 2001 and I've been to their plant in Cento several times. You can kinda-sorta see the VM pedigree in the LWN, but the engines don't share a single part.

That's because the A428 didn't exist in 2001, you didn't work on the 2.8 that the LWN is based on. They actually share a number of parts, the LWN does have a different cylinder head, fuel system, turbo, but they do share a lot of parts.

I'm not sure the Jeep 2.8 CRD would even be very close to the LWN, including the fact that the emissions rules in 2005-2007 were completely different.

So there isn't much comparison from those engines that I would put stock in. I would say that the GM XLD28 and LWN engines at the least are likely very close to each other (the LWN is essentially a US compliant version of the XLD).

You haven't done much homework then, or are basing what you saw 20 years ago to the LWN which is not valid. The A428 came out in 2010.

Things I've been wondering about. Why did GM depart from using CJ and then CK oils in the LWN? If it was fuel consumption driven, why not use FA-4?

I guess what I'm asking is, why did GM go down the path of creating the Dexos2 label?

FA-4 didn't exist when the LWN came out, dexos2 oils are also licensed which means $$$ for GM. 5w-30 CK-4 isn't particularly common and API oil specs are primarily a North American spec, the LWN is a global engine so for a 5w-30 that means ACEA C3 or ACEA E6 oils. ACEA C3 are very common and that is the spec that dexos2 is based on. The manual also states that ACEA C3 oil can be used in place of dexos2. So, product availability, supply-chain management, and licensing all had a hand in which oil was used. Why wasn't 5w-40 CK-4 spec'd? Fuel economy. 5w-30 CK-4 either didn't exist or was hard to find when the LWN came out and is still hard to find today. Fuel economy isn't an issue with the 6.6 because the EPA doesn't require fuel economy ratings and doesn't apply CAFE standards to those trucks due to their class/GVWR. CAFE requirements do apply to our trucks.

Final thought, the more I look at these oils the more I realize the viscosity label on the jug (5W-30, 0W-40) is nearly meaningless. I can find 5W-30 spec oils that are thicker at high temperature than 0W-40s. I's say the starting place for the LWN is to look at the listed parameters of the AC Delco 5W-30 Dexos2. That at least was what they used in development. From there one can decide if a candidate oil is thicker or thinner at 40C, 100C, and 150C, which is about the only data universally available.

If you're looking at HTHS numbers those are not the normal operating temperature viscosities and if you ever saw 150C oil temps (302F) then the oil is the least of your worries. HTHS numbers are showing the oil doesn't shear down with extreme temps. The "W" viscosity rating isn't referring to a viscosity, it's just referring to how low of a temperature the oil can be without exceeding cold cranking viscosity limits. The -XX viscosity is at 100c (212F), and you won't find an Xw-30 that is the same viscosity as an Xw-40 at 100C because of the way the SAE viscosity ratings work.

 

[DieselDrax]

When you say "It's only 0.2 percentage points more ash" it sounds insignificant. When you say "It's 20% more ash" it sounds like a lot.

Be careful comparing small absolute numbers.

20% higher ash limit in the oil doesn't translate into 20% higher ash in your DPF. Be careful when comparing things that can't be compared.

 

[JeffreyG]

That's because the A428 didn't exist in 2001, you didn't work on the 2.8 that the LWN is based on. They actually share a number of parts, the LWN does have a different cylinder head, fuel system, turbo, but they do share a lot of parts.
You haven't done much homework then, or are basing what you saw 20 years ago to the LWN which is not valid. The A428 came out in 2010.

Well, the Liberty CRD was sold from 2005-2007, so that predates 2010.

All I'm saying is that the LWN engine comes from a long backstory of engines going back to a really different 2.5 liter I-4 engine made by VM and used in the Chrysler minivan and XJ in Europe. That 1990's VM engine was really different......PLN FIS (not common rail), wet liners, pot heads, and a tunnel crank.

The 2001 engine I worked with had the same short block as the Chryslers, but now had a single aluminum head (4V) and Bosch common rail. That engine was starting to look like the LWN, but still shared no parts.

Along the way, there was the 2005-2007 CRD, later 2.8 engines used by Stellantis, and the GM XLD and then LWN engines. My expectation is that the Stellantis and GM engines are not all that similar. I mean.....different fuel system alone and you are talking about completely different engines at heart because the FIS and combustion design are the core of any engine.

If you're looking at HTHS numbers those are not the normal operating temperature viscosities and if you ever saw 150C oil temps (302F) then the oil is the least of your worries. HTHS numbers are showing the oil doesn't shear down with extreme temps. The "W" viscosity rating isn't referring to a viscosity, it's just referring to how low of a temperature the oil can be without exceeding cold cranking viscosity limits. The -XX viscosity is at 100c (212F), and you won't find an Xw-30 that is the same viscosity as an Xw-40 at 100C because of the way the SAE viscosity ratings work.

Internally I usually hear the oils referred to by their HTHS as a shorthand.....so FA-4 is often called "the 2.9 HTHS oil" while CJ-4 was "the 3.5 HTHS oil"

What I was referring to in terms of the XW-XX ratings was something I noticed just perusing Mobil One offerings. For comparison here I'm going to just give three numbers 40C / 100C / HTHS
Mobil One ESP 0W-40 = 69 / 11.8 / ?
Mobil One Delvac ESP 0W-40 = 90 / 14.6 / 4.1
Mobil One Delvac ESP 5W-40 = 84 / 13.8 / 3.8

I biggest thing that jumps out at me here is how significantly different the 40C and 100C viscosities are between two Mobil One 0W-40 products.

The second thing that jumps out at me here is that the M1 Delvac 5W-40 is a little bit thinner than the 0W-40 at all three temperatures. I guess a layperson walking in would expect the two to be about the same, maybe the 5W-40 being a bit thicker at lower temperature. Anyway......just kind of interesting stuff.

 

[JeffreyG]

20% higher ash limit in the oil doesn't translate into 20% higher ash in your DPF. Be careful when comparing things that can't be compared.

There is certainly variation between oil consumed / ash content / DPF ash finding rate. But there is no good reason to believe that a 20% increase in ash content, all else equal, would not lead to a 20% increase in ash finding rate in the DPF.

GM says "Use an oil with 1% or less sulfated ash" doesn't mean that every ash level be it 0.6% or 1% is then equal. I mean, here we are in a thread with people debating whether this 0W-40 is better than that 0W-40, but then we want to pretend that a 20% or 40% difference in ash content will make no difference whatsoever. That's not likely and does not match my experience.

 

[DieselDrax]

Well, the Liberty CRD was sold from 2005-2007, so that predates 2010.

All I'm saying is that the LWN engine comes from a long backstory of engines going back to a really different 2.5 liter I-4 engine made by VM and used in the Chrysler minivan and XJ in Europe. That 1990's VM engine was really different......PLN FIS (not common rail), wet liners, pot heads, and a tunnel crank.

The 2001 engine I worked with had the same short block as the Chryslers, but now had a single aluminum head (4V) and Bosch common rail. That engine was starting to look like the LWN, but still shared no parts.

Along the way, there was the 2005-2007 CRD, later 2.8 engines used by Stellantis, and the GM XLD and then LWN engines. My expectation is that the Stellantis and GM engines are not all that similar. I mean.....different fuel system alone and you are talking about completely different engines at heart because the FIS and combustion design are the core of any engine.

Fuel system doesn't determine bearing tolerances and other specs used to determine recommended oil viscosities, so...you're off in the weeds. Come back on topic.

Internally I usually hear the oils referred to by their HTHS as a shorthand.....so FA-4 is often called "the 2.9 HTHS oil" while CJ-4 was "the 3.5 HTHS oil"

What I was referring to in terms of the XW-XX ratings was something I noticed just perusing Mobil One offerings. For comparison here I'm going to just give three numbers 40C / 100C / HTHS
Mobil One ESP 0W-40 = 69 / 11.8 / ?
Mobil One Delvac ESP 0W-40 = 90 / 14.6 / 4.1
Mobil One Delvac ESP 5W-40 = 84 / 13.8 / 3.8

I biggest thing that jumps out at me here is how significantly different the 40C and 100C viscosities are between two Mobil One 0W-40 products.

The second thing that jumps out at me here is that the M1 Delvac 5W-40 is a little bit thinner than the 0W-40 at all three temperatures. I guess a layperson walking in would expect the two to be about the same, maybe the 5W-40 being a bit thicker at lower temperature. Anyway......just kind of interesting stuff.

40c is not the temp used to determine the "W" (Winter) oil rating, so your temps when comparing 0W and 5W oils is irrelevant in terms of the "W" rating. An SAE 40 oil at 100c would land between 12.5 and 16.3 cSt. Mobil 1 ESP 0W-40 showing 11.8 cSt @ 100c? That's not an SAE 40 oil. Rather, that's not what Mobil 1 says the viscosity is at 100c, not sure where you saw that. Mobil 1 says it's 12.9 @ 100c.

If none of the oils fall out of grade based on their HTHS numbers then the rest is largely irrelevant, the oil is within the the SAE spec and doesn't fall out of grade. How the oils land within their grade is the definition of being pedantic and it's threads like these that turned me off from engaging in oil threads and largely why I stopped trying to find the "best" oil, it's just a waste of time these days. They're all good as long as they are correct for the application.

 

[JeffreyG]

Rather, that's not what Mobil 1 says the viscosity is at 100c, not sure where you saw that. Mobil 1 says it's 12.9 @ 100c.

That would be me transposing the 5W-30 and 0W-40 ESP data.

 

[DieselDrax]

There is certainly variation between oil consumed / ash content / DPF ash finding rate. But there is no good reason to believe that a 20% increase in ash content, all else equal, would not lead to a 20% increase in ash finding rate in the DPF.

There's a good reason why... oil isn't the only source of ash in the DPF. The DPF regen turns soot from fuel into ash. That never leaves the DPF. Both CJ-4/CK-4 and ACEA C3 oils are DPF safe. Worrying about a 1.0% vs 0.8% limit in the oil is making a mole out of a molehill regardless of your repeated "BUT IT'S 20% MORE" statement.

I'm out. This thread is over the top with the pedantic posts and hyperbole. Have fun!

 

[JeffreyG]

There's a good reason why... oil isn't the only source of ash in the DPF. The DPF regen turns soot from fuel into ash. That never leaves the DPF. Both CJ-4/CK-4 and ACEA C3 oils are DPF safe. Worrying about a 1.0% vs 0.8% limit in the oil is making a mole out of a molehill regardless of your repeated "BUT IT'S 20% MORE" statement.

I'm out. This thread is over the top with the pedantic posts and hyperbole. Have fun!

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to be pedantic. I spent a decade developing diesel aftertreatment systems and I have quite a bit of experience in looking at what DPFs are full of and where it came from.

The rest of it is simply my curiosity. I've always worked in combustion, controls, and aftertreament and I am not an expert in oils but I have been tangential to the topic frequently.

 

[CleverUserName]

HTHS is the most important factor in an oils application. It’s the viscosity measured at the main and rod bearings, which is the High Temp High Shear (HTHS) area. HTHS is also the primary factor in measured oil pressure. The API weight grading ignores an oils density, which is the primary factor in its HTHS. Hi viscosity index, Ester based oils, with a density of ~ 0.90 will have the HTHS of a grade higher.

So a 30wt would have the HTHS of a 40wt and a 40wt would have the HTHS of a 50wt.

The 10w40 I’m using has a density of 0.89 and 100c viscosity of 13.3 cSt. I have higher oil pressure than when using 5w40 Delvac (old CJ-4) version which had a density of 0.85 and 100c viscosity of 14.7 cSt.

In this example above, you can use a 5w30 in place of a C3 5w40 and a 15w40 in place of a 20w50.

A Euro style 0w40 is completely different than a HD 0w40. Most HD 0w40 will have a HTHS of 4.0 or higher. A high density 0w30 could be substituted for a Euro 0w40 as they would share a similar HTHS.

Well, the Liberty CRD was sold from 2005-2007, so that predates 2010.

All I'm saying is that the LWN engine comes from a long backstory of engines going back to a really different 2.5 liter I-4 engine made by VM and used in the Chrysler minivan and XJ in Europe. That 1990's VM engine was really different......PLN FIS (not common rail), wet liners, pot heads, and a tunnel crank.

The 2001 engine I worked with had the same short block as the Chryslers, but now had a single aluminum head (4V) and Bosch common rail. That engine was starting to look like the LWN, but still shared no parts.

Along the way, there was the 2005-2007 CRD, later 2.8 engines used by Stellantis, and the GM XLD and then LWN engines. My expectation is that the Stellantis and GM engines are not all that similar. I mean.....different fuel system alone and you are talking about completely different engines at heart because the FIS and combustion design are the core of any engine.



Internally I usually hear the oils referred to by their HTHS as a shorthand.....so FA-4 is often called "the 2.9 HTHS oil" while CJ-4 was "the 3.5 HTHS oil"

What I was referring to in terms of the XW-XX ratings was something I noticed just perusing Mobil One offerings. For comparison here I'm going to just give three numbers 40C / 100C / HTHS
Mobil One ESP 0W-40 = 69 / 11.8 / ?
Mobil One Delvac ESP 0W-40 = 90 / 14.6 / 4.1
Mobil One Delvac ESP 5W-40 = 84 / 13.8 / 3.8

I biggest thing that jumps out at me here is how significantly different the 40C and 100C viscosities are between two Mobil One 0W-40 products.

The second thing that jumps out at me here is that the M1 Delvac 5W-40 is a little bit thinner than the 0W-40 at all three temperatures. I guess a layperson walking in would expect the two to be about the same, maybe the 5W-40 being a bit thicker at lower temperature. Anyway......just kind of interesting stuff.

 

[RamchargerMan]

I use Pennzoil Euro L 5-30 Dexos 2. It's 19.99 a gallon at my local Walmart. I use a Wix filter and then Fram everything else. It's the best bang for your buck I've seen around. I'm so cheap I even only buy the 5qt jugs and just measure out the last quart (lol). I do an oil change every 3-4 weeks because of a long commute. So I have a lot of this stuff stocked up. Great discussion all.

 

[SLUG]

After seeing this video I'm thinking of using Crelm and filling the tank with Shrill.

Very Informative testing with some very cool additives;

Otherwise been using Castrol Edge.

 

[JeffreyG]

Circling back to this thread......I do want to say that I tend to defer to OEM specs because I work for an engine OEM and I know that we do speciify very good solutions to our customers for very good reasons. We really don't want our customer's engines to fail, and I bet GM doesn't want to see your 2.8 fail either.

I did chat a bit with our in house oil expert. She liked the Valvoline 5W-40 MST for the Duramax. I asked her about something like Delvac 5W-40 EST. She didn't see a lot of reason to run an oil that was not recommended by the OEM.....but that's how she thinks too. I mean.....she doesn't want our customers ignoring her recommendations either. But really......her take was that the MST was a great spec and given pricing, pretty hard to beat.

 

[DB Cooper]

Is Valvoline still making a 5W40 Dexos II oil? I can't find it anymore?

 

[JeffreyG]

Is Valvoline still making a 5W40 Dexos II oil? I can't find it anymore?

Yes, Valvoline 5W-40 MST Synpower Full Synthetic Motor Oil is available and has Dexos2 certification.

 

[DB Cooper]

The Walmart I was buying the Dexos II Valvoline from only has the 5W40 European car formula now. No Dexos II cert on that bottle.

Everytime I go into that Walmart, I alwasy check to see if they have the Dexos II Valvoline only to be disapointed.

 

[DieselDrax]

Is Valvoline still making a 5W40 Dexos II oil? I can't find it anymore?

Yes, Valvoline 5W-40 MST Synpower Full Synthetic Motor Oil is available and has Dexos2 certification.

Valvoline had said roughly a year ago that they were not going to make the C3/dexos2 oil anymore. It used to be on the shelves of my local Meijer but it hasn't been there for a while. The product number that used to be for the ACEA C3/dexos2 oil is now for the European formula that is no longer ACEA C3 or dexos2.

@Bwilliams1848 can chime in with what Valvoline had said since he's the one that reached out initially.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk