CF-2 standard elimination

[bevans6]

With the upcoming elimination of the CF-2 API oil standard, the requirement for low sulphated ash content in DD 2 stroke oil is a concern.  I found this discussion on sulphated ash in API CJ-4 oils.  It seems that they will be able to meet the sulphated ash content just fine.  I know that's been discussed before on the board, but this had interesting information about the why's and wherefore's of sulphated ash as well.  The rest of the article is here:  http://www.machinerylubrication.com/article_detail.asp?articleid=1036

CJ-4 may meet the ash requirement for DD two strokes, but the flip side of the coin is to get there it reduces not only detergents but also zinc/posphorus additives like ZDDP somewhat.  So there are downsides to low ash content as well as upsides.


Brian

API CJ-4
API CJ-4 represents the latest in a series of engine oil upgrades for heavy-duty diesel engine oils. Development of API CJ-4 was completed in 2006 and finalized as API CJ-4 for licensing on October 15, 2006.

To ensure protection of the aftertreatment devices, chemical limits were set for the first time ever for heavy-duty diesel engine oils. The chemical limits for API CJ-4 target the engine oil's sulfated ash, phosphorus and sulfur content, commonly referred to as SAPS. These chemical limits include the following:

   *

     1.00 percent maximum sulfated ash (per ASTM D874)
   *

     0.12 percent maximum phosphorus (per ASTM D4951)
   *

     0.40 percent maximum sulfur (per ASTM D4951 or ASTM D2622)

In addition to these chemical limits, a volatility limit of 13 percent maximum as determined by the NOACK Volatility Test Method ASTM D5800 has been set for API CJ-4.

SAPS are found in or derived from components (additives and base oils) in engine oil formulations. These various components are used to help provide extended oil drain intervals, base number (BN) retention and to protect against wear, oxidation, corrosion and piston deposits. Although SAPS contribute significant performance benefits, they can cause problems in the 2007-compliant and future engine designs needed to meet the 2010 emission requirements if they are too high.

The most concern for proper functioning of the 2007-compliant emission engine lies in the impact sulfated ash has on aftertreatment devices such as diesel particulate filters.

Sulfated Ash
The term sulfated ash relates to the amount of metallic elements in engine oils, which are mostly derived from the engine oil's detergent and antiwear additive chemistry. These additive packages contain multiple components based on metals such as calcium, magnesium, zinc, etc. Because a 100 percent seal between the piston rings can never be achieved, a certain amount of engine oil will enter the combustion burn.

As the engine oil enters the combustion chamber and burns, its residue forms an ash-like material. This ash-like material contributes to deposits in the crown land above the piston ring as well as to deposits in the ring grooves. These deposits can lead to rubbing wear on the cylinder liner and cause the piston rings to not operate freely. Ultimately, as the cylinder liner-to-ring interface is compromised high oil consumption can occur.4 In addition to these deposits, inorganic compounds from the lubricating oil's additives can become oxidized during combustion and generate metal oxide particles. These particles can be carried downstream with the exhaust and collect on the diesel particulate filter. These ash particles cannot be removed by filter regeneration because they are not combustible. As the ash particles accumulate, they result in filter blockage that increases back pressure to the engine, increasing fuel consumption and decreasing power. Ash particle buildup also necessitates more frequent cleaning of the particulate filters by mechanical means such as compressed air or water-pulse methods.

An engine oil's sulfated ash content also directly relates to an engine oil's acid neutralization capabilities (BN), because most of an engine oil's BN comes from the metal-containing detergent additives. Generally, the higher an engine oil's BN, the higher its ash content and the greater its ability to prevent acidic corrosion in the engine. Fortunately, with the mandated use of ultra low sulfur diesel fuel in on-highway applications, corrosion from fuel sulfur will require less of a need for BN control and thus a lower ash content.

Industry-Focus---SAPS.gif

[luvrbus]

I am glad it is over with I have been telling you guys this for 2 years and
I have the wounds to prove it LOL   


good luck

[TomC]

Unfortunately- that article is two years old and not up to date.  Good Luck, TomC

[TomC]

Also- went to Chevron Delo oil site and Delo 100 in straight 20, 30, 40, and 50 weight is still available with no mention of it being discontinued.  Even if the CF-2 standard is eliminated, I'm confident that the oil will still be made as is for many years.  Good Luck, TomC

[TomC]

Shell Rotella has its' single viscosity CF-2 rated oils in 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 weight, with no mention of stopping production.  I don't quite understand the point of this post? Good Luck, TomC

[bevans6]

The point of the post was to present to the crowd some information that they might find interesting about what creates the sulphated ash content that we have been conditioned to look for when we select oil.  That's all.  Nothing sinister.  Just because API has stopped licensing the logo to manufacturers of oil doesn't mean they will instantly stop making the oil.  Or ever stop making it.  But a little information about what causes suphated ash to form doesn't really speak to discontinuation of manufacture of any oil in particular, does it?

BTW, not in any defence of what may indeed be an outdated article, but what is actually outdated in it?  Do you know of something inaccurate in it?

Brian

[HighTechRedneck]

It relates to this announcement from API:

http://www.api.org/certifications/engineoil/new/upload/CF_2noticelicensees.pdf

July 29, 2009
Dear Licensees, API Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System:

On February 1, 2010, API will discontinue licensing diesel engine oils against the API CF-2 specification. API's action to cease CF-2 licensing became necessary after the ASTM Heavy Duty Engine Oil Classification Panel (HDEOCP) notified API that one of the engine tests used to document CF-2 performance, the 6V92TA test, is no longer available.

How this action by API affects current and potential API licensees depends on the claims now made by the licensees and those that potential licensees might wish to make. Currently-licensed API CF-2 products will need to be either upgraded to a more recent diesel engine oil service category (for example, CH-4, CI-4, or CJ-4) or removed from the license. Specific information on how API's decision will affect licenses is provided below:

• After February 1, 2010, oil marketers will not be permitted to use CF-2 inside the API Service Symbol "Donut." Oils that only claim to meet API CF-2 will be removed from licenses on February 1.
• API has ceased licensing new oils against the CF-2 specification.
• Oils that include CF-2 as one of a series of engine oil categories claimed (for example, API CF, CF-2/SJ) will remain on the license after February 1, minus the CF-2 claim.
  Please note that API's Lubricants Committee is considering a ballot to cease licensing against the API CF specification.

If approved, licensing against CF will cease by December 2010.

In short, after February 1st even if an oil is formulated according to the CF-2 rating, it cannot include that in the API license ring.  I suppose if an oil company chose to continue to market a product that primarily targeted that market, they could label it with "formulated to meet the former CF-2 rating" down in the description somewhere.  But I expect we will see the CF-2 oils disappear.

As far as I'm concerned if Delo 400® straight 40wt really has been reformulated to an ash content similar to Delo 100®, and brought the viscosity index within spec, then there is no problem.  But the thing that bothers me is that both online and on the newest container of Delo 400® 40wt I have seen, it still reported the CF rating but not CF-2.  Now maybe they simply chose not to go to the expense of getting it rated CF-2 knowing that rating was on its way out.  Or as the memo stated, lack of testing rig availability.  

In any case, it sounds like soon CF-2 rated oil will not be an option for anyone.

[TomC]

Brian-what is outdated is there idea what 2010 emission controls would consist of.  Most are using a catlytic converter with particulate trap, then the Urea reaction chamber behind that.  Not the other two mentioned.  Good Luck, TomC

[buswarrior]

Just from reading the trade press over the last two years, the oil formulation ideas were swinging wildly until engine manufacturers chose a path and then started running tests, and then more adjustments needed to be made.

With the stunning amount of money having to be spent getting engine oils ready three times in a decade for diesel emissions upgrades 2003/2007/2010, there's not much left to  do any re-tro engineering to see if it works in an engine family that is considered by some to be the emissions anti christ, our Detroit 2 strokes.

Not enough money to be made, and there is political danger in being seen actively supporting outdated polluting technology.

However, I expect for as long as it pays them to do it, we will be able to get the good old stuff, except it won't be allowed to wear its API credentials, since there won't be any after February.

No worries.

happy coaching!
buswarrior