Numerous oil marketers have their CJ-4 offerings in place already – the first ones showed up in the spring – but Oct. 15 marks the first date that containers may display the CJ-4 designation within the API trademarked donut symbol.

Greg Shank of Volvo Powertrain recently repeated the reasons for this new upgrade: New emission standards for heavy-duty engines are to be phased in between 2007 and 2010. Engines meeting these new standards will be equipped with advanced emission control technologies, including diesel particulate filters and in most cases exhaust gas recirculation. The new CJ-4 performance category will address the unique needs of these new engines and protect older engines as well, he said, while enhancing the life of the emission control system as required by regulatory compliance.

CJ-4 products represent a steep investment for the engine oil industry, with development costs climbing well into the millions of dollars. More was spent on candidate oil testing, with each formulation needing to pass a battery of engine and bench tests totaling more than half a million dollars for one pass.

Adding to the difficulty was a clampdown on the amount of sulfated ash, phosphorus and sulfur that may be used in the new oils. Although phosphorus has been limited in passenger car engine oils for more than a decade, CJ-4 marks the first time that heavy-duty engine oil formulators faced such a chemical box, which engine builders say is necessary to protect emissions aftertreatment devices.

By far the single biggest expense in developing CJ-4 was matrix testing to ensure the repeatability and reliability of three new engine tests: the Mack T-12 test, which measures ring and liner wear, bearing corrosion, oxidation and oil consumption; the Cummins ISB, which measures valvetrain wear; and the CAT C13 test for oil consumption and iron piston deposits. In all, matrix testing cost more than $5.5 million, a burden shared by API, the American Chemistry Council (which represents additive companies), the Engine Manufacturers Association, and a handful of independent and in-house test laboratories.

Because CJ-4 was completed on time, oil and additive companies were able to complete a great deal of testing well before first licensing. According to Registration Systems Inc., test starts for CJ-4 candidate oils peaked in March and then eased off.

Now its up to customers to buy and use it. API CJ-4 oils are more expensive to produce due to their higher additive and testing costs, and the heavy-duty engine oil market can be highly competitive. Shell Lubricants, which markets the Rotella line of diesel oils, expects that versus todays prices, API CJ-4 oils could be 10 to 15 percent higher in cost. Others have made similar projections.

How good is it?

CJ-4 is the most robust API oil category ever developed in the U.S., asserts Jim McGeehan of Chevron Global Lubricants, chairman of the ASTM Heavy Duty Engine Oil Classification Panel where the new specification was hammered out. His group began work on CJ-4 in September 2002 and completed it this past January, after accepting five new engine tests and setting limits for a total of nine fired engine tests and six bench tests.

Even as that work was under way, McGeehan acknowledged the difficulty of getting a new quality upgrade through the ASTM developmental process – where forward motion is always balanced on a knife-edge with energy-sapping slowdowns. Firm timelines had been imposed by diesel engine manufacturers, and if the ASTM panel couldnt produce the upgrade on time, Shank had forewarned, EMA would simply bypass McGeehans panel and complete the upgrade outside of ASTM.

So early on, McGeehan adopted a five-word motivator for his Panel: We will deliver on time. Over the course of the new oils development, he recited this mantra at least once in every meeting, often multiple times.

And that is just what happened. Under McGeehans prodding and guidance, the ASTM panel produced CJ-4 in time to coincide with the introduction of the 2007 model year engines.

Was it worth it?

Dale Carroll is North American heavy-duty product manager at additive supplier Lubrizol Corp., which participated throughout the ASTM effort. His company, he said, very strongly supports the new API CJ-4 category and has invested significant financial and human capital in making this specification a reality. As a performance category, CJ-4 is the most comprehensive, robust and expensive upgrade I have seen in my 20-plus years in the business.

The new oils improve valvetrain protection, keep modern diesel engine pistons cleaner, control oil consumption better, and enhance protection against soot-related viscosity thickening. Just as importantly they enable the required emissions reductions brought about by aftertreatment devices and ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel.

Carroll cautioned however, At this point in time it is probably too early to tell whether or not CJ-4 has been worth it. That will depend on how quickly the market upgrades to the higher-performing CJ-4 lubricants, whether or not the OEMs continue to stand behind this upgrade as they have done so far, and to a very great degree on the longevity of this category.

If we find that six to 18 months from now we need a CJ-4 supplemental category, then clearly it will not have been worth the effort.

ExxonMobils Steve Kennedy co-chaired the Diesel Engine Oil Advisory Panel, which along with the ASTM panel was centrally involved throughout CJ-4s development. From the oil giants perspective, Kennedy said, the key industry working groups have done an outstanding job developing the new CJ-4 category and delivering it on time. This new category balances the need for strong engine performance while still taking exhaust after-treatment durability into account through the use of compositional restrictions. The extensive engine and bench test requirements in CJ-4 define a very high level of performance exceeding earlier API categories in several key areas, such as valvetrain wear and piston deposit protection in particular.

Kennedy added that developing and launching a comprehensive specification like CJ-4 could not be achieved without excellent cooperation from all industry stakeholders. ExxonMobil continues to support the activities that enable the development of balanced, technically sound standards. We believe that having the systems in place to do this type of work is in the best interest of all involved parties.

OEMs, happy at last?

Greg Shank co-chairs the Diesel Engine Oil Advisory Panel with Kennedy, and chairs EMAs Lubricants Committee. He has been acutely aware of the critical importance of this quality upgrade and its deadline. EMA views CJ-4 and its development as a significant success, he said. EMAs improved performance requirements were met and a chemical box was defined for aftertreatment compatibility. In addition, backward compatibility for legacy engines was achieved.

Shank too injected a note of caution: We will not know if the chemical box is correct for aftertreatment until oils and engines are in the field for a year. In addition, a Turbo Charger Deposit Test is not currently available and we will need one for engines with closed crankcase ventilation.

He concluded, Cooperation of all stakeholders was excellent and the category was delivered on time. EMA is appreciative of and thanks the oil and additive industries.