The American Petroleum Institute gave the thumbs-up May 30 to the launch of a robust new gasoline engine oil category, API SM. Its Lubricants Committee voted by a wide margin to begin licensing the new oils four months from that date, on Sept. 30.
Even so, a surprisingly sharp debate arose around the issue just a few days later, when the Lubricants Committee gathered in Cincinnati for its regular semi-annual meeting. Although the committee twice had voted that first licensing could begin four months after SM’s approval date – once informally by telephone conference on April 27 and then in the formal written ballot which closed May 29 – several members sought to reopen this issue.
Ethyl is concerned that four months’ time for first license of API SM is not sufficient to schedule all the engine tests required to cover all viscosity grades, the company’s Tom Cousineau said in Cincinnati. Sequence IIIG test availability in particular could be very tight, he said regarding General Motors’ new engine test for wear and oil thickening.
Infineum’s Joan Evans also expressed her company’s concern, saying, Six months is the minimum time required to complete programs qualifying non-ILSAC grade oils in the additive package and base oil combinations desired by our customers. ILSAC grade oils are the five low-viscosity grades (0W-20, 0W-30, 5W-20, 5W-30 and 10W-30) that meet the additional requirements of North American and Japanese automakers. All other grades are non-ILSAC.
The opposing side was argued equally strenuously. If we extend the time period now, we are penalizing marketers that have been diligent in developing their programs. Why punish them? asked Fran Lockwood of Valvoline.
Moreover, she continued, adding in the one-month ballot period, we’ve actually had a five-month period beyond approval.
Lubrizol’s Lew Williams also argued for the Sept. 30 launch. We haven’t noticed any problems with testing capacity, he said. No tests are out-of-control and the IIIG Surveillance Panel hasn’t reported any problems.
A motion that would have had the effect of reopening the issue failed by a margin ofseven to six.
Still, the issue is subject to appeal and the Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association is promising to do just that. In an alert to members yesterday, it said it was sending a strongly-worded objection to API over the four-month period between ballot approval and first license date and would urge the API Lubricants Committee to reconsider its decision. ILMA said its objection is based on concerns with SM’s phosphorus and sulfur limits and base oil combinations, and over the availability of engine test stands needed to qualify candidate oils by Sept. 30.