This isnt always possible, and its interesting to look back at some of the contrasts on this score – by reading, for example, the 2010 engine oil sequences from the European Association of Automobile Manufacturers (ACEA). Admittedly, one would need to be something akin to an anorak-wearing train spotter to be filled with a sense of genuine nostalgia. But its difficult not to be at least mildly impressed by the way some of the CEC (Coordinating European Council for the Development of Performance Tests for Fuels, Lubricants and Other Fluids) engine tests have stood the test of time. Sometimes, an interruption in parts supply or reference oil (or both) has been the cause of sleepless nights for test lab managers, test program sponsors and chairmen of CEC surveillance groups – committees assigned to watch over tests after their adoption. But by and large, these workhorses of the European engine lubes industry have mostly done what has been asked of them and more.

CEC-L-038-94, also known as PSA TU3M, is an interesting case in point. It is a valve train wear test which, as the last two digits of its CEC designation confirm, was signed-off by its development group 17 years ago in 1994. The TU3M has certainly not been without issues. Indeed, just this year, it was declared unavailable for a period, due to a shortage of camshafts. Although its days must surely be numbered, for now that situation has been resolved.

The CEC-L-078-99 Volkswagen TDI diesel piston deposit test is the latest elder statesman to be beset by hardware supply problems. Given the passage of time since both the TDI and TU3M engines were in commercial production, the occurrence of such issues can hardly be surprising. The fact that these tests are still around at all bears testament to the efforts of their respective surveillance groups and sponsoring OEMs.

Other tests, it could be said, have not enjoyed such longevity. On face value, the CEC-L-093-04 PSA DV4TD, measuring diesel soot control and piston cleanliness might be considered such a test. This test was adopted in 2004, and now the CEC has convened Test Development Group TDG-L-106 to bring forward a replacement based on the PSA DV6 engine. But far from being an example of CEC getting caught short, this transition from a test based on Euro IV emissions hardware to Euro V was anticipated, almost from the point when the DV4 was first mooted as a successor to the XUD11BTE.

Think about product life cycles for production engines in the field and compound this with the current rate of change in legislation-driven emissions calibration. Even if oxides of nitrogen and particulate emissions have been reduced to the point where they are becoming difficult to measure, the technology to deliver them is unlikely to stand still. And seemingly, there could still be a way to go on carbon dioxide.

The story of the DV4, therefore, has to be considered the more realistic scenario for test life expectancy, going forward. Indeed, it could be argued that some older tests have remained in the system beyond their sell by date, perhaps even imposing additive appetites or formulation constraints that are no longer strictly relevant to todays operating environments.

This argument may be devils advocacy, but it does give food for thought. First, it raises questions about the criteria that should determine when a test still serves a purpose and should remain in the sequences. Secondly, in these tough economic times, how should the system fund the vast expense of new or replacement tests, especially when – look again at the 2010 ACEA European Oil Sequences – so many like the older examples discussed above must be approaching end of life.

The first debate is arguably irrelevant, if there is not a funding mechanism of sufficient magnitude to address the second. CECs current consortium-based approach, used since the early 2000s, has worked quite well for the major oil and additive companies who can afford the club membership fees; not so well, perhaps, for those who cant. With up to six or seven new or ongoing developments to fund in the next three to four years, even the majors might look twice at the size of the upcoming bill.

The obvious solutions to this dilemma would be the use, where appropriate, of more ASTM tests (which predominate in the U.S.) in future ACEA sequences and/or tests jointly developed by ASTM and CEC. Neither of these ideas is new, though the latter is a culturally and logistically fascinating prospect.

Alternatively, this author wonders if CEC has talked to the European Commission about the possibility of assistance from its Framework Programme research and development support scheme, which includes something called the Green Car Initiative, a 500 million fund to help develop low-carbon vehicles by covering up to 50 percent of the costs for qualifying collaborative projects.

The case for modern low emissions engines requiring state-of-the-art lubricants can clearly be made and CECs modus operandi could actually fit rather well.