Anew membership organization was launched in October 2013 to validate the performance claims and technical specifications of lubricants in the United Kingdom. Backed by the countrys trade association for the sector, the Verification of Lubricant Specifications (VLS), an independent arbitration service, has adjudicated almost fifty cases brought to it by companies concerned about product claims.

The Market Need

When VLS was set up, there were concerns that some less scrupulous organizations were making implausible product claims that could cause poor performance for end users applications. Even though the vast majority of products being sold in the U.K. are high-quality products supported by substantiated performance claims, there was a real risk of some organizations bringing the market into disrepute. This situation had to be addressed.

The role of VLS is to protect the end user by ensuring that a lubricant conforms to its claims. At the same time, VLS needs to preserve the trust that end users place in the industry. While the vast majority of lubricants sold in the U.K. make valid technical and performance claims, there remains a need to ensure the continued confidence of customers in those products.

Lubricants and lubrication are technically complex, and over the years the expectations of original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) in lubricant performance has risen exponentially. As regulators mandate ever lower emissions from automotive applications, OEMs expect lubricants to perform under harsher operating conditions in meeting their customers needs for improved fuel economy and enhanced performance.

Lessons Learned

Thirty-six months may seem a short time in the life of an organization, but there is no underestimating the impact that VLS has had on the market. Adjudicating 49 case complaints has taught some valuable lessons.

First, far and away the largest number of cases investigated relate to automotive applications. This is hardly surprising because the sector remains one of the largest areas of the market in the UK. The increase in new product development and technological advances has meant that changes in the sector have never been as accentuated as they are today.

VLSs case complaints concerning automotive applications have related to implausible performance claims or even products that do not meet their own stated technical specification. One example is the level of sulfated ash found in some lubricants. To meet certain requirements of European lubricant standards determined by the ACEA (the OEM association) in their 2012 categories, engine oils must contain very specific levels of sulfated ash, phosphorus and sulfur (SAPS). However, some products on the market claim to meet the requirements of a number of different categories, each with their own clearly defined ash limits. Obviously, an engine oil cannot be both a low-SAPS and a mid-SAPS product at the same time.

Keeping Up with ACEA 2016

Last December saw the launch of ACEAs 2016 engine oil sequences, bringing with it new engine tests and new lubricant requirements to account for the wider use of biofuels and the move by some OEMs to specify ultra-low viscosity SAE 0W-16 products. Every four years OEM requirements for lubricants change as their products and engine technology develop. Keeping ahead of sector developments is just one area where lubricant manufacturers have to constantly raise their game and ensure their products remain fit for purpose.

Previously, when the ACEA 2012 sequences became mandatory for all claims in December 2014, some lubricant companies were caught short by the changeover. Old stock that remained on the shelves when the new sequences became mandatory left some manufacturers exposed. By publishing our views on ACEA 2016 earlier this year, VLS has hopefully contributed to a smooth transition when ACEA 2016 becomes mandatory in December 2018.

VLS supports an open and transparent market that allows lubricant manufacturers, blenders and marketers to compete on a level playing field. Such a market is characterized by the availability of a wide range of products and healthy competition that operates in the wider public interest.

Across the sector, lubricant companies have made claims against OEM specifications for products that are not formally approved but, nevertheless, use market general technology to meet stringent motor manufacturer requirements. Marketing claims for these products have proved an area of interest to VLS.

It is important that customers know what they are buying when they purchase a product that claims to meet OEM requirements or to be suitable for use in a given application. Often, lubricant companies will be advised by their technology provider or additive company of the claims they can make for a specific formulation.

It is important that any product claim has the support of a technology provider and is backed by sufficient evidence, made available through a supporting technical data pack. For this reason, VLS published guidance on the use of marketing claims, with the aim of bringing clarity to the sector on what constitutes fair and permissible claims and how a valid claim can be supported with the right technical evidence.

The number of cases for industrial lubricants has been far less than for automotive applications. VLS has been involved in adjudicating a number of issues such as those relating to agricultural lubricants.

One area where VLS has yet to receive any cases concerns metalworking applications. This is to be expected because metalworking formulations are developed based on the exacting requirements of users working in close collaboration with lubricant companies.

Some international standards govern MWF composition, such as those relating to ISO standards. However, the majority of metalworking fluids are developed through years of methodical research by manufacturers paying close attention to their customers needs and adhering closely to machine manufacturer expectations.

Where We Are Today

VLS regularly receives calls from additive companies indicating that they have been contacted by companies with whom they have previously not been in contact. This has to be good news for the sector if our actions have directly led to an increased awareness of the right technical formulations needed to make valid performance claims.

The interest shown in the service of VLS by other countries and associations has been encouraging. For instance, ACEA, the lubricant technical association of Europe, have recently announced the introduction of a European-wide policy on product compliance, and we await further details with interest.

At the start, VLS saw an influx of cases, but the number has decreased recently as initial issues have been resolved. Adjudicating over a large number of complex cases has led to more certainty in the market concerning what today constitutes a permissible claim.

ATIEL has also issued guidance for the ACEA 2012 engine oil sequences, showing the unlikely combination of claims and what can and what cannot be claimed for a lubricant. We believe this strengthens the impact that VLS has on the market. Only with the continued support of lubricant companies and the relevant authorities can we continue to undertake our role supporting greater compliance in the sector.

VLS is not out to penalize or punish companies that get it wrong. Rather, our role is to continually encourage and support greater compliance in the marketplace by identifying relevant issues and working with companies to improve the compliance of their products with the relevant industry standards and customer expectations.

As we face the continuing uncertainty in political and economic environments across Europe and beyond, we are proud to contribute to a sector typified by healthy competition and a wide product choice that operates to the very highest technical standards for the benefit of all our customers.

Andrew Goddard is chairman of Verification of Lubricant Specifications, based in Chesham, Bucks, United Kingdom. Contact him at admin@ukla-vls.org.uk.