Automotive

First thing to note is that with lower fuel prices, we can expect that driving may go up. Ever since 2007, total miles driven by consumers across the United States have been trying to get back on the growth curve established in prior years. Not only that, people are keeping their vehicles longer (not a new story in my case). The 2015 marketplace still has a significant number of passenger car and light-duty trucks that are vintage 2005 and older. I suspect that we will see a surge in driving for travel this year which could lead to an increase in new car sales as well as in motor oil sales.

Lower fuel costs go hand in hand with the rapid growth in natural gas as an energy source. Fracking has made a monumental change in energy availability including as a fuel for vehicles. The trucking industry has begun to look seriously at natural gas for vocational vehicles such as trash trucks. Natural gas is already used for bus fleets and delivery vehicles. Current engine oils are satisfactory for use in NG fueled vehicles and I dont think there will be a major push for different formulations at this time.

In the engine oil area, 2015 will probably be a year of incremental change. The next passenger car and heavy-duty engine oil upgrades, ILSAC GF-6 and PC-11, are moving ahead at what seems to be sub-glacial speed (tip of the hat to Norm Hunstad).

This is not atypical as both the user and producer groups want to make sure that they are getting what they desire out of the new categories. Most commonly, the producers (read motor oil industry) are leery of major changes in requirements and prefer a more incremental approach. They see new tests or major changes in limits for existing tests as creating more uncertainty. Of course, with uncertainty comes a greater chance of problems.

On the other hand, the users (engine builders) are concerned that the available oils will not provide the level of protection that is required with their latest engine designs. They want to develop and introduce new tests which are designed around their latest hardware, and rapidly take into account the greater and greater burdens being placed on them by government mandates and/or consumer desires.

As we start out 2015 some of the fog around GF-6 and PC-11 is starting to lift. For instance, the heavy-duty New Category Development Team has determined that the Volvo/Mack T-13 test will be the new oxidation test for heavy-duty engine oils. Previously, the Sequence IIIG test was used, which runs on a GM gasoline engine. With this change, only diesel-fueled tests will be used for the heavy-duty side of the market – no more gasoline-fired ones.

The Volvo T-13 and the Caterpillar Engine Oil Aeration Test, which are the two new engine tests for PC-11, are in the midst of matrix work to determine repeatability and reproducibility. Most of the tests have been run and the data from those tests are being analyzed.

One of the major hot buttons for PC-11 has been the introduction of a new fuel conserving version that is tied to a reduced high-temperature high-shear viscosity limit. At this time, it appears that an SAE 10W-30 product with HTHS ranging from 2.9 to 3.2 cPs at 150 degrees C will be the choice. Well also still have SAE 10W-30 with the long-established HTHS of 3.5 cPs.

How will consumers know which HTHS version of 10W-30 to buy and use? In my personal view, I think that the American Petroleum Institutes system for passenger car designations would be appropriate to adopt. Rather than creating separate and special HTHS category designations, why not use the same scheme as the light-duty side? The API Service Symbol (Donut) can carry category, viscosity grade and fuel economy performance. The only thing that would have to be developed is a Heavy Duty Certification Mark similar to the starburst logo. That way, the questions of fuel economy and category performance can be covered.

Another concern within the user ranks regarding PC-11 is the timing. When will API first license this API category? Even though new federal regulations come into effect in 2016, APIs proposed first-licensing date is currently well into 2017 – March. The users want licensing to begin closer to their regulatory deadline, in order to maximize the potential fuel economy benefits as well as improved emissions controls with their latest engines.

Unfortunately, the date slipped due to the delays in getting the new engine tests developed and into matrix testing. There is a one-year development piece in the overall timeline, imposed to allow lubricant producers to develop the new products.

Thats the heavy-duty side. Now lets turn to the passenger car and light-duty side. In what is really a unique situation, the newest North American light-duty engine oil category is being developed concurrently with PC-11. You know it as GF-6.

API restructured its system to make the passenger car category development and approval process more like that used on the heavy-duty side. A new group, the Auto Oil Advisory Panel, was formed to shepherd the new category. They have been working under the same government mandated timing as the heavy-duty group – and they are falling behind as well.

The situation with GF-6 echoes that of PC-11. There are a number of new and modified engine sequence tests being developed and, as usual, not everything goes according to the timetable. There have been delays in development and testing of the new procedures.

In addition the U.S. fuel economy mandates for passenger cars and light trucks are also going up, from the current average of 27.5 mpg, where it has been since 1990, to 37.8 mpg by 2016. The light-truck standard has to rise from 23.5 mpg to 28.8. That means we can expect even more fuel economy improving tactics such as lower viscosity (for instance, the recently introduced SAE 0W-16 grade), new base oil choices, and the never-ending search for new and improved friction modifiers.

In the area of engine tests, the Sequence IVA valvetrain wear test is being upgraded to the IVB with a change in engine supplier from Nissan to Toyota. The cam-wear limits will stay unchanged so thats probably an easy fit. The Sequence VID (fuel economy) is also undergoing some updates to become Sequence VIE. The plan is to have even more stringent limits on demonstrating and maintaining fuel economy benefits from the engine oil.

The Sequence IIIG, currently with a GM-supplied engine, is to be updated. The question at this moment is what will replace it. Will it be another GM engine or perhaps one from Chrysler? GM is creating a test for its own use, but the issue has been whether GM is willing to place that new test under ASTM auspices – which would mean management of fuel, test protocols and a mechanism for managing precision. GM would like to be able to update the test at will, to support its own Dexos engine oil specifications.

We will have two new tests from Ford: a low speed pre-ignition test, which measures the likelihood that an engine oil can cause destructive pre-ignition; and a timing-chain wear test, highlighting another concern for the auto industry.

As is always the case, the development of a test procedure is time consuming and requires appropriate reference oils to determine passing limits.

Both the New Category Development Team that is creating PC-11, and the Auto Oil Advisory Panel designing GF-6 are meeting on an almost monthly basis to get these categories in place as soon as possible. However, given the large number of new or updated tests to be set up, the two categories simply cannot come out at the same time. It is too taxing on the system to run test matrices, develop procedures, select appropriate reference oils, etc. Test stand availability is another limiting factor. Current timing seems to be settling in around February/March 2017 for GF-6 and fourth-quarter 2017 for PC-11. Can that speed up?

In another echo of PC-11, GF-6 potentially has a second tier of oils that will have lower viscosity to save fuel. However, this low-viscosity SAE XW-16 doesnt conform to the current high temperature, high shear viscosity limits of past categories. Remember that one of the imperatives of any API category is that it be backwards compatible to earlier categories, to avoid risk of damaging older vehicles. If a very low viscosity engine oil is used in older engine designs calling for earlier oil categories, there may be problems.

The only apparent solution is to have a second tier for GF-6 – and that means figuring out how to describe it for consumers. The AOAP is struggling with the problem at this point, without a clear resolution. And the API Lubricants Group must have its say in the matter as well. I think that it will take most of 2015 to find a solution.

So, there it is. 2015 will be a year of small, incremental action but with a lot going on behind the scenes. Sort of like the Wizard of Oz. Dont pull back the curtain just yet!

Industry consultant Steve Swedberg has over 40 years experience in lubricants, most notably with Pennzoil and Chevron Oronite. He is a longtime member of the American Chemical Society and SAE International, where he was chairman of Technical Committee 1 on automotive engine oils. He can be reached at steveswedberg@cox.net.