Automotive

That said, there should be no question that these oils will provide continued outstanding engine protection for old and new vehicles and will meet industry needs until ILSAC GF-8, when a more significant upgrade is expected. Under the best circumstances—such as a lower viscosity grade—most consumers won’t be able to see improvements in fuel economy and engine protection. But performing routine oil changes as recommended by OEMs will ensure engines are protected for the life of the vehicle, maximize fuel economy and minimize emissions. 

On March 31, 2025, GF-7 officially became the leading ILSAC performance level, and API SQ became the corresponding alphabet inside the API donut on the product label. There was relatively minor marketing promotion from major brands. The biggest issue for many may have been using up and changing labels on bottles. It should be noted that the ILSAC Starburst and Shield are evergreen symbols, and for the next year the symbols can represent both API SP and SQ.  

Post-March 31, 2026, the symbols can only define API SQ. Valvoline issued a press release on March 31 announcing the upgraded lubricant quality and what it means. A simple Google search at the time of this article saw many companies with articles or statements about the new quality level, but for most consumers the effort and potential value has little meaning, which is disappointing given the effort to make these high-quality products. 

Lubricants have become a B2B activity as opposed to B2C (business to consumer). Most consumers buy an oil change service and have become brand agnostic, although there are about 20%-25% of do-it-yourself consumers who do have interest and tend to be loyal to their favorite brand. As a consumer with three ICE vehicles, I buy a service but do check the pedigree of the engine oil used. 

It will take some time for the newly labeled inventory of packaged goods to make it onto retail shelves, but bulk material can be labeled and sold as GF-7 starting March 31. As someone who monitors this, one would expect small, packaged goods to see API SQ in the label after a few months once the first available use date passes. Being first has never been the most important consideration for service providers or consumers when deciding what product to buy. 

So GF-7 is business as usual, and the industry should take a bow for a job well done. The major stakeholders, including additive companies and marketers, are proficient at implementing these performance upgrades as required by ILSAC and OEM members. The test laboratories also enable the additive companies to run programs and develop the lubricants in a timely manner. I have seen these transitions take place since the 1990s for both gasoline and diesel engines, and while some have been harder, everyone seems to get to the finish line at about the same time. Much of this success can be attributed to the rules in place that allow approvals for the many base stocks available to marketers that must be used to deploy the products and viscosity grades utilized in the marketplace. 

Specifically, base oil interchange (BOI) and viscosity grade read across (VGRA) have been around since the beginning of the Engine Oil Licensing System developed by stakeholders and first implemented in 1993. Charles Baker, formally of ExxonMobil, who participated in and chaired the BOI/VGRA task force in the 2000s, was a key participant in establishing the protocols necessary to develop these rules.  

“These rules are both complex and expensive to develop and can take significant time to finalize and accept but ensure that all final products properly meet the new standard in a timely fashion once approved,” Baker said. “Much industry cooperation is required by all the stakeholders, including additive companies, base stock suppliers, lubricant marketers, OEMs, along with the engine labs that develop and supply the necessary hardware to conduct the tests.” 

He added: “At least three additive technologies—along with known passing, failing and borderline reference oils—are used to validate the testing. These additives are then formulated with select base stocks to bracket the range of performance and tested by all the test labs that want to be qualified to certify commercial programs using these rules.” 

For GF-7, there was no significant effort needed for BOI/VGRA. But in past categories, such as when an existing test changes or a new test is added, it could take several years to complete all the work—a step that was not required for ILSAC GF-7 and explains why GF-7 products came to the market relatively quickly compared to ILSAC GF-6.  

Another tool available to Industry is the Single Technology Matrix (STM). An STM is not base oil interchange but is a statistical model that can be developed by additive companies to minimize testing and speed up product deployment. While BOI exists for almost all tests, it does not exist for Sequence III and its evolution of tests. It’s fair to debate whether a BOI could be created, but industry debated long ago whether it can be applied to the Sequence III oxidation and deposit test. OEMs wanted to see at least one engine test run for all base stocks. Given that base stock can have a significant impact on oxidation and deposit protection, the Sequence III was the OEM-desired test.  

“Base stocks are not created equal and can differ in quality and performance, and the Sequence III is a test that makes BOI more difficult to develop and ensure that oils meet the desired performance across a wide range of base stocks available to industry,” Baker said. “While BOI was desired, it was not attempted, given that OEMs and many stakeholders felt that at least one fired engine test was not an unreasonable request to approve a given base stock.”  

Still, as the number of base stocks globally grew and engine tests costs were already quite expensive, there was a desire to introduce some efficiency. In 2002, LZ introduced the concept of STM to minimize the amount of testing that must be done. An STM is a model that requires a range of passing Sequence III engine tests to be qualified around a single additive system. It looks at various parameters to create a “window” that could allow a new base stock to be approved without needing to run a formal engine test. This was originally developed for Sequence IIIF and IIIG and more recently updated for Sequence IIIH. 

Industry veteran Phil Scinto, fellow, Lubrizol Data Science and Statistics, commented on these rules: “Lubrizol considers both API BOI/VGRA and STM valuable strategic testing processes in efficiently assessing the capabilities of fully formulated oils against performance requirements. Given that there is not enough test capacity to test all combinations of DI, grade and base oil, these processes enable us to have a chance of meeting the timeliness requirements of our customers and new categories.” 

When asked about investment costs, he said: “The savings in test costs is a nice bonus but pales in comparison to program efficiency. We also feel that these processes enable a better evaluation of lubricants, especially in the case of STM, than running a single engine test. Do base oils impact Sequence IIIH? Absolutely, but so do covariates such as lab, stand, piston batch, piston size, ring batch, fuel batch, etc. If one tries to evaluate the impact of a base oil in a single test, that impact is confounded by all those covariates mentioned, plus the inherent variability of the test. However, if an actual dataset of related formulations is analyzed for the purpose of generating a prediction of performance, as in STM, that prediction greatly reduces the impact of those covariates, and the inherent variability as compared to an actual engine test. So STM not only saves time, but it can be a better evaluator of performance than running a test, bearing all the covariates, once the dataset is in place. We find deploying STM extremely useful. STM has improved our efficiency while also allowing us to better understand the impacts of base oil features and characteristics through systematic and strategic testing on a single technology and its closely related minor formulation modifications.” 

From my own experience, an STM can be an excellent tool to expand the number of base stocks covered by a general market additive technology marketed to a wide variety of customers in North America and around the world. Of course, what sounds easy is not, because it takes a lot of planning to develop the right model, and the tool can take more time to develop than what is needed to meet customers’ commercial needs. Additive companies must also consider that some marketers and base stock suppliers may want their specific base stock to have real and not modeled data, and their stock may or may not be the best to model. Today, we must consider that the range includes at least Group II and III base stocks across a wide range of viscosity grades to fully evaluate capability for both STM and BOI/VGRA efforts. 

For now, GF-7 has arrived, and the industry will turn to ILSAC GF-8, which is not likely to happen before late 2028 and will have at least a new sludge and fuel economy test. Both will require new BOI/VGRA tests once they’re developed.

Steve Haffner is president of SGH Consulting LLC. He has over 40 years of experience in the chemical industry, primarily with Exxon Chemicals Paramins and Infineum USA. Contact him at sghaffn2015@gmail.com or 908-672-8012.