Automotive

Danny Pridemore, Infineum’s industry liaison manager, said: “Infineum is ready with ILSAC GF-7A and GF-7B solutions for our customers ahead of first licensing on March 31, 2025. Like prior categories, we anticipate the North American market will quickly upgrade to ILSAC GF-7, and Infineum is primed to deliver.”  

Brent Calcut, Afton Chemical’s director of the Americas OEM relationship team, noted that “as with the transition to previous categories, Afton expects that most marketers in North America will be able to meet the requirements of ILSAC GF-7 at the time of its first licensing, demonstrating the industry’s readiness for this advancement.”

A major driver of the new category was the introduction of the new aged oil LSPI (low-speed pre-ignition) test, as there were concerns that the fresh oil LSPI test did not maintain protection throughout the oil drain. Development of this modified test began around the same time ILSAC GF-6 was introduced and detailed in the May 2020 issue of Lubes’n’Greases. The hope is that the new test will eliminate some warranty repair concerns due to LSPI issues, but sources noted that the vast majority of ILSAC GF-6 oils already passed the new test (at proposed limits). At least some observers expect little or no impact in the field, and some felt introduction could have waited. However, to Ford and other OEMs, this was a key driver of the new category.

As with every new performance category, fuel economy improvement is a key driver, and GF-7 is no different, as passing the Sequence VIE or VIF will be more of a challenge to meet the increased requirements. The debate that occurred during the development of the specification concerned delivering both improved fuel economy performance and piston deposit protection while still meeting the proposed timeline.

Ford and Stellantis felt that ILSAC oils should deliver similar protection as General Motors does in their dexos1 specification. They did not see it impacting the desire to increase fuel efficiency or prohibiting it from meeting the proposed timing. Japan OEMs did not see a need to increase piston deposit protection at this time. Technically, some components used to deliver higher levels of deposit protection are known to be a debit to fuel economy, and this was a reason for some to vote against raising the WPD limit. This argument was deemed non-persuasive, because while the comments are true, the additive companies demonstrated that targets for both could be met during the tech demo period for ILSAC GF-7. 

“A general trade-off has been observed between higher piston cleanliness ratings in the Sequence III engine test and Sequence VI fuel economy performance,” Pridemore said. “This was reported during the development of ILSAC GF-4 and noted in subsequent category developments. Components, such as dispersants and detergents, which improve piston cleanliness, may adversely impact fuel economy. Formulators understand this concern and select the proper type and concentration of components to deliver a balanced formulation.”

Delivering both fuel economy and higher protection was not a surprise, as we have seen many premium products—including dexos1—deliver increased engine protection over the years while meeting the proposed fuel economy targets. It should also be emphasized that base stock selection plays a major role, along with the different formulation approaches used by marketers, OEMs and the additive companies.

Actual test limits have increased by 10%-20% for retained FE performance over GF-6 for the key SAE viscosity grades in ILSAC GF-7. Piston deposit protection will increase from 4.2 to 4.6 weighted piston demerits at the same time for GF-7A but will not increase for GF-7B, which covers only SAE 0W-16 and is primarily used by the Japanese OEMs. It is worth noting that GF-7 will introduce a new sulfated ash maximum limit of 0.9. This may impact formulations, since ash-containing detergents that help improve WPD will be restricted by this new requirement. Ironically, it will likely have its largest impact on the most premium engine oils going forward, as they tend to have higher levels of ash-containing detergents.

Other changes are less impactful but include an improvement in MRV low-temperature performance by lowering the maximum value from 60,000 centipoise to 40,000 cP. It is worth noting that Ford tried to lower the MRV limit via the SAE J-300 specification but was voted down by the SAE committee due to its potential impact globally. Essentially, all current ILSAC products in use for North America today meet the limit. The chain wear test will see a slight reduction to its maximum limit, and new seal materials and limits have been introduced—again without any concerns or impacts to the additives used. A potential new gelation test, which was not ready in time for the new specification, is included as a rate-and-report item. This is likely not an issue, but there is always some risk that some oils will perform poorly. Then how do you handle this, since the product will still meet the specification?  It is possible that the test will not be approved by first allowable use! 

A key debate around this new specification concerned its impact on test capacity and hardware availability, specifically the Sequence VH sludge test and Sequence VIE/F fuel economy tests. If hardware runs short, will this advance a need for another new category and make GF-7 a short-lived category, or can GF-7 be maintained for at least four years? There is no complete resolution to this debate, although there are many actions that should allow GF-7 to last until 2028/29 after the introduction of PC-12, and many tests have projected life spans as late as 2037.

“ILSAC GF-7 utilizes the same engine tests as ILSAC GF-6, and the introduction of a new category will naturally increase the demand for engine testing. During the development of GF-7, independent test labs projected the lifespan of hardware based on robust historical data. Their confidence in these projections assures us that there is ample hardware to last through GF-7,” Calcut said. “OEMs are also actively engaged in identifying or developing replacement engine tests in parallel to GF-7 category development. The focus of ILSAC GF-8 should be on the performance improvements required for future engines, not on replacement engine tests.”

He added: “CLOG introduced replacement engine tests into ILSAC GF-5, as the previous tests ran out of hardware before GF-6 first licensing. There is precedence for doing this, if needed, even though it’s best to introduce new engine tests with a new category. However, a new category should never be driven by new engine tests; it should be driven by performance needs. The Sequence VJ is already in development to replace the Sequence VH, which is good. ILSAC still needs to identify how best to replace the Sequence VIE and VIF, and several options are being considered.”

Pridemore further noted that “the original ILSAC GF-7 request targeted an introduction in 2Q 2028 with intent to assist OEM compliance efforts for the proposed (now finalized) MY2027 – 2031 emission and fuel economy regulations. This date allowed sufficient timing and focus to address test life concerns, such as developing replacement for the Sequence V and Sequence VI engine tests, and continued enhancements of formulation technology to meet the desired performance targets. Quality engine test development is complicated and takes time, focus and resources. As ILSAC GF-7 qualification testing ramps up, the industry will increase test usage, and expected life dates may shorten. It’s critically important that we proactively protect the future viability of our lubricant qualification systems.
With ILSAC GF-8 still anticipated in 2028 to address test life concerns and other needs, the industry has significant work to complete in the next four years. Starting early is never a bad approach.”

It has raised some eyebrows that ILSAC decided against advancing lower-viscosity SAE grades, such as SAE 0W-8 or 0W-12, for GF-7 or the proposed GF-8 category. Japan OEMs do specify these grades today, so why would OEMs not want to cover them via the established API licensing system and the ILSAC Shield or another mark? 

(Note: API does allow you to license the S category portion but not to use the ILSAC symbol.)

In the short term, some Japanese OEMs will specify JASO GLV-1 oils for these lighter grades, but it is not clear how they will be monitored or deployed in the market. Some wonder if this is where the new IFC system may compete with API. 

“Though API allows API SP RC licensing of SAE 0W-8/0W-12 viscosity grades, limited read-across guidelines often require a core program to be run,” Pridemore said. “End users may choose to use JASO GLV-1 oils per OEM owner’s manual recommendations as deployed by marketers.” Time will tell, since volumes of these light viscosity grades are almost non-existent in North America today!

“Afton’s early support for GF-7 was driven by the benefits it offers. Afton believes in meaningful, manageable and regular category upgrades that support OEM needs,” Calcut said. “ILSAC GF-7 is a significant upgrade, especially for OEMs, as it helps them meet the recently finalized and demanding EPA fuel economy and emission regulations starting in model year 2027.”  

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.