A team of industry volunteers formed a work group to consider the need for an additional standard with the goal of having a recommendation that can be implemented by the end of this year. At the kickoff meeting, API listed the potential issues that can be impacted by the hybrid duty cycle. These include start-stop strain on engine and oil performance, lower oil temperatures due to the ICE not being in continuous operation, water emulsion and sludge formation due to a potential increase of water content or fuel in the lubricant. 

API acknowledged that a key driver for this initiative was concern from oil industry members about a “level playing field” for the marketing of lubricants targeted for hybrids, given the absence of standard specifications to base claims against. Many suppliers now offer products promoted specifically for hybrids, and the number is growing. 

API also reviewed existing tests that could be incorporated into a specification – either as is or with new limits. The organization planted a flag in the ground that any new specification for hybrid vehicles should have a base technology meeting ILSAC GF-7 and API SQ levels of performance. 

The work group has three chairmen: Ford’s Mike Deegan, Idemitsu’s Scott Rajala and Luc Girad representing the Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association. At the initial meeting, many comments and questions from stakeholders were raised. Original equipment manufacturers noted that they do not want a new specification unless it brings real value and improvements versus today’s ILSAC oils. Toyota said it has had hybrids in the market for decades, and that existing ILSAC engine oils meet its needs. It should be noted that OEMs have addressed and made similar comments in the past. 

Some participants questioned the urgency to develop a spec by year end, suggesting instead that the issue be considered as part of ILSAC GF-8. Rajala recalled the experience of API SN Plus, which was introduced in 2018 as a supplement to API SN, to add requirements for protection against low-speed preignition. It is worth noting, however, that SN Plus was longer in development than the timeline proposed for hybrid oils. Other participants noted that GF-8 is already behind schedule and warned that adding a new test for hybrid performance could cause further delay. 

Some attendees raised concerns that a short timeline could require early reformation of GF-7 oils, which were only introduced on March 31, this year. Forcing reformulation would undoubtedly kill consideration of adopting a hybrid spec by the end of this year! If a hybrid specification does not impact GF-7 oils but is potentially just another luggage tag for all oils, why not wait until ILSAC GF-8 since consumers won’t see any technical benefit for a new specification. 

Normally, the request for new lubricant quality starts with a needs statement coming from OEMs to solve a specific issue of enhance protection or performance – for example to improve emissions system compatibility or fuel economy performance. The need for enhanced lubricants for hybrids was not contained in prior needs statements (GF-7 or older), nor has it currently been asked for in the GF-8 needs statement. 

From my own view as a former formulator, claims made on existing hybrid oils appear to be easily copied by any marketer with the advice of their additive partners.  Why is this different than oils targeted for older vehicles or 4×4’s or than synthetic oils – all of which can have different performance characteristics. 

This is not the first time industry has looked at hybrid engines and whether they needed special lubricants – or that it has been discussed in these pages. The April 2015 issue of Lubes’n’Greases included an article, “Smoothing the Path to a Hybrid Future,” that discussed a significant field testing program by Infineum attempting to correlate lubricant performance with ILSAC GF-5 quality fluids. In May 2019, Lubrizol published  a story on its website, “Hybridization and the Ghost of Aunt Minnie,” reminding of work done long before hybrids to manage a low-mileage driving cycle consisting mostly of short trips. Though mildly named after the idea of an elderly woman driving just to and from church, the cycle was considered severe since the engine never properly warmed up. Low temperatures, sludge and wear were a concern, and this led to the Sequence VD and VE engine tests. and strict oil change recommendations for vehicles driven in this manner. Not to say that the driving cycles are identical, but it should be fair to assume that OEMs have considered these factors with their current recommendations to use standard ILSAC oils and using the right viscosity to maximize efficiency while protecting the engine over the life of the vehicle. 

“What data exists from the OEMs to demonstrate that special lubricants are needed?” retired ExxonMobil formulator Gordon Farnworth, who served 25 years as chairman of the Sequence V Surveillance Panel, said in an interview. “Historically, requirements are submitted to industry in the form of a needs statement. OEMs should understand if lubricants are adequate for the hardware they lubricate and if oil or hardware improvements are necessary. They should have data based on warranty repairs that could indicate potential issues with either or both, but without data there should be no need to rush to develop a new specification. 

“Low temperature, sludge and wear were concerns for vehicles in the Aunt Minnie driving cycle, and industry developed the Sequence VD to address those concerns. Given advanced hybrid technology, there is really no comparison today to the hardware and engine designs from back in the 1970s and ’80s. Any new testing specifically for hybrids should be based on strong field correlation between any new test and the engines they need to protect today.” 

Based on comments from OEMs and several industry sources, there does not appear to be an urgent need to develop a new specification today, but it does not rule out incorporating any special needs for hybrid engines into the basic ILSAC specification under the timeline for GF-8. If there is technical need by the OEMs, that would give industry some time to develop testing and correlate it back to the field. Based on industry experience over decades, doing something by year end means choosing existing tests and deciding if they are adequate with little time to ensure a proper field correlation. It should be noted that the Ant Minnie duty is still a real duty cycle for current ICE vehicles, which means many of the concerns noted should already be addressed by the current ILSAC specification. These include the key concern that hybrid engines do not consistently run at higher operating temperatures. 

While some marketers may be concerned about level playing fields, API has always delivered a minimum performance specification to satisfy most vehicles on the road. API has not intervened on what products marketers offer to consumers or how they do so. Today’s API standard already does not cover all needs. For example, GM uses its dexos1 trademark and specification to supersede API ILSAC specifications. One can even argue that for synthetics, dexos1 has become the minimum performance specification in the market. Manufacturers of several vehicles – including Daimler, BMW and VW – recommend oils meeting other special OEM specifications that supersede API, but they are not as prevalent as GM vehicles are in the North American car park. 

Industry should be cautious so as to not confuse the end user, and marketers should have the freedom to build additional performance beyond the minimum standard. While this could be for hybrids, it could also apply to other vehicles such as lubricants targeted for older engines or even synthetics.  I would like to note that I am not aware of a single OEM recommending a different oil for vehicles with over 75,000 miles than what is recommended for the first oil change. 

Industry also needs to be mindful of how product proliferation is taking its toll and how one-size fits all products can be beneficial for most service providers and end users.  There is no single size given the many different SAE viscosity grades, which alone may cause confusion for the end user. It is easy to conclude that any product designed for the general market and used for hybrids will need to cover both hybrids and standard ICE engines of the same viscosity grade. 

In summary, I encourage listening to the OEMs and building lubricant specifications that meet the needs of most of the car park. I would avoid developing rules regarding marketing claims that are up to the marketer to substantiate and leave that to marketers and their customers. Ensuring the needs of the many and growing fleet of hybrids is certainly an area that API and its members should discuss, but addressing those as part of ILSAC GF-8 might be the wise thing to do. 

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.