This is the first time Ford has developed a new oil in conjunction with engine architecture, said Robert Haigh of Ford in a presentation to the ICIS World Base Oils & Lubricants Conference in London on Feb. 24.

The new specification, WSS M2C948 B, was activated in January. It defines an SAE 5W-20 multigrade based largely on Europes ACEA C2 oil sequence. However, the ACEA C2 category does not currently include a 5W-20 viscosity oil, which Ford desired for its fuel economy benefits.

Ford also found that ACEAs standard fuel economy test (the Daimler M111) was not relevant to the petite EcoBoost engines hardware, which uses direct injection and turbocharging and delivers very high power densities. Nor was there good correlation with the ASTM Sequence VID fuel economy test used for North Americas GF-5 engine oils; that test uses a V-6 from General Motors, he pointed out.

Hence, WSS M2C948 B contains additional requirements for in-house tests for fuel economy and piston deposit control, said Haigh, who is a senior lubricants engineer based at Fords Dunton Technical Centre in Basildon, Essex, U.K.

The CO2 Puzzle

Fords 1.0-liter EcoBoost engine is a keystone in its efforts to meet fuel economy needs and stringent carbon dioxide limits, he noted. Its the latest in a lineup that includes 1.6- and 2.0-liter models with four cylinders. In addition to turbocharging and direct injection, this 3-cylinder version is loaded with fuel-saving technologies such as split-circuit cooling, a variable vane oil pump, variable camshaft timing and a bespoke, optimized engine oil.

Over the last 10 years, Ford has made big strides in meeting consumer needs, Haigh told the London audience. The company has boosted engine power 12 percent while cutting CO2 emissions by 25 percent across its European fleet. Fuel economy is a big sales draw, and front-of-mind when U.S. and European drivers make car-buying decisions, he indicated – but CO2 emissions are fast becoming the stick to fuel economys carrot.

In the United Kingdom, for example, higher CO2 emissions bring higher vehicle excise duties, so achieving CO2 can bring a key sales advantage.

Even more important, Europes Regulation 443/2009 has set target limits on average CO2 emissions for the new passenger car fleet, with each car manufacturers target based on the average mass of their new vehicle sales. By 2015, the entire fleet must average 120 grams or less CO2 per kilometer, and failure will carry heavy penalties. A car manufacturer missing its target by 5 g/km would pay a fine of 235 per vehicle sold, Haigh pointed out.

Ford, he added, is well ahead in the game. It expects to reach 127 g/km of CO2 this year in 65 percent of its European passenger cars, and to have 100 percent of its vehicles compliant by 2015.

We dont have one magic bullet to reach this goal, and will use a variety of technologies, but generally well be focusing on downsizing, he added. That makes the 1.0-liter EcoBoost, with just 114 g/km CO2, essential to its goal. Ford retooled its plant in Cologne, Germany, to make 350,000 of the engines this year, and another 350,000 units a year could come from a second EcoBoost engine plant opening soon in Romania.

No Compromise on Durability

Working with BP Castrol, Ford started with a list of key attributes for the new oil specification. The oil needed to offer a fuel economy improvement of 0.9 percent over current SAE 5W-20 factory fill, and be backward compatible with Ford Sigma and I4 Duratec powertrains. My key deliverable was that it offer no compromise on engine durability, he emphasized.

A critical part of the specifications development was creating an appropriate fuel economy test procedure. Ford researched a number of options, including friction rigs, steady-state dynamometers, transient dynamometers and chassis rolls.

Going in, Ford carried the assumption that standard industry fuel economy tests would not be adequate, for many reasons. First was scale: The 1.0-liter EcoBoost engine has only three cylinders, versus the 6-cylinder 3.6-liter GM engine used in ASTM Sequence VID, or the 2.0-liter, 4-cylinder Daimler engine of Europes M111 test. The latter two also are both naturally aspirated (not turbocharged), and use port fuel injectors, while EcoBoosts rely on direct gasoline injection.

Additionally, the EcoBoost engines deliver power densities of 113 to 125 metric horsepower (PS) per liter of displacement, while the Daimler and GM test engines generate 68 and 72, respectively.

Finally, the VID demonstrates fuel economy improvement versus a 5W-30 reference oil, and the M111s yardstick is a 15W-40. Haigh said Ford wanted to see improvement against its own current 5W-20 factory fill oil, not one of those heavier grades. In all, we saw no correlation between the 1.0 EcoBoost and the M111 and Sequence VID, he declared.

Creating a Test

That launched the company on a search for a new fuel economy test that was based on its EcoBoost powertrains, not earlier behemoths.

Ford insisted on an engine test rig with high repeatability; a transient operation that mimicked low and high speed torque cycles as experienced in the field; accurate controls for combustion pressures and temperatures; and fast-track implementation. The test also needed to show correlation with the standard European drive cycle (NEDC) used for measuring CO2 emissions.

Secondary requirements for the fuel economy test, Haigh continued, were flexibility (We wanted to be able to test our 1.6-and 2.0-liter engines on the same facility) and manageable operating costs.

The transient dynamometer gave the broadest coverage of all these requirements, he said. It uses a full engine, has accurate controls, and can run a simplified version of the NEDC. Fortunately, BP Castrol happened to have a transient dyno, and could make it available to us, he added.

A number of formulations were tested on the transient dynamometer equipped with a 1.0-liter EcoBoost engine and then again with the 1.6-liter version. These formulations included baseline ACEA 5W-30 and 5W-20 oils and three candidate oils: a GF-5 5W-20 made with all-API Group III base oil; an optimized 5W-20 that was also all-Group III; and an even lighter weight polyalphaolefin based 0W-20.

Generally, all of the candidate oils showed good fuel economy gains compared to the baseline ACEA 5W-20 oil, but the GF-5 oil was not quite as good as the others, so we decided not to pursue GF-5 any further, Haigh commented. Also, the PAO based 5W-20 showed only minimal differences against the Group III formulation, and so was nixed for cost-of-ownership reasons.

A Co-branded Result

The winning oil – a 5W-20 based on Group III and fortified with viscosity modifiers – demonstrated good performance on both EcoBoost engine sizes, and became the model for writing the new WSS M2C948 B specification.

Oil meeting WSS M2C948 is now the recommended service fill for all European Ford vehicles fitted with gasoline engines (except the Ford Ka), and is mandatory for vehicles fitted with 1.0 liter EcoBoost engines, Haigh stressed.

In his presentation, Haigh showed the result of the collaboration with Castrol: a one-liter bottle of co-branded Ford Castrol Magnatec Professional 5W-20 oil. The container label prominently says the oil is For Ford EcoBoost Engines, and displays both companies logos, with Fords blazoned first.

Any brand of oil that meets the new specification may be used in Ford Europes cars, and warranties cannot be conditioned on using a certain brand, he acknowledged, but Castrol is Fords longtime close ally for oil development. And Castrol is Fords recommended supplier in Europe.

Fords interval for oil changes with the new product will be 20,000 kilometers or one year, Haigh said; it may extend that to 30,000 km for commercial vehicles.

Asked whether Ford will offer the in-house fuel economy test to ACEA for inclusion in its oil sequences, he said that its unlikely to be of interest to the group since its tailored so narrowly to the EcoBoosts needs. Were finding you need a specific fuel economy test for each engine, he concluded.