New GF-5 Vehicle Lubricant Standard Approved

Written by Bob Chabot | www.nastfenews.org | Saturday, 13 February 2010 11:13 

CARCHITECTURE 
New GF-5 Vehicle Lubricant Standard Approved

GF-5, a new oil standard developed by the International Lubricant Standardization and Approval Committee (ILSAC), received final approval on December 22, 2009. The approval paves the way for the Oct. 1, 2010, introduction of new lubricants for gasoline- and diesel-powered automobiles, at both the OEM factory-fill and aftermarket servicing levels.

ILSAC says that automakers in the United States, Japan, Korea and Canada are expected to adopt GF-5 immediately. In Europe, where the European Automobile Manufactures Association (ACEA) specifications are primarily followed, GF-5 requirements are expected to be adopted as a minimum, and possibly have more specifications added. To view a copy of the new GF-5 specification, click here.

The solution matrix: Regulation, emerging technology and advanced lubricants
New GF-5 oils will improve the function and performance of the new engine and emission designs and help ensure compliance with new government regulations. GF-5 specifies the minimum performance requirements for both engine sequence and bench tests, as well as chemical and physical properties for engine oils for spark-ignited internal combustion engines.

Noncompliance penalties are already in place, spurring manufacturers to improve lubricants as part of the overall solution to fuel economy and lower emissions.Jurisdictions are also looking at what is being done elsewhere that could be applied locally. For instance, U.S. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations allow original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to be fined $5.50 per tenth of a mile per gallon under the EPA-certified target value, multiplied by the total volume of those vehicles manufactured for a given model year.

From an emissions perspective, beginning in 2012 in Europe, OEMs face a fine as high as 95 Euros per gram/kilometer traveled CO2 excess, multiplied by the carmaker's annual output. If a similar rule was adopted here, that translates to approximately $220 per gram/mile traveled CO2 excess.

Adapting to regulatory changes efficiently requires many industry segments — original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), equipment manufacturers, oil marketers, lubricant additive companies and others — to cooperate by using common specifications and performance standards. This cooperative innovation and implementation benefits both industry participants and the consumers they serve.

Downsized displacement, high-output engine designs that achieve improved power, fuel economy, durability and lower emissions are replacing larger, less-efficient engines. Increasingly, 'city-sized' cars and alternative drivetrains and fuels are being introduced. Meshing with new automotive technology, GF-5 will result in lubricants that further reduce exhaust gas emissions, while improving fuel economy and fuel economy retention. More elaboration on the spider diagram.

GF-5: Equal or Better Performance
"Oil quality is critical to improved fuel economy and emissions reduction," explains Robert Stockwell, a senior engineer at ConocoPhillips. "OEMs want fuel economy first and foremost, plus emissions system protection, oil robustness, turbo coking protection, cam phaser protection and general engine protection."

GF-5 oils equal the performance of GF-4 oils when it comes to volatility, oxidative thickening and wear protection. For all other performance parameters - emission system durability, seal compatibility, fuel economy, E86 rust protection, E85 emulsion retention, engine sludge protection, piston cleanliness, and turbocharger protection - GF-5 clearly surpasses the older GF-4 spec.

To attain the required improvements to GF-5 performance parameters, lubricant manufacturers will have to include new ingredients. These additives will:

• Improve phosphorous retention (ZDP) to enable emission system durability and maintain engine protection.
• Increase levels of organic/inorganic friction modifiers to improve and retain fuel economy.
• Enhance emulsion and rust protection for vehicle running on E85 (ethanol-based) fuel.
• Allow greater seal compatibility to help ensure seal longevity and prevent oil leaking in older vehicles.
• Enable a movement towards lower viscosity oils that enable better fuel economy.

Lower viscosity GF-5 oils, such as 0W-20 or 5W-20, will require lubricant formulations to incorporate more Group III Base Oils, which include other additives, such as polyalphaolefin and molybdenum disulfide, in viscosity modifiers (VMs) and pour-point depressants (PPDs).

VM additives control the temperature-viscosity relationship of engine oils, but are susceptible to shear degradation within engines. GF-5 requirements will necessitate VMs that provide good fuel economy and high-temperature deposit performance. Because PPDs play an important role in managing both new and used low-temperature properties of finished oil, the GF-5 specification requires them to ensure fail-safe low temperatures performance.

"GF-5 will cover 80 percent of all new vehicles in the United States in 2011 plus all existing cars," says Mayur Shah, global technology manager for the Lubrizol Corporation. "But there are tradeoffs between fuel economy and robustness. A shift to lower viscosity grades will be driven by fuel economy, and base oil choices will change."

Upgrades in performance aren't free, nor without risks
Performance-improving additive packages will require new technologies at higher costs. The higher costs of these additives will not only have to be offset by realized performance but also be accepted as valid by motorists. For example, molybdenum currently costs between $22 and $38 per pound, whereas zinc dithiophosphate (ZDP), the most common anti-wear additive in use today currently sells for less than $1 per pound.

In the past, engine sequence and bench tests have been based on a range of base oils and additive technologies already proven to have satisfactory performance in service. Since GF-5 requires the introduction of new additive packages - a significant departure from existing past practice - new testing regimens, revised to reflect the changes needed to achieve the enhanced performance parameters, will be used. Examples include:

• The Sequence VI-D engine test, developed to measure the fuel economy performance of engine oil, has been revised to reflect the modern engine designs (e.g. the 3.6 liter GM V-6) used in the majority of vehicles today.
• The methodology, test length and calculation for the Sequence III-GB, which evaluates engine oil impact on catalysts used in emissions control systems, now tests emissions control system protection via an analysis of how much phosphorus remains in used oil, with anticipated phosphorus retention limits expected to be somewhere between 78 to 80 percent.
• Two new tests specifically developed for GF-5 to optimize seal compatibility and engine oil robustness

The service trades and consumers can expect new GF-5 product costs to rise as a result of increased licensing, royalty, material and development costs. For the right to sell certified products that bear the American Petroleum Institute's (API) donut and starburst logos, the lubricants industry currently pays API an annual license of $1,250 and a royalty of $0.0015 per gallon (assessed only after the first 1 million gallons). New testing that is developed and implemented may also result in an increase in cost.

In the case of GM's unique Dexos oils, licensed producers will pay GM a minimum $1,000 annual fee for each Dexos product, plus a $0.36 royalty for every gallon of Dexos sold. In addition, Dexos lubricant manufacturers must invest in new equipment and tooling and ensure their products pass new tests - costs that can exceed $180,000 per line of Dexos, according to Shah.

The automotive aftermarket has cause to be concerned
The divergence between GF-5 and Dexos, as well as the possibility that other OEMs could follow suit, has created a "Catch-22" situation for lubricant makers, aftermarket service professionals and motoring customers who rely on their products.

On the one hand, the dilemma pressures oil formulators and marketers to make two or more distinct products to meet Dexos, GF-5 and other possible OEM specifications. The ensuing product proliferation in the motor oil category would make it untenable for shops and suppliers to stock a lubricant for every make and model and maintain reasonable inventory supply and turnover.

On the other hand, if GM Dexos forces ILSAC to ratchet up its standards for the proposed GF-5 category to match the automaker for uniformity purposes, everyone will be locked in the highest possible lubricant costs. Should other OEMs follow suit, lubricant supply chain management and shop inventory issues emerge.

Ultimately, the marketplace will determine whether it wants one, two or more different new lubricant standards to address Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and emissions regulations. But the risk of a consumer backlash or regulatory intervention is of concern to any who have to invest money and time up-front, before a market is proved.

Considering some acid-test questions before getting commercialization seems prudent. For instance:

• Whose will is going to drive the market - the public or the OEMs? Why?
• How readily will consumers be convinced to accept higher costs as being in their best interest, whether driven by the entire industry or individual OEMs?
• Will consumers and advocacy groups apply an ethical 'Why should I do business with you?' test that differentiates between companies 'making' or 'taking' money from customers?
• If OEM warranties require a more expensive, proprietary product that coincidentally generates ancillary cash flow from captive motorists, how will they and regulators react?
• If the aftermarket is alienated in whatever process occurs, how effectively will any changes, even necessary ones, be marketed and adopted now or in the future, by the public?

What service professionals do today and in less frequent visits downstream will have a large impact on customer loyalty. The next-generation oils will be priced higher, to reflect legitimate added development and additive input costs. Provided these costs are offset by improved performance, sound education and preparation by service providers will position them to sell the net merits to their customer base.

Essentially, OEMs and lubricant producers need the aftermarketto help consumers believe and realize a net benefit from a mix of fuel economy and emissions improvement, increased oil intervals, lower maintenance costs and other tangible experiences that higher oil standards can enable. Those who increase awareness about the truthful realities of GF-5, prepare for extended oil change intervals, use detailed inspections and tune their customer base into preventive maintenance now can establish a competency and credibility edge that can be leveraged when the new oils enter the market. To get there, OEMs and lubricant companies must convince the aftermarket to believe that it too can realize a net benefit.