tlt_techbeat_9_06

ormulation of engine oil additivepackages for passenger car (PCMO)

and heavy-duty diesel (HDD) applications isa complicated process because formulatorsneed to incorporate a number of differentadditive types such as detergents, disper-sants, antiwear additives, antioxidants andfriction modifiers. All of these componentsneed to be properly balanced to meet therequired performance criteria (engine oilspecifications) and to be stable.

A more detailed description of the typesof additives used in automotive engine oilsis provided in an article published in arecent issue of TLT.(1) Author Alan Eachuspoints out that there are other basestock

options available to facili-tate the development ofmore environmentallyfriendly engine oils.

Representatives fromthe four main suppliers ofengine oil additives andadditive packages—AftonChemical, Infineum USALP, The Lubrizol Corp. and

Chevron Oronite LLC—are interviewed inthis article to provide a good overall exami-nation of the current challenges they face indeveloping their products to meet currentlubricant industry needs. They also providean assessment of how engine oil additivepackages will look in the future as the indus-try turns more toward gas-to-liquid (GTL)basestocks and how the popularity of flexfuel vehicles continues to increase with con-sumers worldwide.

Three of the key additive challenges aredeveloping products that will help the indus-try meet lower emissions standards, higher

fuel economy goals and longer drain inter-vals. Each of these topics is covered below.

EmissionsMuch of the traditional additive chemistryutilized in engine oil packages is based onsulfur and phosphorus. Dean Anderson,global manager-automotive for ChevronOronite LLC, says, “There is a general trendtowards low SAPS (sulfated ash, phospho-rus and sulfur) formulations throughout theworld. Lubricants are not only being askedto play their traditional role of protectingthe engine, they are being formulated tominimize any impact they may have on theexhaust aftertreatment devices (e.g. catalyt-ic converters, diesel particulate filters, etc.)”

James Puckace, worldwide marketingmanager of engine oils for The LubrizolCorp., says, “The changing environmentalregulatory landscape often impacts the tech-nical requirements for our products. Asemission control technologies evolve furtherto meet more stringent environmentalrequirements, it is likely that additive tech-nologies will have additional limitations inthe amounts of SAPS to minimize the poten-tial of aftertreatment device poisoning.”

Joan Evans, industrial liaison advisor forInfineum USA LP, adds, “The formulation ofadditive systems for motor oils continues toget more complex as engines and emissionsystems evolve to meet more stringentrequirements. The crucial factor in formulat-ing is balance, maintaining engine durabili-ty while enabling better fuel economy,engine efficiency and emission system com-patibility.”

Tom Cousineau, director of engine oilscustomer technical services for Afton Chem-

10 S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 6 T R I B O L O G Y & L U B R I C A T I O N T E C H N O L O G Y

By Dr. Neil Canter

Contributing Editor

Tech Beat

Special Report: Additive challenges in meeting new automotive engine specifications

F

‘Lubricants are not only being asked to

play their traditional role of protecting

the engine, they are being formulated

to minimize any impact they may have

on the exhaust aftertreatment devices.’

ical, says, “Progressively more stringent airquality regulations will increase the need forexhaust aftertreatment units for diesel- andgasoline-powered vehicles and will placegreater emphasis on the compatibility oflubricant additive technology with catalysts.Engine combustion-system-design changesresulting in lower emissions and enhancedfuel economy will place greater stress onlubricant formulations. These changes willdrive additive companies to develop newand/or alternative molecules while optimiz-ing today’s field-proven chemistry.”

Evans points out that the lubricantindustry has developed reduced SAPS auto-motive lubricants in response to industryspecifications, particularly in Europe. ACEA,the Association des Constructeurs Europi-ens de l’Automobile (or the Association ofEuropean Automotive Manufacturers) hasintroduced the C-category of specificationsthat details low SAPS (ACEA C1 Specifica-tion) and medium SAPS (ACEA C2 and C3Specifications) engine oils.

The specific requirements for sulfatedash, sulfur and phosphorus levels are shownin the following table:

ACEA C SpecificationsParameter Low SAPS – C1 Mid SAPS – C2/C3

Sulfated Ash 0.5 m% maximum 0.8 m% maximum

Phosphorus 0.05 m% maximum 0.07– 0.09 m% maximum

Sulfur 0.2 m% maximum 0.3 m% maximum

Figure 1 shows OEM specifications for afull range of SAPS content for high and lowHTHS (high temperature high shear) auto-motive lubricants. Infineum’s Evans says,“Although there is some interest in ‘LowSAPS,’ actual market uptake is low. Growthof ‘Mid SAPS’ products has been steady,particularly in Europe.”

She continues, “Reduced SAPS lubricantsare very sophisticated fluids that are costlyto develop, and market penetration will taketime. We need to recognize that striking theright balance between engine durabilityand emission system protection iscritical and there may not bemuch further to go fromwhere we are al-ready.” Evansbelieves that

widespread SAPS reduction will be achievedmore through a change in vehicle selectionby consumers rather than any new lubricantor additive developments.

Puckace cites the new heavy-duty dieselengine oil specification, API CJ-4 as the lat-est example of the push towards lower SAP-containing automotive lubricants. He says,“Typical CI-4 lubricants (the current specifi-cation) ranged in sulfated ash content from1.3%-1.5%. New CJ-4 lubricants will be com-ing in at 1.0% sulfated ash, representingapproximately a 30% reduction in ash con-tent. Additional restrictions were placed onphosphorus (0.12% maximum) and sulfur(0.4% maximum).”

Cousineau sees a direct connectionbetween the reduction in SAPS content inthe lubricant and the concern about main-taining the performance of the emissionssystem. He says, “The reduction of sulfatedash, phosphorus and sulfur in selected per-formance categories is one means of mini-mizing the impact on catalyst efficiency inthe absence of available performance tests,”he says. “But the preferred way to betterunderstand the relationshipbetween SAPS content andcatalyst efficiency isthrough per-formance

T R I B O L O G Y & L U B R I C A T I O N T E C H N O L O G Y S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 6 1 1

CONTINUED ON PAGE 12

Shown are OEM specifica-

tions for high and low

HTHS (high temperature

high shear) automotive

lubricants at Full SAPS, Full

SAPS X-ODI (Extended Oil

Drain Interval), Mid SAPS

and Low SAPS.

Figure 1. Chemical Limits – Position of OEMs

(Ch

art

cou

rtes

y o

f In

fineu

m U

SA L

P)

testing. At present, test methodology hasnot been developed to properly address thisissue.”

Gary Parsons, global OEM and industrialliaison manager for Chevron Oronite LLC,indicates that one of the main sources ofSAPS is zinc dialkyldithiophosphates(ZDDPs), but there is no direct test that canmeasure the impact of SAPS on the deteri-oration of the vehicle’s emissions system.He says, “The lubricant industry has trieddeveloping tests and has been largelyunsuccessful.”

ZDDPsTied in with emis-sions reduction isthe concern aboutthe likely incom-patibility of ZDDPswith catalytic con-verters. In lastyear’s TLT, an arti-cle detailed thediminishing usageof this additive.(2)

The phosphoruslevel in engine oilshas dropped from0.12% maximum inGF-1 in 1993 to0.08% maximum inthe current GF-4motor oils. A sec-ond article dis-cussed current re-search describingthe mechanism bywhich ZDDPs func-tion as an antiwearadditive.(3)

It is anticipatedthat automotive

OEMs will request that the phosphoruslevel maximum for the next PCMO specifica-tion (GF-5) be closer to 0.05%. ZDDPs aremultifunctional and provide not just anti-wear characteristics but also function asantioxidants. This makes replacing themvery difficult.

Cousineau says, “No single additive pro-vides the same benefit of wear prevention,corrosion protection and oxidation controlas cost effectively as ZDDP. ZDDP can bereduced or eliminated but at a cost. Over

the last several PCMO category changes,oxidation control requirements haveincreased while phosphorus limits havebeen tightened. Formulations have beenmodified to incorporate higher levels ofashless antioxidants as ZDDP levels havebeen reduced. If phosphorus requirementsof PCMO oils become more restrictive, sup-plemental wear inhibitors may be required.”

He adds, “A better approach is for thelubricant industry to quantify the effect ofZDDPs on emissions, as catalyst foulingmay vary based on ZDDP concentration,ZDDP type or formulation style, forinstance.”

Oronite’s Anderson indicates that theimpact of ZDDPs in engine oil formulationshas been diminishing. He explains, “Inmany respects, the role ZDDPs plays in oxi-dation protection has diminished over theyears as absolute treat levels of ZDDP havediminished and as higher stability base oilssuch as Group II and Group III have beenintroduced. Ashless type oxidation inhi-bitors have helped to replace the oxidationperformance of ZDDPs.”

Evans further explains what types ofadditive chemistries have been used to fillthe role of ZDDPs. She says, “Recent addi-tive systems have utilized aminic and phe-nolic chemistries for antioxidancy. The useof molybdenum chemistry for improvedantioxidancy and wear has expanded. Thereare numerous replacement technologiesavailable. However, the alternatives are allexpensive to develop and manufacture andso require acceptable commercial returns todeploy them.”

Fuel economyPast fuel economy testing has been influ-enced both by the viscosity of the automo-tive lubricant and by the presence of bound-ary lubricity additives in the lubricant whichare known as friction modifiers. As theindustry moves toward the preparation ofGF-5, a new fuel economy test known as theSequence VID is being developed.

Parsons says, “The Sequence VID is in theearly stages of development, so it is hard tosay how it will drive the formulations andthe use of friction modifiers. They tend tohave a larger effect when boundary lubrica-tion is involved as opposed to hydrodynam-

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 11

‘Low SAPS are very sophisticated lubricants thatare costly to develop, and market penetrationwill take time. We need to recognize that strik-ing the right balance between engine durabilityand emission system protection is critical andthere may not be much further to go fromwhere we are already.’




ic lubrication.”Cousineau adds, “The contribution of the

lubricant viscometric and boundary frictionproperties will be investigated by the indus-try’s Sequence VID Development Consor-tium. Should this engine test respond tofriction modifiers, additive companies willdevelop appropriate friction modifierenhanced formulations for improved fueleconomy while optimizing overall formula-tion performance.”

Evans believes that the Sequence VID testwill respond to both viscometric effects andto friction modifiers. She says, “With respectto friction modifiers, we expect to see aresponse to inorganic friction modifiers andan increased response to organic frictionmodifiers. Such chemistries have been wide-ly used in the past, and if the Sequence VIDis successful it will be able to recognize thisfriction modification as is seen in the Feder-al Testing Procedures (FTP) cycles.”

Longer drain intervalsThe additive supplier representatives are inagreement that extended drain intervals

place more demands on the additives used,increase their treat rates and improve thequality of the basestocks formulated intoautomotive lubricants. Cousineau says,“Longer drain intervals reduce the safetymargin available from today’s engine oilsand increase the need for greater oilrobustness. Longer drain, heavy-duty dieseladditive packages require increased disper-sant, anti-oxidants and Total Base Number(TBN) reserve.”

Evans adds, “Oil drain intervals tend tobe lengthening on average while additivetreat rates and base fluid qualities are alsoincreasing. Despite lengthening oil drainintervals, we are also seeing some limitedgrowth in additive needs, which is also duein part to the rising global vehicle popula-tion. Equally important to note is that themix of additives is changing as performancedemands change, requiring, for example,more dispersancy, more antioxidancy, lessZDDP and less high ash detergents.”

Anderson points out that there is a dif-ference in consumer preference for longerdrain intervals. European passenger car oilsalready have drain intervals between 12,000and 15,000 miles. Consumer preferences inNorth America are for shorter drain inter-vals.

New lubricant specificationsThe implementation of API’s CJ-4, heavy-duty engine oil specification is occurring ata time of confusion for the lubricant indus-try. Some of the oil marketers have decidedto continue to offer the currently availableCI-4 Plus oils even after CJ-4 becomes avail-able later in 2006. Several OEMs such asCaterpillar also are including additionaltesting requirements beyond those in CJ-4.

Puckace says, “With the high costs ofheavy-duty diesel equipment for fleets andowner-operators, OEMs want to ensure thebest possible lubricant protection. Thebiggest challenges with CJ-4 include provid-ing superior wear and corrosion protectionwhile maintaining competitive oil drainintervals and not just meeting the elemen-tal restrictions for SAPS.”

Evans says, “CJ-4 is designed as arestricted ash, phosphorus and sulfur oilcategory. It was developed to meet theneeds of aftertreatment devices being uti-


‘No single additive provides the same benefit of wear prevention,corrosion protection and oxidation control as cost effectively as

ZDDP. ZDDP can be reduced or eliminated but at a cost.’

lized with new model year 2007 engines.Concerns have been raised that some of theCJ-4 oils may be lower in TBN than their CI-4 and CI-4 Plus predecessors and may notprotect a small percentage of older engineswhen running on higher sulfur (> 15 ppm)diesel fuel.”

She adds, “To alleviate these concerns,the Engine Manufacturers Association(EMA) has asked that owner and fleet oper-ators consult directly with OEMs for the rec-ommended drain interval for each engine/fuel/oil combination. As the CJ-4 specifica-tion addresses the needs of 2007 modelyear engines, there remains some uncer-tainty around how fast the market will con-vert to this specification despite the veryconsiderable investment made in its devel-opment.”

Parsons also expressed concern that cus-tomers will perceive CJ-4 oils are inferior toCI-4 Plus oils because the former have lowerTBN. He says, “TBN has long been used byoperators as a broad indicator of an oil’squality.” The prospect for the marketplacecontinuing to offer CI-4 Plus oils promptedParsons to indicate that additive supplierswill need to keep multiple formulations atdifferent performance levels.

Cousineau adds, “There is uncertaintyabout the benefit that lower-ash CJ-4 oilswill have on diesel particulate maintenanceintervals. The biggest source of uncertaintyis whether the CJ-4 oils will enable theaftertreatment devices to last for 150,000miles, as required by the new EPA regula-tions. We are reasonably sure that CJ-4 oilswill do the job, but the data to support thiswill not be available for at least a year.”

The automotive lubricant industry is alsobeginning to evaluate the testing require-ments needed for GF-5, which is due to belaunched in 2009. All of the additive indus-try representatives contacted believe it istoo early to tell how much of an upgradethis new category will be as compared to thecurrent GF-4.

Puckace points out that one ofthe key issues for GF-5 isindustry agreement onthe phosphoruscontent. Hesays, “We

are concerned for the environment and sup-portive of lower emissions. We are in favorof a lower phosphorus content in finishedoils. We would support additional elemen-tal restrictions on phosphorus in GF-5 and,in addition, support a performance testbased on a GF-5 sequence test.”

Evans says, “As passenger car motor oilsare mature technologies, we are realisticallylooking for incremental benefits. As newengine and emission technologies are intro-duced to meet higher fuel economy andlower emission regulations, these enginesmay have diverging appetites requiring spe-cific additive technologies. GF-5 will have tobalance the needs of higher fuel economy,lower emissions and improved high temper-ature oil stability, as was done for GF-4.”

Cousineau indicated that the automotiveand lubricant industries are combiningresources to deal with the challenges ofdeveloping better test methodologies forfuel economy and emissions. He says, “Theindustry has formed a Sequence VID (FuelEconomy) Test Development Consortium towhich the major additive companies aremembers. The purpose of the Consortium isto develop a new fuel economy engine testbased on real-world fuel economy datadeveloped by GM and Ford. This test mayoffer a different response to additive tech-nology than the current Sequence VIB testand, if so, additive companies will developappropriate chemistry to optimize GF-5 fueleconomy.”

Cousineau also said that the EmissionsSystem Compatibility Improvement Team(ESCIT) of ILSAC/Oil Committee is deter-mining what testing procedures areavailable to assess the impact ofengine oil lubricants on thecatalyst system.

A n d e r s o nbelieves




that the new requirements demanded bythe OEMs will lead to the development ofnew additives for GF-5. He says, “We arefaced with a whole new set of requirementsfor GF-5. In many cases, these requirementsare not independent variables from a for-mulating standpoint, and they are oftenconflicting. The more stringent emissionrequirements have led to an increase in thelevel of development of new chemistries. Itis not just a matter of mixing the same com-ponents together to pass engine tests. Newchemistries are needed to provide perform-ance at a reasonable cost while meeting allof the new requirements.”

Testing costsThe impending introduction of CJ-4 and thework being conducted to develop testmethodology for GF-5 raises the concernabout the cost of carrying out the largenumber of engine tests needed to approve aspecific automotive lubricant formulation.Engine oils ultimately need to include theproper balance of additives to meet the testrequirements.

Parsons says, “Engine testing for CJ-4 isso expensive because this category includesnine engine tests and six bench tests. It isthe most robust category ever from a testrequirement perspective. Whether each of

these individual tests is actually required toassure performance is a matter of debate. Insome cases, there is a degree of redundancyin the tests.”

Cousineau acknowledges that the auto-motive industry realizes that good benchtest procedures will help reduce new cate-gory engine test costs. He says, “Considera-tion has been given in GF-5 for replacementof the Sequence VIII test (evaluates bearingweight loss) with the High Temperature Cor-rosion Bench Test (HTCBT), the SequenceIIIGA test (measures used-oil viscosityincrease at low temperatures) with theRomaszewski Oil Bench Oxidation Test(ROBO) and possibly, developing a newemission compatibility test. Unfortunately,no correlation was found between theSequence VIII and the HTCBT. However, theROBO procedure looks promising and theindustry is working together to validate thisprocedure for use in the category.”

Puckace focuses on the need for loweringtest costs. He says, “Given the reluctance topotentially sacrifice any assurance of engineprotection, bench testing has not made sig-nificant inroads in replacing heavy-dutydiesel engine tests. As test costs continueto escalate, pressure to find more cost-effective alternatives will increase.”

Evans indicates that the cost of a one-



test pass scenario for a CJ-4 oil is $600,000.The lubricant industry has made someprogress in developing new tests but inother cases faces redundancy. She says,“The introduction of new tests for CJ-4(Caterpillar C13, Mack T-12 and CumminsISB) was a good example of industry collab-oration to maximize the use of base oilinterchange and viscosity grade read-across. Yet, the industry fell short of thegoal on test redundancy, as we currentlyhave three wear tests in CJ-4 [Roller Follow-er Wear Test (RFWT), Cummins ISB and theCummins ISM]. This is very difficult to justi-fy given the significant testing costs associ-ated with this redundancy.”

Backward compatibilityThe development of new engine technologyto meet emissions requirements and thereduction in the use of traditional engine oiladditives such as ZDDPs means that mod-ern engines may have performance featuresthat differ from those of older engines.Automotive lubricants prepared for modernas compared to older engines may requiredifferent engine oil additive formulations.But current engine oil specifications such asGF-4 and the impending CJ-4 need to coverall engines currently used in the market-place. This issue of backwards compatibilityis a difficult one that the industry currentlyhas to deal with.

Puckace indicates that the best way toaddress the concern about backward com-patibility is to do field testing. He says, “Wehave taken steps to ensure the backwardcompatibility of CJ-4 additives by conduct-ing more than 12 million miles of field test-ing to demonstrate real-world engine pro-tection with the lower SAPS products.”

Cousineau adds, “Additive companiesmust balance the performance needsdesired by the consumer (wear control, oildrain interval, etc.) with the OEM needsdriven by governmental compliance. Proofof performance for passenger car enginebackward compatibility is hamperedby the unavailability of his-toric test engines usedto evaluate wearprotection. Asuitable re-

placement test for wear protection has notbeen developed and, while newer enginedesigns are more robust in terms of wear,emphasis is being placed on the reductionof select anti-wear components to increaseemission catalyst compatibility.”

Evans adds, “Protecting engine durabilityof older vehicles as newer engine designsemerge is always a key element of productdesign. New emission requirements haveimposed chemical restrictions that result informulation changes that must be techni-cally evaluated for backward compatibility.”

Anderson is in agreement that the needsof new engine and emission systems tech-nologies must be balanced with the needsof existing equipment. He says, “In a typicalmarket, backward compatibility is a majorconcern because the fleet turnover is typi-cally less than 10%. As a result, there is alarge existing population that a newly for-mulated lubricant must be capable of serv-ing the day it is introduced.”

Into the futureThe representatives of the additive compa-nies were asked for their thoughts on suchfuture issues as the impending commercial-ization of GTL base oils, the impact that theEuropean Union (EU) Eco-Label system,REACH and flexible fuel vehicles might haveon automotive engine oil lubricants andhow will differences in global specificationsaffect the types of additive packages offeredin specific markets.

As a group, the engine oil additive repre-sentatives do not know enough about theproperties of GTL base oils to comment onthe types of additives and chemistriesthat will be required. Parsons says,“GTL basestocks have a high-er viscosity index (VI)than mineraloils and


‘There are numerousreplacement technolo-gies available, however,the alternatives are allexpensive to developand manufacture andso require acceptablecommercial returns todeploy them.’


will require less polymer thickener and lessviscosity index modifier in general.”

Evans comments, “GTL basestock isclearly the next generation of basestock forour industry to contend with. It is not cer-tain exactly when this technology will beavailable, in what volume and in whatregions. GTL does bring enhanced capabili-ty in lower viscosity grades such as 0W-20/30 and will enable greater fuel economyperformance.”

The EU’s Eco-Label system has notimpacted the way that the engine oil addi-tive companies are developing their prod-ucts. Anderson maintains that this develop-ment along with REACH is prompting addi-tive companies to stress the importance oftoxicity testing earlier in the developmentprocess. He says, “In general, toxicity testinghas moved up in the development processto earlier stages of development, and test-ing has become more sophisticated. Aquat-ic toxicity and biodegradability are two ofthe aspects that are evaluated. Used oilrecycling is also being encouraged in mostregions to avoid aquatic toxicity andbiodegradability issues associated withimproper used oil disposal.”

Evans cites that REACH may limit theadditive options that the industry has forformulating automotive engine oils. Shesays, “There are costs associated withREACH that may cause a re-evaluation ofthe use of certain additives—not for envi-ronmental reasons but simply that bring-ing the data on these additives up toREACH standards may not be economical-ly justifiable.”

Flexible fuel vehicles are capable of usingmultiple fuels such as gasoline and ethanol.They have gained in popularity in certainregions of the world such as Brazil. Between2003 and 2005, the number of flexible fuelvehicles in this country has climbed from6% to 73%. Cousineau says, “The consumerneed for a common engine oil will drive con-ventional products to meet any specialrequirements required by flex fuel vehicles.Certain OEMs have identified rust, corro-sion and emulsion stability as key parame-ters for flex fuel vehicles. Sequence enginetests for flex fuel vehicles may have to bedeveloped.”

Evans agrees about these parameters for

vehicles using alcohol-based fuel. She adds,“Typical gasoline engine additive packagesneed to be altered to neutralize the negativeeffects of combustion byproducts associat-ed with bio-fuels. Industry will need to mon-itor fuel quality and its impact on lubri-cants. Depending on the fuel, it is not clearthat one standard lubricant or standard oildrain interval will be acceptable.”

Parsons indicates that most OEMs re-duce their recommended drain intervals ifalternative fuels are used rather than requir-ing the use of special engine oils. He says,“Reducing recommended drain intervals isthe preferred route to avoid potential prob-lems with misapplication of lubricants forflex fuel vehicles.”

Puckace feels that specific additive tech-nology may need to be developed for flexfuel vehicles. He says, “At this point, weknow of no significant effect that flex fuelvehicles have on engine oil additive pack-ages. If the use of flexible fuel vehiclesincreases dramatically, specialized additivepackages may need to be developed toaddress any unique requirements thatbecome known.”

Convergence of global specifications is atrend that is starting to take place.Cousineau says, “OEMs are increasinglyglobalizing through mergers and businessactivities. The sharing of common designs,hardware and fuel quality are driving globalengine oil specifications. As OEMs marketvehicles in various regions, local consumermarkets will demand that regional engineoils comply with global specifications.”

Anderson believes that the trend towardconvergence is particularly noteworthy fromthe standpoint of emissions standards.Transfer of technology to the underdevel-oped countries is also facilitating thisprocess. He says, “Most developing coun-tries and regions are using American orEuropean emissions or product standards,rather than creating something new on theirown. As a result, technology transfer frommore mature regions to developing areas isoccurring.”

Evans cautions that the trend towardconvergence will be slow. “Different marketswill continue to have somewhat differentneeds,” she says. “There are also culturaldifferences and preferences that have an


‘We have taken stepsto ensure the back-ward compatibility of CJ-4 additives byconducting morethan 12 million milesof field testing todemonstrate real-world engine protection with thelower SAPS products.’


impact upon market technical profiles.”Puckace is concerned that the non-con-

vergence of global specifications is makingit more difficult for the additive industry toprovide technology that meets worldwidecriteria. He says, “Non-harmonization ofthe performance requirements of world-wide specifications creates significantuncertainty in the program requirementsand the ability of these oils to comprehen-sively meet customer needs. Further, com-plex programs can restrict the timely andcost-effective development of lubricantadditive systems.”

The next 25 yearsFinally, our additive company representa-tives were asked about how engine oil pack-ages will change during the next 25 years.Puckace says, “The continued focus onreducing the potential negative effects onaftertreatment devices will continue toreduce or limit key lubricant elements suchas SAPS. The further development andenhancement of carbon-, oxygen-, hydro-gen- and nitrogen-containing chemistrieswill continue to be a focus of lubricantresearch.”

Cousineau says, “Engine oil additivepackages will evolve to meet the three basicmarket demands of improved fuel economy,better emission system compatibility andgreater oil robustness. These changes willbe required to maintain adequate perform-ance safety margins for OEMs and con-sumers. Certain known and cherished com-ponents may be reduced or phased out.Alternative technologies will enhance orreplace these components but will need tobe proven in the field.”

Evans expects that mature, internal com-bustion engine technologies will continueto be dominant over the next 25 years withchanges evolving slowly. She says, “In themedium term, we will have largely reachedthe limits of what is possible with respect toemissions control, and so we shall see somestability with regard to the demands thatadditives and lubricants have on compati-bility with comprehensive emission sys-tems. The quest for energy efficiency, how-ever, will continue, resulting in more enginedownsizing, greater use of turbochargers,better heat management, more sophisticat-

ed combustion control, various modes ofhybridization and new materials.”

Parsons indicates that the continuingchallenge for engine oil additives is to domore without significantly altering thechemical fingerprint of the automotivelubricant. He says, “We anticipate continueddevelopment of low ash type formulationswith even lower levels of sulfur, phosphorusand ash. In addition, a cradle-to-graveapproach may develop in which factors suchas biodegradability and the ability to recyclemay come into play. Lower viscosity engineoils and friction modifiers will be used toimprove fuel economy. Drain intervals willbe extended in part to reduce the environ-mental burden by reducing the amount ofused waste oil.” <<

Neil Canter heads his own consulting company,Chemical Solutions, in Willow Grove, Pa. Submis-sions to Tech Beat can be sent to him at [email protected].

References(1) Eachus, A.C. (2006),“It’s not your father’smotor oil,” Tribology &Lubrication Technology,62, (6), pp. 38-45.

(2) Fields, S. (2005),“ZDDP: Going, going…or not?” Tribology &Lubrication Technology,61, (5), pp. 24-30.

(3) Canter, N. (2005),“How does ZDDPfunction?” Tribology &Lubrication Technology,61, (6), pp. 20-26.

tlt_techbeat_9_06

Documents

engine efficiency

engine durabili

engine oil packages

automotive engine oilsis

t r i b o

t i o n t e c h n o

s e p t e

o g yby