Search Results

1Increasing adoption of downsized, boosted, spark-ignition engines has improved vehicle fuel economy, and continued improvement is desirable to reduce carbon emissions in the near-term. However, this strategy is limited by damaging preignition events which can cause hardware failure. Research to date has shed light on various contributing factors related to fuel and lubricant properties as well as calibration strategies, but the causal factors behind an individual preignition cycle remain elusive. If actionable precursors could be identified, mitigation through active control strategies would be possible. This paper uses artificial neural networks to search for identifiable precursors in the cylinder pressure data from a large real-world data set containing many preignition cycles. It is found that while follow-up preignition cycles in clusters can be readily predicted, the initial preignition cycle is not predictable based on features of the cylinder pressure.

Motorcycle OEMs faced with stringent global fuel economy and emission regulations are being forced to develop new hardware and emissions control technologies to remain compliant. Motorcycle oils have become an enabling technology for the development of smaller, more efficient engines operating at higher power density. Many OEMs have therefore become reliant on lubricants to not only provide enhanced durability under more extreme operating conditions, but to also provide fuel economy benefits through reduced energy losses. Unlike passenger car oils that only lubricate the engine, motorcycle oils must lubricate both the engine and the drive train. These additional requirements place different performance demands versus a crankcase lubricant. The drive train includes highly loaded gears that are exposed to high pressures, in turn requiring higher levels of oil film strength and antiwear system durability.

Downsized gasoline engines, coupled with gasoline direct injection (GDI) and turbocharging, have provided an effective means to meet both emissions standards and customers’ drivability expectations. As a result, these engines have become more and more common in the passenger vehicle marketplace over the past 10 years. To maximize fuel economy, these engines are commonly calibrated to operate at low speeds and high engine loads – well into the traditional ‘knock-limited’ region. Advanced engine controls and GDI have effectively suppressed knock and allowed the engines to operate in this high efficiency region more often than was historically possible. Unfortunately, many of these downsized, boosted engines have experienced a different type of uncontrolled combustion. This combustion occurs when the engine is operating under high load and low speed conditions and has been named Low Speed Pre-Ignition (LSPI). LSPI has shown to be very damaging to engine hardware.

Increasingly stringent fuel economy and emissions regulations around the world have forced the further optimization of nearly all vehicle systems. Many technologies exist to improve fuel economy; however, only a smaller sub-set are commercially feasible due to the cost of implementation. One system that can provide a small but significant improvement in fuel economy is the lubrication system of an internal combustion engine. Benefits in fuel economy may be realized by the reduction of engine oil viscosity and the addition of friction modifying additives. In both cases, advanced engine oils allow for a reduction of engine friction. Because of differences in engine design and architecture, some engines respond more to changes in oil viscosity or friction modification than others. For example, an engine that is designed for an SAE 0W-16 oil may experience an increase in fuel economy if an SAE 0W-8 is used.

Fuel economy is not an absolute attribute, but is highly dependent on the method used to evaluate it. In this work, two test methods are used to evaluate the differences in fuel economy brought about by changes in engine oil viscosity grade and additive chemistry. The two test methods include a chassis dynamometer vehicle test and an engine dynamometer test. The vehicle testing was conducted using the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) testing protocol while the engine dynamometer test uses the proposed American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Sequence VIE fuel economy improvement 1 (FEI1) testing methodology. In an effort to improve agreement between the two testing methods, the same model engine was used in both test methods, the General Motors (GM) 3.6 L V6 (used in the 2012 model year Chevrolet™ Malibu™ engine). Within the lubricant industry, this choice of engine is reinforced because it has been selected for use in the proposed Sequence VIE fuel economy test.

The growing need for improved fuel economy is a global challenge due to continuously tightening environmental regulations targeting lower CO2 emission levels via reduced fuel consumption in vehicles. In order to reach these fuel efficiency targets, it necessitates improvements in vehicle transmission hardware components by applying advanced technologies in design, materials and surface treatments etc., as well as matching lubricant formulations with appropriate additive chemistry. Axle lubricants have a considerable impact on fuel economy. More importantly, they can be tailored to deliver maximum operational efficiency over specific or wide ranges of operating conditions. The proper lubricant technology with well-balanced chemistries can simultaneously realize both fuel economy and hardware protection, which are perceived to have a trade-off relationship.

The operating conditions of a typical motorcycle are considerably different than those of a typical passenger car and thus require an oil capable of handling the unique demands. One primary difference, wet clutch lubrication, is already addressed by the current JASO four-stroke motorcycle engine oil specification (JASO T 903:2011). Another challenge for the oil is gear box lubrication, which may be addressed in part with the addition of a gear protection test in a future revision to the JASO specification. A third major difference between a motorcycle oil and passenger car oil is the more severe conditions an oil is subjected to within a motorcycle engine, due to higher temperatures, engine speeds and power densities. Scooters, utilizing a transmission not lubricated by the crankcase oil, also place higher demands on an engine oil, once again due to higher temperatures, engine speeds and power densities.

This paper outlines the second part in a series on the effect of polymeric additives commonly known as viscosity modifiers (VM) or viscosity index improvers (VII) on gear oil efficiency and durability. The main role of the VM is to improve cold temperature lubrication and reduce the rate of viscosity reduction as the gear oil warms to operating temperature. However, in addition to improved operating efficiency across a broad temperature range compared to monograde fluids the VM can impart a number of other significant rheological improvements to the fluid [1]. This paper expands on the first paper in the series [2], covering further aspects in fluid efficiency, the effect of VM chemistry on these and their relationship to differences in hypoid and spur gear rig efficiency testing. Numerous VM chemistry types are available and the VM chemistry and shear stability is key to fluid efficiency and durability.

The world is firmly focused on reducing energy consumption and on increasingly stringent regulations on CO2 emissions. Examples of regulatory changes include the new United States Environmental Protection Agency's (U.S. EPA) fuel economy test procedures which were required beginning with the 2008 model year for vehicles sold in the US market. These test procedures include testing at higher speeds, more aggressive acceleration and deceleration, and hot-weather and cold-temperature testing. These revised procedures are intended to provide an estimate that more accurately reflects what consumers will experience under real world driving conditions. The U.S.

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a methodology used to determine quantitatively the environmental impacts of a range of options. The environmental community has used LCA to study all of the impacts of a product over its life cycle. This analysis can help to prevent instances where a greater degree of environmental harm results when changes are made to products based on consideration of impacts in only part of the life cycle. This study applies the methodology to engine lubricants, and in particular chlorine limits in engine lubricant specifications. Concern that chlorine in lubricants might contribute to emissions from vehicle exhausts of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDD) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDF), collectively called PCDD/F, led to the introduction of chlorine limits in lubricant specifications. No direct evidence was available linking chlorine in lubricants to PCDD/F formation, but precautionary principles were used to set lubricant chlorine limits.

Requirements to improve vehicle fuel economy continue to increase, spurred on by agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol. Lubricants can play a role in aiding fuel economy, as evidenced by the rise in the number of engine oil specifications that require fuel economy improvements. Part of this improvement is due to achieving suitable viscometric properties in the lubricant, but additional improvements can be made using friction modifier (FM) compounds. The use of FMs in lubricants is not new, with traditional approaches being oleochemical-based derivatives such as glycerol mono-oleate and molybdenum-based compounds. However, to achieve even greater improvements, new new friction modifying compounds are needed to help deliver the full potential required from next generation lubricants. This work looks at the potential improvements available from new FM technology over and above the traditional FM compounds.

Global original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) have requested lower viscosity automatic transmission fluid (ATF) for use in conventional and 6-speed automatic transmissions (AT) to meet growing demands for improved fuel economy. While lower-viscosity ATF may provide better fuel economy by reducing churning losses, other key performance attributes must be considered when formulating lower viscosity ATF(1,2). Gear and bearing performance can be key concerns with lower-viscosity ATFs due to reduced film thickness at the surfaces. Long-term anti-shudder performance is also needed to enable the aggressive use of controlled slip torque converter clutches that permit better fuel economy. And, friction characteristics need to be improved for higher clutch holding capacity and good clutch engagement performance. This paper covers the development of next-generation, low-viscosity ATF technology, which provides optimum fuel economy along with wear and friction durability.

The popularity of light trucks and sport utility vehicles (SUVs), coupled with growing consumer demand for vehicles with more size, weight and horsepower, has increased the impact of these vehicle classes on the manufacturer's CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) numbers. Consumers often use light trucks and SUVs in applications such as prolonged towing at highway speeds, resulting in heavy loading and/or high operating temperatures in the axle. These conditions require superior axle lubricant protection, often provided by choosing a higher viscosity fluid (e.g., SAE 75W-140). Traditionally, the choice of these higher viscosity fluids for enhanced durability performance often results in reduced city-highway efficiency. This paper will describe the use of controlled axle dynamometer laboratory testing methods to develop fluids that maximize both fuel efficiency and durability performance across the wide spectrum of the new proposed viscosity classifications.

SAE 2004-01-3009 reported on work conducted to investigate the correlation between the Mack T-11 laboratory engine tests and vehicle field tests. It concluded that the T-11 test provides an effective screening tool to investigate soot-related viscosity increase, and the severity of the engine test limits provides a substantial margin of safety compared to the field. This follow-up paper continues the studies on the 2003 Mack CV713 granite dump truck equipped with an AI-427 internal EGR engine and introduces experimentation on a 2003 CX613 tractor unit equipped with an AC-460P cooled EGR engine. The paper further assesses the correlation of the field trials to the Mack T-11 engine test and reviews the impact of ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD) and prototype CJ-4 lubricant formulations in these engines.

With the continued growth of the sport utility vehicle (SUV) market in North America in recent years more emphasis has been placed on fluid performance in these vehicles. In addition to fuel economy the key performance area sought by original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) in general has been temperature reduction in the axle. This is being driven by warranty claims that show that one of the causes of axle failure in these type vehicles is related to overheating. The overheating is, in turn, caused by high load situations, e.g., pulling a large trailer at or near the maximum rated load limit for the vehicle, especially when the vehicle or its main subcomponents are relatively new. The excessive temperature generally leads to premature failure of seals, bearings and gears. The choice of lubricant can have a significant effect on the peak and stabilized operating temperature under these extreme conditions.

The popularity of light trucks and sport utility vehicles (SUVs), coupled with growing consumer demand for vehicles with more size, weight and horsepower, has challenged the original equipment manufacturers' (OEM) ability to meet the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) specifications due to the increased contribution of these vehicle classes on fleet averages. The need for improved fuel economy is also a global issue due to the relationship of reduced fuel consumption to reduced CO2 emissions. Vehicle manufacturers are challenged to match the proper fluid with the application to provide the required durability protection while maximizing fuel efficiency. Recent new viscosity classifications outlined under SAE J306 aid in more tightly defining options for lubricant choice for a given application. Changes to the SAE J306 viscosity classification define new intermediate viscosity grades, SAE 110 and SAE 190.

Soot is a typical byproduct of the diesel fuel combustion process, and a portion of the soot inevitably enters an engine's crankcase. A key functionality of a diesel engine lubricant is to disperse and suspend soot so that larger-particle agglomerations are prevented. The role of soot agglomeration in abrasive engine wear and lubricant viscosity increase is the subject of a continuing investigation; however, what is generally known is that once an engine lubricant loses its ability to control soot and a rapid viscosity increase begins, the lubricant has reached the end of its useful life and should be changed to maximize engine performance and life. This issue of soot related viscosity increase is of such importance that the Mack T-11 engine test was developed as a laboratory tool to evaluate lubricants. The newly proposed Mack EO-N Premium Plus - 03 specification includes a T-11 performance requirement.

Consumer demand for size, weight and horsepower has dictated a prominent role for sport utility vehicles and light trucks in the product lines of major North American automobile manufacturers. Inherently less efficient than passenger cars, these vehicles will be facing more stringent light duty CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards beginning in 2005 when mileage targets will be elevated to 21 mpg; this figure will be further increased to 22.2 mpg by 2007. In order to accommodate both public demand and CAFE requirements, vehicle manufacturers are seeking ways to improve fuel economy through design and material modifications as well as through improvements in lubrication. The axle lubricant may have an important impact on fuel economy, and axle lubricants can be tailored to deliver higher levels of operating efficiency over a wide range of conditions.

Modern multi-grade engine lubricants are formulated to “stay in grade” during field service. Viscosity loss during the early stages of lubricant life is commonly believed to be caused by mechanical degradation of the viscosity modifier in the engine [1]. The Kurt Orbahn shear stability bench test (ASTM D 6278, 30 cycles) has been the industry standard predictor of viscosity loss due to polymer shear in heavy duty diesel engine lubricants. However, the Engine Manufacturers' Association (EMA) has expressed some concern that it underestimates the degree of polymer shear found in certain engines in the field, such as the Navistar 6.0L HEUI (Hydraulic Electronic Unit Injector) Power Stroke engine; a more severe bench test would serve to improve correlation with this and other similar engine designs. This paper offers a new approach for critically examining the relationship between the bench test and field performance.

The regulatory drive for emission reductions, increased fuel costs, and likely increases in Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) requirements have made fuel efficiency a key issue for North American vehicle manufacturers and marketers. At the same time the popularity of sport utility vehicles and light trucks has made it more difficult to achieve CAFE objectives. In order to accommodate both public vehicle preference and government mandated CAFE requirements automobile manufacturers are seeking all available means to increase fuel economy through advanced system design, engineered materials, and improved lubricant technology. Axle lubricants can have a significant impact on fuel economy; moreover, axle lubricants can be tailored to deliver maximum operating efficiency over either specific or wide ranges of operating conditions.