Search Results

An unprecedented global focus on the environment and greenhouse gases has driven recent government regulations on automotive emissions across the globe. To achieve this improvement, Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) have advocated a progressive move towards the use of low viscosity grade oils. However, the use of lower viscosity grades should not compromise engine durability or wear protection. Viscosity modifiers (VM) - polymeric additive components used to tailor the lubricant’s viscometric properties - have been viewed as a key enabler for achieving the desirable balance between fuel economy and engine durability performance. Self-assembling diblock copolymers represent a unique class of VMs, which deliver superior shear stability due to their tunable association/dissociation in the lubricating oil. Superior shear stability ensures that the oil viscosity and its ability to offer reliable engine protection from wear is retained over the life of the oil in the engine.

Increasing vehicle efficiency has been one of the key drivers of the automotive industry worldwide due to new government emission legislations and rising fuel costs. While original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) are responding with innovative hardware designs for new models, lubricant companies are developing additive solutions to reduce frictional losses in the engine thereby increasing fuel economy of both new and existing vehicles. Fuel efficiency of the vehicle can be measured in a variety of driving cycles, including the New European Driving Cycle (NEDC), Japanese JC-08, and FTP-75 (Federal Test Procedure). The type of vehicle used in fuel economy evaluation in the same cycle plays a significant role. Fuel consumption rates for the same vehicle measured in these driving cycles vary due to the differences in the cycles. Thus, to assess the effect of the lubricant on fuel efficiency in various cycles, the fuel consumption is measured relative to a reference oil.

Global environmental and economic concerns of today's world dictate strict requirements for modern heavy duty engines, especially in emissions, noise control, power generation, and extended oil drain intervals. These requirements lead to increased stresses imposed on lubricants in modern heavy duty engines. At the same time, the original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) desire additional fuel economy from the lubricating oil, requiring the use of lower viscosity lubricants to minimize frictional losses in the engine. These lower viscosity oils are subjected to increased stresses in the engine and need to provide robust performance throughout their lifetime in order to protect engine parts from wear and damage. One of the most important lubricant qualities is to maintain viscosity throughout the drain interval and thus provide continuous engine protection.

Many countries are introducing fuel economy regulations in order to reduce the average emissions of light duty vehicles, since fuel consumption of vehicles is an important factor in air pollution. The lubricant has a significant role in reducing friction losses hence the fuel consumption, but the impact depends on the engine operation regime and the manner in which the lubricant components work together to change frictional properties. Different driving cycles are used by different countries and organizations to measure fuel consumption. The most common driving cycles are the European NEDC and the North American FTP-75 vehicle transient cycles. Fuel economy at full load and BSFC (Brake Specific Fuel consumption) are also common methods of measuring engine fuel economy.

The most important property of the engine oil is its ability to reach all engine parts. Once there, it can build an oil film which protects these parts from wear and ultimately from destruction. No other lubricant property is relevant if the oil cannot be delivered to the critical engine parts. Thus engine oil pumpability, especially pumpability at low temperatures when the viscosity of the lubricant is the highest, is crucially important. The crankcase lubricant industry has recognized this, in requiring good low temperature pumpability for the last three decades. While good low temperature properties of the fresh oils are a necessary requirement for a lubricant, they are not sufficient to ensure the lifetime performance of the oil in the engine. The oil gradually ages in the engine and its properties, including low temperature pumpability, change.

The SAE Engine Oil Viscosity Classification (EOVC) Task Force has been gathering data in consideration of extending SAE J300 to include engine oils with high temperature, high shear rate (HTHS) viscosity below the current minimum of 2.6 mPa⋅s for the SAE 20 grade. The driving force for doing so is fuel economy, although it is widely recognized that hardware durability can suffer if HTHS viscosity is too low. Several Japanese OEMs have expressed interest in revising SAE J300 to allow official designation of an engine oil viscosity category with HTHS viscosity below 2.6 mPa⋅s to enable the development of ultra-low-friction engines in the future. This paper summarizes the work of the SAE EOVC Low Viscosity Grade Working Group comprising members from OEMs, oil companies, additive companies and instrument manufacturers to explore adoption of one or more new viscosity grades.

Low temperature pumpability is an important requirement for engine lubricants. It ensures that sufficient oil reaches the parts of the engine requiring wear protection on engine start-up. Until recently, most industry emphasis has been on the low temperature pumpability of the fresh oil. However, the oil can undergo a number of changes during its lifetime in the engine which adversely affect low temperature pumpability. Industry stakeholders are now expressing concerns about the potential risk of engine failures due to deterioration of low temperature pumpability of oils during their life cycle in the engine. Concerns have also been raised over the last few years that the move to Group III base stocks, while improving many of the properties of oil formulations, may also impact their retained low temperature pumpability.

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 intent of industry and OEM factory fill oil specifications is to ensure lubricant pumping performance at low temperatures through rheological measurements using the Mini Rotary Viscometer and Scanning Brookfield tests. Often these tests provide conflicting information, yet lubricant formulations must be optimized to meet requirements of both tests. At the root of this issue is how test information is interpreted, since ultimately it is that interpretation that influences how specifications are set. In this paper, we focus on understanding the Scanning Brookfield test's gelation index which is part of ILSAC GF-2 and GF-3 specifications; our objective is to understand what is measured and its relation to meaningful low temperature lubricant performance. We approach this objective by measuring the low temperature rheology of mineral oils and lubricants formulated from these oils.

Multigrade automotive lubricants contain polymeric viscosity modifiers which enable the oil to provide adequate hydrodynamic lubrication at high temperatures and good starting/pumping performance at low temperatures. Under operating conditions in engines, transmissions and gear boxes, polymeric additives undergo both temporary and permanent viscosity loss. The former is caused by flow orientation and the latter by molecular chain scission. Whatever the mechanism, original equipment manufacturers are interested in maintaining a minimum level of hydrodynamic viscosity from oil change to oil change. This is often expressed as a “stay-in-grade” requirement. Commercial viscosity modifiers (VM) span a wide range of chemistries and molecular architectures.

In the first paper in this series (1)*, the extent of oil thickening for a given lubricant in the Mack T-7 engine test was found to be influenced by fuel composition. Based upon the knowledge that thickening is due to the accumulation and aggregation of soot in the oil, a set of experiments has been carried out to identify relationships between fuel chemistry and the oil thickening tendency of soot formed by fuel combustion. Three commercial diesel fuels were treated with chemical combustion aids and/or organic sulfur, and both short-duration and full-length tests were run in a Mack T-7 engine fitted with a filter designed to collect soot from the exhaust stream. A model describing the complex effects of fuel chemistry on the oil thickening process is proposed in which fuel sulfur content is shown to influence soot content of the lubricant after ISO hours of engine operation.