Search Results

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.

A 100-hour engine dynamometer test for intake valve deposits (IVD) which uses a Ford 2.3L engine was developed by the Coordinating Research Council (CRC). Recently, this test has been approved by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) as Test Method D 6201-97. Since this test offers improvements in test variability, duration, and cost, it is expected to replace ASTM D 5500-94, a 16,000-km vehicle test run using a BMW 318i, as the key performance test for the Certification of Gasoline Deposit Control Additives by the EPA Final Rule. As a step in the replacement process, a correlation between valve deposit levels for the CRC 2.3L Ford IVD test and ASTM D 5500 BMW IVD test must be determined. This paper provides a statistical review of available data in an attempt to provide such a correlation.

Carefully controlled intake valve deposit (IVD) cleanup testing is found to be an effective method for differentiating the effect of the deposit control additives on combustion chamber deposits (CCD). The IVD buildup procedure produces a consistent initial level of CCD that the cleanup additive, the additive of interest, continues to build on until the end of the cleanup test. This “end of cleanup” CCD is found to be as repeatable and differentiable a measurement as tests run under the more common “keep clean” type operation. While IVD cleanup testing induces a mid-test disturbance in the form of the end of buildup measurement, it aligns well with two key CCD protocols in terms of the higher additive treat rates used and the extended total test length. In an analysis of results from IVD cleanup tests run using four different engine/vehicle procedures on seven different additives, several findings stood out.

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.

Light trucks and sport utility vehicles (SUVs) have become extremely popular in the United States in recent years, but this shift to larger passenger vehicles has placed new demands upon the gear lubricant. The key challenge facing vehicle manufacturers in North America is meeting government-mandated fuel economy requirements while maintaining the durability required for severe service. In light truck/SUV applications, gear oils must provide operating temperature control under extreme conditions such as trailer-towing. Higher operating temperatures for prolonged periods can adversely affect metallurgical properties and reduce fluid film thickness, both of which can lead to premature equipment failures. In our view, operating temperature is an important indicator of durability. Unfortunately, lubricants optimized for temperature control do not always provide the best fuel economy.

The Engine Oil Industry Base Oil Interchange (BOI) and Viscosity Grade Read Across (VGRA) guidelines developed by the American Petroleum Institute (API) provide a means to significantly reduce the time to market for current technology engine oils. This process has several advantages including the public display of data and a consensus evaluation of the submitted data. The process also has several limitations including timeliness of the consensus process, and the applicability and flexibility of an all-encompassing, industry-wide guideline. An enhancement to the all-encompassing, industry-wide consensus process is the Single Technology Matrix (STM). The idea behind this approach is to use sufficient data from a single technology to develop and use BOI for that specific technology. The advantages of the STM include improved technical merit, timeliness and flexibility in establishing BOI.

A new generation of fluid technology using novel diesel fuel detergent/dispersant chemistry provides a multitude of beneficial effects to the diesel engine, especially the latest model designs. In addition to improved injector, valve and combustion chamber deposit removal, the additive restores power, fuel economy, performance and emission levels1. Positive observations have also been documented along with improved performance concerning crankcase lube viscosity, soot loading and TBN retention. An even greater added benefit is the inherent capability of the fuel additive to deal with several EGR issues now prominent with the introduction of new engines. Recent research, reported herein, has uncovered the extensive efficacy of this chemistry for piston durability and neutralization of ring corrosion phenomena. All of the beneficial additive attributes are further enhanced with increased oxidative and thermal fuel stability and no loss of filterability.

Throughout the evolution of the automobile, passenger car motor oils have been developed to address issues of wear, corrosion, deposit formation, friction, and viscosity stability. As a result, the internal combustion engines are now developed with the expectation that the lubricants to be used in them will deliver certain performance attributes. Metallurgies, clearances, and built-in stresses are all chosen with certain expectations from the lubricant. A family of chemicals that has been universally used in formulating passenger car motor oils is zinc dithiophosphates (ZDPs). ZDPs are extremely effective at protecting highly stressed valve train components against wear failure, especially in engine designs with a sliding contact between cams and followers. While ZDPs' benefits on wear control are universally accepted, ZDPs have been identified as the source of phosphorus, which deactivates noble metal aftertreatment systems.

The Sequence IIIG is a newly developed 100 hour test used to evaluate the performance of crankcase engine oils in the areas of high temperature viscosity increase, wear, deposits, pumpability, and ring sticking for the North American GF-4 standard. Data from the ASTM Precision Matrix, completed in the spring of 2003, along with early reference data from the Lubricant Test Monitoring System (LTMS) showed unexpected test results for selected oils and indicated that percent viscosity increase and pumpability were highly correlated with oil consumption. This correlation led to an intensive study of the factors that influence oil consumption and an attempt to compensate for non-oil related oil consumption through a model based adjustment of the results. The study and scrutiny of the IIIG data has led to more uniform oil consumption in the test and improved test precision, and has eliminated the need for a correction equation based on non-oil related oil consumption.

The Lubricant Test Monitoring System (LTMS) is the calibration system methodology and protocol for North American engine oil and gear oil tests. This system, administered by the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) Test Monitoring Center (TMC) since 1992, has grown in scope from five gasoline engine tests to over two dozen gasoline, heavy duty diesel and gear oil tests ranging from several thousand dollars per test to almost one-hundred thousand dollars per test. LTMS utilizes Shewhart and Exponentially Weighted Moving Average (EWMA) control charts of reference oil data to assist in the decision making process on the calibration status of test stands and test laboratories. Equipment calibration is the backbone step necessary in the unbiased evaluation of candidate oils for oil quality specifications.

The effects of lubricating oil on friction and wear were investigated using light-duty 2.2L compression ignition direct injection (CIDI) engine components for bench testing. A matrix of test oils varying in viscosity, friction modifier level and chemistry, and base stock chemistry (mineral and synthetic) was investigated. Among all engine oils used for bench tests, the engine oil containing MoDTC friction modifier showed the lowest friction compared with the engine oils with organic friction modifier or the other engine oils without any friction modifier. Mineral-based engine oils of the same viscosity grade and oil formulation had slightly lower friction than synthetic-based engine oils.

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.

Laboratory testing is an essential part of product development. However, it usually only reflects a small portion of the experience that a lubricant may see in actual service conditions. Many laboratory tests are designed to only address one or two facets of what is deemed to be critical performance areas. Since it is difficult to cover all of the critical performance conditions problems sometimes arise in service that were not anticipated by the laboratory test. Or, conversely, some above average performance evolves during service that was not observed in a specific laboratory test. This paper highlights the overall performance of four manual transmission fluids approved or accepted by the manufacturer for this application. The evaluations were conducted in a city bus fleet with the test buses assigned to the same route for approximately 300,000 km over 30 months.

Multifunctional or universal lubricating oils which service both gasoline and diesel engines have gained widespread commercial acceptance. Since 1970, numerous changes and additions have altered the performance tests and specifications which define the quality of these lubricants. New parameters include single cylinder and multicylinder diesel engine testing, valve train wear protection, clutch plate friction retention, extended drain interval and lubricant related fuel economy. In response to these requirements, new additive systems were developed. This paper discusses observed base oil-additive-engine test interactions and compares the performance of one of these additive systems to that of the old.

It has been recognized for many years that multipurpose axle lubricants give rise to much higher axle break-in temperatures than lead-soap, active-sulfur or sulfur-chlorine-lead lubricants. Evaluation of differences in axle lubricant break-in temperature between the various multipurpose gear lubricants has been complicated by lack of repeatability and reproducibility. The work described in this paper shows that one of the most important variables affecting axle break-in temperature, under the conditions of the test technique used, was torsional axle preload and that control of dimensional preload in itself is not sufficient to ensure good test repeatability. The test technique described here has been used to evaluate the axle lubricant break-in temperature properties of several sulfur-phosphorus multipurpose gear lubricants.

Four 1998 Mitsubishi Carismas, two equipped with direct injection and two with port fuel injection engines, were tested in 20,100 km intervals to determine the effect of mileage accumulation cycle, engine type, fuel and lubricant on vehicle deposits and emissions, acceleration and driveability performance. The program showed that engine fuel system deposits, including specifically those on intake valves, combustion chambers and injectors are formed in higher amounts in the GDI engine than the PFI engine. The fuel additive used reduced injector deposits and combustion chamber deposits in the GDI, but had no significant effect on intake valve deposits, which are affected by crankcase oil formulation. In GDI vehicles, deposited engines were found to have increased hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions and poorer fuel economy and acceleration, but lower particulate emissions.

Four 1998 Mitsubishi Carismas, two equipped with direct injection (GDI) and two with port fuel injection engines (PFI) were tested in a designed experiment to determine the effect of mileage accumulation cycle, engine type, fuel and lubricant type on engine wear and engine oil performance parameters. Fuel types were represented by an unadditised base fuel meeting EEC year 2000 specifications and the same base fuel plus synthetic deposit control additive packages. Crankcase oils were represented by two types (1) a 5W-30 API SJ/ILSAC GF-2 type engine oil and (2) a 10W-40 API SH/CF ACEA A3/ B3-96 engine oil. The program showed that specific selection of oil additive chemistry may reduce formation of intake valve deposits in GDI cars.. In general, G-DI engines produced more soot and more pentane insolubles and were found to be more prone to what appears to be soot induced wear than PFI engines.

In the last decade, numerous studies have been conducted to investigate the mechanism of Low Speed Pre-Ignition (LSPI) in Turbocharged Gasoline Direct Injection (TGDi) engines. According to technical reports, engine oil formulations can significantly influence the occurrence of LSPI particularly when higher levels of calcium-based additives are used, increasing the tendency for LSPI events to occur. While most of the studies conducted to date utilized engine tests, this paper evaluates the effect of engine oil formulations on LSPI under real-world driving conditions, so that not only the oil is naturally aged within an oil change interval, but also the vehicle is aged through total test distance of 160,000 km. Three engine oil formulations were prepared, and each tested in three vehicles leading to an identical fleet totaling nine vehicles, all of which were equipped with the same TGDi engine.

Direct injection spark ignition (DISI) engine technology offers tremendous potential advantages in fuel savings and is likely to command a progressively increasing share of the European passenger vehicle market in the future. A concern is its propensity to form deposits on the inlet valve. In extreme cases, these deposits can lead to poor drivability and deteriorating emission performance. This inlet valve deposit build up is a well-known phenomenon in DISI engines since even additised fuel cannot wash over the back of intake valves to keep them clean. Two lubricants and two fuels were tested in a four car matrix. One of the lubricants was a fluid specifically developed by Lubrizol for DISI technology; the other was a baseline oil meeting Ford lubricants requirements and was qualified to ACEA A1/B1/ ILSAC GF2 performance level. Similarly, a baseline fuel was tested against an additised system.