Search Results

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.