search.noResults

search.searching

note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
Continued from page 29


or less, and suggestions are that as much as 20% of the North American market will move to 0W-XX over the short-term. This has a major impact for base oil suppliers. The move to 0w20 might not be the final destination for engine technology. Fuel & Lubes Asia reported in March 2017 that JASO, the Japanese Oil Standards Body, was introducing an 0w8 standard into Japan in April 2019.


What does the move towards lower viscosity oil mean for base stock demand? Typical Group II slates are capable of formulating 10W-XX lubricants while 5W-XX formulations usually require additional higher VI stocks. Group III slates are needed to formulate 0W-XX lubricants while supporting heavier grades. Shifting to Group III from Group I and II however brings benefits and challenges. Group III oils bring improved performance to lubricating oils including easier cold cranking, low volatility for long drain intervals, excellent oxidation resistance, and proven performance benefits in testing although they have more limited Base Oil Interchange guidelines.


Base Oil Groups were created to provide guidance for substitution in formulations for the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the European Technical Association, ATIEL. Base Oil Interchange (BOI) allows blenders flexibility as Group III and IV oils often may be substituted for Group I or II stocks without testing in certain tests by BOI guidelines. BOI tables are test specific within ACEA/API guidelines but most OEMs don’t allow BOI in their specifications. Some blenders, used to broad BOI for Group I and II Base Oils are frustrated by restrictive Group III to III BOI guidelines.


Originally the Base Oil Groups were a key part of the engine oil approval “Reformation” of the early 1990s.


Before this there was deep frustration surrounding the oil approval system. API were reluctant to include fuel economy in light duty specs. There was a broad perception that oil marketers and additive companies were misrepresenting candidate performance. So OEMs banded together to form a new lubricant standards body, ILSAC, and propose a new engine oil approval system administered under ILSAC.


At the time most vehicles were carburetered and not fuel injected. Base Oils in the 1990s were based on the technology of the 1930s. The vast majority of Base Oils were solvent refined. At the time hydrocracking technology for Base Oils was new and limited, and high VI Base Oils found in Europe from slack wax processing were not found in the US market.


Engine oils in 1990s were very different from those of today. They were heavier oils requiring short drain periods. At the time 5W-30 was taking over from the more common 10W-30 and 10W-40 viscosity oils, drain intervals of 3,000 miles (5,000 km) were not uncommon and engine wear and sludge were major marketing issues. Blending engine oils was not the exact science it has become today, either. In the 1990s marketers used their own ‘technical knowledge’ to select appropriate Base Oils for the lubricant additive packages. There was no industry practice for Base Oils interchange and blending relied on the experience and knowledge of the blender who took responsibility for the quality and performance of their products, as they do today.


ILSAC shook the market into action. API and CMA’s counterproposal with the Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System (EOLCS) included the registration and reporting of all tests. Included were


the requirements for random test stand selection, limits to modifications during additive development and the submission of data as part of licensing regulations.


API worked to justify Base Oils interchange, compiling tables of oils in the market and the additive packages that worked with them. There were a wide variety in solvent refined Base Oils, some containing high sulphur and aromatics. Viscosity indexes were low, there were only two hydrocracked oils on the market with very little high viscosity index oils available in Europe and little data on them in the USA.


In 1990 Base Oils groups were largely defined by manufacturing technology. Group I became the traditional solvent refined stocks with high sulphur, low saturates and VI. Group II was characterised by low sulphur and high saturates using early hydrocracking technology. Group III was really looking to the future with very high VI in excess of 120. Polyalphaolefins (PAO) was defined as Group IV and everything else was Group V.


API standard 1509 (Appendix E) defined BOI guidelines based upon shared engine test data. Extensive additive package testing data showed how tests responded to base oils. Over the years further data was produced and shared and eventually matrixes are run as part of test development to establish BOI/VGRA guidelines as new tests are created. In 1996 ATIEL launched the European Engine Lubricants Quality Management System (EELQMS) which uses the same Base Oils group definitions as API. This created BOI guidelines for European engine tests and applied only to ACEA (the European Constructor’s Association) engine oil sequences.


Table 1. BOI guidelines for the M271 Evo engine test


Since the 1990s engine oil technology has moved on dramatically. Engines have been designed with greater power density, operating at higher temperatures and have very long drain intervals. Engines designed with combustion changes requiring Group II and III Base Oils has led to a corresponding call to expand BOI to include Group III. Until now API/ATIEL Base Oil group definitions have met blenders needs but times are changing. Engine tests are becoming increasingly complex with advances in lubricant manufacturing technology, for example Group III+, GTL, greater


30


LUBE MAGAZINE NO.142 DECEMBER 2017


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73