What does this mean for Europe? A quick look across the Atlantic to the larger and more mature US market helps to highlight where the EU is on its ATF journey.


When multi-vehicle fluids were first introduced to the US service fill market, they represented a valuable addition to the product range. They offered welcome simplicity without compromising on quality. Major OEM specifications - GM’s DEXRON®


and Ford’s MERCON® – were


widely used as proxy standards for this wave of ATFs, providing the necessary rigour for product development and approval. Where fluid suppliers were meeting these proxy standards, clear fluid performance claims could be made.


As adoption in the US market grew rapidly through the late 90s and early 00s, increasing competition amongst multi-vehicle ATFs led to many more performance claims associated with each brand. ‘On the surface a welcome move for consumers, these often aggressively marketed products started to raise questions about the quality and robustness of their claims,’ says Ian Macpherson, North America Marketing Director, Afton Chemical. ‘The market has now reached a point where something of a ‘frontier’ mentality operates with regard to product claims. Lower cost products are prevalent; with few active OEM specifications to use as a proxy and no industry body overseeing regulation, labelling standards are becoming a real concern.’


In 2017 the Petroleum Quality Institute of America (PQIA) conducted a survey that highlighted considerable confusion and misunderstanding of the language used for product claims: wording varied from ‘suitable for use’ to ‘meets requirements


Unsuitable low viscosity ATF can cause transmission damage (Industry rig test)


of‘ to ‘universal’, with ‘multipurpose’ being used as well as ‘multivehicle.’


The confusion identified by PQIA is reflected in a sample of claims lists examined by Afton. ‘The claims lists we’ve looked at often mix up transmission types, part numbers, specifications and fluid names. We’ve even seen typos from one claim being duplicated in claims from other suppliers!’ confirms Burgess.


Does this matter? Absolutely. The potential risk of using unsuitable fluids in transmissions is too great to be ignored. For example, a fluid with viscosity that is too low has the potential, when taken to the ultimate conclusion, to impact transmission components catastrophically.


This leaves the door wide open for future warranty issues, risking the reputations and the finances of all involved; additive companies, oil companies, workshops and transmission OEMs. The US multi-vehicle ATF market could face challenges if it does not move to protect itself, and legislators will move in to take a look.


Interestingly, California have explored legislation. Other states, such as North Carolina, have considered following. The lack of overall industry structure leaves the US market hanging in an awkward balance: some products now make different claims in different states, while others are simply not offered for sale in specific states.


Implications for the European ATF market are clear as it starts to follow the same growth profile. Despite traditionally favouring manuals, the EU has recently seen significant and sustained growth in automatic transmissions.


This growth is seen across all European countries, even staunchly manual markets such as France. As more vehicles navigate for you, park themselves and automatically avoid collisions, it’s possible that consumers in these countries are becoming more comfortable with relinquishing control, overcoming entrenched driver preferences for manually shifting gear.


The increased competition and product proliferation that has impacted the growing US ATF market now threatens to affect the EU market. To best avoid these issues, the EU needs to tackle this in a unified way and consider how best to add rigour to its product claims.


Lifecycle of multi-vehicle ATF in the US market


In the US, the SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) is now exploring the possibility of a single US industry standard. ‘Whether one standard is possible to achieve in such a fragmented market, with narrow OEM-specific friction performance requirements is doubtful,’ Dr Maelger feels. Achieving a single standard could simplify offers and allow efficiencies in supply; but at the same time it could also undermine oil marketers’ opportunities to differentiate themselves and their products.


Continued on page 40


LUBE MAGAZINE NO.142 DECEMBER 2017


39


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