and vans, has become the new norm and attracts the attention of private car owners and fleet managers as viable options to petrol and diesel. The debate over a suitably accessible infrastructure, higher purchase cost, and range anxiety continues. But what about the commercial vehicle sector, what options will emerge for these vehicles?


In the commercial vehicle sector, particularly large goods vehicles, the OEMs are still considering their options. Electrification will form part of the solution, alongside hybrids, fuel cells, hydrogen, biofuels and synthesised carbon neutral fuel types. But with challenges implementing new infrastructures, robust hardware technologies and ensuring whatever is adopted is a cost-competitive option, the process will be slow and could take quite literally decades. However, in the meantime, we still have the tried and tested heavy duty diesel engines and the various applications that these robust power units are used in.


So why the preamble? Well to be honest, we are entering both an exciting and challenging time for us all in the lubricants industry. As oil blenders we need to set our stall out for the next cycle of fragmentation and “simplicity” is not a word best suited to what is coming next.


The underlying principle is that for an oil blender to make qualified products, there is a need to do it correctly, use the best raw materials, follow the correct formulations, ensure control processes are adhered to and have full transparency and traceability of the oil formulations and the quoted specifications. The building blocks for this philosophy lies with the use of the Candidate Data Package (CDP) which is the authoritative document. If these processes are not followed, how can buyers and end users be sure that a quality and correctly formulated product is being poured out of the container and into an engine.


For any validated/approved formulation the CDP should be available from the technology provider. This is a hefty document that clearly covers all the development work carried out to qualify the finished lubricant against a host of OEM and international specifications. Many of the technology providers will consolidate this in a slide deck to provide clear claims together with the corresponding formulation data. This can be a mixed blessing in terms of options or possibly lack of them.


24 LUBE MAGAZINE NO.189 OCTOBER 2025


Base oil coverage has changed over the past few years and continues to do so. The use of Group I base stocks in heavy duty diesel engine oil formulations has pretty much disappeared as sulphur levels (greater than 0.03% wt.) play havoc with aftertreatment devices, particularly any catalyst-based systems, such as Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) better known as AdBlue®


. Also, low ash (mid and low Sulphated Ash,


Phosphorous, and Sulphur (SAPS)) products will not tolerate this additional sulphur, as they will fall out of their defined specification limits.


Group II saved the day with hydrotreating and other processes to provide a good robust and more stable version of the old mineral Group I, with greatly reduced levels of sulphur (less than 0.03% wt.); excellent news for aftertreatment devices. The Group II space was dominated by a slate of grades from one main supplier. Following the CDP guidelines the appropriate grade(s) of base oil had to be selected and used. But now we have two significant players. So, which one would you chose. In essence you would need to carry both, as Total Formulation Costs (TFCs) from competing providers could be significantly different and make the difference of being commercially viable or having product being too expensive and sat in a warehouse collecting dust.


Add to this the world of Group III. The Group III base oils, manufactured through the process of hydrocracking, provides an increased level of performance with higher Viscosity Index (VI), oxidation stability, low volatility, improved cold flow and reduced sulphur. Two key approved base oil suppliers dominated this market for many years, and the technology providers very often were able to provide validated formulations in either base stock, but occasionally one was favoured over the other. Having both available on the production site added to the inventory for the oil blenders but was essential for maintaining a competitive edge. However, there are new players in this space now and they are going through the process of validation and approval. Does this mean more choice? Does this mean that it is time to add a few more base oil tanks to the tank farm? In an ideal world you may want to stock the different base oils to solve the problem, but space constraints on the production site and maybe even local planning restrictions may take this off the table as an option.


And finally, we have Group IV. Due to their highly


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