Recently published on
InfineumInsight.com Specification update
Steve Haffner, Infineum Crankcase Market Manager, keeps us up to date on some of the North American lubricant specification developments.
It appears that the schedules for both ILSAC GF-6 and PC-11 are slipping from the current proposed first allowable use dates of January 1 2017 for ILSAC GF-6 and April 1 2016 for PC-11.
EMA members have acknowledged that new test development work is behind schedule and are beginning to concede that July 1 or October 1 2016 may be more realistic. If PC-11 slips, ILSAC GF-6 will also need to slip to maintain a minimum nine month separation between the two categories, which is required by the oil marketers. Test development work on the PCMO side is now moving at a better pace, but is behind schedule, so a delay here is almost inevitable at this point in time. For both categories, development of the new engine tests is still on the
Next generation GM specification
General Motors (GM) continues to state its desire to launch the next generation dexos1™ engine oil specification in mid-2015.
GM also introduced a new approval system that will allow new products to be reviewed on a quarterly basis by a special
SAE XW-16 licensing JAMA continues to pursue industry stakeholders to allow the licensing of SAE XW-16 viscosity grades in advance of ILSAC GF-6.
An API ballot to allow licensing of API SN-RC for SAE 0W-16 or 5W-16 oils failed. A new ballot to allow licensing of API SN for these grades will be issued.
ILSAC GF-6B debate
There is much debate about whether these SAE XW-16 oils should be in a separate ILSAC GF-6B specification, or whether they should be differentiated from higher viscosity ILSAC viscosity grades by viscosity grade alone.
ILSAC has asked that a new certification mark or symbol be developed to identify these oils to help prevent them from
Infineum viewpoints
Schedules for both ILSAC GF-6 and PC-11 will slip unless API and ACC members shorten the technology demonstration period and mandatory waiting period post first allowable use date, and that seems unlikely at this point in time.
Stakeholders are also responsible for ensuring that all marketers have the opportunity to work with their suppliers to complete programs and launch new products in a similar time frame post first allowable use (mandatory waiting period).
While we fully support work to introduce new viscosity grades and deliver value to both OEMs and end consumers, we also believe that industry can wait for ILSAC GF-6 to allow for official licensing of SAE XW-16 engine oils.
Industry cannot afford to divert resources away from new category development if schedules are to be maintained.
© INFINEUM INTERNATIONAL LIMITED 2014. All rights reserved.
As already proven in Japan, additive companies and oil marketers can manage the needs for genuine oils until formal specifications can be adequately developed for ILSAC GF-6.
These new categories will represent enormous investments for all stakeholders, and industry needs to devote sufficient time and money to ensure that new specifications add value and have a reasonable category life.
Therefore, we must allow time for tests to be properly developed and to make sure important tests are not excluded so that we ensure an adequate specification life cycle for the next category. LSPI is the best example of a test that must be included for the ILSAC GF-6 category to proceed, and similarly the Mack T-13 is essential for PC-11.
The additional products that these categories will bring add logistic complexity for us all – perhaps it is the right time to consider retiring some of the legacy products.
InfineumInsight.com being mis-used in vehicles requiring higher viscosity oils.
Oil marketers have indicated that they do not support two certification symbols. They could support two separate specifications, but introducing another symbol would, they believe, cause more market confusion and is unnecessary.
approvals committee. GM, with support from the Center of Quality Assurance (CQA), had their first review meeting with the new system in April. This allows time for marketers and additive companies to get used to the new system before the next major specification change.
Some data has been brought forward to show that the existing tests have been run on selected oils. However, industry surveillance panels have not determined if these grades will impact the life of the existing tests, which were never designed to operate on these thin oils.
critical path to meet these OEM desired timelines. Progress is picking up, although there are still many issues to be resolved.
Test development and all the work associated with bringing good tests into the specifications (precision matrices, BOI/VGRA development, reference oils) is imperative to a new category. In addition, both PC-11 and ILSAC GF-6 must contend with the issues associated with bringing on new lower viscosity oils, something that is new to both specification development processes.
However, as noted in the past it only takes a delay in one of the test developments in a category to cause a significant delay in the completion of that category.
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
