A Short Time Line for Development

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: ExMachina
The main point here is that GF-6B oils will have better boundary lubrication performance, since that oil will be at a low HTHS (for fuel economy). We like the boundary lube superiority of a GF-6B, but want to add a slightly higher HTHS (to about 3.0) for the typical load carrying oil film strength we also want. Therefore, raising HTHS slightly in a GF-6B will give us BOTH great boundary lubrication AND thicker oil films. Thats the last time I will explain that.
Why not use a higher HTHSV oil and add GF-6B to it to lower the HTHSV to the desired level? Also, I'm not sure that STP is all that effective at raising HTHSV.
 
I know I shouldn't have but I downloaded the drafts the GF-6A and GF-6B specs and had a quick squint. My first reaction was here we go again. It's the same old exercise in the application of exorbitantly expensive high science to generate something that's of marginal value and ultimately futile. One thing did make me laugh. I notice they have applied all the usual nips and tucks to many of the test parameters and yet have kept the NOACK spec at 15% max. The one meaningful parameter, they could and should change to improve US oil quality, remains unaltered. Hilarious!
 
Originally Posted By: Joe90_guy
I know I shouldn't have but I downloaded the drafts the GF-6A and GF-6B specs and had a quick squint. My first reaction was here we go again. It's the same old exercise in the application of exorbitantly expensive high science to generate something that's of marginal value and ultimately futile. One thing did make me laugh. I notice they have applied all the usual nips and tucks to many of the test parameters and yet have kept the NOACK spec at 15% max. The one meaningful parameter, they could and should change to improve US oil quality, remains unaltered. Hilarious!
The Ravenol 0w16 has a NOACK of 8.2% http://www.ravenol.de/fileadmin/content/documents/pdfs/Ravenol_EFE_SAE_0W-16__en.pdf
 
Originally Posted By: ExMachina
Therefore, raising HTHS slightly in a GF-6B will give us BOTH great boundary lubrication AND thicker oil films.
But, how much better will GF-6B be at boundary lubrication over GF-6A? And by how much, I'd like it quantification. wink
 
Originally Posted By: Joe90_guy
You need to focus on the Big Picture, not the detail....
shrug
Originally Posted By: Joe90_guy
.... and yet have kept the NOACK spec at 15% max. The one meaningful parameter, they could and should change to improve US oil quality, remains unaltered. Hilarious!
 
Originally Posted By: Joe90_guy
I know I shouldn't have but I downloaded the drafts the GF-6A and GF-6B specs and had a quick squint. My first reaction was here we go again. It's the same old exercise in the application of exorbitantly expensive high science to generate something that's of marginal value and ultimately futile. One thing did make me laugh. I notice they have applied all the usual nips and tucks to many of the test parameters and yet have kept the NOACK spec at 15% max. The one meaningful parameter, they could and should change to improve US oil quality, remains unaltered. Hilarious!
You're rather skeptical for a former formulator. smile I look at it as another formulating challenge which WILL happen. cool
 
Actually I'd describe my position as deeply skeptical and utterly cynical of a system that seems to serve no-one's needs other than its own. Tell me? The new GF-6B grades will generate what precise fuel economy benefits? Bet you no-one knows but I'd wager it's small in real life driving conditions. With crude running at less than $US 50/barrel, what is that small fuel economy worth? I'll bet it's tiny. I'd further predict that these ultra low viscosity will primarily be based on exotic high VI base oils and maybe a few new additives. Will these oils be more expensive that Dino? Of course they will. So if you set the higher cost of the new oils against the fuel savings, which way does the see-saw tip? Oh and let's not forget that the collective engine test spend in developing these new oils will be gargantuan and that the industry will probably burn far more gasoline in running endless engine tests to qualify these oils, than the oils will ever save in the field. Tell me? What other industry runs itself in this way where there is no consideration of even the most of basic economic principles with ALL of the costs of this futile effort passed on to a customer base that never ever asked for this in the first place! Will it happen? Of course. Should it? I really find that very hard to swallow...
 
Originally Posted By: Joe90_guy
Actually I'd describe my position as deeply skeptical and utterly cynical of a system that seems to serve no-one's needs other than its own. Tell me? The new GF-6B grades will generate what precise fuel economy benefits? Bet you no-one knows but I'd wager it's small in real life driving conditions. With crude running at less than $US 50/barrel, what is that small fuel economy worth? I'll bet it's tiny. I'd further predict that these ultra low viscosity will primarily be based on exotic high VI base oils and maybe a few new additives. Will these oils be more expensive that Dino? Of course they will. So if you set the higher cost of the new oils against the fuel savings, which way does the see-saw tip? Oh and let's not forget that the collective engine test spend in developing these new oils will be gargantuan and that the industry will probably burn far more gasoline in running endless engine tests to qualify these oils, than the oils will ever save in the field. Tell me? What other industry runs itself in this way where there is no consideration of even the most of basic economic principles with ALL of the costs of this futile effort passed on to a customer base that never ever asked for this in the first place! Will it happen? Of course. Should it? I really find that very hard to swallow...
I agree with your basic premise. But we have to ask why this is being done? It is because of some bu·reau·crats, whom know nothing of scientific and engineering principles, forcing this on us using unscientific "feel good" principles. Government regulations -> OEM edicts -> engineering specs -> lubricant reformulations. It DOES roll downhill.
 
Last edited:
Ultimately the further market segmentation and varying OEM requirements benefit the oil producer, formulator, et al. More specific requirements, better materials and so on drive costs. Margins, at least in the short to mid term, will increase as percentages are added for profit. Even with increased IR&D, which actually could be amortized over a fairly short period, the cost to the consumer simply goes up and stays up. This happens in all business areas as regulation increases. The increased number of walled off requirements represent a sort of protection (and our old friend- rent seeking) for suppliers. Thus the supplier has built one more protective barrier against the assault on his margins that fluctuating oil prices cause. It's not a total answer for him but it doesn't hurt either. Speaking as a former defense industry apparachic, where we were regulated in the extreme, this is how it works. How many oil company executives have you seen on Capitol Hill screaming that this is a bad idea or that there is little benefit to justify the cost? None? Just askin?
 
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Government regulations -> OEM edicts -> engineering specs -> lubricant reformulations.
The OEMs are looking for CAFE credits, and it doesn't matter whether oil is $5 a barrel or $500 a barrel. It's that simple. So yes, it's all rolling downhill.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Government regulations -> OEM edicts -> engineering specs -> lubricant reformulations.
The OEMs are looking for CAFE credits, and it doesn't matter whether oil is $5 a barrel or $500 a barrel. It's that simple. So yes, it's all rolling downhill.
But don't we have a responsibility to advance the engineering we use to the technologies that are improve the lives of the general populace. Efficiency is more than just fuel economy and emissions - although that is a big focus. It's also about power density, improved throughput, reliability and so on. I think that although this is advanced by the regulations and the edicts, there is still a lot that can be said about the kind of advanced engineering that is going on in the designs for engines and lubricants that won't be released for another 10 years.
 
I certainly agree with that, Solarent, but my point was mainly that we see a fuel economy push with respect to lubricants (or anything else under OEM control) irrespective of the price of oil. That push has been going on for many, many years in the industry, even through some very low oil prices. And yes, I'd agree that engineers throughout the automotive industry are interested in all the benefits that come about through added efficiency.
 
Originally Posted By: Joe90_guy
I know I shouldn't have but I downloaded the drafts the GF-6A and GF-6B specs and had a quick squint. My first reaction was here we go again. It's the same old exercise in the application of exorbitantly expensive high science to generate something that's of marginal value and ultimately futile. One thing did make me laugh. I notice they have applied all the usual nips and tucks to many of the test parameters and yet have kept the NOACK spec at 15% max. The one meaningful parameter, they could and should change to improve US oil quality, remains unaltered. Hilarious!
thumbsup
 
Originally Posted By: Joe90_guy
Actually I'd describe my position as deeply skeptical and utterly cynical of a system that seems to serve no-one's needs other than its own. Tell me? The new GF-6B grades will generate what precise fuel economy benefits? Bet you no-one knows but I'd wager it's small in real life driving conditions. With crude running at less than $US 50/barrel, what is that small fuel economy worth? I'll bet it's tiny. I'd further predict that these ultra low viscosity will primarily be based on exotic high VI base oils and maybe a few new additives. Will these oils be more expensive that Dino? Of course they will. So if you set the higher cost of the new oils against the fuel savings, which way does the see-saw tip? Oh and let's not forget that the collective engine test spend in developing these new oils will be gargantuan and that the industry will probably burn far more gasoline in running endless engine tests to qualify these oils, than the oils will ever save in the field. Tell me? What other industry runs itself in this way where there is no consideration of even the most of basic economic principles with ALL of the costs of this futile effort passed on to a customer base that never ever asked for this in the first place! Will it happen? Of course. Should it? I really find that very hard to swallow...
Very few new cars spec conventional these days and the ones pushing the thinner oils have been using 0w-20 for years. Even without these new specs dino is going bye bye in new cars.
 
Originally Posted By: Joe90_guy
I know I shouldn't have but I downloaded the drafts the GF-6A and GF-6B specs and had a quick squint. My first reaction was here we go again. It's the same old exercise in the application of exorbitantly expensive high science to generate something that's of marginal value and ultimately futile. One thing did make me laugh. I notice they have applied all the usual nips and tucks to many of the test parameters and yet have kept the NOACK spec at 15% max. The one meaningful parameter, they could and should change to improve US oil quality, remains unaltered. Hilarious!
I think it's called "photoshopping the xrays".
 
Sorry for the delay in replying... Agree with all you said, especially the bit about once things go up, they stay up. As I recall, crude prices hit a peak of about $US140/bbl, then they dropped to around $US100/bbl for a while and more recently they they have dropped go below $US50/bbl. I don't follow them as closely as I used to, but I would guess that in that time, the bulk price of most base oils has dropped by similar proportions. In the US, have you seen similar falls is finished engine oil prices? In the UK, my gut feel is prices have not fallen one jot! So much for the wonders of competition and modern capitalism!
 
Again, sorry for the delay in replying... Yes, I would definitely agree with the March Of Progress and the unending search for efficient benefitting society in general. The OEMs have delivered in spades on this one; hybrids, VVTi, smaller displacement/higher power density engines, etc, etc. And the progress on engine oils has been...errr, well...errr...steady....and...errrr... The truth is that 90% of the progress on engine oils relates to the wider AVAILABILTY of better lube base stocks. The stocks themselves have been around for yonks (PAOs, esters, hydro-treated minerals). Likewise, there was nothing stopping you from formulating a 0W20 oil years ago; the rules of J-300 were there just waiting to be used. Please don't get me started on additives... If the API did anything, it was to make Group I untenable in the US but as I've said before, when oil companies can make Group II cheaper than Group I, one might be justified in asking whose interests did the rules work in favour of.
 
I Googled 'Photoshopping the X-Rays' and I still don't understand what it means. Of course you're throwing this at someone that thought a 'meme' was pronounced 'mee-mee'. Oh the stick I got from the kids over that one. Please put me out of my agony and explain...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

wwillson
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Pennzoil Q&A GF-6 and GF-7 with the American Petroleum Institute (API) - Answers
2
Replies
22
Views
6K
eroberts82
D
Using Liqui-Moly 6200 0W-20 in a 2019 Subaru Impreza?
Replies
10
Views
510
02zx9r rev2
Gokhan
ILSAC GF-7 only five years away, to debut in Q2 2028: details
Replies
17
Views
1K
Snagglefoot
A
PUP 0w-20 (GM dexos1) vs. M1 EP (GM dexos1: Gen3)
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
AJW001
KingGeorge
Is 5w20 Dexos becoming obsolete?
2
Replies
25
Views
3K
Cuemark8
Top