A Short Time Line for Development

Status
Not open for further replies.

MolaKule

Staff member
Joined
Jun 5, 2002
Messages
23,974
Location
Iowegia - USA
A Short Time Line for Development, by permission of MolaKule.

This is a summary of the latest issue of Tribology and Lubrication Technology (TLT) by the S.T.L.E., (Sept. 2015) that had an article entitled, “GF-6, PC-11, and Dexos1,” by Dr. Neil Canter, which discussed the additive and formulation challenges for these upcoming specifications.

GF-6 has two subcategories: GF-6A and GF-6B. GF-6A will cover existing engine oil grades while GF-6B will cover new grades lower than 0W20.

Honda recently requested two new engine grades, 0W12 and 0W8, be included in the Engine Oil Viscosity Grade Classification System.

PC-11 also has two subcategories: PC-11A is to be backward compatible with the current HDEO category API CJ-4 with an HTHS of 3.5 minimum, while PC-11B is for new, lower viscosity HDEO’s with a minimum HTHS of 2.9 to 3.2.

The new GF-6 engine tests will require as many as six new engine tests

One of the interesting points made was that, new and lighter engines means that new additives must be developed for use in lubricants that will need to operate in the boundary layer.

Dr. Simon Tung of Vanderbilt Chemicals expressed the tone of many additive company representatives when he, said, “Lower viscosity grade oil might not be able to have enough oil film thickness to protect [against] engine wear as higher viscosity oils. The improvement in fuel economy performance seen with lower viscosity oils may have a negative impact on durability because the oil film is less robust under the most extreme loading and high temperature conditions encountered with emerging engine technologies. Enhanced fortification of specific additive components or a different formulation shape may be required to deliver the antiwear and durability requirements needed in GF-6B engine oils.”

The Short Additive and Formulation Timeline:

In addition to the short development timeline for GF-6 and PC-11, along comes the second generation Dexos1 specification to be released in August 2016. Martin Birze of Lubrizol said, “…Second generation Dexos1, which contains 13 tests, sets higher standards for fuel economy, and durability performance than the current Dexos!.”

Steve Haffner of Infineum says, “Considering the qualification and licensing protocols introduced by GM, most products will require new formulations which will impact logistics. With GF-6 only 18 to 24 months after the planned introduction of second generation Dexos1, PCMO’s may need to be reformulated.”

Gary Parsons of Chevron Oronite stated, “Formulators must develop products to meet next generation Dexos without knowing how or whether they will necessarily link to GF-6 once it is introduced. Since Dexos1 is more than one year in advance of GF-6, short-term prority must be given to Dexos.”

So there you have it.

It is obvious that the additive companies, testing companies, and we formulators will be extremely busy in the next two years.
 
Last edited:
I get antsy about GF-6 and dexos1 V2 not being closer to simultaneous. Then again, if dexos1 V2 is more strict than GF-6 in some areas, it won't matter to dexos1 users. If GF-6 is stricter than dexos1 V2 in some areas, again, it won't matter, since I doubt we'll see any dexos1 oils that aren't ILSAC certified.
 
Thanks for sharing.

I wonder what all this will look like when the strings are tied and hatches battened down. From the outside looking in, it appears to be very convoluted. Let's hope the projected release date of 2018 isn't a rushed endeavor.
 
Once again dexos1, the tougher overall spec, is leading the way. Still, I'm wondering if dexos1 2nd-gen in August 2016 might get delayed a bit. Wouldn't hurt anything if it did! Although, maybe less GM timing chains would die, not sure.....
smirk.gif
15.gif
 
This kind of "hurry up" always looks like prime time for fast, cheap or good? But I'm a worrier.

GOOD-FAST-CHEAP.jpg
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: wemay
Thanks for sharing.

I wonder what all this will look like when the strings are tied and hatches battened down. From the outside looking in, it appears to be very convoluted. Let's hope the projected release date of 2018 isn't a rushed endeavor.


If I was running an oil company, I would look at my present line up for both PC and HD, evaluate what grades I wanted to be marketing in the future when the new categories go live and start transitioning my lineup to match the new products direction. Because I know that the transition will be very difficult for end users I would start now with a massive educational marketing campaign that talked about new additive technologies, thinner lubes and the durability/efficiency dichotomy.

I'd also be making sure that I had already signed agreements with my additive supplier to make sure my formulas get on the test stands or fit within the matrix so I can get my products out as early as possible.

Oh wait...
whistle.gif


I also read an article about the retirement of a formulator from Chevron (the father of DELO). Those who know him also will be familiar with his regular reminder: "You have to go slow, in order to go fast."
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Solarent
Originally Posted By: wemay
Thanks for sharing.

I wonder what all this will look like when the strings are tied and hatches battened down. From the outside looking in, it appears to be very convoluted. Let's hope the projected release date of 2018 isn't a rushed endeavor.


If I was running an oil company, I would look at my present line up for both PC and HD, evaluate what grades I wanted to be marketing in the future when the new categories go live and start transitioning my lineup to match the new products direction. Because I know that the transition will be very difficult for end users I would start now with a massive educational marketing campaign that talked about new additive technologies, thinner lubes and the durability/efficiency dichotomy.

I'd also be making sure that I had already signed agreements with my additive supplier to make sure my formulas get on the test stands or fit within the matrix so I can get my products out as early as possible.

Oh wait...
whistle.gif


I also read an article about the retirement of a formulator from Chevron (the father of DELO). Those who know him also will be familiar with his regular reminder: "You have to go slow, in order to go fast."


Very true.

The good news is that additive suppliers and formulators have been examining the specifications as they have been trickling out, so some preparations have been made in anticipation of the specifications release.

In my case I have been communicating with the major add suppliers and it appears the upgraded Dexos1 additive package will be available first.

I also think the advanced Dexos1 specification will more than cover the GF-6A spec.

Let's just say the GF-6B additive chemistry will be both rather exotic and expensive (at first), and we will have to include more Group V base oils to meet the spec.
 
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Let's just say the GF-6B additive chemistry will be both rather exotic and expensive (at first), and we will have to include more Group V base oils to meet the spec.
Very cool.
cool.gif
Ionic Liquids maybe? At the risk of angering readers here, I'm already thinking about taking an advanced-chemistry 0w-8 or 0w-16 GF-6B and thicken it up using a half-dose of STP Oil Treatment or Lucas Oil Stabilizer to get a little more viscosity. Better boundary/mixed lubrication.
27.gif
 
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
A Short Time Line for Development, by permission of MolaKule.

...
Dr. Simon Tung of Vanderbilt Chemicals expressed the tone of many additive company representatives when he, said, “Lower viscosity grade oil might not be able to have enough oil film thickness to protect [against] engine wear as higher viscosity oils. The improvement in fuel economy performance seen with lower viscosity oils may have a negative impact on durability because the oil film is less robust under the most extreme loading and high temperature conditions encountered with emerging engine technologies...


I would be VERY interested to learn what oils researchers like Dr. Tung use in their own engines! (And why)
 
Boy, I bet mixing oils will become more and more likely to cause issues as the add pack becomes the primary preventor of wear.
 
Originally Posted By: MolaKule

PC-11 also has two subcategories: PC-11A is to be backward compatible with the current HDEO category API CJ-4 with an HTHS of 3.5 minimum, while PC-11B is for new, lower viscosity HDEO’s with a minimum HTHS of 2.9 to 3.2.


That's the only part of these new oils that interests me...
 
Dexos is to ILSAC what the Metric system is to the Imperial system...something that does essentially the same thing and in truth, only serves to confuse. Also you don't have to pay the French to measure things in metres...
 
Originally Posted By: Joe90_guy
Dexos is to ILSAC what the Metric system is to the Imperial system...something that does essentially the same thing and in truth, only serves to confuse. Also you don't have to pay the French to measure things in metres...

But who doesn't enjoy paying the French?
crazy.gif

Actually, dexos is a higher spec than GF-6, like the way MB229.5 beats dexos1, on up the quality ladder, therefore dexos is good in my book if I want a better oil, usually the case.
I do kind of agree with you since if an oil is SN/GF-5 AND ACEA A1/B1, it practically is dexos1 level quality already, all using standard public specs together.
 
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Boy, I bet mixing oils will become more and more likely to cause issues as the add pack becomes the primary preventor of wear.
I share your concern. However, I wa hoping that STP Oil Treatment contains very little other than a thicker oil, with little to no additive chemicals. VOAs of STP in the past showed it might be just a thickener really, so less chance of any wicked chemical interactions if you just wanted to slightly thicken an advanced GF-6B light oil.
 
Originally Posted By: ExMachina
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Let's just say the GF-6B additive chemistry will be both rather exotic and expensive (at first), and we will have to include more Group V base oils to meet the spec.
At the risk of angering readers here, I'm already thinking about taking an advanced-chemistry 0w-8 or 0w-16 GF-6B and thicken it up using a half-dose of STP Oil Treatment or Lucas Oil Stabilizer to get a little more viscosity. Better boundary/mixed lubrication.
27.gif



That's kind of like saying the smile that da Vinci put on the Mona Lisa needs some touching up.
 
Originally Posted By: ExMachina
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Boy, I bet mixing oils will become more and more likely to cause issues as the add pack becomes the primary preventor of wear.
I share your concern. However, I wa hoping that STP Oil Treatment contains very little other than a thicker oil, with little to no additive chemicals. VOAs of STP in the past showed it might be just a thickener really, so less chance of any wicked chemical interactions if you just wanted to slightly thicken an advanced GF-6B light oil.


I think you're missing a critical point in terms of interactions.

The addition of ANY additive is going to DILUTE the additive package including the anti-wear chemistry.

STP, Lucas, and other OTC additives contain mostly ancient OCP viscosity modifiers which will alter the VI of the oil, something we don't want for the GF-6 PCMO's.

The GF-6 and Dexos1 oils will have enhanced, specialized Viscosity Index Improvers (VIIs), so we don't want ancient VIIs altering the characteristics of those enhanced, specialized Viscosity Index Improvers (VIIs).
 
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
I think you're missing a critical point in terms of interactions. The addition of ANY additive is going to DILUTE the additive package including the anti-wear chemistry.STP, Lucas, and other OTC additives contain mostly ancient OCP viscosity modifiers which will alter the VI of the oil, something we don't want for the GF-6 PCMO's.The GF-6 and Dexos1 oils will have enhanced, specialized Viscosity Index Improvers (VIIs), so we don't want ancient VIIs altering the characteristics of those enhanced, specialized Viscosity Index Improvers (VIIs).

Even a 5% or 10% minimal STP Oil Treatment fraction would dilute the additive package? Seems small. OK, additive clashing is an unknown.
 
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
That's kind of like saying the smile that da Vinci put on the Mona Lisa needs some touching up.

Then how do you get just a little more HTHS (thicker oil films) while still benefiting from all that effort to improve BL/mixed lubrication? Thickening is very tempting here.
 
I'm genuinely looking forward to all this new high tech additive chemistry for ultra low viscosity lubricants. If you exclude all the 'silly stuff', there's been nothing truly novel come out of the industry in the last twenty years. Maybe they have been hiding it away from everyone just waiting for the right moment to pull back the cloth and go 'Tad-daaa!'...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top