Backward Compatibility Dooms GF-4 Schedule
General Motors representatives confirmed yesterday that American and Japanese car companies have postponed their deadline for the next motor oil upgrade, after determining that oils meeting desired phosphorus limits and protecting existing engines cannot be develop in time for the 2004 model year. A key factor for the delay is a nearly universal desire that GF-4 be "backward compatible," able to replace current oils with no problems or harm to older engines.
GM's representatives on the International Lubricant Standardization and Approval Committee said car makers still intend to meet emissions restrictions mandated to begin with 2004 cars, but that they may have to adjust engine designs to comply.
They suggested the oil upgrade may be delayed for a year. They did not rule out the possibility of one or more car makers writing their own motor oil specification for model year 2004, but they maintained that no company was likely to do so.
Auto, oil and lubricant additive industry representatives are continuing their work to draft GF-4, which would be the biggest upgrade of passenger car motor oils since adoption of the Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System in 1993. Automakers have set several goals for the category. One is to lower phosphorus levels to avoid poisoning catalysts in new emissions control devices. OEMs also want oils to provide greater oxidative stability, better fuel economy and better deposit control.
Given those goals, ILSAC’s proposed schedule – which called for the standard to be adopted next spring and oils to be commercially available by fall – was deemed very ambitious. The Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association told members last week that ILSAC members had agreed that they could not meet the schedule, but committee representatives could not be reached for comment at that time.
The delay was confirmed yesterday by GM’s Michael McMillan and Robert Olree, chairmen respectively of ILSAC and the ILSAC-Oil Committee that is drafting the specification. During a telephone interview, the pair said that the biggest roadblock was the desire for low-phosphorus oils that also would be backward compatible.
“There’s really just one issue that is driving everything at this point,” McMillan said. “That’s this issue of whether or not we can lower phosphorus levels to .05 percent and still protect engines in cars older than model year 2004.
“Frankly, there’s a lot of disagreement on whether we can achieve backward compatibility. Some of the data suggests there is not a problem, but there are other people who want to see more fleet testing data. To meet the schedule, we needed to have the category pretty much defined by the end of this year. There was just no way we were going to resolve this issue in time to do that.”
Olree added, “It’s not that we postponed the specification. We simply recognized that it wasn’t possible to meet that schedule.”
The GM representatives said car makers will still meet the emissions mandate but that different companies may take different routes.
“Individual manufacturers are certifying vehicles using whatever technologies they need for their particular vehicles,” McMillan said. “It may be that they have to use different or more robust catalysts or differently calibrate their control devices. The key is that engine oils with .05 phosphorus levels won’t be part of the equation.”
Olree stressed that the emissions controls that appear with 2004 cars should survive short-term use of GF-3 engine oils.
“There seem to be a lot of people who feel that the low-phosphorus oil is like taking the lead out of gasoline,” he said. “It’s not really like that. If you put one tankful of leaded gas in an engine designed for unleaded, it could immediately cause the engine to fail.
“When you talk about the effects of phosphorus on emissions controls, it’s a cumulative thing. If we have to use a GF-3 oil for one year but have a good probability of having a .05 phosphorus oil after that year, we don’t think that’s going to make much of a difference in the long run.”
Motor oil marketers are generally expected to welcome a delay that gives them more time to prepare for GF-4, but some have questioned whether postponement of the industry standard would lead some car makers to develop their own specification. McMillan said he could not rule out that possibility but added that it would be an extreme step.
“It’s true that some manufacturers have done that at times in the past,” he said. “But when you start talking about oils that you’re calibrating emissions systems for, you need a lot more assurance that customers are going to use the correct oil.”
ILSAC members have not yet decided on a new schedule for GF-4. McMillan and Olree said the group will do so in the next few weeks. They said a delay of 12 to 18 months seems likely.
“If you start talking about three, four or five years, that’s just not going to work,” McMillan said.
By Tim Sullivan
General Motors representatives confirmed yesterday that American and Japanese car companies have postponed their deadline for the next motor oil upgrade, after determining that oils meeting desired phosphorus limits and protecting existing engines cannot be develop in time for the 2004 model year. A key factor for the delay is a nearly universal desire that GF-4 be "backward compatible," able to replace current oils with no problems or harm to older engines.
GM's representatives on the International Lubricant Standardization and Approval Committee said car makers still intend to meet emissions restrictions mandated to begin with 2004 cars, but that they may have to adjust engine designs to comply.
They suggested the oil upgrade may be delayed for a year. They did not rule out the possibility of one or more car makers writing their own motor oil specification for model year 2004, but they maintained that no company was likely to do so.
Auto, oil and lubricant additive industry representatives are continuing their work to draft GF-4, which would be the biggest upgrade of passenger car motor oils since adoption of the Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System in 1993. Automakers have set several goals for the category. One is to lower phosphorus levels to avoid poisoning catalysts in new emissions control devices. OEMs also want oils to provide greater oxidative stability, better fuel economy and better deposit control.
Given those goals, ILSAC’s proposed schedule – which called for the standard to be adopted next spring and oils to be commercially available by fall – was deemed very ambitious. The Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association told members last week that ILSAC members had agreed that they could not meet the schedule, but committee representatives could not be reached for comment at that time.
The delay was confirmed yesterday by GM’s Michael McMillan and Robert Olree, chairmen respectively of ILSAC and the ILSAC-Oil Committee that is drafting the specification. During a telephone interview, the pair said that the biggest roadblock was the desire for low-phosphorus oils that also would be backward compatible.
“There’s really just one issue that is driving everything at this point,” McMillan said. “That’s this issue of whether or not we can lower phosphorus levels to .05 percent and still protect engines in cars older than model year 2004.
“Frankly, there’s a lot of disagreement on whether we can achieve backward compatibility. Some of the data suggests there is not a problem, but there are other people who want to see more fleet testing data. To meet the schedule, we needed to have the category pretty much defined by the end of this year. There was just no way we were going to resolve this issue in time to do that.”
Olree added, “It’s not that we postponed the specification. We simply recognized that it wasn’t possible to meet that schedule.”
The GM representatives said car makers will still meet the emissions mandate but that different companies may take different routes.
“Individual manufacturers are certifying vehicles using whatever technologies they need for their particular vehicles,” McMillan said. “It may be that they have to use different or more robust catalysts or differently calibrate their control devices. The key is that engine oils with .05 phosphorus levels won’t be part of the equation.”
Olree stressed that the emissions controls that appear with 2004 cars should survive short-term use of GF-3 engine oils.
“There seem to be a lot of people who feel that the low-phosphorus oil is like taking the lead out of gasoline,” he said. “It’s not really like that. If you put one tankful of leaded gas in an engine designed for unleaded, it could immediately cause the engine to fail.
“When you talk about the effects of phosphorus on emissions controls, it’s a cumulative thing. If we have to use a GF-3 oil for one year but have a good probability of having a .05 phosphorus oil after that year, we don’t think that’s going to make much of a difference in the long run.”
Motor oil marketers are generally expected to welcome a delay that gives them more time to prepare for GF-4, but some have questioned whether postponement of the industry standard would lead some car makers to develop their own specification. McMillan said he could not rule out that possibility but added that it would be an extreme step.
“It’s true that some manufacturers have done that at times in the past,” he said. “But when you start talking about oils that you’re calibrating emissions systems for, you need a lot more assurance that customers are going to use the correct oil.”
ILSAC members have not yet decided on a new schedule for GF-4. McMillan and Olree said the group will do so in the next few weeks. They said a delay of 12 to 18 months seems likely.
“If you start talking about three, four or five years, that’s just not going to work,” McMillan said.
By Tim Sullivan
