Oil is currently spec'd at an API SN rating. Does anyone know if an API SO spec'd oil is in the works? Any idea how it will differ from the current API SN oil?
Currently SN......SO In The Works?
- Thread starter BlueOvalFitter
- Start date
- Status
They'll likely skip SO since people might read it as S0 (S-zero). SP is likely what you'll see.
Originally Posted By: Rand
they usually skip vowels so would it be API SP?
I am more interested in GF-6 than api whatever.
Almost all Alphabetized lettered systems in a lot of things in life, Not just Automotive seem to skip the vowels??
Why?
Do we have something against them? Them against us?
Is it something I said?
they usually skip vowels so would it be API SP?
I am more interested in GF-6 than api whatever.
Almost all Alphabetized lettered systems in a lot of things in life, Not just Automotive seem to skip the vowels??
Why?
Do we have something against them? Them against us?
Is it something I said?
That's interesting. I never really paid that much attention to the fact that the vowels were skipped.
But, does anyone have a clue as to what an SP rated oil might be, contain, not contain, or might want to guess?
But, does anyone have a clue as to what an SP rated oil might be, contain, not contain, or might want to guess?
Originally Posted By: michaelluscher
Originally Posted By: Rand
they usually skip vowels so would it be API SP?
I am more interested in GF-6 than api whatever.
Almost all Alphabetized lettered systems in a lot of things in life, Not just Automotive seem to skip the vowels??
Why?
Do we have something against them? Them against us?
Is it something I said?
I think they just had something against the vowel I, there was SA and SE oils, just no SI. I guess they didn't like Duck Dynasty.
Originally Posted By: Rand
they usually skip vowels so would it be API SP?
I am more interested in GF-6 than api whatever.
Almost all Alphabetized lettered systems in a lot of things in life, Not just Automotive seem to skip the vowels??
Why?
Do we have something against them? Them against us?
Is it something I said?
I think they just had something against the vowel I, there was SA and SE oils, just no SI. I guess they didn't like Duck Dynasty.
Originally Posted By: michaelluscher
Originally Posted By: Rand
they usually skip vowels so would it be API SP?
I am more interested in GF-6 than api whatever.
Almost all Alphabetized lettered systems in a lot of things in life, Not just Automotive seem to skip the vowels??
Why?
Do we have something against them? Them against us?
Is it something I said?
http://www.pqiamerica.com/apiserviceclass.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_oil
Originally Posted By: Rand
they usually skip vowels so would it be API SP?
I am more interested in GF-6 than api whatever.
Almost all Alphabetized lettered systems in a lot of things in life, Not just Automotive seem to skip the vowels??
Why?
Do we have something against them? Them against us?
Is it something I said?
http://www.pqiamerica.com/apiserviceclass.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_oil
Many of alphanumeric systems omit the letters I, and O, so as not to confuse with 1, and 0. IIRC VIN Number follow this, as do the date codes on car batteries.
BlueOval,
Here is an article that addresses changes for GF-6. IIRC, this has just been delayed to Jan 2017. I already have enough GF-5 on hand to get me there lol.
http://www.stle.org/resources/articledetails.aspx?did=1671
Here is an article that addresses changes for GF-6. IIRC, this has just been delayed to Jan 2017. I already have enough GF-5 on hand to get me there lol.
http://www.stle.org/resources/articledetails.aspx?did=1671
Not exactly. SM, SN, and so forth are API terminology. GF-5 and the like are ILSAC terminology. Additionally, one can have an API rating without an ILSAC rating (i.e. M1 0w-40, HDEOs). But, one cannot have an ILSAC rating without an API rating.
New-spec oils are coming to the market in 2016 -- GF-6 (PCMO) in September 2016 and PC-11 (HDEO) in January 2016.
However, there is a caveat. GF-6 will be the end of the one-size-fits-all area and you won't be able to blindly grab any oil from the shelf and dump it into your engine.
This means GF-6 will actually have two mutually exclusive subcategories. The new super-fuel-efficient GF-6B category will have the new 0W-16 viscosity grade, which will only be suitable for 2017+ engines and it will potentially damage older engines -- no backward compatibility.
Likewise, PC-11 for HDEO will also have two separate viscosity categories, the fuel-efficient category not being backward compatible and potentially damaging for engines not certified for it.
However, this is somewhat in lines of the current ACEA categories, which already separate the oils to two main categories according to the HTHS viscosity (less than 3.5 cP or at least 3.5 cP and higher). The difference is though neither in ACEA there is currently any oil nearly as thin as the new 0W-16 grade. So, ACEA will likely have three separate main categories starting with the GF-6 era.
In-depth explanation:
Copy from ILMA Compoundings, April 2013
http://www.infineum.com/Documents/Crankc...and%20PC-11.pdf
ILSAC GF-6 and PC-11 Timing: Coming into Focus
Although still three or more years away, timing for the next generation passenger car engine oil ILSAC GF-6 and heavy-duty engine oil PC-11 is coming into focus. First use of PC-11 is targeted for January 1, 2016. The EMA is committed to this timing in order to meet new EPA and NHTSA requirements for lower greenhouse gas emissions and fuel efficiency improvements.
To achieve this timing, it is critical that industry delivers the new Mack T-13 test for diesel oxidation and ensures the Mack T-12 test for ring and liner wear can be maintained as well, for back serviceability. We will note that this is only one of many items being worked including a new aeration test, scuffing test, Caterpillar oxidation test and shear stability test. But once the Mack T-13 is set finalized, we believe that decisions regarding the other tests will be made quickly to keep the schedule on time.
Not all the new tests will be in the final PC-11 category but the tests may become part of the new OEM specifications. HDD programs are typically long in duration driven by the test lengths and additive companies must also consider the impact of OEM specification and ACEA Sequences which can be essential for all marketers in North America. Compounding this, marketers will also introduce new lower viscosity engine lubricants below 3.5 cP HTHS viscosity that, in most cases, will not be backward serviceable versus lubricants over 3.5 cP HTHS viscosity. PC-11, containing both high and low HTHS viscosity specifications, is shaping up to become the most expensive reformulation in the history of NA engine oil specifications.
ILSAC GF-6 timing has moved back to September 30, 2016, for 2017 model year vehicles for several reasons: 1) This will allow a nine month separation between PC-11 and GF-6 which is essential to oil marketers, and 2) the realization that industry would be challenged to develop and deliver key new tests in a shorter timeframe.
GF-6 is also a specification which requires many new tests. The most critical will be the replacement for the Sequence IIIG. A consortium of Chrysler, Chevron Oronite, Shell, SwRI, and Haltermann Fuel is working on a replacement test based on a Chrysler 3.5L engine. General Motors is also working on a replacement test however they will not adopt the ASTM process approach to consensus-based test decisions and therefore there is some doubt if it will be accepted in the new category. Replacement tests are also being developed for the Sequence IVA (wear), Sequence VG (sludge) and Sequence VID (fuel economy). A test to measure Low Speed PreIgnition Events is being developed and the Sequence VG replacement test, the Sequence VH, will also measure chain wear. Aeration has already been dropped from the Needs Statement as a test is not being developed. Like HDD, GF-6 will increase in complexity for all stakeholders. A new fuel economy grade will be introduced, SAE XW-16 with a different GF-6 specification, GF-6B, and this may have little or no back serviceability. General Motors will also introduce its next generation dexos1™ specification. It will use the new GM oxidation test as well as several new GM specific tests. GM currently anticipates to deploy these products during 2015.
Although timelines appear to be becoming clearer, industry will need to work very hard to meet them and allow additive companies to complete their development – and properly deploy products in order to meet customer needs. Marketers will find it very challenging to deploy what is shaping up to be essentially four new categories plus dexos1™ in a very short time period. There are still many unknowns and it is not at all clear how the new low-viscosity fuel economy grades will be managed by API and lubricant marketers. It is also possible that PC-11’s schedule can slip a little? How critical is a three month delay in PC-11 roll out? Would it be necessary to delay GF-6 introductions for three months to maintain a nine month separation? Could the industry manage a compressed commercialization timeline or less time between PCMO and HDD product rollout? These questions do not all need to be answered in the short term and perhaps not until nearer to 2016. Infineum will be watching this closely, so stay tuned to this space for future updates.
Copy for ILMA Compoundings, August 2013 issue
http://www.infineum.com/Documents/Crankcase Technical Papers/Compoundings_PCMO_and_HDD.pdf
GF-6 and PC-11 – Why, What and When?
In this update, we wanted to give readers a little more information concerning the reasons for the new PCMO and HDD categories. We will start with ILSAC GF-6.
The drivers for developing the ILSAC GF-6 engine oil category come from a combination of needing to replace or update the hardware for older tests, and the need for lubricants to be able to service new and emerging engine architectures. Many of the current ILSAC GF-5 engine tests are projected to run out of hardware before the end of 2016, and the downsized, turbo-charged, direct injection gasoline engines, which are major factors in the drive to meet increasingly stringent CAFE targets, appear to present a combination of unique challenges to the next generation of lubricants. Turbocharger failures, timing chain wear, and low-speed pre-ignition (LSPI) problems have all been reported in the field and require new ILSAC GF-6 lubricants, which address these issues, to service them. Additionally provision must be made to protect some engines which will be serviced by a new SAE J300 XW-16 viscosity grade, as discussed in earlier articles.
In heavy-duty, emissions regulations have historically driven changes in engine hardware and operation ultimately increasing the demands on heavy-duty lubricants. On-highway emissions regulations for Class 8 vehicles have driven exhaust emissions to near-zero levels, achieved by heavy- duty diesel engine manufacturers retarding injection timing, then adding EGR (Exhaust Gas Recirculation), followed by DPF (Diesel Particulate Filters), and finally SCR (Selective Catalytic Reduction).
Going forward, the focus is turning towards fuel economy and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, specifically CO2. Two key government agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), each developed their own standards but did so collaboratively to develop a “National Heavy-Duty Program”. The EPA developed standards for GHG emissions while the NHTSA developed standards for fuel consumption for on-highway diesel engines. The implementation of these standards will be phased in beginning in 2014, with mandatory compliance by 2018. The benefits over the life of vehicles produced between 2014 and2018 are significant: projections are savings over 270 million metric tons in CO2 emissions and 530 million barrels of oil.
To achieve these goals, heavy-duty diesel engine manufacturers are utilizing more friction reducing coatings, higher combustion pressures and temperatures, higher oil operating temperatures, and are making selective changes to high stress regions of some engines to enable them to run with lower viscosity engine oils. A significant improvement in oxidation along with improved aeration and a way to prove the durability of low-viscosity engine oils make up the need for the next proposed heavy-duty diesel engine oil category, PC-11. Lubricant formulators face a significant challenge in developing oils that will be able to maintain the current level of engine durability with new lower viscosity oils. Experience in formulating with low viscosity oils in heavy-duty diesel applications will play a key role in ensuring the lower viscosity oils developed are able to deliver against all these competing demands.
Industry is developing or upgrading many tests for both categories and they are shaping up to be the most intricate and expensive category developments in the history of PCMO and HDD specification development.
Furthermore since the PCMO and HDD categories are introducing lower viscosity engine oils than have ever been allowed, both categories will make these oils distinct by using different names for each. These new low viscosity engine oils will not be back serviceable. This will no doubt introduce complexity for marketers, distributors and end customers. PC-11 and ILSAC GF-6 are currently scheduled for first allowable use on January 1 2016 and January 1 2017 respectively, the latter of which has been delayed by three months due to delays in engine test development. With PC-11 the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) is requesting January 1 2016, but the timeline puts earliest first allowable use date at June 1 2016. Historically category delays have occurred due to delays in the development of new engine tests and these developments are no exception. We expect to have a better understanding of the schedule towards the end of 2013 but as of now we predict that both categories will see some level of delay. In addition, General Motors is planning to upgrade its dexos™ specifications in the 2015 time frame ahead of ILSAC GF-6. All this combined means a lot of work for all industry stakeholders and significant changes in the North American market as we introduce next generation products. We will continue to report on the progress of both ILSAC GF-6 and PC-11 in future issues of Compoundings.
However, there is a caveat. GF-6 will be the end of the one-size-fits-all area and you won't be able to blindly grab any oil from the shelf and dump it into your engine.
This means GF-6 will actually have two mutually exclusive subcategories. The new super-fuel-efficient GF-6B category will have the new 0W-16 viscosity grade, which will only be suitable for 2017+ engines and it will potentially damage older engines -- no backward compatibility.
Likewise, PC-11 for HDEO will also have two separate viscosity categories, the fuel-efficient category not being backward compatible and potentially damaging for engines not certified for it.
However, this is somewhat in lines of the current ACEA categories, which already separate the oils to two main categories according to the HTHS viscosity (less than 3.5 cP or at least 3.5 cP and higher). The difference is though neither in ACEA there is currently any oil nearly as thin as the new 0W-16 grade. So, ACEA will likely have three separate main categories starting with the GF-6 era.
In-depth explanation:
Copy from ILMA Compoundings, April 2013
http://www.infineum.com/Documents/Crankc...and%20PC-11.pdf
ILSAC GF-6 and PC-11 Timing: Coming into Focus
Although still three or more years away, timing for the next generation passenger car engine oil ILSAC GF-6 and heavy-duty engine oil PC-11 is coming into focus. First use of PC-11 is targeted for January 1, 2016. The EMA is committed to this timing in order to meet new EPA and NHTSA requirements for lower greenhouse gas emissions and fuel efficiency improvements.
To achieve this timing, it is critical that industry delivers the new Mack T-13 test for diesel oxidation and ensures the Mack T-12 test for ring and liner wear can be maintained as well, for back serviceability. We will note that this is only one of many items being worked including a new aeration test, scuffing test, Caterpillar oxidation test and shear stability test. But once the Mack T-13 is set finalized, we believe that decisions regarding the other tests will be made quickly to keep the schedule on time.
Not all the new tests will be in the final PC-11 category but the tests may become part of the new OEM specifications. HDD programs are typically long in duration driven by the test lengths and additive companies must also consider the impact of OEM specification and ACEA Sequences which can be essential for all marketers in North America. Compounding this, marketers will also introduce new lower viscosity engine lubricants below 3.5 cP HTHS viscosity that, in most cases, will not be backward serviceable versus lubricants over 3.5 cP HTHS viscosity. PC-11, containing both high and low HTHS viscosity specifications, is shaping up to become the most expensive reformulation in the history of NA engine oil specifications.
ILSAC GF-6 timing has moved back to September 30, 2016, for 2017 model year vehicles for several reasons: 1) This will allow a nine month separation between PC-11 and GF-6 which is essential to oil marketers, and 2) the realization that industry would be challenged to develop and deliver key new tests in a shorter timeframe.
GF-6 is also a specification which requires many new tests. The most critical will be the replacement for the Sequence IIIG. A consortium of Chrysler, Chevron Oronite, Shell, SwRI, and Haltermann Fuel is working on a replacement test based on a Chrysler 3.5L engine. General Motors is also working on a replacement test however they will not adopt the ASTM process approach to consensus-based test decisions and therefore there is some doubt if it will be accepted in the new category. Replacement tests are also being developed for the Sequence IVA (wear), Sequence VG (sludge) and Sequence VID (fuel economy). A test to measure Low Speed PreIgnition Events is being developed and the Sequence VG replacement test, the Sequence VH, will also measure chain wear. Aeration has already been dropped from the Needs Statement as a test is not being developed. Like HDD, GF-6 will increase in complexity for all stakeholders. A new fuel economy grade will be introduced, SAE XW-16 with a different GF-6 specification, GF-6B, and this may have little or no back serviceability. General Motors will also introduce its next generation dexos1™ specification. It will use the new GM oxidation test as well as several new GM specific tests. GM currently anticipates to deploy these products during 2015.
Although timelines appear to be becoming clearer, industry will need to work very hard to meet them and allow additive companies to complete their development – and properly deploy products in order to meet customer needs. Marketers will find it very challenging to deploy what is shaping up to be essentially four new categories plus dexos1™ in a very short time period. There are still many unknowns and it is not at all clear how the new low-viscosity fuel economy grades will be managed by API and lubricant marketers. It is also possible that PC-11’s schedule can slip a little? How critical is a three month delay in PC-11 roll out? Would it be necessary to delay GF-6 introductions for three months to maintain a nine month separation? Could the industry manage a compressed commercialization timeline or less time between PCMO and HDD product rollout? These questions do not all need to be answered in the short term and perhaps not until nearer to 2016. Infineum will be watching this closely, so stay tuned to this space for future updates.
Copy for ILMA Compoundings, August 2013 issue
http://www.infineum.com/Documents/Crankcase Technical Papers/Compoundings_PCMO_and_HDD.pdf
GF-6 and PC-11 – Why, What and When?
In this update, we wanted to give readers a little more information concerning the reasons for the new PCMO and HDD categories. We will start with ILSAC GF-6.
The drivers for developing the ILSAC GF-6 engine oil category come from a combination of needing to replace or update the hardware for older tests, and the need for lubricants to be able to service new and emerging engine architectures. Many of the current ILSAC GF-5 engine tests are projected to run out of hardware before the end of 2016, and the downsized, turbo-charged, direct injection gasoline engines, which are major factors in the drive to meet increasingly stringent CAFE targets, appear to present a combination of unique challenges to the next generation of lubricants. Turbocharger failures, timing chain wear, and low-speed pre-ignition (LSPI) problems have all been reported in the field and require new ILSAC GF-6 lubricants, which address these issues, to service them. Additionally provision must be made to protect some engines which will be serviced by a new SAE J300 XW-16 viscosity grade, as discussed in earlier articles.
In heavy-duty, emissions regulations have historically driven changes in engine hardware and operation ultimately increasing the demands on heavy-duty lubricants. On-highway emissions regulations for Class 8 vehicles have driven exhaust emissions to near-zero levels, achieved by heavy- duty diesel engine manufacturers retarding injection timing, then adding EGR (Exhaust Gas Recirculation), followed by DPF (Diesel Particulate Filters), and finally SCR (Selective Catalytic Reduction).
Going forward, the focus is turning towards fuel economy and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, specifically CO2. Two key government agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), each developed their own standards but did so collaboratively to develop a “National Heavy-Duty Program”. The EPA developed standards for GHG emissions while the NHTSA developed standards for fuel consumption for on-highway diesel engines. The implementation of these standards will be phased in beginning in 2014, with mandatory compliance by 2018. The benefits over the life of vehicles produced between 2014 and2018 are significant: projections are savings over 270 million metric tons in CO2 emissions and 530 million barrels of oil.
To achieve these goals, heavy-duty diesel engine manufacturers are utilizing more friction reducing coatings, higher combustion pressures and temperatures, higher oil operating temperatures, and are making selective changes to high stress regions of some engines to enable them to run with lower viscosity engine oils. A significant improvement in oxidation along with improved aeration and a way to prove the durability of low-viscosity engine oils make up the need for the next proposed heavy-duty diesel engine oil category, PC-11. Lubricant formulators face a significant challenge in developing oils that will be able to maintain the current level of engine durability with new lower viscosity oils. Experience in formulating with low viscosity oils in heavy-duty diesel applications will play a key role in ensuring the lower viscosity oils developed are able to deliver against all these competing demands.
Industry is developing or upgrading many tests for both categories and they are shaping up to be the most intricate and expensive category developments in the history of PCMO and HDD specification development.
Furthermore since the PCMO and HDD categories are introducing lower viscosity engine oils than have ever been allowed, both categories will make these oils distinct by using different names for each. These new low viscosity engine oils will not be back serviceable. This will no doubt introduce complexity for marketers, distributors and end customers. PC-11 and ILSAC GF-6 are currently scheduled for first allowable use on January 1 2016 and January 1 2017 respectively, the latter of which has been delayed by three months due to delays in engine test development. With PC-11 the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) is requesting January 1 2016, but the timeline puts earliest first allowable use date at June 1 2016. Historically category delays have occurred due to delays in the development of new engine tests and these developments are no exception. We expect to have a better understanding of the schedule towards the end of 2013 but as of now we predict that both categories will see some level of delay. In addition, General Motors is planning to upgrade its dexos™ specifications in the 2015 time frame ahead of ILSAC GF-6. All this combined means a lot of work for all industry stakeholders and significant changes in the North American market as we introduce next generation products. We will continue to report on the progress of both ILSAC GF-6 and PC-11 in future issues of Compoundings.
They skipped sk also.
If they go to sp them maybe stp will have a maketing gimick.
If they go to sp them maybe stp will have a maketing gimick.
Originally Posted By: Garak
Not exactly. SM, SN, and so forth are API terminology. GF-5 and the like are ILSAC terminology. Additionally, one can have an API rating without an ILSAC rating (i.e. M1 0w-40, HDEOs). But, one cannot have an ILSAC rating without an API rating.
Here is a chart that sums up how that works.
http://www.infineum.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/notebooks/gf5/DifferencesGF-5_SN_SN-RC.pdf
Not exactly. SM, SN, and so forth are API terminology. GF-5 and the like are ILSAC terminology. Additionally, one can have an API rating without an ILSAC rating (i.e. M1 0w-40, HDEOs). But, one cannot have an ILSAC rating without an API rating.
Here is a chart that sums up how that works.
http://www.infineum.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/notebooks/gf5/DifferencesGF-5_SN_SN-RC.pdf
They'll probably skip to SQ.
- Status
