Automotive

The CMA code of practice was written by the additive companies to define guidelines to run a certification program, manage and register engine tests, set forth criteria to become an approved engine test, complete a candidate package, etc. It was introduced in March 1992. Gone were the days when an engine test could be run until it passed, or one could pick and choose which engine test stand might yield the best result. 

Formulators and industry stakeholders have relied on these key documents for over 30 years. They have seen many revisions and updates in the spirit of continuous improvement by all key industry stakeholders and will continue to guide the industry for the foreseeable future.

My greatest memory from ILSAC GF-1 and the many years associated with the process are from the debates that helped create new specs. With GF-1, I got my first introduction to the “Roberts Rules of Order” on how to conduct a meeting and was introduced to some of the original colleagues who kicked off the new system. These names include Frank Duffey from Chrysler, Jim Newcombe of Paramins, Mike McMillian of General Motors, Wes Cherry of Sunoco and many others who volunteered their time. Apologies to the many others who I worked with and learned from over the years. If I tried to name them all, my column would be way too long!

ILSAC GF-1 was followed a few years later by GF-2, which lowered phosphorus from 1,200 parts per million to 1,000 ppm, to GF-3 where essentially every engine test changed, going to unleaded fuel.  Since then, we’ve seen ILSAC GF-4, 5 and 6, which lowered phosphorus to 800 ppm and saw many new and replacement engine tests introduced as needed.  These changes happened every 4-5 years, although we saw a span of nearly 10 years between GF-5 to GF-6—albeit with an API SN Supplement in between, as the low-speed pre-ignition test (LSPI) was introduced to solve a real problem for automakers.

From a technical viewpoint, it’s key to note how base stocks evolved from the early 1990s to today. These advancements have enabled industry to greatly improve fuel efficiency and engine oil life. They have allowed huge reductions in volatility from 22% Noack in GF-1 to 15% now. Moreover, it enabled the wide use of lower viscosity grades, starting with SAE 5W-30 and now as low as 0W-08 for some non-ILSAC specs. 

Enhanced base stocks have also allowed OEMs to produce their own engine oil specs with volatility well below 15%, as seen in specs such as GM’s dexos1. Group I base stocks dominated when I arrived on the scene. Now Group II is the dominant base stock for engine oils, and Group III and PAO are often used to produce even higher-performing products and allow for SAE 0W-XX viscosity grades. 

Developing and maintaining engine tests has been the most difficult and time-consuming part of the development process. No matter how much debate there is about the process itself, engine test development has and will always be the step that takes the longest and the one that is most likely to cause a schedule delay. It’s an intricate process, and all the major stakeholders participate, including the automakers, marketers, additive companies, base stock manufacturers and engine test labs, the latter’s role being the most essential these days. Over time, the voting structure and development process was tweaked to streamline and speed up the process, and of course, API staff helped facilitate the effort. But if tests were not ready, the schedule inevitably was delayed. 

I was fortunate to learn much about engine test development in the 1990s as I participated in or attended surveillance panel meetings; I was a member of the Sequence III, Sequence IV, L-38 and the old Sequence IID panels and played a role in the development of the ball Rust Test. So, as I opine today, I draw on my experiences to look at GF-7.

Much discussion took place before industry decided to pursue the latest ILSAC upgrade. Ford proposed adding a modified LSPI test as a supplement, like the one used during ILSAC GF-6. Few supported that effort or felt there was the same need as when the original LSPI test was introduced to solve a specific problem and before ILSAC GF-6 could happen. Others did not feel there was adequate need for a new category now and the industry should wait until replacement engine tests were needed and a more substantial change could be made. 

Afton then proposed a compromise to streamline category development at a time when three different category changes were being proposed: SP PLUS, 0W-8/12 and a major one-time upgrade in 2028. The proposal included several smaller steps to accomplish the most immediate OEM needs as GF-7, with a major upgrade for GF-8 sometime after PC-12. This could avoid the drawn-out GF-6 development that required a supplement to ILSAC GF-5 due to LSPI issues with some newer engines. 

The proposed subset of the initial GF-7 request could be readily accomplished with performance improvements that can rely on existing engine tests and the newly introduced aged oil LSPI test meeting a key OEM request. This proposal gained traction and was advanced without significant objection until official ballots were proposed and a new GF-7A and B specification was developed to replace GF-6A and B.

ILSAC GF-7 will be introduced on March 31, 2025, almost five years after the first allowable use (FAU) of GF-6, which occurred on May 1, 2020. Mandatory use where the ILSAC Starburst or Shield can only represent the latest API S category normally takes place one year after FAU. For GF-6 (A and B), it was May 1, 2021.  At the time of writing, we expect mandatory use of GF-7 to be one year after FAU, or March 31, 2026. 

During ballot review many Japanese OEMs appear satisfied with GF-6 oils and want the option for those oils to continue under the same registration marks. Many of those OEMs voted no to GF-7 or abstained, but those objections were considered non-persuasive, and the category was approved. Mandatory use timing has not been publicly debated, as it isn’t impacted by the specification or FAU date, as Japan OEMs are still discussing concerns with API. Realistically, it will make little to no difference regarding the oils to be marketed, as GF-6 is back serviceable to GF-7 and sources tell me that most marketers will be ready to transition close to or before the FAU date.

Over the past thirty years, I’ve seen many transitions and mandatory use dates become an issue only if the additive companies struggle meeting the specification or due to some supply issue. I know of some past examples, but even then, the one-year mandatory timing was met. By the time categories are accepted, one can be sure all or almost all additive companies know how to meet the new spec. While there could be issues with test capacity or something out of their control, it seems like products are always available for large and small marketers alike. Some marketers want to be the first to market, but any advantage is short-lived and appears to make little or no difference to consumers. So if you’re close to FAU, there is no real advantage of being first. 

One reason to roll quickly could be the cost of new technology. If new products are similar in cost, marketers will roll sooner, and if the technology is less expensive, marketers will take advantage of lower costs. Actual formulation cost is impacted by many factors, including competitive intensity and base stock and additive costs. Given overall PCMO demand has been flat to declining, one can anticipate competitive prices as everyone competes to retain market share. So the cost of GF-7 versus GF-6 should not have much or any impact on the timing of this transition. Although there may be some discussion around mandatory use, the expectation is that almost all products marketed will quickly transition to GF-7, even if the mandatory use date is extended. 

Part two of the series on ILSAC GF-7 will appear in the October issue and will examine the improvements the new category will bring to end users and why some were less enthusiastic about the new quality level, both technically and commercially, including the potential need for ILSAC GF-8 soon after. What we do know is that—at least for Ford and Chrysler—by meeting the target timing of the end of Q1 2025, these OEMs can take advantage of improvements sooner.   

Steve Haffner is president of SGH Consulting LLC. He has over 40 years of experience in the chemical industry, primarily with Exxon Chemicals Paramins and Infineum USA. Contact him at sghaffn2015@gmail.com or 908-672-8012.