API PC-9 progress
Matrix precision testing for the three new engine sequence tests - Mack T-10 EGR, Cummins M-11 EGR and the Caterpillar 1Q EGR - slated for PC-9, the next category of diesel engine oil, got under way in late winter, with five laboratories participating. 28 tests were planned for both T-10 and 1Q and 26 for the M11. Each T-10 test runs costs USD 75000 each, each M-11 USD 81000 and the 1Q around USD 55000. Progress on T-10 and M-11 is satisfactory.

But the testing of Caterpillar 1Q went into problems - with 30% of all 1Q test runs begun for the matrix aborted, indicating that there was an engine test problem and not an oil problem. Relying on this data, the panel for the specification, decided to drop the 1Q test as a PC-9 qualifying test. Instead they included the Caterpillar 1R test as a replaced for the 1Q for the PC-9 category requirement.

The 1R has certain advantages over the 1Q. It is a requirement for the new DHD-1 worldwide diesel oil specification, and its acceptance into PC-9 would minimize tests costs for both PC-9 and DHD-1. It uses a two-piece piston of forged steel with an aluminum skirt, which was needed in the category. It is still expensive, though, at USD 51000 per run.

Out of the 28 Caterpillar test runs planned and funded, 18 were run on the aborted 1Q. This will leave 10 Caterpillar 1R tests.

Caterpillar also announced the new technology to be introduced in 2003 for its on-highway trucks. Called the Advanced Combustion Emissions Reduction Technology (ACERT), the technology combines the latest fuel systems and electronics to control NOX, particulates and other emissions, and reduce noise and odor. It does not include EGR, which will be delayed until at least till 2007. PC-9, developed specifically to address EGR, might not be needed for the new Caterpillar engines.

API Licensing for PC-9 will begin August 2002. Both Mack Trucks and Cummins Engine Com will likely issue separate specifications, with limits that may or may not correspond to PC-9, and approve oils that meet these specifications.

Another controversy not solved is the 'backward compatibility". The panel passed a motion indicating that the oils meets the performance requirements of PC-9 would also fulfill the requirements of CH-4. But this remains to be seen.