|
New Engine Oil Classification?
Frustrated with new and new specification demands from engine
makers, rising testing costs and decreasing operating margins, the
American Chemistry Council has called for an entirely new system
for specifying, creating and labeling future automotive engine oils.
An Entirely New system Proposed for Engine Oil Classification? (continued)
They declared that the decade-old EOLCS based system was fatally
flawed, and 'fundamental change, rather than minor adjustments"
are required. Specifically, ACC recommended that 'elimination of
the current industry category system for all future quality levels'
beyond the current GF-3 passenger car engine oils and the upcoming
PC-9 heavy-duty oils. It proposes to sweep away the API "S"
and "C" classifications, the 'gasoline fueled" GF
system, the new DHD system from the Engine Manufacture's Association
and API's trademarked 'donut' and 'starburst' symbols.
Replacing all these would be a new system 'that
would rely on individual OEM specifications, with limits and approvals
established and controlled by individual OEMs." This is the
heart of the ACC proposal.
They noted that oil and additive companies are
significantly disadvantaging themselves as against other stakeholders
(read, OEMs) in the engine oil development process by continued
participation in the current API system. To support their contention,
they presented table (see below), which shows that the big financial
winners in the current system are the automobile and engine makers,
with testing laboratories obtaining a small benefit and the additive
companies the main losers. It complaints that the API manages and
supports a system that is disadvantageous to its own members, while
advantaging the auto industry.
| Table showing relative winners
and losers in engine oil development |
| Net
Present Value |
| |
GF-3
Gasoline Engine Oil |
PC-9
Diesel Engine Oil |
| Additive Industry |
($ 97 Million) |
($ 91 Million) |
| Lubricant
Companies and Marketers |
($ 116 Million) |
($
11 Million) |
| Independent
Test Labs |
$2 Million |
($ 17 Million) |
| Automotive
OEMs |
$ 150 Million |
($ 143 Million) |
| Total |
($
111 Million) |
($
59 Million) |
|
 |
|
|
| |
| The following
table shows the Responsibilities in North American Engine Oil
Development |
|
Process/Subprocess
|
Current Process
|
ACC Proposal
|
| |
API Licensing
|
Individual OEM Specs
|
|
| Specification and Development |
|
|
|
Establish need
|
SAE
|
OEMs
|
Individual OEMs
|
|
Tests
|
OEMs
|
OEMs
|
Individual OEMs
|
|
Test Development
|
|
|
|
|
Hardware Selection
|
OEMs
|
OEMs
|
Individual OEMs
|
|
Initial Procedure
|
OEMs
|
OEMs
|
Individual OEMs
|
|
Final Procedure
|
ASTM
|
Various
|
Individual OEMs
|
|
Precision Data
|
ASTM
|
Various
|
Individual OEMs
|
|
Discrimination Data
|
OEMs
|
OEMs
|
Individual OEMs
|
|
Research Report
|
ASTM
|
Various
|
???
|
|
Template evaluation
|
ACC
|
ACC
|
ACC
|
|
Monitoring
|
ASTM
|
Various
|
ASTM/RSI/OEMs
|
|
Reference Oils
|
OEMs
|
OEMs
|
Individual OEMs
|
|
Testing Protocol
|
ACC
|
ACC
|
ACC
|
|
Product Approval
|
|
|
|
|
Testing Required
|
ASTM
|
OEMs
|
Individual OEMs
|
|
Limits
|
ASTM
|
OEMs
|
Individual OEMs
|
|
BOI and VGRA
|
API
|
OEMs
|
ACC
|
|
Formulation Modifications
|
ACC
|
OEMs
|
ACC
|
|
Licensing
|
API
|
None
|
None/Individual OEMs
|
|
|
|
 |
 Click
here for more Technical Updates |
|
