Tech Beat

By Dr. Neil Canter

Contributing Editor

Special Report: Additive

challenges in meeting new
automotive engine specifications

ormulation of engine oil additive

packages for passenger car (PCMO)
and heavy-duty diesel (HDD) applications is
a complicated process because formulators
need to incorporate a number of different
additive types such as detergents, dispersants, antiwear additives, antioxidants and
friction modifiers. All of these components
need to be properly balanced to meet the
required performance criteria (engine oil
specifications) and to be stable.
A more detailed description of the types
of additives used in automotive engine oils
is provided in an article published in a
recent issue of TLT.(1) Author Alan Eachus
points out that there are other basestock
options available to facilitate the development of
Lubricants are not only being asked to
more
environmentally
play their traditional role of protecting
friendly engine oils.
Representatives from
the engine, they are being formulated
the four main suppliers of
to minimize any impact they may have
engine oil additives and
on the exhaust aftertreatment devices.
additive packagesAfton
Chemical, Infineum USA
LP, The Lubrizol Corp. and
Chevron Oronite LLCare interviewed in
this article to provide a good overall examination of the current challenges they face in
developing their products to meet current
lubricant industry needs. They also provide
an assessment of how engine oil additive
packages will look in the future as the industry turns more toward gas-to-liquid (GTL)
basestocks and how the popularity of flex
fuel vehicles continues to increase with consumers worldwide.
Three of the key additive challenges are
developing products that will help the industry meet lower emissions standards, higher
10

SEPTEMBER 2006

T R I B O LO G Y & LU B R I C AT I O N T E C H N O LO G Y

fuel economy goals and longer drain intervals. Each of these topics is covered below.

Emissions
Much of the traditional additive chemistry
utilized in engine oil packages is based on
sulfur and phosphorus. Dean Anderson,
global manager-automotive for Chevron
Oronite LLC, says, There is a general trend
towards low SAPS (sulfated ash, phosphorus and sulfur) formulations throughout the
world. Lubricants are not only being asked
to play their traditional role of protecting
the engine, they are being formulated to
minimize any impact they may have on the
exhaust aftertreatment devices (e.g. catalytic converters, diesel particulate filters, etc.)
James Puckace, worldwide marketing
manager of engine oils for The Lubrizol
Corp., says, The changing environmental
regulatory landscape often impacts the technical requirements for our products. As
emission control technologies evolve further
to meet more stringent environmental
requirements, it is likely that additive technologies will have additional limitations in
the amounts of SAPS to minimize the potential of aftertreatment device poisoning.
Joan Evans, industrial liaison advisor for
Infineum USA LP, adds, The formulation of
additive systems for motor oils continues to
get more complex as engines and emission
systems evolve to meet more stringent
requirements. The crucial factor in formulating is balance, maintaining engine durability while enabling better fuel economy,
engine efficiency and emission system compatibility.
Tom Cousineau, director of engine oils
customer technical services for Afton Chem-

ical, says, Progressively more stringent air

quality regulations will increase the need for
exhaust aftertreatment units for diesel- and
gasoline-powered vehicles and will place
greater emphasis on the compatibility of
lubricant additive technology with catalysts.
Engine combustion-system-design changes
resulting in lower emissions and enhanced
fuel economy will place greater stress on
lubricant formulations. These changes will
drive additive companies to develop new
and/or alternative molecules while optimizing todays field-proven chemistry.
Evans points out that the lubricant
industry has developed reduced SAPS automotive lubricants in response to industry
specifications, particularly in Europe. ACEA,
the Association des Constructeurs Europiens de lAutomobile (or the Association of
European Automotive Manufacturers) has
introduced the C-category of specifications
that details low SAPS (ACEA C1 Specification) and medium SAPS (ACEA C2 and C3
Specifications) engine oils.
The specific requirements for sulfated
ash, sulfur and phosphorus levels are shown
in the following table:

ACEA C Specifications
Parameter
Sulfated Ash
Phosphorus
Sulfur

Low SAPS C1
0.5 m% maximum
0.05 m% maximum
0.2 m% maximum

Mid SAPS C2/C3

0.8 m% maximum
0.070.09 m% maximum
0.3 m% maximum

Figure 1 shows OEM specifications for a

full range of SAPS content for high and low
HTHS (high temperature high shear) automotive lubricants. Infineums Evans says,
Although there is some interest in Low
SAPS, actual market uptake is low. Growth
of Mid SAPS products has been steady,
particularly in Europe.
She continues, Reduced SAPS lubricants
are very sophisticated fluids that are costly
to develop, and market penetration will take
time. We need to recognize that striking the
right balance between engine durability
and emission system protection is
critical and there may not be
much further to go from
where we are already.
Evans
believes that

(Chart courtesy of Infineum USA LP)

Figure 1. Chemical Limits Position of OEMs

widespread SAPS reduction will be achieved

more through a change in vehicle selection
by consumers rather than any new lubricant
or additive developments.
Puckace cites the new heavy-duty diesel
engine oil specification, API CJ-4 as the latest example of the push towards lower SAPcontaining automotive lubricants. He says,
Typical CI-4 lubricants (the current specification) ranged in sulfated ash content from
1.3%-1.5%. New CJ-4 lubricants will be coming in at 1.0% sulfated ash, representing
approximately a 30% reduction in ash content. Additional restrictions were placed on
phosphorus (0.12% maximum) and sulfur
(0.4% maximum).
Cousineau sees a direct connection
between the reduction in SAPS content in
the lubricant and the concern about maintaining the performance of the emissions
system. He says, The reduction of sulfated
ash, phosphorus and sulfur in selected performance categories is one means of minimizing the impact on catalyst efficiency in
the absence of available performance tests,
he says. But the preferred way to better
understand
the
relationship
between SAPS content and
catalyst efficiency is
through
performance

Shown are OEM specifications for high and low

HTHS (high temperature
high shear) automotive
lubricants at Full SAPS, Full
SAPS X-ODI (Extended Oil
Drain Interval), Mid SAPS
and Low SAPS.

CONTINUED ON PAGE 12

T R I B O LO G Y & LU B R I C AT I O N T E C H N O LO G Y

SEPTEMBER 2006

11

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 11

testing. At present, test methodology has

not been developed to properly address this
issue.
Gary Parsons, global OEM and industrial
liaison manager for Chevron Oronite LLC,
indicates that one of the main sources of
SAPS is zinc dialkyldithiophosphates
(ZDDPs), but there is no direct test that can
measure the impact of SAPS on the deterioration of the vehicles emissions system.
He says, The lubricant industry has tried
developing tests and has been largely
unsuccessful.

ZDDPs
Low SAPS are very sophisticated lubricants that
are costly to develop, and market penetration
will take time. We need to recognize that striking the right balance between engine durability
and emission system protection is critical and
there may not be much further to go from
where we are already.

Tied in with emissions reduction is

the concern about
the likely incompatibility of ZDDPs
with catalytic converters. In last
years TLT, an article detailed the
diminishing usage
of this additive.(2)
The phosphorus
level in engine oils
has dropped from
0.12% maximum in
GF-1 in 1993 to
0.08% maximum in
the current GF-4
motor oils. A second article discussed current research describing
the mechanism by
which ZDDPs function as an antiwear
additive.(3)
It is anticipated
that automotive
OEMs will request that the phosphorus
level maximum for the next PCMO specification (GF-5) be closer to 0.05%. ZDDPs are
multifunctional and provide not just antiwear characteristics but also function as
antioxidants. This makes replacing them
very difficult.
Cousineau says, No single additive provides the same benefit of wear prevention,
corrosion protection and oxidation control
as cost effectively as ZDDP. ZDDP can be
reduced or eliminated but at a cost. Over

12

SEPTEMBER 2006

T R I B O LO G Y & LU B R I C AT I O N T E C H N O LO G Y

the last several PCMO category changes,

oxidation control requirements have
increased while phosphorus limits have
been tightened. Formulations have been
modified to incorporate higher levels of
ashless antioxidants as ZDDP levels have
been reduced. If phosphorus requirements
of PCMO oils become more restrictive, supplemental wear inhibitors may be required.
He adds, A better approach is for the
lubricant industry to quantify the effect of
ZDDPs on emissions, as catalyst fouling
may vary based on ZDDP concentration,
ZDDP type or formulation style, for
instance.
Oronites Anderson indicates that the
impact of ZDDPs in engine oil formulations
has been diminishing. He explains, In
many respects, the role ZDDPs plays in oxidation protection has diminished over the
years as absolute treat levels of ZDDP have
diminished and as higher stability base oils
such as Group II and Group III have been
introduced. Ashless type oxidation inhibitors have helped to replace the oxidation
performance of ZDDPs.
Evans further explains what types of
additive chemistries have been used to fill
the role of ZDDPs. She says, Recent additive systems have utilized aminic and phenolic chemistries for antioxidancy. The use
of molybdenum chemistry for improved
antioxidancy and wear has expanded. There
are numerous replacement technologies
available. However, the alternatives are all
expensive to develop and manufacture and
so require acceptable commercial returns to
deploy them.

Fuel economy
Past fuel economy testing has been influenced both by the viscosity of the automotive lubricant and by the presence of boundary lubricity additives in the lubricant which
are known as friction modifiers. As the
industry moves toward the preparation of
GF-5, a new fuel economy test known as the
Sequence VID is being developed.
Parsons says, The Sequence VID is in the
early stages of development, so it is hard to
say how it will drive the formulations and
the use of friction modifiers. They tend to
have a larger effect when boundary lubrication is involved as opposed to hydrodynamCONTINUED ON PAGE 14

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 12

No single additive provides the same benefit of wear prevention,

corrosion protection and oxidation control as cost effectively as
ZDDP. ZDDP can be reduced or eliminated but at a cost.

ic lubrication.
Cousineau adds, The contribution of the
lubricant viscometric and boundary friction
properties will be investigated by the industrys Sequence VID Development Consortium. Should this engine test respond to
friction modifiers, additive companies will
develop appropriate friction modifier
enhanced formulations for improved fuel
economy while optimizing overall formulation performance.
Evans believes that the Sequence VID test
will respond to both viscometric effects and
to friction modifiers. She says, With respect
to friction modifiers, we expect to see a
response to inorganic friction modifiers and
an increased response to organic friction
modifiers. Such chemistries have been widely used in the past, and if the Sequence VID
is successful it will be able to recognize this
friction modification as is seen in the Federal Testing Procedures (FTP) cycles.

Longer drain intervals

The additive supplier representatives are in
agreement that extended drain intervals
14

SEPTEMBER 2006

T R I B O LO G Y & LU B R I C AT I O N T E C H N O LO G Y

place more demands on the additives used,

increase their treat rates and improve the
quality of the basestocks formulated into
automotive lubricants. Cousineau says,
Longer drain intervals reduce the safety
margin available from todays engine oils
and increase the need for greater oil
robustness. Longer drain, heavy-duty diesel
additive packages require increased dispersant, anti-oxidants and Total Base Number
(TBN) reserve.
Evans adds, Oil drain intervals tend to
be lengthening on average while additive
treat rates and base fluid qualities are also
increasing. Despite lengthening oil drain
intervals, we are also seeing some limited
growth in additive needs, which is also due
in part to the rising global vehicle population. Equally important to note is that the
mix of additives is changing as performance
demands change, requiring, for example,
more dispersancy, more antioxidancy, less
ZDDP and less high ash detergents.
Anderson points out that there is a difference in consumer preference for longer
drain intervals. European passenger car oils
already have drain intervals between 12,000
and 15,000 miles. Consumer preferences in
North America are for shorter drain intervals.

New lubricant specifications

The implementation of APIs CJ-4, heavyduty engine oil specification is occurring at
a time of confusion for the lubricant industry. Some of the oil marketers have decided
to continue to offer the currently available
CI-4 Plus oils even after CJ-4 becomes available later in 2006. Several OEMs such as
Caterpillar also are including additional
testing requirements beyond those in CJ-4.
Puckace says, With the high costs of
heavy-duty diesel equipment for fleets and
owner-operators, OEMs want to ensure the
best possible lubricant protection. The
biggest challenges with CJ-4 include providing superior wear and corrosion protection
while maintaining competitive oil drain
intervals and not just meeting the elemental restrictions for SAPS.
Evans says, CJ-4 is designed as a
restricted ash, phosphorus and sulfur oil
category. It was developed to meet the
needs of aftertreatment devices being uti-

lized with new model year 2007 engines.

Concerns have been raised that some of the
CJ-4 oils may be lower in TBN than their CI4 and CI-4 Plus predecessors and may not
protect a small percentage of older engines
when running on higher sulfur (> 15 ppm)
diesel fuel.
She adds, To alleviate these concerns,
the Engine Manufacturers Association
(EMA) has asked that owner and fleet operators consult directly with OEMs for the recommended drain interval for each engine/
fuel/oil combination. As the CJ-4 specification addresses the needs of 2007 model
year engines, there remains some uncertainty around how fast the market will convert to this specification despite the very
considerable investment made in its development.
Parsons also expressed concern that customers will perceive CJ-4 oils are inferior to
CI-4 Plus oils because the former have lower
TBN. He says, TBN has long been used by
operators as a broad indicator of an oils
quality. The prospect for the marketplace
continuing to offer CI-4 Plus oils prompted
Parsons to indicate that additive suppliers
will need to keep multiple formulations at
different performance levels.
Cousineau adds, There is uncertainty
about the benefit that lower-ash CJ-4 oils
will have on diesel particulate maintenance
intervals. The biggest source of uncertainty
is whether the CJ-4 oils will enable the
aftertreatment devices to last for 150,000
miles, as required by the new EPA regulations. We are reasonably sure that CJ-4 oils
will do the job, but the data to support this
will not be available for at least a year.
The automotive lubricant industry is also
beginning to evaluate the testing requirements needed for GF-5, which is due to be
launched in 2009. All of the additive industry representatives contacted believe it is
too early to tell how much of an upgrade
this new category will be as compared to the
current GF-4.
Puckace points out that one of
the key issues for GF-5 is
industry agreement on
the phosphorus
content. He
says, We

are concerned for the environment and supportive of lower emissions. We are in favor
of a lower phosphorus content in finished
oils. We would support additional elemental restrictions on phosphorus in GF-5 and,
in addition, support a performance test
based on a GF-5 sequence test.
Evans says, As passenger car motor oils
are mature technologies, we are realistically
looking for incremental benefits. As new
engine and emission technologies are introduced to meet higher fuel economy and
lower emission regulations, these engines
may have diverging appetites requiring specific additive technologies. GF-5 will have to
balance the needs of higher fuel economy,
lower emissions and improved high temperature oil stability, as was done for GF-4.
Cousineau indicated that the automotive
and lubricant industries are combining
resources to deal with the challenges of
developing better test methodologies for
fuel economy and emissions. He says, The
industry has formed a Sequence VID (Fuel
Economy) Test Development Consortium to
which the major additive companies are
members. The purpose of the Consortium is
to develop a new fuel economy engine test
based on real-world fuel economy data
developed by GM and Ford. This test may
offer a different response to additive technology than the current Sequence VIB test
and, if so, additive companies will develop
appropriate chemistry to optimize GF-5 fuel
economy.
Cousineau also said that the Emissions
System Compatibility Improvement Team
(ESCIT) of ILSAC/Oil Committee is determining what testing procedures are
available to assess the impact of
engine oil lubricants on the
catalyst system.
Anderson
believes

CONTINUED ON PAGE 16

T R I B O LO G Y & LU B R I C AT I O N T E C H N O LO G Y

SEPTEMBER 2006

15

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 15

that the new requirements demanded by

the OEMs will lead to the development of
new additives for GF-5. He says, We are
faced with a whole new set of requirements
for GF-5. In many cases, these requirements
are not independent variables from a formulating standpoint, and they are often
conflicting. The more stringent emission
requirements have led to an increase in the
level of development of new chemistries. It
is not just a matter of mixing the same components together to pass engine tests. New
chemistries are needed to provide performance at a reasonable cost while meeting all
of the new requirements.

Testing costs
The impending introduction of CJ-4 and the
work being conducted to develop test
methodology for GF-5 raises the concern
about the cost of carrying out the large
number of engine tests needed to approve a
specific automotive lubricant formulation.
Engine oils ultimately need to include the
proper balance of additives to meet the test
requirements.
Parsons says, Engine testing for CJ-4 is
so expensive because this category includes
nine engine tests and six bench tests. It is
the most robust category ever from a test
requirement perspective. Whether each of
16

SEPTEMBER 2006

T R I B O LO G Y & LU B R I C AT I O N T E C H N O LO G Y

these individual tests is actually required to

assure performance is a matter of debate. In
some cases, there is a degree of redundancy
in the tests.
Cousineau acknowledges that the automotive industry realizes that good bench
test procedures will help reduce new category engine test costs. He says, Consideration has been given in GF-5 for replacement
of the Sequence VIII test (evaluates bearing
weight loss) with the High Temperature Corrosion Bench Test (HTCBT), the Sequence
IIIGA test (measures used-oil viscosity
increase at low temperatures) with the
Romaszewski Oil Bench Oxidation Test
(ROBO) and possibly, developing a new
emission compatibility test. Unfortunately,
no correlation was found between the
Sequence VIII and the HTCBT. However, the
ROBO procedure looks promising and the
industry is working together to validate this
procedure for use in the category.
Puckace focuses on the need for lowering
test costs. He says, Given the reluctance to
potentially sacrifice any assurance of engine
protection, bench testing has not made significant inroads in replacing heavy-duty
diesel engine tests. As test costs continue
to escalate, pressure to find more costeffective alternatives will increase.
Evans indicates that the cost of a one-

test pass scenario for a CJ-4 oil is $600,000.

The lubricant industry has made some
progress in developing new tests but in
other cases faces redundancy. She says,
The introduction of new tests for CJ-4
(Caterpillar C13, Mack T-12 and Cummins
ISB) was a good example of industry collaboration to maximize the use of base oil
interchange and viscosity grade readacross. Yet, the industry fell short of the
goal on test redundancy, as we currently
have three wear tests in CJ-4 [Roller Follower Wear Test (RFWT), Cummins ISB and the
Cummins ISM]. This is very difficult to justify given the significant testing costs associated with this redundancy.

Backward compatibility
The development of new engine technology
to meet emissions requirements and the
reduction in the use of traditional engine oil
additives such as ZDDPs means that modern engines may have performance features
that differ from those of older engines.
Automotive lubricants prepared for modern
as compared to older engines may require
different engine oil additive formulations.
But current engine oil specifications such as
GF-4 and the impending CJ-4 need to cover
all engines currently used in the marketplace. This issue of backwards compatibility
is a difficult one that the industry currently
has to deal with.
Puckace indicates that the best way to
address the concern about backward compatibility is to do field testing. He says, We
have taken steps to ensure the backward
compatibility of CJ-4 additives by conducting more than 12 million miles of field testing to demonstrate real-world engine protection with the lower SAPS products.
Cousineau adds, Additive companies
must balance the performance needs
desired by the consumer (wear control, oil
drain interval, etc.) with the OEM needs
driven by governmental compliance. Proof
of performance for passenger car engine
backward compatibility is hampered
by the unavailability of historic test engines used
to evaluate wear
protection. A
suitable re-

placement test for wear protection has not

been developed and, while newer engine
designs are more robust in terms of wear,
emphasis is being placed on the reduction
of select anti-wear components to increase
emission catalyst compatibility.
Evans adds, Protecting engine durability
of older vehicles as newer engine designs
emerge is always a key element of product
design. New emission requirements have
imposed chemical restrictions that result in
formulation changes that must be technically evaluated for backward compatibility.
Anderson is in agreement that the needs
of new engine and emission systems technologies must be balanced with the needs
of existing equipment. He says, In a typical
market, backward compatibility is a major
concern because the fleet turnover is typically less than 10%. As a result, there is a
large existing population that a newly formulated lubricant must be capable of serving the day it is introduced.

There are numerous

replacement technologies available, however,
the alternatives are all
expensive to develop
and manufacture and
so require acceptable
commercial returns to
deploy them.

Into the future

The representatives of the additive companies were asked for their thoughts on such
future issues as the impending commercialization of GTL base oils, the impact that the
European Union (EU) Eco-Label system,
REACH and flexible fuel vehicles might have
on automotive engine oil lubricants and
how will differences in global specifications
affect the types of additive packages offered
in specific markets.
As a group, the engine oil additive representatives do not know enough about the
properties of GTL base oils to comment on
the types of additives and chemistries
that will be required. Parsons says,
GTL basestocks have a higher viscosity index (VI)
than
mineral
oils and

CONTINUED ON PAGE 18

T R I B O LO G Y & LU B R I C AT I O N T E C H N O LO G Y

SEPTEMBER 2006

17

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 17

We have taken steps

to ensure the backward compatibility
of CJ-4 additives by
conducting more
than 12 million miles
of field testing to
demonstrate realworld engine
protection with the
lower SAPS products.

18

SEPTEMBER 2006

will require less polymer thickener and less

viscosity index modifier in general.
Evans comments, GTL basestock is
clearly the next generation of basestock for
our industry to contend with. It is not certain exactly when this technology will be
available, in what volume and in what
regions. GTL does bring enhanced capability in lower viscosity grades such as 0W20/30 and will enable greater fuel economy
performance.
The EUs Eco-Label system has not
impacted the way that the engine oil additive companies are developing their products. Anderson maintains that this development along with REACH is prompting additive companies to stress the importance of
toxicity testing earlier in the development
process. He says, In general, toxicity testing
has moved up in the development process
to earlier stages of development, and testing has become more sophisticated. Aquatic toxicity and biodegradability are two of
the aspects that are evaluated. Used oil
recycling is also being encouraged in most
regions to avoid aquatic toxicity and
biodegradability issues associated with
improper used oil disposal.
Evans cites that REACH may limit the
additive options that the industry has for
formulating automotive engine oils. She
says, There are costs associated with
REACH that may cause a re-evaluation of
the use of certain additivesnot for environmental reasons but simply that bringing the data on these additives up to
REACH standards may not be economically justifiable.
Flexible fuel vehicles are capable of using
multiple fuels such as gasoline and ethanol.
They have gained in popularity in certain
regions of the world such as Brazil. Between
2003 and 2005, the number of flexible fuel
vehicles in this country has climbed from
6% to 73%. Cousineau says, The consumer
need for a common engine oil will drive conventional products to meet any special
requirements required by flex fuel vehicles.
Certain OEMs have identified rust, corrosion and emulsion stability as key parameters for flex fuel vehicles. Sequence engine
tests for flex fuel vehicles may have to be
developed.
Evans agrees about these parameters for
T R I B O LO G Y & LU B R I C AT I O N T E C H N O LO G Y

vehicles using alcohol-based fuel. She adds,

Typical gasoline engine additive packages
need to be altered to neutralize the negative
effects of combustion byproducts associated with bio-fuels. Industry will need to monitor fuel quality and its impact on lubricants. Depending on the fuel, it is not clear
that one standard lubricant or standard oil
drain interval will be acceptable.
Parsons indicates that most OEMs reduce their recommended drain intervals if
alternative fuels are used rather than requiring the use of special engine oils. He says,
Reducing recommended drain intervals is
the preferred route to avoid potential problems with misapplication of lubricants for
flex fuel vehicles.
Puckace feels that specific additive technology may need to be developed for flex
fuel vehicles. He says, At this point, we
know of no significant effect that flex fuel
vehicles have on engine oil additive packages. If the use of flexible fuel vehicles
increases dramatically, specialized additive
packages may need to be developed to
address any unique requirements that
become known.
Convergence of global specifications is a
trend that is starting to take place.
Cousineau says, OEMs are increasingly
globalizing through mergers and business
activities. The sharing of common designs,
hardware and fuel quality are driving global
engine oil specifications. As OEMs market
vehicles in various regions, local consumer
markets will demand that regional engine
oils comply with global specifications.
Anderson believes that the trend toward
convergence is particularly noteworthy from
the standpoint of emissions standards.
Transfer of technology to the underdeveloped countries is also facilitating this
process. He says, Most developing countries and regions are using American or
European emissions or product standards,
rather than creating something new on their
own. As a result, technology transfer from
more mature regions to developing areas is
occurring.
Evans cautions that the trend toward
convergence will be slow. Different markets
will continue to have somewhat different
needs, she says. There are also cultural
differences and preferences that have an

impact upon market technical profiles.

Puckace is concerned that the non-convergence of global specifications is making
it more difficult for the additive industry to
provide technology that meets worldwide
criteria. He says, Non-harmonization of
the performance requirements of worldwide specifications creates significant
uncertainty in the program requirements
and the ability of these oils to comprehensively meet customer needs. Further, complex programs can restrict the timely and
cost-effective development of lubricant
additive systems.

The next 25 years

Finally, our additive company representatives were asked about how engine oil packages will change during the next 25 years.
Puckace says, The continued focus on
reducing the potential negative effects on
aftertreatment devices will continue to
reduce or limit key lubricant elements such
as SAPS. The further development and
enhancement of carbon-, oxygen-, hydrogen- and nitrogen-containing chemistries
will continue to be a focus of lubricant
research.
Cousineau says, Engine oil additive
packages will evolve to meet the three basic
market demands of improved fuel economy,
better emission system compatibility and
greater oil robustness. These changes will
be required to maintain adequate performance safety margins for OEMs and consumers. Certain known and cherished components may be reduced or phased out.
Alternative technologies will enhance or
replace these components but will need to
be proven in the field.
Evans expects that mature, internal combustion engine technologies will continue
to be dominant over the next 25 years with
changes evolving slowly. She says, In the
medium term, we will have largely reached
the limits of what is possible with respect to
emissions control, and so we shall see some
stability with regard to the demands that
additives and lubricants have on compatibility with comprehensive emission systems. The quest for energy efficiency, however, will continue, resulting in more engine
downsizing, greater use of turbochargers,
better heat management, more sophisticat-

ed combustion control, various modes of

hybridization and new materials.
Parsons indicates that the continuing
challenge for engine oil additives is to do
more without significantly altering the
chemical fingerprint of the automotive
lubricant. He says, We anticipate continued
development of low ash type formulations
with even lower levels of sulfur, phosphorus
and ash. In addition, a cradle-to-grave
approach may develop in which factors such
as biodegradability and the ability to recycle
may come into play. Lower viscosity engine
oils and friction modifiers will be used to
improve fuel economy. Drain intervals will
be extended in part to reduce the environmental burden by reducing the amount of
used waste oil. <<
Neil Canter heads his own consulting company,
Chemical Solutions, in Willow Grove, Pa. Submissions to Tech Beat can be sent to him at neil
canter@comcast.net.

T R I B O LO G Y & LU B R I C AT I O N T E C H N O LO G Y

References
(1)

Eachus, A.C. (2006),

Its not your fathers
motor oil, Tribology &
Lubrication Technology,
62, (6), pp. 38-45.
(2)

Fields, S. (2005),
ZDDP: Going, going
or not? Tribology &
Lubrication Technology,
61, (5), pp. 24-30.
(3)

Canter, N. (2005),
How does ZDDP
function? Tribology &
Lubrication Technology,
61, (6), pp. 20-26.

SEPTEMBER 2006

19