Fran Lockwood of Ashland Consumer Markets shares her opinion of how GF-4 fluids are performing and offers her assessment of meeting future needs. updated

INFINEUM PERSPECTIVE

GENERAL

We support ILSAC GF-5 and its ability to improve fuel economy and emissions systems compatibility.  However, we question the need to upgrade ILSAC GF-5 to further improve engine protection until such time as there are data to show an upgrade is needed.  Internal Infineum data reveal that ILSAC GF-4 oils are doing an outstanding job of protecting today’s engines and the vast majority of engines for the foreseeable future.

INFINEUM ENDORSES SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES

• We support working cooperatively with OEMs to develop oils that meet the needs of new engine technologies, including development of appropriate tests that will ensure engine protection. 
  
  
• As new hardware is introduced, and if ILSAC GF-5 oils are deemed not adequate for those specific engines, the issue can be addressed in a timely manner via additional OEM specifications. 
  
  
• There may also be potential for a future category as use of new engine technology becomes more widespread. This is consistent with today's approach where ILSAC GF-4 is not specified for 100% of the North America fleet.

• We support improved Fuel Economy from the Sequence VID Consortium work provided that test shows acceptable discrimination and precision.

• We support improved emissions system compatibility from ESCIT work, retaining 0.08 wt% Phosphorus (P) max / 0.06 wt% P min, and 0.5 wt % Sulfur max.

• We support oils that should be compatible with E-85 fuel (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline)

• We support industry’s efforts to maintain and extend the life of existing engine tests that have provided tools for industry to develop oils that do an outstanding job in protecting today’s engines.
  
  
  

ITEMS REQUIRING FURTHER DISCUSSION

• ILSAC GF-4 is a robust category and as such, performance limits for current tests should be retained unless clear deficiencies can be demonstrated.  Directional improvements in sludge and deposit protection are also in conflict with OEMs desire to improve Fuel Economy.

• We do not believe SIDI (Spark Ignition Direct Injection) or turbocharger protection should be included in ILSAC GF-5 because requirements are not well understood.  Many turbocharged engines appear to receive adequate protection from ILSAC GF-4 oils today; the few that do not are appropriately addressed by OEM specifications.

• Although it is a marketer and OEM issue, we believe that the SAE 10W-30 should not be included as an ILSAC GF-5 viscosity grade as very few engines today or in the future will require it. The few engines that might can be attended to via OEM specifications.
  
  Infineum research also indicates that almost all OEMs do not specify SAE 10W-30 now.  In fact, some will not have specified this grade in more than 10 years by the time ILSAC GF-5 oils are introduced.  Marketers and oil change facilities are doing a good job using the right oils, which can be seen by the growth of SAE 5W-20 and 5W-30 oils and the decline in SAE 10W-30 oils.   

• We believe that inclusion of a Starburst on this oil misleads consumers into using a viscosity grade that will not provide the same level of Fuel Economy as an SAE 0W-20, 0W-30, 5W-20 or 5W-30.

• We oppose new category tiering (GF-5/GF-5+) within the API/ILSAC specification system.  OEM specifications may address specific needs more appropriately and quickly

Why Infineum no longer supports SAE 10W-30  [PPT 212Kb] (update)