API FA-4?? HDEO Category will be more complicated.

[Solarent]

It looks like the HDEO category is going to get much more complicated. New viscosity grades with "H" and "L" at the end plus a new service category for HDEO Fuel Economy Oils. I can only imagine how hard this is going to be to explain to the die-hard 15W40 crowd.

Here's the link in Lube Report

I will forward any feedback we get in this thread to Steve, so if you want to influence a major oil category decision here is your chance...

Originally Posted By: From the Article
After testing several naming options within the NCDT, agreement was reached on the following system:

PC-11A oils are to be designated as API CK-4, while PC-11B oils would be designated as API FA-4.

In addition, an “H” or “L” would be added to the SAE XW-30 viscosity grade to clearly differentiate the fuel economy (L) and non-fuel economy (H) sub-grades. The following are proposed API service symbols demonstrating how the marks would look.

PROPOSED SERVICE SYMBOLS

(sorry about the giant images - mods: if there is a way to resize them so they would be smaller than please help out)

 

[jrmason]

The FA-4 (PC-11B) may not be backward compatible with current API specs. If that's the case, I believe it will be the first time an oil has not been backward compatible in the diesel world.

 

[Solarent]

Yes that is right. This is why the debate about the labeling. The above agreed upon system works, but it's a little messy in my opinion. I'm afraid that diesel owners may not readily differentiate between the two oils. OEM's are going to have to make a big deal out of it for engines requiring the Fuel Economy Standard.

Something similar is happening for the new service category in Gasoline engines too. They still haven't finalized it yet - but there will be a separate oil that is not backwards compatible in both categories, and it appears the diesel ones will be listed differently than the gasoline ones.

 

[A_Harman]

Sorry, but I'm confused.

If an oil is FA-4, is it possible for it to be XW-30H?
The FA-4 designation makes it a fuel economy oil. Then why the H or L after the viscosity grade identifier?

 

[Colt45ws]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Sorry, but I'm confused.

If an oil is FA-4, is it possible for it to be XW-30H?
The FA-4 designation makes it a fuel economy oil. Then why the H or L after the viscosity grade identifier?

So that its right there on the front.

Sounds like FA-4 will be the fuel economy (so [L]ight) and CK-4 will be [H]eavy.

My question is, what does the F stand for?
C is compression-ignition
S is spark-ignition
F is ..?

 

[JHZR2]

...fuel

 

[Solarent]

Originally Posted By: Colt45ws

My question is, what does the F stand for?
C is compression-ignition
S is spark-ignition
F is ..?


Technically in the API literature C is for commercial and S is for Service (although I've heard it your way a lot too) I think F is for Fuel Economy - but if they are going to do that, then what about fuel economy oils for gasoline (oh wait - that's what "Resource Conserving" means...) See why this is getting complicated.

I can just see it now - most consumers are confused about what the "W" stands for, now we are adding in "H" and "L" - but only for diesel oils.
This next round of oil specs for both gas and diesel are really stretching the system.

That makes me think of straight grade oils too - if the J300 is revised again to include H&L do you think we could have a SAE30H or SAE30L wow that would be very convoluted.

 

[A_Harman]

This is all getting too silly. The rule on HTHS is that FA-4 will only be in the range of 2.9-3.2, then CK-4 will pick up at 3.5. Engineering being what it is, you always have to design for the worst case, so engine manufacturers will be designing their engines to live on 2.9 cP HTHS oils. This represents a 20% decrease in HTHS viscosity, and probably cannot be accommodated with the stroke of a pen by a manufacturer saying it's OK to run the thin oil. In order to assure durability, bearing sizes would have to be increased, which would tend to increase friction in the engine and offset the fuel economy gain from the oil. Or the engine components would have to be machined to finer surface finishes and tighter tolerances, increasing the cost of the engine at initial purchase, and offsetting the lifetime fuel economy savings from running the thinner oil. This is just a case of the tail wagging the dog. It makes no sense to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to redesign the nation's heavy duty engine fleet so that it can run an oil that may save 0.5% in fuel. How about bringing the price of diesel down about 30% instead? Now we're talking about real savings.

My prediction is there won't be an FB-4.

 

[Solarent]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
This is all getting too silly. The rule on HTHS is that FA-4 will only be in the range of 2.9-3.2, then CK-4 will pick up at 3.5. Engineering being what it is, you always have to design for the worst case, so engine manufacturers will be designing their engines to live on 2.9 cP HTHS oils. This represents a 20% decrease in HTHS viscosity, and probably cannot be accommodated with the stroke of a pen by a manufacturer saying it's OK to run the thin oil. In order to assure durability, bearing sizes would have to be increased, which would tend to increase friction in the engine and offset the fuel economy gain from the oil. Or the engine components would have to be machined to finer surface finishes and tighter tolerances, increasing the cost of the engine at initial purchase, and offsetting the lifetime fuel economy savings from running the thinner oil. This is just a case of the tail wagging the dog. It makes no sense to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to redesign the nation's heavy duty engine fleet so that it can run an oil that may save 0.5% in fuel. How about bringing the price of diesel down about 30% instead? Now we're talking about real savings.

My prediction is there won't be an FB-4.


My prediction is the other way around - there won't be a CL-4. CK-4 may be the last update to oil specs for older engines. The newer model year engines will already be looking at the lower HTHS numbers as the baseline for the oil, it's using that oil in pre-2017 model year that will be the problem. 0.5% savings may not be much for the average operator, but for big fleets and CAFE requirements on manufacturers even 0.1% is significant for overall emission reduction targets.

 

[Ken2]

I'd like to see the new group have a specified dye color in the oil and a matching cap on the bottle or drum of the same color. Matching color on the engine oil fill cap.

Red is taken for ATF. Royal Purple uses purple. Schaeffer uses green. Blue is available, maybe some others. The dye doesn't have to hold the color after running, just out of the jug. Make it easy for the oil change guy to use the right stuff.

 

[TiredTrucker]

Well, the 15w40 only crowd seems to be the old school folks anymore or those with older engine designs that called for a XXw40 oil, and is growing smaller. The heavy truck diesel OEM's are factory filling with 10w30 now, and have been for a while. Many fleets have moved over to 10w30 exclusively now. Virtually anyone making an HDEO are actively promoting their 5w30 and 10w30 varieties to owners and fleets. But there are still a LOT of older diesels running around that have been on 15w40 for one or more life cycles. 15w40 is going to be readily available for some time. It has its place in the scheme of things. But it is not being actively promoted by the OEM's (heavy or light) for the newer engine platforms. When the newer classification oils hit the market, it will only be a short blip on the radar. Many folks are already in that 30w camp.

But it seems certain, that whatever gets dreamed up, will no longer offer backward compatibility like the previous classifications.

 

[artificialist]

Will this also lead to different additive packages? Many DPF equipped heavy duty diesels use API CJ-4, but VW, BMW, and Fiat have additive packages with far lower ash content than what CJ-4 allows.

Will the newer API oils have an additive package more similar to VW 507?

 

[userfriendly]

The additive package may contain friction modifiers and therefore not be suitable for wet clutch, transmissions or as a multi-function fluid as most HDMO's are.

Perhaps a category called MDMO, medium duty motor oil, would be a better route to go with
specific objectives and applications that differ from PCMO's and HDMO's.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Solarent
I will forward any feedback we get in this thread to Steve, so if you want to influence a major oil category decision here is your chance...

It does look interesting. In any case, there has to be a way for the buyer to readily determine which stuff will back spec and which won't. We know that when this moves forward, Imperial Oil likely won't be hanging onto any CJ-4 stock longer than they have to.

 

[userfriendly]

Instead of a new category, could existing SAE grades that are not normally marketed
be used instead?
The grades I'm thinking of are:
SAE 25W
SAE 20W
SAE 15W

What are the rules that apply to the above grades?
May 25W pass 5W without being labeled 5W25W and so on?
(Or reverse the grade to 25W/5W)
Would the VII rule apply to the above the same as other grades?
For example, if a SAE 30 mono-grade engine oil can pass 15W without
VIIs, it can be sold as SAE 30.
If the same oil contains VIIs then it must be labeled 15W30.

If GF6 and PC-11 can be separated by viscosity, then why not
add one more classification to the list?
Separate the new category by SAE grade.
Who ever makes the rules can also change them.

 

[Shannow]

If it's new,and a shakeup, maybe it's time to put the HTHS in the designation, and drop the KV which really hasn't been as relevant since multigrades.

e.g.
5W 4.0
15W 4.0
10W 3.0

With the bands as described...

should be close enough to familiar numbering to keep the older players unconfused, and newer ones will come in with the new system making some sense, as the "grade" actually has something to do with the lube specs.

Specialty players can then say that they are offering a 5W 3.9 rather than the silly splitting SAE grades.