Infineum Insight Mar 2014 - GF6, PC11

[Shannow]

https://www.infineuminsight.com/insight/mar-2014/specification-update-march-2014?alttemplate=PDF

Talking of up to $8M to prove AN oil through all the testing required for GF6, or PC11

Some Interesting Points re GF6 (and commentary towards GF7).
* xW12, xW8, and xW4 are on the way, in viscosity definition stage.
* Some of the current test engines may not accept oils below HTHS 2.6
* Talk of dropping (legacy grade) 10W30 from GF-7.

PC-11
* stay in grade requirement for xW40 to be increased to 12.8cst except for 0W40 which stays at 12.5 (why KV100 not HTHS ???)
* Detroit Diesel scuffing testing to be dropped from protocol (Means IMO that there's a new DD spec coming soon, as they've seen scuffing/siezures on 30s)
* Mention of the test length of the Mack derived T13 oxidation test (360 hours in an operating engine at 130C - lengthy and expensive).

Another article that discusses some of the ramifications of the new specs, and testing with base oil (and viscosity changes) can be found here

 

[OVERKILL]

Great links, thanks Shannow

 

[901Memphis]

Yeah

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Shannow

PC-11
* stay in grade requirement for xW40 to be increased to 12.8cst except for 0W40 which stays at 12.5 (why KV100 not HTHS ???)


Had a bit of a look for what the test is and how it's done...pertinent to another discussion that OVERKILL's on regarding bench tests, this is a bench test, not an engine test.

It's the bosch mechanical injector test that had the board in a tizz a few years ago when M1 0W40 sheared badly compared to the proponent's oil (but held it's VI). The oil is sheared through

Here's an Oronite paper on the Kurt Orbahn test.

They use KV100 loss to infer HTHS, while acknowledging that HTHS is the wear driver.

The bench test can actually provide a reverse ranking over what's happening in engines in the real world.

...and surprise, surprise, oils can be made to pass the test that might not necessarily be as stable or protective in service.

 

[userfriendly]

That is the point I'm trying to make in the 15W40 re-visited thread.
Add thermal shear loss to VIIs that is mentioned in the above link.
If the wear driver is HTHS retention and not KV100,
why are we using viscosity loss @100C as a performance benchmark and implying that HTHS follows?
I'm suggesting the opposite. HTHS protection is lost before viscosity loss at 100C becomes an issue.

Again the quote from the MIT paper applies;

"Failure is at the maximum wear point and not the surrounding area".