Volvo Foresees Synthetic HDEO

[Solarent]

Synthetics in HDEO have been around for a while - Rotella T6 is a prime example - mostly focused on grades like 5W40 and 5W30. This is a really interesting perspective on hardware changes that are co-engineered with lower engine oil viscosity in mind:

Originally Posted By: From the Article
In 1993, when Volvo introduced its current baseline on-road truck engines, the D12/D13 platform, they used a 15W-40 engine oil with high temperature, high shear rating (HTHS) of 4.2 centiPoise. The engines had a fixed oil pump without a relief valve, no oil thermostat and relief valves that helped cool pistons. Oil operating temperatures were 95 degrees C.

Since then, engine sizes were reduced to improve fuel economy, reducing oil sump volumes. This caused oil operating temperatures to rise enough that OEMs had to monitor and manage the temperature. When oil temperatures reached 105 degrees, Volvo installed wax thermostats, and when they reached 118 degrees, the company switched to electrical thermostats.

Engine manufacturers also began to install components such as exhaust gas recirculation valves and crankcase ventilation oil separator valves and oil filter bypass valves, which require fluid pressure provided by the engine oil. Increasing the number of oil-consuming components reduced oil pressure and oil flow.

To reduce engine friction (in the interest of improving fuel economy), engine manufacturers began recommending thinner oils, and Volvo now recommends a 10W-30 with HTHS of 3.5 cP for its baseline engines. It still uses a fixed oil pump, but that pump now has a relief valve. The piston relief valves have been replaced by electrically powered relief valves. Today’s oils allow a 2 percent improvement in fuel economy compared to those used in 1993.

State-of-the-art heavy-duty engines will soon employ variable displacement oil pumps and use 0W-20 engine oils with HTHS of 2.9 cP. Compared to the oils used today, these lubricants will enable fuel economy to improve an additional 1.5 to 2 percent.


Lube Report

BRING ON THE FA-4

 

[Pajero]

Thanks for posting Solarent.

"Rising performance demands will force heavy-duty engine oil formulations to shift from API Group II to Group III base stocks and eventually to Group IV and V."




Respectfully,

Pajero!

 

[Ethan1]

0W-20 in semis? Another nail in the coffin of the "thick oil crowd"

 

[PiperOne]

At some point their customers (and the rest of the HD OEM's customers) will push back. The OEM has to worry initially about 2 things...meeting some government mandated fuel economy/emission/GHG standard and the engine surviving the warranty period while doing so. Warranty coverage of say 5yrs/500,000 miles fan to flywheel used to be included (for fleets anyways) and now coverage like that..if available..costs thousands of dollars to add. Fleets want million mile service, especially now since the trucks cost so [censored] much you need to hold on to them longer.

When we start seeing these engines hit a million on the low vis FA-4 oils...and we very well might...then you'll see a lot more support for it. So far the longest service public teardown I've seen for FA-4 was 400,000 miles (Chevron). Right now...for the 1 to 3% mpg gains and unproven long term reliability....most fleets are turning up there nose at FA-4 and running CK-4 in everything even if they are running 10w30.

 

[Solarent]

Originally Posted By: PiperOne
Fleets want million mile service, especially now since the trucks cost so [censored] much you need to hold on to them longer.


That's kind of the point of this article. The trucks are being engineered to run on lower viscosity lubricants with synthetics to handle the more difficult conditions. The reason they are doing that is (1) for fuel economy gains which directly impacts the fleets largest or second largest expense and (2) for durability - because the fact is 15W40 Group I or Group II based lubricants don't stand up in the longer drain, more intense conditions of these new engine designs.

The new Mack Test which is part of FA-4 specifically looks at varnish mitigation and the new VOLVO specs go even further than what FA-4 requires. This is a very difficult test to pass with Group I and Group II oils - 10W30's almost always require some Group III.

I don't see how HD customers will push back when they start to realize that using the 15W40 oil is the source of their failures, not providing the security blanket they have always relied on because "that's what we've always done". That luddite mentality is going to cost fleets competitive advantage and has proven true for all kinds of fuel economy saving devices already - so those who don't embrace the new technology will be out of business. Do you see any trucks driving down the highway without trailer skirts anymore?

 

[PiperOne]

True...but most fleets will run a very high quality CJ-4 and now CK-4 oil...one of the big three usually (Delvac,Delo or Rotella) and currently ARE getting the million mile life...easily...even with extended drains. Many even use 10w30..currently lubrication related failures or short engine life are NOT a problem, even on the new gen engines. I've seen sampling from new conventional CK-4 10w30 running in the latest engines from Paccar and Cummins with OCI's out near 50,000 miles (80,000km)..and it is beyond impressive. The oil manufacturer who did the testing says they will not be able to meet the same level of oil life in FA-4 without using at least a synblend. Why? They are worried about the low HTHS spec holding up. If I have to now use a synthetic when a conventional was doing the job, and pay more for it so my engines meet a new rule I'm going stop and think about it a bit. The test fleet thought about it...and they are staying with CK-4 for the time being.

The new FA-4 oils are about government mandated targets first..the rest second. The engines may very well be designed to deliver the desired life..and do so with FA-4 oils..but you have to understand..the trucking industry has just been through a very tough decade dealing with new government mandated technologies that were "supposed" to be revenue neutral or beneficial...and were FAR from it.

The new FA-4 oils at best, deliver a 2 or 3% fuel savings...until fleets know that the savings are real and the engines will live they will be cautious. A 7mpg truck that gets 3% better fuel mileage at $3/gallon saves ~ $1500 a year in fuel. If that engine now requires 1 overhaul in its life..the fuel savings are gone and then some. It's just math..and given the tight margins in trucking they need to make sure they get it right. If they aren't the kind of fleet that does the math on things very well..they'll wait and watch those that do.

I'm not against the FA-4 oils...anything that lowers total costs to operate a truck are something I want to root for! If they are proven to work and the results are reliable, I will use them without haste. But given the reliability of new engine tech the trucking industry has been exposed to in the last dozen years...it just means folks will be cautious...not luddites. If it proves to work...in a few years FA-4 will be king.

And yes...I see lots of trailers without skirts, without tails, without wide singles, without disc brakes, without LED lights ....all things proven to work and lower costs. Some are resistant to change...others have legitimate operational issues for not using them. I deal with a fleet that buys and re-treads tires like rolling resistance magically doesn't exist...a BIG fleet...yet somehow they figure they are saving money buy running the [censored] they do vs the good stuff.

 

[xxch4osxx]

"Do you see any trucks driving down the highway without trailer skirts anymore?"
I see plenty of them everyday.

 

[A_Harman]

The article just makes it sound so easy: lower the viscosity another 20%, and you'll get 2% better fuel economy. But you have to buy an oil that can no longer be based on Grp2, but will be some mixture of 3, 4, and 5. How much of the fuel economy savings is eaten up by the more expensive oil?

And the article does not discuss any impact on bearing system design. The trend in heavy duty engine design for the past 25 years has been downspeeding. Rated speeds have dropped steadily from 2100 to 1800 to 1600, and now to 1300 rpm, all the while maintaining the same rated power. The inevitable result of this is higher peak cylinder pressures, and with the decrease in dynamic load due to the lower rpm, the minimum oil film thicknesses of the bearings will decrease. Then the thin oil crowd shows up with 20-weight oil, promising higher fuel economy. I'm unconvinced.

With the bearings operating at higher unit loads, where is the analysis that shows 2.9 cP oils will generate sufficient oil film thickness for million-mile operation. Are they running the risk of getting into the boundary lubrication regime on 20-weight, where with 30-weight there was still margin? If this is occurring, engine friction will be higher anyway. Or if the engine bearings are redesigned for larger projected area to make the 20-weight oil work, then the oil pump will need to be upsized to pump the larger required volume of oil, and hydrodynamic friction losses within the bearings will remain about the same as always.

 

[Ethan1]

Originally Posted By: xxch4osxx
"Do you see any trucks driving down the highway without trailer skirts anymore?"
I see plenty of them everyday.


They're the exception, not the rule

 

[PiperOne]

It's still under 30%...and a lot of skirts are there because if you run the trailer in California...CARB says it has to have skirts if it was built after 2009. They work in a lot of cases.

 

[Solarent]

Originally Posted By: PiperOne
True...but most fleets will run a very high quality CJ-4 and now CK-4 oil...one of the big three usually (Delvac,Delo or Rotella) and currently ARE getting the million mile life...easily...even with extended drains. Many even use 10w30..currently lubrication related failures or short engine life are NOT a problem, even on the new gen engines. I've seen sampling from new conventional CK-4 10w30 running in the latest engines from Paccar and Cummins with OCI's out near 50,000 miles (80,000km)..and it is beyond impressive. The oil manufacturer who did the testing says they will not be able to meet the same level of oil life in FA-4 without using at least a synblend. Why? They are worried about the low HTHS spec holding up. If I have to now use a synthetic when a conventional was doing the job, and pay more for it so my engines meet a new rule I'm going stop and think about it a bit. The test fleet thought about it...and they are staying with CK-4 for the time being.

The new FA-4 oils are about government mandated targets first..the rest second. The engines may very well be designed to deliver the desired life..and do so with FA-4 oils..but you have to understand..the trucking industry has just been through a very tough decade dealing with new government mandated technologies that were "supposed" to be revenue neutral or beneficial...and were FAR from it.

The new FA-4 oils at best, deliver a 2 or 3% fuel savings...until fleets know that the savings are real and the engines will live they will be cautious. A 7mpg truck that gets 3% better fuel mileage at $3/gallon saves ~ $1500 a year in fuel. If that engine now requires 1 overhaul in its life..the fuel savings are gone and then some. It's just math..and given the tight margins in trucking they need to make sure they get it right. If they aren't the kind of fleet that does the math on things very well..they'll wait and watch those that do.

I'm not against the FA-4 oils...anything that lowers total costs to operate a truck are something I want to root for! If they are proven to work and the results are reliable, I will use them without haste. But given the reliability of new engine tech the trucking industry has been exposed to in the last dozen years...it just means folks will be cautious...not luddites. If it proves to work...in a few years FA-4 will be king.

And yes...I see lots of trailers without skirts, without tails, without wide singles, without disc brakes, without LED lights ....all things proven to work and lower costs. Some are resistant to change...others have legitimate operational issues for not using them. I deal with a fleet that buys and re-treads tires like rolling resistance magically doesn't exist...a BIG fleet...yet somehow they figure they are saving money buy running the [censored] they do vs the good stuff.


I think you are missing the point - any truck today that has a million miles or more isn't from the generation of changes that Volvo is talking about in the article. Those trucks just simply haven't been on the market long enough yet. The point is that OEM's are starting to co-engineer engines with oils that are focused on delivering fuel economy.

I also don't believe FA-4 oils have anything to do with government mandates. The companies who design and test these oils dumped 100's of millions into developing the technology and proving it delivers the promised gains without compromising durability. FA-4 oils are held to the same durability requirements as CK-4, and they have a much smaller margin of error - which makes them more highly engineered fluids with better performance and enabling new viscosity grades. Perhaps you haven't seen the data on FA-4, but I have and I was sold before the category even launched.

 

[PiperOne]

FA-4 was required so engines could meet GHG emission 2017 standards. The engine makers indeed are engineering with these oils in mind. My point is the industry doesn't have a lubrication problem now using conventional oils and now new engines are out that, to meet GHG emissions targets, require a new and more expensive oil. The engine manufacturers are saying everything will be "fine..don't worry"...just like they did for the 2002, 2007 and 2010 emission rule new engine designs...all things that were not "fine" and VERY costly to the end user.

The trucking industry would love it if it all turns out great. Who doesn't want to save money....but recent history has not shown the OEM's can be taken at their word.

 

[Solarent]

Originally Posted By: PiperOne
My point is the industry doesn't have a lubrication problem now using conventional oils and now new engines are out that, to meet GHG emissions targets, require a new and more expensive oil.


But the industry does have lubrication problems:

• New engine designs are downsized and heavily loaded causing an increase in oxidation concerns - Hence the introduction of the Mack T-13 test for both CK-4 and FA-4
• Fleets are pushing the ODI and the expectation is longer drains - OEMs respond by approving 50000+ mile drain intervals
• Issues abound with emission control systems - Lower SAPS content in engine oil helps mitigate some of the challenges
• Industry has Concerns about durability when moving to lower viscosity - DDC introducing scuffing test for DDC93K223 and for 2017 MY only recommends FA-4
• “improved shear stability, oxidation resistance and aeration control, as well as protection against catalyst poisoning, particulate filter blocking, engine wear, piston deposits, degradation of low- and high-temperature properties and soot related viscosity increase,” were the target of the CK-4/FA-4 upgrade from the API.

Each of the above items point to higher performing oils - which means transitioning to synthetics. AND, since synthetics are being used for the above reasons, it also enables the lower viscosity options found in FA-4 10W30 and 5W30 oils.

Originally Posted By: LubesNGreases
A significant report published last year by Trucking Efficiency-the joint effort between North American Council for Freight Efficiency (NACFE) and Carbon War Room- concluded that “Class 8 over-the-road fleets can realistically expect fuel savings in the range of 0.5 percent to 1.5 percent by switching from 1SW-40 to SW/10W-30 engine oil.”
At the same time, Mike Roeth, NACFE executive director, told Lubrizol, “For fleets currently using 15W- 40 engine lubricants, moving all their trucks to lower viscosity oils could deliver one of the fastest return on investment of any efficiency technologies we have evaluated.”

...

The Trucking Efficiency Confidence Report, previously cited, concluded, ” The savings from switching to the fuel-efficient API FA-4 variant can be expected to add a further 0.4 to 0.7 percent of increased fuel efficiency”.
Combined savings from 0.9 percent to 2.2 percent when moving from a SAE 15W-40 to a 10W-30 or 5W-30 low HTHS API FA-4 lubricant should be regarded as attractive to any fleet. They should be equally attractive to any oil marketer that is targeting such end-user customers.
Similar efficiency savings have been referenced by fleet owners. Mike Boatwright, president and CEO of Boaty’s Transport, Inc., has been con ducting on-the-road testing of new fuel-efficient technologies for the past 10 years. Boatwright’s company tested a fuel-efficient API FA-4 SAE 10W-30 lubricant alongside a 15W-40 API CJ-4 reference, leading to a calculated 2.3 percent fuel cost savings during the trial, along with confirmation that engine protection was not compromised, stating, “This is the best ever 500,000-mile engine teardown I have ever seen. This engine could easily go one million miles.”

Link