Search Results

Fuel economy is not an absolute attribute, but is highly dependent on the method used to evaluate it. In this work, two test methods are used to evaluate the differences in fuel economy brought about by changes in engine oil viscosity grade and additive chemistry. The two test methods include a chassis dynamometer vehicle test and an engine dynamometer test. The vehicle testing was conducted using the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) testing protocol while the engine dynamometer test uses the proposed American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Sequence VIE fuel economy improvement 1 (FEI1) testing methodology. In an effort to improve agreement between the two testing methods, the same model engine was used in both test methods, the General Motors (GM) 3.6 L V6 (used in the 2012 model year Chevrolet™ Malibu™ engine). Within the lubricant industry, this choice of engine is reinforced because it has been selected for use in the proposed Sequence VIE fuel economy test.

Chassis dynamometer tests are often used to determine vehicle fuel economy (FE). Since the entire vehicle is used, these methods are generally accepted to be more representative of ‘real-world’ conditions than engine dynamometer tests or small-scale bench tests. Unfortunately, evaluating vehicle fuel economy via this means introduces significant variability that can readily be mitigated with engine dynamometer and bench tests. Recently, improvements to controls and procedures have led to drastically improved test precision in chassis dynamometer testing. Described herein are chassis dynamometer results from five fully formulated engine oils (utilizing improved testing protocols on the Federal Test Procedure (FTP-75) and Highway Fuel Economy Test (HwFET) cycles) which not only show statistically significant FE changes across viscosity grades but also meaningful FE differentiation within a viscosity grade where additive systems have been modified.

With the increasing use of modern, EGR-equipped, heavy-duty diesel engines and the use of lower sulfur and alternate fuels, such as biodiesel, lubricants are being exposed to a range of different compositions of acids. To complement the traditional detergent bases, todays lubricants have evolved to include a higher proportion of basic materials from amine-derived sources to aid in oxidation and soot control. This paper explores the impact of the different sources of acids, some of the issues they create and how they can be addressed, exemplified in a prototype CJ-4 lubricant formulation.