Put simply, the request advances significant parts of ILSAC GF-6 into a GF-5 Plus supplement. The real question for the lubricants industry is how soon these changes can be realistically implemented.

The July 20 letter to API from Ford Motors Ron Romano clearly states that ILSACs desire is to see licensing begin on Jan. 1, 2018. That timing will be central to the discussion when the API Lubricants Group meets in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 15.

There is precedent for an engine oil supplement, dating back to the 2003-2004 timeframe, when augmented performance was needed for the API CI-4 heavy-duty diesel oil category, and API CI-4 Plus was introduced on an accelerated schedule. This is detailed in Annex S of API 1509, the legal document governing engine oil development and licensing, but it was very specific to API CI-4 Plus.

That precedent may serve as a guide, but a process for a light-duty engine oil supplement first will need to be developed and agreed to by industry stakeholders. By all accounts, creating CI-4 Plus involved extraordinary industry cooperation to solve a major problem for diesel engine manufacturers, yet it still took close to a year for products to be officially licensed.

Is it possible to do this in less than six months, following the API system and via this proposed supplement? If current products can pass the Ford-sponsored LSPI engine test and no reformulation is required, then Jan. 1 is feasible, according to the automakers. Some existing products may manage it, but more likely significant reformulation work may be required to achieve LSPI protection and assure that any changes do not undermine other tests that the engine oil must pass, to ensure complete engine protection.

So, realistic timing and how to establish a supplement specific to this request probably will be among the key topics that representatives of oil marketers and additive companies will discuss when they get together in two weeks. Another hurdle will be the mandatory waiting period that ensures that all marketers have access to tests and the new technology. Normally, API builds one year into the schedule for this–far beyond what the automakers requested.

What other topics are likely to crowd the agenda?

• ILSAC and API also need to decide what happens to the API donut and ILSAC starburst trademarks. When API CI-4 Plus was introduced, plain-vanilla API CI-4 did not go away since it was still adequate for most vehicles in operation. CI-4 Plus just became an added claim within the donut symbol on product labels, and not all products carried the Plus designation. This case is different, because of the starburst logo shown on ILSAC engine oils. Normally, licensees have one year to transition their oils to a new ILSAC specification, because the starburst is exclusive to the latest ILSAC specification. Will it be the same for a supplement? That is, after one year will ILSAC GF-5 licenses expire and leave only GF-5 Plus oils eligible to wear the starburst? Production logistics already push many oil marketers to roll all their products over to the newest category when one is introduced; will that be mandatory for a product supplement?

• Another issue: How to designate SAE 0W-16 as an ILSAC product for only the newest vehicles? Today, 0W-16 can be licensed as API SN Resource Conserving, but it is not defined in ILSAC GF-5. Should this be done via a supplement? Stakeholders have debated whether SAE XW-16 should even use the same starburst symbol, because of back serviceability concerns. Has ILSAC decided that the starburst as is will be acceptable? Understandably, ILSACs Japanese automaker members especially would like to introduce this grade into the ILSAC licensing system sooner rather than later, but there may be other hurdles that a supplement just cannot cover. Many oil marketers are uneasy about changes to the starburst symbol itself.

• Technical process issues must be worked out. While close and accepted into ILSAC GF-6, the Ford LSPI test still has some details to be worked out and accepted into the American Chemical Councils Code of Practice, and the tests base oil interchange/viscosity grade read-across guidelines are still being developed. When CI-4 Plus was introduced, the supplement defined BOI/VGRA guidelines for one new engine test, allowing deployment in a multitude of base stocks and viscosity grades. Can this happen for timely deployment of GF-5 Plus, too?

• Fuel economy limits are on the anvil, too. ILSACs proposal for GF-5 Plus cites the Sequence VID engine test, but that test is no longer available. Its proposal does not reference the replacement Sequence VIE test, nor the VIF test for SAE XW-16. Will existing Sequence VID results be valid for the new formulations? If not, when will equivalent GF-5 limits be available for the Sequence VIE and VIF? The new specification does reference the new Sequence IIIH test for wear and oil thickening, but again, BOI/VGRA guidelines are not available for that test or the Sequence VIE/F at the present time (although an API task force is working on that).

As they ponder these issues, meeting attendees will be acutely aware of the commercial implications. Product launch activities are complex for both the additive companies offering new chemistries as well as for the oil marketers. Once technologies and formulations are completely defined, this process alone can easily take three to six months, even expedited.

Marketers will need to ensure new product labels are properly designed and deployed, API licensing is completed, Safety Data sheets are rewritten, etc. Additive companies will need to schedule and orchestrate engine and bench tests costing millions of dollars to qualify the candidate products. All this will take time, test stand capacity, and resources to do the work.

Finally, if GF-5 Plus gets introduced early next year, will it delay GF-6 even more? APIs meeting may hear suggestions that additive companies and marketers impose a minimum time between GF-5 Plus and the debut of GF-6, in order to recover investments.

Certainly, history shows that if the OEMs build a new spec, oil marketers and additive companies will deliver. The big question API must wrestle with now is, When?

APIs Lubricants Group will meet on Aug. 15 in Washington, D.C., to explore the options and begin negotiations on timing and development of the process.