45
FUELS & LUBES INTERNATIONAL
Quarter Four 2014
专题报道
ILSAC（国际润滑油标准化和认证委员
会）要求取代了ILSAC-Oil的汽车油品顾
问组（AOAP）提出新的认证标志以区别
ILSAC GF-6A 和 GF-6B。
AOAP由来自美国石油学会（API）、
美国化学理事会、ILSAC和日本汽车制造商
协会（JAMA）的成员组成。这些成员将决
定ILSAC GF-6B是采用不同的认证标志还
是其他方式来区别于其他油品。
在GF-6A和GF-6B的“需求”陈述中提出
需要有一种新的ILSAC油品类别。这是出于
燃油经济性要求。燃油经济性受各种法规
的推动，如2012年由奥巴马政府发布的新
标准，要求到2025年，美国的乘用车和轻
型卡车的平均燃油经济性翻番，达54.5英
里每加仑（MPG）。
GF-6的燃油经济性较GF-5高。发动
机清洁度得到提升，活塞积碳、发动机油
泥、发动机漆膜、及氧化导致的粘度增加
均会减少。
因此，几乎所有的发动机测试均被更新
或替换。但也出现了新的问题，如低速提
前点火（LSPI）和凸轮定时链磨损等。
为了满足企业平均燃油经济性标准
（CAFE），发动机设计师将发动机设计得
越来越小。这些发动机的工况更为苛刻，
运行温度更高，这意味着润滑油的工况也
更苛刻。此外，汽油直喷（GDI）和增压汽
油直喷（TGDI）技术的加入，使发动机也
在不断发展。TGDI发动机发生LSPI事件的
概率更高，这就是为什么LSPI现已成为一
个性能参数，及测试项目之一。
ILSAC GF-6不是一个类别，而是两
个。ILSAC GF-6A用以替代目前的采用星
爆图为认证标志的GF-5，提出一种新的火
花点火式内燃机油的性能水平。具体提高
的性能为：燃油经济性（新油）和燃油经
济性保持力（旧油）；排放系统兼容性；
在全球市场上提高对发动机的保护能力的
可靠性。其最低高温高剪切（HTHS）粘度
为2.6 mP•s。
ILSAC GF-6B则是一个全新的类别，
一种低粘度火花点火式内燃机油。其最大
HTHS粘度为2.6 mP•s。不可向后与GF-5
兼容。
8月13日在美国密歇根州Dearborn召
开的AOAP会议上，ILSAC标志的许可方
API讨论了一个选择性表决的结果，该表决
旨在试探为GF-6B采用一个新的标志的可
能性。
表决中有三个选项：1）对所有相关的
ILSAC GF-6B的新认证标志？
ILSAC GF-6B是北美和日本汽车制造商以及新的油品和添加剂供应商开发的新的乘用车发动机油，它是
否会有一个新的认证标志以便区别于之前的机油？
作者：
Alison Gaines
ers and other entities such as
additive and base oil suppliers
as well as testing lab representa-
tives. They were asked to mark
“can accept,” “will not accept”
or “no preference” under each
option.
Ron Romano, service lubri-
cants technical expert at Ford
and ILSAC member, told FLI
before the meeting that ILSAC
members within AOAP were in
favor of the use of a new certifi-
cation mark for GF-6B.
According to Romano, even
with today’s GF-5 oils, consum-
ers do not always recognize
viscosity grades. The bottles
of GF-6B will display the SAE
viscosity grades, which will be
lower than SAE 20. “A separate
symbol will give extra secu-
rity,” Romano said. “Even today
with GF-5, consumers still put
the wrong oil in their engines
sometimes.”
Not everyone shared this
opinion, however. The first op-
tion, to keep the current certifi-
cation mark for both GF-6A and
6B, garnered the most positive
votes. One oil marketer com-
mented that it is consistent with
the current system of sym-
bols and that it keeps
viscosity grades as
the main focus,
which they
believe is how
most consum-
ers make their
buying deci-
sions.
Some mem-
bers appreci-
ated the second
option, which
involves removing
the API starburst for GF-6B,
because it offers a clear distinc-
tion between A and B without
having to create another symbol.
However, others believed that
the absence of the starburst on
GF-6B would lead to customer
perception that GF-6Bs are of
lower quality. Also, more simply,
several companies pointed out
that an ILSAC product needs to
have the ILSAC mark on it.
Many members commented
on option three saying that
adding another symbol to the
mix would cause too
much confusion
for consumers.
One OEM who
approves of
the idea com-
mented that
it is the best
way to keep
consumers
from selecting
XW-16 oils by
mistake. One oil
marketer, on the other
hand, raised the question of
even lower viscosity grades in
the future: Will new certifica-
tion marks have to be intro-
duced for 0W-12 and 0W-8, for
example?
This is similar to the dilem-
ma that the developers of PC-11
oils, the new heavy-duty engine
oil category that is also being
developed, are facing: The A and
B varieties are different in terms
of HTHS viscosity and backward
compatibility, and they need to
find a way, through a new certi-
fication mark, to communicate
to consumers which oil is the
right one for their equipment.
As he gave an update on the
timelines of GF-6 and PC-11 at
the ASTM D02 meeting in June
2014, Shell’s Scott Lindholm said
that “The timelines of GF-6 and
PC-11 mutually influence each
other.” The first-license dates
for both have been pushed back
many times, and at this point it
looks like PC-11 will come out
before GF-6.
Currently, the projected
first-license dates for PC-11 and
GF-6 are Quarter 1 and Quar-
ter 4 2017, respectively. In the
meantime, AOAP continues to
discuss the GF-6B certification
mark options at its monthly
meetings.
