P Effect on Catalyst – SAE 2007-1072 and 1990 OEMs have been targeting a 0.05%P oil with conventional P Primary pathway is combusted P P volatility alone reduces captured P by 39% (reduces volatile P by 50%) when the Low Volatility P was used More than the reduction of changing P from 0.08% to 0.05% (37% reduction) Reducing P limit from 0.08% to 0.07% provides no significant benefit due to low capture efficiency in catalyst (0.01/0.08x20%=2.5%) Design for low bulk/leak oil consumption is the most effective way to prevent catalyst poisoning because of the high capture efficiency of that pathway Even a 0.05%P oil will behave like a 0.2%P oil

PEI165 Is The Best Option for P Volatility PEI165 provides strong correlation correlates with fundamental ZnDTP properties Thermal stability, molecular weight and volatility PEI165 correlates with field test and dyno tests (IIIG) PEI165 correlates with TMC reference oils PEI has the best discrimination among methods evaluated A robust 6-sigma design (repeatability vs. spread) of reference oils PEI is cost effective and doesn’t create additional problems Creates no parts issue for GF-5 and beyond as does IIIG Low cost bench test is cost effective route Saves resources and reduces CO2 emissions (compared to IIIG)! PEI165 provides a comprehensive survey of oils on the market not available with other methods LCL UCL 3 s 3 s

PEI165: additional support Correlated with SAE paper field test data with a similar spread Captured volatile P, g PEI165, mg/L IIIG P retention, % Conventional Zn 9.96 102 72 Low volatility Zn 4.99 54 82

Recommendation Maintain GF-4 P chemical limit P effect on catalyst is not exact science Improvement from P limit reduction is lost in P volatility data noise Use PEI165 for P volatility with P/F set around TMC 435 Market survey data will soon follow Move PEI165 to ASTM to finalize test method and precision statement