ESCIT Objectives ESCIT is charged to define lube oil effect on catalyst performance, not just to develop a P volatility test ESCIT should consider both P limit and P volatility as options and choose one –The original request to ILSAC to define chemical limit occurred before forming the ESCIT team ESCIT team should strive to conclude a chemical limit asap to facilitate formulation development

PEI using IIIG UOA - I 5 experimental oils blended with different ZDPs with progressively higher molecular weight (less volatile) IIIG P Retention (EOT) responds logically to ZDP volatility Less volatile

PEI Using IIIG UOA - II Posted TMC reference oil UOA data (2 labs) generated the following statistics 15 Oronite IIIG tests (2 labs) of “essentially” the same formulation with identical ZDP and detergent content yielded a std. dev. of 3.3 Both provide sufficient precision to separate a “10 point” difference (as presented by Lubrizol in the last ESCIT) Working through ACC to provide coded Sequence test UOA data and possibly PEI165 using the same oils

PEI Using IIIG UOA Summary Pro: an engine test with acceptable precision and meaningful response to P volatility Con: limited parts, test condition too severe, longer test time and higher cost, need more correlation with field performance

PEI Using PEI165 4 experimental oils blended with different ZDPs with progressively higher molecular weight (less volatile) PEI165 responds logically to ZDP volatility with a wider separation Potentially excellent repeatability (relative to separation) Repeat test Less volatile

PEI Using PEI165 Summary PEI using PEI165 –Pro: Meaningful response to P volatility with potentially better precision and greater separation; preserving IIIG parts through correlation with IIIG; reduced test cost –Con: need correlation with field performance (or through IIIG)