lubricants

Review
Common Properties of Lubricants that Affect Vehicle
Fuel Efficiency: A North American
Historical Perspective
Mark T. Devlin
Afton Chemical Corporation, 500 Spring Street, Richmond, VA 23218, USA; mark.devlin@aftonchemical.com;
Tel.: +1-804-788-6322




Received: 28 June 2018; Accepted: 30 July 2018; Published: 3 August 2018


Abstract: The development of advanced lubricants to improve vehicle fuel efficiency can appear
to be as simple as lowering the viscosity and frictional properties of a fluid. However, applied
research studies have shown that it is quite difficult to quantify the fuel efficiency properties of
advanced lubricants in vehicles. A review of the historical research predominantly performed in
North America in this area reveals that there are many factors to consider in order to demonstrate the
effectiveness of advanced lubricants. First, the methodology used to measure vehicle fuel efficiency
will impact the results since there are many factors not related to the lubricant which will influence
vehicle fuel efficiency. Second, developing advanced fuel-efficient lubricants under well controlled
conditions overlooks the issue that lubricant properties such as viscosity and friction affect the
operating conditions encountered by the lubricant in the vehicle. Finally, the physical properties of
lubricants that historically control fuel economy do not have the same effect on fuel efficiency in all
vehicles. The proper vehicle or system level test needs to be selected to properly assess the benefits of
new advanced lubricants.

Keywords: fuel efficiency; lubricants; viscosity; friction

1. Introduction
Worldwide government regulations describing vehicle fuel efficiency and exhaust emissions
requirements are major technical drivers for improvements to all automotive lubricants. For example,
in 1980 in the US, the minimum corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) for a passenger car and light
duty truck was approximately 23 MPG. In 2010, this CAFE minimum was approximately 30 MPG
and is projected to be over 50 MPG by 2025. For heavy-duty trucks, particulate emission and NOx
reductions have been the focus of US regulations. In 1998, the maximum allowed NOx and particulate
emissions were 14.4 g/kW-h and 0.8 g/kW-h, respectively. In 2015, these maximum emissions were
0.27 g/kW-h of NOx and 0.013 g/kW-h of particulates. For passenger cars and light duty trucks, there is
now a focus on reducing particulate emissions since vehicles equipped with turbocharged gasoline
direct injection engines (TGDI), which can improve fuel efficiency, emit exhaust soot. For heavy-duty
trucks, reducing CO2 emissions is becoming a priority by requiring annual increases in fuel economy
of between 2.0% and 2.5% from 2018 until 2027 [1,2].
The increased need for advanced lubricants to improve fuel efficiency is reflected in the increase
in research related to fuel efficiency lubricants. Figure 1 shows the number of technical papers related
to lubricant derived fuel economy published by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) from the
1960s through the 2000s. The number of publications has steadily increased over this time frame,
with most research focused on engine oils. A steady increase in publications related to transmission
fluids and gear oils also occurred since it is becoming necessary to extract fuel economy performance

Lubricants 2018, 6, 68; doi:10.3390/lubricants6030068 www.mdpi.com/journal/lubricants

Lubricants 2018, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 15

Lubricants 2018, 6, 68 2 of 15
transmission fluids and gear oils also occurred since it is becoming necessary to extract fuel economy
performance throughout the drivetrain. When summarizing lubricant technical trends, review
papers oftenthe
throughout focus on future
drivetrain. looking
When technologies.
summarizing For example,
lubricant technical Victor Wong
trends, andpapers
review Simon often
Tungfocus
have
written
on futureanlooking
excellent review of the
technologies. Forcurrent
example,state of engine
Victor Wong oilandlubricant
Simon Tungtechnology to reduce
have written friction
an excellent
and improve
review of thefuel efficiency
current state [3]. These reviews
of engine and discussions
oil lubricant technologyintotrade journals
reduce often
friction anddescribe
improve future
fuel
technologies
efficiency [3]. that
Thesemay have and
reviews special lubrication
discussions needsjournals
in trade [3–5]. There are also excellent
often describe discussions
future technologies of
that
how have
may current and lubrication
special new lubricant
needsadditive technology
[3–5]. There are alsoaffects
excellentfriction and thus
discussions fuel current
of how efficiency
and[6–9].
new
However,additive
lubricant we oftentechnology
do not look back friction
affects to remind
andus what
thus past
fuel research
efficiency efforts
[6–9]. have already
However, taught
we often us
do not
regarding
look back to(1)remind
measurement of lubricant
us what past properties
research efforts haveon fuel economy;
already (2) the common
taught us regarding lubricant
(1) measurement
properties
of lubricantidentified
propertiespreviously and (3) (2)
on fuel economy; thatthe
in common
all applications,
lubricantthese lubricant
properties properties
identified do not
previously
always
and haveinthe
(3) that allsame relative effects.
applications, these lubricant properties do not always have the same relative effects.

1400
Engine Oil
1200
Gear Oil
1000
Number of papers

Trans. Fluid

800

600

400

200

0
1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s

Figure 1. Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) papers related to fuel economy and lubricants.
lubricants.

This retrospective
This retrospective discussion
discussion of fuel efficiency
of fuel efficiency willwill focus
focus on on research
research performed
performed at at Afton
Afton
Chemical Corporation and predominantly covers research related
Chemical Corporation and predominantly covers research related to North American fuel economyto North American fuel economy
concerns [10–57].
concerns [10–57]. Papers
Papersfromfromother
otherresearch
researchgroups
groups areare
listed
listed in in
thethe
reference
reference section to show
section the
to show
commonality
the commonality between
between observations
observations throughout
throughout thetheindustry
industry[58–94].
[58–94].SomeSomeofofthe the studies cited
studies cited
included vehicles, driving cycles or engines of interest to researchers
included vehicles, driving cycles or engines of interest to researchers in Japan, Europe and South in Japan, Europe and South
America [12,19,26,27,32,42,58,61,65,69,70,73,76,77,86].
America [12,19,26,27,32,42,58,61,65,69,70,73,76,77,86]. Therefore, Therefore, this this review
review may may be be applicable
applicable to to aa
global understanding
global understanding of fuel economy.
of fuel economy. It It is critical to
is critical to distinguish
distinguish between
between research
research efforts
efforts where
where
lubricants have a direct impact on fuel efficiency versus research
lubricants have a direct impact on fuel efficiency versus research where lubricants ensure that where lubricants ensure that
mechanical systems
mechanical systems designed
designed to to improve
improve fuel fuel efficiency
efficiency operate
operate properly
properly [47–56].
[47–56]. For
For example,
example,
when operating engines at low speeds in order to improve the conversion
when operating engines at low speeds in order to improve the conversion of chemical to mechanical of chemical to mechanical
energy,pre-ignition
energy, pre-ignitionevents events (LSPI)
(LSPI) cancan
occuroccur
that that
causecause
damage damageto the to the engine.
engine. Preventing
Preventing LSPI
LSPI enables
enables
the the operation
operation of engines of engines
under more under more efficient
efficient conditions conditions
so that fuel so that fuel economy
economy is improved
is improved [51–56].
[51–56]. There are engine oil additives that affect LSPI and fuel
There are engine oil additives that affect LSPI and fuel efficiency, and those will be discussed efficiency, and those will be
in
discussed in Section 4. The focus in this review will be on lubricant
Section 4. The focus in this review will be on lubricant properties that have a direct impact properties that have a direct
on
impact
fuel on fuel efficiency.
efficiency.
It is critical to
It is critical to point
point out
out that
that energy
energy balance
balance analyses
analyses have
have shownshown that
that the
the amount
amount of of energy
energy toto
operate a vehicle is approximately 40% of the energy created from combusting
operate a vehicle is approximately 40% of the energy created from combusting fuel [3,4]. Energy loss fuel [3,4]. Energy loss
due to
due to friction
friction in
in the
the engine,
engine, transmission
transmission and and axles
axles accounts
accounts for for approximately
approximately 5–15% 5–15% ofof the
the energy
energy
created from combusting fuel. Therefore, 45–55% of the energy is lost
created from combusting fuel. Therefore, 45–55% of the energy is lost due to non-frictional inefficiencies due to non-frictional
inefficiencies
in the vehicle,in the vehicle,
including including
inefficient inefficient
conversion conversion
of chemical of chemical energy.
to mechanical to mechanical
A majorityenergy. A
of the
majority of the forty years of lubricant research has focused on recapturing
forty years of lubricant research has focused on recapturing the 5–15% of energy lost due to friction. the 5–15% of energy lost
Lubricants 2018, 6, 68 3 of 15

Future lubricant advancements to enable mechanical devices that improve powertrain and drivetrain
Lubricants 2018, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 15
efficiency will help recapture a larger amount of the lost energy.
due to friction. Future lubricant advancements to enable mechanical devices that improve
2. Difficulties
powertrainwith Measuring
and drivetrain the Effect
efficiency will of Lubricants
help recapture aon Fuelamount
larger Economy
of the lost energy.
Government fuel economy regulations are based on measuring fuel economy in vehicles. Tests to
2. Difficulties with Measuring the Effect of Lubricants on Fuel Economy
measure the fuel efficiency properties of lubricants can also be performed in fired and motored engine
Government
tests, as well as system fuel economy
level regulations
efficiency areautomatic
tests for based on measuring
transmission fuel economy
fluids orinaxle
vehicles. Tests
oils. Therefore,
to measure the fuel efficiency properties of lubricants can also be performed in fired and motored
before discussing lubricant properties that affect fuel economy, the issues that can arise in measuring
engine tests, as well as system level efficiency tests for automatic transmission fluids or axle oils.
fuel economy in vehicles versus isolated systems needs to be explored.
Therefore, before discussing lubricant properties that affect fuel economy, the issues that can arise in
In vehicle fuel
measuring fuel economy
economyintesting,
vehiclesvehicles are driven
versus isolated under
systems needsdifferent driving cycles such as those
to be explored.
shown in In Figure 2 (US06 and the New European Driving Cycle (NEDC)
vehicle fuel economy testing, vehicles are driven under different driving refer to cycles
driving cycles
such required
as those
by the US Environmental
shown in Figure 2 (US06 Protection
and the NewAgency (EPA)Driving
European and European
Cycle (NEDC) Union, respectively).
refer to driving cycles That is,
thererequired
are accelerations
by the US and decelerations
Environmental as wellAgency
Protection as steady-state
(EPA) and speed conditions.
European Union, These changes in
respectively).
engineThat is, there conditions
operating are accelerations and decelerations
will result in changes in asthe
well as steady-state
temperature, speed conditions.
pressure These
and shear conditions
changes in engine operating conditions will result in changes in the temperature,
that a lubricant experiences. These changes in physical conditions will affect the rheological pressure and shear and
conditions that a lubricant experiences. These changes in physical
frictional properties of lubricants and will be discussed in more detail in Sections 3–5. conditions will affect the
rheological and frictional properties of lubricants and will be discussed in more detail in
Human or robot drivers are used to follow the specific driving cycles and the drivers must match
Sections 3–5.
the speedHuman
versus or time profiles within specific tolerances. However, there is an inherent imprecision in
robot drivers are used to follow the specific driving cycles and the drivers must
following these profiles
match the speed versus whentimecontrol
profilesis within
through the gas
specific and brake
tolerances. pedals.
However, Forisexample,
there an inherentduring
the development
imprecision in of the Sequence
following VID fuel
these profiles wheneconomy
control is test, a consortium
through the gas and of brake
companies
pedals.reviewed
For
automaker-submitted
example, during the datadevelopment
from more than of the600Sequence
vehicle tests
VID [94]. The conclusions
fuel economy were that changes
test, a consortium of
companies
in lubricant reviewed
properties automaker-submitted
were data from
too subtle to statistically more than
determine in the600 vehicle
vehicle tests
tests. [94]. The
Multiple drivers
were conclusions
used in thiswere
study that changes
and in lubricant
the effect properties
of the driver maywere welltoo subtle
have to statistically
overwhelmed thedetermine
results. Asin the
a result,
vehicle tests. Multiple drivers were used in this study and the effect
vehicle fuel economy procedures have been developed with better control of the driving cycle of the driver may well have and
overwhelmed the results. As a result, vehicle fuel economy procedures have been developed with
lubricant effects can be observed [26]. Even with vehicle testing improvements, the cycles shown do
better control of the driving cycle and lubricant effects can be observed [26]. Even with vehicle
not always reflect real world driving conditions, and in real world conditions, the effect of lubricants
testing improvements, the cycles shown do not always reflect real world driving conditions, and in
may be too small to statistically quantify [94].
real world conditions, the effect of lubricants may be too small to statistically quantify [94].

140
US06
Vehicle speed, km/h

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Test time, s
140
NEDC
Vehicle speed, km/h

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Test time, s

Figure 2. Driving
Figure cycles
2. Driving used
cycles toto
used measure
measurevehicle
vehicle fuel economy.NEDC
fuel economy. NEDC = New
= New European
European Driving
Driving Cycle.Cycle.

In fired engine or system level tests, fuel efficiency is typically measured under a variety of
In fired engine or system level tests, fuel efficiency is typically measured under a variety of steady
steady state conditions that are computer controlled to very tight tolerances. Table 1 shows the
state conditions that are computer controlled to very tight tolerances. Table 1 shows the steady state
steady state operating conditions for the Sequence VID engine test (ASTM D7589) which is used to
operating conditions
measure the fuelfor the Sequence
economy VID engine
performance test (ASTM
of passenger D7589)
car motor which
oils. is used
Steady state to measureVID
Sequence the fuel
economy performance of passenger car motor oils. Steady state Sequence VID operating conditions are
Lubricants 2018, 6, 68 4 of 15

based on six conditions that represent a 2006 Buick LaCrosse being driven using the US EPA Federal
Test Procedure and Highway Fuel Economy cycles. In addition, fuel economy is measured for up
to 30 min under each Sequence VID steady state condition, so there is plenty of time for the system
to stabilize. This improves the precision of the system level tests versus the vehicle tests. However,
in these Lubricants
system2018,level
6, xtests, fuelREVIEW
FOR PEER economy is not measured during transient operating conditions
4 of 15 where
a significant amount of fuel is consumed.
operating conditions are based on six conditions that represent a 2006 Buick LaCrosse being driven
using 1.the
Table US EPA
Steady stateFederal Test used
conditions Procedure and Highway
to measure Fuel Economy
fuel economy cycles. VID
in the Sequence In addition, fuel
engine test.
economy is measured for up to 30 min under each Sequence VID steady state condition, so there is
plenty of time for the
Parameter system
Stage 1 to stabilize.
Stage 2This improves
Stage 3the precision
Stageof4 the system level
Stage 5 tests versus
Stage 6
the vehicle tests. However, in these system level tests, fuel economy is not measured during
Speed, r/min
transient operating2000 ± 5 where
conditions 2000a ± 5 1500
significant ± 5 of fuel695
amount ±5
is consumed. 695 ± 5 695 ± 5
Load Cell, N·m 105.0 ± 0.1 105.0 ± 0.1 105.0 ± 0.1 20.0 ± 0.1 20.0 ± 0.1 40.0 ± 0.1
Oil Gallery, ◦C 115 ± 2conditions65used
± 2to measure ± economy
115fuel 2 115 ±Sequence
2 35 ± 2 test. 115 ± 2
Table 1. Steady state in the VID engine

Parameter Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5 Stage 6

Fuel consumption in vehicle
Speed, r/min 2000tests
± 5 is usually
2000 ± 5 determined
1500 ± 5 from
695 ± 5measurements
695 ± 5 695of± vehicle
5 emissions.
Load Cell, N·m
Using physical properties 105.0fuel,
of the ± 0.1 such
105.0as ± 0.1 105.0 ±and
density 0.1 fuel
20.0 ±heating
0.1 20.0 capacity,
± 0.1 40.0 ±the0.1 amount of fuel
Oil Gallery, °C 115 ± 2 65 ± 2 115 ± 2 115 ± 2 35 ± 2 115 ± 2
consumed is calculated. Environmental conditions affect the fuel combustion process and emissions.
In vehicle fuel
Fuel economy
consumption testing, theretests
in vehicle are ismethodologies
usually determined that from
are described
measurements to correct
of vehiclefor these
environmental
emissions.conditions.
Using physical These corrections
properties of the arefuel, not
suchalways
as densityperfect andheating
and fuel can skew fuel the
capacity, economy
amount in
measurements of fuel consumed
vehicle tests. isIncalculated.
system level Environmental conditions
tests and vehicle affect
tests, thetheamount
fuel combustion process
of fuel consumed can
andmeasured.
be directly emissions. InThis
vehicle fuel economycan
measurement testing,
be athere
more areaccurate
methodologiesway to thatdetermine
are described thetofuel
correct
efficiency
for these environmental conditions. These corrections are not always perfect and can skew fuel
properties of lubricants. System level tests in motored engines, transmissions and axles have also been
economy measurements in vehicle tests. In system level tests and vehicle tests, the amount of fuel
designedconsumed
to measure lubricant
can be efficiencyThis
directly measured. by measurement
tracking thecan torque into accurate
be a more and outway of the mechanical
to determine the device
of interest. This is a more precise way to track the ability of lubricants to
fuel efficiency properties of lubricants. System level tests in motored engines, transmissions andreduce friction and improve
efficiency. However,
axles have alsothese tests aretoa measure
been designed further lubricant
step away from the
efficiency “real world”
by tracking measurement
the torque into and outof of vehicle
the mechanical
fuel efficiency required device of interest. This
by government is a more precise way to track the ability of lubricants to
regulations.
reduce friction and improve efficiency. However, these tests are a further step away from the “real
In vehicle and fired engine tests, the fuel efficiency of candidate lubricants is compared to that
world” measurement of vehicle fuel efficiency required by government regulations.
of baseline lubricants. The intent is to calculate the percent fuel economy improvement (%FEI) of
In vehicle and fired engine tests, the fuel efficiency of candidate lubricants is compared to that
the candidate lubricant versus
of baseline lubricants. the baseline
The intent lubricant.
is to calculate For example,
the percent fuel economy Figure 3 shows(%FEI)
improvement the fuel economy
of the
performance measured
candidate lubricantfor a baseline
versus engine
the baseline oil in For
lubricant. a vehicle
example, over time
Figure (blue line).
3 shows the fuelIneconomy
between tests
with theperformance
baseline oil, measured
candidate for a oils
baseline
are engine
tested.oilThe in a fuel
vehicle over timeperformance
economy (blue line). In between tests
of the baseline oil
improves with
as the
thebaseline
vehicleoil,is candidate
aged andoils thisareoccurs
tested. rapidly
The fuel at economy
lower performance
vehicle miles of the
andbaseline oil
more slowly at
improves as the vehicle is aged and this occurs rapidly at lower vehicle miles and more slowly at
higher vehicle miles. Running-in conditions affect fuel economy since parts are worn or tribofilms
higher vehicle miles. Running-in conditions affect fuel economy since parts are worn or tribofilms
form onform
the surfaces of engine
on the surfaces parts
of engine (see
parts Section
(see Section5). 5). These effects
These effects also
also varyvary
withwith the engine
the engine oils in use
oils in use
during these
duringrunning-in timetime
these running-in frames.
frames.

Figure
Figure 3. Effectofofvehicle
3. Effect vehicle age
ageon
onfuel
fueleconomy.
economy.
Lubricants 2018, 6, 68 5 of 15

The issue is determining which result for the baseline oil needs to be compared to the result
for the candidate oil. In Figure 3, straight lines are drawn between each baseline oil fuel economy
result. Fuel economy for candidate oils is then compared to the baseline oil result on the point of the
line at which the candidate oils are tested. For example, candidate oil AA was tested twice in this
vehicle. In one case, the measured fuel economy is above the line between adjacent baseline results,
and in another case, the measured fuel economy is below the line between adjacent baseline results.
Furthermore, the result for the test with AA at approximately 8500 miles is in between two baseline
oils that differ by a large amount (~0.7 MPG). It is not clear which result for AA is correct. Similar
shifts in baseline oil results are observed in fired engine tests. More sophisticated treatments of the
changes in baseline oil results have been used to improve the precision of fuel economy testing.
Overall, it is very critical to be aware of the methodology used to measure fuel efficiency when
interpreting the fuel economy performance of lubricants. The balance is between improvement in the
precision of the test and determining fuel efficiency performance that is relevant to the actual operation
of a vehicle. This discussion is not meant to judge which methodology is the best for achieving this
balance. There are many ways that researchers have used to achieve the proper balance. Instead,
when summarizing the common properties of lubricants that affect fuel efficiency, the overall trends
in lubricant performance need to be considered since fuel efficiency results from separate studies are
influenced by many factors that are not related to the lubricant.

3. Effect of Viscosity on Fuel Economy

It is generally agreed that fuel economy is improved when a lower viscosity lubricant is used
in place of a higher viscosity lubricant. This is reflected in engine oil performance and viscosity
specifications as well as the general trend for the need for lower viscosity transmission and axle oils.
For example, Table 2 shows key differences between the SAE J300 engine oil viscosity specifications in
2009 and 2015 for selective viscosity grades. The low temperature cranking (Cold Cranking Simulator
CCS: ASTM D5293) and pumping viscosity (mini-rotor viscometer (MRV): D4684) limits describe the
tradeoff between being able to start an engine and the ability for the oil to be pumped around an
engine, respectively. These low temperature performance specifications have not changed between
2009 and 2015.

Table 2. Selected SAE J300 engine oil viscosity classification specifications: 2009 vs. 2015.

Kinematic High Shear Viscosity

Low T Cranking Low T Pumping
SAE Viscosity Viscosity at 100 ◦ C at 150 ◦ C (mPa·s)
Viscosity (mPa·s) Viscosity (mPa·s)
Grade (mm2 /s) ASTM ASTM D4683,
ASTM D5293 ASTM D4684
D445 or D7042 D4741 or D5481
2009
0W <6200 at −35 ◦ C <60,000 at −40 ◦ C >3.8
5W <6600 at −30 ◦ C <60,000 at −35 ◦ C >3.8
20 6.9–9.3 >2.6
30 9.2–12.5 >2.9
2015
0W <6200 at −35 ◦ C <60,000 at −40 ◦ C >3.8
5W <6600 at −30 ◦ C <60,000 at −35 ◦ C >3.8
8 4.0–6.1 >1.7
12 5.0–7.1 >2.0
16 6.1–8.2 >2.3
20 6.9–9.3 >2.6
30 9.2–12.5 >2.9

High shear viscosity (HSV), which can be measured using several ASTM methods (D4683, D4741
or D5481) is the critical rheological property that influences fuel economy. In the past five years, several
new high temperature viscosity categories (8, 12 and 16) have been introduced. The limits on HSV at
150 ◦ C are >1.7 mPa·s, >2.0 mPa·s and >2.3 mPa·s, respectively, for these three viscosity grades. Today,
Lubricants 2018, 6, 68 6 of 15

many engine manufacturers recommend engines oils that meet the SAE 0W20 and SAE 5W20 viscosity
specifications, and a few engine manufacturers recommend engine oils that meet the SAE 0W16 and
0W8 viscosity specifications. Engine oils that meet the 8 and 12 viscosity specifications are not yet on
the market, but clearly engine oils with these lower HSVs could be recommended to further improve
fuel economy.
In previous correlations between viscosity and fuel efficiency, viscosity under conditions other
than those at high shear and 150 ◦ C have been measured. Kinematic viscosity at 40 ◦ C, viscosity
index and even CCS viscosity at low temperature have been used in correlations to fuel efficiency.
These properties are easy to measure using ASTM methods. ASTM has also created methods to
measure the high shear viscosity of engine oils at temperatures lower than 150 ◦ C (for example, D6616).
While these ASTM methods make it easy to measure the rheological properties of lubricants at specific
conditions, Table 1 shows that fuel economy is measured at temperatures that are not specifically
described in ASTM methods.
Furthermore, in vehicle efficiency tests and some system level tests, the temperature of the
lubricant is not controlled, and the lubricant may encounter different shear and pressure regimes.
Shear can reduce the viscosity of the lubricant and pressure can increase the viscosity of the lubricant,
which would affect fuel efficiency. Therefore, lubricant rheological properties at multiple operating
conditions need to be determined in order to get a true measure of the effect of lubricant rheology
on fuel efficiency. Table 3 shows the operating temperatures for a series of axle oils tested in an axle
efficiency rig. The HSVs of these gear oils (GOs) were measured at 100 ◦ C. The HSVs of the gear oils at
the measured operating temperatures are also shown in Table 3. GO 18 and GO 19 have the highest
100 ◦ C HSVs so we would expect these to have the poorest efficiency results. However, at operating
temperature GO 18 has the lowest high shear viscosity. It is critical to measure viscosity at the correct
operating conditions to observe the true effect of lubricant viscosity on fuel economy.

Table 3. Viscosities and operating temperatures for gears oil in an axle efficiency rig. GO = gear oil.

Kinematic Viscosity HSV at 100 ◦ C Operating HSV at Operating

Oil
at 100 ◦ C (cSt) (mPa·s) Temperature (◦ C) Temperature (mPa·s)
GO17 14.92 11.91 104 7.72
GO14 15.41 12.52 120 7.52
GO13 15.79 13.02 116 7.30
GO16 16.21 13.07 119 8.10
GO15 16.40 13.09 117 8.38
GO20 17.66 13.94 118 12.45
GO18 16.79 14.10 116 7.30
GO19 17.11 14.15 129 9.24

4. Balance of Viscosity and Elastohydrodynamic Film Thickness

While lower viscosity fluids clearly provide improved fuel efficiency it is also well known that
lower viscosity fluids form thinner elastohydrodynamic (EHD) films. This is illustrated in Figure 4
where the film thickness of several gear oils and transmission fluids are shown as a function of
temperature. For the gear oils, the 100 ◦ C kinematic viscosities are all ~15.0 cSt, and for the transmission
fluids, the 100 ◦ C kinematic viscosities are all ~7.5 cSt. Film thickness was measured using an optical
interferometer at an entrainment speed of 1 m/s and at 35 N. Of course, this is a very familiar graph
to tribologists.
Other familiar graphs are shown in Figures 5 and 6 where friction as a function of film thickness
is shown. The data in Figure 5 is for a series of different base oils (designated by their American
Petroleum Institute (API) classification) and the data in Figure 6 is for a base oil with different anti-wear
additives. For the base oils shown in Figure 5, the 100 ◦ C kinematic viscosities are all ~4.0 cSt. For the
lubricants shown in Figure 6, the 100 ◦ C kinematic viscosities are all ~4.0 cSt. In both graphs, friction
was measured using a Mini-Traction Machine (MTM) at 100 ◦ C, 20% slide-to-roll ratio and 35 N on
Lubricants 2018, 6, 68 7 of 15

Lubricants 2018, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 15

Lubricants 2018, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 15
steel surfaces with similar surface roughness. Typically, MTM friction curves are plotted as friction
were measured
versus
were measured
speed. The as aEHD
as a function
function of speed
speed under
film thicknesses
of under
of the the
the same
fluids
same shownload and
load and temperature
in Figures
temperature conditions
5 and 6conditions
were measured as friction
as friction
as a
measurements
function
measurements of speed in the
in the
under MTM.
MTM. Therefore,
theTherefore,
same loadMTM MTM friction can
and temperature
friction can be be plotted
plotted as
conditions as
asaafriction
function
function of speed.
speed.
measurements
of in the
MTM. As film
Therefore, thickness
MTM decreases
friction can (orbe if rougher
plotted as surfaces
a function are
of used),
speed.
As film thickness decreases (or if rougher surfaces are used), the surfaces start to come into the surfaces start to come into
contact
As and
film friction
thickness increases.
decreases Again,
(or if this
rougher is not surprising.
surfaces are It
used), should
the
contact and friction increases. Again, this is not surprising. It should be noted that in Figure 6, the be
surfaces noted
start that
to in
come Figure
into 6, the
contact
blackfriction
and
black line shows
line shows
increases. an anti-wear
an anti-wear additive
Again, thisadditive that results
is not surprising.
that results in aa reduction
It should
in reduction
be noted that in friction
in friction
in Figure at 6,
at low
low EHD
theEHD
blackfilmfilm
line
thickness
shows an (compared
anti-wear to
additive the blue
that line)
results inbut
a causes
reduction friction
in friction
thickness (compared to the blue line) but causes friction to increase at higher film thickness. toat increase
low EHD at higher
film film
thickness thickness.
(compared
Detergents
to
Detergents that are
the blue line)
that are known
but knownfriction
causes to influence
to influence LSPI also
to increase
LSPI also
at havefilm
higher
have an effect
an effect
thickness.on friction
on friction
Detergentsmeasured
measuredthat arein the
in the MTM
known MTM to
(100 °C,
influence 20%
LSPI slide-to-roll
also have anratio,
effect 35onN and
friction100 mm/s)
measured [8,53].
in the Oils
MTM containing
(100 ◦ C, Ca-based
20% detergents
slide-to-roll ratio, have
35 N
(100 °C, 20% slide-to-roll ratio, 35 N and 100 mm/s) [8,53]. Oils containing Ca-based detergents have
lower
and 100friction
mm/s) coefficients
[8,53]. Oils(~0.040)
containing than oils containing
Ca-based detergents Mg-based
have
lower friction coefficients (~0.040) than oils containing Mg-based detergents (~0.070). In developing detergents
lower (~0.070).
friction In
coefficientsdeveloping
(~0.040)
new lubricant
than
new lubricant
oils containingtechnology,
Mg-based
technology, data
data (such as
detergents
(such as(~0.070).
that seen
that seen in
Inin Figures 4–6)
developing
Figures 4–6)
newis islubricant
generated
generated under very
technology,
under very
data tightly
(such
tightly
controlled
as that seen conditions.
in Figures However,
4–6) is in
generated a vehicle,
under engine,
very tightly transmission
controlled
controlled conditions. However, in a vehicle, engine, transmission or axle, different well-designed or axle,
conditions. different
However, well-designed
in a vehicle,
lubricants
engine,
lubricants do not
do not always
transmission always
or axle,operate under
different
operate under the same
same conditions.
well-designed
the conditions.
lubricants This This
do notmeans
always
means that
that whileunder
operate
while there is
there is ample
the ample
same
evidence that
conditions.
evidence that
This reducing
means that
reducing viscosity improves
whileimproves
viscosity there is ample efficiency,
evidence
efficiency, ifif viscosity
viscosity
that reducing is reduced
is reduced
viscositytoo improves
too much, the
much, theefficiency,
effect of
effect of
viscosity
if viscosity onis efficiency
reduced may
too not
much,
viscosity on efficiency may not be evident. be
the evident.
effect of viscosity on efficiency may not be evident.

200
200
180
180
160
160
GearOils
Oils
(nm)

140 Gear
Thickness(nm)

140
120
120
FilmThickness

100
100
80
80
Film

60
60
40
40 TransmissionFluids
Transmission Fluids
20
20
0
0
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Temperature(C)
Temperature (C)

Figure 4.
Figure
Figure 4. Effect
Effect of
Effectof temperature
of temperature on
temperature on film
on film thickness
film thickness for
thickness for two
for two different
two different gear oils
different gear
gear oils and
oils and two
and two different
two different
different
transmissionfluids.
transmission
transmission fluids.
fluids.

0.08
0.08

0.07
0.07

0.06
0.06

0.05
Coef.

0.05
FrictionCoef.

0.04
0.04
Friction

0.03
0.03
GroupIIII
Group
0.02
0.02 GroupIIIs
Group IIIs
0.01
0.01
GroupIV
Group IV
0.00
0.00
1 10 100
1 10 100
Film Thickness (nm)
Film Thickness (nm)
Figure5.
Figure 5.Friction
Frictionversus
versusfilm
filmthickness
thicknessfor
forfour
fourdifferent
differentbase
baseoils.
oils.
Figure 5. Friction versus film thickness for four different base oils.
Lubricants 2018, 6, 68 8 of 15
Lubricants 2018, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 15

Lubricants 2018, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 15

0.14

0.14
0.12 AW1

0.12 AW1
0.10
AW2

Coef. Coef.
0.10
AW3
0.08
AW2
Friction
AW3
0.08
0.06
Friction

0.06
0.04

0.04
0.02

0.02
0.00
1 10 100
0.00 Film Thickness (nm)
1 10 100
Film Thickness (nm)
Figure
Figure 6. Friction
6. Friction versus
versus film
film thicknessfor
thickness forlubricants
lubricants with
withdifferent
differentanti-wear (AW)
anti-wear additives.
(AW) additives.
Figure 6. Friction versus film thickness for lubricants with different anti-wear (AW) additives.
The question is whether this shift in lubrication regimes and subsequent increase in friction is
The question is whether this shift in lubrication regimes and subsequent increase in friction is
observed in fuel efficiency testing. Figure 7 shows the fuel economy properties of engine oils with
observed The question
in fuel is whether this Figure
shift in lubrication regimes and subsequent increase engine
in friction is with
different 150 efficiency testing.
°C HSVs measured 7 showswith
in four vehicles the fuelL,economy
2.3 3.1 L, 3.8 properties
L and 5.7 L of oils
engines [45,88].
observed ◦in fuel efficiency testing. Figure 7 shows the fuel economy properties of engine oils with
different
These150 C HSVs
engine oils allmeasured
contain theinsame fouradditive
vehicles with 2.3
systems andL, 3.1 L,control
friction 3.8 L and
agents.5.7ForL engines
all of these[45,88].
different 150 °C HSVs measured in four vehicles with 2.3 L, 3.1 L, 3.8 L and 5.7 L engines [45,88].
Thesefluids,
engine theoils all contain
boundary frictionthecoefficients
same additive
measured systems andFrequency
in a High friction control agents.Rig
Reciprocating Forat all
100of °Cthese
These engine oils all contain the same additive systems and friction control agents. For all of these ◦
fluids, the
and boundary
130 °C and 4 friction
N load are coefficients
~0.130. The measured in
100 °C kinematic a High Frequency
viscosities and Reciprocating
high shear viscosities
fluids, the boundary friction coefficients measured in a High Frequency Reciprocating Rig at 100 °C Rig at 100 C
for
and 130 ◦ Cfluids
these and 4 varied
N load inare
a similar
~0.130. fashion
The 100 ◦ Cthe
with kinematic
kinematic viscositiesand
viscosities varying
high from ~13.0
shear to ~5.5 for
viscosities cSt.these
and 130 °C and 4 N load are ~0.130. The 100 °C kinematic viscosities and high shear viscosities for
The
fluidsthese highinshear
varied viscosities are shown thein Figure 7. viscosities
For the three vehicles with~13.0
2.3 L,to3.1 L and 3.8 L high
fluidsavaried
similar in fashion
a similarwithfashion kinematic
with the kinematic viscositiesvarying from
varying from ~13.0 ~5.5to cSt.
~5.5 The
cSt.
engines,
shearThe as
viscosities the viscosity
areviscosities
shown in of the engine oils is reduced, fuel economy measured under city driving
high shear areFigure
shown7.in ForFigurethe7.three
For thevehicles with 2.3
three vehicles L, 2.3
with 3.1 L,L 3.1
andL 3.8andL3.8 engines,
L
conditions increases, as does combined city and highway fuel economy (COMFE). The standard
engines, as the viscosity of the engine oils is reduced, fuel economy
as the viscosity of the engine oils is reduced, fuel economy measured under city driving conditionsmeasured under city driving
deviation in the measurement of vehicle fuel economy is ~0.2%. Fuel economy measured under
conditions
increases, as doesincreases,
combined as does
city combined
and highway city fuel
and economy
highway fuel economy
(COMFE). (COMFE).
The standard The standardin the
deviation
highway conditions also increases as viscosity decreases, except when viscosity is less than 2.7
deviation
measurement in the measurement of vehicle fuel economy is ~0.2%. Fuel economy measured under
mPa·s. Forofthe vehicle
vehiclefuelwitheconomy
the 5.7 L is ~0.2%.
engine, Fuel economy
a reduction measured
in viscosity has nounder
effect on highway conditions
fuel economy.
highway conditions also increases as viscosity decreases, except when viscosity is less than 2.7
also increases
Therefore,asdepending
viscosity on decreases,
the vehicle except when viscosity
or operating conditions,is less than 2.7 in
a reduction mPa ·s. For can
viscosity the improve
vehicle with
mPa·s. For the vehicle with the 5.7 L engine, a reduction in viscosity has no effect on fuel economy.
the 5.7 L engine,
fuel efficiency,a reduction
but there isina viscosity
limit to how hasmuch
no effect on fuel
viscosity can beeconomy.
reduced Therefore,
before theredepending
is no effect of on the
Therefore, depending on the vehicle or operating conditions, a reduction in viscosity can improve
vehicleviscosity
or on fuel conditions,
operating economy. a reduction in viscosity can improve fuel efficiency, but there is a limit
fuel efficiency, but there is a limit to how much viscosity can be reduced before there is no effect of
to how much on
viscosity viscosity
fuel can be reduced before there is no effect of viscosity on fuel economy.
2.0economy.
Vehicles with 2.3L; 3.1L; 3.8L Engines
HWY
1.5
2.0
Vehicles with 2.3L; 3.1L; 3.8L Engines City
1.0 HWY
1.5 COMFE
City
0.5
1.0
%FEI %FEI

COMFE
0.0
0.5
-0.5
0.0
-1.0
-0.5
2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
-1.0 HSV at 150C (mPa*s)
2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
2.0 HSV at 150C (mPa*s)
HWY
1.5
2.0 Vehicle with 5.7L Engine
City
1.0 HWY
1.5 Vehicle with 5.7L Engine COMFE
City
0.5
1.0
%FEI %FEI

COMFE
0.0
0.5
-0.5
0.0
-1.0
-0.5
2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
-1.0 HSV at 150C (mPa*s)
2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
HSV at 150C (mPa*s)

Figure 7. Effect of viscosity on fuel economy measured in vehicles. %FEI = percent fuel economy
improvement. HWY = highway. COMFE = combined city and highway fuel economy.
Lubricants 2018, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 15

Figure 7. Effect of viscosity on fuel economy measured in vehicles. %FEI = percent fuel economy
improvement. HWY = highway. COMFE = combined city and highway fuel economy.
Lubricants 2018, 6, 68 9 of 15

5. Lubricant Effects on Boundary and EHD Friction

5. Lubricant
Fuel economyEffectsimprovements
on Boundary and are EHD Friction just upon a reduction in lubricant viscosity.
not dependent
ThereFuelhaseconomy
been over forty years are
improvements of research
not dependent to understand
just uponfriction reduction
a reduction in the viscosity.
in lubricant various
lubrication regimes shown in Figures 5 and 6. Hugh Spikes has written several
There has been over forty years of research to understand friction reduction in the various lubrication excellent discussions
describing
regimes shown the in effect of lubricant
Figures 5 and 6. Hughadditive
Spikestechnologies on friction
has written several [6–9].discussions
excellent The review of friction
describing the
modifier technology includes the effects of traditional surfactants,
effect of lubricant additive technologies on friction [6–9]. The review of friction modifier technology Molybdenum-containing
additives,
includes the as effects
well asofpolymers
traditional and nanoparticles.
surfactants, These are additives that
Molybdenum-containing the industry
additives, as wellhasas used and
polymers
is beginning to use (nanoparticles) to improve fuel economy. As shown in
and nanoparticles. These are additives that the industry has used and is beginning to use (nanoparticles) Figure 5, it is also well
known
to improvethat changes in base As
fuel economy. oil shown
structure in can reduce
Figure 5, itfriction
is also and
wellimprove
known that fuel economy.
changes inWhat base we
oil
often overlook
structure is the friction
can reduce effect ofand
other surface-active
improve agentsWhat
fuel economy. such asweanti-wear additives
often overlook is theand detergents
effect of other
on friction. Figure
surface-active 6 shows
agents such that by choosing
as anti-wear the proper
additives anti-wear additives,
and detergents on friction. friction
Figurecan be controlled
6 shows that by
as film thickness decreases.
choosing the proper anti-wear additives, friction can be controlled as film thickness decreases.
Friction
Friction control
control byby anti-wear
anti-wear additives
additives and and detergents
detergents is is related
related to to the
the formation
formation of of chemical
chemical
tribofilms on surfaces [7,8,10,11]. Figure 8 shows the effect of the formation
tribofilms on surfaces [7,8,10,11]. Figure 8 shows the effect of the formation of surface tribofilms of surface tribofilms on
friction
on frictionin the
in theboundary
boundary lubrication
lubrication regime
regime [11].
[11].AsAsthe thethickness
thicknessofofthe the Zinc dithiodiphosphate
Zinc dithiodiphosphate
(ZDDP) film grows, friction increases. The film is then worn
(ZDDP) film grows, friction increases. The film is then worn away and friction decreases. away and friction decreases. The
The growth
growth and wearing away of the tribofilm is accompanied by a change
and wearing away of the tribofilm is accompanied by a change in the morphology and composition of in the morphology and
composition
the film. These of the
twofilm. These
factors twofriction.
affect factors affect friction.
Tribofilms Tribofilms
formed formed anti-wear
by metal-free by metal-free anti-wear
additives and
additives and detergents have similar effects on friction. Furthermore, the
detergents have similar effects on friction. Furthermore, the temperature, pressure and shear stress temperature, pressure and
shear stress encountered
encountered by a lubricant byaffect
a lubricant
tribofilmaffect tribofilmasformation,
formation, as do theand
do the metallurgy metallurgy and surface
surface roughness of
roughness of the materials on which the
the materials on which the tribofilms form [7,8,10,11]. tribofilms form [7,8,10,11].

MTM Friction vs. Time

0.140
20 mins
0.130 46 nm
0.120

0.110
30 mins 40 mins 50 mins 60 mins
Coefficient of Friction

0.100 27 nm 31 nm 31 nm 34 nm

0.090

0.080

0.070
10 mins
0.060
24 nm
0.050

0.040
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Time (s)

Figure 8.
Figure Changesin
8. Changes inMini-Traction
Mini-Traction Machine
Machine (MTM)
(MTM) friction
friction as
as tribofilms
tribofilms form.
form.

This
This creates
creates aa quandary
quandary when
when new
new lubricant
lubricant technologies
technologies areare developed
developed to
to control
control friction
friction and
and
improve
improve fuelfuel economy. Different
Different parts
parts in
in aa mechanical
mechanical device
device (engine,
(engine, transmission
transmission and and axle)
axle) are
are
made
made from
from different
different materials,
materials, as
as well as having different surface finishes. These conditions
conditions would
would
all
all change
changethe thetribofilms
tribofilmsformed
formedonon surfaces
surfaces and thethe
and frictional properties
frictional of the
properties of tribofilm. In an In
the tribofilm. evenan
more complicated
even more feed-back
complicated loop,loop,
feed-back friction affects
friction surface
affects surfacetemperatures
temperatureswhich
whichwouldwould control
control
tribofilm
tribofilm formation
formation andand friction,
friction, which
which would
would again
again change
change surface
surface temperatures
temperatures [38,40,57]. All All of
of
this suggests that developing new lubricant technology to improve vehicle fuel efficiency
this suggests that developing new lubricant technology to improve vehicle fuel efficiency would be would be
very difficult. However, as long as all aspects of tribology are considered when new technology is
developed, and these properties are measured under multiple relevant conditions, progress can be
Lubricants 2018, 6, 68 10 of 15

made. The development of new inorganic nanoparticles to improve fuel efficiency is an excellent
example of this process [36].

6. Relative Effect of Viscosity, Boundary and EHD Friction on Fuel Economy

In choosing the engine, transmission or axle in which to test new lubricant technology, it is
important to make sure the system is responsive to the tribological properties that are being improved.
As shown in Figure 7, there are cases where viscosity has no effect on fuel efficiency. For many years,
researchers have tried to determine the relative effect of viscosity, boundary friction and EHD friction
on efficiency in engines, transmissions and axles [42,45,88–93]. In these research efforts, a series of
lubricants with different tribological properties are developed. The fuel economy improvements as
a result of using these lubricants are measured. Finally, correlations between changes in viscosity,
boundary friction, EHD friction and fuel economy are determined. These correlations are often in
the form of multi-linear regression equations. From these equations, the general effect of changes in
tribological properties on fuel economy can be calculated.
Table 4 shows several examples of the output from these analyses for engine oil effects on fuel
economy. The effects of a 20% reduction in viscosity, boundary friction or EHD friction on %FEI are
listed. These values are calculated from correlations between these lubricant properties and %FEI
measured in various fuel economy tests. The higher the %FEI, as a result of a 20% reduction in each
physical property, indicates a greater benefit of that physical property. The effect of each physical
property is not the same in each test. Viscosity has the greatest effect in the Sequence VIB test. Boundary
friction has the greatest effect on combined city and highway fuel economy (COMFE) in vehicles with
5.7 L engines and EHD friction has the greatest effect in the COMFE test in vehicles with 2.3 L, 3.1 L
and 3.8 L engines. Perhaps more importantly, if new additives are designed that optimize viscosity or
EHD friction, there is no point in testing them in the vehicle with the 5.7 L engine because this test
does not respond to these physical properties.

Table 4. Relative effect of lubricant properties on fuel economy.

%FEI That Results from 20% %FEI That Results from 20% %FEI That Results from 20%
Fuel Economy Test
Reduction in Viscosity Reduction in Boundary Friction Reduction in EHD Friction
COMFE Vehicles
with 2.3 L, 3.1 L and 1.2% 0.4% 0.5%
3.8 L engines
COMFE Vehicle
0.0 0.6 0.0
with 5.7 L engine
Sequence VIB 2.0 0.3 0.4
Sequence VID 0.2 0.3 0.2

7. Conclusions
The development of advanced lubricants to improve vehicle fuel efficiency can appear to be as
simple as lowering the viscosity and frictional properties of a fluid. However, applied research studies
have shown that it is quite difficult to quantify the fuel efficiency properties of advanced lubricants
in vehicles. The methodology used to measure vehicle or system level fuel efficiency will impact the
interpretation of results. This means that driving cycles, vehicle condition and control systems need to
be closely monitored. Measurement of fuel efficiency under real world driving conditions includes
many factors that are not related to the lubricant. This makes it difficult to determine the effect of the
lubricants unless all of the non-lubricant factors are taken into consideration (see Figures 2 and 3).
To improve correlations between fuel efficiency and the rheological or tribological properties of
advanced lubricants, these properties need to be measured under relevant conditions. This means
that the effect of temperature, shear and pressure on lubricant properties needs to be considered.
This may be complicated since lubricant properties such as friction and tribofilm formation will
affect the operating conditions that the lubricant encounters (see Tables 1 and 3). Advanced lubricants
Lubricants 2018, 6, 68 11 of 15

intended to control a single rheological or tribological property can affect other properties. For example,
the formation of tribofilms may result in a reduction in friction under one set of conditions and an
increase in friction under a different set of conditions (See Figure 6).
Finally, advanced lubricants need to be evaluated in “real world” systems to confirm their
beneficial performance. However, all “real world” systems do not respond to all physical properties
that historically control fuel economy. The proper vehicle or system level test needs to be selected to
properly assess the benefits of new advanced lubricants (see Table 4).

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

References
1. National Highway Transportation Administration. Available online: www.NHTSA.gov (accessed on 1 June 2018).
2. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Available online: www.epa.gov (accessed on 1 June 2018).
3. Wong, V.W.; Tung, S.C. Overview of Automotive Engine Friction and Reduction Trends—Effects of surface,
material, and lubricant-additive technologies. Friction 2016, 4, 1–28. [CrossRef]
4. Tung, S.C.; McMillian, M.L. Automotive tribology overview of current advances and challenges for the
future. Tribol. Int. 2004, 37, 517–536. [CrossRef]
5. McGuire, N. The Drive for Efficient Performance. Tribol. Lubr. Technol. 2018, 74, 34–43.
6. Spikes, H. Friction Modifier Additives. Tribol. Lett. 2015, 60. [CrossRef]
7. Zhang, J.; Spikes, H. On the Mechanism of ZDDP Antiwear Film Formation. Tribol. Lett. 2016, 63. [CrossRef]
8. Topolovec-Miklozic, K.; Forbus, T.R.; Spikes, H. Film Forming and Friction Properties of Overbased Calcium
Sulphonate Detergents. Tribol. Lett. 2008, 29, 33–44. [CrossRef]
9. Jie, Z.; Tan, A.; Spikes, H. Effect of Base Oil Structure on Elastohydrodynamic Friction. Tribol. Lett. 2017, 65,
1–24.
10. Liu, Z.; Gangopadhyay, A.; Lam, W.; Devlin, M. The Effect of Friction Modifiers and DI Package on Friction
Reduction Potential of Next Generation Engine Oils: Part I Fresh Oils; SAE 2018-01-0933; SAE: Warrendale, PA,
USA, 2018.
11. Devlin, M.T.; Guevremont, J.M.; Hewette, C.; Ingram, M.; Pollard, G.; Wyatt, W. Effect of Metallurgy on the
Formation of Tribofilms and Wear Prevention; SAE 2017-01-2357; SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2017.
12. Kwak, Y.; Cleveland, C. Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT) Fuel Economy; SAE 2017-01-2355; SAE:
Warrendale, PA, USA, 2017.
13. Liu, Z.; Gangopadhyay, A.; Simko, S.; Lam, W.; Devlin, M.T. The Effect of Friction Modifiers and Additive
Packages on Friction Reduction Potential of Next Generation Engine Oils—Part I: Fresh Oils. In Proceedings
of the 72nd STLE Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA, USA, 21–25 May 2017.
14. Gangopadhyay, A.; Liu, Z.; Simko, S.; Lam, W.; Devlin, M.T. The Effect of Friction Modifiers and Additive
Packages on Friction Reduction Potential of Next Generation Engine Oils—Part II: Aged Oils. In Proceedings
of the 72nd STLE Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA, USA, 21–25 May 2017.
15. Guinther, G.; Devlin, M. Lubricant Developments for Advanced Drivetrain Hardware. In Proceedings of the
71st STLE Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 15–19 May 2016.
16. Carroll, J.B. Transmission Fluids and Fuel Economy—What does the future hold? In Proceedings of the SAE
2014 Commercial Vehicle Engineering Congress (COMVEC), Rosemont, IL, USA, 7–9 October 2014.
17. Yang, L.; Neville, A.; Brown, A.; Ransom, P.; Morina, A. Effect of lubricant additives on the WDLC coating
structure when tested in boundary lubrication regime. In Proceedings of the Leeds-Lyon Conference,
Leeds, UK, 2–5 September 2014.
18. Carroll, J.B. Targeted Transmission Fluid Property Design for Improved Fuel Economy. In Proceedings of the
2nd International CTI Symposium China, Shanghai, China, 18–20 September 2013.
19. Rollin, T.J. Enabling Transmission Fluid Technologies for Improved Fuel Efficiency. In Proceedings of the
19th Annual Fuels and Lubes Asia Conference, Suzhou, China, 13–15 March 2013.
20. Guinther, G.H.; Bell, I. Global Perspective on Fuel Economy: Correlation of Modern Engine Oil Tests to Real
World Performance. In Proceedings of the 2013 STLE Annual Meeting, Detroit, MI, USA, 5–9 May 2013.
Lubricants 2018, 6, 68 12 of 15

21. Guinther, G.H.; Styer, J. Correlation of the Sequence VI Laboratory Fuel Economy Test to Real World Fuel Economy;
SAE 2013-01-0297; SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2013.
22. Guinther, G.H. Bumper to Bumper Fuel Economy Demonstration, a Vehicle-Based Approach to Evaluating
Energy-Saving Technologies. In Proceedings of the SAE 2013 Fuels, Lubricants & Aftertreatment Symposium,
Long Beach, CA, USA, 18–21 November 2013.
23. Yang, L.; Neville, A.; Brown, A.; Ransom, P.; Morina, A. Study of GMO concentration on the boundary
lubricated W-doped DLC coatings. In Proceedings of the 40th Leeds-Lyon Symposium on Tribology,
Lyon, France, 4–6 September 2013.
24. Yang, L.; Neville, A.; Brown, A.; Ransom, P.; Morina, A. Effect of Temperature on Tribological Performances
of WDLC Coatings in Model Oils. In Proceedings of the 2013 STLE Annual Meeting, Detroit, MI, USA,
5–9 May 2013.
25. Styer, J.; Guinther, G.H. Fuel Economy beyond ILSAC GF-5: Correlation of Modern Engine Oil Tests to Real World
Performance; SAE 2012-01-1618; SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2012.
26. Guinther, G.H.; Styer, J. Development of a Novel Vehicle-Based Method to Assess the Impact of Lubricant Quality on
Passenger Car Energy Efficiency; SAE 2012-01-1619; SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2012.
27. Culley, S.A.; Devlin, M.T.; McAllister, J.; Rollins, A.J.; Iyer, R.; Maelger, H. Reduction in CO2 Emissions by
Optimization of Transmission Fluids for Improved Vehicle Fuel Economy. In Proceedings of the International
Joint Tribology Conference, Hiroshima, Japan, 30 October–3 November 2011.
28. Guevremont, J.M.; Garelick, K.; Sheets, R.; Hux, K.; Heaps, C.; Devlin, M.T. Composition and Frictional
Properties of Tribofilms Formed with Ashless Antiwear Additives. In Proceedings of the 66th STLE Annual
Meeting and Exhibition, Atlanta, GA, USA, 15–19 May 2011.
29. Devlin, M.T.; Hux, K.; Garelick, K.; Warren, S.; Duggal, R.; Ding, J.; Culley, S.; Iyer, R.; Tersigni, S. Effect of
ATF Physical Properties on Fuel Efficiency. In Proceedings of the Fall SAE Fuels and Lubricants Conference,
San Diego, CA, USA, 26 October 2010.
30. Hewette, C.; DeGonia, D.; Jao, T.-C.; Rollin, A.J. Development of Fuel Economy Axle Fluid Technology.
In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Asia Fuels and Lubes Conference, Singapore, 1–5 March 2010.
31. Guevremont, J.M.; Garelick, K.; Loper, J.; Lagona, J.; Sheets, R.; Hux, K.; Devlin, M.T. Influence of Friction
Modifiers on Boundary Film Formation Properties. In Proceedings of the 65th STLE Annual Meeting and
Exhibition, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 19 May 2010.
32. Tersigni, S.H.; Iyer, R.N.; Henly, T.J.; Yatsunami, K.; Glasgow, M.B.; Carlson, J.; Tang, T.; Devlin, M.T.;
Rollin, A.J. Fuel Efficiency Testing of Automatic Transmission Fluids. In Proceedings of the World Tribology
Congress IV, Kyoto, Japan, 6–11 September 2009.
33. Devlin, M.T.; Guevremont, J.M.; Garelick, K.; Hux, K.; Smith, A.; Jao, T.-C. The Effect of Sulfur and
Phosphorus Content of Anti-wear Additives on Friction and Boundary Film Formation. In Proceedings of
the Royal Society of Chemistry’s Additives 2009 Conference, York, UK, 20–21 June 2009.
34. Devlin, M.T.; Guevremont, J.M.; Thompson, K.; Kolakowski, K.; Garelick, K.; Jao, T.-C. Boundary Film
Formation Properties of Anti-wear/Friction Modifiers Combinations. In Proceedings of the 16th International
Colloquium Tribology, Esslingen, Germany, 15–17 January 2008.
35. Devlin, M.T.; Guevremont, J.M.; Thompson, K.; Smith, A.; Garelick, K.; Jao, T.-C. Boundary Film Strength
and Composition of Tribofilms formed by Anti-wear/Friction Modifier Combinations. In Proceedings of the
STLE Annual Meeting, Cleveland, OH, USA, 19–21 May 2008.
36. Devlin, M.T.; Aradi, A.A.; Guevremont, J.M.; Jao, T.-C.; Abdelsayed, V.; El-Shall, M. Friction and
Film-Formation Properties of Oil-Soluble Inorganic Nanoparticles; SAE 2008-01-2460; SAE: Warrendale, PA,
USA, 2008.
37. Devlin, M.T.; Kuo, C.C.; Pietras, J.M.; Yun, Z. Bench Test Modeling for Current and Future PCMO Fuel
Economy Requirements. In Proceedings of the PetroChina Lubricants Conference 2007, Ningbo, China,
17–18 September 2007.
38. Devlin, M.T.; Senn, J.; Turner, T.L.; Milner, J.; Jao, T.-C. Reduction in Axle Oil Operating Temperatures by
Fluids with Optimized Torque Transfer Efficiencies. Lubr. Sci. 2006, 18, 7–23. [CrossRef]
39. Devlin, M.T. Effect of Changes in SAE J300 Low Temperature Specifications on Fuel Economy. In Proceedings
of the SAE J300 Open Forum, SAE Powertrain and Fluid Systems Conference, San Antonio, TX, USA,
25 October 2005.
Lubricants 2018, 6, 68 13 of 15

40. Devlin, M.T.; Senn, J.; Sturtz, M.; Bala, V.; Milner, J.; Jao, T.-C. Improved Understanding of Axle Oil
Rheology Effects on Torque Transfer Efficiency and Axle Oil Operating Temperature; SAE 2003-01-1972; SAE:
Warrendale, PA, USA, 2003.
41. Bala, V.; Brandt, G.; Walters, D.K. Fuel Economy of Multigrade Gear Lubricants. Lubr. Tribol. 2000, 52,
165–173. [CrossRef]
42. Devlin, M.T.; Burgess, T.; Rezba, E.; Cole, A.J. Relationship between the Oil Performance in Standard
Industry Fuel Economy Tests and Fuel Economy Measured in Vehicles. In Proceedings of the Royal Society
of Chemistry’s Additives 2001 Conference, Oxford, UK, 26–27 March 2001.
43. Bala, V.; Rollin, A.J.; Brandt, G. Rheological Properties Affecting the Fuel Economy of Multigrade Automotive Gear
Lubricants; SAE 2000-01-2051; SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2000.
44. Devlin, M.T.; Naumann, J.K.; Saathoff, L.D.; Walters, D.K. Predicting the Fuel Economy Properties of Gear
Oils Using Laboratory Friction Tests. In Proceedings of the GFC Conference, Paris, France, 23 June 1999.
45. Devlin, M.T.; Lam, W.Y.; McDonnell, T.F. Critical Oil Physical Properties that Control the Fuel Economy
Performance of General Motors Vehicles; SAE 982503; SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA, 1998.
46. Devlin, M.T.; Lam, W.Y.; McDonnell, T.F. Comparison of the Physical and Chemical Changes Occurring in Oils
During Aging in Vehicle and Engine Fuel Economy Tests; SAE 982504; SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA, 1998.
47. Yang, K.; Fletcher, K.A.; Styer, J.P.; Lam, W.Y.; Guinther, G.H. Engine Oil Components Effects on Turbocharger
Protection and the Relevance of the TEOST 33C Test for Gasoline Turbocharger Deposit Protection; SAE 2017-01-2341;
SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2017.
48. Yang, K.; Fletcher, K.A.; Styer, J.P.; Lam, W.Y.; Guinther, G.H. Advanced Lubrication—Enabling and Protecting
Turbocharged, Direct Injection Gasoline Engines for Optimum Efficiency; SAE 2016-01-2275; SAE: Warrendale, PA,
USA, 2016.
49. Shao, H.; Lam, W.Y.; Remias, J.; Roos, J.; Choi, S.; Seong, H. Effect of Lubricant Oil Properties on the Performance
of Gasoline Particulate Filter (GPF); SAE 2016-01-2287; SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2016.
50. Shao, H.; Wang, Y.; Yang, F.; He, S.M.; Gu, D.; Chang, C.; Hua, L.; Jinchong, J.P.; Jin, Y. Effect of Lubricant
Properties on GPF performance. In Proceedings of the SAE China, Beijing, China, 24–26 October 2017.
51. Gupta, A.; Seeley, R.; Shao, H.; Remias, J.; Roos, J.; Wang, Z.; Qi, Y. Impact of Particle Characteristics and Engine
Conditions on Deposit Induced Preignition and Superknock in Turbocharged Gasoline Engines; SAE 2017-01-2345;
SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2017.
52. Long, Y.; Wang, Z.; Qi, Y.; Xiang, S.; Zeng, G.; Zhang, P.; He, X.; Gupta, A.; Shao, H.; Wang, Y. Effect of Oil
and Gasoline Properties on Pre-Ignition and Super-Knock in a Thermal Research Engine (TRE) and an Optical Rapid
Compression Machine (RCM); SAE 2016-01-0720; SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2016.
53. Gupta, A.; Shao, H.; Remias, J.; Roos, J.; Wang, Y.; Long, Y.; Wang, Z.; Shuai, S.-J. Relative Impact of Chemical
and Physical Properties of the Oil-Fuel Droplet on Pre-Ignition and Super-Knock in Turbocharged Gasoline Engines;
SAE 2016-01-2278; SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2016.
54. Fletcher, K.A.; Dingwell, L.; Yang, K.; Lam, W.Y.; Styer, J.P. Engine Oil Additive Impacts on Low Speed Pre-Ignition;
SAE 2016-01-2277; SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2016.
55. Roos, J.; Gupta, A.; Shao, H.; Remias, J.; Wang, Y.-H.; Yan, L.; Wang, Z.; Shuai, S.-J. The Effect of Oil Droplet
Characteristics on Preignition and Superknock in Turbocharged Gasoline Engines. In Proceedings of the 5th
Aachen Colloquium China Automobile and Engine Technology 2015, Beijing, China, 5–6 November 2015.
56. Fletcher, K.A.; Gupta, A.; Garelick, K.; Pollard, G.; Guevremont, J. Balancing Friction and Wear in Next
Generation Engine Oils with New Formulation Constraints Introduced with Low Speed Pre-Ignition.
In Proceedings of the 2015 STLE Tribology Frontiers, Denver, CO, USA, 25–27 October 2015.
57. Yang, S.; Reddyhoff, T.; Spikes, H. Influence of Lubricant Properties on ARKL Temperature Rise and
Transmission Efficiency. Tribol. Trans. 2013, 56, 1119–1136. [CrossRef]
58. Bitsis, D.; Miwa, J. Optimization of Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Lubricant and Coolant Pumps for Parasitic Loss
Reduction; SAE 2018-01-0980; SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2018.
59. Hong, H.-S.; Engel, C.; Filippini, B.; Slocum, S.; Qureshi, F.; Higuchi, T. Challenging Conventional Wisdom by
Utilizing Group II Base Oils in Fuel Efficient Axle Oils; SAE 2017-01-2356; SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2017.
60. Tormos, B.; Ramirez, L.; Miro, G.; Perez, T. Real World Fleet Test to Determine the Impact of Low Viscosity
Engine Oils from Heavy-Duty CNG and Diesel Buses—Part I: Fuel Consumption; SAE 2017-01-2353; SAE:
Warrendale, PA, USA, 2017.
Lubricants 2018, 6, 68 14 of 15

61. Seth, S.; Maloth, S.; Kumar, P.; Tyagi, B.; Kumar, L.; Mahapatra, R.; Garg, S.; Saxena, D.; Suresh, R.;
Ramakumar, S. New Generation Fuel Efficient Engine Oils with Superior Viscometrics; SAE 2017-01-2349; SAE:
Warrendale, PA, USA, 2017.
62. Kocsis, M.C.; Morgan, P.; Michlberger, A.; Delbridge, E.E.; Smith, O. Optimizing Engine Oils for Fuel Economy
with Advanced Test Methods; SAE 2017-01-2348; SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2017.
63. Taylor, R.; Hu, H.; Stow, C.; Davenport, T.; Mainwaring, R.; Rappaport, S.; Remmert, S. Extending the Limits of
Fuel Economy through Lubrication; SAE 2017-01-2344; SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2017.
64. Brandt, A.; Comfort, A.; Frame, E. Development of a Stationary Axle Efficiency Test Stand and Methodology for
Identifying Fuel Efficient Gear Oils for Military Applications—Part 1; SAE 2017-01-0889; SAE: Warrendale, PA,
USA, 2017.
65. Kumar, P.; Mathai, R.; Kumar, S.; Kachhawa, A.; Sehgal, A.K.; Praharaj, S. Fuel Economy Benefits with Low
Viscosity Engine Oil Formulations on Small Trucks with Chassis Dynamometer Tests; SAE 2017-01-0888; SAE:
Warrendale, PA, USA, 2017.
66. Michlberger, A.; Morgan, P.; Delbridge, E.E.; Gieselman, M.D.; Kocsis, M. Engine Oil Fuel Economy
Testing—A Tale of Two Tests; SAE 2017-01-0882; SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2017.
67. Singh, S.K.; Singh, S.; Sehgal, A.K. Impact of Low Viscosity Engine Oil on Performance, Fuel Economy and
Emissions of Light Duty Diesel Engine; SAE 2016-01-2316; SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2016.
68. Morgan, P.; Michlberger, A.; Kocsis, M.; Gieselman, M.; Delbridge, E. Advanced Test Methods Aid in Formulating
Engine Oils for Fuel Economy; SAE 2016-01-2269; SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2016.
69. Hoshino, T.; Qureshi, F.; Virostko, N.; Schferl, E.; Gajanayake, A.; Hiroki, M.; Higuchi, T.; Ishizaki, K. A Study of
Axle Fluid Viscosity and Friction Impact on Axle Efficiency; SAE 2016-01-0899; SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2016.
70. Ishikawa, M.; Yamamori, K.; Hirano, S.; Kowalski, T.; Linden, J. Introduction of Fuel Economy Engine Oil
Performance Target with New SAE Viscosity Grade; SAE 2016-01-0896; SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2016.
71. Taylor, O.P.; Pearson, R.; Stone, R. Reduction of CO2 Emissions through Lubricant Thermal Management During
the Warm Up of Passenger Car Engines; SAE 2016-01-0892; SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2016.
72. Butcher, R. Spotting the Difference—Measuring Worthwhile Lubricant Related CO2 Benefits; SAE 2016-01-0890;
SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2016.
73. Ito, A.; Chubachi, Y.; Yamamoto, T.; Tanaka, N.; Moriizumi, Y.; Yari, K.; Otterholm, B. A Study on Effects of
Low Viscosity Engine Oil and MoDTC on Piston Friction Losses in a DI Diesel Engine; SAE 2015-01-2044; SAE:
Warrendale, PA, USA, 2015.
74. Jang, J.; Lee, Y.-J.; Kwon, O.; Lee, M.; Kim, J. The Effect of Engine Oil on Particulate Matter, Emissions and Fuel
Economy in Gasoline and Diesel Vehicle; SAE 2014-01-2837; SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2014.
75. Evans, S.D. Delivering Axle Efficiency and Fuel Economy through Optimised Fluid Design; SAE 2014-01-2799;
SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2014.
76. Macian, V.; Tormos, B.; Ruiz, S.; Roa, L.R.; de Diego, J. In-Use Comparison Test to Evaluate the Effect of Low Viscosity
Oils on Fuel Consumption of Diesel and CNG Public Buses; SAE 2014-01-2794; SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2014.
77. Browne, D.; Dewey, M.; Graham, S.; Sutton, M.; Munday, M.; Blackshaw, J.; Clegg, A.; Timmis, P. Novel Fuel
Efficiency Engine Lubricants for Urban Transit Applications; SAE 2014-01-2793; SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2014.
78. Van Dam, W.; Booth, J.; Parsons, G. Taking Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Oil Performance to the Next Level, Part 1:
Optimizing for Improved Fuel Economy; SAE 2014-01-2792; SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2014.
79. Plumley, M.J.; Wong, V.; Molewyk, M.; Park, S.-Y. Optimizing Base Oil Viscosity Temperature Dependence for
Power Cylinder Friction Reduction; SAE 2014-01-1658; SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2014.
80. Sagawa, T.; Katayama, T.; Suzuki, R.; Okuda, S. Development of GF-5 0W-SAE 20 Fuel-Saving Engine Oil for
DLC-Coated Valve Lifters; SAE 2014-01-1478; SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2014.
81. Carvalho, M.; Richard, K.; Goldmints, I.; Tomanik, E. Impact of Lubricant Viscosity and Additives on Engine Fuel
Economy; SAE 2014-36-0507; SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2014.
82. Ushioda, N.; Miller, T.W.; Sims, C.B.; Parsons, G.; Sztenderowicz, M. Effect of Low Viscosity Passenger Car
Motor Oils on Fuel Economy Engine Tests; SAE 2013-01-2606; SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2013.
83. Manni, M.; Florio, S. An Experimental Evaluation of the Impact of Ultra Low Viscosity Engine Oils on Fuel Economy
and CO2 Emissions; SAE 2013-01-2566; SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2013.
84. Carden, P.; Pisani, C.; Andersson, J.; Field, I.; Laine, E.; Bansal, J.; Devine, M. The Effect of Low Viscosity Oil on
the Wear, Friction and Fuel Consumption of a Heavy Duty Truck Engine; SAE 2013-01-0331; SAE: Warrendale, PA,
USA, 2013.
Lubricants 2018, 6, 68 15 of 15

85. Profito, F.J.; Tomanik, E.; Lastres, L.F.; Zachariadis, D.C. Effect of Lubricant Viscosity and Friction Modifier on
Reciprocating Tests; SAE 2013-36-0155; SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2013.
86. Singh, D.; Shukla, M.; Singh, S.; Singh, Y., Sr.; Singh, N. Fuel Economy of SI Vehicle Fueled by Ethanol/Gasoline
Blends—Role of Engine Lubricant Viscosity; SAE 2013-01-0051; SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2013.
87. Symonds, M.; Ritchie, C.; Rai, R. Co-Engineering Durable, Fuel Efficient Engine Oils for Diesel Passenger Cars;
SAE 2013-26-0004; SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2013.
88. Tseregounis, S.I.; McMillan, M.L.; Olree, R. Engine Oil Effects on Fuel Economy in GM Vehicles—Separation of
Viscosity and Friction Modifier Effects; SAE 982502; SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA, 1998.
89. Bovington, C.; Anghel, V.; Spikes, H.A. Predicting Sequence VI and VIA Fuel Economy from Laboratory Bench
Tests; SAE 961142; SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA, 1996.
90. Gangopadhyay, A.K.; Sorab, J.; Willermet, P.A.; Schriewer, K.; Fyfe, K.; Lai, P.K.S. Prediction of ASTM Sequence
VI and VIA Fuel Economy Based on Laboratory Bench Tests; SAE 961140; SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA, 1996.
91. Moore, A.J. Influences of Lubricant Properties on ASTM Sequence VI and Sequence VI-A Fuel Efficiency Performance;
SAE 961138; SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA, 1996.
92. Tseregounis, S.I.; McMillan, M.L. Engine Oil Effects on Fuel Economy in GM Vehicles—Comparison with the
ASTM Sequence VI-A Engine Dynamometer Test; SAE 952347; SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA, 1995.
93. Benchaita, M.T.; Lockwood, F.E. Reliable Models of Lubricant-Related Friction in Internal Combustion
Engines. Lubr. Sci. 1993, 5, 259–281. [CrossRef]
94. Consortium to Develop a New Sequence VID Fuel Efficiency Test for Engine Oils, Final Report.
15 October 2008. Available online: ftp://ftp.astmtmc.cmu.edu/docs/gas/sequencevi/minutes/VID%
20ConsortiumMatrixInfo/VID%20Consortium/Final%20Report%2010-16-08.pdf (accessed on 1 June 2018).

© 2018 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).