hyper zdp system powerpoint

© The Lubrizol Corporation 2009, all rights reserved

Advantages of the HyperZDPTM

System

July 1st, 2009

© The Lubrizol Corporation 2009, all rights reserved2

HyperZDPTM System Assessments: Part 1 – Field Trial Performance Part 2 – Emissions Performance

• Ewa A. Bardasz, Elizabeth Schiferl, William Nahumck, Jack Kelley and Lewis Williams

• Lubrizol Corporation, Wickliffe, Ohio, USA

• Michael J. Riley and Carolyn P. Hubbard • Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, Michigan, USA


Part 1- Field Trial Performance (details discussed in the SAE paper 2007-01-1990)

• Background• Real Life Test: Objectives and Variables• Results: Engine Inspections, Used Oil Analysis, P

Retention Assessments• Conclusions


Mission

• Key drivers for lubricant performance:– Long life engine protection: wear, deposits, oil oxidation/sludge

control– Long life catalytic converter (TWC) efficiency: reduced

deactivation due to phosphorous exposure

• Focus: to develop an environmentally superior ZDP, which is capable to protect both - engine and TWC


ZDP: Key Role in Engine Protection

• ZDPs has been used to control wear, oxidation and corrosion in crankcase lubricants since 1940’s

• ZDPs can also reduce TWC efficiency through phosphorus deactivation

• HyperZDPTM System is designed to be emissions friendly and to minimize volatile phosphorus species that can exit the engine, accumulate on TWC active sites, and reduce their effectiveness.

• HyperZDPTM System is designed to maintain or improve engine oil robustness

PSS

OR

OOR

R

O P S RSZn PSS

OR

OOR

R

O P S RSZn


Three Way Catalyst (TWC)

• Tasks of catalytic converters are to oxidize/reduce combustion by-products

• TWC can loose its efficiency due to P “glassy” film formation

• Lower P exposure = longer catalyst life

Pt/Pd: Used to Oxidize HC, CORd: Used to Reduce NOx


Objective:•To assess side-by-side performance of lubricants using conventional ZDP vs. HyperZDPTM System

Test Variables:•Vehicles: 2003 Ford Crown Victoria, 4.6L V8 engines•Test duration: 100,000 miles•Two lubricants•Oil change interval: 5,000 miles •Service: moderate to high-temperature urban driving

New York City Taxi Test


End of Test Evaluatios• SAE paper 2007-01-1990

– Engine part inspection and rating– Used oil analysis and P retention analysis

• SAE paper 2007-01-4107– Aged three way catalyst assessed in standard emissions

efficiency test– Post mortem catalyst analysis


Lubricants Studied

Oil Code 1 2

KV @ 100°C, cSt 8.53 8.44

CCS @ -30 C, cPs 5270 5204

Calcium (ppm) 1673 1648

Phosphorous (ppm) 776 742

Two oils• ILSAC GF-4, 5W-20• 0.076 wt % P• The only difference:

– Oil 1: Conventional ZDP – Oil 2: HyperZDP™

System


Engine Inspections: Deposits/Sludge/Varnish -Equivalent

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

Engine Sludge Piston Deposits Engine Varnish

Ave

rage

Mer

it R

atin

g

OIL 1

OIL 1

OIL 1OIL 2 OIL 2

OIL 2

10 = clean

0 = dirty


Typical Piston Deposits and Oil Sump Sludge @ 100K miles

Oil 1: Conventional ZDP Oil 2: HyperZDP™ System


EOT Engine Inspections: Overall Engine Wear - Equivalent

5.50

6.00

6.50

7.00

7.50

8.00

8.50

9.00

9.50

10.00

Cam Follower Cam Lobe Cam Journal Crankshaft Journal

Mer

it R

atin

g

OIL 1OIL 1OIL 1OIL 1 OIL 2OIL 2OIL 2OIL 2

Rating Scale: 8 = trace/light, 6 = light/medium


Typical Examples of EOT Cam Lobes

Oil 2

Oil 1


Used Oil Analysis: Wear Metal - Fe Profiles - Equivalent

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000Test Miles

PPM

Fe Oil 1

Fe Oil 2


Used Oil Analysis:Kinematic Viscosity Profiles - Equivalent

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

12.00

13.00

14.00

15.00

0 2,500 5,000 7,500Oil Miles

cSt@

100C

ViS100 Oil 1

ViS100 Oil 2


Used Oil Analysis: TBN/TAN Crossover - Equivalent

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500 6,000

Oil Miles

mgH

Cl/g

/ m

gKO

H/g

Linear (TBN Norm. Oil 1)Linear (TBN Norm. Oil 2)Linear (TAN Norm. Oil 1)Linear (TAN Norm. Oil 2)

Oil 2 3,350 Miles

Oil 13,400 Miles


Summary of the Used Oils Analysis

Fluid Performance HyperZDP TM System vs. Conventional ZDP

% P Loss BetterPentane insolubles Equivalent

C=0 Equivalent

RONOx EquivalentMRV-35, CCS Equivalent

Wear metals EquivalentTAN/TBN crossover Equivalent% Viscosity increase Equivalent


Assessment of %P Retention in Used Oil (based on used oil ICP analysis)


Significant Differences % Phosphorus Retention: Oil 1 vs. Oil 2

75.0

80.0

85.0

90.0

95.0

100.0

105.0

110.0

115.0

120.0

125.0

0 2,500 5,000Oil Miles

Perc

ent

Avg. % P Retention Oil 1Avg. % P Retention Oil 2Poly. (Avg. % P Retention Oil 1)Poly. (Avg. % P Retention Oil 2)


TWC Exposure Based onMeasured P Retention in Drains

52% less P exits engine from HyperZDPTM System containing fluids


Conclusions• Field trial demonstrated that HyperZDP™ System:

– Maintains both excellent antiwear engine protection good depositand antioxidancy characteristics

– Reduces P volatility vs. conventional technology and minimizes potential for catalyst deactivation by 50%.

– Volatized P contribution is equal or less than consumed oil P contribution.

• Significant impact of reduced P volatility on TWC efficiency is discussed in SAE paper 2007-01-4107.

•HyperZDP™ System protects both the engines and TWCs in real world field service.


Part 2 – Emissions Performance(details discussed in the SAE paper 2007-01-4104)

• Challenge• Real Life Test Results• Conclusions


Challenge – Retention of TWC Efficiency and Durability

• As ZDPs decompose to protect engine parts, certain volatile P species exit engine, interact with TWC and reduces their effectiveness/service life.


Comparison of the Cumulative Total P Generated (volatilized ZDP and oil consumption contribution)

0 .0 0 5 .0 0 1 0 .0 0 1 5 .0 0 2 0 .0 0

O il 1 -2 0 8

O il 1 -6 7 5

O il 1 -0 2 5

O il 2 -4 1 0

O il 2 -0 2 2

O il 2 -3 7 0

E s tim a te d T o ta l P h o s E x p o s u r e (g )

V o l P ho s (g ) C o ns um e d O i l P ho s (g )

Cab 410 had high oil consumption

Conventional ZDP

HyperZDP™System

HyperZDP™ System = Lower Possibility for P Poisoning


Comparison of the Cumulative Amount of the Volatile Phosphorous Generated


Aged Catalysts Efficiency Assessments: FTP-75

Data Examined: CO, NOx, THC, and THC Light-Off Time (Bag 1)


Schematic of Crown Victoria Exhaust System


Positive Effect of HyperZDP™ System on THC Light-Off time: Observed Statistically Significant Differences

% E

ffici

ency

Fresh catalyst = 29.1 secsHyperZDP™ System=30.9 secsConventional ZDP = 32.7 secs.

Time (sec)


FTP-75 Results : Improved NOx Efficiency Related to P Exposure

80

85

90

95

100

8 10 12 14 16 18Total Phos (g)

Cat

1 N

Ox

Effic

ienc

y (%

)

ConventionalLow Impact

? Cab 675

10.3 percentage point difference

Cab 410 had high oil consumption

Lower P exposure = Higher NOx efficiency


Aged Closed Coupled Catalyst Analysis

At Inlet of TWC:• Exhaust gases generated by

HyperZDP™ System deposited significantly smaller amount of P containing compounds than conventional ZDP

• Observed 30% reduction in P level vs. conventional ZDP

At Outlet of TWC:• Detected minimal amounts of P

INLET

OUTLET % P measuredby XRF

% P measuredby XRF

¼ Brick¼ Brick


Conclusions

• NYC Taxi Trial Conducted with 0.076 % P, GF4 Fluids Demonstrated that Lubrizol’s Environmentally Superior ZDP:

– Keeps P in oil drains– Maintains excellent antiwear/antioxidancy performance in the field– Less P is deposited on the TWC resulting in statistically significant

• Improved TWC THC light-off time• Lowered NOx emissions.

• Lubrizol’s HyperZDP™ System clearly shows improvements in TWC efficiencies and protects engines in real world field service.

hyper zdp system powerpoint

Documents