Challengers are shown in atorture test, both loadedwith 1,600 pounds and runon a dynamometer at 75miles per hour on a 7 per-cent incline. After five daysof this punishment, the carusing Castrol Edge contin-ues to run perfectly whilethe Mobil 1-equippedengine begins smoking andshooting sparks. Citing thetest as evidence, BPCastrol stated that CastrolEdge is stronger thanMobil 1.

Stung, ExxonMobil wentto NAD to challenge the

APRIL 2014

Motor Oils Day in Court

AUTOMOTIVE

BY STEVE SWEDBERG

6

accuracy of Castrols tor-ture test and questionwhether it had any rele-vance to everyday drivers.Castrol fired back, sayingthat the advertising indus-trys system of self-regula-tion has never explicitly setrules about whether tor-ture testing must be con-sumer-relevant.

NAD didnt buy theCastrol argument.Previous NAD cases havemade clear that all adver-tising must be consumer-relevant, the reviewerssaid. They also noted,Torture tests can be usedto support product claims,but only if they representconditions which have real-world experience, addingthat ExxonMobil andCastrol both agree thatconsumers would neversubject a cars engine tothe conditions depicted inthe test.

If youve never heard ofthe NAD, a little back-ground is in order. TheNational AdvertisingDivision of the Council ofBetter Business Bureausserves as the dispute reso-lution mechanism for U.S.advertisers. Disputes oftenbreak out over advertising or rather truth in adver-tising so NADs functionis to review factual claims

Some of you no doubtsaw the recent com-mercial from BPCastrol, claiming thatCastrol Edge motor oil issuperior to ExxonMobilsMobil 1 motor oil. TheNational AdvertisingDivision saw it too, andafter a thorough review, isurging Castrol to drop it,saying the ad falsely dis-parages Mobil 1 on thebasis of a torture testthat lacks consumer rele-vance.

In Castrols video adver-tisement, two Dodge

Continued on page 8

aware of the NAD, andafter I went to work atPennzoil, an issue came upbetween Pennzoil andCastrol. (These wranglescan be habit-forming, asyoull see later.) In this 1980case the bone of con-tention was an ad series byCastrol in which three carsare shown driving acrossthe television screen onwhat looks like graphpaper. The Castrol car fol-lows a line that goesstraight across the screen.The other two cars, repre-senting Pennzoil andQuaker State (this wasbefore their merger) startcurving down towards thebottom edge and are soonoff screen.

Why was that so impor-tant? At the time, Castrolwas promoting its use ofshear-stable viscosity indeximprovers, and claimingsuperiority on that basisversus Pennzoil and QuakerState. In point of fact, allthree oils met industry lim-its for shear-stability stay-in-grade viscosity.

Naturally, those atPennzoil were none toopleased with this and tookit up with Castrol. After aseries of terse letters andsome counter-testing onPennzoils part, and aninjunction obtained byQuaker State, Castroldropped the ads (whichhad probably run theircourse anyway).

Since that time, Ive beenkeenly aware of the motoroil battles at the NAD, plusa few that have gonebeyond to the court sys-tem. Most of these willinvolve either Pennzoil(now a division of Shell) orCastrol. Sure there are oth-

made in national advertise-ments and where neces-sary, resolve disputesbetween the parties.

In such cases, NADtypically reaches a con-clusion within 90 daysof a filing. Lest youthink this is an easyway to complain aboutan ad that you dontlike, youll find thereare some basicrequirements whichinclude pretty hefty fil-ing fees: $5,000 andup, depending on com-pany size. (Companieswith revenues over $1

billion will pay four timesthat.) Compliance withNADs findings is voluntary,and its decisions can beappealed (after payinganother fee).

Castrol planned to appealthe decision to the NationalAdvertising Review Board,according to a company

spokesperson. Itsposition is that con-sumers have to bethe final judges ofwhether theseproduct attributesare important tothem. It looks likea chance to definerelevance in anadvertising setting.

MeanwhileExxonMobil says itwill continue todefend Mobil 1s

performance. They alsocomplimented NAD for itscareful and thoughtful analy-sis of the situation.

As this exchange shows,the contests that play outbefore NAD and federalcourts show motor oil mar-keting at its most combat-ive. Long before I became

ers, but these two seem toshow up most often. At anyrate, Ill share a few casesand comment on what Ithink this all means.

1992 brought aboutanother Castrol/Pennzoildispute and this time itwas Castrol challengingshear-stability claims madeby Pennzoil. This case wassettled in court after Castrolfiled suit against Pennzoilclaiming false and mislead-ing representations offacts; specifically, aPennzoil television and printadvertising campaign thatstated it outperforms anyleading motor oil againstviscosity breakdown.Pennzoils claims furtherreferred to engine failureand premature engine wear,longer engine life and bet-ter engine protection.

The court determined thatPennzoil was wrong andwas required to remove theadvertising from both televi-sion and print media. Atthis point, I guess youcould say that the two com-panies were even.

In March 1999, NAD cameto one of its most far-reach-ing decisions ever. Castrolwas challenged by Mobil OilCorp. (now ExxonMobil)over statements that CastrolSyntec Engine Oil was bothsuperior and synthetic.Previously, Castrol had usedpolyalphaolefin base stockin Syntec, but of late it hadswitched to hydroisomer-ized mineral base stocks.These, Castrols expertsargued, could be labeledsynthetic because hydroiso-merization changes the oilslinear paraffin into abranched-chain one,through the use of an

AUTOMOTIVE

8 APRIL 2014

Continued on page 10

Continued from page 6

10 APRIL 2014

intended chemical processand a solid catalyst. ToMobils dismay, NAD foundthis persuasive. While NADrejected Castrols claims ofsuperiority for Syntec, itconcluded that the oil mar-keter had a reasonablebasis for asserting thathydroisomerized basestocks are synthetics.

This one decision hasresulted in significant for-mulation changes andupgrades as well as thewholesale introduction ofsynthetic and partialsynthetic motor oils intothe global marketplace. AsCar and Driver columnist

Patrick Bedard put it in2000, Most guysknow two thingsabout synthetic oils.First, the price is threeto four times that ofconventional oils.Second, theyre notreal oil, not made fromcrude. News flash:Scratch that secondpart. Now motor oilsderived from crudemay be labeled syn-

thetic. But they still costover four bucks a quart.

Moving now to 2000, itwas back to a New Jerseyfederal court with a lawsuitfiled by Castrol over a sludg-ing claim made by Pennzoilbased on a double-lengthSequence IIIE engine test.(By then I was working foran additive company.) Someof you may remember thead, in which quarterbackBrett Favre took somesludge from the pan of atest engine (containing usedCastrol motor oil) andsmeared it below his eyewhile suggesting that theproducts only useful pur-

pose was as black grease-paint to reduce the glare ofsunlight during footballgames.

That October, after reveal-ing testimony by severalindustry experts, the pre-siding judge called the adrepugnant and found itviolated federal advertisinglaws. Among other things,the judge enjoined Pennzoilfrom making any claim (1)that its oil is in any waysuperior to Castrol or anyother leading motor oil, and(2) that its oil provides bet-ter protection againstengine wear or engine fail-ure than Castrol or anyother leading motor oil. Theinjunction applied to allforms of advertising, includ-ing television, cable televi-sion, print, the Internet andthe World Wide Web.Pennzoil appealed but lostagain. Castrol 2, Pennzoil 1.

In 2009 came Round 4between Castrol andPennzoil, as sludge-protec-tion claims in Castrol GTXmotor oil advertisementstriggered a war of wordsbetween the two. Pennzoilobjected to the claim thatCastrol was 57% betterthan other leading oils. Thistime they decided that NADshould make the call andthis time Pennzoil emergedon top.

Pointedly, NAD saidCastrol should discontinueclaiming that its sludge pro-tection is 57% better intelevision commercials. Forwebsite claims and technicalbulletins, the organizationsaid BP America shouldeither discontinue the 57%better claims or modifythem to expressly limit thesuperiority claim to themotor oils performance in

Continued from page 8 certain EuropeanMercedes-Benz vehicles, asmeasured by that automak-ers proprietary testing.

The call on theMercedes-Benz vehicleswas due to the fact thatCastrol had used an M-Bengine test to make itssludge control superiorityclaim. Pennzoil was satis-fied with the decision, butCastrol argued that M-Btesting should be relevantto the global market since,essentially, sludge issludge no matter how it isgenerated. It said the testresults are relevant forNorth American drivers,given the many similaritiesbetween the NorthAmerican and Europeanmarkets, and that Europeansludge standards are moredemanding than NorthAmerican standards.

Castrol agreed to with-draw this challengedadvertising after a NationalAdvertising Review Boardpanel recommended it doso, in all media. After fourrounds, its Castrol 2,Pennzoil 2.

As 2009 rolled along,Castrol returned to theNAD to contest advertisingfrom Royal Purple (nowpart of Calumet SpecialtyProducts). Porter, Texas-based Royal Purple hadcompared its syntheticmotor oils performance toCastrol, Shell, Amsoil andother brands. NAD exam-ined these claims, and rec-ommended that RoyalPurple modify or discontin-ue a number of them.

To start, NAD pressedRoyal Purple to discontinueits use of consumer testi-monials without reliable

AUTOMOTIVE

Continued on page 12

By the way, Royal Purplealso was claiming that itsmotor oil was APICertified. As Castrolpointed out, only productsthat are licensed by theAmerican PetroleumInstitute can display thetrademarked donutService Symbol or itsstarburst CertificationMark. Oil buyers may ormay not rely on the star-burst but the logo doesclearly signify that the oilmeets current industrystandards. In fact, noRoyal Purple productswere certified to currentAPI starburst standards,so NAD recommendedthat the company discon-tinue saying that its syn-thetic oils are generallyAPI/ILSAC Certified.

independent evidence(data) showing performancecapability. In other words,testimonials, while comfort-ing, are not a substitute forhard numbers. Castrol hadstated as much in its chal-

lenge when it said, Ifindustry-standard tests

or tests withcarefully docu-mented controlswere aban-doned, there

would be nobasis whatso-ever for mak-ing anymeaningful

claims about the relativeefficacy of motor oils.(Compare that to Castrolsstance in the case thatopened this column.)

In 2012 Pennzoil andValvoline went to theNARB (the NAD appealsbody) over Valvolinesengine warranty program.Valvoline said its programguaranteed engines for upto 300,000 miles if the cus-tomer uses its oil andchanges it regularly. Notsurprisingly, Pennzoil has asimilar warranty program inplace. Initially, NAD agreedwith Valvoline that itsclaims were OK for adver-tising purposes.

Pennzoil appealed on thebasis that it has a similarprogram so Valvolinecouldnt claim first and/oronly engine guarantee,nor that only Valvolineguarantees engines for upto 300,000 miles.

After reviewing all of the

12 APRIL 2014

Continued from page 10AUTOMOTIVE

intricate details about howto tell whether or not anengine had failed for lubri-cant related reasons,NARB recommendedValvoline cease makingthose claims for its motoroil and also concludedthat very few consumerclaims would be coveredunder either Valvolines orPennzoil-Quaker Statesengine guarantees.

So what have we learnedfrom our ringside seat atthese matches? First, bigoil marketers have more todefend and are more likelyto challenge advertisingthat either denigrates themdirectly or through guilt-by-association.

Second, you better havereliable data using propertest methodologies and

good statistical analysesbefore you try to use com-parative advertising.Testimonials and meaning-less torture tests justwont cut it.

Third, API can be zeal-ous in guarding its donutand starburst trademarks.You shouldnt even thinkabout putting either on acontainer without having acurrent license in place toback it up.

Last, dont underestimatewhat impact NAD rulingshave on the marketplace.Just look at the syntheticdecision.

Theres no question thatadvertising plays an impor-tant role in the battle formotor oil sales. All themore reason to make sureits right.

13LUBESNGREASES

Industry consultant SteveSwedberg has over 40years experience in lubri-cants, most notably withPennzoil and ChevronOronite. He is a longtimemember of the AmericanChemical Society and SAEInternational, where he waschairman of TechnicalCommittee 1 on automotive engine oils. He can bereached at steveswedberg@cox.net.

16 APRIL 2014

mediagram - Fotolia

Why, How, How Much?

Wear is as inevitable as the rising andthe setting of the sun. It is universal inthat everything that moves or doesnt wears. The ultimate expression ofwear is entropy, that thermodynamiclaw which says that all matter and ener-gy eventually runs down and becomesincreasingly disorganized.

Given that wear occurs, the challengeis to delay it as long as possible. In anautomotive engine that means retard-ing cam and lifter wear, ring and linerwear, rod and main bearing wear andso on. Most of the wear which occurs isin the ring and liner area since that isthe largest surface in terms of squareinches. However, the wear on cams andlifters often is more worrisome sincethe pressure between the surfaces ismuch greater.

Engine design can do much toreduce wear, but the most significantinfluence during operation is theengine lubricant. There are differentfacets to the antiwear properties of anengine lubricant and how they protectthe engine.

The first factor is the oils viscosity.Viscosity is the thickness of the oiland is the result of the internal frictionbetween oil molecules. It is tempera-ture related so as the oil becomes hot-ter the viscosity decreases. At somepoint, the oil becomes too thin to pre-vent metal-to-metal contact, and wearresults. The oil property which mostclearly reflects this is the high-tempera-ture, high-shear viscosity of the oil.HTHS viscosity is measured underhigh-shear conditions at 150 degrees Cand represents the absolute viscosity ofthe oil while discounting all additiveeffects.

Thats a good start but there is muchmore that needs to be done to protectthe engine. This burden is carried outby the additive package used in theengine oil composition. In addition towear protection, additive packages con-tain a number of components whichprovide protection from sludge andvarnish formation, oil foaming, as wellas oil thickening.

Over the years, wear protection has

17LUBESNGREASES

ZDDPTodays engine oils do a great job, thanks in part tothe workhorse additive ZDDP. But whats in ZDDP?And why do some drivers and engine rebuildersinsist they need more of this good thing? First oftwo parts.

BY STEVE SWEDBERG

fide and ironphosphide layerson top of metalparts movingagainst each otherwithin the engine.These chemicallayers wear away with very little loss ofsurface area and without interruptingthe operation of the engine.

been provided by a truly amazing com-ponent, a reactive chemical compoundcalled metallic dithiophosphate. Themetal used most commonly has beenzinc, as in ZDDP or the variant ZDTP.Along with zinc, ZDDP brings both sul-fur (thio) and phosphorus into the oilin a form which lends itself to relativelylow-temperature reaction with metalsurfaces. This creates complex iron sul-

Within the chemical structure of theZDDP molecule, the relative ratio of thekey elements of sulfur/phosphorus /zincis 2/1/1. Roughly speaking then, there istwice as much sulfur as there is zincand phosphorus. (In actual calculations,there may be about 6 percent morezinc than phosphorus.)

Of this trio, the element attracting themost attention is phosphorus. Togetherwith the sulfur, it is believed to bringthe most antiwear functionality to theoil. For that reason, the level of phos-phorus is watched most closely.

ZDDP comes in three distinct chemi-cal structures, based on the type ofalcohol used in the reaction process formaking the finished product.Depending on the alcohol type select-ed, the finished ZDDP will have varyinglevels of wear protection and antioxi-dant performance (Table 1).

In earlier times, ZDDP was used atlevels of up to 0.16 wt. percent inengine oils, and measured as zinc. Thisis because it originally was (and still is)viewed as a multipurpose additive informulations, acting not only as an anti-wear agent but also as a corrosioninhibitor and antioxidant. The earliestknown applications in formulatedengine oils date from 1941, when ZDDPwas used as a corrosion inhibitor.

No one type of ZDDP can solve allproblems though, so the choice of theproper material depends on what per-formance property is most important.For most passenger car and light-truckformulations, secondary alkyl ZDDP isthe choice. It provides the best wearprotection in spark-ignited gasolinefueled engines, where any shortfall inoxidation protection can be made upfor with other types of antioxidants. Itaccomplishes all of this at levels ofabout 0.08 percent phosphorus.

By contrast, diesel engines rely on

18 APRIL 2014

Continued on page 20

Table 1. How Alcohol Selection Affects ZDTPAlcohol Type

Secondary Alkyl Primary Alkyl ArylWear Protection Excellent Good AverageOxidation Average Good ExcellentResistance

Phone: 914.251.4202Email: lucant@mitsuichem.com

www.mitsuichemicals.com

LUCANTTM offers high shear stability as well as excellent heat and oxidation stability. Available in viscosities (cSt at 100C) of 40, 100, 150, 600, 1100 & 2000.

HAVE YOU TRIED IT? WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?

A UNIQUE VISCOSITY MODIFIERAND SYNTHETIC BASE OIL

lyst, effectively blocking it from doingits job of converting exhaust gases intonon-polluting materials. Phosphorusreduction in engine oil wasnt animmediate hit however, with manyworrying that too little would lead toincreased rates of wear.

Not all ZDDPs are alike, adds DonSmolenski, who is now the OEM liaisonfor Evonik Oil Additives after his owncareer with General Motors. In the1980s, Smolenski managed taxi-fleetengine oil testing programs at GM. AsGM and other automakers pressed forlower phosphorus and zinc levels, herecalls, formulators found progressivelymore effective ZDDPs to maintain thewear protection. He believes that theASTM Sequence IV engine test, whichmeasures scuffing and wear protection,gave pretty good insight into cam andlifter wear in particular.

Smolenski pointed out that the ques-tion of catalyst poisoning came to thefore in the late 80s, as todays ILSACGF-series of engine oil specificationsand the API Engine Oil Licensing andCertification System were being devel-oped. From that point forward, phos-phorus has remained a hot-buttonissue, with concerns raised both abouthigher levels and lower levels.

For some perspective, a look at thephosphorus limits in the API Servicecategories and ILSAC specificationsmakes it clear how the levels of phos-phorus have been handled (Table 2).

One of the fundamentals of the APIengine oil system has been the conceptof backwards compatibility. Simply stat-ed, newer oil categories are required tobe capable of servicing older engines even engines designed around an earli-

compression ignition, and their oil for-mulations usually employ a primary alkylZDDP with possibly some secondaryalkyl mixed in. While loads are higher indiesel engines, the design is much morerobust and doesnt need the high levelof antiwear found only in secondaryalkyl types. In addition, diesel engine oilformulations typically have a higher levelof ZDDP, about 0.12 percent as phos-phorus in the finished oil.

Engine expert Dick Kabel, formerlywith General Motors Research, tellsLubesnGreases another element was atwork in engines from the early 1920suntil the mid-1970s: tetraethyl lead.Adding lead to gasoline boosted itsoctane and allowed engines to be builtwith higher compression ratios andhence better performance. But in orderto prevent the buildup of lead and leadoxides in the engine, so-called leadscavengers were incorporated in thefuel. Usually these were ethylene chlo-ride or ethylene bromide.

The drawback, Kabel reminded, wasthese reactive materials created highlyacidic byproducts in the crankcase andtended to reduce the effectiveness ofZDDP. To counteract that, higher ZDDPdosages were used, often into the phos-phorus range of 0.14 percent to 0.16percent.

When lead was phased out from gaso-line, he explained, it allowed someZDDP reduction to take place. At thesame time, engine metallurgy wasimproving to where parts could be man-ufactured with lower surface roughness.Both events led to more additive pack-age optimization to get just the rightalcohol type and level of ZDDP. Basestock refining improvements alsoallowed for more optimization, Kabeladded.

The next logical step was to controlZDDP levels in engine oils. For onething, automakers found that ZDDPdecomposition products which gotinto the exhaust were being depositedonto cars catalytic converters. One ofthese decomposition products, a com-pound called zinc pyrophosphate,formed a glass-like deposit on the cata-

er category. Given that the average ageof cars and light trucks in the U.S. fleetat this time is pushing 11 years, it isalmost certain that newer category oilsare finding their way into older engines.

Looking at that aging fleet, it seemsfair to say that the latest oils do a goodjob of controlling wear for the vastmajority of vehicles on the road today.

However, there is a small and vocalbody of end users who have anotherconcern: those who build and drivehigh-performance vehicles or col-lectible cars. Their concerns center onthe amount of wear protection neededfor their engines, given that many ofthem are much older designs.

Lower phosphorus engine oils can beharmful to older engines, one enthusi-ast and rebuilder insisted toLubesnGreases. The worst-case sce-nario is engine break-in, as the cam andlifters polish each other, or tear eachother up.

In fact, this source pointed out, theEngine Rebuilders Association recom-mends the use of diesel engine oil dur-ing engine break-in due to its higherZDDP content. An advisory bulletin canbe seen at www.aera.org/ep/techbulletins/TB2008/Q1-2008/TB2333R.pdf.

Other cautionary advice has comefrom the cam manufacturers Crane(www.aera.org/ep/techbulletins/TB2013/Q4-2013/TB2623.pdf) and Crower(www.crower.com/media/pdf/cam_book.pdf). Each warns that modern PCMOsare inadequate for engine break-in.

Is it possible for current, low-ZDDPengine oils to service these older vehi-cles and rebuilt engines, or is there alimit to what backward compatibility cando? More in part two, next month.

20 APRIL 2014

Continued from page 18 Table 2. Putting a Lid on Phosphorus

Engine Oil Designation Phosphorus, wt%Year Introduced Service Category ILSAC Specification min. max.

Pre-1993 API SG and prior 1993 API SH GF-1 1996 API SJ GF-2 0.102001 API SL GF-3 0.102004 API SM GF-4 0.06 0.082010 API SN GF-5 0.06 0.082017 API SP GF-6 0.06 0.08