A Tale of Two Automakers
How Ford and GM Aim to Meet Toughening Fuel Economy Standards — And How It Will Impact You

by Garrett McKinnon
NOLN Staff Writer

There are two sides to every coin. Two sides to every argument. And, in the case of GM and Ford, two somewhat differing strategies of dealing with rising fuel economy standards.

First, a primer. The incredible growth the nation has enjoyed the past five decades has led to a dramatic increase in transportation. In the mid-1960s, the U.S. vehicle fleet averaged about 719 billion vehicle miles traveled each year. By the mid-2000s, that number had reached 2.9 trillion, or more than quadruple the number of miles traveled from five decades earlier.

However, the negative to that increase in transportation is that the nation’s reliance on imported fuel has more than quadrupled, as well. During the mid-1960s, U.S. vehicles consumed 61 billion gallons of gasoline each year. By the mid-2000s, that was up to 138 billion gallons. Unfortunately, most of that fuel came from overseas, as in the mid-1960s, only about 13 percent of crude oil was imported. By 2005, 66 percent was imported.

Reducing America’s reliance on imported oil is one of the key factors driving Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and other regulatory initiatives imposed by federal and state governments. Since 1974 when the first CAFE standards were introduced, the fuel economy of cars has more than doubled, while the fuel economy of light trucks (a category that includes minivans, vans, sport-utility vehicles and pickups) has increased by 53 percent. Critics say that’s not enough, and the Obama administration has proposed a streamlined federal mileage increase that would force automakers to improve their fleet-wide fuel efficiency by 5 percent per year through 2016, at which time the average fuel economy for a manufacturer’s new-vehicle fleet would have to average 35.5 miles per gallon (cars would have to average 39 miles per gallon, while trucks would have to achieve 30 miles per gallon, both roughly 30 percent more efficient than the fuel economy standards achieved by current new-car fleets). The tradeoff for this national standard is an agreement by several states, namely California, not to impose their own unique (and possibly more severe) mileage standards. (Bureaucrats with the state of California are on record as predicting — hoping? — that by 2050 only 10 percent of the vehicles sold in that state will be powered by internal combustion engines.)

Can automakers achieve such lofty standards? (And, perhaps just as important, but a topic best left for another time, is will customers purchase these new fuel-efficient vehicles if automakers expect customers to pay a premium for them?)

“It’s a challenging compliance target, but we think (the goals) are achievable,” said John Trajnowski, an engineer with Ford Motor Company.

How the last two domestically owned automakers plan on meeting these new standards is an interesting tale, and one that will almost certainly impact the fast lube industry in years to come.

Ford’s Strategy: Technology Migration

Speaking at a recent seminar in Las Vegas, Nevada, Trajnowski said Ford has come up with a three-tiered timeline that will see its vehicles gradually migrate to technology that will allow them to meet new government fuel economy standards.

“This plan is designed to meet legislative standards while also meeting customer demands,” he said. In the near term, a period that will end with the launch of 2011-model-year vehicles next fall, Ford has, among other things:

• Launched its EcoBoost line of direct-injection, turbocharged engines.
• Introduced electric power steering systems.
• Began to replace four- and five-speed automatic transmissions with six-speed transmissions.
• Launched four hybrid models.
• Introduced more small vehicles like the redesigned Fiesta car and Transit Connect van

This migration to advanced technology finds its biggest impact with EcoBoost. Simply put, EcoBoost engines are designed to produce the horsepower and torque of larger engines while maintaining the fuel economy benefits of smaller engines. The company’s EcoBoost 3.5L V6 generates upwards of 350 horsepower depending on model application, yet maintains the fuel economy characteristics of a conventional V6 engine. Ford plans to use the EcoBoost V6 to replace V8 engines in virtually all of its vehicles in coming years, including the venerable F150 pickup, where a EcoBoost V6 will replace the 5.4L V8 engine sometime later this year.

Plus, Ford plans to introduce 2.0L and 1.6L four-cylinder versions of the EcoBoost engine in coming years; the 2.0L will replace many traditional V6 engines in the Ford lineup, while the 1.6L engine will replace larger four-cylinder engines — all while maintaining the fuel economy of larger engines, according to Trajnowski.

By the end of 2010, Trajnowski said that as many as 23 percent of all new Ford vehicles could be equipped with EcoBoost engines, and by the end of 2013 EcoBoost engines will equip as many as 90 percent of all new Fords.

The company isn’t just focusing on engines, either. By 2013, Trajnowski said virtually all Ford vehicles will be equipped with six-speed transmissions, units that offer up to 6 percent fuel economy improvement over four-speed units. Plus, by 2013 the company expects to have electric power steering systems installed in all its new vehicles. By replacing the traditional hydraulically operated power steering system with a computer-controlled electric motor, Trajnowski said parasitic losses can be reduced, resulting in a 3 to 5 percent fuel mileage improvement.

In the mid term leading up to the end of the next decade, Trajnowski said Ford is working on additional endeavors, like reducing the per-vehicle weight up to 750 pounds, improving aerodynamics by up to 5 percent, increasing the use of hybrid-electric (HEV) drive systems, and introducing plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEVs) and battery-electric vehicles (BEVs). Tranjowski said the automaker will only adopt diesel engine technology if the marketplace demands it, a scenario he viewed as unlikely.

“We don’t believe diesels are something the American consumer wants to drive,” he said. “Plus, the government wants to see an investment in HEV, PHEV and BEV technology, because diesel fuel does not answer the imported oil issue.”

While HEVs and PHEVs are based on proven technology, Trajnowski said there is much room for improvement, especially in battery technology and, critically, in battery cost. For instance, at an average price of $2.62 per gallon (about the national average during 2009), it would take the typical driver logging some 15,000 miles per year more than 12.6 years to recoup the higher price of purchasing a hybrid vehicle rather than a conventional vehicle. (Trajnowski compared that with a 2.7-year cost recovery for purchasing an EcoBoost engine.) The cost recovery time only increases for PHEVs (14.5 years) and BEVs (29.2 years). Until battery technology becomes more reliable and less expensive, internal combustion engines will continue to be an integral part of vehicle powerplants.

“Electric vehicles face a number of challenges — affordability and the accessibility to recharging being chief among those,” he said.

Finally, looking long term Trajnowski said Ford is hard at work attempting to both expand its use of hybrid-electric technology as well as iron out the kinks in fuel-cell technology. With fuel-cell technology, an onboard fuel cell “stack” would convert a fuel (typically pure hydrogen) into electricity, with water vapor being the only emission. While this is the holy grail of automotive propulsion technology, Trajnowski said it will be years before customers can purchase a fuel cell vehicle in showrooms.

“We have a long way to go before these vehicles are available on the market,” he said. In addition to increasing numbers of hybrid vehicles, however, what consumers can expect will be the increasing use of renewable biofuels like corn-based ethanol, Trajnowski said. (Automakers get “credits” for these vehicles that allow them to raise their fleet’s fuel economy standards even though the vehicles powered by biofuel may not achieve the higher fuel economy standards.)

“U.S. automakers are committed to flexible fuel-capable vehicles (that can run on both gasoline or ethanol),” he said. “As second-generation biofuels become available, especially cellulosic-based ethanol from plants like switch grass rather than corn, we will see more domestically produced renewable fuel manufactured. If the infrastructure is in place to handle this type of fuel, and it will be if the demand is there, we will see greater volumes of flexible fuel vehicles.”

With the introduction of so many new technologies, the question of how these systems will impact the lube industry looms large. Fortunately, Trajnowski said he foresees no major shift from vehicles that are powered, at least in part, by internal combustion engines, the lubrication needs of which should remain largely unchanged in coming years.

“We don’t expect any durability compromises vis-à-vis smaller displacement engines utilizing turbocharging,” he said.

While it is possible Ford may extend oil change intervals from its current 7,500 miles after the expected introduction of GF-5 motor oil next fall, the increasing use of biofuels, which run hotter than gasoline engines, may put more pressure on motor oil, a factor that could contribute to intervals remaining static for the time being. And, according to Trajnowski, it is the biofuel trend that, for Ford at least, could impact the market the most.

“Automakers will not abandon the internal combustion engine anytime soon, but I do expect that biofuels will begin to replace petroleum sometime in the next decade,” he said.

GM’s Strategy: Enabling Existing Hardware

Like Ford, GM expects to meet new fuel economy standards in a number of ways. With the introduction of its new Chevrolet Volt sedan next fall, the company will be the first to introduce a “series” hybrid vehicle, wherein a gas engine is used to generate electricity to power four electric drive motors. It’s essentially an electric vehicle with its own portable generator, unlike traditional parallel hybrids that use an electric motor in combination with a gas engine to power a conventional or continuously variable transmission. At an expected cost of $40,000, though, it remains to be seen whether the high-tech Volt will become popular enough to warrant widespread adoption of its powertrain in other vehicle models, especially in light of gas prices that are historically affordable.

To hedge its bets, GM is also investing in technology that will make vehicles lighter and that will improve combustion efficiency. Some of the high-tech systems that will accomplish the latter include:

• Direct injection.
• Cam phasing.
• Variable valve lift.
• Turbocharging.
• Displacement on demand.

It is to meet the needs of some of these systems that GM is adopting its own proprietary motor oil later this year, a product to be known as dexos.

“These technologies will allow us to get more power out of a smaller package,” said Eric Johnson, senior project engineer with GM’s Powertrain, Fuels and Lubricants Group. “And by acting as a functioning hydraulic fluid, (dexos) will help us enable new hardware technology.”

According to Johnson, the goals for dexos are improved fuel economy, improved fuel economy retention (which will allow the motor oil to maintain its fuel economy benefits throughout the life of the oil), improved aeration performance and more efficient drain intervals. The key factor for dexos — and one of the reasons that motor oil manufacturers suggest it will almost certainly require synthetic base oil and expensive additives like molybdenum — is its improved aeration performance.

One of GM’s key fuel economy initiatives is displacement on demand (GM calls its “Active Fuel Management”), a system whereby one or more engine cylinders can deactivate depending on power requirements. Take, for example, the 5.3L V8 engine that powers most GM trucks and large SUVs. Under hard acceleration or when towing or carrying a load, all eight engine cylinders are engaged and provide full power to the vehicle. However, at highway cruising speed or when less power is needed, the vehicle’s onboard computer deactivates cylinders by shutting off fuel to those cylinders, thereby effectively making the V8 a V6 or even a V4 engine. This helps the engine achieve near class-leading fuel economy in many applications.

However, alternately starting and stopping cylinders puts a lot of stress on motor oil, one of the reasons GM’s dexos specification calls for improved aeration performance versus traditional motor oil.

Any way you slice it, dexos is a key driver toward GM’s aim of improving fuel efficiency. Synthetic motor oil has long been touted by some companies for its fuel efficiency benefits, and it appears GM aims to put those claims to the test with dexos.

“Every little tenth of fuel economy is important to OEMs right now,” Johnson said. Johnson said GM decided to implement its own specifications for a number of reasons.

“There are two types of engine oil specifications: OEM and industry specifications like ILSAC and API. OEM specs let the auto company tailor the product to meet their specific needs, while industry specs set a minimum level of performance,” he said. “OEMs have to address their customers’ needs and governmental regulations. Customers are focused on satisfaction, fuel economy, the environment and economics, while governmental regulations are forcing rapid changes in CO2 limits, fuel economy improvements and emissions reductions.”

The ongoing goals for dexos, according to Johnson, are to lengthen catalyst life and reduce dependence on crude oil through increased fuel efficiency and reduced number of oil changes.

Left unsaid is that dexos will almost certainly be a moneymaker for GM, as the company plans to charge manufacturers a $1,000 per year license fee, with an additional 36 cents per gallon “underhood” royalty fee that will no doubt be added to the cost of what already promises to be an expensive product. Johnson insisted that the royalty fees are needed to make dexos “self sufficient,” and he added that dexos will meet its customers needs by offering better fuel economy throughout the life of the oil.

“It’s all about the customer,” Johnson said. “Once they understand the benefits, they will appreciate the specification.”

In that vein, GM has established a program administrator for dexos to ensure the product’s availability after its launch later this fall and to ensure that both dealerships and end users are educated about the new motor oil.

One end-user benefit Johnson repeatedly touted is extended oil change intervals. Already, GM notes that if all GM vehicle owners followed the GM Oil Life System (OLS) in their vehicles as intended, more than 100 million gallons of motor oil could be saved annually. With dexos on the horizon, Johnson said GM is actively developing the second generation OLS, a system that will rely on significantly more engine operating information than the current system, which calculates “remaining oil life” based on factors like the number of combustion events, engine operating temperature, oil temperature and ambient air temperature. A second-gen OLS, coupled with a full-synthetic dexos product, could allow GM to significantly extend the maximum oil change intervals the OLS recommends.

“Changing oil significantly more frequently than required is not environmentally responsible,” Johnson said. “The 3,000-mile oil change recommendation is not sustainable long term. It’s not ‘cheap insurance.’ It’s just a waste of resources.”

GM plans to phase out any mention of ILSAC or API specifications in its owners manuals, in order to promote the new dexos specification. A mockup of an owners manual Johnson showed includes the warning: “Failure to use the recommended oil can result in engine damage not covered by the vehicle warranty.”

Impact on the Lube Industry

The initiatives being undertaken by both automakers will have a lasting impact on the fast lube industry. Ford’s reliance on smaller, harder-working turbocharged engines will put even more pressure on motor oil, possibly limiting the ability of even the next-generation GF-5 motor oil to offer oil change intervals that are much extended beyond today’s standards.

GM, meanwhile, will shortly introduce a proprietary (probably synthetic) motor oil that will allow its engines to maximize technologies like displacement on demand and variable valve technology. The good news for lube operators is that dexos will take a while to achieve a large market penetration. Estimates are that a little more than 10 million 2011-model vehicles will be sold, with approximately 16 percent (or 1.6 million) of those being GM vehicles. That will amount to less than 1 percent of all the vehicles on the road, and unless GM’s market share rebounds significantly in coming years, it will take most of the coming decade before dexos becomes a significant mover in the motor oil market, as it’s doubtful that drivers of existing GM products will adopt dexos en masse in favor of cheaper traditional alternatives.

Regardless of the changes made and technologies adopted by these and other automakers, the facts are clear that automobiles will continue to use internal combustion engines — in some capacity or another — for decades to come, and that those engines, as well as other automotive systems, will need routine preventive maintenance, a service the fast lube industry is more than adept at providing.