From: jerry.c.wang@Cummins.com Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 3:21 PM To: Bob_Campbell@Ethyl.com; Jeff Clark; jim.moritz@perkinelmer.com; mawc@chevron.com; joe_franklin@perkinelmer.com; john.haegelin@perkinelmer.com; Stacy.Bond@perkinelmer.com; Finn, Rick; Fetterman, Pat; dbau@lubrizol.com; Scott Richards; warren.a.totten@Cummins.com; nancy.diggs@infineum.com; rbuck@tei-net.com Cc: dan_pridemore@ethyl.com; lawm@lubrizol.com; wvda@chevrontexaco.com; dadu@lubrizol.com; prs@lubrizol.com; james.wells@swri.org; jaru@chevrontexaco.com Subject: ISM Task Force Teleconf material - May 13 1pm 812-377-6156 This is probably an overly simplified minutes but should include the essential items: 4th test: SwRI will run the fourth test as is (same as the first three tests) for 200 hr on ISM-A oil. Collect valve train and bearing wear, sludge, filter dP, used oil (anything that doesn't interfere with test extension). Then continue the wear cycle for another 100 hrs to collect full data at 300 hrs. Scott will decide if a 250-hr inspection is needed based on Fe in used oil. 5th test: PE will run the same test as the 4th test except on 1004 oil. Pls obtain parts from TEI and bill TEI for the fuel cost. The group will reconvene on May 27, 1pm (Columbus time) at 812-377-6156. Hopefully we'll get a clear indication of what to do next. Discussions about how to define a 6% soot window and related timing are deferred until the 5-test matrix is completed. Both 200 hr results should be sent to Phil and Jim as soon as possible to start statisical analysis (no need to wait for the 300 hr completion) My thinking is, worst come to worst (hold your breath), we'll do the 300 hr ISM EGR identical to M11 EGR because this is a stable platform and repeatabiltiy should not be an issue. Or the best case is we can do 6% min. soot with CH-4+ performance for 200 hrs. Either way, I plan (and really hope) to complete all development and onto candidate testing for no more than 8 tests beyond the 5th test. tks. Jerry ----- Forwarded by Jerry C Wang/Ind/Cummins on 05/13/2004 01:24 PM ----- Jerry C Wang To: Bob_Campbell@Ethyl.com, jac@astmtmc.cmu.edu, jim.moritz@perkinelmer.com, 05/13/2004 10:26 mawc@chevron.com, joe_franklin@perkinelmer.com, john.haegelin@perkinelmer.com, AM Stacy.Bond@perkinelmer.com, "Finn, Rick" , "Fetterman, Pat" , dbau@lubrizol.com, Scott Richards , Warren A Totten/Ind/Cummins@Cummins cc: dan_pridemore@ethyl.com, lawm@lubrizol.com, wvda@chevrontexaco.com, dadu@lubrizol.com, prs@lubrizol.com, james.wells@swri.org, (bcc: Jerry C Wang/Ind/Cummins) Subject: ISM Task Force Teleconf material - May 13 1pm 812-377-6156 Just want to provide a summary of the feedbacks so we have something to look at during the teleconf. This is my understanding of the feedback. They do not necessarily reflect the exact comments made by individual companies. For the 4th test: Lubrizol: complete the 4th test as is to finish the matrix so we can have a good statistical look as we have intended. Ethyl: Should complete the 4th test and extend the test at 6% soot for another 100 hrs but an additional inspection at 250 hrs in case the wear really takes off. 200 hr data available will be limited to valve train and bearing wear, filter dp and oil analysis. Oronite: should complete the 4th test as is to ensure matrix data quality. If possible, put the engine back together for extra 100 hrs at the 6% soot level. SwRI: do the 4th test on 1004 for a better chance to see a larger separation when extending to 300 hrs. Cummins: The improved hardware (ring/liner combination and overhead) is supposed to increase tolerance to oil, so data don't present a surprise. Cummins is comfortable that if the new ISM test preserves oil performance at CH-4+ (CES 20076) levels, we have no reason to drive up the severity or keep the 9% soot requirement. EOT soot for the first three tests are lower than expected (one is barely 5%). Data from 200 and 300 hr M11 HST indicates the wear performance is more related to soot level than duration. As long as the test truly evaluates oil quality at 6~6.5% level (the intended EOT soot level), Cummins is ok to set the limits reasonable at 200 hrs based on the selected reference oil results. Any desire to see a larger separation or extending test hours or better repeatability will be open to task force member suggestions. Need a decision here. Look like the proposal is to complete the fourth test as is, then put engine together for another 100 hour just to see what happens. For the next step: Generally all parties agree that the "replacement" test does not have to be repeating everything in the M11 EGR test. It is desirable that the new test can be a shorter (200 hr) test and acceptable for older or worldwide categories. If the passing limits and repeatability are reasonable to ACC and acceptable by Cummins, the test does not have to produce a large separation of reference oils. These assessments basically keep all options open subject to analysis of the data from the first 4 tests. These options are (all need to have 6% EOT soot and no scuffing anywhere): 1. continue the next 4 test as designed and set passing limits knowing that this ISM test will be a "gate keeper" test rather than a driver for escalated severity. That is, the oil may be less capable than CI-4, but no worse than CH-4+. For example, set the passing limit based on the statistics of eihter 1005 or 830-1. These two oils also have more data on M11 HST/EGR for comparison purpose. 2. Repeat first four test with 300 hrs (whatever the decided cycle and soot level) with the current two oils, this likely will be followed by another 4 tests using 1005 and 830-1 depending on the statistics. This is basically following the deisng logic of the current matrix but going for a 300 hr version. 3. Run 1004 and 830-1 for 200 hours, and set passing limits based on 830-1 4. Run 1004 and 830-1 for 300 hours and set passing limits 5. ??? Cummins is committed to fund the parts and fuel cost for the next four tests, 200 or 300 hrs. I personally think 1004 is on the verge of showing wear. If we stick to 6% soot, we'll see 1004 break at 200 hrs. So maybe item 3 is suitable if we make sure soot is >3.5% at 50 hr and >6% at 150 hrs Tks. Jerry My email to all on May 5, 2004 Folks, After reviewing the data from the first 3 ISM tests, I feel the decision for the next step needs to involve the formulators/test sponsors as well because it has impacts beyond just test development. I'd like to invite all of you to call in the next ISM teleconf on May 13 at 1pm Columbus time 812-377-6156. Firstly, the ISM is about hardware update/replacement. However, due to improvement in designs and materials, it is expected that the crosshead wear will be greatly reduced as well as the ring/liner combination. Or you can read this as the ISM is more tolerant to oil. These improvements are reflected in the test results where we have completed two tests on 1004 (borderline CG-4 oil) and one test on "excellent oil". There are small but statistically significant differences in CHWL and valve adjusting screws, there is a clear difference in filter dP, viscosity response, and sludge. There is no difference in ring/liner wear and the rest. We do see, based on Fe in oil, that 1004 is on the way to produce a lot more wear. Since the hardware improvements allow Cummins to tolerate variant oil quality, then it may not be necessary to fail the poor reference oil by a large margin. It appears the test is telling us that our new design can even tolerate a CG-4 oil in crosshead wear (but not all parameters). With that in mind and the purpose of replacing the M11 EGR with an equivalent test but at a lower soot limit because we don't expect to need a 9% soot oil, here are the possible next steps: 1. Run the fourth test (SwRI is starting tomorrow) to 200 hrs as is, then only take CHWL, ASWL, filter dP and used oil data (and whatever else feasible). Then continue the test to 300 hours to 8.5% soot just like the M11 EGR. This will truly be a replacement test condition and help to explore the way to increase oil discrimination, but we lose the potential for cost savings and the issue with having a higher soot capable oil that we don't need. 2. Run the fourth test as in 1. but continue to 300 hours running the wear cycle only (soot stays at 6%). The purpose is to keep the soot requirement at 6% but (hopefully) increase the separation of the two oils. 3. Run the fourth test as the previous 3 and finalize statistics. Then go on to the next four test with the understanding that further separation of wear may not be necessary and the passing limits may be set closer to the 6~7 mg level rather than the 4~5 mg level. Cummins currently prefer option 3 but hoping to do option 1 just for the fourth test for the following reasons: 1. as far as we know, the 2007 engine should not have much higher soot, so a 6% capable oil (as defined by ISM EGR and T11) should be sufficient. 2. By trading off the soot dispersancy, we hope to relieve your Zn requirement and allocate that ash to TBN. However, if T11 already dictates an 8.5% capable dispersant level, then maybe the easiest route is to pursue and continue option 1. 3. If worse comes to worse, and we need extra soot later, we can "simply!" add another hundred hours to option 3 (using data from the fourth test). Option 2 is less desirable for this reason as well. Please contact Warren or myself for any comments/discussions/suggestions. We'd like to at least know what to do with the fourth test by next teleconf, and definitely need to determine a direction for the next four test. tks. Jerry _____________ This e-mail transmission and any attachments to it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, your use, forwarding, printing, storing, disseminating, distribution, or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and delete it from your computer.