ESCITESCIT

Tuesday April 24, 2007Tuesday April 24, 2007

AgendaAgenda

• Welcome & Exit Ballot Review – Welcome & Exit Ballot Review – MurrayMurray• Stakeholder presentationsStakeholder presentations

– Afton Afton GuintherGuinther– Lubrizol Lubrizol WilliamsWilliams– Savant Savant SelbySelby– Southwest Southwest EllisEllis– Oronite Oronite WangWang

• Next MeetingNext Meeting

ESCIT Exit Ballot ResultsESCIT Exit Ballot Results

Background of Exit BallotBackground of Exit Ballot

• GF-5 timing mandatory for OEMsGF-5 timing mandatory for OEMs– 2011MY target tied to CAFE requirements2011MY target tied to CAFE requirements

• ESCIT must aggressively pursue the ESCIT must aggressively pursue the tests that provide the greatest tests that provide the greatest likelihood of successlikelihood of success

• Ballot issued following Feb 2007 mtgBallot issued following Feb 2007 mtg• A snapshot of stakeholder sentiments A snapshot of stakeholder sentiments

between February & March 2007between February & March 2007

Objective of Exit BallotObjective of Exit Ballot

• Exit ballot objective was to highlight Exit ballot objective was to highlight preferred test(s) for further preferred test(s) for further developmentdevelopment– Not intended to “eliminate” testsNot intended to “eliminate” tests

• Given the timing constraints ESCIT Given the timing constraints ESCIT faces, focus is critical to ensure faces, focus is critical to ensure successsuccess

Exit BallotExit BallotThe exit ballot asked individual companies to The exit ballot asked individual companies to

categorize possible tests using the following categorize possible tests using the following ratings:ratings:

1.1. Affirm- My company strongly believes this test is a likely Affirm- My company strongly believes this test is a likely

candidate for inclusion in the GF-5 Standard and should be the candidate for inclusion in the GF-5 Standard and should be the focus of further ESCIT development work. focus of further ESCIT development work.

2.2. Neutral- My company is neutral to further development of this Neutral- My company is neutral to further development of this test.test.

3.3. Reject- My company does not support further development of Reject- My company does not support further development of this test within the ESCIT organization and would not consider this test within the ESCIT organization and would not consider this test for addition to GF-5.this test for addition to GF-5.

Additionally, each test was ranked 1 to 12 with the Additionally, each test was ranked 1 to 12 with the lower numerical ratings equating to higher lower numerical ratings equating to higher promise.promise.

Tests Under ConsiderationTests Under Consideration1.1.CIBA Proposed Test MethodCIBA Proposed Test Method2.2.Phosphorous Retention in the Sequence IV APhosphorous Retention in the Sequence IV A3.3.Phosphorous Retention in the Sequence VGPhosphorous Retention in the Sequence VG4.4.Phosphorous Retention in the Sequence VI DPhosphorous Retention in the Sequence VI D5.5.Phosphorous Retention in the Sequence IIIG. Phosphorous Retention in the Sequence IIIG.

(20 Hrs)(20 Hrs)6.6.Phosphorous Retention in Sequence IIIG (EOT)Phosphorous Retention in Sequence IIIG (EOT)7.7.Phosphorous Retention in the Sequence VI B.Phosphorous Retention in the Sequence VI B.8.8.PEI 165PEI 1659.9.PEI 250PEI 25010.10.ROBO- Phosphorous Retention ROBO- Phosphorous Retention 11.11.Southwest Research Institute Engine Dyno Southwest Research Institute Engine Dyno

Test Test *In addition people wrote in two additional tests– (1) Field Trial *In addition people wrote in two additional tests– (1) Field Trial

and (2) Afton Catalyst Test (both listed as a write in and (2) Afton Catalyst Test (both listed as a write in candidates)candidates)

Ranking The ResultsRanking The Results• The following point system was used to rank the The following point system was used to rank the

most preferred tests:most preferred tests:– First- fifth place recommendations all received pointsFirst- fifth place recommendations all received points– Tests ranked lower than fifth did not receive any Tests ranked lower than fifth did not receive any

pointspoints– Tests only received points if they were labeled Tests only received points if they were labeled

acceptaccept or or neutralneutral

• The first ranked test on any given ballot The first ranked test on any given ballot received 5 points, second received 4, third received 5 points, second received 4, third received 3, fourth received 2 and fifth received received 3, fourth received 2 and fifth received 1 point.1 point.

Overall Score

PE

I 16

5

Seq

. II

I 20

Hrs

CIB

A

RO

BO

PE

I 25

0

Seq

. II

I E

OT

Sou

thw

est

Seq

. V

ID

AC

T

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Test

Po

ints

Additive Industry Additive Industry PreferencesPreferences

Additive Company Preference

05

1015202530

PEI 165 CIBA Seq. IIIG20 HRS

ROBO Seq. IIIEOT

Test

Po

ints

Series1

OEM PreferencesOEM Preferences

OEM Preference

0

5

10

15

20

25

PEI 165 Seq. III 20Hrs

Seq. IIIEOT

ROBO Southwest

Test

Po

ints

Series1

Some Ballot CommentsSome Ballot Comments

• PEI 165 and Sequence IIIG were the favorites PEI 165 and Sequence IIIG were the favorites • PEI is preferred because it is a bench test, it shows PEI is preferred because it is a bench test, it shows

promise and Ted works well within the ASTM promise and Ted works well within the ASTM processprocess

• Seq. IIIG is preferred because it is an engine test, Seq. IIIG is preferred because it is an engine test, it correlates to the field and is less likely to be it correlates to the field and is less likely to be tricked tricked

• There was widespread support for the Ciba test There was widespread support for the Ciba test and also for the ROBO test.and also for the ROBO test.

• Many groups felt strongly that the Southwest test Many groups felt strongly that the Southwest test was not a likely candidate for GF-5 but that this was not a likely candidate for GF-5 but that this was a very worthwhile part of the ESCIT processwas a very worthwhile part of the ESCIT process

Possible Steps ForwardPossible Steps Forward

• Focus on PEI 165 and Seq. IIIG - 20 hrs.Focus on PEI 165 and Seq. IIIG - 20 hrs.

• Recommend a single company sponsor for Recommend a single company sponsor for each test (PEI 165 and Sec. IIIG 20 Hr.)each test (PEI 165 and Sec. IIIG 20 Hr.)

• Next meeting sponsors will be responsible Next meeting sponsors will be responsible to bring forth test development plans.to bring forth test development plans.

• Southwest and Ciba should continue Southwest and Ciba should continue development of their testsdevelopment of their tests

TimelineTimeline

Next MeetingNext Meeting

• Week of June 25Week of June 25

• Week of July 9Week of July 9