Contradicting sheets on same product. What could this mean?

Messages
353
Location
Australia
Hi, just after a few possible thoughts on what could be made out of what I was given. I contacted two email address at Shell asking for a Product data sheet on the USA Import Pennzoil GT PERFORMANCE 20w50. now I received two emails back from different people at Shell, both with attached Data Sheets. Both Sheets have Contradicting information on them! There are several readings that are under the same testing standards number with different results. When I asked the question, "why is there two different sheets, and shouldn't it be the same as the one on the USA Pennzoil site, seeing as it fully imported and that it's claimed the product specs never changed since Shell took over". This was the reply. "even thought we fully import the product it is test to Australian tests standards and this is where the figures you have were obtained." I replied, but the test standards numbers are the same on both, why would there be a difference?" Never got a reply! Could they be telling a lie in that it's not imported from the USA even though the bottle says so? Any ideas?
 
Messages
12,385
Location
Northern CA
How about posting the results that are different? It could be because there is a tolerance on everything, material and tests, and the US generated and Oz generated test results were done on different batches of oil by different people in different labs. Some of the experts here should be able to tell you if the differences are significant. You job will be to separate expert from bullchitter [LOL!] Or, the US spec could be the original goal and the Oz spec the actual results of a batch that was tested.
 

Francis

Thread starter
Messages
353
Location
Australia
Thanks, Good idea: USA: Pour point: -24 Viscosity Index: 130 Viscosity @ 40c 189.0 HTHS 5.1 Aust: Pour point: -21 Viscosity Index: 123 Viscosity @ 40c 155.8 HTHS N/A Thanks guy's!
 

Francis

Thread starter
Messages
353
Location
Australia
To add, one other thing I have wondered that someone here might know more about, is while near all SJ or SL oils have a CF rating as well, why would this one be SJ/CD? and would this be a better thing or worse?
 

Francis

Thread starter
Messages
353
Location
Australia
So with all this said: Are the differences are significant? USA: Pour point: -24 Viscosity Index: 130 Viscosity @ 40c 189.0 HTHS 5.1 Aust: Pour point: -21 Viscosity Index: 123 Viscosity @ 40c 155.8 HTHS N/A
 
Messages
3,334
Location
Bolivia
Those differences are more than normal variations. While I believe that Pennzoil USA produced good products on there own, they have always produced a hodge-podge of lubricants in various countries. The production here, before Shell bought the company and closed it -importing from Peru now, I'm told - had such variations in batches as to be absurd. often the virgin SAE 40 oil out of the drum was between 12.1 and 12.4 - as well as high amounts of iron and up to double the detergent level in suposedly identical product. Shell has had similar problems with their Argentine production, but they always have produced different spec product in different countries. Before they shut down their Chile plant they were importing to Bolivia the Rimula X 15W-40 from 3 different countries, depending on who knows what. At that time the Chilean Rimula X was CH-4/SH, The Argentine Rimula X was CF-4, and the Brazilian Rimula X was CD. None was actually licensed by the API, just -meets or exceeds-.
 

Francis

Thread starter
Messages
353
Location
Australia
Thanks heaps for that, finely some relief. I had stoped using the product when I suspected it was not really USA Made. But if that's the case I'll be happy to go back! Would you say the Pennzoil Products as a whole would of got better now with the Shell take over and base oil?
 
Messages
3,334
Location
Bolivia
I think only time will tell. both companies had very loose controls and standards on quality. Texaco has also shown a lot of variance in different markets, although they have tightened up the international specs since the buyout by Chevron.
 
Top