GF-4 Standard vs Ultra - Seq IIIG

[buster]

HAAAA fanboy. I'm with you on whether it's as good as the hype. I'm crediting their testing because it was a LEGITIMATE TEST and not some lame timken/4-ball/my mechanic said etc etc. test. They also answered all BITOG questions, so they have my attention.

Let me ask you this, what proof do YOU have that it's not good? Are you going to base everything on a $30 UOA? I hope not.

You can already judge this oils quality to a large degree by the specifications it meets/exceeds. At the end of the day that is all that matters and all the average person can go by. Sorry but your mechanic probably not the best guy to oil recommendations from, as strange as that sounds.

The biggest problem with Ultra is they failed to offer an extended drain claim. I think that hurts them. Time will tell.

 

[sbergman27]

Originally Posted By: buster
HAAAA fanboy.

I was very careful to say "like a fanboy". My choice of words was not unconsidered.

Quote:
I'm with you on whether it's as good as the hype.

Nothing could *possibly* be as good as their marketing hype. But it may well be very good, indeed, at cleansing. I do think that it is a bit disconcerting that cleansing is *all* they are hyping. I mean, a little aqua regia would have very impressive cleansing effects, wouldn't it?

Quote:
I'm crediting their testing because it was a LEGITIMATE TEST and not some lame timken/4-ball/my mechanic said etc etc. test.

Lies, [censored] Lies, and Statistics. ;-) I'll agree that SOPUS' "[censored] lies" are a cut above Scamsoils "double-[censored] lies". (Edit: "Censored". LOL. I suspect Samuel Clemens just had a good laugh, wherever he is.)

Quote:
They also answered all BITOG questions, so they have my attention.

When I first found this site, I was struck by the fact that what is ostensibly a big Penzoil Ultra marketing slick was linked from the front page of the site and presented as being a FAQ. Personally, I think it's inappropriate. Again, I'm not anti-SOPUS, any more than I'm anti XOM or any other corp. But linking that document from the front page and calling it a FAQ is inappropriate, IMO.

Quote:
Let me ask you this, what proof do YOU have that it's not good?

Why should I need proof that it's not good? I'm not claiming that it's not good. You are *perceiving* that I'm claiming that it's not good because I don't consider the 2 photos to be convincing evidence of how it compares to competitors' oils.

Quote:
Are you going to base everything on a $30 UOA?

What?

Quote:
You can already judge this oils quality to a large degree by the specifications it meets/exceeds.

Agreed.

Quote:
Sorry but your mechanic probably not the best guy to oil recommendations from,

Agreed. (Mine says that synthetics are all broken down by 3000 miles just like conventionals.) Though I would point out that I have never mentioned anything about my mechanic's advice until the previous sentence.

Quote:
The biggest problem with Ultra is they failed to offer an extended drain claim.

In the litigious USA, where class action suits have attained more or less the same status as motherhood and apple pie (with apple pie on the decline) I'm not surprised that Shell legal would be hesitant to give the OK on that. I suspect that after Ultra has had some actual use in the real world (meaning "more than 4 months", remember?) they might relent.

 

[buster]

I agree. Yeah I know, I was just messing with you.

 

[sbergman27]

Originally Posted By: buster
I agree. Yeah I know, I was just messing with you.

I tend to be rather literal. ;-)

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: FL_Rob
How could Ultra ,clean the area above the top combustion ring? what is this?Also there's no line at the rod cap,those are simulated rods.These are the pictures they show everybody or are they just the public release pics?


Those would be cracked-powder rods.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: FL_Rob
How could Ultra ,clean the area above the top combustion ring? what is this?Also there's no line at the rod cap,those are simulated rods.These are the pictures they show everybody or are they just the public release pics?


Those would be cracked-powder rods.


Does the composition of the piston and rod have anything to do with it staying cleaner longer, or cleaning up easier? It has been mentioned that aluminum doesn't clean as well as cast iron with certain engine cleaners, it has me wondering if the material used helps or hurts in resisting carbon deposits, or making carbon deposits a little easier to clean off.

 

[OVERKILL]

The piston would almost certainly be cast hypereutectic. I don't know if either are "less prone" to build up than a more contemporary cast or forged rod or piston.

 

[Rickey]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: FL_Rob
How could Ultra ,clean the area above the top combustion ring? what is this?Also there's no line at the rod cap,those are simulated rods.These are the pictures they show everybody or are they just the public release pics?


Those would be cracked-powder rods.


I agree that the rods could be and likely are of the "cracked cap" type. Even so there is still a parting line, albeit more difficult to visualize Vs: an "old school" forging or casting.

And I agree that Ultra is a very good oil. (I'm gonna try some myself on the next OCI)

However there is one little puzzlement for me regarding the pictures:

Look at the rods closely, are they not identical in every respect?
What I see is that all subtle shadings, metal irregularities etc. all appear identical to me.

Did they use the same rod in both pictures?

Could this be evidence of "photo-chopping" ?
If it is an image of the same rod in both pics; IMHO it does open the door for the suspicions regarding "marketing" techniques.

Nevertheless having used quite a lot of SOPUS products over the years, I do believe that Ultra is a very good oil.
I also believe their claims are legit; but they may have taken artistic license to illustrate those claims.


And I believe that pulling apart manufacturers claims under a microscope helps advance the science of lubrication.

 

[buster]

They look identical to me.

 

[Johnny]

If they came out of the same type of engine would they not look the same.

 

[Rickey]

Johnny, with due respect Sir.

It's just that the shadows and every tiny photographic nuance on the con rods appear identical to me.

Even with modern manufacturing process controls; how likely is it that two rods from different engines of the same type will appear exactly identical?
Even down to the shadows etc. ?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Rickey
Johnny, with due respect Sir.

It's just that the shadows and every tiny photographic nuance on the con rods appear identical to me.

Even with modern manufacturing process controls; how likely is it that two rods from different engines of the same type will appear exactly identical?
Even down to the shadows etc. ?


They won't. Having seen cracked powder rods, there are definite differences rod-to-rod.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Rickey


I agree that the rods could be and likely are of the "cracked cap" type. Even so there is still a parting line, albeit more difficult to visualize Vs: an "old school" forging or casting.



The last set I saw, which were from a 4.6L Ford, you could NOT see the break. I stared at the thing for 10 minutes. Take the rod bolts out, and break the cap free, and it was a "WOW" situation.

 

[buster]

People are hard to please. Maybe Shell should have used a 4-ball wear test and compared wear scars.

 

[Tom NJ]

Originally Posted By: Rickey
Look at the rods closely, are they not identical in every respect? What I see is that all subtle shadings, metal irregularities etc. all appear identical to me.


You are right Rickey, the pistons are different but the rods are absolutely identical. Since only the pistons are rated in the test, it would not be scientifically invalid to crop the pistons onto a photo of the same rod for clear presentation in an ad, but not wise. They underestimate the dedication and fanaticism of BITOGERs!

Tom NJ

 

[buster]

Ultra

Pistons from V6 engine used in Seq IIIG

The piston on the left shows the current industry standard for clean. This piston would receive a good cleanliness rating based on today’s industry requirement. The piston
on the right underwent the same test using Pennzoil Ultra.™ The difference is clear. Pennzoil Ultra™ technology is underpinned by strong claims and endorsements:
• Nothing keeps your engines closer to factory clean1
• Cleans out up to 35% more sludge than our next best oil,2 Pennzoil Platinum®
• Far exceeds most car manufacturers most stringent standards for cleanliness and protection3
• No leading full synthetic provides better wear protection4
• No leading synthetic outperforms Pennzoil Ultra™ in certain critical
industry requirements5
• The only motor oil recommended by Ferrari North America

Current Standard** Pennzoil Ultra™
*Pistons from standard V6 engine in ASTM Sequence IIIG Test using SAE 5W-30.
1 Based on Sequence VG Sludge Test using SAE 5W-30.
2 Based on a Severe Sludge Clean Up Test using SAE 5W-30.
3 Based on GF-4, Ford, Chrysler, GM and Ferrari specifications.
4 Based on Sequence IVA Wear Test using SAE 5W-30.
5 Based on Sequence VG Sludge Test, Sequence IVA Wear Test
using SAE 5W-30, Approved by Ferrari.

 

[Tom NJ]

They only discuss piston cleanliness, not connecting rods (which are not rated in the test). So long as the pistons accurately represent the results of the IIIG engine test, the photo is acceptable to me, even if the piston photos are pasted on a photo of the same connecting rod. Got to allow some license for marketing purposes so long as a true message is conveyed.

Tom NJ

 

[Gary Allan]

Tom ..grant nitpicking the respect its due. It's a valuable tool in debate when the visible elephant gets in the way

 

[Rickey]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
They only discuss piston cleanliness, not connecting rods (which are not rated in the test). So long as the pistons accurately represent the results of the IIIG engine test, the photo is acceptable to me, even if the piston photos are pasted on a photo of the same connecting rod. Got to allow some license for marketing purposes so long as a true message is conveyed.

Tom NJ


Tom that is what I consider a very accurate assessment of the images used in their promo.

And I can see that unlike the rods; the pistons are definately different from each other regarding metal grain structure, irregularities, etc.

What they did was excellent for the purpose of illustration.
And maybe not so good in the eyes of those whose nature is to question everything.

Good day sir.

 

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: buster
Maybe Shell should have used a 4-ball wear test and compared wear scars.