New Pennzoil Platinum 0w20 SN PDS -2012

[Obos]

You mean there has been some kind of scientific progress and innovation in VIIs?

Wow who would have thought there was technological progress behind this rather than something more sinister?

And here I am finally getting my posts out to BITOG on a typewriter and flown in by pigeon. Wonder if there's a better way of doing this?

 

[bourne]

Originally Posted By: Obos
So XM only make that oil because Toyota ask for it? Otherwise they don't believe in it?

But XM make the high VI 0w40. Probably because Mercedes ask them for it I suppose?

Ok so that makes sense. But what about the Amsoil and Redline high VI that someone earlier claimed were low VI and tried and trusted? I can't find a reason why those two respected boutique oil manufacturers would go the high VI route.


Sigh, we are NOT talking about different oil weights here, we are refering ONLY to the specific oil weight that is 0W20.

And yes, thats generally how business is done. Car manufacturers design the spec of the part/component/fluid that they would like for a certain vehicle. Either that part exists or does not, automobile part/fluid manufacturers like Raybestos/Moog/Timken/XOM/Sopus etc. bid to supply that part/fluid which meet the requirements of the engineers. The Auto Manufacturer then decides on a supplier based on price/quality(in certain cases im sure) , and they get the contract.

So while Mercedes did not ASK XOM to make M1 0w40 a high VI oil, XOM designed M1 0w40 to meet the specifications set forth by Mercedes. In doing so it had to engineer a product that had a high VI, to meet above said specs.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Obos
So XM only make that oil because Toyota ask for it? Otherwise they don't believe in it?

But XM make the high VI 0w40. Probably because Mercedes ask them for it I suppose?

Ok so that makes sense. But what about the Amsoil and Redline high VI that someone earlier claimed were low VI and tried and trusted? I can't find a reason why those two respected boutique oil manufacturers would go the high VI route.


Honestly I don't have an answer, here's where my thinking on this takes me. We're talking about 0W20 in this thread not 0w30 and 0W40 which were brought up in rebuttal to my earlier comments by CATERHAM. But if you look at Red Line's 0W20 and Amsoil's top of the line 0w20 they are "low VI" compared to the others, and closer to a 30 grade oil. I ask why? Do they feel a "thicker" 20 grade oil might just do a better job than a "thinner" 20 grade oil? Are they totally behind the times? Is their product inferior? It makes me wonder......But I doubt with the following they have their product is inferior.

Seems AFE 0W20 seems to be somewhere in the middle, maybe they have something there? Confusing for sure.

 

[Obos]

Maybe it's because the manufacturers can do more testing than the boutique oil companies?

And maybe they have a better understanding of what the oil needs to do based on their more intimate knowledge of their engines.

 

[Gokhan]

Toyota asks ExxonMobil to blend an oil with certain properties and specs and ExxonMobil does so. I believe Toyota wants in particular high VI, top-notch AW and FM additives, and excellent seal compatibility. TGMO 0W-20 SN is a celebrated oil and has proved excellent in my experience so far.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: Obos


Red Line's 0W20 and Amsoil's top of the line 0w20 they are "low VI" compared to the others, and closer to a 30 grade oil. I ask why? Do they feel a "thicker" 20 grade oil might just do a better job than a "thinner" 20 grade oil? Are they totally behind the times? Is their product inferior? It makes me wonder......But I doubt with the following they have their product is inferior.

Seems AFE 0W20 seems to be somewhere in the middle, maybe they have something there? Confusing for sure.

They aren't inferior but yes they are "behind the times".
The ultra high VI oils have only been technically possible since 2008. RL 0W-20 was first formulated slightly before that.

The OEMs want light oils and Amsoil, RL and RLI aren't making them, yet. Honda and Toyota will be coming out with even lighter 0W-16 grade oils in 2014 so stay tuned.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM

When oils shear it's primarily reflected in a loss of viscosity in the KV100 spec', the KV40 tends to be less effected hence a loss in VI. The new ultra high VI oils are no different in that regard, so their may a small reduction in VI but the same effect will apply to lower VI oils.
The new 200+ VI oils are only possible due to a new type of very high VI PMA polymer that has proven to be very shear stable:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2828149&page=1

The Sustina 0W-20 with it's 229 VI has proven to be very shear stable. In fact we have a recent 10,400 mile UOA and VOA of the same oil. There is zero viscosity loss.


Thanks for the link on the new VII's, I hadn't seen that before. It makes intuitive sense that 100c viscosity would be more affected since the VII would be more shear-prone than the base oil. Still, I'd like to see it in practice. That said, the high VI SN oils don't seem to have sheared much @ 100C from the UOA's that are out there, so you could be right: the high VI oils may maintain their high VI throughout service life.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Obos
Toyota and Honda, who build the most reliable engines, spec what they need out of oil.

Oil companies make oil to the spec of the car manufacturers.

Mercedes recommends Mobil 0w40 with a VI of 185

Toyota and Honda recommend their OEM oils with VI of 220+.


There is a difference. Mercedes has specifications. Oils can be certified against them. GM has dexos1 and dexos2. Even Ford and Chrysler have their numbered specs. While Honda does have their turbo spec, I don't know of any Toyota or Honda spec for 0w-20 or 5w-20. They may prefer a higher VI, but they certainly don't specify it. They simply specify an API/ILSAC oil and an SAE grade. If they are that concerned about a high VI, they should consider creating a specification.

 

[Obos]

But by definition there is a spec ie grade, API/ILSAC

And there is then a recommendation

So in that way it's the same, just a little more flexible if anything

 

[buster]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: buster
http://www.epc.shell.com/Docs/GPCDOC_X_cbe_24855_key_140007466171_201212050515.pdf

Mighty impressive specs. Looks to be the new juice on the block.

NOACK is impressive, clearly indicating that there is PAO (Group IV) in the mix.

On the other hand, 40 C viscosity is not impressive -- you will see little benefit of "0W" in 0W-20 in most operating conditions, except really cold starts.

Due to its very low NOACK, this oil would be suitable for turbocharger-equipped engines. Its low VI also indicates only modest use of VIIs, which is also good for deposit and sludge control.

If you have a high-performance or turbo car, this should be a good oil, despite the very low viscosity. It's also good for extended-drain applications because of its PAO content and low NOACK.

I definitely give thumbs up to Pennzoil for finally formulating a mainstream 0W-20 with low NOACK for a change, which would be good for even turbo engines.

However, I will stick with the Toyota 0W-20 SN, which has a far better VI and is probably more optimized and better engineered, as the Toyota engineers work together with ExxonMobil to formulate the Toyota oils. More VIIs help with the viscoelasticity of the oil and therefore increase the oil-film thickness substantially, and the high VI results in better fuel economy. I also think that ExxonMobil has the Infineum trinuclear moly in the Toyota 0W-20 SN, which should increase the strength of the antiwear film many times compared to other types of moly and antiwear additives, resulting in great protection against wear.


I think you covered it all.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Toyota asks ExxonMobil to blend an oil with certain properties and specs and ExxonMobil does so. I believe Toyota wants in particular high VI, top-notch AW and FM additives, and excellent seal compatibility. TGMO 0W-20 SN is a celebrated oil and has proved excellent in my experience so far.


It could be. But then again if XOM thought it was superior to their own product, why not copy it, or tweak it slightly if copying it is not allowed? Then sell that instead of what they currently have?

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint


It could be. But then again if XOM thought it was superior to their own product, why not copy it, or tweak it slightly if copying it is not allowed?


Well, the most likely reason would be cost and profit margin. XOM is in the oil-selling business, and at this point I highly doubt the average consumer is clamoring for a "high VI oil". If they were, then there would be incentive to bring one to market.

That doesn't mean XOM is selling "bad oil" or anything. But it's entirely possible that they don't think any competitive sales advantage from using the newer (and ostensibly more expensive) VII's would be worth the cost.

 

[teddyboy]

This new PP 0W20 does look impressive but it has the same problem as every other non-vanilla viscosity for PP or PU. It's like trying to track down pixi dust.

 

[Obos]

Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: demarpaint


It could be. But then again if XOM thought it was superior to their own product, why not copy it, or tweak it slightly if copying it is not allowed?


Well, the most likely reason would be cost and profit margin. XOM is in the oil-selling business, and at this point I highly doubt the average consumer is clamoring for a "high VI oil". If they were, then there would be incentive to bring one to market.

That doesn't mean XOM is selling "bad oil" or anything. But it's entirely possible that they don't think any competitive sales advantage from using the newer (and ostensibly more expensive) VII's would be worth the cost.


Exactly

And for precisely the same reason, Mobil's mainstream grade API/ILSAC oils do not copy the specs and expense of the MB / BMW / Porsche / VAG compliant oils they produce

 

[lockguy]

Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: demarpaint


It could be. But then again if XOM thought it was superior to their own product, why not copy it, or tweak it slightly if copying it is not allowed?


Well, the most likely reason would be cost and profit margin. XOM is in the oil-selling business, and at this point I highly doubt the average consumer is clamoring for a "high VI oil". If they were, then there would be incentive to bring one to market.

That doesn't mean XOM is selling "bad oil" or anything. But it's entirely possible that they don't think any competitive sales advantage from using the newer (and ostensibly more expensive) VII's would be worth the cost.


The average consumer doesn't know what VI is. All people know is 5w-20, 5w-30, 10w-30 and most know the general idea that bigger numbers mean thicker oil. Its probably a bit of both, a balancing act of cost and performance.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Obos
Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: demarpaint


It could be. But then again if XOM thought it was superior to their own product, why not copy it, or tweak it slightly if copying it is not allowed?


Well, the most likely reason would be cost and profit margin. XOM is in the oil-selling business, and at this point I highly doubt the average consumer is clamoring for a "high VI oil". If they were, then there would be incentive to bring one to market.

That doesn't mean XOM is selling "bad oil" or anything. But it's entirely possible that they don't think any competitive sales advantage from using the newer (and ostensibly more expensive) VII's would be worth the cost.


Exactly

And for precisely the same reason, Mobil's mainstream grade API/ILSAC oils do not copy the specs and expense of the MB / BMW / Porsche / VAG compliant oils they produce


We're all speculating, and really don't know the reasons why. Still an interesting read though.

 

[Obos]

I think JODs reasoning is very sound.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Obos
I think JODs reasoning is very sound.



It could very well be. It could also be that Amsoil, Pennzoil, Mobil, Red Line, and others feel they can accomplish the same thing, reducing wear, and protecting an engine with better base stocks. There is little proof in the UOA section showing any hard core data supporting either side of this discussion. In fact dnewton showed just how well cheap off the shelf dino oil did in an extended OCI. Something totally taboo, blowing this whole discussion right out of the water. LOL

 

[Obos]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
In fact dnewton showed just how well cheap off the shelf dino oil did in an extended OCI. Something totally taboo, blowing this whole discussion right out of the water. LOL


Originally Posted By: Trav

I guess the question is does one trust the people who spend countless millions on R&D and produce this stuff or a self proclaimed internet expert?

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: Obos
I think JODs reasoning is very sound.



It could very well be. It could also be that Amsoil, Pennzoil, Mobil, Red Line, and others feel they can accomplish the same thing, reducing wear, and protecting an engine with better base stocks. There is little proof in the UOA section showing any hard core data supporting either side of this discussion.


Of course no one "knows" why the major oil manufacturers make the decisions they make; all we're left with are logical inferences. That said, I won't be surprised if they other major oil manufacturers follow suit. As far as "wear data from UOA's", if you're expecting UOA's to determine "what oil works best", then I think you're going down the wrong rabbit hole.


Originally Posted By: demarpaint
In fact dnewton showed just how well cheap off the shelf dino oil did in an extended OCI. Something totally taboo, blowing this whole discussion right out of the water. LOL


Running an SN-rated oil for 10K is hardly "taboo", at least as far as I'm concerned. They're designed for OEM intervals that well-exceed 10K, so his results are hardly surprising. And again, oil selection and UOA numbers really don't mean all that much. All that said, pretty much all of this is discussing/arguing around the margin. Any name-brand oil which meets the OEM specs will serve the engine just fine. Sure, I may choose an oil based on what I think is "better", but I'm also cognizant of the fact that it doesn't really matter all that much. But hey, you have to put something in there!