New Pennzoil Platinum 0w20 SN PDS -2012

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: 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


Yes, but in such a vehicle, you can use any SN/GF-5 0w-20, since that's what the manual calls for. From the warranty perspective, there's absolutely no difference between PU 0w-20 and the dealer supplied oil.

With respect to Mobil's mainstream API/ILSAC oils versus those with the European specifications, remember that they are often mutually exclusive. You're not going to get an ACEA A3/B3 or A3/B4 type oil that's going to also have a GF-5 ILSAC rating.

All the fancy European proprietary numbers mean an oil simply isn't going to be ILSAC approved for the average North American or Japanese vehicle. The only ACEA specs I ever see combined with SN/GF-5 are ACEA A1/B1.

Anything with A3/B3 or A3/B4 is simply too thick to get ILSAC GF-5. Note that most "North American" oils that do have either of those specifications are high mileage oils and lack GF-5 certification. Look at the MaxLife Synthetic PDS. It lists ACEA A3 and claims it meets GF-5 engine and emissions system protection requirements; of course, they make no mention of the fuel economy requirement.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: 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!


First off I personally haven't used a UOA for anything, its just a learning tool, at least for now.

dnewton's results might not have been taboo for everyone, but certainly some people. Several people in this thread wouldn't even consider using dino oil at all, and might have thought he was crazy for even considering it. That along with the longer drain interval potential might have been motivating factors for dnewton. Also it was in an older high mile vehicle, that had a mfg OCI a lot shorter than he ran it for, so to many it was taboo, or out of the box thinking. Also keep in mind he had no OLM to guide him, [At least I'm pretty sure that's the case], so we really have no idea of a modern vehicle with an OLM would allow such a long interval, given those exact conditions in his case. So based on that maybe these high VI oils don't mean much in terms of reduced start up wear, engine protection, and the oil companies that aren't using them know it, they have it covered other ways. OTOH with the EPA pushing for higher mpg the oil companies might just be forced into using high VI even "thinner" oils, at least for near future, or until they come up with the next generation of base stocks. Only time will tell us for sure. JMO

 

[Obos]

You're using "might" and "maybe" a lot in your last post.

In contrast, this is not something the engineers specifying the oil requirements would do.

Fuel economy is no doubt one driver for higher VI. But at the end of the day, the oil isn't thinner though. It's HTHS is the same as most alternatives. It just starts of thinner using those improved stable VIIs that were referenced earlier.

Btw what Dino did dnewton run? It was a modern one since it was SN, correct?

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Obos
You're using "might" and "maybe" a lot in your last post.

In contrast, this is not something the engineers specifying the oil requirements would do.

Fuel economy is no doubt one driver for higher VI. But at the end of the day, the oil isn't thinner though. It's HTHS is the same as most alternatives. It just starts of thinner using those improved stable VIIs that were referenced earlier.

Btw what Dino did dnewton run? It was a modern one since it was SN, correct?


I picked those words for a reason since no one here really has any factual data to back them up. dnewton used either an SM or SN oil, in an old engine with high miles on it, and a dino oil to boot. Not a high VI 20 grade oil like we're discussing here. My point is, his wear numbers were just fine with a low tech oil.

 

[Trav]

Quote:
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.

Sure they do. Wasn't it Toyota that had that major sludge fiasco just a few year back? Where was their better understanding of what the oil needs to do based on their more intimate knowledge of their engines then.

Not a Toyota bash they are certainly not lone with sludge issues. Just pointing out the flaw in your theory.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Quote:
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.

Sure they do. Wasn't it Toyota that had that major sludge fiasco just a few year back? Where was their better understanding of what the oil needs to do based on their more intimate knowledge of their engines then.

Not a Toyota bash they are certainly not lone with sludge issues. Just pointing out the flaw in your theory.


Yea that could be a topic for another thread. Automotive engineer and mfg blunders. That would be another topic for a great read, an even better read would be engineering and mfg blunders. No one, and nothing man made is perfect.

 

[Trav]

There is another train of thought on this..
who has more skin in the game?
If Toyota, Mazda or any car company has a sludge problem it involves a recall and some preventive procedure but what happens if Mobil 1, Shell, BP etc caused sludge in lots of engines?
I guarantee their oils are in more engines than any OEM oil, they have a lot more to lose.

Their products are used in multiple makes and models.
High Vi might be all well and good but this nonsense that thin oil with high VI is the holy grail or motor oils is just that pure nonsense, its just a small part of a larger equation.

PP and PU are two of Shells premium products and are sold on the world market. I believe they know what works and what doesn't.
I will take their word for it that it does what they claim rather than Speed Racers word that it is inferior and doesn't.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Is there any indication on when a formula change took place? This PDS shows different specifications compared with the old one. If one wanted the new formula, does anyone know a date code to look for on the jug? Even the old formula was SN, so no difference there.

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Quote:
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.

Sure they do. Wasn't it Toyota that had that major sludge fiasco just a few year back? Where was their better understanding of what the oil needs to do based on their more intimate knowledge of their engines then.

Not a Toyota bash they are certainly not lone with sludge issues. Just pointing out the flaw in your theory.



My daughter had a 99Lexus RX300 at the time of the sludgers(hers was on the list)and I did the oil changes for her. We used M1 10-30 with 10K OCIs and never had a problem in the 90K she owned the vehicle. She sold the car to a friend and it is still on the road today with the same OC as I did years back.
My Question; Didn't Touota recomend synthetic oil as a fix for the sjudge problems they had then??

 

[Trav]

I think they did along with reduced OCI.

 

[badtlc]

My wifes 99 avalon had the sludger v6. It died at 120k despite 3k mile OCIs with pennzoil. It was a very nice car. All the electronics worked at that mileage. Suspension and drivetrain were terrible, though.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: Obos

Fuel economy is no doubt one driver for higher VI. But at the end of the day, the oil isn't thinner though. It's HTHS is the same as most alternatives. It just starts of thinner using those improved stable VIIs that were referenced earlier.

Obos you're right, the main driver is fuel economy but they have had to developed a superior lubricant to acheive that goal.
An oil with a higher VI and shear stability with an acceptable NOACK value is what the engineers want.
Additionally a higher VI oil is a lighter oil, primarily on start-up but also to a lesser extent at normal operating temp's. So while all 2.6cP HTHSV 20wt oils will have the same viscosity at 150C (a sump' oil temp' you won't come close to seeing), a high VI oil will be lighter at all temp's below 150C compared to a lower VI oil.

I've run a lot of 20wt oils including three very high VI oils now, all with purportedly the same HTHSV of 2.6cP.
The Idemistu 0W-20 (199 VI) is considerably lighter with a lower operational viscosity (lower oil pressure) than a 5W-20 (150 VI) at normal operating temp's.
The Toyota 0W-20 (214 VI) is lighter still at normal operating temp's compared to the Idemitsu oil and the Sustina 0W-20 (229 VI) is significantly lighter than the Toyota oil.

So the latest version of PP 0W-20 with it's 164 VI will have the viscosity characteristics more similar to a 5W-20 than an OEM 0W-20.

 

[buster]

That is true, but the main beneift is start up wear. So then you have to consider how one drives once the engine is warm and how hard they drive ect. My issue wth the TGMO is that in the Honda is was so loud at start up. I don't know if it was a one time thing or not. At the time, I did have a new VTC O-ring seal installed, so the timing chain tensioner could have been the source of the noise. I don't know for sure. I think in a new car and one that isn't driven to hard, it's a great choice. I am not convinced these ultra high VI 0w20's are suitable for higher performance cars and people that drive more aggressively. You're already at the HT/HS limit of 2.6. While it may be suitable and provide adequate wear protections, I think you're getting close to the borderline where it becoems a bit risky to go any lighter.

I have 163,000 miles on the Honda. The TGMO made the engine extremely responsive and in terms of revving freely, it was the best. Being I have so many miles on this engine, I feel more comfortable using a slightly thicker oil with a HT/HS between 2.7-3.0.

 

[Obos]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Quote:
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.

Sure they do. Wasn't it Toyota that had that major sludge fiasco just a few year back? Where was their better understanding of what the oil needs to do based on their more intimate knowledge of their engines then.

Not a Toyota bash they are certainly not lone with sludge issues. Just pointing out the flaw in your theory.



How is that a flaw in my theory?

Isn't it a simple fact that manufacturers spec oil not oil companies?

In your theory we should let motor oil companies spec all oil. Can you give me a case where that has ever happened?

 

[Obos]

Originally Posted By: Trav
There is another train of thought on this..
who has more skin in the game?
If Toyota, Mazda or any car company has a sludge problem it involves a recall and some preventive procedure but what happens if Mobil 1, Shell, BP etc caused sludge in lots of engines?


Why come up with an alternative theory when you have recent history on this.

No oil company was implicated in the Toyota, VW, Saab, Chrysler sludged engines from 1996-2004. All those manufacturers except Chrysler ended up giving extended warranties

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: buster
That is true, but the main beneift is start up wear. So then you have to consider how one drives once the engine is warm and how hard they drive ect. My issue wth the TGMO is that in the Honda is was so loud at start up. I don't know if it was a one time thing or not. At the time, I did have a new VTC O-ring seal installed, so the timing chain tensioner could have been the source of the noise. I don't know for sure. I think in a new car and one that isn't driven to hard, it's a great choice. I am not convinced these ultra high VI 0w20's are suitable for higher performance cars and people that drive more aggressively. You're already at the HT/HS limit of 2.6. While it may be suitable and provide adequate wear protections, I think you're getting close to the borderline where it becoems a bit risky to go any lighter.

I have 163,000 miles on the Honda. The TGMO made the engine extremely responsive and in terms of revving freely, it was the best. Being I have so many miles on this engine, I feel more comfortable using a slightly thicker oil with a HT/HS between 2.7-3.0.

If the engine is spec'd for a light high VI oil then their is no issue, the viscosity demands are being met plus a large safety margin. If thinking of running a light high VI oil in another application it's always prudent to have an oil pressure gauge just to make sure that you're always maintaining a certain known safe minimum operational viscosity when the oil gets fully hot.

Driving hard doesn't mean in any way that you need to run a heavier (higher HTHSV) oil. If you can maintain your minimum desired operational viscosity which oil pressure is proxy for, then you can certainly run a light 2.6cP oil.
The following is a UOA of the Idemitsu (Honda) (199 VI, HTHSV 2.6cP) I ran a while back in my track car:

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2829459&page=1

The engine is actually spec'd for a heavier oil but since my maximum oil temp's are so well contained (that is the key) I've found it to be preferable to run a lighter oil and enjoy the benefits of improved driveabilty, engine responsiveness and increased power.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: buster
That is true, but the main beneift is start up wear. So then you have to consider how one drives once the engine is warm and how hard they drive ect. My issue wth the TGMO is that in the Honda is was so loud at start up. I don't know if it was a one time thing or not. At the time, I did have a new VTC O-ring seal installed, so the timing chain tensioner could have been the source of the noise. I don't know for sure. I think in a new car and one that isn't driven to hard, it's a great choice. I am not convinced these ultra high VI 0w20's are suitable for higher performance cars and people that drive more aggressively. You're already at the HT/HS limit of 2.6. While it may be suitable and provide adequate wear protections, I think you're getting close to the borderline where it becoems a bit risky to go any lighter.

I have 163,000 miles on the Honda. The TGMO made the engine extremely responsive and in terms of revving freely, it was the best. Being I have so many miles on this engine, I feel more comfortable using a slightly thicker oil with a HT/HS between 2.7-3.0.


Good points. There was a thread where I posed this question which went unanswered. According to this thread approximately 40% of engine wear occurs at start up. That means 60% is occurring after the engine is started. We have the high VI oils that are supposed to deal with the start up wear issue and reduce fuel consumption. Maybe the oil companies that aren't using these high VI formulations are more concerned with the other 60% of wear? Just food for thought.


A car frequently started in cold weather running short hops can surely benefit from a high VI lighter oil. Is it as good for a car that's started once in the morning, driven 30 miles to work in heavy traffic, and then makes the return trip home under the same conditions?

 

[Obos]

Haven't taxis and police cars been run on lighter oils for a good while now?

That real world testing is the final proof that theory and manufacturer testing was correct.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Obos
Don't the manufacturers test the lighter oils in those severe conditions?

Haven't taxis and police cars been run on lighter oils for a good while now?

The former is theory, the latter is real world where it counts


I guess you missed my point, let me put it another way. We'll use 20 grade oil only, not another 20 grade vs. 30 grade battle. Take a 0w20 oil, lets say Mobil 1 or Amsoil SSO, vs. Honda or Toyota 0w20, a high VI oil for my above example. Which will protect better under the conditions mentioned above. Factual data vs. opinions would be nice.

 

[buster]

Ya I don't have a OP gauge. If I did, I'd have a better idea of what to look for.