New Pennzoil Platinum 0w20 SN PDS -2012

[Trav]

An oil with a lower NOAK is reportedly better for DI engines which many new cars have. The Sustina with 13-14% is looking pretty poor in comparison.

Quote:
I don't think it is technically possible to formulate a very high light 0W-20 oil that use a 4cSt base oil with a NOACK percentage much below that.


You didn't believe the Pennzoil NOAK number when they were first published and made all kinds of claims why they couldn't possibly be correct. You boldly claimed it isn't that low based on your expert opinion.

So much for that. Would you like a little salt and pepper for those words, it makes them go down easier.

 

[gpshumway]

Originally Posted By: Trav
It seems that high VI and thinner is all thats important on this board lately.
Base stocks and add packs are insignificant it seems.
Every time someone ask which oil is better one poster in particular pops of with "i would go with this one because of its high VI and its thinner".


Not everyone, just a few frequent and vociferous posters.

An excellent point about add packs, plenty of cars from the 1990s have gone 200,000+ miles in cold climates on nothing more sophisticated than GF-2 and GF-3 conventional 5w30. What's the VI of those oils? 150 if you're lucky. Clearly "low" VI in today's context is not inhibiting longevity in any way which is relevant to most owners. The engine usually outlasts the bodywork.

 

[buster]

^+1

 

[SlipperyPete]

It started to look like we were approaching a break through in the thick/thin debate......then it just fell off.

 

[gogozy]

I am not 100% into 0w20 bandwagon (judging from their % in my stash

) but i like to hear them. there are lots of talk and attention on this "thin" oil subjects and threats on the forum lately, this is not a bad thing and this shall be observed as a normal cycle, this is something new to most of reader and everyone want to know more about it. and New thing attract more attention just because it's new! there isn't lots of information readily available on the internet, BITOG members had to make effort to search, email, call the blender and their sources, to obtain these information, and so it's normal to be excited. I am also very excited, even though Honda/Acura continue to list 5w-x0 for my tsx and J37. the 0w20 is "cautiously" in TSX now, but I still sincerely hope one day I know why the 0w-x0 are not being recommend by Honda.
some brave soul to explore the unknown and some noise are always good, just like the day when Maxlife was new and there are lots of question on it can stack up against ATF-Z1. let's keep talking about these 0w20, good or bad. thanks.

 

[gogozy]

Originally Posted By: gpshumway
Originally Posted By: Trav
It seems that high VI and thinner is all thats important on this board lately.
Base stocks and add packs are insignificant it seems.
Every time someone ask which oil is better one poster in particular pops of with "i would go with this one because of its high VI and its thinner".


Not everyone, just a few frequent and vociferous posters.

An excellent point about add packs, plenty of cars from the 1990s have gone 200,000+ miles in cold climates on nothing more sophisticated than GF-2 and GF-3 conventional 5w30. What's the VI of those oils? 150 if you're lucky. Clearly "low" VI in today's context is not inhibiting longevity in any way which is relevant to most owners. The engine usually outlasts the bodywork.

I am no expert, nor know how to calculate the #..
but i am wondering, is VI a more important indicator for 0w-xx oil then 5w-x0 or 10w-x0 oil? my thinking is, because the 0w oil is so thin at the low temperature, it's become vital to make sure it can have some sort to "thickness" at higher temperature. it's probably not an issue for 5w or even 10w to maintain film thickness (or whatever the BITOGer's expert calling it) at high temperature. and so, the VI is an more of an issue for 0w oil. is my thinking make sense?
and if this NOACK # on PP 0w20 is real, then the # for Pennzoil Platinum 5w20/30 can be real as well, yes? remember there were debate on PU's Noack # at that time, I don't recall many believe the number on the product info sheet.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: gogozy
my thinking is, because the 0w oil is so thin at the low temperature, it's become vital to make sure it can have some sort to "thickness" at higher temperature.


Realize that it's only "so thin" at low temperature relative to other grades of oil, like 5Ws and 10Ws. It's still way heavier at low temperature than it is at higher temperatures, and still way heavier than you'd like the oil to be. Say, for example, that the engine designer wants a 10 cSt oil at operating temperature. Even the lightest 0W-20 that I know of is 4x as heavy at 40*C, with cSts of over 40.

0Ws are "thin" at lower temperatures only in the sense that they haven't thickened up as much as 5Ws or 10Ws might have (and that's still quite a generalization on my part).

 

[Trav]

Quote:
if this NOACK # on PP 0w20 is real, then the # for Pennzoil Platinum 5w20/30 can be real as well, yes?

Yes i believe the numbers for PU NOAK in all grades are correct.
High VI oils are said to cause deposits under certain circumstances and when that is combined with a lousy NOAK value its not looking good.

Just the stuff you wouldn't want to put in a DI engine which is the future of fuel injection.

 

[gogozy]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: gogozy
my thinking is, because the 0w oil is so thin at the low temperature, it's become vital to make sure it can have some sort to "thickness" at higher temperature.


Realize that it's only "so thin" at low temperature relative to other grades of oil, like 5Ws and 10Ws. It's still way heavier at low temperature than it is at higher temperatures, and still way heavier than you'd like the oil to be. Say, for example, that the engine designer wants a 10 cSt oil at operating temperature. Even the lightest 0W-20 that I know of is 4x as heavy at 40*C, with cSts of over 40.

0Ws are "thin" at lower temperatures only in the sense that they haven't thickened up as much as 5Ws or 10Ws might have (and that's still quite a generalization on my part).

mmm, thanks, so, is VI a more important metric for 0w-20then other grade? because blender don't want it to stay too thin at high temperature, (that is, for 0w20/0w30 oil to stay as thick as 5w20/5w30 at the operation temperature, it's VI has to be higher?) thanks!

 

[gogozy]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Quote:
if this NOACK # on PP 0w20 is real, then the # for Pennzoil Platinum 5w20/30 can be real as well, yes?

Yes i believe the numbers for PU NOAK in all grades are correct.
High VI oils are said to cause deposits under certain circumstances and when that is combined with a lousy NOAK value its not looking good.

Just the stuff you wouldn't want to put in a DI engine which is the future of fuel injection.

I agree with this, and thanks for correct my earlier post , i meant PU while i typed PP there. I used to "guess" the molecular subject in NOAK are vapour that most likely went into EGR, and lead to gum in intake. but I don't understand why 0w oil or "thin" oil tend to have high NOAK number, even with high VI. and sudden disappear of high moly 0w20 oil on the market in SN and GF5 era, it's if the moly can contribute to deposit. but then, the 0w20 were exempted from the ring deposit control improvement from SM to SN anyway. but this low NOAK number is a very welcome sign, and I see it as reaffirm the low NOAK % on PU is attenable in mass market.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Quote:

High VI oils are said to cause deposits under certain circumstances and when that is combined with a lousy NOAK value its not looking good.

Just the stuff you wouldn't want to put in a DI engine which is the future of fuel injection.

Utter nonsense.
All GF-5 oils whether they be high VI or otherwise must meet the same deposit control standards.

So you're advising that the OEM developed high VI oils are not something that one should be used because they have a "lousy" 13-14% NOACK volatility spec'.

First a 13-14% NOACK figure is perfectly fine in a 20wt application where high oil temp's are not encountered. NOACK is measured at 250C, but you won't likely see even 100C bulk oil temp's where a 0W-20 is specified. What is the real volitility difference between a 9% and 13% oil at say 95C? You don't know and I don't know but I'm going to hazard a guess that it's neglible.

The OEM high VI 0W-20s are very much lighter oils than Pennzoil 0W-20 so right off we're comparing apples and oranges. They are formulated using lighter base stock oils and lighter oils do have higher NOACK values. The viscometrics and other characteristics of the finished oil including the deposit level are more important than a single NOACK spec'. All that really matters is that the NOACK figure be reasonable and 13-14% is reasonable.

For heavier oils grades where higher oil temp's are likely the NOACK figure plays a bigger role. If you're seeing oil temp's temp's north of 130C a NOACK not greater than 9% is certainly preferable.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: gogozy
mmm, thanks, so, is VI a more important metric for 0w-20then other grade? because blender don't want it to stay too thin at high temperature, (that is, for 0w20/0w30 oil to stay as thick as 5w20/5w30 at the operation temperature, it's VI has to be higher?) thanks!


As I understand it, viscosity index is simply a measure of viscosity change with temperature. Higher VI values mean the oil doesn't thicken as much when it cools. It helps me to think of oil viscosity change, not as thinning out as the oil heats up from room temperature, but as thickening up as the oil cools down from operating temperature. In general, a 0W-20 and a 5W-20 will have a similar viscosity at 100 deg C (or at least within a pre-defined range). In general, as the oil cools down from operating temperature, the 5W-20 will thicken more than the 0W-20 will. This is especially so as temperatures get REAL cold, like down to freezing and far below.

Here is a great visual resource: http://www.widman.biz/English/Calculators/Graph.html

Note the 5W-30 and 10W-30 in blue and red. At operating temperature, and indeed down to around 40 deg C, these two oils have a very similar viscosity. Both are thicker than at 100 deg C, but still rather similar. Down at 15 deg C however, which is nearly 60 deg F, you can see the 5W-30 and 10W-30 beginning to diverge. The 10W is maybe 260 cSt and the 5W is maybe 220 cSt. That's a 15% difference. Down at freezing, it's a 25% difference between the two. The 5W-30, at nearly 600 cSt is 60x as thick as it is at operating temperature. That's a huge swing.

A 0W-30 wouldn't generally thicken up as much. You can plug your own viscosity numbers in that tool and see the differences.

 

[Trav]

Quote:
Utter nonsense

Explain why the move to low NOAK oils by so many companies if its not important?
You claimed adamantly that it wasn't possible for Pennzoil to have such low NOAK numbers so what else are you wrong about?

There are reports of high VI causing deposits. I don't remember what the criteria was but it was mentioned on this site some time ago. If that is true i would prefer to use an oil with less VI.
The bottom line is this..
If Shell makes their premium product with a VI of 165 and a NOAK of 6.5% i believe them when they say it is superior. They must believe this is a good balance or they would make it higher VI and higher NOAK.
Quote:
So you're advising that the OEM developed high VI oils are not something that one should be used because they have a "lousy" 13-14% NOACK volatility spec'.


Just because its an OEM oil that doesn't automatically make it any better, that is a fact!
And yes compared to 6% 13-14% NOAK is lousy!
Isn't it possible that some oils are in fact superior to OEM?
We already know your answer.

 

[CATERHAM]

Hokiefyd, well said.
Yes the main advantage of a high VI oil is that it flows better (being lighter) when cold but another advantage is that it also doeesn't thin out as much as oil temp's rise above normal thereby providing a higher level of protection.
That's one of it's main advantage in modern racing oils.

Having said that, all OEM high VI 0W-20 oils are blended to be as light as possible on start-up as well at normal operating temp's compared to their lower VI counterparts but it doesn't have to be that way. If you want more high temperature protection but you still want to use an ultra high VI 0W-20 simply add a small amount of a heavier high VI oil such as M1 0W-40. Just a pint substituted in a 4 quart sump filled with TGMO or Mazda 0W-20 and you'll raise the HTHSV rating of the oil into the 2.7cP range while only marginally affecting the cold starting advantages of the oil overall since your VI will still be well over 210. IMO that's better solution than running a heavier low VI oil.

 

[gogozy]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Quote:
Utter nonsense

Explain why the move to low NOAK oils by so many companies if its not important?
You claimed adamantly that it wasn't possible for Pennzoil to have such low NOAK numbers so what else are you wrong about?

There are reports of high VI causing deposits. I don't remember what the criteria was but it was mentioned on this site some time ago. If that is true i would prefer to use an oil with less VI.
The bottom line is this..
If Shell makes their premium product with a VI of 165 and a NOAK of 6.5% i believe them when they say it is superior. They must believe this is a good balance or they would make it higher VI and higher NOAK.
Quote:
So you're advising that the OEM developed high VI oils are not something that one should be used because they have a "lousy" 13-14% NOACK volatility spec'.

Just because its an OEM oil that doesn't automatically make it any better, that is a fact!
And yes compared to 6% 13-14% NOAK is lousy!
Isn't it possible that some oils are in fact superior to OEM?
We already know your answer.

my guessing, that OE fluid are optimize for FE purpose, for submitting EPA#, while the blender are more well-around performer, jack of all trade type? I also recall the 0w20 were exempted for "better" ring deposit control in SN, a test subject to all other grade.
The 250c testing in NOACK is certainly some high temperature. what is the hottest area in a oil passage in a typical car? It may offer explanation on my question about why K24A2 and J37 not recommend to use 0w20. And PP 0w20 is the lowest NOACK I ever see. now, is it possible to have a low NOACK, and high VI 0w20 such as OE? thanks.

 

[gogozy]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Hokiefyd, well said.
Yes the main advantage of a high VI oil is that it flows better (being lighter) when cold but another advantage is that it also doeesn't thin out as much as oil temp's rise above normal thereby providing a higher level of protection.
That's one of it's main advantage in modern racing oils.

Having said that, all OEM high VI 0W-20 oils are blended to be as light as possible on start-up as well at normal operating temp's compared to their lower VI counterparts but it doesn't have to be that way. If you want more high temperature protection but you still want to use an ultra high VI 0W-20 simply add a small amount of a heavier high VI oil such as M1 0W-40. Just a pint substituted in a 4 quart sump filled with TGMO or Mazda 0W-20 and you'll raise the HTHSV rating of the oil into the 2.7cP range while only marginally affecting the cold starting advantages of the oil overall since your VI will still be well over 210. IMO that's better solution than running a heavier low VI oil.

thanks you both. I read these post, and did not give much of thought before, it's a good idea to improve HTHS; i recall HTHS a better indicator for protection at operating temperature, so, seems like the engine go through different type of stage from cold to hot, and lubrication need to address these different aspect (stages?).

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Quote:

There are reports of high VI causing deposits. I don't remember what the criteria was but it was mentioned on this site some time ago. If that is true i would prefer to use an oil with less VI.

You're obviously referring not to naturally high VI's but the polymer thickeners than are added to oils.
Yes I've heard that certain polymer additives in the past can cause increased deposits. The thing is all modern oils contain polymer additives. One advantage of the VIIs used to formulate ultra high VI oils is that less actual polymer is required.
In other words just because an oil has a high VI doesn't necessarily mean more polymer thickener is used vs a lower VI oil or that the oil will ultimately have more deposits.

 

[Cup of Joe]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: Trav
Quote:

High VI oils are said to cause deposits under certain circumstances and when that is combined with a lousy NOAK value its not looking good.

Just the stuff you wouldn't want to put in a DI engine which is the future of fuel injection.

Utter nonsense.
All GF-5 oils whether they be high VI or otherwise must meet the same deposit control standards.

So you're advising that the OEM developed high VI oils are not something that one should be used because they have a "lousy" 13-14% NOACK volatility spec'.

First a 13-14% NOACK figure is perfectly fine in a 20wt application where high oil temp's are not encountered. NOACK is measured at 250C, but you won't likely see even 100C bulk oil temp's where a 0W-20 is specified. What is the real volitility difference between a 9% and 13% oil at say 95C? You don't know and I don't know but I'm going to hazard a guess that it's neglible.

The OEM high VI 0W-20s are very much lighter oils than Pennzoil 0W-20 so right off we're comparing apples and oranges. They are formulated using lighter base stock oils and lighter oils do have higher NOACK values. The viscometrics and other characteristics of the finished oil including the deposit level are more important than a single NOACK spec'. All that really matters is that the NOACK figure be reasonable and 13-14% is reasonable.

For heavier oils grades where higher oil temp's are likely the NOACK figure plays a bigger role. If you're seeing oil temp's temp's north of 130C a NOACK not greater than 9% is certainly preferable.




The problem is 13-14% NOACK for a full synthetic 20wt. That is the same NOACK as a conventional 20wt.

http://www.epc.shell.com/documentRetrieve.asp?documentId=93328229

 

[FoxS]

And the PYB 5w20 Noack at 14.7% is lower than the PYB 5w30 and 10w40 Noack

And Pennzoil say the 5w20 is suitable for Ford Honda Toyota Chrysler Nissan

And that 5w30 is suitable for the remaining Asian and US brands

And that's with Noack at the same levels as their 10w40 which is suitable for older vehicles and some high temp applications

So Pennzoil certainly thinks Noack at just under 15% is fine pretty much everywhere except German engines it seems

 

[FoxS]

Trav, I'm following this thread with interest

But could you please ensure your quotes include the posters name and are formatted correctly? It becomes quite hard to understand who and what you are replying to especially in multiple quote / reply situations

Thank you