New Pennzoil ULTRA PDS

[carwreck]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: carwreck
Examples of Group III base oils with low NOACK, ATSM D5800:

Shell low NOACK Group III "XHVI" 5%
http://www.epc.shell.com/Docs/GPCDOC_GTDS_XHVI_8.2.pdf

Chevron low NOACK Group III "UCBO 7R" with Evaporative Loss, NOACK (ATSM D5800) of 4:
http://www.chevron.com/products/sitelets/baseoils/Documents/PDF/GroupIII_download_r4.pdf
__________________________________________

1987 Toronado
1999 Olds GLS

Thanks for the references.

The problem isn't that you can't have low NOACK with Group III/III+. The problem is that you can't have low NOACK and low CCS at the same time. These low-NOACK Group III oils can be used in the formulation of 15W-xx and perhaps 10W-xx oils but not in the formulation 5W-xx or 0W-xx oils as a result. if you look at the Chevron specs, it says N/A under -30 C CCS, which means in cannot be used for 5W-xx or 0W-xx.

See this graph again on how NOACK and CCS determine the base-oil selection for various viscosity grades:

Therefore, you can't have a 0W-xx or a 5W-xx with NOACK less than about 8 unless you use PAO and GTL in the mix. According to the NOACK values from the official Shell product datasheet, Pennzoil Ultra almost certainly has more than half PAO and/or GTL in the base-oil mix. Amsoil Signature series has higher NOACK; so, it probably has much less PAO/GTL. Mobil 1 seems to be mostly Group III according to NOACK; although their 0W-xx formulations seem to have more PAO than other formulations because of their very low MRV (as very low MRV would still require PAO despite higher NOACK according to the above graph).


The graph in your post is a representation of D5293 (CCS at low temperature -30°C ) combined with Noack.
The previous page in the presentation shows Group III 5w30 Noack 5% with CCS cP@-20 °
Full presentation http://www.api.org/certifications/engine...ril_20_2010.pdf

The problem with this graph as it relates to Pennzoil: It is not the D5800 spec shown on the Pennzoil pds. http://www.epc.shell.com/Docs/GPCDOC_X_cbe_24855_key_140006587313_201112051449.pdf
CCS and Noack and not measured at the same time in the GF-5 spec.
ASTM D5293 Cold Cranking is measured at low temperature http://www.astm.org/Standards/D5293.htm

The actual D5800 spec does not have any CCS parameter and is measured at 250°C
http://www.api.org/certifications/engineoil/new/upload/1509techbull1complete.pdf
D5800 lab test procedure http://www.swri.org/4org/d08/GasTests/ilsacGF5.pdf

 

[Trav]

Quote:
Last time I checked, GTL was considered a group III(+)

That was a neat trick IMO. GTL is anything but a group III. I don't believe anything could be closer to a truly synthesized final product.

Since group IV is reserved for PAO and V for ester with the new group VI reserved for PIO where else should they put it.
With all the back and forth about group III being a pseudo synthetic what better way to further legitimize it as such than to add a + and introduce a true synthetic product into the mix.

They killed two birds with one stone IMHO. First they introduce a product to the market with the capability of PAO and second they further legitimize the whole group III as a true synthetic.

I see there are a lot of Pennzoil haters but if we are honest every time we crack the cap on our favorite fill its a leap of faith that the product inside has been blended properly with the correct additives.

I cant believe Shell, Mobil, Amsoil, Valvoline, QS, etc are making bad or inferior products, there is just too much at stake.
To say Pennzoil (Shell) (in this case but it could apply to any of the big companies) is cooking the PDS file to deceive customers is just asinine IMO.

Amsoil also takes a lot of abuse on BITOG and i never understood why.
One could argue they don't like the way its marketed or the price but the products themselves are excellent.

JMHO

 

[Coprolite]

I agree with you, Trav.

I am perfectly happy running the new SN PU in my G37.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: carwreck
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: carwreck
Examples of Group III base oils with low NOACK, ATSM D5800:

Shell low NOACK Group III "XHVI" 5%
http://www.epc.shell.com/Docs/GPCDOC_GTDS_XHVI_8.2.pdf

Chevron low NOACK Group III "UCBO 7R" with Evaporative Loss, NOACK (ATSM D5800) of 4:
http://www.chevron.com/products/sitelets/baseoils/Documents/PDF/GroupIII_download_r4.pdf
__________________________________________

1987 Toronado
1999 Olds GLS

Thanks for the references.

The problem isn't that you can't have low NOACK with Group III/III+. The problem is that you can't have low NOACK and low CCS at the same time. These low-NOACK Group III oils can be used in the formulation of 15W-xx and perhaps 10W-xx oils but not in the formulation 5W-xx or 0W-xx oils as a result. if you look at the Chevron specs, it says N/A under -30 C CCS, which means in cannot be used for 5W-xx or 0W-xx.

See this graph again on how NOACK and CCS determine the base-oil selection for various viscosity grades:

Therefore, you can't have a 0W-xx or a 5W-xx with NOACK less than about 8 unless you use PAO and GTL in the mix. According to the NOACK values from the official Shell product datasheet, Pennzoil Ultra almost certainly has more than half PAO and/or GTL in the base-oil mix. Amsoil Signature series has higher NOACK; so, it probably has much less PAO/GTL. Mobil 1 seems to be mostly Group III according to NOACK; although their 0W-xx formulations seem to have more PAO than other formulations because of their very low MRV (as very low MRV would still require PAO despite higher NOACK according to the above graph).


The graph in your post is a representation of D5293 (CCS at low temperature -30°C ) combined with Noack.
The previous page in the presentation shows Group III 5w30 Noack 5% with CCS cP@-20 °
Full presentation http://www.api.org/certifications/engine...ril_20_2010.pdf

The problem with this graph as it relates to Pennzoil: It is not the D5800 spec shown on the Pennzoil pds. http://www.epc.shell.com/Docs/GPCDOC_X_cbe_24855_key_140006587313_201112051449.pdf
CCS and Noack and not measured at the same time in the GF-5 spec.
ASTM D5293 Cold Cranking is measured at low temperature http://www.astm.org/Standards/D5293.htm

The actual D5800 spec does not have any CCS parameter and is measured at 250°C
http://www.api.org/certifications/engineoil/new/upload/1509techbull1complete.pdf
D5800 lab test procedure http://www.swri.org/4org/d08/GasTests/ilsacGF5.pdf

CCS is not an API requirement. It's a fundamental SAE requirement that every oil needs to satisfy in order to meet the "xW-" viscosity (cold-start viscosity) spec. 0W-, 5W-, 10W-, 15W-, 20W- must be tested at -35, -30, -25, -20, -15, and -10 C, respectively.

Therefore, a 5W- oil must be tested at -30 C for CCS. It cannot be tested at -20 C. It also needs to be tested for the pumping viscosity at -35 C as part of the SAE viscosity specs.

See the last page of this reference on SAE viscosity grades.

Therefore, it's very simple. There are low-NOACK (less than 8%) Group III/III+ base oils but they are not for the formulation of 5W- or 0W- multigrades. They are for the formulation of 10W-, 15W-, or 20W- multigrades; in other words, they are thicker base oils, which have lower NOACK because they are thicker. Because of this inverse proportionality, in order to have thinner base oils with lower NOACK, you need to increase the base-oil quality (I -> II -> III -> IV), depending on how much lower NOACK you need for a given thickness. That's the entire point of the graph I posted above.

 

[dave1251]

If you really want to know the formulation of Pennzoil product in regards to base stock, Shell Technical service has never given me any flack. Below is the their answer to my question of the primary base stock of Pennzoil Ultra. Now can we put this topic to rest at least until the next formulation change?

Dear David,

Thank you for your inquiry. Yes, it is a highly refined Group III base stock.

Regards,
Technical Service, sn

 

[Trav]

Quote:
Yes, it is a highly refined Group III base stock.


Could that also mean its could be group III+?

 

[dave1251]

Trav, I could push my luck further but I am not going to, this is what I suspect PU is as far as base stocks are concerned. I believe it is primary a XHVI slack wax base with a percentage GTL. Or it could be mostly GTL, I am not certain it is just a guess, but Shell has the technology and resources to blend a oil that performs as well as their TDS states and without the need to use PAO from XOM. I say this because XOM is Shell's primary competitor.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
If you really want to know the formulation of Pennzoil product in regards to base stock, Shell Technical service has never given me any flack. Below is the their answer to my question of the primary base stock of Pennzoil Ultra. Now can we put this topic to rest at least until the next formulation change?

Dear David,

Thank you for your inquiry. Yes, it is a highly refined Group III base stock.

Regards,
Technical Service, sn

Definitely take this with a grain of salt, like the other Shell guy earlier saying it's PAO. Chances are that he doesn't even know, and/or he is thinking about Pennzoil Platinum, and/or he is thinking about the SM formulation. This oil is not even in the market yet and I don't think he has much info on it.

I think it's roughly half Group III and half PAO and/or GTL. As I said, Shell's low-NOACK Group III oils are only good for formulating 10W-, not 5W- or 0W- viscosities, because they are simply too thick.

 

[Trav]

Dave its great you got that much info, thanks.
Quote:
Shell has the technology and resources to blend a oil that performs as well as their TDS states and without the need to use PAO from XOM

Thats what i think too. They certainly don't need to buy anything from XOM to formulate their products.
At $28 for 5qts i think its more than good bang for the buck.

 

[dave1251]

Trav your welcome. From my experience with SOPUS the techs have always told me what they use for base stocks for their products are without any fuss.

Gokhan I am not going to post the entire email conversation I had with SOPUS technical services because I actually enjoy speaking with them on the aspects of their products but if was made very clear in no uncertain terms that PU SN/GF-5 is a primary group III based oil. If PU was made with majority PAO do you believe Shell's marketing campaign would not be all over this like with Shell's gasoline with Nitrogen?

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
Trav your welcome. From my experience with SOPUS the techs have always told me what they use for base stocks for their products are without any fuss.

Gokhan I am not going to post the entire email conversation I had with SOPUS technical services because I actually enjoy speaking with them on the aspects of their products but if was made very clear in no uncertain terms that PU SN/GF-5 is a primary group III based oil. If PU was made with majority PAO do you believe Shell's marketing campaign would not be all over this like with Shell's gasoline with Nitrogen?

OK, sounds good.

The reason I find it hard to believe it's almost 100% Group III is because for 5W-30, the main ingredient is the 6 cSt base oil. Then viscosity-index improvers increase it to 10 cSt. You can't just use thicker oil because than CCS would be in the 10W- range and also you wouldn't have any room left for the VIIs, which you need to have the HTHS right. The problem is their XHVI 4 cSt oil has a NOACK of 15% and 8 cST oil has a NOACK of 5%. Average the two and you get a NOACK of 10% for 6 cST mix, which is typical Group III+. This means they have something with very low NOACK in the mix with a large ratio in order to get the overall NOACK down to 6%. Perhaps it's GTL as you said, and the Shell technical support refers to GTL as Group III. Who knows.

At the end, from it's exceptional NOACK, this oil seems to be an excellent synthetic, regardless of what base oils they use. Of course, what really matters is the performance of the whole package, not just NOACK, which is a fine balance between the base oil and the additive package. This needs to be seen from users's experiences.

 

[Coprolite]

Let's look at it from a different angle. Why wouldn't Shell be using their GTL as a base for the premier level oils in its portfolio? They have spent billions on the Pearl GTL plant and it wasn't for their health or for fun.

I wouldn't blame someone in the technical department for conveniently omitting the (+) and calling it Group III. The use of GTL explains the low NOACK values easily. It would have been easier on BITOGers if a new Group had been introduced for GTL, but we need the excitement in our lives...

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
This oil is not even in the market yet and I don't think he has much info on it.

I am pretty sure I've seen PU API SN on the shelves of my local Walmart.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
This oil is not even in the market yet and I don't think he has much info on it.

I am pretty sure I've seen PU API SN on the shelves of my local Walmart.

Thanks. Sticking with Toyota 0W-20 SN for the unforeseeable future.

It's a pity that they make this otherwise what seems to be an excellent oil in only 5W- and 10W-, which negates some if its benefits. Come on Shell, 5W- and 10W- are a thing of the past. With the modern high-quality, low-NOACK & low-CCS base oils available today, 0W- is the future with great fuel economy and better cold-engine performance. Why not make this in 0W- with slightly higher NOACK? It doesn't make sense. Or, perhaps, they don't have the thinner GTL base oil available yet.

 

[demarpaint]

I wish they offered in a 0W20 and 0W30, come on Pennzoil wake up.

 

[Trav]

Quote:
0W- is the future with great fuel economy and better cold-engine performance

Why? How many manufacturers actually spec 0w oils as their primary spec and not the alternative?
It maybe the future with a few Japanese cars but thats about it.

Cold engine performance? In the many years working on Police cars as a mechanic and supervisor we had no issues at all with cold engine protection even with 15w40 back in the day.
The guys would jump in and hammer them, lights flashing, WOT the whole nine yards.
The cars were obsolete long before the engines were done (8yrs).

Fuel economy? How much more over a 5w in the real world?

Quote:
Come on Shell, 5W- and 10W- are a thing of the past

10w maybe but 5w no way.

The benefits of a 0w oil are very few if any unless you live in a very cold climate.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Quote:
0W- is the future with great fuel economy and better cold-engine performance

Why? How many manufacturers actually spec 0w oils as their primary spec and not the alternative?
It maybe the future with a few Japanese cars but thats about it.

Cold engine performance? In the many years working on Police cars as a mechanic and supervisor we had no issues at all with cold engine protection even with 15w40 back in the day.
The guys would jump in and hammer them, lights flashing, WOT the whole nine yards.
The cars were obsolete long before the engines were done (8yrs).

Fuel economy? How much more over a 5w in the real world?

Quote:
Come on Shell, 5W- and 10W- are a thing of the past

10w maybe but 5w no way.

The benefits of a 0w oil are very few if any unless you live in a very cold climate.

I am not saying 5W- and 10W- aren't OK to use in cold. All I am saying is that 0W- gives better cold-engine performance and fuel economy. It's simple: engines are designed to work in the operating temperature. The sooner the oil reaches its operating viscosity, it's better. Why not run a straight-grade SAE 20 otherwise?

Again, 5W- and even higher cold-viscosities are OK, but 0W- gives better cold-engine performance.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
This oil is not even in the market yet and I don't think he has much info on it.

I am pretty sure I've seen PU API SN on the shelves of my local Walmart.

Thanks. Sticking with Toyota 0W-20 SN for the unforeseeable future.

It's a pity that they make this otherwise what seems to be an excellent oil in only 5W- and 10W-, which negates some if its benefits. Come on Shell, 5W- and 10W- are a thing of the past. With the modern high-quality, low-NOACK & low-CCS base oils available today, 0W- is the future with great fuel economy and better cold-engine performance. Why not make this in 0W- with slightly higher NOACK? It doesn't make sense. Or, perhaps, they don't have the thinner GTL base oil available yet.


That is funny look at the CCS between PU 5W30 and M-1 0W30. Pour point, viscosity at 40C, do not look just at the SAE rating.

 

[Trav]

The 0w designation can be misleading though look at GC 0w30 and Mobil 1 0w40.

PU 5w30 MRV viscosity, cP (°C) 9,000 (-35)
Mobil 1 0w20 MRV @ -40ºc (ASTM D4684) 9200

Unless you are in some of the coldest places on earth there is very little difference. Certainly not in the lower 48.


Engines are not fragile by any means. This mentality that they benefit in some significant way with these ultra light oils is IMO false and there are tens of millions of engines that have outlasted their bodies they were put in to prove it.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: Trav
The 0w designation can be misleading though look at GC 0w30 and Mobil 1 0w40.

PU 5w30 MRV viscosity, cP (°C) 9,000 (-35)
Mobil 1 0w20 MRV @ -40ºc (ASTM D4684) 9200

Unless you are in some of the coldest places on earth there is very little difference. Certainly not in the lower 48.


Engines are not fragile by any means. This mentality that they benefit in some significant way with these ultra light oils is IMO false and there are tens of millions of engines that have outlasted their bodies they were put in to prove it.

I have never said you will have less wear with 0W-. Perhaps you will, perhaps you won't. I said you will get more cold-engine fuel economy and better-running cold engine, simply because cold-engine viscosity of 0W- is lower.

If you like thicker cold viscosity, go ahead, run 10W-. You will benefit from lower NOACK and less viscosity-index improvers, while you make some sacrifice at the cold-engine performance. In my opinion, today's 0W- and 5W- synthetics give better overall performance than 10W-, but some will argue otherwise.