New Pennzoil ULTRA PDS

[sopususer]

Changing the focus, it looks like Pennzoil finally addressed the strange situation where PP met dexos1 and PU didn't. I'm fairly sure the previous PU would have met the spec, but the new formula now puts it in black and white. Wonder if this will affect the price since GM will be getting a cut?

 

[Trex101]

PU look really good with these sort of noack%, GTL base stocks does give PAO a run for it's money.

 

[david_ES2]

....I thought we would never get the new data sheets

 

[volk06]

If Shell was waiting to use the the GTL for for Ultra, it makes sense why it has taken so long since the new GTL plant has just became operational, up and running this summer.

 

[Scum_Frog]

Pennzoil strikes again!

 

[lexus114]

Man is that ever impressive data!!!

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
My general thinking is that, assuming the same base stocks are used for all grades, the higher the viscosity spread, the more VIIs are added. And the more VIIs you have, the more volatile the resulting concoction.
I understand it's not always the case though.

VIIs generally don't increase an oils volatility.

There's no doubt in my mind that those NOACK percentages are wrong. GP III oils simply don't have spec's that low, lower than the most expensive PAO and Ester oils on the market; no way.

 

[JAG]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
My general thinking is that, assuming the same base stocks are used for all grades, the higher the viscosity spread, the more VIIs are added. And the more VIIs you have, the more volatile the resulting concoction.
I understand it's not always the case though.

VIIs generally don't increase an oils volatility.

VIIs improvers themselves don't but they are thickeners so thinner base oils have to be used to keep a certain mixture viscosity as more and more VIIs are added.

 

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
There's no doubt in my mind that those NOACK percentages are wrong. GP III oils simply don't have spec's that low, lower than the most expensive PAO and Ester oils on the market; no way.


It's definitely an eyebrow raiser. I'm not sure I buy them either.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
The temperature it's measured at is almost always stated as Amsoil does here:
http://www.amsoil.com/storefront/sso.aspx
But it is sometimes measured at 150C.
The fact that the temperature is not stated in the PU PDS has me wondering.


I almost never see NOACK stated in that way. The listed test protocol (DM5800) only has one temperature, 250C.

I'm open to the idea that it's a typo--their track record w/PDS sheets certainly isn't the best. But I'm not willing to say with certainty that they're wrong, and the test, by definition, was conducted @ 250C. The super-low pour point, MRV specs and low VI has me wondering what they're using for base oils on this stuff? Eye raising? Definitely.

 

[CATERHAM]

Yes the MRV and CCS spec's are incredibily low.
Generally if you double the MRV @ -35C spec' that will give you a close approximation of the MRV @ -40. Doing so, the 5W-20 and 5W-30 would be very competitive 0W-20 and 0W-30 oils.
It also doesn't make sense that the VIs would deteriorate at the same time as the cold flow properties increase dramatically.

We need to get an explaination from someone with technical authority at SOPUS.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Yes the MRV and CCS spec's are incredibily low.
Generally if you double the MRV @ -35C spec' that will give you a close approximation of the MRV @ -40. Doing so, the 5W-20 and 5W-30 would be very competitive 0W-20 and 0W-30 oils.
It also doesn't make sense that the VIs would deteriorate at the same time as the cold flow properties increase dramatically.

We need to get an explaination from someone with technical authority at SOPUS.

Why don't you email them ?

 

[ottotheclown]

Johnny??

 

[Quattro Pete]

Johnny has left the building, I'm afraid.

 

[bluesubie]

Email Debbie

-Dennis

 

[Quattro Pete]

Actually, Debbie has moved on to do other things at SOPUS now. If anything, email Chris Hayek.

 

[windeye]

I went on to pennzoil website, and this is the PDS I got. still shows SM, old stuff. don't tell me I have to clear cache on my browser, i am using a brand new computer first time on pennzoil.dom.

http://www.pennzoil.com/documents/PENNZOILULTRAFullSyntheticMotorOil.pdf

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: windeye
I went on to pennzoil website, and this is the PDS I got. still shows SM, old stuff. don't tell me I have to clear cache on my browser, i am using a brand new computer first time on pennzoil.dom.

http://www.pennzoil.com/documents/PENNZOILULTRAFullSyntheticMotorOil.pdf

SM is still the official PDS. Whatever we are discussing here is some brand new PDS that hasn't been officially released yet. And that's why I'm thinking that if asked about data on it, SOPUS will deny its existence or will say that's a draft and subject to change prior to official release.

 

[dakota99]

The PDS i get when i navigate through http://www.epc.shell.com/ is the new December 2011 one. Not sure why you're still getting the old one.

 

[chevrofreak]

Looks good to me. Too bad I just bought some old SM/GF-4 PU 5w-20.