New Pennzoil ULTRA PDS

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: dave1251
I doubt that PU contains that much PAO. Even Pennzoil stated it is primary group III base. Shell has some of the highest quality base stocks especially the group III variety often referred to "super group III"

Exactly. I fail to see why SOPUS would buy PAO from ExxonMobil (and others) when they could just (and likely do) just use their own GIII+, which is known to be excellent.

No, typical Group III+ NOACK is around 11 - 13%. It's beyond impossible to formulate an oil with 5% NOACK using only Group III+. The only options are to use a lot of PAO or a lot of GTL base oil.

All oil blenders use base oils and additive packages from all sorts of manufacturers. Shell can use ExxonMobil base oil and vice versa. ExxonMobil is not bound to Infineum and can use Liquid Titanium from Afton etc. It depends on what they are trying to make and what is available at low cost for that purpose. Most fully synthetic oils seem to be mostly Group III/III+ these days, including those from Mobil 1 and Amsoil.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
I doubt that PU contains that much PAO.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread (or maybe it was another PU thread), the head of SOPUS global marketing told me that the new PU (the one with those very low NOACK numbers) is primarily PAO based. Take it for what it's worth. He's not an engineer, just a marketing guy.

 

[Trav]

Pennzoil really does not exist its just another brand owned by Shell.
That being the case its not unreasonable to believe that Shell uses their formulations in their entire product brand range. Shell is one of the biggest and best in the business.

Ultra is superior to Platinum.
Quote:
Answer 10:
While we can say that GTL is in our future, an exact date is hard to give since the GTL plant is still
under construction. GTL based products are scheduled to be available late 2011 early 2012


I think its reasonable to suspect the Ultra is GTL that would explain the low NOAK numbers.
Of course the armchair paper commandos will never accept that. One such commando is still preaching Platinum is better than Ultra based on high V this that and the other.
Quote:
Rest assured that Pennzoil Ultra™ outperforms Pennzoil Platinum®. The reason for the “paper”
specification difference is based on a decision to focus our ILSAC grades more directly on the needs
of engines calling for ILSAC performance and addressing the Euro performance with versions of Ultra
specifically targeted for European imports. Thus our Euro oils not only exceed the ACEA A/B
specifications, but they also address specific needs for VW, MB, BMW, Ferrari, Porsche and
Maserati.

 

[CMMeadAM]

It can be accepted that PU is improved over PP. However, the ACTUAL use of GTL has yet to be verified. So far, it's nothing more than speculation, the same for their Bullpie NOACKS !

 

[Trav]

Quote:
So far, it's nothing more than speculation, the same for their Bullpie NOACKS !

SO now you call Shell liars right? They have revised the PDS already and DID NOT change the NOAK numbers.

Why do you not want the NOAK to be that low? The real reason?
Could it be you don't want to admit that Shell may have brought a truly high end product to the market.

 

[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

 

[CMMeadAM]

You can choose to call it what you want. Pennzoil/Shell has been requested on many occasions to substantate their bogus NOACK numbers and they have purposely chosen NOT to do so.

I don't give a tinkers dam if they're SOPUS or not.....they
evade questons and that makes them subject to question.

You can drink their kool-aid all you want. I choose not to.

"Truly high end ?" PROVE IT !

 

[Turk]

 

[CMMeadAM]

Ah yessss ! A most intellectual response !

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: dave1251
I doubt that PU contains that much PAO. Even Pennzoil stated it is primary group III base. Shell has some of the highest quality base stocks especially the group III variety often referred to "super group III"

Exactly. I fail to see why SOPUS would buy PAO from ExxonMobil (and others) when they could just (and likely do) just use their own GIII+, which is known to be excellent.

No, typical Group III+ NOACK is around 11 - 13%. It's beyond impossible to formulate an oil with 5% NOACK using only Group III+. The only options are to use a lot of PAO or a lot of GTL base oil.

All oil blenders use base oils and additive packages from all sorts of manufacturers. Shell can use ExxonMobil base oil and vice versa. ExxonMobil is not bound to Infineum and can use Liquid Titanium from Afton etc. It depends on what they are trying to make and what is available at low cost for that purpose. Most fully synthetic oils seem to be mostly Group III/III+ these days, including those from Mobil 1 and Amsoil.


If this where the case why can I buy group III base stocks from Chevron with a 4% NOACK?
Also avail are group III base stocks available from PETRONAS with 7% NOACK.
Shell has group III base stocks you can buy also and the NOACK is around 5% also Shell has been importing GTL base stock since Nov 11.

 

[Turk]

Originally Posted By: CMMeadAM
Ah yessss ! A most intellectual response !


Correct - it's fun to see you guys go back & forth. I got 30 qts. of PU, so I'm interested.

Carry on!

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: CMMeadAM
You can choose to call it what you want. Pennzoil/Shell has been requested on many occasions to substantate their bogus NOACK numbers and they have purposely chosen NOT to do so.

I don't give a tinkers dam if they're SOPUS or not.....they
evade questons and that makes them subject to question.

You can drink their kool-aid all you want. I choose not to.

"Truly high end ?" PROVE IT !


Let me get this straight? Shell refines a base stock with a 5% NOACK Pennzoil has stated many times their synthetics are a group III base stock and I have posted emails from SOPUS with the answers to any questions I or other members have had on this board. So I have not seen from my experience where any one from SOPUS has dodged any questions had the company has the technology and the ability to produce a product that is consistent with their TDS's.
So I drink kool-aid?

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: CMMeadAM
You can choose to call it what you want. Pennzoil/Shell has been requested on many occasions to substantate their bogus NOACK numbers and they have purposely chosen NOT to do so.

How exactly do you want SOPUS to "substantiate" their NOACK figures other than attesting that what's in the PDS is correct? You want them to release actual lab test results? Dream on. No company will do that.

 

[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).

 

[CMMeadAM]

Some folks just seem to like to wsste their money based on [censored] ! Sounds like you're one of them. Enjoy !

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: CMMeadAM
Some folks just seem to like to wsste their money based on [censored] ! Sounds like you're one of them. Enjoy !


How have you came to that conclusion?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Pennzoil really does not exist its just another brand owned by Shell.
That being the case its not unreasonable to believe that Shell uses their formulations in their entire product brand range. Shell is one of the biggest and best in the business.

Ultra is superior to Platinum.
Quote:
Answer 10:
While we can say that GTL is in our future, an exact date is hard to give since the GTL plant is still
under construction. GTL based products are scheduled to be available late 2011 early 2012


I think its reasonable to suspect the Ultra is GTL that would explain the low NOAK numbers.
Of course the armchair paper commandos will never accept that. One such commando is still preaching Platinum is better than Ultra based on high V this that and the other.
Quote:
Rest assured that Pennzoil Ultra™ outperforms Pennzoil Platinum®. The reason for the “paper”
specification difference is based on a decision to focus our ILSAC grades more directly on the needs
of engines calling for ILSAC performance and addressing the Euro performance with versions of Ultra
specifically targeted for European imports. Thus our Euro oils not only exceed the ACEA A/B
specifications, but they also address specific needs for VW, MB, BMW, Ferrari, Porsche and
Maserati.




That makes a lot of sense Trav, I know SOPUS has invested heavily in GTL, so them going that route is a logical one.

I still don't see it making sense with them buying PAO from XOM, and GTL is a much more logical choice, since they make that themselves.

 

[Turk]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: CMMeadAM
Some folks just seem to like to wsste their money based on [censored] ! Sounds like you're one of them. Enjoy !


How have you came to that conclusion?


Especially since I got a fantastic deal on it all, which he has no knowledge of...

 

[dave1251]

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).


OK I will give you that. But that does not mean the primary base stock of Pennzoil Ultra is anything but group III like Pennzoil has been telling the public since it was released.

 

[Coprolite]

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

I see no disparities in the statements that people are attempting to contrast.