New Pennzoil ULTRA PDS

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: 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 Pennzoil Ultra 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 Pennzoil Ultra 5W30 and Mobil 1 0w30. Pour point, viscosity at 40C, do not look just at the SAE rating.


For those without the spec sheets in front of them:

Pennzoil Ultra 5w30:
40C - 58.9
100C - 10.3
VI - 165
Flash - 224C
Pour - -51C
MRV - 9,000cP @ -35C
CCS - 4,000cP @ -30C
HTHS - 3.1
NOACK - 6.4%

Mobil 1 0w30 (AFE):
40C - 62.9
100C - 10.9
VI - 166
Flash - 226C
Pour - -50C
MRV - 13,250cP @ -40C
CCS - N/A
HTHS - 3.0
NOACK - N/A

Unfortunately we lack CCS for the 0w30, and MRV of course is measured at a different temperature for both tests because one is a 0w and the other a 5w. However, since Pennzoil Ultra 5w30 is a 5w, we can assume that its MRV value at -40C is going to be higher than that of Mobil 1 0w30.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
That is funny look at the CCS between Pennzoil Ultra 5W30 and Mobil 1 0w30. Pour point, viscosity at 40C, do not look just at the SAE rating.

Pennzoil Ultra 5w30 40 C viscosity is only lower because its 100 C viscosity is much lower as well. If you get colder, eventually Mobil 1 0w30 will get thinner.

While 1 C difference in pour point doesn't mean that much, it's impressive that Pennzoil Ultra can achieve the same pour point for 10w30 as well.

But you have a point that Mobil 1 0w30 viscosity index is not impressive, as Mobil 1 5w30 has a much higher viscosity index. It's another good point that the Pennzoil Ultra SN formulation has an impressive pour point for all viscosity grades.

This is another reason I am very happy with the Toyota 0W-20 SN. Its viscosity index of 216 is hard to beat and the engine seems to be very happy with it.

 

[Trav]

Quote:
If you like thicker cold viscosity, go ahead, run 10W

I run 5w30 or 0w40 in my cars, too thick is just as bad as too thin IMO.
I would never go back to 15w40 in a gas engine with todays oils being available.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: dave1251
That is funny look at the CCS between Pennzoil Ultra 5W30 and Mobil 1 0w30. Pour point, viscosity at 40C, do not look just at the SAE rating.

Pennzoil Ultra 5w30 40 C viscosity is only lower because its 100 C viscosity is much lower as well. If you get colder, eventually Mobil 1 0w30 will get thinner.

While 1 C difference in pour point doesn't mean that much, it's impressive that Pennzoil Ultra can achieve the same pour point for 10w30 as well.

But you have a point that Mobil 1 0w30 viscosity index is not impressive, as Mobil 1 5w30 has a much higher viscosity index. It's another good point that the Pennzoil Ultra SN formulation has an impressive pour point for all viscosity grades.

This is another reason I am very happy with the Toyota 0W-20 SN. Its viscosity index of 216 is hard to beat and the engine seems to be very happy with it.


Thanks for pointing out the information.

Now I have a question for you. If I buy your argument of higher VI oils save fuel over lower VI oils, how does the VI over come the higher viscosity? Meaning if you look at used oil analysis of TGMO 0W20 has a 100C viscosity of around 8.0 to 8.5. But if you look at a used oil analysis of Mobil 1 0w20 the 100C viscosity of 7.3 to 7.8 the same engine? For the FE savings to happen a lot has to happen just right which in the real world may or may not happen.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
Thanks for pointing out the information.

Now I have a question for you. If I buy your argument of higher VI oils save fuel over lower VI oils, how does the VI over come the higher viscosity? Meaning if you look at used oil analysis of TGMO 0W20 has a 40C viscosity of around 8.0 to 8.5. But if you look at a used oil analysis of Mobil 1 0w20 the 40C viscosity of 7.3 to 7.8 the same engine? The 100C viscosity mirrors is normally .5 to 1.0 higher for TGMO also. For the FE savings to happen a lot has to happen just right which in the real world may or may not happen.

Well, you got the nos wrong there:

Mobil 1 0W-20 SN: 45 cSt @ 40 C, 8.7 cSt at 100 C
TGMO 0W-20 SN: 37 cSt @ 40 C, 8.5 cSt at 100 C

The relation of fuel economy to viscosity is actually more complicated. Some engines will get more MPG with 5w30 than with 5W-20 for example. Also, the type of base oil used and the type of friction modifiers used can make a big difference in the fuel economy.

So, yes, from the viscosity nos alone, you cannot definitively conclude that TGMO will produce better fuel economy in all engines. In my experience, I am getting great fuel economy in my old Toyota so far. I haven't tried Mobil 1 0W-20 SN in it and I don't know. Toyota says TGMO is "specially formulated for by Toyota for Toyota vehicles," which sounds as cliché as any such statement by a car company. But perhaps they have a point and it works great in Toyota engines, or TGMO is simply a great oil for many cars.

 

[dave1251]

You have found a oil you are happy with good. But I am not talking VOA's, I am talking about used oil analysis. But we can discuss this further in different thread not a PU one.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
You have found a oil you are happy with good. But I am not talking VOA's, I am talking about used oil analysis. But we can discuss this further in different thread not a PU one.

I haven't seen any Toyota 0W-20 SN UOA yet. I might end up being the first one to post one.

I am sure TGMO 0W-20 SN is a quality oil, made from quality VIIs, and won't shear much. Permanent oil shear is only determined by the amount and quality of VIIs used. Used-oil fuel economy depends on the base-oil quality and additive package. I will see how it performs when it's aged more than one or two thousand miles.

 

[ltslimjim]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Thanks for pointing out the information.

Now I have a question for you. If I buy your argument of higher VI oils save fuel over lower VI oils, how does the VI over come the higher viscosity? Meaning if you look at used oil analysis of TGMO 0W20 has a 40C viscosity of around 8.0 to 8.5. But if you look at a used oil analysis of Mobil 1 0w20 the 40C viscosity of 7.3 to 7.8 the same engine? The 100C viscosity mirrors is normally .5 to 1.0 higher for TGMO also. For the FE savings to happen a lot has to happen just right which in the real world may or may not happen.

Well, you got the nos wrong there:

Mobil 1 0W-20 SN: 45 cSt @ 40 C, 8.7 cSt at 100 C
TGMO 0W-20 SN: 37 cSt @ 40 C, 8.5 cSt at 100 C

The relation of fuel economy to viscosity is actually more complicated. Some engines will get more MPG with 5w30 than with 5W-20 for example. Also, the type of base oil used and the type of friction modifiers used can make a big difference in the fuel economy.

So, yes, from the viscosity nos alone, you cannot definitively conclude that TGMO will produce better fuel economy in all engines. In my experience, I am getting great fuel economy in my old Toyota so far. I haven't tried Mobil 1 0W-20 SN in it and I don't know. Toyota says TGMO is "specially formulated for by Toyota for Toyota vehicles," which sounds as cliché as any such statement by a car company. But perhaps they have a point and it works great in Toyota engines, or TGMO is simply a great oil for many cars.


^Fixed for others. Oils are differing tools. Use them appropriately. You could say any oil could be 'great' for 'many cars'. Not to mince words, just trying to point this out as IMO we get hung up on the 'best' oil instead of thinking about the application first and using the oils(tools with differing characteristics if you will) as we see fit based on the service needs/conditions/...etc.

To be clear, it's definitely a good oil for such apps(or 'many cars') that can adequately utilize the tool. It's not about comparing oils alone, for me. "Best" is a prospective thing and is relative.

I doubt you get better or worse wear in 'typical' driving(no hauling/towing, "regular maintenance", no race tracking lol), with quality oils used responsibly within a reasonable oil grade. The choice you've made now is one of those, AFAIK. Personally, I'd get some oil pressure readings(accurate ones) just for peace of mind in a vehicle that was back spec'd to a differing viscosity. Please, do not read this as me saying you should do this.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Trav
I would never go back to 15w40 in a gas engine with todays oils being available.


See, there you go. When it comes to synthetic, it might as well be a 0w-XX if reasonable possible and prudent. GC 0w-30, Mobil 1 0w-40, a synthetic 0w-20 - all fine by me.

Then again, I have no major gripe against 15w40, either.

The price is usually right.

 

[Ronn]

Anyone here see this? The oil was Ultra SM version BTW. Pretty
surprising results.

http://speedtalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=30483

Oil categories:

*** Over 90,000 psi = OUTSTANDING protection

*** 75,000 to 90,000 psi = GOOD protection

*** 60,000 to 75,000 psi = MODEST protection

*** Below 60,000 psi = UNACCEPTABLE protection



********** OUTSTANDING PROTECTION ************


1. 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, API SM = 115,612 psi
I have not been able to find this oil with the latest API SN certification. The bottle says, “No leading synthetic oil provides better wear protection”. For once, a product’s hype turns out to be true

 

[Ronn]

Oh..and this..

"And speaking of repeat testing at different times showing the same results over and over again. I was so shocked that the winning 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, API SM, could be so good, that I tested it probably twice as many times as I tested all the other oils. And every time it tested extremely well. It simply would NOT test bad. It really is good oil, and I will be putting it in my own 800 HP, 540ci BBC."

 

[Pablo]

Timken. Not reliable or repeatable. Someone should take him to task.

 

[Ronn]

I suggest you read the entire thread

He was very methodical and got very consistent results. There is an extensive discussion on his methodology and validity of this test. Biggest argument is that it's not on a RUNNING ENGINE, since it's an *isolated test*.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: Ronn
Biggest argument is that it's not on a RUNNING ENGINE, since it's an *isolated test*.

Given that, how applicable is his testing to real world situations?

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: Ronn
I suggest you read the entire thread

He was very methodical and got very consistent results. There is an extensive discussion on his methodology and validity of this test. Biggest argument is that it's not on a RUNNING ENGINE, since it's an *isolated test*.


I read the entire thread. He still used a Timken machine. Sure he altered the ASTM methodology, but it's still a Timken machine and Timken testing of a motor oil just a flawed a test. Not trying to poop on your parade, but read around.

 

[buster]

Pablo is righto.

 

[CATERHAM]

I don't know what to make of it.
What parts of an operating engine is the test supposed to be replicating? Parts of the valve train I presume under boundary lubrication.
There is no consistency based on viscosity or Phos' content.
For example Mobil 1 15W-50 was near the bottom of the list.
It would be interesting to get Mobil's opinion on the test or another formulator.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: Ronn
I suggest you read the entire thread

He was very methodical and got very consistent results. There is an extensive discussion on his methodology and validity of this test. Biggest argument is that it's not on a RUNNING ENGINE, since it's an *isolated test*.


I read the entire thread. He still used a Timken machine. Sure he altered the ASTM methodology, but it's still a Timken machine and Timken testing of a motor oil just a flawed a test. Not trying to poop on your parade, but read around.

I guess that pretty much sums it up.

 

[buster]

Oils are tested in engines.

 

[buster]

Why, why, why, why , why does Pennzoil have the link to their GF-4 Ultra PDS? Such a great line of oils but this is ridiculous.