Pennzoil 10W30, 3926 miles, Infiniti G35... Surprising Results!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 4, 2003
Messages
258
Location
Wellington, Florida
I thought this analysis to be quite interesting. After running several fills of Mobil1, I was not satisfied with the UOAs on a 7500 mile interval. Lead and Iron were always very high. On lower mileage intervals the wear numbers improved, but not quite as low as I would have liked. So I decided to switch back to dino, and this board recommended Pennzoil... and the results are much improved.

Comparing this Pennzoil 4K interval with Mobil 4K intervals, with the exception of TIN, all the wear numbers are significantly improved!

This is when I realize that I'm still a newbie on this board... isn't synth supposd to provide better protection? What gives? Can anyone provide an explanation?

I did not change my driving style, and if anything I'm driving 80-90% city miles now, whereas before it was 70-80% highway. I have another Pennzoil fill right now and I cannot wait for the next UOA!

 -


[ March 04, 2005, 01:10 AM: Message edited by: chinee ]
 
I received this response on another board, a response I want to disagree with... anyone care to comment on the statements made?

quote:

Your molybdenum value has more than doubled over prior readings. Since the VQ has moly coated pistons and cylinders, I would expect that would be a bad sign. Also, the boron and calcium values are very low now compared to the M1. Since those 2 elements are used to buffer and neutralize acids, I would expect that would be a bad sign. Plus the Pennz is highly paraffinitic. Wax makes sludge. Get that stuff out of there. The oil analyst can say whatever he likes, but if it were my motor, the dino juice would be gone and not be back.

 
All your wear metal concentrations have been trending lower in the previous four analyses. The wear rates of this engine still haven't stabilized at their lowest level. So you can't draw any conclusions from this one test, except that the Pennzoil is due to be changed after 4000 miles in this application.

I can also conclude that the guy who made your posted comment was an idiot - of that I am sure ....

TS
 
quote:

Originally posted by chinee:
I received this response on another board, a response I want to disagree with... anyone care to comment on the statements made?

quote:

Your molybdenum value has more than doubled over prior readings. Since the VQ has moly coated pistons and cylinders, I would expect that would be a bad sign. Also, the boron and calcium values are very low now compared to the M1. Since those 2 elements are used to buffer and neutralize acids, I would expect that would be a bad sign. Plus the Pennz is highly paraffinitic. Wax makes sludge. Get that stuff out of there. The oil analyst can say whatever he likes, but if it were my motor, the dino juice would be gone and not be back.


lol.gif
 
Pennzoil did a fine job here.Bob was right when he used to talk about the base being less important then the additive package.

Was this the newer SM stuff?
 
I can also conclude that the guy who made your posted comment was an idiot - of that I am sure ....

That comment from the other board is hogwash.

Boy... you guys are rough!
grin.gif


Was this the newer SM stuff?
You know... I never checked. I'll look at one of the bottles tonight.
 
quote:

...isn't synth supposd to provide better protection? What gives? Can anyone provide an explanation?

I believe Blackstone makes the comment at their website that UOA's normally show no appreciable difference in wear metals when comparing dino to syn's in comparable engines.

Good look'n iron & copper levels on this UOA - I'm sure this is the SM/GF-4 formulation based on the moly level and the phos at less than 800.

My only question is the 63.6 SUS viscosity - How did this 10.4 cSt oil, per the data sheet, get up to 11.0 cSt?
 
you know, the same results are seen in GM 4.3L V6 engines. And the same solution - use pennzoil, with its great additive package, seems to be the solution.

Also consider GC... preliminary results sem to show that it does well in the 4.3s and may do well in your engine.

The Mo comment is BS, IMO.

JMH
 
Your last test with Mobil 1 was good compared to the earlier ones. A conclusion that Pennz works better than Mobil 1 is probably not justified at this point. If it were my car, I would switch back to Mobil 1 and continue to monitor the oil.

-brian
 
quote:

Originally posted by brian:
Your last test with Mobil 1 was good compared to the earlier ones. A conclusion that Pennz works better than Mobil 1 is probably not justified at this point. If it were my car, I would switch back to Mobil 1 and continue to monitor the oil.

-brian


I dont think that is necessarily true... The GM 4.3L V6 is a similar example. M1 is just not a good fit (with very few exceptions). Pennzoil is an excellent oil no matter how you look at it, and though long-term there may be a little bit less varnishing of non-moving parts, results have shown that it is insignificant all the same.

Ill be the first to tout M1 for many applications. And one UOA isnt proof positive that M1 isnt a good oil for this engine. However, there are engines where M1 xw-30 oils are just too thin, IMO.

JMH
 
It's good to see Pennzoil is doing such a good job in your engine. I'm currently running the same oil in 5w30 flavor in my G35 and will likely do a UOA on this fill at ~2800 miles on the oil and 8600 total miles on the car, which will be in 2-3 months. Will be interesting to compare results.
cheers.gif
 
Well, chinee, I am not surprised by these results at all. I often say that with most applications of less than 5,000 miles, a really good oil such as Pennzoil, Chevron or Schaeffer will be as good as, or even better than, a good synthetic such as Mobil 1.

One word, though, I'd guess M1 has a higher detergency and this might affect the UOA some.

But I think it's safe to say that these UOAs are at least a draw! And if you want to stick with 4,000 mile changes, don't hesitate to use the less expensive stuff. Your ride seems to love it.
smile.gif


And yes, your buddy is overstating the case for moly coming off the moly-coated parts of the motor. That diminishes greatly by the 10,000 mile mark in the UOAs I've seen. Also, I'd expect to see increased metal, especially aluminum, if that moly was being scraped off some part.
wink.gif


--- Bror Jace
 
I'm sure this is the SM/GF-4 formulation based on the moly level and the phos at less than 800.

Was this the newer SM stuff?

Looking at the API circle, it reads API service SL. Above that, "Exceeds requirements of ILSAC GF-3, GF-2, API SL and previous API standards".

I guess this isn't the new SM formulation... but it still did a decent job. I think I'll stretch the next OCI out to 4500 miles.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Blue99:
My only question is the 63.6 SUS viscosity - How did this 10.4 cSt oil, per the data sheet, get up to 11.0 cSt?

Production tolerances. Not every single batch of 10w30 that comes out of the refinery is exactly 10.4 cSt. The vis given on the spec sheet is a typical average.
 
quote:

Production tolerances. Not every single batch of 10w30 that comes out of the refinery is exactly 10.4 cSt. The vis given on the spec sheet is a typical average.

Yes, but this isn't a VOA analysis.

Pennz 10W-30 UOA's normally indicate a drop of 3 SUS or more from the 10.5/10.4 cSt data sheet number - (I checked all the Pennz 10W-30's UOA's a couple of months ago).

That would peg the oil in this UOA at 66 SUS,12.0 cSt, fresh, out of the bottle. Highly unlikely.

I think somthing else is going on, possible a bad test from the analysis, or the oil in this engine is getting thicker during the 4K OCI.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom