Pennzoil Claims Formulation of Platinum Changed to Reflect New 15,000-mile Guarantee On Bottle

[kschachn]

That is likely true in terms of GTL oils tolerating extremely high heat in engines, and also extreme cold weather engine startups with enough flow of oil, but my question was more about engine wear, and whether a GTL oil with very low (600 ppm phosphorous/zinc levels) would be inferior at preventing engine wear than a regular group III synthetic with 800 ppm of phosphorous and zinc.

GTL is a Group III base stock and as such it is similar if not identical in chemical structure to any other Group I, II or III stock. Hydrocarbon chain length is the same. A GTL derived base is no better nor worse than any other in terms of wear. Besides, wear in an engine due to the oil is also highly influenced by the additives. For example, if you look at just the base a Group IV stock has somewhat higher wear than a Group I, II or III. But no one puts unadditized oil in an engine.

So your question about some mythical GTL-derived Group III base compared to another derivation Group III base with different amounts of phosphorus and zinc (do you mean ZDDP?) is nonsensical in this context. From that standpoint the wear is due to the overall formulation of the oil, not the base stocks.

 

[kschachn]

this is the same question i have as Pennzoil ultra platinum oils over say Valvoline EP,,espicially in terms of wear vs extreme cold flow.?

One will never achieve the same winter performance in a Group III base stock as you can get with a Group IV. It's physically impossible. The reason a GTL derrived base stock is superior to some other Group III stock is because of the higher viscosity index.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

That is likely true in terms of GTL oils tolerating extremely high heat in engines, and also extreme cold weather engine startups with enough flow of oil, but my question was more about engine wear, and whether a GTL oil with very low (600 ppm phosphorous/zinc levels) would be inferior at preventing engine wear than a regular group III synthetic with 800 ppm of phosphorous and zinc.

You cannot discern performance by the amount of an additive. For example there are multiple types of ZDDP and Moly.

 

[Bill7]

GTL is a Group III base stock and as such it is similar if not identical in chemical structure to any other Group I, II or III stock. Hydrocarbon chain length is the same. A GTL derived base is no better nor worse than any other in terms of wear. Besides, wear in an engine due to the oil is also highly influenced by the additives. For example, if you look at just the base a Group IV stock has somewhat higher wear than a Group I, II or III. But no one puts unadditized oil in an engine.

So your question about some mythical GTL-derived Group III base compared to another derivation Group III base with different amounts of phosphorus and zinc (do you mean ZDDP?) is nonsensical in this context. From that standpoint the wear is due to the overall formulation of the oil, not the base stocks.

Thanks kschachn: Your really helped my understanding.
You mentioned:

"A GTL derived base is no better nor worse than any other in terms of wear".
"A Group IV stock has somewhat higher wear than a Group I, II or III. But no one puts unadditized oil in an engine".

So based on what you said, we can take the base stock out of the equation in the discussion on engine wear.
If we compare the anti-wear additives: parts per million (ppm) measurements of phosphorous and zinc, would that help us rank engine oil by how well it prevents engine wear with the higher ppm meaning lower wear?

 

[kschachn]

Thanks kschachn: Your really helped my understanding.
You mentioned:

"A GTL derived base is no better nor worse than any other in terms of wear".
"A Group IV stock has somewhat higher wear than a Group I, II or III. But no one puts unadditized oil in an engine".

So based on what you said, we can take the base stock out of the equation in the discussion on engine wear.
If we compare the anti-wear additives: parts per million (ppm) measurements of phosphorous and zinc, would that help us rank engine oil by how well it prevents engine wear with the higher ppm meaning lower wear?

The notion of a ranking sounds a bit ratty to me.

 

[ZeeOSix]

If we compare the anti-wear additives: parts per million (ppm) measurements of phosphorous and zinc, would that help us rank engine oil by how well it prevents engine wear with the higher ppm meaning lower wear?

Think it boils down the the overall formulation synergy, not just the levels of each AF/AW additive. Actual wear testing of the formulated oil would be the best way to know how well the AF/AW package works. Testing of the formulated oil is what motor oil companies do, and some have their own full-blow test labs that run full engine tests.

But as the Machinery Lubrication article pointed out, "film thickness" (the MOFT) due to viscosity is the main mitigator of wear, and the "film strength" (the AF/AW additives) further helps mitigate wear when the film thickness stops adequately separating parts when the MOFT = 0. The lower the viscosity, the more the film strength's function and robustness needs to be. That Machinery Lubrication article I linked in post 116 is a good one that shows the difference between film thickness and film strength ... everyone should read it.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Here's another good Machinery Lubrication article on additives.

Lubricant Additives - A Practical Guide

A practical overview of oil and lubricant additives without all the chemistry.

www.machinerylubrication.com

The conclusion near the bottom of the article says:
"It is evident from the information above that there is a lot of chemistry occurring in most of the oils that are used to lubricate equipment. They are complicated mixtures of chemicals that are in balance with one another and need to be respected."

 

[Bill7]

Would anyone know from an oil longevity point of view, if Pennzoil made any changes to the formula to allow a 15,000 mile oil change.

Also, a similar concern, what did Sophus do to the Quaker State Ultimate Protection to market it at 20,000 mile OCI.
Is there some magic ingredient that doubles an oils longevity from 10k to 20k? Obviously not, but was just wondering
if the 10k versus 20k oil comparison is just marketing, or if the oil really gets improved for the 20k version?

 

[tolian21]

They changed formulation by adding 1ppm of secret molecules

 

[Bill7]

Even SuperTech: Their 10,000 mile regular Full Synthetic is $18.64, and their Advanced 20,000 synthetic is: $19.98.
Not sure what difference the extra $1.34 cents could provide.

That's why I think it's all just marketing. Telling the customer what they want to hear. "Yeah, I just bought an oil for $20 bucks that can go 20,000 miles". But you're engine is facing the reality of those false marketing claims.

 

[Drewby83]

Shell gave me the same NDA answer for QSUP regarding NOACK and HTHS. Just FYI.

 

[Bill7]

Why did you go with 5w30 in the Ody? Just curious of your logic to see if I need to learn something. Not starting a fight unless you are one of the Thickie-Wackos

I maintain 3 Honda V6s with like 600,000 happy miles on 0w20 or 5w20.

There is nothing wrong with 20 weight oil.
I personal view 20 weight oil as adequate protection.

I own 3 Honda Odysseys with the 3.5L V-6 with VCM enabled.

I prefer to only use 5W-30 in them for the added HTHS protection, for when the van is fully loaded with 8 people + luggage going on cross country trips that include going up mountain inclines with the Air Cond on and with engine temperatures rising.
Also, if you had a cooling system issue and engine was running hotter than usual, a higher HTHS oil will provide better protection in that scenario.

I believe 5W-30 is neither thick or thin, but simply the optimal viscosity that most cars should have been speced for if CAFE fines to automakers by the US government didn't exist.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I believe 5W-30 is neither thick or thin, but simply the optimal viscosity ...

xW-30 is basically the "Goldilocks" viscosity (10.5 - 11 cSt KV100 and 3.1 - 3.2 cP HTHS) that will very work well in almost any road vehicle.

 

[Bill7]

xW-30 is basically the "Goldilocks" viscosity (10.5 - 11 cSt KV100 and 3.1 - 3.2 cP HTHS) that will very work well in almost any road vehicle.

Some other evidence in support of 5W-30:
Ford initially went to 5W-20, but went back to specing 5W-30 when they found that 5W-20 didn't protect their vehicle's timing chains well enough.

 

[Bill7]

Today I purchased a 5 quart jug of the Pennzoil Platinum High Mileage Full Synthetic 5W-30 (15,000 mile yellow rectangle on the container).

The reason I bought is, on the back, it prominently emphasizes that it's seal conditioners have been proven to stock leaks.
Pennzoil is a conservative company. Their marketing is really going out of their way to prominently mention that their seal conditioners can stop existing leaks. They even use the word "Proven to help stop leaks" in the Amazon description.

In absence of any meaningful testing of high mileage oil's ability to prevent or stop leaks,
this strong marketing by Pennzoil might be a good indication that this oil might be the best of all oils in stopping existing oil leaks.

Also it's group III+ GTL forumula might make it one of the fastest flowing oils in extreme cold startups.

Would anyone know if there is a VOA of the new 5W-30 formula of this oil - just curious if the 15k mile version got an increase in phosphorous / zinc and Calcium?

The exact quote from the bottle is:
Pennzoil Platinum High Mileage is formulated to reduce oil burn off and help stop leaks in engines with more than 75,000 miles.

and from the Amazon detailed description:

• Proven to help stop leaks for engines with more than 75,000 miles

 

[I<3oil]

What exactly does it mean for trying to quantify "helping stop leaks" exactly?

 

[ChrisD46]

I also like to point out that the reverse works as well. 30 is going to shear to a 20 anyway.

Even more likely with a GDI engine …

 

[kschachn]

I also like to point out that the reverse works as well. 30 is going to shear to a 20 anyway.

Only if the engine has an issue with mechanical shear and the VM is susceptible.

 

[kschachn]

Even more likely with a GDI engine …

You mean viscosity lowering from fuel dilution? That’s not shear.

 

[ChrisD46]

You mean viscosity lowering from fuel dilution? That’s not shear.

Hyundai GDI engines can quickly sheer an oil like they invented the term , so yes and yes (sheer and fuel dilution) .