Pennzoil Platinum HM 5W-30 VOA

[himemsys]

You really think it does?

You don't think a PDS speccing 11.4 while two VOAs showing high 8s to low 9s is not a significant difference?

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

I'm curious what I said that made you believe I was shocked or skeptical. My whole point is that this VOA is probably accurate because there are two other VOAs showing the same add pack. Even the low viscosity is shared between the two 30 grades. That was why I pointed out these three VOAs are vanilla Platinum, not Ultra Platinum or non-Platinum.

Apologies; generally speaking when someone sees such similarity between different samples or tiers they think it’s either lab error or a fluke. It may also be I didn’t fully grasp the point you were trying to make… my bad

 

[kschachn]

You don't think a PDS speccing 11.4 while two VOAs showing high 8s to low 9s is not a significant difference?

No that is not at all what I'm saying. I'm denoting whom I trust is all. We've had this exact thing happen before (ExxonMobil I believe) where someone on the board has made this fantastical discovery that a commercial product doesn't meet some SAE requirement and it's always turned out false. Any blender is always being cross-checked by their competitors and I struggle with the notion that you've hit on a conspiracy here that only took a $30 sample to discover.

It's the same hesitancy I feel when reading in this thread that the oil is "pathetic" or "weak", based on a cheap analysis.

 

[himemsys]

No that is not at all what I'm saying. I'm denoting whom I trust is all. We've had this exact thing happen before (ExxonMobil I believe) where someone on the board has made this fantastical discovery that a commercial product doesn't meet some SAE requirement and it's always turned out false. Any blender is always being cross-checked by their competitors and I struggle with the notion that you've hit on a conspiracy here that only took a $30 sample to discover.

It's the same hesitancy I feel when reading in this thread that the oil is "pathetic" or "weak", based on a cheap analysis.

I’m most inclined to believe that Pennzoil updated the blend in the past 1-2 years but never updated the PDS. Or at least never published the updated PDS.

If that is the case then I still believe it needs to be pointed out to Pennzoil.

 

[kschachn]

I’m most inclined to believe that Pennzoil updated the blend in the past 1-2 years but never updated the PDS. Or at least never published the updated PDS.

If that is the case then I still believe it needs to be pointed out to Pennzoil.

You can't update something such that it no longer meets SAE requirements.

Yes, by all means tell them and let us know the response.

 

[himemsys]

You can't update something such that it no longer meets SAE requirements.

Yes, by all means tell them and let us know the response.

If they updated the viscosity to something on the lower end, say 9.8ish, then I can see some combination of manufacturing variability and testing variability accounting for what we’re seeing.

 

[drtyler]

If they updated the viscosity to something on the lower end, say 9.8ish, then I can see some combination of manufacturing variability and testing variability accounting for what we’re seeing.

Blackstone can certainly handle the variability on their own.

 

[buster]

Here is a VOA of Valvoline Modern Engine, which had a hefty price due to some type of special ester/or detergent. It's anything but anemic. I don't know why the PP HM oil looks anemic. Could be B/S Labs, could be the are cutting corners, or it could be they are using things that replace the higher levels of metallic additives.

It's not 1985, many engines will live a long healthy life on these oils.

 

[gregk24]

Interesting, because the old gray bottle PPHM was smooth and silent in my 300ZX. Yellow bottle PPHM was noisy in my Accord. M1 is smooth and silent in my Accord, hence why it's going also in my 300ZX.

Funny, as I had always been a PP user in my Hondas for YEARS until recently when I switched to Mobil 1. After 2 OCI's on the Mobil 1 the valve train area began developing discoloration. I can't say it was caused by M1, and I'm not trying to say that. All I can say is that it was never present until the time I began using M1 in this application. Just switched back to PP a few days ago. I have no issues with M1 products for the record, and will continue using with confidence. I just found the discoloration odd and the timing is too coincidental. As far as noise is concerned the K24 in my Accord has sounded the same regardless of oil grade or brand. I have observed variations in noise in other applications however.

 

[himemsys]

Blackstone responded. First, they said that before even releasing the report to me, they preemptively retested because of the low viscosity, and confirmed the result on retest:

We always retest any results that seem unusual, and in this case, we had already double checked the viscosity before reporting. Both times, it was below the typical range for 5W/30. We did note that the viscosity was low in our comments (the bolded reading also indicates an out of spec result). The note regarding a slightly low viscosity not making a significant difference in lubrication is founded on thousands of used oil samples we have tested. While the manufacturer recommended viscosity is ideal, we haven't run into many situations where a slightly lower one caused measurable harm. Of course, it is always your choice as to what oil you're comfortable using in your own engine and we hope this analysis has provided the information you need to make your own informed decision.

Also, they commented on the low spectral results:

At your request, we also re-did the spectral exam. During the initial analysis of the data, I opted not to re-test this particular sample, since we had recently received a different unused sample of the same oil type with a nearly identical additive package -- including a low level of boron -- as was noted in the comments. Recent used samples of Pennzoil Platinum High Mileage have looked similar as well. The re-test we did this afternoon was virtually the same, with very little boron once again. Feel free to reach out to Pennzoil regarding this and the viscosity if you like.

Lastly, they commented formulations and variability:

To my knowledge, additive formulations are proprietary. Aside from situations where additives levels confirm the oil is the wrong type (for example, hydraulic oil, gear oil, and ATF each have additive levels distinct from engine oil) we would not deem an oil unserviceable based on the additive package alone. Variability is common and we aren't privy to the reasons manufacturer's choose the exact proportions of additives they do. I can say, however, that multiple additive elements serve the same functions. For instance, calcium and magnesium are detergent dispersants just like boron, so a lower boron level doesn't necessarily mean an oil is deficient.

I'm satisfied with their response.

 

[ZZman]

not impressive

 

[himemsys]

I've been in contact with Pennzoil. We had daily communications From last Friday until Tuesday when they asked me to send a copy of the VOA, which I did. Since I sent the VOA, I have not heard back yet. I'm patient.

 

[researcher]

I've been in contact with Pennzoil. We had daily communications From last Friday until Tuesday when they asked me to send a copy of the VOA, which I did. Since I sent the VOA, I have not heard back yet. I'm patient.

be interesting to see what Pennzoil says..

 

[himemsys]

be interesting to see what Pennzoil says..

It's been a very slow conversation. They agreed that the viscosity, phosphorus, TBN, and "other elements" do not match up with what it should look like. They asked for the batch number off of the bottle and I sent it. A week later, I followed up after not hearing back and they asked for the batch number again. I also offered to allow them to test the oil. I still have the jug. It's full other than the oil I poured out for the sample.

edit: I just realized that every time they send an email, it comes from a no-reply address and I have to manually change the email address to the one they list in the body of the email. So I just resent that information to the correct address.

 

[subiedriver]

This oil meets the gf-6 api sp spec, something is off with this VOA.

 

[motorguy222]

I not only requested a retest from BS, I also emailed Pennzoil General Public Inquiries. Probably not the right email, but it's the only one I could find on their site. I would think they would want to be aware that their oil varies this significantly from their own PDS. 11.4 vs 8.9 cSt is pretty darn significant.

Their PDS are in some instances not up to date or are different from their MSD sheets. If you look at the PDS for the Quaker State All Mileage 10w40 it has a hot viscosity of 15.7 but the SDS shows it as 13.9. They seem to be making oils thinner. While this is QS, Pennzoil and QS are owned by Shell.

 

[GRUMPYDUDE2]

It's been a very slow conversation. They agreed that the viscosity, phosphorus, TBN, and "other elements" do not match up with what it should look like. They asked for the batch number off of the bottle and I sent it. A week later, I followed up after not hearing back and they asked for the batch number again. I also offered to allow them to test the oil. I still have the jug. It's full other than the oil I poured out for the sample.

edit: I just realized that every time they send an email, it comes from a no-reply address and I have to manually change the email address to the one they list in the body of the email. So I just resent that information to the correct address.

Any updates?

 

[Brian123]

It's been a very slow conversation. They agreed that the viscosity, phosphorus, TBN, and "other elements" do not match up with what it should look like. They asked for the batch number off of the bottle and I sent it. A week later, I followed up after not hearing back and they asked for the batch number again. I also offered to allow them to test the oil. I still have the jug. It's full other than the oil I poured out for the sample.

edit: I just realized that every time they send an email, it comes from a no-reply address and I have to manually change the email address to the one they list in the body of the email. So I just resent that information to the correct address.

Sounds like it is time to look for a different oil, unless you are happy with the Pennzoil Platinum HM 5W-30, thanks 4 the VOA.

 

[himemsys]

No updates yet. The dude got back to me, but only to say he's still waiting to hear back from "second level" and "product application teams".

 

[himemsys]

Sounds like it is time to look for a different oil, unless you are happy with the Pennzoil Platinum HM 5W-30, thanks 4 the VOA.

I've never used this oil, so no stake in it. Bought it, sent the sample in, got it back and posted here. I was hoping to use it on a next oil change, but I'm holding off, at least until I get a satisfactory response from Pennzoil. I've offered to let Pennzoil test it, but they haven't accepted that offer yet.