Pennzoil Ultra 0w40 / SRT, API SN

[volk06]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: volk06
Originally Posted By: 147_Grain
Additive package isn't as strong as lower grades in Pennzoil Ultra because the average 0W-40 consumer will be changing their oil more frequently.



How do you know that? That's pure speculation on the formulation and besides boron, this Pennzoil Ultra has a stronger additive package. More CA and moly, sorry but youre wrong and just talking without looking at the data.


147_Grain: the SRT service schedule calls for 6K OCIs... hardly "more frequently" than the average consumer.

Volk06: "Stronger" additive package? With the Zn and P nearly halved compared to Mobil 1? I'll grant you that ZDDP isn't the be-all end-all of anti-wear out there, but of the elements listed in this VOA I find it hard to conclude that Pennzoil Ultra has a stronger additive package. More Calcium- Mobil 1 0w40 has more than Pennzoil Ultra 0w40. Moly? Pennzoil Ultra has more, but moly is a friction modifier for efficiency more than anti-wear. To me its 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. Nothing clearly stands out to make this Pennzoil Ultra sample better in any way than the Mobil 1, and frankly the reduced ZDDP is disappointing when significantly more would be allowed in this grade and it could still get the SN rating. The low starting viscosity is also an eyebrow-raiser, and one hopes that the GTL base oil holds viscosity so well that this doesn't matter.

And I'll caveat all this by repeating: I know VOAs are largely for academic interest more than real-world performance. But I was still hoping for something distinctive to jump out, and it just doesn't.


If you read the quotes, I was comparing the supposed lower grades of Pennzoil Ultra. There was NO mention of Mobil 1 0w40.

 

[UNC017]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
But still, it's supposed to a 40-weight, and a VOA doesn't confirm that? In-grade viscosity is the most fundamental thing that an oil should meet in a VOA.



Well... I'm inclined to agree (can you hear the 'but...' coming?). We did just have a big kerfluffle with the PQIA test of Maxlife transmission fluid initially being given a warning for being out of the acceptable viscosity range for Dexron III. The explanation was that other Dexron III shears to thinner than Maxlife very quickly, but Maxlife hardly shears at all. So if Pennzoil Ultra 0w40 is at the ragged dividing line between a 30-wt and a 40-wt, but STAYS there whereas other 0w40s shear down quickly, I'd be willing to give them a pass. I wish they'd put it more in the middle of the 40-wt range, though. We buy a 40 wt because we WANT a 40-wt after all!


Then there's also the question of where the dividing line really IS. Before I E-mail Blackstone to ask if what we're seeing could be within the error bars on their test, do you know why Blackstone lists the acceptable range for a 0w40 as 11.6-14.5? Are they perhaps including their own error bars in their statement of "acceptable" range?

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
do you know why Blackstone lists the acceptable range for a 0w40 as 11.6-14.5? Are they perhaps including their own error bars in their statement of "acceptable" range?


To be honest, I never understood why Blackstone has invented their own scale when SAE J300 clearly specifies that an Xw-40 oil must have 100C viscosity between 12.5 and 16.3 to be classified as such.

 

[UNC017]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
do you know why Blackstone lists the acceptable range for a 0w40 as 11.6-14.5? Are they perhaps including their own error bars in their statement of "acceptable" range?


To be honest, I never understood why Blackstone has invented their own scale when SAE J300 clearly specifies that an Xw-40 oil must have 100C viscosity between 12.5 and 16.3 to be classified as such.


Of further interest is that the SRT-8 engine for which this oil was "co-engineered" (392/6.4L OHV single cam Hemi, with and without cylinder deactivation depending on transmission option, but always with VVT) consistently and apparently by design runs its oil well above 100C. When mine reaches steady-state, even in cool weather, the indicated oil temperature is always between 225 and 235F. People report higher temps when tracking the cars. No worries about fuel dilution on this engine. This is with an oil-to-coolant heat exchanger, which seems to primarily WARM the oil faster on cold startup if you ask me.

 

[steve20]

I'm with you on the high oil temps-my Corvette runs 225-235 when warmed up as well.
Steve

 

[dailydriver]

Are they using the new(er) 'trimer' moly in this formula's add pack??

 

[ZZman]

More Moly to make up for less ZDDP?

 

[UNC017]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
do you know why Blackstone lists the acceptable range for a 0w40 as 11.6-14.5? Are they perhaps including their own error bars in their statement of "acceptable" range?


To be honest, I never understood why Blackstone has invented their own scale when SAE J300 clearly specifies that an Xw-40 oil must have 100C viscosity between 12.5 and 16.3 to be classified as such.


I thought I'd share this exchange I had with Blackstone- it explains why they do what they do. I'm not sure I think it makes SENSE given that there's a hard-line standard out there, but that's a different question.

Part of what I wrote to Blackstone about the Pennzoil Ultra 0w40 VOA:

Quote:
I do have a question about this report- the 100C viscosity is listed as 12.26, and in a "values should be..." range of 11.6 to 14.5. However my understanding of SAE J300 is that an oil must have 100C viscosity between 12.5 and 16.3 to be classified an *w40 grade. By that scale this sample would appear to be quite thin compared to Mobil 1 0w40, for which I've seen a report from your lab indicating a 100C vis of 13.4 (lab number E69403). Is the difference between 12.26 and 12.5 just within the error bars of your test method?


And they responded, in part:

Quote:
When we get a new sample of oil in that we have not seen before, we assign it a "should be" viscosity range based on what we've seen from other brands of the same grade in the past. Then if we find the oil actually performs differently than what we expected, we'll tweak the should be range a little. So our values are based on what we see as the real-world performance of the oil.


So, if I understand the response, they're saying that the "should be" range is based not on the standard, but on what they observe across many samples of that grade oil and using their test methods. So if all 0w40 oils they test violate the standard, then their "should be" range will be outside of the standard.

They do go on to say, as we have here, that the other important and interesting test will be how it holds up over time.

 

[Quattro Pete]

I kind of understand their thought process. I still don't agree with it. If they want to use averages, they should at least limit it to that one specific oil brand and not all the 0w-40 oils out there. Otherwise, this range becomes rather useless.

Alas, it's their lab and they can put anything they want into that "should be" column.

 

[CATERHAM]

Too bad you didn't order a KV40 test so we would know the VI. With the KV100 spec' being lower than what PU publish I suspect the VI will be lower than the claimed 186 as well.

VOAs of Sustina 0w50 and Motul 300V 0W-40 also revealed lower KV100 spec's and VIs than what's claimed in their PDSs.
Castrol 0W-40 is a non-starter IMO with it's 170 VI.

Mobil 1 0W-40 remains a benchmark oil that's hard to beat regardless of price.
The only relatively available oil I know of that can out shine Mobil 1 is Red Line 0W-40 and that unfortunately isn't even an API oil for those to which such things matter (not I).

 

[tommygunn]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
I guess it really is just narrowly targeted at the SRT vehicles, and its not going to give Mobil 1 0w40 a run for the BITOG 'if you had to have only 1 oil on your desert island...' award.


Mobil 1 won't really give a run to coconut flavored massage oil, either.