Pennzoil Ultra Platinum 5W30 vs SuperTech Advanced 5W30 - FIGHT!

[kschachn]

So yet another thread where a $30 spectrographic analysis is being used to make comparative quality differences between oils.

You do know that Blackstone themselves state that no oil they have tested shows statistically significant differences, right?

 

[PimTac]

Blackstone suggests 3 oil tests before coming to a judgment about an oil BTW.

But of course.

 

[Jackson_Slugger]

Now you are starting to sound like what’s his name

Well I think I argue with him occasionally but here he has a very good point. I could care less what people use in their car but this Project Sheep Ranch oil-off stuff is just dumb. Even the points made don't make sense, yes PUP is pricier than ST, but does ST ever have $25 rebates? You want the thickest 5W-30? Okay, what if less VII's means actually a thicker base oil that is higher quality? Or just use Mobil 1 HM...

 

[OVERKILL]

The Super Tech remains a 30 weight, and the wear metals are very low for the duration. Gotta like that. ST for the win.

The Supertech has no fuel in it, while the Pennzoil has considerable fuel in it, look at the flashpoints.

 

[kschachn]

True. But, I'm sure there are many, if not a hundred or more ST 5W-30 UOA's on this site. That aggregate grouping, taken from numerous vehicle engines in differing climates, has likely shown itself to be respectable.

That is helping to define the problem, not a solution.

 

[Malo83]

Pennz Ultra all day.

 

[SteveG4]

So yet another thread where a $30 spectrographic analysis is being used to make comparative quality differences between oils.

You do know that Blackstone themselves state that no oil they have tested shows statistically significant differences, right?

You are the life of the party, eh? Huh.

PUP? Consumers shouldn't pay more for oil that starts its life at the basement bottom of a given SAE range cannot remain in grade at the end of a short OCI.

 

[kschachn]

You are the life of the party, eh? Huh.

PUP? Consumers shouldn't pay more for oil that starts its life at the basement bottom of a given SAE range cannot remain in grade at the end of a short OCI.

I didn’t know we were having a party here in thought we were having a substantive technical discussion.

That grade deviation is due to fuel dilution? If so that’s hardly an issue with the oil. No oil will dilute faster or slower than any other oil and it’s why if you have an engine that dilutes it’s best to go up a grade or two rather than relying on the viscosity range within the grade. Overkill noted that above. Dilution is a mechanical process unrelated to the brand and is dependent on the amount of fuel and sump capacity.

 

[SteveG4]

That is helping to define the problem, not a solution.

What? You seem to be revealing the problem is that a less expensive, competing oil performs equally, if not better in some cases, as compared to the so-called premium options. I'm okay with consumers becoming commonsensical and prudent and not paying more.

 

[kschachn]

What? You seem to be revealing the problem is that a less expensive, competing oil performs equally, if not better in some cases, as compared to the so-called premium options. I'm okay with consumers becoming commonsensical and prudent and not paying more.

Those UOA you cite they are from different engines operated under different conditions and by different operators are useless for the purpose you’re talking about here. The things I highlighted in your message are some of the problems in trying to do that, not substantiation for validity.

Apart from the fact that again a $30 spectrographic analysis is a test that is incapable of determining comparative oil quality. Mix in the hundreds of variables in random people posting one-off UOA and it only gets worse.

 

[SteveG4]

Those UOA you cite they are from different engines operated under different conditions and by different operators are useless for the purpose you’re talking about here. The things I highlighted in your message are some of the problems in trying to do that, not substantiation for validity.

No. As stated in post #1 in this thread, the UOA's surround Navi's same engine, a Ford Ecoboost 3.5L 440 horsepower Generation 2 engine.

Given today's prevalence of GDI engines causing fuel dilution, perhaps blenders should produce products that stay in-grade for a short duration OCI, or 3000 to 4000 miles.

That should more aptly apply to the premium products being offered today!

Navi's wising up.

I've said my bit. Peace.

 

[kschachn]

If that were really true then blenders and formulators could dispense with the expensive and time consuming tests in SAE J300 and could surf the web for UOA instead. It doesn’t work that way, obtaining statistically significant and reproducible results isn’t found on a Google or Bitog search.

 

[kschachn]

No. As stated in post #1 in this thread, the UOA's surround Navi's same engine, a Ford Ecoboost 3.5L 440 horsepower Generation 2 engine.

Given today's prevalence of GDI engines causing fuel dilution, perhaps blenders should produce products that stay in-grade for a short duration OCI, or 3000 miles.

I've said my bit. Peace.

All right well delete the part about different engines. But that still doesn’t come close to validating the results for the purpose you’re proposing.

 

[OVERKILL]

What? You seem to be revealing the problem is that a less expensive, competing oil performs equally, if not better in some cases, as compared to the so-called premium options. I'm okay with consumers becoming commonsensical and prudent and not paying more.

But that's NOT what's being illustrated here because the samples have wildly different levels of fuel in them, most likely due to varying operating conditions during the periods in which they were run.

The other issue of course is the visc accuracy in these tests. If we see significant deviations from the blender's spec sheets, that should be cause for concern as well.

Basically, there's a huge stack of variables here that are not being accounted for, certain data being soundly ignored, and yet "firm" conclusions are being drawn, which is utterly bizarre.

Let's, for a moment, assume that the numbers from Blackstone are all spot-on for viscosity:

1. SuperTech went from 11.1cSt to 9.62cSt. With a flashpoint of 440F, there's no fuel in that sample, so the 13.3% viscosity loss is all from mechanical shear
2. Pennzoil U went from 9.48cSt to 8.87cSt. With a flashpoint of 395F, there's absolutely fuel in that sample, so the 6.4% viscosity loss is at least in part, from dilution

So, despite the fuel dilution, the Pennzoil product experienced 50% less viscosity loss, percentage-wise, than the SuperTech, assuming again that the Blackstone numbers are accurate.

 

[SteveG4]

But that's NOT what's being illustrated here because the samples have wildly different levels of fuel in them, most likely due to varying operating conditions during the periods in which they were run.

In this thread, Navi's ecoboost historically presented less than 0.5% fuel in oil levels.

So overall, are you telling me that sold multi-vis oils that start out with a higher viscosity number @ 100 degs C do NOT have a better chance of staying in-grade over a normal OCI as compared to oils sold with numbers at the basement bottom of the accepted SAE range for their rated grade?

Really?

 

[OVERKILL]

In this thread, Navi's ecoboost historically presented less than 0.5% fuel in oil levels.

So overall, are you telling me that sold multi-vis oils that start out with a higher viscosity number @ 100 degs C do NOT have a better chance of staying in-grade over a normal OCI as compared to oils sold with numbers at the basement bottom of the accepted SAE range for their rated grade?

Really?

Dude, it's BLACKSTONE THEY DO NOT MEASURE FUEL. How many times does that have to be said on here for people to understand it. Look at the flashpoints!

I've implored the OP to use a lab that uses GC to get a proper handle on the fuel dilution levels he is experiencing. He has not responded to me on this, instead, choosing to draw conclusions based on test results from a lab that does not use GC for fuel.

Did you read the rest of the post you quoted? I broke down the percentages of visc loss, the Pennzoil product experienced LESS viscosity loss than the SuperTech, despite the Supertech not experiencing fuel dilution. The results do not reflect the conclusion you are drawing from them.

 

[SteveG4]

But that's NOT what's being illustrated here because the samples have wildly different levels of fuel in them, most likely due to varying operating conditions during the periods in which they were run.

The other issue of course is the visc accuracy in these tests. If we see significant deviations from the blender's spec sheets, that should be cause for concern as well.

Basically, there's a huge stack of variables here that are not being accounted for, certain data being soundly ignored, and yet "firm" conclusions are being drawn, which is utterly bizarre.

Let's, for a moment, assume that the numbers from Blackstone are all spot-on for viscosity:

1. SuperTech went from 11.1cSt to 9.62cSt. With a flashpoint of 440F, there's no fuel in that sample, so the 13.3% viscosity loss is all from mechanical shear
2. Pennzoil U went from 9.48cSt to 8.87cSt. With a flashpoint of 395F, there's absolutely fuel in that sample, so the 6.4% viscosity loss is at least in part, from dilution

So, despite the fuel dilution, the Pennzoil product experienced 50% less viscosity loss, percentage-wise, than the SuperTech, assuming again that the Blackstone numbers are accurate.

If your numbers are correct, I'm okay with that, as the Super Tech stay in-grade.

 

[SteveG4]

Dude, it's BLACKSTONE THEY DO NOT MEASURE FUEL. How many times does that have to be said on here for people to understand it. Look at the flashpoints!

I've implored the OP to use a lab that uses GC to get a proper handle on the fuel dilution levels he is experiencing. He has not responded to me on this, instead, choosing to draw conclusions based on test results from a lab that does not use GC for fuel.

Did you read the rest of the post you quoted? I broke down the percentages of visc loss, the Pennzoil product experienced LESS viscosity loss than the SuperTech, despite the Supertech not experiencing fuel dilution. The results do not reflect the conclusion you are drawing from them.

Specifically, what's wrong with the historical flashpoints presented in the bottom Blackstone report in post #7? Compare and contrast!

Enlighten us all...

 

[MParr]

I’ve been saying for a while that, Pennzoil is thin and overrated.

 

[OVERKILL]

If your numbers are correct, I'm okay with that, as the Super Tech stay in-grade.

It stayed in grade only because it experienced no fuel dilution and started out heavier. In absolute terms, it experienced more degradation in service.