Comparing specs on PQIAM it looks like there is no way that Mobil Super 5000 could hang with Pennzoil conventional - yet used oil study results prove otherwise ? ...Thoughts as to why ? ...I sure like the price difference of Mobil Super 5000 as compared to the premium price of Pennzoil conventional .
PYB vs. MS5K
- Thread starter ChrisD46
- Start date
- Status
Irrelevant, and thats a good thing. You cannot go wrong with either of these quality oils.
PYB vs Mobil Super 5000 round # 78956789042678.
I still pick Mobil Super 5000
I still pick Mobil Super 5000
I think both are absolutely TOP Notch for conventional. It's like splitting hairs. I use both with great results.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2010
- Messages
- 9,835
An honest question here:
What is it on paper that makes it seem as though Mobil Super 5000 could not hang with Pennzoil conventional? Pennzoil conventional has a full point more TBN from the start, but what else? Zinc and phosphorus are nearly the same. Mobil Super 5000 uses Sodium and Titanium instead of Boron and Moly as additives. Mobil Super 5000 has lower NOACK than Pennzoil conventional but Pennzoil conventional has a more Calcium.
What am I not seeing?
What is it on paper that makes it seem as though Mobil Super 5000 could not hang with Pennzoil conventional? Pennzoil conventional has a full point more TBN from the start, but what else? Zinc and phosphorus are nearly the same. Mobil Super 5000 uses Sodium and Titanium instead of Boron and Moly as additives. Mobil Super 5000 has lower NOACK than Pennzoil conventional but Pennzoil conventional has a more Calcium.
What am I not seeing?
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
An honest question here:
What is it on paper that makes it seem as though Mobil Super 5000 could not hang with Pennzoil conventional? Pennzoil conventional has a full point more TBN from the start, but what else? Zinc and phosphorus are nearly the same. Mobil Super 5000 uses Sodium and Titanium instead of Boron and Moly as additives. Mobil Super 5000 has lower NOACK than Pennzoil conventional but Pennzoil conventional has a more Calcium.
What am I not seeing?
Highlighted
An honest question here:
What is it on paper that makes it seem as though Mobil Super 5000 could not hang with Pennzoil conventional? Pennzoil conventional has a full point more TBN from the start, but what else? Zinc and phosphorus are nearly the same. Mobil Super 5000 uses Sodium and Titanium instead of Boron and Moly as additives. Mobil Super 5000 has lower NOACK than Pennzoil conventional but Pennzoil conventional has a more Calcium.
What am I not seeing?
Highlighted
Originally Posted By: jrustles
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
An honest question here:
What is it on paper that makes it seem as though Mobil Super 5000 could not hang with Pennzoil conventional? Pennzoil conventional has a full point more TBN from the start, but what else? Zinc and phosphorus are nearly the same. Mobil Super 5000 uses Sodium and Titanium instead of Boron and Moly as additives. Mobil Super 5000 has lower NOACK than Pennzoil conventional but Pennzoil conventional has a more Calcium.
What am I not seeing?
Highlighted
Im with 2010FX4.
Jrustles, can you explain your reasoning?
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
An honest question here:
What is it on paper that makes it seem as though Mobil Super 5000 could not hang with Pennzoil conventional? Pennzoil conventional has a full point more TBN from the start, but what else? Zinc and phosphorus are nearly the same. Mobil Super 5000 uses Sodium and Titanium instead of Boron and Moly as additives. Mobil Super 5000 has lower NOACK than Pennzoil conventional but Pennzoil conventional has a more Calcium.
What am I not seeing?
Highlighted
Im with 2010FX4.
Jrustles, can you explain your reasoning?
Originally Posted By: volk06
Originally Posted By: jrustles
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
An honest question here:
What is it on paper that makes it seem as though Mobil Super 5000 could not hang with Pennzoil conventional? Pennzoil conventional has a full point more TBN from the start, but what else? Zinc and phosphorus are nearly the same. Mobil Super 5000 uses Sodium and Titanium instead of Boron and Moly as additives. Mobil Super 5000 has lower NOACK than Pennzoil conventional but Pennzoil conventional has a more Calcium.
What am I not seeing?
Highlighted
Im with 2010FX4.
Jrustles, can you explain your reasoning?
2010_F4 makes a valid point, as both of those oils are final products intended to survive their intended applications in an acceptable manner- nice low mileage runs on low specific output engines that do not venture out of their operating temperature range. But when the squeeze comes to the pinch, I'd prefer Moly and Boron as components of boundary lubrication, over Ti.
Boron and Moly are proven, and IMO an excellent combination. Moly in particular simply costs more than any of the other three additives, so to find it as part of the formula is a nod in good faith... and again, proven. Moly has proven itself from the top 'fuel economy' oils to 'top fuel' dragster oils! No one can say the same for Ti. Ti (and Sodium) based additives are simply CHEAP IMO, strongly suggesting an economic, not engineering decision. I'm still not convinced that Ti as an AW is superior to Moly or Boron, and part of that is because no one is crazy enough to make that assertion.
*disclaimer: there may or may not be additives used that do not show up on a common analysis
Originally Posted By: jrustles
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
An honest question here:
What is it on paper that makes it seem as though Mobil Super 5000 could not hang with Pennzoil conventional? Pennzoil conventional has a full point more TBN from the start, but what else? Zinc and phosphorus are nearly the same. Mobil Super 5000 uses Sodium and Titanium instead of Boron and Moly as additives. Mobil Super 5000 has lower NOACK than Pennzoil conventional but Pennzoil conventional has a more Calcium.
What am I not seeing?
Highlighted
Im with 2010FX4.
Jrustles, can you explain your reasoning?
2010_F4 makes a valid point, as both of those oils are final products intended to survive their intended applications in an acceptable manner- nice low mileage runs on low specific output engines that do not venture out of their operating temperature range. But when the squeeze comes to the pinch, I'd prefer Moly and Boron as components of boundary lubrication, over Ti.
Boron and Moly are proven, and IMO an excellent combination. Moly in particular simply costs more than any of the other three additives, so to find it as part of the formula is a nod in good faith... and again, proven. Moly has proven itself from the top 'fuel economy' oils to 'top fuel' dragster oils! No one can say the same for Ti. Ti (and Sodium) based additives are simply CHEAP IMO, strongly suggesting an economic, not engineering decision. I'm still not convinced that Ti as an AW is superior to Moly or Boron, and part of that is because no one is crazy enough to make that assertion.
*disclaimer: there may or may not be additives used that do not show up on a common analysis
Originally Posted By: jrustles
Originally Posted By: volk06
Originally Posted By: jrustles
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
An honest question here:
What is it on paper that makes it seem as though Mobil Super 5000 could not hang with Pennzoil conventional? Pennzoil conventional has a full point more TBN from the start, but what else? Zinc and phosphorus are nearly the same. Mobil Super 5000 uses Sodium and Titanium instead of Boron and Moly as additives. Mobil Super 5000 has lower NOACK than Pennzoil conventional but Pennzoil conventional has a more Calcium.
What am I not seeing?
Highlighted
Im with 2010FX4.
Jrustles, can you explain your reasoning?
2010_F4 makes a valid point, as both of those oils are final products intended to survive their intended applications in an acceptable manner- nice low mileage runs on low specific output engines that do not venture out of their operating temperature range. But when the squeeze comes to the pinch, I'd prefer Moly and Boron as components of boundary lubrication, over Ti.
Boron and Moly are proven, and IMO an excellent combination. Moly in particular simply costs more than any of the other three additives, so to find it as part of the formula is a nod in good faith... and again, proven. Moly has proven itself from the top 'fuel economy' oils to 'top fuel' dragster oils! No one can say the same for Ti. Ti (and Sodium) based additives are simply CHEAP IMO, strongly suggesting an economic, not engineering decision. I'm still not convinced that Ti as an AW is superior to Moly or Boron, and part of that is because no one is crazy enough to make that assertion.
*disclaimer: there may or may not be additives used that do not show up on a common analysis
A lot of opinions but no facts. Just a simple question though, if Ti and NA is a cheaper combination but yet provides the same protection or better, how is this not an engineering decision? You might be interested in knowing that there was a study on on oils with high levels of Moly, and those oils actually had more deposits than those with lower moly or no moly.
Originally Posted By: volk06
Originally Posted By: jrustles
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
An honest question here:
What is it on paper that makes it seem as though Mobil Super 5000 could not hang with Pennzoil conventional? Pennzoil conventional has a full point more TBN from the start, but what else? Zinc and phosphorus are nearly the same. Mobil Super 5000 uses Sodium and Titanium instead of Boron and Moly as additives. Mobil Super 5000 has lower NOACK than Pennzoil conventional but Pennzoil conventional has a more Calcium.
What am I not seeing?
Highlighted
Im with 2010FX4.
Jrustles, can you explain your reasoning?
2010_F4 makes a valid point, as both of those oils are final products intended to survive their intended applications in an acceptable manner- nice low mileage runs on low specific output engines that do not venture out of their operating temperature range. But when the squeeze comes to the pinch, I'd prefer Moly and Boron as components of boundary lubrication, over Ti.
Boron and Moly are proven, and IMO an excellent combination. Moly in particular simply costs more than any of the other three additives, so to find it as part of the formula is a nod in good faith... and again, proven. Moly has proven itself from the top 'fuel economy' oils to 'top fuel' dragster oils! No one can say the same for Ti. Ti (and Sodium) based additives are simply CHEAP IMO, strongly suggesting an economic, not engineering decision. I'm still not convinced that Ti as an AW is superior to Moly or Boron, and part of that is because no one is crazy enough to make that assertion.
*disclaimer: there may or may not be additives used that do not show up on a common analysis
A lot of opinions but no facts. Just a simple question though, if Ti and NA is a cheaper combination but yet provides the same protection or better, how is this not an engineering decision? You might be interested in knowing that there was a study on on oils with high levels of Moly, and those oils actually had more deposits than those with lower moly or no moly.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2010
- Messages
- 9,835
Originally Posted By: jrustles
Boron and Moly are proven, and IMO an excellent combination. Moly in particular simply costs more than any of the other three additives, so to find it as part of the formula is a nod in good faith... and again, proven.
Not pounding on you, but it costs more so it must be better?
There are several Titanium/Sodium oils on the market and (although not the be-all end-all just because I have not seen it), I do not recall reading anything negative about any of them. I have a small amount of experience with Mobil Super 5000 and thus far, it has held up to the task as well as Pennzoil Ultra (which is Moly/Boron based). I see Titanium/Sodium as a different means to the same end, not as a cheaper or less protective additive pack. I suppose time will tell...
PS...would Pennzoil conventional be able to go more than 10K in my FX4; I suppose I will have to test that at some point
Boron and Moly are proven, and IMO an excellent combination. Moly in particular simply costs more than any of the other three additives, so to find it as part of the formula is a nod in good faith... and again, proven.
Not pounding on you, but it costs more so it must be better?
PS...would Pennzoil conventional be able to go more than 10K in my FX4; I suppose I will have to test that at some point
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Not pounding on you, but it costs more so it must be better?
Certainly, otherwise they wouldn't spend the penny more
Not pounding on you, but it costs more so it must be better?
Certainly, otherwise they wouldn't spend the penny more
wemay
Site Donor 2023
Originally Posted By: Volk06
A lot of opinions but no facts. Just a simple question though, if Ti and NA is a cheaper combination but yet provides the same protection or better, how is this not an engineering decision? You might be interested in knowing that there was a study on on oils with high levels of Moly, and those oils actually had more deposits than those with lower moly or no moly.
Has this ever been confirmed? Not questioning the validity of your post, just wondering since us in the d.i. relm take as much notice of 'deposits' topics as we can. Especially since i have a few jugs of each.
A lot of opinions but no facts. Just a simple question though, if Ti and NA is a cheaper combination but yet provides the same protection or better, how is this not an engineering decision? You might be interested in knowing that there was a study on on oils with high levels of Moly, and those oils actually had more deposits than those with lower moly or no moly.
Has this ever been confirmed? Not questioning the validity of your post, just wondering since us in the d.i. relm take as much notice of 'deposits' topics as we can. Especially since i have a few jugs of each.
Last edited:
I wouldn't worry too terribly much. ZDDP components don't help in the deposit/cleanliness realm, either, apparently. Given PYB's cleanliness claims and its relatively high moly (and ZDDP in the PCMO realm) level, I would not be concerned in the least.
Mobil Super 5000 is not so cheap anymore and pennzoil is not so cheap either.. but both are good oils if one was really less expensive i would use that one
Mobil Super 5000 is still priced just slightly above the price of W*M ST in my area. Maybe .40 cents more than ST and still less than Quaker State Conventional(a good price itself).
Isn't the same things said about Valvoline conventional? On paper Valvoline conventional doesn't seem all that great but, used oil analysis prove differently!
wemay
Site Donor 2023
Originally Posted By: Garak
I wouldn't worry too terribly much. ZDDP components don't help in the deposit/cleanliness realm, either, apparently. Given PYB's cleanliness claims and its relatively high moly (and ZDDP in the PCMO realm) level, I would not be concerned in the least.
Yeah, just my overactive mind i guess. Well, after exchanging and/or gifting much of my stash, Mobil 1 SuperSyn is what I have most anyway.
I wouldn't worry too terribly much. ZDDP components don't help in the deposit/cleanliness realm, either, apparently. Given PYB's cleanliness claims and its relatively high moly (and ZDDP in the PCMO realm) level, I would not be concerned in the least.
Yeah, just my overactive mind i guess. Well, after exchanging and/or gifting much of my stash, Mobil 1 SuperSyn is what I have most anyway.
Originally Posted By: wemay
Originally Posted By: Volk06
A lot of opinions but no facts. Just a simple question though, if Ti and NA is a cheaper combination but yet provides the same protection or better, how is this not an engineering decision? You might be interested in knowing that there was a study on on oils with high levels of Moly, and those oils actually had more deposits than those with lower moly or no moly.
Has this ever been confirmed? Not questioning the validity of your post, just wondering since us in the d.i. relm take as much notice of 'deposits' topics as we can. Especially since i have a few jugs of each.
Its mentioned a lot here but never any links...would love to read and review it have a DI and all...
Originally Posted By: Volk06
A lot of opinions but no facts. Just a simple question though, if Ti and NA is a cheaper combination but yet provides the same protection or better, how is this not an engineering decision? You might be interested in knowing that there was a study on on oils with high levels of Moly, and those oils actually had more deposits than those with lower moly or no moly.
Has this ever been confirmed? Not questioning the validity of your post, just wondering since us in the d.i. relm take as much notice of 'deposits' topics as we can. Especially since i have a few jugs of each.
Its mentioned a lot here but never any links...would love to read and review it have a DI and all...
but still around 27% more than my bulk oil
- Status
Similar threads
