Question for Johnny, or anyone / QS and PYB

[Mark72]

We all know that Shell owns QS and Pennzoil, and many of us are aware that Pennzoil conventional has one of the best if not THE best base oil for a conventional oil out there. That said, even though these two are owned by the same company, they have seperate labs. Do the chemcists from each entity compete to try and make one better than the other?
And are the commercials that each brand has (QS and Pennz) intended to compete agains one another?

 

[2oldtommy]

It's called "shelf space". Proctor and Gamble taught the world how to merchandise products. The more product you have, the more shelf space you can command in the marketplace. FWIW--Oldtommy

 

[OilNerd]

Originally Posted By: Pennzoil Ultra FAQ

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/cms/index....2&Itemid=80

37. What is the relationship (differences) between the Formula Shell®, Quaker State® and Pennzoil® product lines?

We are all one company under the Shell Group, but we understand that consumers have a very strong brand preference – for whatever the reason. We respect this and have marketers and formulations to support the different brands. Rest assured that the specific formulations for Formula Shell®, Quaker State® and Pennzoil® are different from each other.


Based upon the above statement, I'd conjecture that the brands have a little freedom to innovate. I suspect all formulations must meet Shell's quality standards.

 

[Mark72]

I've spoken to Johnny about a seperate question unrelated to this several months back and he indicated that each brand has seperate labs and chemists. When you see the advertising of one over the other, it gives the impression to lead one into thinking that one may be better than the other. Is that the intent on the part of either side?

Also, from what I've heard here, QS is good oil, but not quite as good as Pennzoil. Or can we assume they are both as good as eachother even though Pennzoil conventional as the II+ base and QS may not?

 

[znode]

Because it's an established brand later bought out by Shell. You don't discontinue an already top-selling brand (#2 or #3 in conventionals, last I remember) to leave more space for the competitors.

 

[Mark72]

So they didn't discontinue QS because that would have given more space to the competitor (Pennzoil)? So, they do compete? Or rather, you mean as not to give more shelf space to other non-Shell brands.

 

[Mark72]

Ok, I think I'm getting it. So the brand loyalty thing makes sense and that is profit to Shell, so I can see why they have multiple brands they keep around.

Then, I guess I'd really like to know if either one is better, worse, or the same as the other? The numbers in the VOA's look somewhat different. So why do they make one product with a lesser base oil and more or less of certain additives?

 

[ps49556n]

Originally Posted By: Mark72
Ok, I think I'm getting it. So the brand loyalty thing makes sense and that is profit to Shell, so I can see why they have multiple brands they keep around.

Then, I guess I'd really like to know if either one is better, worse, or the same as the other? The numbers in the VOA's look somewhat different. So why do they make one product with a lesser base oil and more or less of certain additives?


Honestly you would have a difficult time actually measuring the benefits/negatives of one vs. the other given they are both the same type of product (conventional vs conventional). Forget about group II and group III and all that nonsense... manufacturers blend oils based on a desired performance and the end cost...the exact make up of an oil is not important for 99% of folks. While I have not checked prices lately, I would suspect Pennzoil conventional to be slightly more money than QS conventional just due to brand perception and the fact that consumers view Pennzoil conventional as a "premium" conventional. Besides the perception, the actual formulation between the two has differences that or really only known to the scientists and executives at the respective companies.