Question for Johnny regarding Pennzoil
- Thread starter Colorado
- Start date
- Status
Agree with Haley...as the ILSAC and API specs get tougher, the oils are more alike than ever. ILSAC GF-4 and API-SM will be out this summer, and the different brands of oils will be closer together than ever. All will have to make changes in their formulations, but the lower quality brands will have more improvement to do than the top quality brands.
Colorado,
Zinc is combined with phosphorus, and phosphorus is strictly limited in the ILSAC specs; presently .1% in GF-3 and soon 0.8% in GF-4. Calcium is part of the detergents in the oil, and that's the oil company's decision. Moly may be one of the antiwear agents; again the oil company's decision. All these show in the virgin oil analyses.
Ken
Colorado,
Zinc is combined with phosphorus, and phosphorus is strictly limited in the ILSAC specs; presently .1% in GF-3 and soon 0.8% in GF-4. Calcium is part of the detergents in the oil, and that's the oil company's decision. Moly may be one of the antiwear agents; again the oil company's decision. All these show in the virgin oil analyses.
Ken
Although moly has other benefits it's primary function in these low cost oils is as an Anti-Oxident per a read authored by Lubrizol and a fellow from the Ethyl Corporation .
Actually it helped group I's in the oxidation dept when Test Sequence IIID was developed and was carried over into the group II's to aleviate the blenders having to purchase too many additive packages as I remember .
Just thought I'd pass that along albeit somewhat out of context .
Actually it helped group I's in the oxidation dept when Test Sequence IIID was developed and was carried over into the group II's to aleviate the blenders having to purchase too many additive packages as I remember .
Just thought I'd pass that along albeit somewhat out of context .
MolaKule
Staff member
Actually, for the amounts of moly shown in OTC oils, MoDTC is a "Multifunctional" additive which has two effects:
1. As a Friction Modifier,
2. As an anti-oxidant.
Boron is single-function additive considered to be a Secondary AW additive.
Calcium's are Multi-functional additives that provide initial tbn, deteregent/dispersant capabilities, and secondary AW capabilities.
For more info on Multi-Functional additives, see:
http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=21;t=000032#000000
1. As a Friction Modifier,
2. As an anti-oxidant.
Boron is single-function additive considered to be a Secondary AW additive.
Calcium's are Multi-functional additives that provide initial tbn, deteregent/dispersant capabilities, and secondary AW capabilities.
For more info on Multi-Functional additives, see:
http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=21;t=000032#000000
Shouldn't that be 0.08%?
Colorado: Six years ago my answer would have been yes on all accounts. This is when we started using the Group II+ base stocks. But as haley10 said, due to current specs and regulations the playing field has narrowed. Pennzoil still does two things that is very different than most of our competition.
1. Most additive companies make an SL approved additive package depending on what type of base stock an oil company is using. We do not use a standard SL additive. We may think that Lubrizol makes a better additive that does one thing and that Ethyl makes a better additive that does another thing, and Ornite makes another. We pick the additives that we think works best with what we are trying to make.
2. We are the only oil company that uses Shell-vis 600 for our VI improver. Myself and a lot of others on this board believe this is one of the best, if not the best VI improver out there at this time.
Other than that it's pretty close. There are a lot of good oils out there today. I don't believe that was the case 6 to 10 years ago.
1. Most additive companies make an SL approved additive package depending on what type of base stock an oil company is using. We do not use a standard SL additive. We may think that Lubrizol makes a better additive that does one thing and that Ethyl makes a better additive that does another thing, and Ornite makes another. We pick the additives that we think works best with what we are trying to make.
2. We are the only oil company that uses Shell-vis 600 for our VI improver. Myself and a lot of others on this board believe this is one of the best, if not the best VI improver out there at this time.
Other than that it's pretty close. There are a lot of good oils out there today. I don't believe that was the case 6 to 10 years ago.
I'll let Johnny answer that, but you might try looking at the VOA and UOA sections and comparing for the grade you use.
There seems to be a lot of re-formulating going on right now with most all the companies.
GTX, Havoline, and Pennzoil look very similar to me at this point in time. These have the top additives, imho.
There seems to be a lot of re-formulating going on right now with most all the companies.
GTX, Havoline, and Pennzoil look very similar to me at this point in time. These have the top additives, imho.
Is this used in all Shell / QS products too, or just Pennzoil.
Thanks for all the good info... your "insider tips" makes me glad I am a Pennzoil user.
Just the Pennzoil. Shell uses another of their VI improvers but it's not as stable as the one used in Pennzoil. The Quaker State at this time uses whatever VI improver Ornite is using. Quaker State uses the standard Ornite additive package.
For a blended package I think that Ornite is very good. Lubrizoil also makes a good additive package. I personally like the way we do it as we pick what we think is the best of each. This is just my opinion and about 200 chemist at Shell.
Thanks, Johnny!
Learn something new everyday. I had no idea that Pennzoil buys additive packages from Lubrizoil/Ethyl/Ornite etc? I though Shell was like an ExxonMobil and made most of their addtives? I guess Pennzoil and others all blend like Amsoil/Redline do. Interesting.
MolaKule
Staff member
It's almost converging to the point that making your additives is no longer cost effective. Buying separate additives or complete additive packages from Additive Manf. is becoming the norm because:
1. Additive expertise is concentrated in one company environment, not spread out among divisions;
2. Chemicals purchase is a hassle when making your own additives. You can let the additive company worry about chemical suppliers, EPA, testing, etc.
Disadvantage: One additive company may suppply one additive or additive package crucial to your operation, therefore commands premium prices and control.
1. Additive expertise is concentrated in one company environment, not spread out among divisions;
2. Chemicals purchase is a hassle when making your own additives. You can let the additive company worry about chemical suppliers, EPA, testing, etc.
Disadvantage: One additive company may suppply one additive or additive package crucial to your operation, therefore commands premium prices and control.
Good point. Actually all your points are good. I was thinking that for a company like EM, they can fool around with various additives while working with race teams for experimentation and then what works best at this level can get put into the retail bottle, of course scaled down significanly. Cost is another factor. I do think EM has a price advantage bc they make many of the additives therefore can and do delive a good bang for the buck with M1. Just my thoughts. Like I have a clue.
Good info Johnny, Thanks! It got me to thinking a little though. How does the Shell VI fair when it breaks down due to heat? Most engines today run a lot of oil up into the ring area...makes them last a long time...usually. When the VI's make it up into that area they can stick the rings pretty easily (hence the SL grades I think). Would you say the Shell system is less, or more prone to this type of behavior?
- Status
