" Some Group III base oils outperform POA based Group IV"

Joined
Mar 21, 2022
Messages
154
Pennzoil market there pure plus at first look it look that it superior than competitors ( look great make feeling it group 4 and group 5 oil ) but it group 3 plus marketing in a way that good and ok if oci 7500 k or less. Other get mobil 1 ep the difference in price in Walmart 5 or less when rollback both offers rebates at least 1 times in a year.
 
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
1,042
Location
So Cal
Pennzoil market there pure plus at first look it look that it superior than competitors ( look great make feeling it group 4 and group 5 oil ) but it group 3 plus marketing in a way that good and ok if oci 7500 k or less. Other get mobil 1 ep the difference in price in Walmart 5 or less when rollback both offers rebates at least 1 times in a year.
Purchased PUP from Amazon $19.88 ea. for two and qualifies for 25 buck rebate.
 
Joined
Aug 1, 2017
Messages
2,646
Location
WA
I pay attention to approvals and few numbers (e.g. Noack, %VM, HTHS, narrow spread, moly, etc.) that I track and if I can easily find ... Other than that, I have no idea or don't care about the base oil.

Having said that, I think higher group oils (IV or V) or oils with high pao/poe percentages are somewhat overrated and expensive!
There is marketing at work which is normal as long as you are aware of.

Basically, why chase an overrated oil if the engine doesn't require?
For example I like Amsoil SS 10W-30 (has one of the lowest Noack and low vm), Ravenol, etc. but kind of expensive!
btw, why is TGMO so pricey? It belongs to Wal-Mart next to its cousin. lol
 
Joined
Dec 26, 2005
Messages
22,929
Location
Upper Midwest
Pennzoil market there pure plus at first look it look that it superior than competitors ( look great make feeling it group 4 and group 5 oil ) but it group 3 plus marketing in a way that good and ok if oci 7500 k or less. Other get mobil 1 ep the difference in price in Walmart 5 or less when rollback both offers rebates at least 1 times in a year.
Interesting, who is making it "feeling it group 4 and group 5 oil"?
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 25, 2020
Messages
1,779
Location
NC, USA
get around potential shortages in base oil material or due to cost

The reformulation was in the pipeline before the "shortages." They drastically decreased NOACK for the new formulations while compromising the pour point for every one of their oils, with a few exceptions that I supposed they would not touch. Instead of having multiple line-ups of oil, they will mix their current line-up and probably create more confusion. That is if they'll ever go through with it.


Pennzoil is correct in claiming that a finished product containing a majority Group III base oil can perform better than a product blended with majority PAO. @High Performance Lubricants confirmed that to be the case in certain situations. It's all about the finished (as in fully formulated) product and not the individual components:
There is a difference in additive response from base oil to base oil. I can tell you conclusively that we have formulations where the additives are exactly the same for both the group III as well as the group IV base oils. When measuring the final product we see better data in the group III than the PAO version. The results would be with respect to oxidation stability via PDSC and RPVOT as well as 4 ball wear.

What an oil does is much more important than what an oil is.

As already stated you will have a hard time solving good cold temperature performance without PAO. (In a straight grade). We recommend the best final product based on the application not what it is formulated with.

David
 
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Messages
2,473
Location
Southwest Virginia
My recollection is that the first version of the product wasn't properly balanced enough and indeed had some negative interactions with seals. They fixed that with POE.

That said, it may have always contained POE, but perhaps not enough initially?
The earliest analysis I have seen of Mobil 1 from the mid 70s showed it did contain POEs. IIRC, the sample we looked at had two POEs with a total ester content in the 20-30% range. I suspect a major reason for the leakage problems may have been due to it being a 5W-20 used in engines designed for 10W-40 oils, although cleaning could have played a role.

The Amsoil product of that era was a 10W-40 based entirely on a diester. I don't know if they had leakage problems.
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
53,026
Location
Ontario, Canada
The earliest analysis I have seen of Mobil 1 from the mid 70s showed it did contain POEs. IIRC, the sample we looked at had two POEs with a total ester content in the 20-30% range. I suspect a major reason for the leakage problems may have been due to it being a 5W-20 used in engines designed for 10W-40 oils, although cleaning could have played a role.

The Amsoil product of that era was a 10W-40 based entirely on a diester. I don't know if they had leakage problems.
Excellent. I suspect there might have been a bit of a learning curve there on the balancing, but that's just speculation on my part.

On the AMSOIL product, being a diester, would it not have had the opposite effect on seals? swelling them?
 
Joined
Aug 1, 2017
Messages
2,646
Location
WA
@OVERKILL

Just curious, when did the seal tests and the related specs/requirements were developed and enforced?
If I understand it correctly, there might have been some issues "early on" and hence the development of these tests I assume.
Historically speaking are we talking about 60's, 70's, disco time? :alien: :ROFLMAO:
Thanks
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
53,026
Location
Ontario, Canada
@OVERKILL

Just curious, when did the seal tests and the related specs/requirements were developed and enforced?
If I understand it correctly, there might have been some issues "early on" and hence the development of these tests I assume.
Historically speaking are we talking about 60's, 70's, disco time? :alien: :ROFLMAO:
Thanks
I don't know, @High Performance Lubricants might have that data?

The standard is ASTM D7216:

Historic versions on that page go back to version 05 (2005).

I'm guessing that the standard was different before 2005.
 
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
1,255
Location
sw ohio
With us that is true even for long drain applications. Absolutely. I cannot speak for other companies. We are highly additized compared to commodity oils. That does not mean the same would not be true. It does mean I don’t have first hand knowledge of other peoples formulas to know they would be the same in order to do a true A to B comparison.

Our longest drain products use Group III, AN, and Ester.

David
"That does not mean the same would not be true." What?
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
53,026
Location
Ontario, Canada
"That does not mean the same would not be true." What?
He's saying that they heavily additize their products, relatively to mainstream blenders. However, that does not mean the same wouldn't apply (that a group III product holds up fine for extended drains).
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Messages
2,473
Location
Southwest Virginia
Excellent. I suspect there might have been a bit of a learning curve there on the balancing, but that's just speculation on my part.

On the AMSOIL product, being a diester, would it not have had the opposite effect on seals? swelling them?

Back in the early 70s when ester based oils were new and under attack by the majors, seal swell was an oft cited issue for esters based on lab bench tests. We, however, were not seeing leakage with our 100% ester based oils as a major issue from the field.

In order to counter the claims, Hatco bought a number of approved engine elastomer seals by part number from several different manufacturers, and tested them for swell in our ester based oil vs a popular mineral based oil using the industry standard test method. Yes the average swell for the ester oil was greater than the average for the mineral oil, however the results showed a greater variation in swell among seal manufacturers for the same part than between the ester and mineral oils. In other words you can get greater swell by switching the seal manufacturer than by switching the base oil to ester.

This was 50 years ago and things may have changed, but nonetheless it was an eye opener. Modern oils are balanced for seals so it is not an issue today
 
Joined
May 17, 2021
Messages
1,748
Location
open range
.
Thanks again, Tom. Wish what you said would stop PAO bashing ('it's shrinking seals').
Someone even said using PAO was a risk. Impossible to get the hang of these claims.
.
 
Joined
Nov 29, 2021
Messages
4,214
I don't think so.

They appear to be arguing that a finished product, blended using Group III, can, in some instances and in some areas, out-perform one blended with PAO. Since most of the oil's performance is dictated by the additive package, that's an accurate statement.

And no, as @kschachn noted, GTL is a hydrocracked base oil, which is what makes it Group III. The feedstock is what makes it different, and the Fischer-Tropsch derived feedstock is less waxy, which is what improves the cold temperature performance (amongst other things).

I'm just happy people dont think Pennzoil turns to wax! lol.
 
Joined
Nov 29, 2021
Messages
4,214
No, it doesn't. Mobil is embracing GTL. However, it likes to mix it with PAO, ANs, and some Esters. They might have some of the most diverse formulations on the market today.

They are very, very good at it.

My opinion of SOPUS/Pennzoil has soured a little. I may still use them but..
 
Joined
May 25, 2020
Messages
1,779
Location
NC, USA
My opinion of SOPUS/Pennzoil has soured a little. I may still use them but..

Pennzoil != Mobil 1

Oh there's plenty of those still out there. Just look in any Facebook car group.

I know a guy who tracks his Honda Accord Sport 2.0 Turbo (GDI) on Mobil 1 EP 0W-20 because he thinks it's the best oil in the world. I told him that while it's good oil, it's not suitable for track use.

I know a mechanic technician who thinks Castrol EDGE 0W-20 is the best synthetic there is, and that's why he runs it in his Coyote 5.0 in his lifted F150.

I know another mechanic technician who thinks is convinced that 0W-20 is thicker than 0W-40. He's still wondering why I'd ever run 0W-40 in an engine instead of 0W-20, as "there is no viscosity to it."

The same technician mechanic owns an old Corvette that he tracks once in a while. He said that he uses Lucas and 20W-50 in it at the track with great results.

I could go on, but I might get a seizure... or induce one.
 
Top