NEW*** Pennzoil Ultra 5/20

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Samilcar

Does anyone have any idea why Platinum 5W/20 would have a better (lower) MRV viscosity than Ultra 5W/20?

Hopefully less plastic.
 
Originally Posted By: NightRiderQ45
I'm sorry, but I don't see a real difference between this and PP. Not worth the extra dollars!

Like it was stated earlier, there isn't really much to see in a $20 analysis. There could be differences between them that we will never know about.
 
Originally Posted By: buster
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: Patman
Originally Posted By: buster
Very impressive! This may be the ultimate oil! LOL

Seriously, Shell said they made Ultra for those that want "the best". For the $$ they may be right.


I agree, we might just be looking at the best OTC motor oil ever made! This certainly appears on paper that it can compete with the best of the boutique oils.


You guys have got to be joking!
With a VI of only 158 there are 20wt dino's that are better.
PP's own 0W-20 is clearly a much better 20wt oil with a 175 VI that's proven to be very shear stable. OK you could argue it's not OTC but that's should be a separate issue.

If you guys want to know what a superb 20wt VOA looks like check out Toyota's 0W-20 (Honda's is very close as well)and since you can get it at any Toyota or Lexus dealer in NA it certainly qualifies as an OTC oil.



Why are you basing everything on VI? LOL


When it comes to PCMO, 20wt in particular, for most applications you will benefit from the lowest start-up viscosity possible. That's the main reason to pay the additional cost in switching from a dino to a syn oil in the first place.
The best indicator of how light an oil is at typical start-up temps is the 40C vis spec' and that is what I look at first in comparing 20wt oils. Usually the oils with the lowest 40C vis also have the highest VI's, RP (XRP) is about the only exception I'm aware of.
So yes I consider a high VI to be important. Incidently, most auto mfr's spec' high VI oils.
In that regard a few come to mind: M1 5W-30 VI 170(Corvette), M1 0W-40 VI 186 (Porsche,Mercedes etc) Honda's 0W-20 VI 200, Toyota's 0W-20 VI 214.
 
Originally Posted By: unDummy
For those with OLM's and those who don't want to change their oil as often, the 13 TBN is a plus.

MRV difference is meaningless. Love to see them do an MRV/CCV test with both Platinum and Ultra after 10k miles of usage.

If its the 1st SN/GF5 oil, then I would use it over any GF4 OTC oil. Sorry, but as the spec's get more demanding, the performance of the oil only gets better.

The only question I have is when is it coming out in 0w20, 0w30, 0w40, 5w40, & 10w40? Castrol Edge's biggest flaw was lack of weights that I could use.

With API/ILSAC SN/GF5 oils coming on the market hopefully in the next year, I have a feeling that Amsoil, Redline, Royalpurple... will need to rethink their marketing.

Can't wait to see what SN/GF5 brings to Mobil1, Castrol.....and the other OTC brands.


+1

What happens with companies like RP, Amsoil and RL that don't actually pay for the API certifications for all or most of their product lines? Do they reformulate, or, test their products and then change the label to say meets or exceeds the API SN GF-5?

I'm not looking for a flame war, I really would like to know. Seems they would have an easier time dealing with it.
 
Originally Posted By: demarpaint


What happens with companies like RP, Amsoil and RL that don't actually pay for the API certifications for all or most of their product lines? Do they reformulate, or, test their products and then change the label to say meets or exceeds the API SN GF-5?

I'm not looking for a flame war, I really would like to know. Seems they would have an easier time dealing with it.


With GF-4, Amsoil reformulated to meet the P requirement. There will be no need to reformulate to meet GF-5.
 
Thanks for the info. They nailed GF5 SN rating with the GF-4 reformulation? My quess is the change from GF-4 to GF-5 was minor across the board, and Amsoil builds a good oil.
 
niiice looking oil. That is the mostboron ive ever seen in a oil before. Still wish there was more moly but 50 is a nice respectable number and the tbn of 13... Whoa.
 
The lesser oils will need to be reformulated for the newest performance specs. The better oils won't need to as much.
To me, this means that they're constantly narrowing the performance gap between OTC and boutique.

E85 rust protection is important 'cause E10 is forced on me.

And, whether you have a turbo or not, turbo protection improvements should make the oil more robust.

The question is "are mineral oils becoming obsolete?"

http://www.gf-5.com/the_story/performance/

I filled the '08 Highlander with Ultra 5w30 this past weekend. Its pricey ~$28 for 5-quarts at wallyword. But, ~$6 a quart for an excellent oil is reasonable.
 
Quote:
The lesser oils will need to be reformulated for the newest performance specs. The better oils won't need to as much.
To me, this means that they're constantly narrowing the performance gap between OTC and boutique.


That is how I see it as well.
 
Guys, I think some of you are missing it when talking about DI engines. In a DI engine there is no fuel with its cleaning additives washing across the intake valves. An oil with a higher NOACK % could result in a situation like in the picture of the VW engine earlier in this thread. Is it speculated, although I can not substantiate it or immediately provide documentation, that an oil with a NOACK % over 10 at the most should not be put in a DI engine be it turbo or not. A UOA is not going to give you any hint of deposits developing on the valves.

I have DI engine and based on UOAs for that engine the UOA section the OLM is about 50% optimistic. The manual calls for a 5W30 SM GF-4 oil. I suspect the manufacture is hoping that the SM GF-4 oil used by the majority has a NOACK% of no more than 10.
 
Originally Posted By: lonestar
A UOA is not going to give you any hint of deposits developing on the valves.


That is too bad isnt it. So in the huge majosrity of cases one will never know of building deposits until it is too late.
 
I'd be interesting to see it's shear retention. Obviously there's something going on we can't see. High TBN, low VI on a low viscosity oil w/o a huge spread. Base Oil? Looks like another promising oil in which something was skimpted out on. Love the boron!
 
looking at amsoil 5-20 signature series after a run of group III petroleum, 5.5 noack and lo 50.2 viscosity, total base 12.6. wondering if the high V.I. in other group III synthetics come from V.I.I. added to the inferior base oils
 
Originally Posted By: benjy
looking at amsoil 5-20 signature series after a run of group III petroleum, 5.5 noack and lo 50.2 viscosity, total base 12.6. wondering if the high V.I. in other group III synthetics come from V.I.I. added to the inferior base oils


What is an inferior base oil?
 
Originally Posted By: Caterham
In that regard a few come to mind: M1 5W-30 VI 170(Corvette), M1 0W-40 VI 186 (Porsche,Mercedes etc) Honda's 0W-20 VI 200, Toyota's 0W-20 VI 214.

You say Corvette spec. What would that be exactly?
Do any other oils meet that spec that don't have a VI of 170? GM does not require that Mobil 1 be used exclusively in the Corvette engine.

Does any other oil meet the Porsche spec that has a lower VI than 186? I bet there is.
Are you saying i cant put another brand of 0w-20 in a Toyota spec'd for 0w-20 if it doesn't have a VI of 214?

Do any of these companies you mention have a minimum VI proviso in their vehicle warranty?
IMO you are making claims to support your high VI is better theory.
Show me any oil spec by an auto maker that has an actual VI number attached to it, eg use only a 0w-20 with a min VI of 200 or whatever.

Is it possible better base stock probably don't require as high a VI to perform? VI is not the be all and end all.
PU is superior to PP in every way.
 
VI is certainly not the end all be all.

PU has changed quite a bit since this VOA.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top