Pennzoil Ultra 0w40 / SRT, API SN

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Feb 1, 2009
Messages
8,856
Location
Texas
As I promised in another thread, I sent in a virgin sample of Pennzoil's 0w40 Ultra that is recommended for Chrysler SRT vehicles.

I'm sure its great for the modern roller-cammed SRT engines, but no way is this going in my vintage vehicles with only 600 and change PPM of phosphorous. I'll do a UOA at the end of a change interval and see if it shows the great viscosity stability that the other PU grades show.

Yes, I know that VOAs are somewhat akin to bench-racing and that only the results in use matter. That said, I'm still a little disappointed- they didn't take advantage of the fact that a 40-grade can have higher zinc and phosphorous numbers than lighter grades the way Mobil does for their 0w40. I guess it really is just narrowly targeted at the SRT vehicles, and its not going to give M1 0w40 a run for the BITOG 'if you had to have only 1 oil on your desert island...' award. I'll probably switch the SRT-8 over to M1 0w40 for commonality with the vintage cars. And besides, this stuff was practically a dealer-only item! ordered a case online and picked up the additional quart needed for the change (7 quarts with filter) at the Dodge dealer, at over $10/quart both places. M1 0w40 is finally showing up in large volumes everywhere and is typically $8/quart regular price and I've gotten it as low as $6/quart on sale.

PENNZOILULTRA-032913_zpsd79ac2f7.jpg
 
M1 0w40 now at WM 5qt jug $24.97 making a every day price $5.00qt
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dave123
M1 0w40 now at WM 5qt jug $24.97 making a evert day price $5.00qt


PU is just not even trying for the market share against M1 in this grade. My unfounded speculation is that they cooked the 0w40 up solely because Chrysler needed a factory fill 0w40 for the SRT engines, and SOPUS has the marketing alliance with Chrysler. PU 0w40 doesn't carry any of the European vehicle ratings that M1 does. No mention of ANY ILSAC or ACEA rating whatsoever on the bottle. Just API SN and Chrysler MS-12633
 
Additive package isn't as strong as lower grades in PU because the average 0W-40 consumer will be changing their oil more frequently.
 
Originally Posted By: 147_Grain
Additive package isn't as strong as lower grades in PU because the average 0W-40 consumer will be changing their oil more frequently.



How do you know that? That's pure speculation on the formulation and besides boron, this PU has a stronger additive package. More CA and moly, sorry but youre wrong and just talking without looking at the data.
 
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum

Yes, I know that VOAs are somewhat akin to bench-racing and that only the results in use matter. That said, I'm still a little disappointed- they didn't take advantage of the fact that a 40-grade can have higher zinc and phosphorous numbers than lighter grades the way Mobil does for their 0w40.


Well, it is SAE 30 after all.
whistle.gif


Bummer. What shows in this VOA isn't all that impressive.

Ed
 
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
I guess it really is just narrowly targeted at the SRT vehicles, and its not going to give M1 0w40 a run for the BITOG 'if you had to have only 1 oil on your desert island...' award.

SOPUS already has an M1 0w-40 competitor: Pennzoil Ultra Euro 5w-40. It meets pretty much all the same mfg specs. So why would they come up with another M1 0w-40 competitor? I think that would just confuse the customers.

At retail level though, neither the PU 5w-40 nor the PU 0w-40 really competes with M1 0w-40 because you cannot find them on the store shelves.


Thanks for the VOA, by the way!
 
Perhaps so. I believe the price difference is only 50 cents per quart at Walmart. (0W-40 versus other more popular grades.)
 
Originally Posted By: 147_Grain
Perhaps so. I believe the price difference is only 50 cents per quart at Walmart. (0W-40 versus other more popular grades.)

It's the same price.
 
Originally Posted By: 147_Grain
Perhaps so. I believe the price difference is only 50 cents per quart at Walmart. (0W-40 versus other more popular grades.)


Compare the voas/uoas. 0w40 has over 3000 CA, 250 boron, and a shot of moly. Regular uses a magnesium/calcium additive package with little boron and some moly.
 
PU SRT 0w40 must have low Phosphorous because the OEM's all worry about cat life. Motorcraft 5w50 for the high-performance Mustangs is also low Phosphorous. The oils are formulated with extra Moly and/or Boron to make up the difference in anti-wear content.

And what's with the virgin KV100 reading of 12.26? That makes it a 30-weight.

Its TBN of 8.8 doesn't come close to M1 0w40, which is ~12.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: 147_Grain
Not overly impressed either.

Makes me wonder if Exxon-Mobil is putting profits ahead of a quality product.

Here's some info on Mobil 1's 5W-30: http://www.pqiamerica.com/March2013PCMO/mobil1.htm


I'm confused... we're talking about a SOPUS product (PU 0w40) being disappointing compared to an apparently better - as far as VOA's go - XOM product (M1 0w40).

In the specific application of my SRT's 392 Hemi, I'm sure the PU is fine, and perhaps better if its viscosity is more stable over time as some of the other grades of PU seem to be. Its awfully low to start with- 30-weight range- but maybe it STAYS there better than M1? My long term plan (it'll take a year unless I try this with 3k OCIs, which may not be long enough to show the effect) is to do a UOA on the PU after an OCI, and then repeat with M1 0w40 and look at viscosity change over time. I'd prefer to use M1 in the SRT just because I use it in the vintage cars, but if the PU is has a more stable viscosity that might make it better for the 392 in the long run.
 
Thanks for the info.

I've been using M1 0W-40 now for quite some time (it's on the oil cap!) and it really does hold up well. In one week I did two HPDE's at two widely separated tracks, oil temps over 300 degrees and lots of highway play in between traveling with my track rat buds.

M1 0W-40 is really a great product.
 
A VOA is only part of the picture. You need to do some UOAs and see how it does in service. I agree it's not immensely impressive on paper, but I suggest people try it and see what happens in service.
 
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
And what's with the virgin KV100 reading of 12.26? That makes it a 30-weight.

Oooh, good catch. I completely missed that.

Quote:

Its TBN of 8.8 doesn't come close to M1 0w40, which is ~12.

Yeah, but some of these newer additive chemistries are just like that. Lower level of adds, but they hold up in service much better, so the TBN depletion is slower. Take the Valvoline Synpower 5w-40 MST for example. Looking at its VOA, it's fairly unimpressive, yet, some of the UOAs I've seen have been good. The low starting TBN was of no concern.
 
Originally Posted By: volk06
Originally Posted By: 147_Grain
Additive package isn't as strong as lower grades in PU because the average 0W-40 consumer will be changing their oil more frequently.



How do you know that? That's pure speculation on the formulation and besides boron, this PU has a stronger additive package. More CA and moly, sorry but youre wrong and just talking without looking at the data.


147_Grain: the SRT service schedule calls for 6K OCIs... hardly "more frequently" than the average consumer.

Volk06: "Stronger" additive package? With the Zn and P nearly halved compared to M1? I'll grant you that ZDDP isn't the be-all end-all of anti-wear out there, but of the elements listed in this VOA I find it hard to conclude that PU has a stronger additive package. More Calcium- M1 0w40 has more than PU 0w40. Moly? PU has more, but moly is a friction modifier for efficiency more than anti-wear. To me its 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. Nothing clearly stands out to make this PU sample better in any way than the M1, and frankly the reduced ZDDP is disappointing when significantly more would be allowed in this grade and it could still get the SN rating. The low starting viscosity is also an eyebrow-raiser, and one hopes that the GTL base oil holds viscosity so well that this doesn't matter.

And I'll caveat all this by repeating: I know VOAs are largely for academic interest more than real-world performance. But I was still hoping for something distinctive to jump out, and it just doesn't.
 
But still, it's supposed to a 40-weight, and a VOA doesn't confirm that? In-grade viscosity is the most fundamental thing that an oil should meet in a VOA.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top