Originally Posted By: bluesubie
Several people on this forum that are in the industry have always said that Group II/III+ was just marketing.
Now you guys are saying that Pennzoil is inferring that these oils are Group III+ because they call them PurePlus? That's funny. No oil company that sponsors BITOG is ever allowed to come up with marketing slogans again.
Read my original quote. I know that Group II+ and Group III+ are not official designations. My issue is that SOPUS mentions they're not official designations then falls into the same marketing speak. I'm not saying they are calling their base stocks Group III+. I'm saying that they say that adding a "+" to the group number is a problem, yet using the word "Plus" in reference to their base stock name is fine. Group III+ base stocks technically don't exist by industry rules. Neither do "PurePlus" base stocks, or Visom, or TriSyn, HT Purity base stocks, or whatever other marketing gibberish one wants to mention.
I have no issue with marketing. Just don't be hypocritical. I hammered Ashland, too, when they waved off their high, out of spec Noack numbers while having a history of making a giant stink when M1 had compliance issues with SM/GF-4.
With respect to marketing slogans, we BITOGers obviously aren't immune to them. However, we don't, as a group, tend to get impressed by made up words. We'd be a lot more impressed had they actually used "GTL" or the like on the bottle.
What does PurePlus mean? Pure + Contaminants?
Trav: I don't have a problem with any oil company using Group II+ or Group III+ terminology. It's just a way to differentiate a higher VI base stock and a refining method that's a little different from the "normal" Group II and Group III processes. Some companies do it, some don't.
They're marketing words and that's fine. If they mean an very high VI Group III, no problem. It's just disingenuous for an oil company to disparage the use of Group III+ terminology and then basically do the same thing.
Here, here, and here are some references as to how Petro-Canada differentiates their process from the "normal" Group III base stocks. The various sheets describe the processes, and they use their own words, too, but aren't pouncing on other companies for inventing words.
Several people on this forum that are in the industry have always said that Group II/III+ was just marketing.
Now you guys are saying that Pennzoil is inferring that these oils are Group III+ because they call them PurePlus? That's funny. No oil company that sponsors BITOG is ever allowed to come up with marketing slogans again.
Read my original quote. I know that Group II+ and Group III+ are not official designations. My issue is that SOPUS mentions they're not official designations then falls into the same marketing speak. I'm not saying they are calling their base stocks Group III+. I'm saying that they say that adding a "+" to the group number is a problem, yet using the word "Plus" in reference to their base stock name is fine. Group III+ base stocks technically don't exist by industry rules. Neither do "PurePlus" base stocks, or Visom, or TriSyn, HT Purity base stocks, or whatever other marketing gibberish one wants to mention.
I have no issue with marketing. Just don't be hypocritical. I hammered Ashland, too, when they waved off their high, out of spec Noack numbers while having a history of making a giant stink when M1 had compliance issues with SM/GF-4.
With respect to marketing slogans, we BITOGers obviously aren't immune to them. However, we don't, as a group, tend to get impressed by made up words. We'd be a lot more impressed had they actually used "GTL" or the like on the bottle.
What does PurePlus mean? Pure + Contaminants?
Trav: I don't have a problem with any oil company using Group II+ or Group III+ terminology. It's just a way to differentiate a higher VI base stock and a refining method that's a little different from the "normal" Group II and Group III processes. Some companies do it, some don't.
They're marketing words and that's fine. If they mean an very high VI Group III, no problem. It's just disingenuous for an oil company to disparage the use of Group III+ terminology and then basically do the same thing.
Here, here, and here are some references as to how Petro-Canada differentiates their process from the "normal" Group III base stocks. The various sheets describe the processes, and they use their own words, too, but aren't pouncing on other companies for inventing words.