Pennzoil Platinum with PurePlus Technology Q&A

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
Originally Posted By: TrevorS
Overall I was disappointed with the answers.


I agree, obviously the marketing and legal department got their way with them.


Originally Posted By: TrevorS
Then when asked about VW diesel, they listed 2 5w30 Ultra Platinum oils that would meet the spec. These oils weren't in their complete list.


I am pretty sure VW507 requires a 5w-30 viscosity, so the 0w-40 and 5w-40's can't meet it. I'm more concerned with the replacement of "certified" and "approved" with "meet the spec"... tells me they probably won't be official. With all the squishiness and crawfishing going on in these answers I sure don't want to try to deal with them an oil related issue...
 
Originally Posted By: Trav
Your right its tough to get through the smoke and mirrors.
Its not the product you got, its the product you think you got.


Interesting comments. For me it will be the oil I won't get now. I'm not a big fan of smoke -n- mirrors, or a company cheapening a product once they've established their customers. Still lots of other good oils around to pick from, no biggie, just a disappointment to some of us.
 
I've been doing some thinking, and perhaps we're being a little hard on SOPUS here. They did some things I think they should have, and did some that I think they should have left alone.

The big PU/PP issue was marketing, specifically differentiating the products and not making PU look redundant or even lesser than PP, despite the price. Getting the ACEA specs on the products was good, as was dexos1. I understand many here don't like the dexos1 business, but it would be foolish to ignore the synthetic dexos1 business.

Where they seem to have failed is differentiation of the two products, outside the naming improvement. The naming does help, but really, what do they claim PU does that PP won't? They both meet the same specs. The Pennzoil warranty for PP is shorter than for PU, but who knows if that's being changed, and a lifetime mileage limit on an oil is dicey at best (when M1's and Petro-Canada's warranties are perpetual). Both products are supposed to be used for OEM intervals only. So, it seems to me that PP and PU are competing with each other and not Mobil 1 and Mobil 1 EP, respectively. That's a big problem.

With the reformulation (notably for PU, if there even is a real reformulation there), these are still outstanding products. Part of the problem, especially with the Noack issue, is the target audience. We were all paying attention to the low Ultra Noack numbers and were suitably impressed when they were verified.

Then, PYB and QSGB come out with ridiculously low Noack numbers in a recent PQIA test. That's just bad luck and bad timing.

From a Canadian perspective, the real issue is getting Ultra out and about. PP isn't hard to find, and the price is improving. Ultra is just about impossible to find and is at pretty close to Red Line prices, waving at Royal Purple in the mirror $20 ago. That is absolutely unacceptable.
 
I don't think they understand BITOG. The audience here are practical, knowledge hungry, technically oriented folks who despise marketing fluff & gloss. They should have let their technical people answer the technical questions and let the marketing and legal eagles go do their thing elsewhere. I mean, really, what could they possibly reveal that their competitors don't already know. A little straight talk would have gone a long way.

Tom NJ
 
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
I don't think they understand BITOG. The audience here are practical, knowledge hungry, technically oriented folks who despise marketing fluff & gloss. They should have let their technical people answer the technical questions and let the marketing and legal eagles go do their thing elsewhere.

Yes, but unfortunately, in any large organization, any communication that goes out to the public has to pass through legal, and as such, it will always be dumbed down. This is why these Q&A sessions are always of limited value to the majority of BITOG audience. Most of us know it from past experience, yet we keep jumping on any Q&A opportunity that presents itself, expecting better results next time. I think that's the definition of insanity...
smile.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
yet we keep jumping on any Q&A opportunity that presents itself, expecting better results next time. I think that's the definition of insanity...
smile.gif



I prefer to think of it in terms of Hadrian and his lamp, wandering in the darkness, looking for an honest man.
 
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
I don't think they understand BITOG. The audience here are practical, knowledge hungry, technically oriented folks who despise marketing fluff & gloss. They should have let their technical people answer the technical questions and let the marketing and legal eagles go do their thing elsewhere.

Yes, but unfortunately, in any large organization, any communication that goes out to the public has to pass through legal, and as such, it will always be dumbed down. This is why these Q&A sessions are always of limited value to the majority of BITOG audience. Most of us know it from past experience, yet we keep jumping on any Q&A opportunity that presents itself, expecting better results next time. I think that's the definition of insanity...
smile.gif



In my estimation, SOPUS marketing is probably the only reason we are offered a Q&A; they are more than likely the driver behind that initiative.

In my experience, public answers to 'social media' questions like those posted on BITOG are usually carefully crafted with input from marketing, technical, and legal/regulatory departments. Legal usually gets the last word in such discussions. As such, they are 'dumbed down', or more precisely, stripped of any proprietary information. But the answers must be truthful, or else competitors will file lawsuits.

Again, I thank the SOPUS marketers for keeping us as involved as possible, and thank the Pennzoil technical and legal departments for taking time out of their busy schedules to provide us with the answers.
 
Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
Originally Posted By: TrevorS
Overall I was disappointed with the answers.
I agree, obviously the marketing and legal department got their way with them.

+2
 
You are right that this is a marketing driven initiative.

But where these things fall down are when either marketing doesn't have enough technical ability or when marketing can't persuade technical people to give them fuller answers. Or both which is what I suspect is going on.

And that's why I said that its one thing to think its a good thing to have a social media strategy and delegate it to the associate brand manager, and another thing to realize that it is not just BITOG types that are interested in oil and if you can find the right balance of technical info and marketing speak, you can address that market better.

Again, just look at how Mobil 1 do it on their website. They give out more technical info on their own site to people less interested in oil than we are. Not just the huge Q&A there but also just ensuring all the products are listed and all the technical data sheets are easily available.

Pennzoil go with marketing on their website, don't list all the products, don't have all the data sheets and then come to this site and give us 95% marketing speak in the q&a for their revolutionary launch.

Two different levels of marketing sophistication and execution for premium synthetic oils and the market share shows the results.
 
TrevorS,

I suspect the lack of technical information is purely due to SOPUS lawyers' unwillingness to divulge proprietary information.

I agree that the Pennzoil website leaves a lot to be desired, especially when compared to the M1 website. But contrast that with this: Based on my recent experiences, M1 customer service leaves a lot to be desired compared to SOPUS. So which do you prefer, a better website or better customer support?

I want a reasonably priced, high quality product from a company who cares about my business, and who cares about BITOG. Pennzoil and Castrol have both offered and completed BITOG Q&As. How many has Mobil 1 offered? Zero?

I'm done with M1 for a while. If they can do without my business, I can do without their oil.
 
Originally Posted By: TrevorS
I wouldn't imagine requiring telephone support.

But what went wrong that you needed them?


$15 rebate submission apparently got lost in the mail, Mobil 1 says they have no record of my submission. I say OK, well I have copies of my receipt and rebate form, where should I send those? Mobil 1 says I'm S.O.L. since that promotion has ended... They won't look at my copies. Then they have the audacity to suggest I check out their current rebate promotion and try again? I'm thinking, are you F***ing kidding me? No thanks, keep your oil.
 
That sucks. I keep a close eye on rebate dates and timings to make sure I can't get caught out by submission deadlines.

Pennzoil has upset a lot of people here with their rebates. I was denied also. But they have gone to online submission which prevents things getting lost.
 
I've had limited problems with Pennzoil rebates in the past too, but in my experience denial was either technically my fault (non-participating retailer, or forgot to copy my receipt), or was later fixed and I got my rebate... just a bit late.

For sure SOPUS isn't perfect, but at least they seem to be trying.
 
Originally Posted By: TrevorS
Two different levels of marketing sophistication and execution for premium synthetic oils and the market share shows the results.


LOL, marketing sophistication indeed. I'm thinking of the Tony Stewart "soda cookie" M1 commercial.

But seriously, I have said for years when it comes to marketing, "mileage guarantee" beats "cleaner engine" every time. And I noticed SOPUS's repeated stubborn insistence that OCI (or ODI as they called it) is the province of auto manufacturers only. They almost seemed a bit touchy on this subject as though they've tried to convince themselves that they haven't really been outmarketed by the XOM guys for years.

And finally, I don't know about you but, it did grate on me to learn that all this new tech base stock is coming from Qatar.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Interesting read.
What I found most interesting is pennzoil saying in no uncertain terms that there is no such thing as a group 3+ Nor any + when grading base stocks.
So take that to all those who told me I was wrong when I wrote that there was no such thing as a + base stock.


It's great to be vindicated, ain't it?
 
Fwiw, the TDS documents for Ultra Platinum have reappeared on Shell's website. When they were taken down a week or two ago there was a thought maybe they were in error, especially the new Noack figures.

While there may have been changes, the new TDSs look like the ones that were pulled as far as I can tell. Noack is still roughly double what it was in the old formula and higher than the new Platinum formulation. I know there's a lot more to a motor oil than volatility, but this is still odd.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top