As the thread states what's the difference in the two? BTW I haven't seen "ultra" in a while. About 6 months ago a Kmart was going out of business and had both in 5 quart jugs for $12 dollars. Came back a couple days later to buy all they had and all was gone
Difference in Pennzoil platium and ultra???
- Thread starter JLDJ
- Start date
- Status
Somebody will fill you in more scientifically. But the bottom line is the Ultra had a better base stock,and additives.
It still does.
Originally Posted By: lexus114
Somebody will fill you in more scientifically. But the bottom line is the Ultra had a better base stock,and additives.
Originally Posted By: lexus114
Somebody will fill you in more scientifically. But the bottom line is the Ultra had a better base stock,and additives.
There is speculation that Ultra is using Shell's GTL base stocks. Most of this is based on the impressive properties of the base oil compared to other OTC synthetics. NOACK, pour point, etc.
Originally Posted By: stranger706
There is speculation that Ultra is using Shell's GTL base stocks. Most of this is based on the impressive properties of the base oil compared to other OTC synthetics. NOACK, pour point, etc.
I agree that the new SN-rated Ultra is using Shell's GTL basestocks to achieve a very low NOACK. The older SM-rated Ultra likely used 15-20% PAO with a standard Group III basestock and that is why NOACK was twice as high with SM versus SN.
Platinum's (SN-rated) NOACK splits the difference between the Ultra SM and SN, so perhaps Pennzoil is using lower-quality products (like a little PAO and a little GTL) to increase their profit margin as ExxonMobil has done.
The additive package in Ultra is also about 8%-10% stronger (across the board) than Platinum.
There is speculation that Ultra is using Shell's GTL base stocks. Most of this is based on the impressive properties of the base oil compared to other OTC synthetics. NOACK, pour point, etc.
I agree that the new SN-rated Ultra is using Shell's GTL basestocks to achieve a very low NOACK. The older SM-rated Ultra likely used 15-20% PAO with a standard Group III basestock and that is why NOACK was twice as high with SM versus SN.
Platinum's (SN-rated) NOACK splits the difference between the Ultra SM and SN, so perhaps Pennzoil is using lower-quality products (like a little PAO and a little GTL) to increase their profit margin as ExxonMobil has done.
The additive package in Ultra is also about 8%-10% stronger (across the board) than Platinum.
Last edited:
The property that I love the most regarding the new GTL base formulation is its incredible resistance to shearing.
Everyone already covered the majority of the difference. Though IMO the performance gap between PP and PU is a lot wider that people realize. PU really shows its true capabilities when used in engines that are known to be hard on oil.
A link that shows properties of common synthetics: PQIA - March 2013 Synthetics Final
Everyone already covered the majority of the difference. Though IMO the performance gap between PP and PU is a lot wider that people realize. PU really shows its true capabilities when used in engines that are known to be hard on oil.
A link that shows properties of common synthetics: PQIA - March 2013 Synthetics Final
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: KHP
The property that I love the most regarding the new GTL base formulation is its incredible resistance to shearing.
Everyone already covered the majority of the difference. Though IMO the performance gap between PP and PU is a lot wider that people realize. PU really shows its true capabilities when used in engines that are known to be hard on oil.
A link that shows properties of common synthetics: PQIA - March 2013 Synthetics Final
I've gotten VERY curious about Ultra since buying my Challenger SRT-8. I've been using M1 0w40 for a while in other vehicles (including my vintage big-blocks) and there's enough info out there in the form of VOAs and UOAs plus data sheets to conclude that its a great oil (maybe one of the best on the mass market.) PU 0w40 was allegedly designed specifically for the SRT vehicles, "co-engineered" with Chrysler engineers if you believe the advertizing, and the other grades show things like the great NOACK and apparent shear resistance. Hence it looks like THE oil for that car. Problem is, specific info on PU in the 0w40 grade (and the 0w40 oil itself, for that matter) is scarce as hen's teeth. On the Challenger forums, there's a fair amount of griping that Chrysler dealers are still using 5w40 when people take SRTs in for oil changes in many cases. If PU is as good in 0w40 as it is in other grades, and if its 0w40 has as strong an anti-wear package as M1 0w40 does then it might be what I go with in the future- especially for the SRT-8's 392. But I'd sure like to know for sure, and I sure as HECK won't use it in the 440s unless it shows >1000 PPM ZN/P like M1 does.
I've used the search engine until my hair is falling out with no success- do any of y'all know of a PU 0w40 VOA or UOA on here?
The property that I love the most regarding the new GTL base formulation is its incredible resistance to shearing.
Everyone already covered the majority of the difference. Though IMO the performance gap between PP and PU is a lot wider that people realize. PU really shows its true capabilities when used in engines that are known to be hard on oil.
A link that shows properties of common synthetics: PQIA - March 2013 Synthetics Final
I've gotten VERY curious about Ultra since buying my Challenger SRT-8. I've been using M1 0w40 for a while in other vehicles (including my vintage big-blocks) and there's enough info out there in the form of VOAs and UOAs plus data sheets to conclude that its a great oil (maybe one of the best on the mass market.) PU 0w40 was allegedly designed specifically for the SRT vehicles, "co-engineered" with Chrysler engineers if you believe the advertizing, and the other grades show things like the great NOACK and apparent shear resistance. Hence it looks like THE oil for that car. Problem is, specific info on PU in the 0w40 grade (and the 0w40 oil itself, for that matter) is scarce as hen's teeth. On the Challenger forums, there's a fair amount of griping that Chrysler dealers are still using 5w40 when people take SRTs in for oil changes in many cases. If PU is as good in 0w40 as it is in other grades, and if its 0w40 has as strong an anti-wear package as M1 0w40 does then it might be what I go with in the future- especially for the SRT-8's 392. But I'd sure like to know for sure, and I sure as HECK won't use it in the 440s unless it shows >1000 PPM ZN/P like M1 does.
I've used the search engine until my hair is falling out with no success- do any of y'all know of a PU 0w40 VOA or UOA on here?
Originally Posted By: stranger706
There is speculation that Ultra is using Shell's GTL base stocks.
It's not a speculation.
There is speculation that Ultra is using Shell's GTL base stocks.
It's not a speculation.
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
I've gotten VERY curious about Ultra since buying my Challenger SRT-8. I've been using M1 0w40 for a while in other vehicles (including my vintage big-blocks) and there's enough info out there in the form of VOAs and UOAs plus data sheets to conclude that its a great oil (maybe one of the best on the mass market.) PU 0w40 was allegedly designed specifically for the SRT vehicles, "co-engineered" with Chrysler engineers if you believe the advertizing, and the other grades show things like the great NOACK and apparent shear resistance. Hence it looks like THE oil for that car. Problem is, specific info on PU in the 0w40 grade (and the 0w40 oil itself, for that matter) is scarce as hen's teeth. On the Challenger forums, there's a fair amount of griping that Chrysler dealers are still using 5w40 when people take SRTs in for oil changes in many cases. If PU is as good in 0w40 as it is in other grades, and if its 0w40 has as strong an anti-wear package as M1 0w40 does then it might be what I go with in the future- especially for the SRT-8's 392. But I'd sure like to know for sure, and I sure as HECK won't use it in the 440s unless it shows >1000 PPM ZN/P like M1 does.
I've used the search engine until my hair is falling out with no success- do any of y'all know of a PU 0w40 VOA or UOA on here?
You are correct there's not a lot of information regarding the 0w40 flavor of PU. I haven't even seen any UOA/VOA's of the 0w40, Euro 5w40, Euro 5w30, and the Ferrari 10w60.
If you're up for giving it a shot then you'll be the first to have any real info on the 0w40 weight. I'm pretty sure they of high quality as they are within the same PU product line.
There's also nothing wrong with just sticking with M1 if it's working out well for you.
I've gotten VERY curious about Ultra since buying my Challenger SRT-8. I've been using M1 0w40 for a while in other vehicles (including my vintage big-blocks) and there's enough info out there in the form of VOAs and UOAs plus data sheets to conclude that its a great oil (maybe one of the best on the mass market.) PU 0w40 was allegedly designed specifically for the SRT vehicles, "co-engineered" with Chrysler engineers if you believe the advertizing, and the other grades show things like the great NOACK and apparent shear resistance. Hence it looks like THE oil for that car. Problem is, specific info on PU in the 0w40 grade (and the 0w40 oil itself, for that matter) is scarce as hen's teeth. On the Challenger forums, there's a fair amount of griping that Chrysler dealers are still using 5w40 when people take SRTs in for oil changes in many cases. If PU is as good in 0w40 as it is in other grades, and if its 0w40 has as strong an anti-wear package as M1 0w40 does then it might be what I go with in the future- especially for the SRT-8's 392. But I'd sure like to know for sure, and I sure as HECK won't use it in the 440s unless it shows >1000 PPM ZN/P like M1 does.
I've used the search engine until my hair is falling out with no success- do any of y'all know of a PU 0w40 VOA or UOA on here?
You are correct there's not a lot of information regarding the 0w40 flavor of PU. I haven't even seen any UOA/VOA's of the 0w40, Euro 5w40, Euro 5w30, and the Ferrari 10w60.
If you're up for giving it a shot then you'll be the first to have any real info on the 0w40 weight. I'm pretty sure they of high quality as they are within the same PU product line.
There's also nothing wrong with just sticking with M1 if it's working out well for you.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: KHP
I haven't even seen any UOA/VOA's of the 0w40, Euro 5w40, Euro 5w30, and the Ferrari 10w60.
My VOA and UOA for PU 5w-40 (API SM version) are here:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2100590#Post2100590
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2591203#Post2591203
I have not seen any for the 0w-40 grade though.
I haven't even seen any UOA/VOA's of the 0w40, Euro 5w40, Euro 5w30, and the Ferrari 10w60.
My VOA and UOA for PU 5w-40 (API SM version) are here:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2100590#Post2100590
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2591203#Post2591203
I have not seen any for the 0w-40 grade though.
Originally Posted By: KHP
If you're up for giving it a shot then you'll be the first to have any real info on the 0w40 weight. I'm pretty sure they of high quality as they are within the same PU product line.
There's also nothing wrong with just sticking with M1 if it's working out well for you.
I'm up for giving it a shot, and will probably wind up ordering a case of it and getting a VOA, which of course I'll post here. Even if I find out I don't want to use it in the vintage engines, it'll be good for the 392. Factory fill, after all.. ;-)
If you're up for giving it a shot then you'll be the first to have any real info on the 0w40 weight. I'm pretty sure they of high quality as they are within the same PU product line.
There's also nothing wrong with just sticking with M1 if it's working out well for you.
I'm up for giving it a shot, and will probably wind up ordering a case of it and getting a VOA, which of course I'll post here. Even if I find out I don't want to use it in the vintage engines, it'll be good for the 392. Factory fill, after all.. ;-)
After 200,000 or 250,000 or even 300,000 miles, whatever, what would the real difference be between two identical vehicles if one used PP exclusively and the other used PU exclusively?
Originally Posted By: gfh77665
After 200,000 or 250,000 or even 300,000 miles, whatever, what would the real difference be between two identical vehicles if one used PP exclusively and the other used PU exclusively?
One would smell like #1, the other like #2?
Evidently, SOPUS thinks PU is good enough to warrant to 500k vs. 300k for PP. To me, that says a lot about the quality. It also speaks to the hobbyist actuary in me that I doubt many people would drive that much and use PU exclusively for that long and then put in a claim on it... Even if they did, it would be well worth the money for them to cover it.
After 200,000 or 250,000 or even 300,000 miles, whatever, what would the real difference be between two identical vehicles if one used PP exclusively and the other used PU exclusively?
One would smell like #1, the other like #2?
Evidently, SOPUS thinks PU is good enough to warrant to 500k vs. 300k for PP. To me, that says a lot about the quality. It also speaks to the hobbyist actuary in me that I doubt many people would drive that much and use PU exclusively for that long and then put in a claim on it... Even if they did, it would be well worth the money for them to cover it.
Originally Posted By: Coprolite
It still does.
Originally Posted By: lexus114
Somebody will fill you in more scientifically. But the bottom line is the Ultra had a better base stock,and additives.
Yep your right, if you can still find it.
It still does.
Originally Posted By: lexus114
Somebody will fill you in more scientifically. But the bottom line is the Ultra had a better base stock,and additives.
Yep your right, if you can still find it.
Originally Posted By: Coprolite
Originally Posted By: gfh77665
After 200,000 or 250,000 or even 300,000 miles, whatever, what would the real difference be between two identical vehicles if one used PP exclusively and the other used PU exclusively?
Evidently, SOPUS thinks PU is good enough to warrant to 500k vs. 300k for PP. To me, that says a lot about the quality.
OK, so you say PU is 67% better than PP.
Originally Posted By: gfh77665
After 200,000 or 250,000 or even 300,000 miles, whatever, what would the real difference be between two identical vehicles if one used PP exclusively and the other used PU exclusively?
Evidently, SOPUS thinks PU is good enough to warrant to 500k vs. 300k for PP. To me, that says a lot about the quality.
OK, so you say PU is 67% better than PP.
Originally Posted By: gfh77665
OK, so you say PU is 67% better than PP.
If you go by Pennzoil's website, PU keeps the engine 25% cleaner than M1 while PP keeps the engine only 8% cleaner than M1, LOL!
OK, so you say PU is 67% better than PP.
If you go by Pennzoil's website, PU keeps the engine 25% cleaner than M1 while PP keeps the engine only 8% cleaner than M1, LOL!
Originally Posted By: gfh77665
Originally Posted By: Coprolite
Originally Posted By: gfh77665
After 200,000 or 250,000 or even 300,000 miles, whatever, what would the real difference be between two identical vehicles if one used PP exclusively and the other used PU exclusively?
Evidently, SOPUS thinks PU is good enough to warrant to 500k vs. 300k for PP. To me, that says a lot about the quality.
OK, so you say PU is 67% better than PP.
No, I said that the warranty lasts 67% longer than the other warranty. This would imply that PU is better than PP. Actual numbers are not reliable. Even cleaning power is only stated relative to Mobil1, not directly to each other.
Originally Posted By: Coprolite
Originally Posted By: gfh77665
After 200,000 or 250,000 or even 300,000 miles, whatever, what would the real difference be between two identical vehicles if one used PP exclusively and the other used PU exclusively?
Evidently, SOPUS thinks PU is good enough to warrant to 500k vs. 300k for PP. To me, that says a lot about the quality.
OK, so you say PU is 67% better than PP.
No, I said that the warranty lasts 67% longer than the other warranty. This would imply that PU is better than PP. Actual numbers are not reliable. Even cleaning power is only stated relative to Mobil1, not directly to each other.
Pete, that would put PU about 16% cleaner.
Edit: "up to" , not about....
Edit: "up to" , not about....
Last edited:
Those engine would have a new head gasket (not covered) long before the 500k warranty expires.
- Status
Similar threads
