Hello, I've missed a good bit of info from this site over the past 14 mo or so. I purchased a new turbo charged vehicle and wanted to use penn ultra ( usual reasons low noak. Full syn for the extra heat etc. ) checked the noak specs at pennzoil's site. 5w-30: 11.5 10w-30: 5.7 this must be the new formulation? Was the old formula considerably lower noak on the 5w-30.? Thanks.
Pennzoil ultra noak
- Thread starter Sw296inchblue
- Start date
- Status
Yes, the base stock is higher NOACK now. You read it right.
Yes, the old PU 5w30 was about 6% Noack. We've lamented a lot on this site about the 11.5% of PUP 5w30. But it's still good oil. I have a stash of PU 5w30 which should last me 2 years, and am planning to use PUP 10w30 when all that runs out.
I ran pennzoil platinum 10w-30 ( not ultra ) for years in my wife's 07 Saturn 3.6. Trans grenaded at 136k but the engine was purring along just fine. ( Colorado winters included ) After reading here, I decided to switch to 5w-30 for the quicker flow at startup. Now per dexos I can't run a 10w-30 in the warranty period. Do any of the mainstream synthetics have a single digit noak in 5w-30? Thanks
Originally Posted By: Sw296inchblue
Do any of the mainstream synthetics have a single digit noak in 5w-30? Thanks
http://www.pqiamerica.com/March2013PCMO/Marchsyntheticsallfinal.html
But if your car is under warranty (is it?) and you are required to run dexos approved oil, then you should first and foremost run exactly that. Dexos spec does take Noack into account.
Do any of the mainstream synthetics have a single digit noak in 5w-30? Thanks
http://www.pqiamerica.com/March2013PCMO/Marchsyntheticsallfinal.html
But if your car is under warranty (is it?) and you are required to run dexos approved oil, then you should first and foremost run exactly that. Dexos spec does take Noack into account.
GM Dexos 5W30 oil has 7.9 Noack as per PQIA.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: Sw296inchblue
Do any of the mainstream synthetics have a single digit noak in 5w-30? Thanks
http://www.pqiamerica.com/March2013PCMO/Marchsyntheticsallfinal.html
But if your car is under warranty (is it?) and you are required to run dexos approved oil, then you should first and foremost run exactly that. Dexos spec does take Noack into account.
I was planning on cross referencing it with the dexos list here. http://www.centerforqa.com/gm/dexos1-brands. I know I need to look at a given oils total pkg. I'm just puzzled by the seemingly large drop in noak when going from a 5w30 to a 10w30. I'm also wondering about the teost test, seems it would be just as relevant in a di turbo application
Originally Posted By: Sw296inchblue
Do any of the mainstream synthetics have a single digit noak in 5w-30? Thanks
http://www.pqiamerica.com/March2013PCMO/Marchsyntheticsallfinal.html
But if your car is under warranty (is it?) and you are required to run dexos approved oil, then you should first and foremost run exactly that. Dexos spec does take Noack into account.
I was planning on cross referencing it with the dexos list here. http://www.centerforqa.com/gm/dexos1-brands. I know I need to look at a given oils total pkg. I'm just puzzled by the seemingly large drop in noak when going from a 5w30 to a 10w30. I'm also wondering about the teost test, seems it would be just as relevant in a di turbo application
Originally Posted By: oldhp
GM Dexos 5W30 oil has 7.9 Noack as per PQIA.
That's the lowest I've seen of the oils they report on their site (aside from Pennzoil Ultra). Even QSUD is 8.8.
GM Dexos 5W30 oil has 7.9 Noack as per PQIA.
That's the lowest I've seen of the oils they report on their site (aside from Pennzoil Ultra). Even QSUD is 8.8.
PUP 10w30 volatility is still exceptional I see
Originally Posted By: Sw296inchblue
Hello, I've missed a good bit of info from this site over the past 14 mo or so. I purchased a new turbo charged vehicle and wanted to use penn ultra ( usual reasons low noak. Full syn for the extra heat etc. ) checked the noak specs at pennzoil's site. 5w-30: 11.5 10w-30: 5.7 this must be the new formulation? Was the old formula considerably lower noak on the 5w-30.? Thanks.
Why do you even care about Noack? I certainly don't:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3489104/Re:_Why_all_the_fuss_over_NOAC#Post3489104
For a turbo that spec's the 5W-30 grade I'd choose a syn oil that meets the HTO-06 spec' or in lieu of that an oil with a low TEOST deposit score.
Hello, I've missed a good bit of info from this site over the past 14 mo or so. I purchased a new turbo charged vehicle and wanted to use penn ultra ( usual reasons low noak. Full syn for the extra heat etc. ) checked the noak specs at pennzoil's site. 5w-30: 11.5 10w-30: 5.7 this must be the new formulation? Was the old formula considerably lower noak on the 5w-30.? Thanks.
Why do you even care about Noack? I certainly don't:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3489104/Re:_Why_all_the_fuss_over_NOAC#Post3489104
For a turbo that spec's the 5W-30 grade I'd choose a syn oil that meets the HTO-06 spec' or in lieu of that an oil with a low TEOST deposit score.
I mentioned the TEOST test in my last post. Would you care to recommend an oil or two ? Needs to be dexos approved 5w-30 for a 2014 Buick 2.0T LTG. Thanks
Originally Posted By: Sw296inchblue
I mentioned the TEOST test in my last post. Would you care to recommend an oil or two ? Needs to be dexos approved 5w-30 for a 2014 Buick 2.0T LTG. Thanks
I'm sure the current PUP 5W-30 likely has as good a TEOST deposit level as the original Ultra.
I haven't checked if Castrol Edge has dexos 1 approval (I'm sure it must) but it has an incredible low TEOST deposit level so that oil would be high on my list of choices.
I mentioned the TEOST test in my last post. Would you care to recommend an oil or two ? Needs to be dexos approved 5w-30 for a 2014 Buick 2.0T LTG. Thanks
I'm sure the current PUP 5W-30 likely has as good a TEOST deposit level as the original Ultra.
I haven't checked if Castrol Edge has dexos 1 approval (I'm sure it must) but it has an incredible low TEOST deposit level so that oil would be high on my list of choices.
IMHO the excitement over Noack was because almost all oils within a grade usually have very similar properties. In that sea of uniformity, the old Ultra/PU had a single metric that halved most of the competition. That gave BITOGer's something to talk and speculate about.
There are engines that get oil-fouled in the intake manifold, any forum that shows aftermarket or homebrew PCV catch cans full of oil will show you which. This is interesting but not a big deal. Lots of folks run cars into the ground with huge mileage and no engine problems, without finding a low Noack oil or running a catch can.
There are engines that get oil-fouled in the intake manifold, any forum that shows aftermarket or homebrew PCV catch cans full of oil will show you which. This is interesting but not a big deal. Lots of folks run cars into the ground with huge mileage and no engine problems, without finding a low Noack oil or running a catch can.
Originally Posted By: HangFire
IMHO the excitement over Noack was because almost all oils within a grade usually have very similar properties. In that sea of uniformity, the old Ultra/PU had a single metric that halved most of the competition. That gave BITOGer's something to talk and speculate about.
Good point. It looked like a unicorn, so it naturally drew lots of attention.
IMHO the excitement over Noack was because almost all oils within a grade usually have very similar properties. In that sea of uniformity, the old Ultra/PU had a single metric that halved most of the competition. That gave BITOGer's something to talk and speculate about.
Good point. It looked like a unicorn, so it naturally drew lots of attention.
wemay
Site Donor 2023
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: HangFire
IMHO the excitement over Noack was because almost all oils within a grade usually have very similar properties. In that sea of uniformity, the old Ultra/PU had a single metric that halved most of the competition. That gave BITOGer's something to talk and speculate about.
Good point. It looked like a unicorn, so it naturally drew lots of attention.
Both right on-point!
Originally Posted By: HangFire
IMHO the excitement over Noack was because almost all oils within a grade usually have very similar properties. In that sea of uniformity, the old Ultra/PU had a single metric that halved most of the competition. That gave BITOGer's something to talk and speculate about.
Good point. It looked like a unicorn, so it naturally drew lots of attention.
Both right on-point!
Originally Posted By: wemay
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: HangFire
IMHO the excitement over Noack was because almost all oils within a grade usually have very similar properties. In that sea of uniformity, the old Ultra/PU had a single metric that halved most of the competition. That gave BITOGer's something to talk and speculate about.
Good point. It looked like a unicorn, so it naturally drew lots of attention.
Both right on-point!
+3
The low single digit spec' was so impressive that members didn't didn't need any further encouragement they wanted that "unicorn". Reminding members that Noack really wasn't that important simply meant you were a party pooper.
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: HangFire
IMHO the excitement over Noack was because almost all oils within a grade usually have very similar properties. In that sea of uniformity, the old Ultra/PU had a single metric that halved most of the competition. That gave BITOGer's something to talk and speculate about.
Good point. It looked like a unicorn, so it naturally drew lots of attention.
Both right on-point!
+3
The low single digit spec' was so impressive that members didn't didn't need any further encouragement they wanted that "unicorn". Reminding members that Noack really wasn't that important simply meant you were a party pooper.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
+3
The low single digit spec' was so impressive that members didn't didn't need any further encouragement they wanted that "unicorn". Reminding members that Noack really wasn't that important simply meant you were a party pooper.
It was so impressive that we have deduced that GTL base stocks were being used. That's where I get excited. You, oddly enough, also agree that we have been able to extrapolate the use of GTL from the volatility values. So not only are you being a hypocrite, but you're alao a diehard hypocrite- with this talk of unicorns, trying to insult others' while you own univorns, namely VI and TEOST 33C test results as misappropriated to a completely unrelated engine part- the intake valves.
Now, I suggest you, and all you've erroneously convinced, that you all review the TEOST 33C procedure, review the conditions that an intake valve experiences, and draw analogies between the two.
PROTIP: intake valves are not washed under a laminar flow of full-composition motor oil--- any other analogy you can think, cannot compensate for that one massive glaring FLAW.
In fact, I think I'll make a thread about how TEOST 33C is a misappropriated analogy to DI intake valve deposits.
+3
The low single digit spec' was so impressive that members didn't didn't need any further encouragement they wanted that "unicorn". Reminding members that Noack really wasn't that important simply meant you were a party pooper.
It was so impressive that we have deduced that GTL base stocks were being used. That's where I get excited. You, oddly enough, also agree that we have been able to extrapolate the use of GTL from the volatility values. So not only are you being a hypocrite, but you're alao a diehard hypocrite- with this talk of unicorns, trying to insult others' while you own univorns, namely VI and TEOST 33C test results as misappropriated to a completely unrelated engine part- the intake valves.
Now, I suggest you, and all you've erroneously convinced, that you all review the TEOST 33C procedure, review the conditions that an intake valve experiences, and draw analogies between the two.
PROTIP: intake valves are not washed under a laminar flow of full-composition motor oil--- any other analogy you can think, cannot compensate for that one massive glaring FLAW.
In fact, I think I'll make a thread about how TEOST 33C is a misappropriated analogy to DI intake valve deposits.
Originally Posted By: jrustles
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
+3
The low single digit spec' was so impressive that members didn't didn't need any further encouragement they wanted that "unicorn". Reminding members that Noack really wasn't that important simply meant you were a party pooper.
It was so impressive that we have deduced that GTL base stocks were being used. That's where I get excited. You, oddly enough, also agree that we have been able to extrapolate the use of GTL from the volatility values. So not only are you being a hypocrite, but you're alao a diehard hypocrite-
There is nothing hypocritical about drawing conclusions on base oil type from Noack values and understanding that an oil's Noack value is of limited importance but I guess you're not just bright enough to understand the difference.
Regarding the TEOST test (there are a couple of types). I have explained in more detail in the past that it is not an intake tract deposit test but it a deposit test, which is inherently more useful than Noack which isn't a deposit test at all.
But if you want to waste your time and try and prove a direct connection between Noack and intake valve deposits good luck with that.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
+3
The low single digit spec' was so impressive that members didn't didn't need any further encouragement they wanted that "unicorn". Reminding members that Noack really wasn't that important simply meant you were a party pooper.
It was so impressive that we have deduced that GTL base stocks were being used. That's where I get excited. You, oddly enough, also agree that we have been able to extrapolate the use of GTL from the volatility values. So not only are you being a hypocrite, but you're alao a diehard hypocrite-
There is nothing hypocritical about drawing conclusions on base oil type from Noack values and understanding that an oil's Noack value is of limited importance but I guess you're not just bright enough to understand the difference.
Regarding the TEOST test (there are a couple of types). I have explained in more detail in the past that it is not an intake tract deposit test but it a deposit test, which is inherently more useful than Noack which isn't a deposit test at all.
But if you want to waste your time and try and prove a direct connection between Noack and intake valve deposits good luck with that.
- Status