Pennzoil Multi-Vehicle ATF No Longer Syn Blend!!!!

[Cooper]

I have been tooling with the idea of using Pennzoil MV ATF. So, in these questions I have, I decided to call Shell. I called a number I found for the tech department. I actually spoke to an oil blender. I asked a few critical questions in my opinion. One of which was in regards to settling of the additive package in the oils they sell....ie. Pennzoil Platinum.

Well, the point of the thread is this. I was told by the blender that Pennzoil Multi-vehicle ATF is NO LONGER a synthetic blend ATF. I was also told in short that the reasoning behind this is that testing showed that they were able to meet the needs of the suggested specs with a conventional base fluid. What I really heard was that they were able to cut cost and still charge the same amount of money for an inferior ATF to what they were putting out.

He also stated indirectly that the newer formulation was inferior to the syn blend, which I already had assumed. He never directly stated this, but did state that they wanted to meet manufacturer specs, and not necessarily exceed them.

Sounds like I will not be using this ATF anymore!!!!

 

[Cooper]

Oh, I forgot to mention....

This is the number I called...they will not answer Shell, Pennzoil, Quaker State....etc....They may just answer....Tech Department...like they did for me. It was an Asian man who answered that was an engineering blender.

800-458-4998

 

[Johnny]

Originally Posted By: Cooper
I have been tooling with the idea of using Pennzoil MV ATF. So, in these questions I have, I decided to call Shell. I called a number I found for the tech department. I actually spoke to an oil blender. I asked a few critical questions in my opinion. One of which was in regards to settling of the additive package in the oils they sell....ie. Pennzoil Platinum.

Well, the point of the thread is this. I was told by the blender that Pennzoil Multi-vehicle ATF is NO LONGER a synthetic blend ATF. I was also told in short that the reasoning behind this is that testing showed that they were able to meet the needs of the suggested specs with a conventional base fluid. What I really heard was that they were able to cut cost and still charge the same amount of money for an inferior ATF to what they were putting out.

He also stated indirectly that the newer formulation was inferior to the syn blend, which I already had assumed. He never directly stated this, but did state that they wanted to meet manufacturer specs, and not necessarily exceed them.

Sounds like I will not be using this ATF anymore!!!!


I still have a few contacts at Shell and I am checking into this. My first concern is that you make a lot of assumptions without actual statements. Things like "I was told in short", "What I really heard", "He also stated indirectly", "He never directly stated".

I do not know who you talked to, but I hope we can find out by the information that you have given. And the last I heard about the Multi-Vehicle ATF is had a combination of Group II and Group III base stocks. When the product was first introduced it had Group II and PAO. Maybe that is what he meant "but I did not hear him say that".

I will post what I find out if I get an answer.

 

[Audi Junkie]

What's the VI?

 

[Johnny]

http://www.pzlqs.com/techdata/l7_prodsheet_fs.htm

 

[Cooper]

Johnny, I respect you as an individual on this board. I also believe you are very knowledgable and courtious for the most part. That being said....why such negativity? I didn't record the conversation, so I can't give the exact conversation word for word. I stated what needed to be stated to make my point on here. Pennzoil will gladly tell you that the ATF is no longer a syn blend if you call the number that I listed.

I do believe that this forum is for technical info AND OPINIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Although I make some assumptions....like that the reason for the reformulation is cost cutting.....I MAKE NO ASSUMPTIONS THAT I WAS TOLD IT IS 100% MINERAL BASED ATF!!!!

I also make no assumptions that mineral base oils were being used to meet requirements of car manufacturer specs. I also was told, with no assumptions that synthetic was not required to meet these specs, and that it was more than what was needed, so it is no longer being used!!!!!!!!!

The only assumption that I make is that the new reformulated ATF is inferior to the synthetic blend of the PAST. I do believe that most would agree that a synthetic blend ATF base fluid would be better than a mineral based fluid.

 

[Cooper]

Oh, and another thing I was told. They (being the blender that I spoke to and I believe the department in general) have been upset with the folks that run the website because they have not updated the website and it still states synthetic blend....

That is a different link than on http://www.pennzoil.com

Please note that it no longer states synthetic blend on the website tech documents you linked to. It states mineral base fluid I believe. I would believe they would call it syn blend if it has any Group III or PAO in it at all.

 

[Johnny]

If you took my comments a negative, I'm sorry. Your opinion is fine, we all have opinions, but I want to get to the bottom of this so I have sent an email to one of my contacts and when and if I get a reply I will copy and paste his reply. I still use this product in one of my vehicles and have full confidence in it.

Carry on.

 

[Johnny]

Maybe you should check the website, the updated sheet is from April 2007. Here it is word for word as I copied and pasted it. I believe it plainly states high quality mineral base.

If I thought is was irrelevent, I would not have posted it.



PENNZOIL® MULTI-VEHICLE AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION
FLUID

A High-Quality Multi-Vehicle Fluid For Automatic And Powershift
Transmissions

PRODUCT DESCRIPTION
PENNZOIL MULTI-VEHICLE ATF is a high quality mineral base stock with an advanced additive system for
automatic and powershift transmissions. It is suitable for use in transmissions requiring DEXRON-III (H),
MERCON, MERCON V and Allison C-4 fluid. In addition, PENNZOIL MULTI-VEHICLE ATF is
recommended for all Chrysler automatic transmissions (except those listed below), and can function as a Caterpillar
TO-2 lubricant.

PENNZOIL MULTI-VEHICLE ATF is formulated to provide protection that meets or exceeds the highest quality
standards in the industry. The specially balanced additive system protects against shudder, eliminates the need to
stock ATF supplements and ensures a high-performance smooth driving experience. Carefully balanced friction
modifiers allow friction retention for long life performance and maintain the smooth lock-ups required by a wide
variety of vehicles. Enhanced oxidation, thermal stability and corrosion resistance helps maintain year-round
protection of the transmission components.

APPLICATION
PENNZOIL MULTI-VEHICLE ATF is Suitable for use in applications requiring:
• DEXRON®, DEXRON®-II, DEXRON®-III
• MERCON®, MERCON® V
• Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep/Plymouth except NAG1 that requires Shell 3403 ATF
• Allison C-4
• Toyota T, T-III, T-IV
• Honda Premium Formula ATF, ATF-Z1 (except in CVTs)
• Mitsubishi/Kia/Hyundai SP, SP-II, SP-III
• Nissan Matic -D, Nissan Matic-J
• BMW LA2634, LT71141

Not for use in vehicles requiring Type F, DEXRON®-VI, MERCON® SP, Full Synthetic MERCON®,
Nissan Matic K, Toyota/Lexus WS, Mercedes Benz 3403-M115, BMW 1375.4, or Volvo 1161540-8. Also not for use for CVT. Check owner's manual and/or dipstick for exact specification.
TYPICAL PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES
PENNZOIL MULTI-VEHICLE ATF


TEST METHOD TYPICAL RESULTS
Gravity, API ASTM D 4052 32.8
Specific Gravity @ 60 F (15.6 C) ASTM D 4052 0.8610
Pounds Per Gallon 7.16
Flash Point, °C ASTM D 92 184
Pour Point, °C ASTM D 97 -48
Color Red
Viscosity:
@ 40°C, cSt ASTM D 445 33.82
@ 100°C, cSt ASTM D 445 7.60
@ 100°F, SUS ASTM D 445 & D 2161 170.8
@ 210°F, SUS ASTM D 445 & D 2161 51.5
Viscosity Index ASTM D 2270 204
Brookfield Viscosity @ -40°C, cP ASTM D 2983 10,200
Material Number
Bulk 161599

 

[Cooper]

No, I believe the website says synthetic blend....

Click HERE and also read below. This is from the main Pennzoil Multi-Vehicle ATF page on Pennzoil's consumer website. I have put the print in bold below that states this.

Pennzoil® Multi-Vehicle ATF

Pennzoil® Multi-Vehicle ATF is a special blend of high-quality mineral base stocks with an advanced additive system for automatic and powershift transmissions. It meets the requirements of transmissions requiring DEXRON® -III, MERCON®, MERCON® V and Allison C-4 fluid. In addition, Pennzoil® Multi-Vehicle ATF is recommended by Pennzoil® for Chrysler automatic transmissions and can function as a Caterpillar TO-2 lubricant. Pennzoil® Multi-Vehicle ATF is formulated to provide protection that meets or exceeds the highest quality standards in the industry.

PENNZOIL® MULTI-VEHICLE ATF is suitable for use in applications requiring:

DEXRON®, DEXRON®-II, DEXRON®-III.
MERCON®, MERCON® V.
Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep/Plymouth (except NAG1 that requires Shell 3403 ATF).
Allison C-4.
Toyota T, T-III, T-IV.
Honda Premium Formula ATF, ATF-Z1 (except in CVTs).
Mitsubishi/Kia/Hyundai SP, SP-II, SP-III.
Nissan Matic -D, Nissan Matic-J.
BMW LA2634, LT71141.

Not for use in vehicles requiring Type F, DEXRON®-VI, MERCON® SP, Full Synthetic MERCON®, Nissan Matic K, Toyota/Lexus WS, Mercedes Benz 3403-M115, BMW 1375.4, or Volvo 1161540-8. Also not for use for CVT. Check owner's manual and/or dipstick for exact specification.

Benefits:
Pennzoil® Multi-Vehicle Automatic Transmission Fluid is suitable for use in most modern vehicles.
Pennzoil® Multi-Vehicle Automatic Transmission Fluid is a high-quality, advanced technology, synthetic-blend formulation that provides:

Excellent high-temperature oxidation protection.
Anti-shudder protection.
Outstanding low-temperature protection.
Smooth, consistent shifting.
For more technical data, see product data sheets.

*Mercon© is a registered trademark of Ford Motor Company.
*Dexron© is a registered trademark of General Motors Corporation

 

[Cooper]

No your link is not irrelevant....not what I was implying, that is why I edited the post. It is just as a consumer, you may believe that it is a synthetic blend, and it is not because of what Pennzoil states on the consumer website. I also would much rather be paying for a synthetic blend than a conventional, especially if they are stating ANYPLACE that is is a synthetic blend, which it used to be.

 

[Cooper]

Obviously I am not happy with the reformulation. I really don't like being mislead by a company, and I really don't like it when I company changes a formulation to possibly an inferior product.

Isn't a synthetic blend base oil better than a mineral base oil? Would you rather use a syn blend ATF or conventional ATF? I would rather keep the heat, oxidation, shearing etc. down with the synthetic properties. Maybe it is just me, but I feel that they are going to an inferior product because it meets the specs and cuts cost. What other reasoning would they have? They even stated that the synthetic base was not needed to meet the specs so they removed that. What else would it be removed for? It obviously wouldn't take away from the fluid to be semi-syn, would it? Why do you feel that the semi-syn base was changed? Do you think it could possibly be any better with mineral base fluid?

 

[Johnny]

I said I would reply when I got a reply, so here it is. I will not identify my contact for obvious reasons.

His reply to me:
"I can guarantee that he did not talk to a "blender" [censored], I can't get hold of the product managers, I don't think they would be answering the tech hotline! Our MV-ATF was never advertised as a syn blend for a reason. Depending on where it was blended, we can use either some Group III or all Group II+ and adjust the additive package to compensate. We were doing this before you retired. The term we use for our MV-ATF is "fit for use" for several applications because we do not have licensing for ATF+4 or Toyota Type T or T IV, etc.... I think I know who this guy talked to on the hot line. He is new and may not be up to speed on how to answer some of the trickier questions. The correct answer is "all of our formulation information is proprietary" because the answer can be complicated. Unfortunately, what the caller heard, or wanted to hear, is that the fluid is cheaper. If the fluid wasn't performing, I would know it. My phone would be ringing off the hook. Actually, it's been very quite. ( I hope i didn't just jinx myself). We hardly make any margin on ATF. Don't know anything on the sediment in the bottles. I haven't had any calls on that issue that I can recall. The PZ platinum and PZ conventional are kick [censored] products right now."

-----My Original Message-----
From: Johnny Petree
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:22 AM
To:
Subject: Tech Line Info

John,

One of the guys on the oil chat site that I belong to posted the following two post. The comments he said the fellow made kind of concerned me. My first question is how the heck did he get a number to a blender instead of someone that should be giving out tech answers. I guess my next question as a Pennzoil retiree is, what the heck is Shell up to with oils. I keep hearing about a lot of sediment in the bottles of regular Pennzoil and also Platinum. Anything you care to share.

Thanks,

JP








"I have been tooling with the idea of using Pennzoil MV ATF. So, in these questions I have, I decided to call Shell. I called a number I found for the tech department. I actually spoke to an oil blender. I asked a few critical questions in my opinion. One of which was in regards to settling of the additive package in the oils they sell....ie. Pennzoil Platinum.

Well, the point of the thread is this. I was told by the blender that Pennzoil Multi-vehicle ATF is NO LONGER a synthetic blend ATF. I was also told in short that the reasoning behind this is that testing showed that they were able to meet the needs of the suggested specs with a conventional base fluid. What I really heard was that they were able to cut cost and still charge the same amount of money for an inferior ATF to what they were putting out.

He also stated indirectly that the newer formulation was inferior to the syn blend, which I already had assumed. He never directly stated this, but did state that they wanted to meet manufacturer specs, and not necessarily exceed them.

Sounds like I will not be using this ATF anymore!!!! "



"Oh, I forgot to mention....

This is the number I called...they will not answer Shell, Pennzoil, Quaker State....etc....They may just answer....Tech Department...like they did for me. It was an Asian man who answered that was an engineering blender.

800-458-4998"

 

[bamorris2]

I checked out the link that Cooper proivded, and it does in-fact say "synthetic blend".

Johnny, maybe you should forward that link to your contact to see what he has to say about it.

 

[Cooper]

Johnny,

Please don't take any of my comments as disrespectful to you. I am upset that Pennzoil, and the Shell corp. is advertising ATF as syn blend when in fact it is conventional ATF. I have used this in my tranny with the information I was given and believed it was a syn blend which is what I required in my ATF choice at the time.

I am upset that they would clearly put synthetic blend on their website, and it actually be a conventional.

I really didn't post this thread to argue any point here, I just want folks to know that the Pennzoil MV ATF is not Synthetic Blend like so much of us have been lead to believe.

As for the gentleman I spoke to on the phone, I can only state what I was told by him, and if he wasn't a blender, he shouldn't have stated that he was. I can only go on someones word, which sometimes doesn't mean much.

 

[Johnny]

I checked out the website as bamorris2 suggested and sure enough under benefits it states synthetic-blend formulation. I then clicked on the spec sheet and it does not state that. So now we have technical Vs marketing. I have forwarded this info to my contact but I pretty much know what he will say. I agree the words synthetic-blend formulation should be removed on that web page. Whatever it is, it's still a very good product and I would not hesitate to use it in the right application.

Cooper, no disrespect meant from my end either. All is well.

 

[dnewton3]

As an outsider to this conversation, until now, what I see is akin to the very confusion that comes with ANY use of the word "synthetic" regarding ANY lubricant. Engine oils, transmission oils, gear oils, greases, etc all fall under the marketing spell when the label is slapped on.

I agree that it is unfortunate that the words "synthetic blend" are applied to this product in the marketing text, but even if it's not, that doesn't make it bad, or cheap, or unworthy of consideration. In fact, if I understand the basic processes of lubricant development and manufacturing, nearly all products are a "blend". Base stocks, additives, and such all contribute to the performance of the product and the conformance to some agency spec (such as API).

This BITOG website, and others, have been fantastic in both educating me, and allowing me to educate others. I'm not a tribologist; I'm a statisical quality engineer. I have the need to glean info from this site, and I have the ability to share my skills with others.

Does it suck that marketing trumped manufacturing in the advertising of this product? Sure.

But it happens all the time, in many brands, in all kinds of products. Hey, there's a reason they say Caveot Emptor, right?

At least some of the more reputable companies put up some PDS and MSDS info for us to peruse. It may not be entirly accurate, but it's better than nothing. I will take a technical product sheet over a marketing driven synopsis any day. We don't always get good advice, even from the "help". That's part of the reason I contain my conversation with the AAP counter-jockey to the day's weather, and not parts or lubricant questions.

I count on people like Johnny to educate me on the finer points of lubricants, and I in turn can sometimes help dispell the myths and slay the dragons of untruth when it comes to statisical analysis.

Truth be told, the world is now such a complex arena that no one could be an expert at everything. Except for my wife; she's perfect! Just ask her.

 

[bamorris2]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

Truth be told, the world is now such a complex arena that no one could be an expert at everything. Except for my wife; she's perfect! Just ask her.

Spoken like a true husband!

 

[unDummy]

I wouldn't worry about the formula too much.
The -40 Brookfield visc is as good as some synthetics.
Pour point is acceptable.

Whether a fluid is 25% GroupIII synth and 75% whatever, vs mostly group II/II+, would it really make a difference?

 

[Johnny]

Originally Posted By: bamorris2
I checked out the link that Cooper proivded, and it does in-fact say "synthetic blend".

Johnny, maybe you should forward that link to your contact to see what he has to say about it.


Well, I sent my contact an email and here is his reply. The reply is first then the email I sent him.

From:
Date: March 9, 2008 9:37:18 PM CDT
To: Subject: RE: Multi Vehicle ATF

Yep. Now all I have to do is find out who is responsible for the PZ web site. Not an easy task.

-----Original Message-----
From: Johnny P
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 7:55 AM
To: John M SLUBE
Subject: Multi Vehicle ATF

John,

On the Pennzoil website here is the description of the MV-ATF. Now the tech sheet does not say this, but the website under benefits clearly states synthetic blend formulation. Shouldn't someone change that on the website?

JP

Pennzoil® Multi-Vehicle ATF

Pennzoil® Multi-Vehicle ATF is a special blend of high-quality mineral base stocks with an advanced additive system for automatic and powershift transmissions. It meets the requirements of transmissions requiring DEXRON® -III, MERCON®, MERCON® V and Allison C-4 fluid. In addition, Pennzoil® Multi-Vehicle ATF is recommended by Pennzoil® for Chrysler automatic transmissions and can function as a Caterpillar TO-2 lubricant. Pennzoil® Multi-Vehicle ATF is formulated to provide protection that meets or exceeds the highest quality standards in the industry.

PENNZOIL® MULTI-VEHICLE ATF is suitable for use in applications requiring:

DEXRON®, DEXRON®-II, DEXRON®-III.
MERCON®, MERCON® V.
Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep/Plymouth (except NAG1 that requires Shell 3403 ATF).
Allison C-4.
Toyota T, T-III, T-IV.
Honda Premium Formula ATF, ATF-Z1 (except in CVTs).
Mitsubishi/Kia/Hyundai SP, SP-II, SP-III.
Nissan Matic -D, Nissan Matic-J.
BMW LA2634, LT71141.

Not for use in vehicles requiring Type F, DEXRON®-VI, MERCON® SP, Full Synthetic MERCON®, Nissan Matic K, Toyota/Lexus WS, Mercedes Benz 3403-M115, BMW 1375.4, or Volvo 1161540-8. Also not for use for CVT. Check owner's manual and/or dipstick for exact specification.

Benefits:
Pennzoil® Multi-Vehicle Automatic Transmission Fluid is suitable for use in most modern vehicles.

Pennzoil® Multi-Vehicle Automatic Transmission Fluid is a high-quality, advanced technology, synthetic-blend formulation that provides: