5W-20 With Lowest Volitility NOACK Rating?

[Virtus_Probi]

I should have been more specific above, forgot that there was a Pennzoil Platinum before the GTL formulations...Pennzoil Ultra Platinum is a "new" product name, there was just a Pennzoil Ultra before that.
I believe it was common to use PPPP (Pennzoil Platinum PurePlus) on here to differentiate, my comments above were in regards to PPPP and not the old PP.

 

[buster]

NOACK may be a factor in blow by but it also depends on the overall base oil mix in the formulation. A NOACK of 10 blended with heavy and light cuts of base-oil compared to say a medium cut that also has a NOACK of 10. Detergents and dispersants are critical to keep the rings clean. You could have the lowest NOACK oil on earth but with a poor performing additive system then you are also going to be in trouble. Never fixate on one attribute.

 

[HondaBroMike]

NOACK, NOACK, NOACK, listen ghies, I used QSUD for an OCI right after trying Valvoline 5w-30 for both and not sure if this is the low volatility of the QSUD freed up ponies but the NOACK of 5.5 ish for the QSUD really could be felt by the seat of the pants (and I wear shorts usually but still yet) and I never felt that with the Valvoline full syn. Does that mean one is better than the other? No and infact it could be that the Valvoline was still better but what would your seat of the shorts want? What if I told you the QSUD started weeping but the Valvoline never did? Formulation cariances? Righttt... another factor for you to factor in your decision? rigghhttt.. happy choosing. Btw, I'm on 0w-20 and never a burn it makes.

 

[PimTac]

I tried Google Translate for the above comment but it came back with “unknown language”.

 

[farrarfan1]

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: PimTac
I tried Google Translate for the above comment but it came back with “unknown language”.

Yeah, that's a doozy, one of his best yet.

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi
I think it's quite likely that the PP dexos1 Gen 2 oils were reformulated for the new standard and test results more than about a year old are probably not applicable anymore...PUP is not Gen 2 and who knows if they have changed or not.


Can the D1G2 specs be met by either having a very LOW NOACK and a 'medium to high' concentration of calcium/sodium, or a higher NOACK with almost no calcium/sodium content, or does the spec require BOTH to be LOW?

 

[Virtus_Probi]

Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi
I think it's quite likely that the PP dexos1 Gen 2 oils were reformulated for the new standard and test results more than about a year old are probably not applicable anymore...PUP is not Gen 2 and who knows if they have changed or not.


Can the D1G2 specs be met by either having a very LOW NOACK and a 'medium to high' concentration of calcium/sodium, or a higher NOACK with almost no calcium/sodium content, or does the spec require BOTH to be LOW?

dexos1 Gen 2 is the same as dexos1 in having a maximum allowed NOACK loss of 13%, somewhat lower than GF5/SN oils at 15% max.

The LSPI test is a functional one that does not directly specify anything about the add pack, but it seems like all the manufacturers I have seen have addressed it by using relatively low calcium concentrations and removing sodium if it had been used in their oils before. Seems like using some moly is also popular (like ZDDP, it helps to limit LSPI events) and I believe BITOGer wemay shared a paper some time ago that indicated that boron dispersants are necessary if magnesium detergents are used to replace some of the calcium-based ones as they tend to interfere with the protective MoS2 "glass" layer that forms in combination with ZDDP.

 

[Nyogtha]

It's also possible PU was a narrow range distillation "heart cut" base stock (produced at a higher capital and operating cost for seperation) vs. base stocks produced using PurePlus technology. Without a simulated distillation or GC analysis no way to tell. Clearly Shell / SOPUS knows the details of the base stocks & additive packages, but they're understandably trade secret mum on the topic. PLUS, there is always allowable batch to batch variability - the archived PQIA test results for conventional Pennzoil & QS have shown that.

I do wonder about the Shell XHVI base stock displaced by base stocks produced by PurePlus technology. Is this the base stock now for QSUD? Most recent TDS showing NOACK values for QSUD 5W-20 & 0W-20 are both between 9% & 10%,

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi
I think it's quite likely that the PP dexos1 Gen 2 oils were reformulated for the new standard and test results more than about a year old are probably not applicable anymore...PUP is not Gen 2 and who knows if they have changed or not.


Can the D1G2 specs be met by either having a very LOW NOACK and a 'medium to high' concentration of calcium/sodium, or a higher NOACK with almost no calcium/sodium content, or does the spec require BOTH to be LOW?

dexos1 Gen 2 is the same as dexos1 in having a maximum allowed NOACK loss of 13%, somewhat lower than GF5/SN oils at 15% max.

The LSPI test is a functional one that does not directly specify anything about the add pack, but it seems like all the manufacturers I have seen have addressed it by using relatively low calcium concentrations and removing sodium if it had been used in their oils before. Seems like using some moly is also popular (like ZDDP, it helps to limit LSPI events) and I believe BITOGer wemay shared a paper some time ago that indicated that boron dispersants are necessary if magnesium detergents are used to replace some of the calcium-based ones as they tend to interfere with the protective MoS2 "glass" layer that forms in combination with ZDDP.


THANKS!

I knew about the moly (and titanium, tungsten, ZDDP, etc.) helping, but not about the boron being needed along with the Mg in the 'replacement' type detergent/dispersant packs.