Pennz. Platinum / Mobil1 5w-20 comparison

Jaybird · Jul 16, 2006

The report shows all of the analysis taken from this trucks ('05 F150, 4.2L V6) oil since new.

A sample of the PP was taken at 5,149 mi. and then again after 9,250 mi. and changed.

A sample of the M1 was taken at 4,655 mi. and then again after 9,864 mi. and changed.

It looks to me that the Pennzoil Platinum does at least as good, if not better than the Mobil1.
The lower cost of the PP EOP fluid makes it an easy choice.

Notice the first half of the PP picked up 18ppm Fe. But continued through next half gaining only an additional 5ppm. (total 23ppm Fe)

The M1 picked up 14ppm Fe during first half, yet gainaing an additional 16ppm during last 5000mi. (total 30ppm Fe)

Seems to me that the M1 is not performing as well during the last half of service as the PP.
Both oils were well in grade at all analysis.

Ray H · Jul 16, 2006

What I found interesting were the sodium and molybdenum levels in the factory fill oil. 216 ppm and 110 ppm, respectively, are NOT indicative of Motorcraft oil supplied by ConocoPhillips. Ford appears to be squirting bulk ExxonMobil lube into engine sumps on the assembly line. That's neither condemnation of Ford nor ConocoPhillips - merely a personal observation in passing.

Johnny · Jul 16, 2006

Jaybird: That's a nice side-by-side. Thanks

Ray H: Very observant. The factory fill at Ford is not made by ConocoPhillips. Ford's first Rotunda oil products were made by Texaco back in the 60's and 70's. Mobil got the bid sometime in the late 80's, early 90's. Ford started using Shell fill in March 2005 and as for as I know Shell still has the contract.

ConocoPhillips has had the contract with Ford for years for the retail sales of MotorCraft oils, both at dealers and the retail market.

Jaybird · Jul 16, 2006

When I first posted results from this truck, mention was made about the factory fill oil being SL stock...
http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=003249#000000

I think BPCastrol has dibs on Ford fill management at present, but it's Motorcraft going into the sumps.

jmacmaster · Jul 17, 2006

What impresses me is that he got good results running PP for 9,250 miles. I'd like to see a bunch of UOA's of runs of PP for 9,000-11,000 miles to see how it holds up and compares to Mobil 1. In view of the fact that the manufacturer's recommendation for a lot of vehicles now calls for oil changes at between 5 and 10 thousand miles, depending on the vehicle, using dino oil, I suspect that a 10,000 run of the synthetic PP on most newer vehicles would work just fine.

badtlc · Jul 17, 2006

Yup, this is a nice building block for those doubting PP vs. Mobil1 on extended drains. From an economic standpoint, i'm thrilled to say, "Go PP!!" I'm tired of hearing how mobil1 is better this, better that, PP hasnt shown any extended use, blah blah blah....i'm done now, sorry.

ekpolk · Jul 17, 2006

Penz Plat is obviously good stuff, but I'm not sure that you can really draw any broad conclusions comparing it with M1, at least not based upon this data (yet anyway). Both show roughly the same pattern -- the iron continuing to climb up there as the miles build. That said, while these Fe numbers are higher than some of the "pristine" UOAs we see from examples like a healthy Toyota engine, I wouldn't even start to get concerned about it, unless something else indicates a problem. At this point, I'd be thinking, "well perhaps they're roughly the same in this engine." Interesting comparison, though. Thanks for posting the data.

Al · Jul 17, 2006

I agree with ekpolk.

And really we all can say here that the later generation of dino's give as good of wear results as any of the synthetics. What none of us know (at least I don't) is: What is the long range difference in terms of reliability, cleanliness, and maybe a higher level of protection in case of an overheating incident when using a Group III for 10K miles or a Group IV for 10K miles?

Nice Post BTW

jsharp · Jul 17, 2006

The M1 had the disadvantage of being run through what was likely the coldest part of winter.

The PP had the disadvantage of being run in a newer engine that probably had some residuals left from break in.

6 = 1/2 dozen.

At some point I think you reach the wear floor where no matter what lube you use the numbers just don't go lower...

Jaybird · Jul 17, 2006

quote:

Originally posted by Al:
And really we all can say here that the later generation of dino's give as good of wear results as any of the synthetics. What none of us know (at least I don't) is: What is the long range difference in terms of reliability, cleanliness, and maybe a higher level of protection in case of an overheating incident when using a Group III for 10K miles or a Group IV for 10K miles?

No Group II or III was run for extended periods in this engine, so I don't see how we can say much at all about dino vs syn.
M1 is GroupIV PAO,and PP is GroupV POE, yes?

ekpolk,
I thought the fact that the PP only picked up 5ppm Fe during the last 4000 miles, and the M1 picked up over three times that was interesting.

jsharp,
Being here in the Lou. Ky metro, the PP definately saw the coldest temps. It was spring by the time M1 was added.

Terry · Jul 17, 2006

Jay, Trust your oil analysis results and use what is showing lower wear AND better physical properties regardless of what you THINK the chemistry is.

I cannot directly answer the formulating question due to secrecy and proprietary restrictions.

On the analysis results above, you need to correct some mechanical issues before judging the oils head to head. In other words there are issues stressing the oils over just the oil chemistries being the main variable to proper result interpretation.

Tones · Jul 18, 2006

Si seems high. It looks consistent, but you still might wanna check for air leaks and change the filter. Could be the key to bringing the Fe down.

Brett Miller · Jul 18, 2006

I'd call the wear even-Steven. But PP gets the advantage on price.

Gary Allan · Jul 18, 2006

quote:

GroupV POE, yes?

EOP -ethylene - alphaolefin polymer -(why isn't it EAP

) it's a group V by definition, I guess (as in 'anything else')

Jaybird · Jul 18, 2006

PolyOlephinEtylene, ElthyleneOlephinPolmer, six of one half dozen of the other, si?

Terry, is your mechanical comment directed at the elevated Si levels?
I installed new air filter when the PP went in, and again when the M1 went in.
I have been thinking there has to be some sort of issue with the mfg that is causing the Si. (shrug)

jsharp · Jul 18, 2006

quote:

Originally posted by Jaybird:

jsharp,
Being here in the Lou. Ky metro, the PP definately saw the coldest temps. It was spring by the time M1 was added.

It was hard to tell for sure from the dates. A lot of times around here we have our coldest weather in Feb.

I think time of year matters more than people mention. It's a noticable difference in my vehicles that can been seen when the same oil is used all year but broken into summer and winter intervals.

427Z06 · Jul 18, 2006

Jaybird, thanks for the Most Excellent post.

got_titan · Jul 19, 2006

great info.....

TooSlick · Jul 19, 2006

JB,

What sort of driving conditions do you see on a daily basis?

TS

Terry · Jul 20, 2006

Jaybird, Some ambient dirt and fuel deposit issue. 'bout all I'll say 'bout that....

Check every possible source of dirt and ambient dust ingress.

Terry

Pennz. Platinum / Mobil1 5w-20 comparison

Similar threads