pennzoil add pack falling out

[BrocLuno]

I don't see this as a problem. If it drops out in the bottle, it would likely do so in the bottom of the oil pan too... So why try to pour it in in the first place? Just leave it behind.

It's likely only a 1% thing anyway... We want the oil to do the lubricating. Add Paks are a bonus. Yes we like AW compounds and we'll take all we can get. But just because the chemistry and colloidal suspension won't support complete homogeneity for long periods, so what? I'm sure there is enough to do the job with what comes out of the bottle.

I'd be more worried about Joe Blow and Harry Homeowner looking in the bottom of a bright yellow container and seeing something and thinking it's contaminates ... Then deciding that the MFG does not have decent QC/QA and shying away from the brand permanently

That's bad for SOPUS and their own darned fault. So if they loose customers, maybe they will have to lower prices to get more ... And that makes me happy

They should have gone to new black bottles with bright yellow printing

 

[demarpaint]

Like I said I've seen it in Mobil and Castrol, as well as Havoline now that I think of it. I'll continue to shake and pour, if anything it gives me a little cardio workout shaking the bottles before pouring them in.

Happy New Year.

 

[ford46guy]

I don't know. This isn't dollar store oil. They have their reputation at stake and put this stuff in very expensive cars in the factory. In this day and age does it make sense to cover something up with fiction?

 

[SonofJoe]

I see this slightly differently...

You may not be aware that you are doing so, but when you buy a bottle of engine oil, the price includes part of the cost of approving the oil to whatever is claimed on the label. The OEMs, the oil companies, the AddCos, the test houses, the API, none of these people actually absorb the cost of these multi million dollar oil developments. All of the costs are passed onto you, the final customer. This is not an insignificant of dosh!

As people who read my BITOG posts know, there's a lot that the API/ILSAC/ACEA/OEMs do regarding oil testing that I profoundly disagree with. That said, if I'm going to have to pick up a share of that test spend everytime I buy oil (not that I have a choice!) then at the very least, I should expect what's in the bottle to do exactly what it says on the label. If part of the oil has glooped out of solution, sits at all gooey at the bottom of the bottle and doesn't actually make it into the engine, then I'm not getting what I've notionally paid for.

That this particular gloop might possibly be Moly is not insignificant. To put this is some kind of context, 100 ppm of Mo (roughly 0.1% of Moly additive) is easily the difference between API SJ and SL. Another 150 ppm of Mo (roughly 0.15% of additive) on top might represent the difference between API SL and SM. Furthermore, Moly is one of the most expensive additives in oil. If I'm paying extra for it, then I should be getting it and not throwing it away with the empty bottle.

It's not the principle, it's the money!

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
I see this slightly differently...

You may not be aware that you are doing so, but when you buy a bottle of engine oil, the price includes part of the cost of approving the oil to whatever is claimed on the label. The OEMs, the oil companies, the AddCos, the test houses, the API, none of these people actually absorb the cost of these multi million dollar oil developments. All of the costs are passed onto you, the final customer. This is not an insignificant of dosh!

As people who read my BITOG posts know, there's a lot that the API/ILSAC/ACEA/OEMs do regarding oil testing that I profoundly disagree with. That said, if I'm going to have to pick up a share of that test spend everytime I buy oil (not that I have a choice!) then at the very least, I should expect what's in the bottle to do exactly what it says on the label. If part of the oil has glooped out of solution, sits at all gooey at the bottom of the bottle and doesn't actually make it into the engine, then I'm not getting what I've notionally paid for.

That this particular gloop might possibly be Moly is not insignificant. To put this is some kind of context, 100 ppm of Mo (roughly 0.1% of Moly additive) is easily the difference between API SJ and SL. Another 150 ppm of Mo (roughly 0.15% of additive) on top might represent the difference between API SL and SM. Furthermore, Moly is one of the most expensive additives in oil. If I'm paying extra for it, then I should be getting it and not throwing it away with the empty bottle.

It's not the principle, it's the money!


That is an excellent point. I've seen it from time to time in varying degrees over the years in Pennzoil, Mobil, Castrol, and Havoline. The question is what do we do? Your point of PPM hit home in a big way.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
I did read the response the OP received back from Shell which I missed until you pointed it out. Hmmmm, I can't say I'm overly impressed to be honest. It smacks of something some smart-arse in the Marketing Department threw together to pacify the restless natives.

Which is why I commented on a magical explanation.

 

[fdcg27]

Do you suppose that blenders are aware of drop-out and compensate for it by actually adding more moly than really needed to make up for a known problem?
Certainly moly seems effective at much lower treat rates than found in some oils.
Is there any advantage in the very high treat rates seen in API SM TGMO and HGMO?
It would be interesting were one of us to have a VOA run an some old PP or M1.
I wonder what we'd see in add PPMs versus what appeared on the PDS of the time?

 

[SR5]

Another add drop out thread, with pictures

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/3837886/

Here the company (Valvoline) asked for a sample for analysis, and gave a reasonable explanation, without using buzz words like "nanotechnology".

BTW bit of a classic thread with posts from a former member, Joe90_Guy, remember him?

 

[demarpaint]

Here's a good article that might be helpful. I think the "additive fallout" might be a moot point as fdcg27 alluded to. They also tested the impact of shaking the oil before adding it.

http://www.blackstone-labs.com/Newsletters/Gas-Diesel/April-1-2012.php?utm_source=Gas%2FDiesel+List&utm_campaign=b284759b87-&utm_medium=email

 

[SonofJoe]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Do you suppose that blenders are aware of drop-out and compensate for it by actually adding more moly than really needed to make up for a known problem?
Certainly moly seems effective at much lower treat rates than found in some oils.
Is there any advantage in the very high treat rates seen in API SM TGMO and HGMO?
It would be interesting were one of us to have a VOA run an some old PP or M1.
I wonder what we'd see in add PPMs versus what appeared on the PDS of the time?



Some good questions here...

Yes, oil companies must be very aware of the problems of additive drop-out. This is not a rare occurrence and because the industry is relatively tight knit, even if you haven't seen a problem yourself, you will be very aware of any problems your competitors have experienced. Additionally we live in a new world of social media where problems that individuals experience can be widely shared over the internet.

Having said that, the chances on any oil company 'over-treating' an oil to account for the possibility of drop-out are nil. First you have to understand that the oil companies go to great lengths to keep additive costs to an absolute minimum so to 'add extra' is anathema to them. Secondly, and probably more importantly, to do so would be to acknowledge that there might be 'something wrong' with the oil and this kind of thinking is simply not permitted! If pressed you might provoke a response along the lines of 'all oils are massively over-specified for normal duty so there's no point in adding extra additive'. This is actually true but I still maintain that you should still get what the label says you're paying for.

The very high treats of Moly you get in TGMO (1000ppm-ish) are there solely for reasons of fuel economy. You would get all the wear and oxidation benefits that Moly has to offer at far lower treats. Very high Moly treat rates coupled with using PMA VII is a very Japanese way of formulating oils for maximum fuel economy REGARDLESS OF COST.

Regarding comparing old and new formulations, I suspect you wouldn't see much of a change. Additive drop-out problems tend in my experience to be very batch specific. They also tend to depend on the oil's history; the longer you keep the oil, the more likely you are to see settlement problems. Likewise if a batch picks up a bit of water somewhere along the line, the more likely you are to see issues developing.

Hope this helps.

PS - I miss Joe90_guy too but it's best he stays locked up in the attic for his own good!

 

[MolaKule]

Much has to do with the dispersive chemistry used.

Cases in point: I still have bottles of my 5W30, 10W30, and 10W40 engine oils and gear lubes from over 10 years ago when I was blending my own formulations.

They are out in the garage where the temp varies from -30F to 105F and there has been No additive fallout in any of them.

But I used an expensive ester-based dispersive which keeps the rest of the additive package in solution.

But even if there is some additive fallout with current OTS products, I recommend you warm them up over a register, shake them, and use them. In an engine or other driveline component, there will be enough heating and turbulence so as to keep the additive package in solution.

 

[SonofJoe]

Molekule,

I can well believe what you say about your oils but the problem word you used was 'expensive'. Most oil companies would baulk at paying 'extra' to ensure a DI pack stayed in solution long term.

I also suspect your oils were blended from a decently filtered, haze-free detergent. Some commercial products are definitely like that but others aren't. One AddCo (you probably know who I'm talking about) centrifuges their sulphonates rather than putting them through plate & frame. As a result they are horrifically hazy but still they are deemed commercially acceptable. That haze is imparted to the finished oil and doesn't go away upon heating. At the time of blending, the haze will be just that, a finely dispersed haze but given enough time and the influence of gravity, those particles will grow and drop out.

The other thing I suspect is that your old oils will have be blended from common amorphous OCP VII rather than the more crystalline, high ethylene variety. Every formulator knows that the latter is polymerically more efficient (and generally more cost efficient) but that you need to pay particular attention to what PPD you use to get the MRV free of yield stress. What people are generally less aware of is the insidious influence of these VIIs on long term oil stability. The process is often glacially slow but their own high needs for oil solvency can end up displacing otherwise soluble stuff out of solution. I sort of wonder if this might be part of Pennzoil's problem given who supplies so much of their DI & VII.

 

[Rylan]

I've experienced some Pennzoil 'residue', similar to what is seen in this post: BITOG - Re: Using old oil and does it have a shelf life?

I've got some Pennzoil API-SM synthetic blend that has done this. Never had this problem with full synthetics. I can try to take pictures at my next oil change.

 

[fdcg27]

Interesting.
Could this explain the hazy appearance of some oils when pouring them through the funnel and into the fill hole?

 

[SonofJoe]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Interesting.
Could this explain the hazy appearance of some oils when pouring them through the funnel and into the fill hole?


Yes. Hazy oil is very obvious if you've been used to seeing oils that are clear and bright.

 

[fdcg27]

Hmm...
So there is a reason that I found Valvoline and some old GTX to be beautifully clear while oils produced by a unit of a certain large Dutch concern appear hazy?
I wonder why blenders don't advertise these subtle quality differences and exploit them in producing a premium oil blended with all of the right stuff?
Certainly there is a decent sized premium market for less compromised oils, like many of those here and in the greater gearhead community.

 

[MolaKule]

Another potential reason for haze is the use of alkylated naphthenics (AN) in full- or semi-synthetics.

If the amount of AN is over a certain percentage, haze will be present. Sometimes it is subtle, but can be seen by shining a light through a stream of the oil being poured.

 

[Jetronic]

I remembered that about AN, and came back to this post to add that. 1 hour late though....

 

[SonofJoe]

I've never had reason to play with Alkyl Naphthalenes. I have however read several Shell GTL related patents that employed AN. I can't recall exactly what I read but I sort of recall the early patents were singing the virtues of AN as a additive solubliser but with a big emphasis on VII polymer. Some of the later patents however seemed to downplay the need for AN; almost like AN was a phase Shell went through in their formulation of commercial GTL oils. Maybe my understanding is wrong. I only read these things out of curiosity and don't make notes, but that's deffo how it struck me.

As it happens, AN related haze might be one haze I wouldn't worry about. Unlike precipitated carbonates and certain Molys, AN would I suspect go back into solution relatively easily on heating the oil up to engine temperatures.

 

[69GTX]

Originally Posted By: NHRATA
Plenty of other good oils out there, Castrol, Valvoline, mobil, I'll stick with those.


Cross off the Mobil too as I've had a quart of that heavily settle out following long term storage. I wouldn't think any brand would be exempt.