Pennzoil Platinum and Ultra Platinum NOACK values

[benjy]

generally specs get removed because they do NOT show what the manufacturer wants + they may hurt sales!! remember seeing noack #'s a while ago but no more, + only the formulators REALLY know what their lubricant is!! another seldom seen important spec is HTHS. as noted on another oil specialty site that some specs are easily "propped up" but Noack + HTHS are a good indicator of better oils! poor Noack #'s show the shortcomings of the xxW-20 oils IMO

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: benjy
generally specs get removed because they do NOT show what the manufacturer wants + they may hurt sales!! remember seeing noack #'s a while ago but no more, + only the formulators REALLY know what their lubricant is!! another seldom seen important spec is HTHS. as noted on another oil specialty site that some specs are easily "propped up" but Noack + HTHS are a good indicator of better oils! poor Noack #'s show the shortcomings of the xxW-20 oils IMO

Which of course is why the only ongoing reliable indicator of an oil's suitability is whether or not it carries the manufacturer's required specification.

 

[CR94]

Originally Posted By: benjy
... poor Noack #'s show the shortcomings of the xxW-20 oils IMO
5W-20s often score lower Noack volatility than corresponding 5W-30s (and 0W-X0s).

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted By: benjy
generally specs get removed because they do NOT show what the manufacturer wants + they may hurt sales!! remember seeing noack #'s a while ago but no more, + only the formulators REALLY know what their lubricant is!! another seldom seen important spec is HTHS. as noted on another oil specialty site that some specs are easily "propped up" but Noack + HTHS are a good indicator of better oils! poor Noack #'s show the shortcomings of the xxW-20 oils IMO




99.5% of consumers do not know what Noack is. The other 0.5% are here on BITOG.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: PimTac
4 years is a long time and oils have been reformulated more than once since then.


That was my point. The oil could have changed slightly a half dozen times in 4 years, or not changed at all. Bottom line is anything said he is pure speculation. And has has been stated before there's more to a good oil than just a NOACK number.

Originally Posted By: kschachn

Which of course is why the only ongoing reliable indicator of an oil's suitability is whether or not it carries the manufacturer's required specification.


Good point.

 

[CR94]

Originally Posted By: PimTac
... 99.5% of consumers do not know what Noack is. The other 0.5% are here on BITOG.
...and 50% of that 0.5% think it is an acronym for an oil property, instead of the name of the guy who invented the accepted test for a property.

 

[mbacfp]

Any reason NOACK is not being provided on some oils? Too much money to test for the 0.5% or harder to complete on that so they skip providing it? Great info.

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted By: mbacfp
Any reason NOACK is not being provided on some oils? Too much money to test for the 0.5% or harder to complete on that so they skip providing it? Great info.
When you spend $millions on marketing you don't want people making choices on subtle physical properties.

 

[bbhero]

I do agree hatt.

However I also think they are "hiding" a bit of something not positive either by not disclosing those results. I look at say Mobil 1 AP and it has a NOACK of 8.5%, TBN of 10+. That is better than Pennzoil Ultra Platinum which was 11%. Good, bad or indifferent the AP technically meets MB 229.5 in terms of volatility being less than 10% which very, very few 5w30s actually meet. That was like the original Pennzoil Ultra which had a NOACK of 6.5%. That meant that oil was extremely impressive as well. By them not posting that information it does not seem like a good thing.

 

[Nyogtha]

Originally Posted By: CR94
Originally Posted By: benjy
... poor Noack #'s show the shortcomings of the xxW-20 oils IMO
5W-20s often score lower Noack volatility than corresponding 5W-30s (and 0W-X0s).


Agreed.

PU NOACK was 5.0%, missing from the OP's summary in the first post on this thread for example.

PPPP 5W-20 NOACK is 8.6% as shown in the OP's summary.


QSUD 0W-20 NOACK is 9.6% and 5W-20 is 9.0%

 

[Nyogtha]

Originally Posted By: PimTac
4 years is a long time and oils have been reformulated more than once since then.


Evidence?

Spot check test results from PQIA haven't indicated this.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: SilverSnake
Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
In the end, does it really matter?
Using what I perceive to be the best oil I can buy in my vehicles gives me piece of mind. Does that matter? Yes. What matters to one individual may mean nothing at all to another. It is purely personal.
Unfortunately (or fortunately--depending on your position), perception is not reality. For the most part, any oil these days will perform within a minuscule percentage of any of the others. Without strict testing and repeatable results, which none of us has the ability to do, it is all guesswork. I get that the attributes of oil "X" may make a person feel better about their choice versus oil "Y", but when both of them meet the same specification, I would challenge anyone to show me the difference in results over time in similar engines with similar oils meeting the same specification.

 

[Virtus_Probi]

Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
Originally Posted By: PimTac
4 years is a long time and oils have been reformulated more than once since then.

Evidence?
Spot check test results from PQIA haven't indicated this.


Pennzoil Ultra isn't even marketed anymore.
Pennzoil Platinum yielded to Pennzoil Platinum PurePlus with a GTL base, which was then reformulated again for d1G2.

 

[SilverSnake]

If that is the case then why aren't you running the cheapest oils available that meet the specs for the engines of your machines? I am sure you have seen the never ending stream of cheap/off brand oils offered by forum members here as alternatives to premium oils such as M1 which I see you are running om some of your cars. Maybe it gives you ---- well, peace of mind??

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: SilverSnake
If that is the case then why aren't you running the cheapest oils available that meet the specs for the engines of your machines? I am sure you have seen the never ending stream of cheap/off brand oils offered by forum members here as alternatives to premium oils such as M1 which I see you are running om some of your cars. Maybe it gives you ---- well, peace of mind??
I do. Most, if not all, of the oil I use was part of a rebate or clearance and all of it meets specification. If there was cheaper solution, I would use it--hard to beat free synthetic or synthetic that is cheaper than conventional and I have never been known to run short OCIs as many do here with premium oils. The point is that it is nearly impossible for you or anyone to prove that a few percentage points between NOACK is going to make a given oil stand out as the holy grail of oils so this is why I say--does it really matter?

 

[SilverSnake]

Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
Originally Posted By: SilverSnake
If that is the case then why aren't you running the cheapest oils available that meet the specs for the engines of your machines? I am sure you have seen the never ending stream of cheap/off brand oils offered by forum members here as alternatives to premium oils such as M1 which I see you are running om some of your cars. Maybe it gives you ---- well, peace of mind??
I do. Most, if not all, of the oil I use was part of a rebate or clearance and all of it meets specification. If there was cheaper solution, I would use it--hard to beat free synthetic or synthetic that is cheaper than conventional and I have never been known to run short OCIs as many do here with premium oils. The point is that it is nearly impossible for you or anyone to prove that a few percentage points between NOACK is going to make a given oil stand out as the holy grail of oils so this is why I say--does it really matter?


As I said previously, peace of mind does matter. I would also argue that perception is, in large part, reality for many. I am not interested in proving anything concerning the oils I use. I use what I perceive to be the best oils I can get for my equipment. Saving money on oil is not even on my priority list.

I do have a proposition for you. If I can find really cheap oils (cheaper that you have ever paid before) that meet the specs for your vehicles, will you be willing to start using them? If so, please list the detailed oil specs for each of your vehicles (from the owner's manuals) and give me some time to do some research for you. I am sure if the price is right, and conventional oils meet the specs, you will have no problem with using them.

 

[Nyogtha]

Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
Originally Posted By: PimTac
4 years is a long time and oils have been reformulated more than once since then.

Evidence?
Spot check test results from PQIA haven't indicated this.


Pennzoil Ultra isn't even marketed anymore.
Pennzoil Platinum yielded to Pennzoil Platinum PurePlus with a GTL base, which was then reformulated again for d1G2.

Yes, but formulation has been GTL base stock (manufactured with PurePlus technology, Shell's name for their GTL process, not for any of their GTL plant products) for the 4 years or so mentioned in your original post. What evidence is there of formulation changes during the 4 or so years since the rollout of GTL base stock as standard to the introduction of D1G2?

 

[Patman]

Is the base oil exactly the same between Platinum and Ultra Platinum now?

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
Originally Posted By: PimTac
4 years is a long time and oils have been reformulated more than once since then.

Evidence?
Spot check test results from PQIA haven't indicated this.


Pennzoil Ultra isn't even marketed anymore.
Pennzoil Platinum yielded to Pennzoil Platinum PurePlus with a GTL base, which was then reformulated again for d1G2.

Yes, but formulation has been GTL base stock (manufactured with PurePlus technology, Shell's name for their GTL process, not for any of their GTL plant products) for the 4 years or so mentioned in your original post. What evidence is there of formulation changes during the 4 or so years since the rollout of GTL base stock as standard to the introduction of D1G2?




If you are really interested, there are years of uoas in that subforum that can be searched. Over time subtle changes were made but the d1G2 was very major for most brands. As for GTL, it’s just another method of making group 3 base oil. It’s notbsome miraculous invention like Shell marketing would have you believe. But they have to convince the masses and the faithful since they bet the farm on the Pearl facility.

 

[Nyogtha]

UOA's are not VOA's like those run by PQIA. There's also batch to batch variation, which some may misinterpret as subtle changes. Lack of links or graphs of VOA data tells its own story.

If you honestly don't think the GTL process is different from refining crude oil, you're quite mistaken.