Yep I think it will be around for the future as well; they would t have bothered making it SN+ if the plan wasn't clear for at least a couple years...
Pennzoil Ultra Platinum 5w30, SN Plus, 12/26/18 Bottle Date
- Thread starter mdtaylor86
- Start date
- Status
Anybody want to bet on how long it will be before it has the d1G2 and B1 specs?
Originally Posted by doyall
Anybody want to bet on how long it will be before it has the d1G2 and B1 specs?
Email from Pennzoil
I can't speak to the d1g2 spec, but I did ask Pennzoil about the B1 spec and posted the reply in the thread linked above.
Here's my post from that thread.
Originally Posted by mdtaylor86
Quick update on the Ford spec. I contacted Pennzoil asking about the B1 spec and if the Ultra Platinum 5w-30 met this spec or if they planned to in the future. This was the reply.
Quote
The Pennzoil Ultra Platinum does not meet this Ford spec and at this time there is no communication stating it will be. Pennzoil Gold And Pennzoil Platinum 5w-30 currently meet and exceed this specification.
Sincerely,
Don Spence
Technical Data Specialist, Shell Tech Center Houston
So despite the SN Plus rating, it doesn't (and won't) meet Ford's new specification they changed to when they switched to SN Plus...
Anybody want to bet on how long it will be before it has the d1G2 and B1 specs?
Email from Pennzoil
I can't speak to the d1g2 spec, but I did ask Pennzoil about the B1 spec and posted the reply in the thread linked above.
Here's my post from that thread.
Originally Posted by mdtaylor86
Quick update on the Ford spec. I contacted Pennzoil asking about the B1 spec and if the Ultra Platinum 5w-30 met this spec or if they planned to in the future. This was the reply.
Quote
The Pennzoil Ultra Platinum does not meet this Ford spec and at this time there is no communication stating it will be. Pennzoil Gold And Pennzoil Platinum 5w-30 currently meet and exceed this specification.
Sincerely,
Don Spence
Technical Data Specialist, Shell Tech Center Houston
So despite the SN Plus rating, it doesn't (and won't) meet Ford's new specification they changed to when they switched to SN Plus...
Originally Posted by MParr
Not a blanket statement. It's too thin. It's too expensive. It's an endangered species.
I don't think the viscosity is too much of a problem. It has its uses. I'd really love to see some HTHS numbers on it though. I'll be running it for 6K - 7K miles in my Gen2 3.5L Ecoboost. I'll post a UOA of that after the run. That won't be for some time though. At least 6 or 7 months from now. I'm only 1K miles into my current oil.
As for the price, I got it for $24 per jug at a local Walmart with free delivery. Not the cheapest out there for sure, but I certainly wouldn't call it unreasonable. We'll see though.
Not a blanket statement. It's too thin. It's too expensive. It's an endangered species.
I don't think the viscosity is too much of a problem. It has its uses. I'd really love to see some HTHS numbers on it though. I'll be running it for 6K - 7K miles in my Gen2 3.5L Ecoboost. I'll post a UOA of that after the run. That won't be for some time though. At least 6 or 7 months from now. I'm only 1K miles into my current oil.
As for the price, I got it for $24 per jug at a local Walmart with free delivery. Not the cheapest out there for sure, but I certainly wouldn't call it unreasonable. We'll see though.
wemay
Site Donor 2023
I bought 2 jugs on clearance for 18.xx ea., that was my appeal. The Sportage currently has no complaints.
Originally Posted by 1JZ_E46
Thanks for the VOA. PUP appears to be an oil for suckers. Every way you slice it PP is just as good if not better due to it having d1g2 and Ford B1.
Sorry OP don't mean to be harsh! I just don't see the appeal/value.
Ha! That's far from harsh. I'm not married to this oil by a long shot. Once I use it I'll probably try something else. The catch is that you have to buy the oil first to get a VOA and if I'm buying, I'm going to get enough of it to actually run it.
PP is "as good if not better" for what? What application? If you need the B1 spec or d1g2, then yeah, of course it is. If not, then what's the disadvantage? Availability maybe? They can be found for the same price so no disadvantage there. You're getting a MUCH lower flashpoint with PP than PUP. Every sample I've done from my 3 EcoBoost engines running PP have returned flashpoints well below "minimum acceptable" spec. My point is, if you're going to talk about an oil (or anything, really) being "better" than something else, you should clarify the application or objective that you're presuming.
Thanks for the VOA. PUP appears to be an oil for suckers. Every way you slice it PP is just as good if not better due to it having d1g2 and Ford B1.
Sorry OP don't mean to be harsh! I just don't see the appeal/value.
Ha! That's far from harsh. I'm not married to this oil by a long shot. Once I use it I'll probably try something else. The catch is that you have to buy the oil first to get a VOA and if I'm buying, I'm going to get enough of it to actually run it.
PP is "as good if not better" for what? What application? If you need the B1 spec or d1g2, then yeah, of course it is. If not, then what's the disadvantage? Availability maybe? They can be found for the same price so no disadvantage there. You're getting a MUCH lower flashpoint with PP than PUP. Every sample I've done from my 3 EcoBoost engines running PP have returned flashpoints well below "minimum acceptable" spec. My point is, if you're going to talk about an oil (or anything, really) being "better" than something else, you should clarify the application or objective that you're presuming.
Originally Posted by lawnguy
Originally Posted by lawnguy
Here is my VOA on the same oil.
This is prob why the price is only 24-25 $ for a jug. They've lowered the Moly,etc
That's a "different" oil. Your VOA is the old, pre-SN Plus formulation. The SN Plus formula (apparently) came out in February 2019. The moly was higher in my SN Plus VOA at 87 than in your SN VOA at 52. Or did I misunderstand what you meant?
Originally Posted by lawnguy
Here is my VOA on the same oil.
This is prob why the price is only 24-25 $ for a jug. They've lowered the Moly,etc
That's a "different" oil. Your VOA is the old, pre-SN Plus formulation. The SN Plus formula (apparently) came out in February 2019. The moly was higher in my SN Plus VOA at 87 than in your SN VOA at 52. Or did I misunderstand what you meant?
Originally Posted by mdtaylor86
PP is "as good if not better" for what? What application? If you need the B1 spec or d1g2, then yeah, of course it is. If not, then what's the disadvantage? Availability maybe? They can be found for the same price so no disadvantage there. You're getting a MUCH lower flashpoint with PP than PUP. Every sample I've done from my 3 EcoBoost engines running PP have returned flashpoints well below "minimum acceptable" spec. My point is, if you're going to talk about an oil (or anything, really) being "better" than something else, you should clarify the application or objective that you're presuming.
My point is that the only thing PUP has over PP is marketing claims. Unless you're willing to blindly believe them, PP is a better oil as it actually is guaranteed to pass actual testing sequences relevant to oil quality and performance.
And the features/guaranteed performance of a d1g2 or B1 oil don't end at GM or Ford engines... there's very little that separates modern internal combustion engines.
PP is "as good if not better" for what? What application? If you need the B1 spec or d1g2, then yeah, of course it is. If not, then what's the disadvantage? Availability maybe? They can be found for the same price so no disadvantage there. You're getting a MUCH lower flashpoint with PP than PUP. Every sample I've done from my 3 EcoBoost engines running PP have returned flashpoints well below "minimum acceptable" spec. My point is, if you're going to talk about an oil (or anything, really) being "better" than something else, you should clarify the application or objective that you're presuming.
My point is that the only thing PUP has over PP is marketing claims. Unless you're willing to blindly believe them, PP is a better oil as it actually is guaranteed to pass actual testing sequences relevant to oil quality and performance.
And the features/guaranteed performance of a d1g2 or B1 oil don't end at GM or Ford engines... there's very little that separates modern internal combustion engines.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by 1JZ_E46
My point is that the only thing PUP has over PP is marketing claims. Unless you're willing to blindly believe them, PP is a better oil as it actually is guaranteed to pass actual testing sequences relevant to oil quality and performance.
And the features/guaranteed performance of a d1g2 or B1 oil don't end at GM or Ford engines... there's very little that separates modern internal combustion engines.
Um, what? Are you saying PUP is not SAE licensed, does not meet the SN Plus specification, does not carry the Chrysler MS-6395, Ford WSS-M2C929-A, GM 6094M, 4718M, dexos1 approvals, or various ACEA specs? I'm really not understanding what you mean by that statement at all, as at face value it is completely nonsense. PUP is guaranteed by Pennzoil to "actually pass actual testing sequences relevant to oil quality and performance."
If you don't like those specs or you want something more, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. But it's absurd to claim what you appear to be claiming.
You still haven't provided any parameters that you are using to determine exactly what makes PP "better" than PUP.
"There's very little that separates modern internal combustion engines." That statement also makes no sense to me. I'm assuming you are referring to engines for which PP (of any type) would actually work and not throwing, say, commercial diesel engines, two-stroke engines, Wankle engines, or any other number of internal combustion engine designs that are separated by quite a lot from your average passenger car?
Do you possess any information whatsoever as to the performance of the new PUP formula in a real world engine? How are you making these claims? I mean that seriously. Do you have any specifics at all? I don't have any information at all, which is one of the reasons I bought the oil. I'm going to run it in my truck and maybe a couple of vehicles in my fleet at work and get some UOAs back. I already track fuel economy rigorously so I'll have that data point too. I'll be sure to let you know how it does. Until you have some actual data to discuss, I'm not interested. Sorry.
My point is that the only thing PUP has over PP is marketing claims. Unless you're willing to blindly believe them, PP is a better oil as it actually is guaranteed to pass actual testing sequences relevant to oil quality and performance.
And the features/guaranteed performance of a d1g2 or B1 oil don't end at GM or Ford engines... there's very little that separates modern internal combustion engines.
Um, what? Are you saying PUP is not SAE licensed, does not meet the SN Plus specification, does not carry the Chrysler MS-6395, Ford WSS-M2C929-A, GM 6094M, 4718M, dexos1 approvals, or various ACEA specs? I'm really not understanding what you mean by that statement at all, as at face value it is completely nonsense. PUP is guaranteed by Pennzoil to "actually pass actual testing sequences relevant to oil quality and performance."
If you don't like those specs or you want something more, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. But it's absurd to claim what you appear to be claiming.
You still haven't provided any parameters that you are using to determine exactly what makes PP "better" than PUP.
"There's very little that separates modern internal combustion engines." That statement also makes no sense to me. I'm assuming you are referring to engines for which PP (of any type) would actually work and not throwing, say, commercial diesel engines, two-stroke engines, Wankle engines, or any other number of internal combustion engine designs that are separated by quite a lot from your average passenger car?
Do you possess any information whatsoever as to the performance of the new PUP formula in a real world engine? How are you making these claims? I mean that seriously. Do you have any specifics at all? I don't have any information at all, which is one of the reasons I bought the oil. I'm going to run it in my truck and maybe a couple of vehicles in my fleet at work and get some UOAs back. I already track fuel economy rigorously so I'll have that data point too. I'll be sure to let you know how it does. Until you have some actual data to discuss, I'm not interested. Sorry.
You're either dense or choosing to be ignorant. I was clearly referring to d1g2 and B1 based on my original post.
Your response could have been a single question to clarify what I meant as it appears you misunderstood my comment, but alas you sound like the type that likes to argue for the sake of arguing. The length of your post, your passive aggressive tone sure appears to indicate just that.
Enjoy your PUP.
Your response could have been a single question to clarify what I meant as it appears you misunderstood my comment, but alas you sound like the type that likes to argue for the sake of arguing. The length of your post, your passive aggressive tone sure appears to indicate just that.
Enjoy your PUP.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by 1JZ_E46
You're either dense or choosing to be ignorant. I was clearly referring to d1g2 and B1 based on my original post.
Your response could have been a single question to clarify what I meant as it appears you misunderstood my comment, but alas you sound like the type that likes to argue for the sake of arguing. The length of your post, your passive aggressive tone sure appears to indicate just that.
Enjoy your PUP.
Definitely not trying to be passive aggressive. If you're taking it as that, I don't know what to tell you. You are obviously not understanding my questions so I will try one more time here and keep it short for you.
As I said, I'm not personally or emotionally invested in any oil. It's just motor oil. I am also NOT disagreeing with you or arguing with you about the quality of PUP vs PP, nor am I agreeing with you. I asked you questions about your assertion. I still have no idea what you meant by "actually guaranteed to pass actual testing sequences relevant to oil quality and performance." Can you please explain what you meant by this?
You're either dense or choosing to be ignorant. I was clearly referring to d1g2 and B1 based on my original post.
Your response could have been a single question to clarify what I meant as it appears you misunderstood my comment, but alas you sound like the type that likes to argue for the sake of arguing. The length of your post, your passive aggressive tone sure appears to indicate just that.
Enjoy your PUP.
Definitely not trying to be passive aggressive. If you're taking it as that, I don't know what to tell you. You are obviously not understanding my questions so I will try one more time here and keep it short for you.
As I said, I'm not personally or emotionally invested in any oil. It's just motor oil. I am also NOT disagreeing with you or arguing with you about the quality of PUP vs PP, nor am I agreeing with you. I asked you questions about your assertion. I still have no idea what you meant by "actually guaranteed to pass actual testing sequences relevant to oil quality and performance." Can you please explain what you meant by this?
Triple_Se7en
$50 Site Donor 2024
Can someone please show me a jug of PUP that shows it's in Dexos1/Gen2 compliance?
If not, then it is different than Platinum. The PUP jug must say both SN Plus and Dexos1/Gen 2, to be mirrored with Platinum.
If not, then it is different than Platinum. The PUP jug must say both SN Plus and Dexos1/Gen 2, to be mirrored with Platinum.
wemay
Site Donor 2023
Last edited:
wemay
Site Donor 2023
Here's the composition portion of the current mass sheet
- Status
