[Z06] Test Data on the newest Pennzoil's made from Natural Gas
06-30-2014, 03:08 PM
#1
Pro
Thread Starter
Member Since: Apr 2006
Location: Southern California
Posts: 625
Likes: 0
Received 47 Likes
on
25 Posts
Test Data on the newest Pennzoil's made from Natural Gas
Pennzoil has recently introduced a new line of motor oil made from natural gas. I thought it would be interesting to see how they perform in terms of wear protection capability, which is by far the most important job a motor oil performs, as well as how they compare to previous Pennzoil's. I purchased the new 5W30 Pennzoil "Ultra" Platinum and the new 5W30 Pennzoil Platinum for testing.
Wear protection reference categories are:
• Over 105,000 psi = INCREDIBLE wear protection
• 90,000 to 105,000 psi = OUTSTANDING wear protection
• 75,000 to 90,000 psi = GOOD wear protection
• 60,000 to 75,000 psi = MODEST wear protection
• Below 60,000 psi = UNDESIRABLE wear protection
KEY POINTS TO KEEP IN MIND ABOUT THIS TESTING:
The psi reference values above, ONLY APPLY TO MY TEST DATA, not to actual engine component loading. Here's why:
The motor oil “Dynamic Wear Testing Under Load” I perform is WORST CASE torture testing. My test equipment is NOT intended to duplicate an engine’s internal components. On the contrary, the test equipment is specifically designed to generate severe loading, that will quickly cause an oil to reach its failure point, in order to determine what its capability limit it is. The test loading is severe enough, that the wear scar size that forms, based on an oil's load carrying capability (the wear scar is what is measured), has stabilized at its final size by the conclusion of a 30 second load test. Procedure development testing showed that more time than that did not change the wear scar size. Every oil I test is brought to its failure point, that’s how it works. The difference in the failure points, is what we compare. My testing subjects the oil to far more severe loading than even the most wicked flat tappet race engine could ever generate.
But, a running engine is designed to last indefinitely, and of course, they do not generally cause an oil to reach its failure point. So, due to the COMPLETE DIFFERENCE in design, the pressures in my test are completely different, and therefore CANNOT be compared directly to an engine’s lobe/lifter interface pressure. That would be comparing apples to oranges, which makes absolutely no sense at all. My testing is so severe, that the oil fails at a much earlier point than it would in an engine. And that is why my test data psi values appear lower than you might expect to see in some running engines.
In addition to that, my equipment’s calibration is checked and adjusted if required, each time the testing switches to a different oil. That keeps the final results accurate at all times. And keep in mind, I’m comparing OIL AGAINST OIL, and the procedure used is exactly the same for each oil tested. For better or worse, each oil stands on its own merit, and produces the best wear protection capability that its chemical composition allows. If oil A produces twice the psi value of oil B in my testing, then oil A will also provide twice the wear protection capability of oil B, in a running engine.
All the oils were tested at a representative operational temperature of 230*F. A colder test temperature of less than 212*F would have been too cold, and would have been below actual normal operating temperature, as well as being too low to even boil off natural condensation. A hotter test temperature of above 250*F, would have been hotter than normal operating temperature, and would have been so high, that many motor oils would already have reached the threshold of thermal breakdown. Therefore, 230*F is an ideal test temperature to arrive at the most meaningful values for comparison. I've also tested oils at 275*F, as well as 325*F, and found that there is was no significant change in the ranking order, which further confirms that the test temperature of 230*F is absolutely valid, even though operating temperatures vary in certain locations of an engine.
All the oils tested here were brand new oils. But, I’ve also tested a number of used oils, both synthetic and conventional, that had 5,000 miles on them. And in every case, there was NO REDUCTION what so ever, in wear protection capability, even though the zinc levels had dropped by around 25% on average. So, not only is this further proof that the zinc level is not tied to a motor oil’s wear protection capability, but it also proves that testing brand new oil is representative of what we can expect from an oil as time and mileage accumulate.
I'm a Mechanical Engineer. Mechanical Design Engineering is what I do for a living. And a Mechanical Engineer is clearly the most qualified Engineer to test motor oil that was formulated by Chemical Engineers, for wear protection capability between mechanical components under load.
And most important of all, is at the end of the day, my test data EXACTLY MATCHES REAL WORLD RACE TRACK EXPERIENCE, which PROVES once and for all, that my test data is the spot on REAL DEAL. This completely confirms that my test results WILL ACCURATELY PREDICT what we can expect from motor oils in running engines on the track or on the street, EVEN if those oils are high zinc oils. All the data here was determined by the Physics and Chemistry involved. It is NOT my opinion, and it is NOT my theory. So, that should be more than enough proof to satisfy anyone who was skeptical of how well my test data compares to the real world.
The HIGHER the psi value, the BETTER the Wear Protection.
• 5W30 Pennzoil "Ultra" Platinum, Pure Plus Technology, made from pure natural gas, API SN = 99,039 psi
This oil was introduced in 2014, and comes in a dark gray bottle with a blue vertical stripe on the label. This oil now combines the names Ultra and Platinum, where these names previously identified different oil's. As you can see, this oil is well into the OUTSTANDING wear protection category.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
• 5W3 Pennzoil Platinum, Pure Plus Technology, made from pure natural gas, API SN = 87,241 psi
This oil was introduced in 2014, and comes in a silver bottle with a blue vertical stripe on the label. As you can see, this oil is near the top of the GOOD wear protection category.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
============
Here's how they compare to the previous version of these API SN oil's that were NOT made from natural gas.
• 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, API SN synthetic = 92,569 psi
This was the original API SN version, that was NOT made from natural gas. This older oil's psi value is about 6.5% lower than the new natural gas version.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
The older API “SM” version of this oil, produced a wear protection capability value of 115,612 psi.
• 5W30 Pennzoil Platinum, API SN synthetic = 99,949 psi
This was the original API SN version, that was NOT made from natural gas. This older oil's psi value is about 14.5% higher than the new natural gas version.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
540 RAT
Mechanical Engineer
U.S. Patent Holder (Mechanical Device for Military Jet Aircraft)
Member SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers)
Member ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers)
To see how the two new oil's above, rank overall in my entire 130+ motor oil "Wear Protection Ranking List", along with additional motor oil tech FACTS (with over 35,000 "views" worldwide), here's a link:
http://540ratblog.wordpress.com/
Wear protection reference categories are:
• Over 105,000 psi = INCREDIBLE wear protection
• 90,000 to 105,000 psi = OUTSTANDING wear protection
• 75,000 to 90,000 psi = GOOD wear protection
• 60,000 to 75,000 psi = MODEST wear protection
• Below 60,000 psi = UNDESIRABLE wear protection
KEY POINTS TO KEEP IN MIND ABOUT THIS TESTING:
The psi reference values above, ONLY APPLY TO MY TEST DATA, not to actual engine component loading. Here's why:
The motor oil “Dynamic Wear Testing Under Load” I perform is WORST CASE torture testing. My test equipment is NOT intended to duplicate an engine’s internal components. On the contrary, the test equipment is specifically designed to generate severe loading, that will quickly cause an oil to reach its failure point, in order to determine what its capability limit it is. The test loading is severe enough, that the wear scar size that forms, based on an oil's load carrying capability (the wear scar is what is measured), has stabilized at its final size by the conclusion of a 30 second load test. Procedure development testing showed that more time than that did not change the wear scar size. Every oil I test is brought to its failure point, that’s how it works. The difference in the failure points, is what we compare. My testing subjects the oil to far more severe loading than even the most wicked flat tappet race engine could ever generate.
But, a running engine is designed to last indefinitely, and of course, they do not generally cause an oil to reach its failure point. So, due to the COMPLETE DIFFERENCE in design, the pressures in my test are completely different, and therefore CANNOT be compared directly to an engine’s lobe/lifter interface pressure. That would be comparing apples to oranges, which makes absolutely no sense at all. My testing is so severe, that the oil fails at a much earlier point than it would in an engine. And that is why my test data psi values appear lower than you might expect to see in some running engines.
In addition to that, my equipment’s calibration is checked and adjusted if required, each time the testing switches to a different oil. That keeps the final results accurate at all times. And keep in mind, I’m comparing OIL AGAINST OIL, and the procedure used is exactly the same for each oil tested. For better or worse, each oil stands on its own merit, and produces the best wear protection capability that its chemical composition allows. If oil A produces twice the psi value of oil B in my testing, then oil A will also provide twice the wear protection capability of oil B, in a running engine.
All the oils were tested at a representative operational temperature of 230*F. A colder test temperature of less than 212*F would have been too cold, and would have been below actual normal operating temperature, as well as being too low to even boil off natural condensation. A hotter test temperature of above 250*F, would have been hotter than normal operating temperature, and would have been so high, that many motor oils would already have reached the threshold of thermal breakdown. Therefore, 230*F is an ideal test temperature to arrive at the most meaningful values for comparison. I've also tested oils at 275*F, as well as 325*F, and found that there is was no significant change in the ranking order, which further confirms that the test temperature of 230*F is absolutely valid, even though operating temperatures vary in certain locations of an engine.
All the oils tested here were brand new oils. But, I’ve also tested a number of used oils, both synthetic and conventional, that had 5,000 miles on them. And in every case, there was NO REDUCTION what so ever, in wear protection capability, even though the zinc levels had dropped by around 25% on average. So, not only is this further proof that the zinc level is not tied to a motor oil’s wear protection capability, but it also proves that testing brand new oil is representative of what we can expect from an oil as time and mileage accumulate.
I'm a Mechanical Engineer. Mechanical Design Engineering is what I do for a living. And a Mechanical Engineer is clearly the most qualified Engineer to test motor oil that was formulated by Chemical Engineers, for wear protection capability between mechanical components under load.
And most important of all, is at the end of the day, my test data EXACTLY MATCHES REAL WORLD RACE TRACK EXPERIENCE, which PROVES once and for all, that my test data is the spot on REAL DEAL. This completely confirms that my test results WILL ACCURATELY PREDICT what we can expect from motor oils in running engines on the track or on the street, EVEN if those oils are high zinc oils. All the data here was determined by the Physics and Chemistry involved. It is NOT my opinion, and it is NOT my theory. So, that should be more than enough proof to satisfy anyone who was skeptical of how well my test data compares to the real world.
The HIGHER the psi value, the BETTER the Wear Protection.
• 5W30 Pennzoil "Ultra" Platinum, Pure Plus Technology, made from pure natural gas, API SN = 99,039 psi
This oil was introduced in 2014, and comes in a dark gray bottle with a blue vertical stripe on the label. This oil now combines the names Ultra and Platinum, where these names previously identified different oil's. As you can see, this oil is well into the OUTSTANDING wear protection category.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
• 5W3 Pennzoil Platinum, Pure Plus Technology, made from pure natural gas, API SN = 87,241 psi
This oil was introduced in 2014, and comes in a silver bottle with a blue vertical stripe on the label. As you can see, this oil is near the top of the GOOD wear protection category.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
============
Here's how they compare to the previous version of these API SN oil's that were NOT made from natural gas.
• 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, API SN synthetic = 92,569 psi
This was the original API SN version, that was NOT made from natural gas. This older oil's psi value is about 6.5% lower than the new natural gas version.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
The older API “SM” version of this oil, produced a wear protection capability value of 115,612 psi.
• 5W30 Pennzoil Platinum, API SN synthetic = 99,949 psi
This was the original API SN version, that was NOT made from natural gas. This older oil's psi value is about 14.5% higher than the new natural gas version.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
540 RAT
Mechanical Engineer
U.S. Patent Holder (Mechanical Device for Military Jet Aircraft)
Member SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers)
Member ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers)
To see how the two new oil's above, rank overall in my entire 130+ motor oil "Wear Protection Ranking List", along with additional motor oil tech FACTS (with over 35,000 "views" worldwide), here's a link:
http://540ratblog.wordpress.com/
07-01-2014, 07:30 AM
#3
Melting Slicks
Member Since: Apr 2009
Location: Virginia Beach VA
Posts: 2,475
Received 574 Likes
on
321 Posts
C2 of the Year Finalist - Modified 2020
C2 of Year Finalist (performance mods) 2019
I switched from Amsoil to Ultra because of your test data. I guess I'll go back to Amsoil. Thanks for your efforts.
07-02-2014, 12:12 PM
#4
Team Owner
If I'm reading the article correctly, plain ole Mobil1 5W30, as spec'd by GM for my LS7 Z06, is rated #10 out of 132 results.
Why should I pay more for other oils, when Mobil1 seems to do the job nicely?
Why should I pay more for other oils, when Mobil1 seems to do the job nicely?
07-02-2014, 03:25 PM
#5
07-02-2014, 11:10 PM
#7
Burning Brakes
my only comment is the article layout makes it tough to digest everything quickly. Perhaps a pdf with an excel file and table with descriptions would work better??
07-03-2014, 01:29 PM
#11
Burning Brakes
thats much easier to read, still a table gets the most info the fastest; admittedly too many folks wouldn't read the blog. I'll slog thru this on my July 4th weekend,
07-07-2014, 09:13 AM
#12
Drifting
I'm a Mechanical Engineer. Mechanical Design Engineering is what I do for a living. And a Mechanical Engineer is clearly the most qualified Engineer to test motor oil that was formulated by Chemical Engineers, for wear protection capability between mechanical components under load.
And most important of all, is at the end of the day, my test data EXACTLY MATCHES REAL WORLD RACE TRACK EXPERIENCE, which PROVES once and for all, that my test data is the spot on REAL DEAL. This completely confirms that my test results WILL ACCURATELY PREDICT what we can expect from motor oils in running engines on the track or on the street, EVEN if those oils are high zinc oils. All the data here was determined by the Physics and Chemistry involved. It is NOT my opinion, and it is NOT my theory. So, that should be more than enough proof to satisfy anyone who was skeptical of how well my test data compares to the real world.
And most important of all, is at the end of the day, my test data EXACTLY MATCHES REAL WORLD RACE TRACK EXPERIENCE, which PROVES once and for all, that my test data is the spot on REAL DEAL. This completely confirms that my test results WILL ACCURATELY PREDICT what we can expect from motor oils in running engines on the track or on the street, EVEN if those oils are high zinc oils. All the data here was determined by the Physics and Chemistry involved. It is NOT my opinion, and it is NOT my theory. So, that should be more than enough proof to satisfy anyone who was skeptical of how well my test data compares to the real world.
My experience included testing oils over very long intervals (20,000-50,000 miles) in real engines in engine test cells, including varying loads and many heat up, cool down cycles, followed by tearing down the engines and measuring wear. While I don’t know exactly what your test involves, we tried correlating our long term results with any number of quick tests, including many run at elevated temperature, and never found one that correlated well with actual engine experience. That’s why we, and as far as I know, all of the other big oil companies, continue to run the very expensive engine tests to validate our oil’s performance and check it against competitors.
Obviously, we didn’t run those very expensive tests on anywhere near as many oils as you have. But for the ones I remember as having tested, there are some very substantial anomalies, with some of your high oils doing poorly and some of your low oils doing well. I have no idea whether the differences arose from properties other than extreme pressure performance being important, from some oils being more stable with time than others, or from who knows what other reasons. I simply observe that there are significant differences.
None of what I said invalidates your testing as being a worthwhile data point to consider, particularly if you have a high friction engine situation like flat tappets, and/or are running for short oil change intervals or few heat up, cool down cycles like in racing. I’m only taking issue with one specific aspect of your claims, namely, the claim that your test is a high reliability predictor of long term wear in street use. Unfortunately, I can’t offer a better alternative. Oil companies aren’t going to share their engine testing data, and I don’t know of any reliable, inexpensive tests. So it may be that your data is the best available in the public domain. But that doesn’t come with any guarantees.
My own personal recommendation is to stick with a top line oil from a major oil company, as you can be sure that is backed up by real engine testing, and is thus very unlikely to be a poor performer in real world street performance. If somebody wants to add on top of that, pick one that’s also high on your list, great, it may make your odds even better.
07-07-2014, 10:51 AM
#13
Burning Brakes
My brother was the executive VP in charge of the development of MMT at Ethyl Corporation years ago. (MMT or MCMT) methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl, the key ingredient of octane boosters like Torco.
Ethyl validated MMT performance the same way, by running an engine in a load cell, while varying the speeds and loading of the engine, the at tests end they would tear down the engine; and mic all the moving parts to ensure that MMT did not cause any excessive wear. Since this was the late 80's to early 90's they did the work with a variety of standard and synthetic oils.
I remember his statement that synthetic oil required 6 times the force of a standard oil to remove it from the part and have issues on lubrication. Too bad the work wasn't more modern as Ethyl spent a lot of bucks developing MMT; and won 5 lawsuits versus the EPA..only to have the big 3 write its use out of their plans.
This is why corvettes sold in Canada and the US have different warranties...since Canada does use MMT in their fuels - so GM is always trying to keep US warranties cars in the US, not into Canada where they might have issues with the warranty over MMT content in the fuel.
Ethyl validated MMT performance the same way, by running an engine in a load cell, while varying the speeds and loading of the engine, the at tests end they would tear down the engine; and mic all the moving parts to ensure that MMT did not cause any excessive wear. Since this was the late 80's to early 90's they did the work with a variety of standard and synthetic oils.
I remember his statement that synthetic oil required 6 times the force of a standard oil to remove it from the part and have issues on lubrication. Too bad the work wasn't more modern as Ethyl spent a lot of bucks developing MMT; and won 5 lawsuits versus the EPA..only to have the big 3 write its use out of their plans.
This is why corvettes sold in Canada and the US have different warranties...since Canada does use MMT in their fuels - so GM is always trying to keep US warranties cars in the US, not into Canada where they might have issues with the warranty over MMT content in the fuel.
07-07-2014, 09:45 PM
#14
I've been using 5w40 euro blend (Pennzoil ultra) for a year or two and that's what I'm sticking with. I've seen the stuff you posted when I went to order my euro 5w40 last time, I may try it next time. Either way I'm staying with Pennzoil over Mobil or amsoil
07-30-2016, 04:45 PM
#15
Instructor
I looked at your complete oil test blog, while the Ultra Platinum in the black bottle looks like a great oil, although kinda expensive and harder to find over normal Platnum in the grey bottle, it looks like the Quaker State Ultimate Durability to have taken the place of the old formula Pennzoil Ultra as being the best thing to buy off the shelf of Wal-Mart at a bargain price.
Anyone running QSUD in their Corvette?
Anyone running QSUD in their Corvette?
07-30-2016, 04:56 PM
#16
Safety Car
Wear protection is another term for not becoming as acidic quicker then the next oil.
The HIGHER the psi value, the BETTER the Wear Protection.
Not really.
If its not balanced properly to resist acidity, the PSI value drops rapidly.
The key here is to start with the highest levels you can knowing they will taper off with use.
Sorry you have great advise, I don't mean to nitpic.
07-30-2016, 05:00 PM
#17
Safety Car
Great advise but sort of a false sense of security appealing to popularity. I agree most do provide a decent product as you state, but some I would never use.
One of the largest global companies is hardly even known about here in the states. They produce a fine proven oil at the highest levels, but unknown here.
09-01-2016, 04:19 PM
#19
1st Gear
Member Since: Sep 2016
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New to the forum but been researching oils like the ocd individual I am. The chart here is different then clicking the link. So which chart should I actually go by? Also, looks like only the euro blend pennzoil ultra is available. Is that safe to use in our vehicles? Great site by the way. Lots of great info.
09-01-2016, 05:36 PM
#20
Burning Brakes
Read reply #12, the poster was an engineer where they validated engine wear by doing long term testing, followed by tear down and mic'ing the engines to measure wear, the same thing I discuss in the use of MMT in reply 13 when Etheyl Corp; developed MMT for use in gas.
Its hard to say definitively that the new Ultra Platinum would or would not hurt your car. I'd even guess that it might be perfectly OK. But that would be on a guess that al the ads are correct.
But..Chevy and Mobil did scads of testing where they did long term testing of the LS3 and LS7 engines and tear-downs to validate the use of Mobil 1 in the C6 corvette/Z06/ZR1 LS type engines. As I dont see that kind of data available on this new oil, personally I'll stick with Chevy's recommended Mobil 1 as it met the engineering requirements that allowed Chevy to offer long term warranty's with it; and I guarantee they have done the long term testing.
Just saying...why take any chances?
Its hard to say definitively that the new Ultra Platinum would or would not hurt your car. I'd even guess that it might be perfectly OK. But that would be on a guess that al the ads are correct.
But..Chevy and Mobil did scads of testing where they did long term testing of the LS3 and LS7 engines and tear-downs to validate the use of Mobil 1 in the C6 corvette/Z06/ZR1 LS type engines. As I dont see that kind of data available on this new oil, personally I'll stick with Chevy's recommended Mobil 1 as it met the engineering requirements that allowed Chevy to offer long term warranty's with it; and I guarantee they have done the long term testing.
Just saying...why take any chances?
Last edited by The_Raging_Bull; 09-01-2016 at 05:37 PM.