Pennzoil Synthethic Oil Sale at Checker Auto

steve911

Enthusiast
Joined
Sep 11, 2003
Posts
1,651
Reaction score
3
Location
Cottage Grove, Wi.
Stopped at Checker Auto to pick up a couple of things. While checking out I looked at their latest flyer and I noticed that Pennzoil FULL synthetic Motor Oil is only 99 cents a quart after rebate. Rebate allows for 12 quart purchase.

How good is Pennzoil synthetic Oil. Is it worth the money to use it without compromising the engine?

Hey Tom, feel free to Chime in!
 

Daddy Long Stroke

Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Posts
198
Reaction score
0
99 cents?!

I'll buy now, and figure out where to put it later!!!

Now I just have to find a "Checker Auto" :D
 

Tom F&L GoR

Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 3, 2000
Posts
4,984
Reaction score
7
Location
Wappingers Falls
Dead horse.

It's the additives that make the most difference. The base oil isn't as important. I would use a diesel mineral oil before a synthetic oil made for only for gasoline engines. Also, the new API SM grade is well down on zinc-phosphorus anti-wear additives due to OEM catalyst concerns.

Don't forget that two types of base oil are allowed to be called "synthetic". The original polyalpha olefin flavor and the cheaper version popularized by Castrol, called Group III base oil. While how they are made is much different, how they perform is not. Mobil (manufacturer of PAOs) and Castrol (purchaser of Gp. III) had a challenge in front of the National Advertising Division of the BBB and the determination was made that Castrol could claim to be using a synthetic. Ever since then, most synthetics are Gp. III. Even most of the products from master marketer Amsoil are Gp III, while Mobil hung with PAO (although I think they are starting to blend with Gp III also.)

But the real question is whether your Checker store is open until midnight...
 

Daddy Long Stroke

Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Posts
198
Reaction score
0
Ok Tom, So what you are saying is:

__ 1. Pennzoil Synthetic is Good.

__ 2. Pennzoil Synthetic is Bad.

:2tu: :D
 

Tom F&L GoR

Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 3, 2000
Posts
4,984
Reaction score
7
Location
Wappingers Falls
I'm an engineer and have difficulty with yes or no questions!

In regards to protecting the engine (not catalyst) over the vast majority of service (i.e. not specifically racing, 6-month storage, or taxi use) and ignoring the many subdivisions within mineral oils, synthetics, and brands:

If non detergent oil was a 1.0
then API SL/SM -only mineral oil would be a 7.5
API SL/SM -only synthetic would be an 8.5
diesel (which automatically includes gasoline) mineral oil would be 9.0
API and ACEA synthetic would be 9.5
diesel synthetic would be a 9.95

If we can start with a non-detergent, non-additized oil and have everyone agree that it would be really, really poor, then it should be easy to digest the rest of this oversimplified explanation.

API SL/SM additive treat rate ~8% (base oil type won't change this very much!)
API/ACEA oil additive treat rate ~12%
diesel oil treat rate ~18%

Arguably if synthetic base oil is "better" then it would need less additive to pass the certification tests. Let's hope oil marketers don't do that, but it is an economic penalty since all tests are only pass/fail. One oil cannot pass better than another oil (no matter what Amsoil says.)

So is PZ synthetic "good?" Yes.
 

Daddy Long Stroke

Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Posts
198
Reaction score
0
I'm an engineer and have difficulty with yes or no questions!

In regards to protecting the engine (not catalyst) over the vast majority of service (i.e. not specifically racing, 6-month storage, or taxi use) and ignoring the many subdivisions within mineral oils, synthetics, and brands:

Si non le pétrole détergent était un 1,0 alors SL/SM DE API -le pétrole seulement minéral serait un 7,5 SL/SM
DE API -seulement synthétique serait un 8,5 diesel (qui inclut automatiquement l'essence) le pétrole minéral
serait 9,0 API et ACEA synthétiques seraient 9,5 diesel synthétique serait un 9,95

Si nous pouvons commencer avec un pétrole non-détergent et non-additized et tout le monde avons consent que ce serait vraiment, vraiment pauvre, alors ce doit être facile à digérer le repos de cette explication simplifiée à l'excès.

Le taux de plaisir d'additif de SL/SM DE API ~8% (le type de pétrole de base ne changera pas ceci beaucoup !) Le taux de plaisir d'additif de pétrole d'API/ACEA ~12% taux de
plaisir de pétrole diesel ~18%

Sans doubte si le pétrole synthétique de base est « meilleur » alors il aurait besoin de moins d'additif passer les tests de certification. Espérons que les vendeurs de pétrole ne font pas cela, mais c'est une peine économique puisque tous tests sont seulement passe/échoue. Un pétrole ne peut pas passer mieux qu'un autre pétrole (n'importe que Amsoil dit.)




So is PZ synthetic "good?" Yes.

ALLRIGHT!
Thats what I was looking for! Thanks Tom! :cool:
 

Steve 00RT/10

Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 18, 2000
Posts
1,751
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan
Ever since then, most synthetics are Gp. III. Even most of the products from master marketer Amsoil are Gp III, while Mobil hung with PAO (although I think they are starting to blend with Gp III also.)

Hey Tom,

Maybe it's changed, but the last I heard (within the year), Amsoil was buying about as much PAO stock from Exxon-Mobil as Mobil was for their synthetic products. If most Amsoil products are now GP III, and they're buying as much or more PAO base, then they must be selling a considerable amount more synthetic oil than Mobil. Somehow I don't think that's the case.

Steve
 

Tom F&L GoR

Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 3, 2000
Posts
4,984
Reaction score
7
Location
Wappingers Falls
Steve, sorry for my poor definition. Through the industry grapevine, I understand that more of the Amsoil product (SKUs) use Gp III than Gp IV. That should be something you can determine from Amsoil MSDS if they publish the CAS numbers of the base oils used. Unfortunately I don't think marketers are obligated to that level of detail. Some marketers list both types of CAS numbers on their MSDS so you know it's a blend, but then you don't know if it's 1% or 99% of which.

In my recent techno-marketing experience, I found out that the only credible way to claim the type of synthetic used in the formulation was to say so on the MSDS. It is also a marketing decision to claim full, real synthetic for one product line, then use cheaper Gp III in another line.

For instance, Amsoil doesn't say at all:
http://www.amsoil.com/msds/afl.pdf

Shell doesn't list CAS numbers, but says their Rotella base oil is "Highly refined petroleum oils" and their gasoline engine oil uses "Synthetic hydrocarbon base oil"
http://www.shell-lubricants.com/msds/search.php and type "synthetic"

Havoline Synthetic Blend at least shows that it is part hydrocarbon and up to 10% "real" synthetic:
http://www.havoline.com/images/products/pdfs/motoroils_synblend.pdf

And Spectro Oils of America (a motorcycle oil brands that strongly promotes their use of "real" synthetics) lists all the CAS numbers:
http://www.spectro-oils.com/msds-spectro.htm

I'm not trying to pick out any one company; these are all advertising, marketing, cost control, and product performance decisions. And there is that opening for an Amsoil technical director position that would be pretty interesting, so don't want to burn any bridges...

PS: Purchase volumes are usually pretty closely guarded, especially when the seller supplies their parent company. And I agree, somehow I don't think Amsoil is outselling Mobil.
 
G

grcforce327

Guest
I'm an engineer and have difficulty with yes or no questions!



If non detergent oil was a 1.0
then API SL/SM -only mineral oil would be a 7.5
API SL/SM -only synthetic would be an 8.5
diesel (which automatically includes gasoline) mineral oil would be 9.0
API and ACEA synthetic would be 9.5
diesel synthetic would be a 9.95


API SL/SM additive treat rate ~8% (base oil type won't change this very much!)
API/ACEA oil additive treat rate ~12%
diesel oil treat rate ~18%
.

Using 5w40 synthetic diesel here!!! :headbang: :2tu: :headbang:
 

Steve 00RT/10

Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 18, 2000
Posts
1,751
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan
Steve, sorry for my poor definition. Through the industry grapevine, I understand that more of the Amsoil product (SKUs) use Gp III than Gp IV. That should be something you can determine from Amsoil MSDS if they publish the CAS numbers of the base oils used. Unfortunately I don't think marketers are obligated to that level of detail. Some marketers list both types of CAS numbers on their MSDS so you know it's a blend, but then you don't know if it's 1% or 99% of which.

Tom, per an e mail I sent to Amsoil Tech Services earlier today asking about base oil usage among other things:

Amsoil states----"most of our oils are PAO not Group III."

More info back:

"As for pass/fail for API tests, yes it is a pass fail type of testing, however you get the results and can see how well you passed or failed. For instance engine mfg's like Cat have a single cylinder engine test and everything is evaluated at test end. These tests are evaluated as weighted total demerits, top groove carbon%, Top Land Carbon %, Ave Oil consumption, final oil consumption piston ring and liner scuffing etc. There are limits that an oil must not exceed in order to pass, however lets say weighted total demerits, max is 350 and an oil passes with only 345 and AMSOIL passes with 170 or top land carbon, % max limit may be 40 and AMSOIL may score 8 and petroleum oil may score 35 well you get my point. There is a difference in the quality of oil even if low quality passes the test. We have said for years that API testing is a standard for the min quality required, not for the highest quality."

I do believe your right about the purchase volumes. That information was not forthcoming today, although I had gotten some inside insight into this several months ago.


Steve
 

Tom F&L GoR

Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 3, 2000
Posts
4,984
Reaction score
7
Location
Wappingers Falls
Well, a few comments then:

Would you have known before today that Amsoil used Gp III, the less expensive "synthetic"? Given Mr. Amatuzio's story, it's probably a common belief that all Amsoil products are "real" synthetic.

Sorry, but Amsoil is abusing the API system on many levels. The Sequence tests cannot be used to declare better performance; it goes against what the test developer, test sponsors, OEMs, technical societies and anyone else participating in the system have agreed. The test limits are designed with that in mind because there are several, simultaneous passing requirements within the test and typically the mode of failure is non-linear.

Amsoil cherry picks which products they actually license (only the XL line is actually licensed, most say "meets the requirements of...") Therefore they are not even supporting the standardized testing system via the license fees.

Amsoil takes advantage of the customer's ignorance of the system with their confusing symbols. I know we brought this up before, but the fact is that Amsoil's labelling looks like the ILSAC starburst and people will think Amsoil's products have a performance level that they actually do not. Remember this quiz: (only one has the real symbol?)
186Amsoil.gif


If they want my confidence, then please have them add the CAS number for the base oil types they use on the MSDS, license (or publish all the API testing done on the final formulation), and remove the starburst look-a-like symbols.
 

Steve 00RT/10

Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 18, 2000
Posts
1,751
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan
Tom,

I'm outa town for the weekend, and will never win a lube battle with you. ...just don't have the chops you do in this area...never will. But I'll throw a few more comments out and then go ;)

I don't think any of the Group III marketeers tell you theirs is not a 'real' synthetic. The BBB has said they are 'real' synthetics so they are marketeered as such by Pennzoil ....et al.

Yes, I would have thought all the XL stuff with the lesser drain interval to be Group III. My guess is they did that to break into the Quick lube biz with a cheaper product. It is very common to see Amsoil offered at a quick lube place now. I know for a fact that the Starbusrt symbol, or facsimile of, is owned by Amsoil, and was in use by them before the ILSAC symbol appeared. If ILSAC had total rights to the symbol, and it was a very important marketing piece, and Amsoil was cheating to use it, ILSAC would have sued Amsoil long ago and it would be gone. Why should Amsoil have to take something off their product that was theirs to begin with? I'm told Amsoil finds the fuss somewhat amusing. I would also add that 99%+ of the motoring public does not know, or care, about the symbol. I had no clue till you brought it up a while back...and I've been changing oil on cars for 40 years. Never had a lube related failure with any kind of oil I've ever used. I was a Pennzoil guy for years.

As for the testing, I don't get your rational. It could officially be pass/fail. But that doesn't mean that some products will not out do other ones.
Evidently the CAT test referred to above gives you total results of all parameters--not simply a pass/fail. Why wouldn't one want to promote passing a test by a wide margin over a competitor. Like they said they consider the API more of a minimum standard. Does that mean that if an oil just passes, that it's as good for your vehicle as one which sails through the test at every measurable level ...assuming there was such a product?

They must be doing something right since 1972 and literally tens of billions of miles on their stuff. I probably have 750,000 miles myself. Blackstone Labs tell me to extend the drain interval every time I send it in---one time it was a 10,000 mile sample with some track time and autocross on it. Comments from them included: "We like the looks of this engine" (at 45K miles)

I agree about adding the full info to the MSDS, but as you stated above---many of the big boys don't do it either.


Happy New Year

Steve
 

Madduc

Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Posts
510
Reaction score
0
Location
Fremont,MI
ARGH!! I consider myself fairly "smart" when it comes to the automotive field, went to school for it and earned a living at it for 20 plus years. But Group III, MSDS, symbols this and that.....HELP!! I just want to know if using my current favorite oil, dare I say, Amsoil is ok or not?? Maybe I'm better off using bacon grease? Look forward to learning more!
 

Tom F&L GoR

Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 3, 2000
Posts
4,984
Reaction score
7
Location
Wappingers Falls
Major additive company web sites usually have decent background reading. They don't have a vested interest in base oils and because they serve many oil companies, they tend not to brag.

http://www.lubrizol.com/LubeTheory/default.asp

Engine oil is 80-90% "base oil" and the rest is additives. The base oil determines most of the fluidity characteristics and some of the performance - although much of the performance in a mineral oil can approach that of a synthetic by using more additives!

Group I - Saturates < 90% and/or Sulfur >0.03% and Viscosity Index >= 80 to <120
Group II – Saturates >= 90% and Sulfur <=0.03% and Viscosity Index >= 80 to <120
Group III – Saturates >= 90% Sulfur <=0.03% and Viscosity Index >= 120
Group IV – Poly alpha olefins (PAO)
Group V – All others not included above

The confusion in the marketplace is due to a ruling that allows Group III type base oils to be called "synthetic." Gp III is about 2/3 the cost of PAO (original synthetic.) Obviously this brings a huge profit advantage when a marketer competes with a Gp III product against a Gp IV product. With so many dollars involved, the dispute goes on.

MSDS = Material Safety Data Sheet. The workplace requires it so proper treatment in case of a spill, contact, fire, hazardous condition, etc requires a quick source of information. It has evolved to include toxic material in the product, state and country legislation, and to some degree, the ingredients. As discussed above, some oil marketers simply put "engine oil" while others put the CAS (Chemical Abstract Service) number, which is very specific. My view is that when your daughter drinks it you might want the ER to have more information than "engine oil" and a toll free number to call.

The API service symbol is the round "donut" that indicates the viscosity grade, API service level, and whether it is fuel efficient or not. To use this symbol, oil marketers must license it from API. The license fee is millions of dollars for the large marketers. By licensing it, the marketer agrees to many quality standards, a blind audit, and certain testing reporting requirements. Obviously, if one says they "meet the requirements of..." but do not have the symbol, then it's sort of tagging along without having to pay or commit to all the steps.

The ILSAC Starburst is the round symbol on the front. It is a subset of the API license (you have to have the license before you can get the starburst) and it is specifically for the oils that meet the latest fuel economy and emissions compatibility requirements for new cars. It was intended as an evergreen symbol, meaning that the requirements would periodically change, and the formulations would have to be updated, but the symbol stayed the same. Kind of like a Good Housekeeping seal. The OEMs pushed for this because it allows them to instruct car owners to simply look for the symbol and not worry about viscosity or API service level. You can agree with the use of low viscosity oil / low phosphorus oil or not, but it doesn't do the consumer or industry any good when the symbol's use and meaning is not consistent.

I'm not leading to saying Amsoil is "bad" (or good) but that their marketing information needs a little explantion at times.
 

Latest posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
153,647
Posts
1,685,252
Members
18,227
Latest member
Kkustelski
Top