Did Pennzoil Platinum Change Its Formula? What Lab Testing Reveals

Pennzoil Platinum has long been closely associated with Shell's gas-to-liquids (GTL) technology and with marketing language such as "Made From Natural Gas" and later "Made With Natural Gas." More recently, some Pennzoil Platinum packaging has appeared without a natural-gas claim, raising an important question: was this simply a label change, or did the motor oil itself change?

Lake Speed Jr., The Motor Oil Geek, investigated this question by comparing older and newer samples of Pennzoil Platinum and Pennzoil Ultra Platinum using three laboratory methods: inductively coupled plasma spectroscopy (ICP), Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), and pressure differential scanning calorimetry (PDSC). Together, these tests can help identify changes in the additive system, base-oil blend, and oxidation stability of a finished motor oil.

The key finding from the testing presented in the video is that the formulation did change. The additive chemistry remained broadly similar between the compared Pennzoil Platinum samples, while FTIR showed differences consistent with a change in the base-oil blend. PDSC testing also showed a modest reduction in oxidation stability in the newer samples tested.

Important Clarification About Current Pennzoil Marketing

Packaging, formulations, product websites, and regional inventory do not always change at the same time. As of August 2026, Pennzoil's U.S. website still describes Pennzoil Platinum and Pennzoil Ultra Platinum using natural-gas or GTL-related language. Therefore, the laboratory results discussed here should not be interpreted to mean that every Pennzoil Platinum product in every market is necessarily GTL-free.

The more accurate conclusion is that the samples tested in the video showed a measurable change in base-oil composition over time, and newer packaging observed by the presenter no longer carried the same natural-gas statement. Consumers should evaluate the actual bottle, date or batch information, approvals, and current technical documentation for the product they are purchasing.

Why Would Pennzoil Change the Base-Oil Blend?

Shell owns the Pennzoil brand and is also a partner in the Pearl GTL facility in Qatar. Pearl converts natural gas into liquid hydrocarbons that can be refined into high-quality synthetic base stocks. GTL base oils have historically been an important part of Pennzoil's premium synthetic-oil story.

During the 2026 Middle East conflict, production and shipping from Qatar were disrupted. Shell reported that Pearl GTL had already been operating at reduced rates because exports were constrained by the blockage of the Strait of Hormuz. Following an attack on March 18, 2026, one of Pearl's two production trains was damaged and production from the facility was stopped while the damage was assessed. Shell subsequently stated that the damaged train would require approximately one year for repair.

These events contributed to a broader shortage of Group III-type premium base oils. The Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association (ILMA) formally asked both API and General Motors for emergency flexibility because lubricant manufacturers were having difficulty obtaining the exact base oils used in licensed formulations.

Why Base-Oil Changes Matter for Licensed Motor Oils

Finished motor oil is not simply a viscosity grade. It is a carefully qualified combination of base oils, viscosity modifiers, detergents, dispersants, antiwear additives, antioxidants, friction modifiers, and other components.

When an oil is licensed against specifications such as API service categories or GM dexos, the approval applies to a validated formulation or to changes permitted under established base-oil interchange and testing rules. A blender cannot assume that any available Group III base oil may be substituted indefinitely without considering the applicable licensing and validation requirements.

In March 2026, API activated an Emergency Provisional Licensing process in response to the supply disruption. The program allowed affected licensees to request temporary substitutions while providing technical information and completing required verification testing. ILMA also requested similar emergency accommodation from General Motors for dexos-licensed products.

This helps explain why an oil may continue to meet one industry specification while a particular OEM approval disappears from a label or product listing. Loss or absence of a dexos license does not automatically prove that an oil is poor quality, but it does mean the user should not assume that a formerly licensed formula and a newly marketed formula are identical.

The Three Laboratory Tests Used to Compare the Oils

1. ICP: Evaluating the Additive Package

Inductively coupled plasma spectroscopy (ICP) measures elemental concentrations in the oil. In a virgin-oil analysis, elements such as calcium, magnesium, zinc, phosphorus, boron, and molybdenum can provide useful clues about detergent, dispersant, antiwear, and friction-modifier chemistry.

According to the results presented in the video, the compared dexos-licensed and non-dexos Pennzoil Platinum samples showed no major change in their elemental additive package. Pennzoil Ultra Platinum remained chemically distinct from standard Platinum, including differences that Lake Speed Jr. attributed to Ultra Platinum's established formulation strategy, such as higher boron and evidence consistent with a small ester contribution.

This is an important distinction: a formulation can change even when the ICP elemental profile looks nearly the same. ICP is useful for observing elemental additive chemistry, but it does not directly identify every organic component or reveal the full base-oil composition.

2. FTIR: Looking for Changes in the Base-Oil Fingerprint

Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) measures how a sample absorbs infrared energy across different wavelengths. The resulting spectrum acts as a chemical fingerprint and can reveal differences that are not visible in a simple elemental analysis.

In the comparison presented in the video, FTIR traces showed differences in base-oil-related peaks between older and newer Pennzoil Platinum samples. The presenter interpreted these changes as evidence that the base-oil blend had changed rather than the packaging alone.

Lake also compared the newer samples with an older January 2023 Pennzoil Platinum sample and concluded that the base-oil composition had evolved over multiple production periods. Significantly, he observed evidence suggesting that at least some movement away from the earlier GTL-heavy formulation may have begun before the 2026 Middle East supply disruption.

That timing matters. It suggests that the 2026 supply shortage may have accelerated or complicated formulation changes, but it may not have been the sole reason for every change observed in Pennzoil Platinum over the preceding years.

3. PDSC: Measuring Oxidation Stability

Pressure differential scanning calorimetry (PDSC) is used to evaluate an oil's resistance to oxidation under controlled temperature, pressure, and oxygen conditions. In simplified terms, a longer induction time indicates greater resistance to oxidative breakdown under the conditions of the test.

This characteristic is particularly relevant in severe-service engines, including turbocharged and direct-injected gasoline engines, where lubricant temperatures can be high and oxidation control is important.

According to the testing shown in the video, the newer Pennzoil samples produced PDSC results approximately 8 to 10 percent lower than the older comparison samples. Lake characterized this as a small but measurable reduction in oxidation stability.

This result does not mean that Pennzoil Platinum suddenly became an unsuitable or poor-quality oil. It means that, under the specific PDSC test conditions and among the specific samples tested, the newer formulation demonstrated somewhat less oxidation resistance than the earlier version.

What About the Higher Particle Count?

The testing also reportedly identified an increase in particles larger than 4 microns in newer batches of both Pennzoil Platinum and Pennzoil Ultra Platinum compared with the earlier samples.

The significance of that observation was not established. A particle-count difference by itself does not identify the source of the particles, prove harmful contamination, or establish that the particles are related to the base-oil change. Additional analytical work would be required before drawing a technical conclusion from this result.

For that reason, the particle-count finding should be treated as an observation rather than evidence of a defect.

Does This Mean Pennzoil Platinum Is Now a Bad Oil?

No. That conclusion would go beyond the test data.

The results presented by The Motor Oil Geek indicate that the tested formulation changed and that the newer samples showed somewhat lower oxidation stability than the older samples. They do not demonstrate that the oil fails API requirements, will cause engine damage, or is unsuitable for every application.

Oil selection should be based on the requirements of the specific engine and operating conditions. The correct viscosity grade, current API service category, required OEM approvals, and vehicle manufacturer's recommendations remain more important than brand reputation or assumptions based on an older version of a product.

Why Consumers Should Pay Attention to the Label

One of the most useful lessons from this testing is that motor-oil formulations are not necessarily permanent. Base-oil availability, additive technology, emissions requirements, licensing standards, supplier changes, economics, and geopolitical events can all influence a commercial formulation.

For consumers and professional engine builders, this means that a favorable experience with an oil several years ago does not guarantee that a bottle purchased today is chemically identical.

When a lubricant formulation matters for a particular engine, check:

The viscosity grade required by the engine manufacturer.
The API service category printed on the current container.
Any required OEM approval, such as Porsche, Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Volkswagen, or GM dexos specifications.
The exact product name, because standard, high-mileage, Euro, Platinum, and Ultra Platinum products may use different formulations.
Current product data sheets rather than relying on an older bottle or an older online discussion.
Batch or production-date differences when conducting comparative oil testing.

Key Takeaways

Laboratory testing presented by The Motor Oil Geek found measurable formulation differences between older and newer Pennzoil Platinum samples.
ICP testing indicated that the elemental additive package remained broadly similar in the compared Platinum samples.
FTIR testing showed differences consistent with a change in the base-oil blend.
PDSC testing showed approximately an 8 to 10 percent reduction in oxidation stability in the newer samples tested.
The 2026 Middle East conflict and disruption at Shell's Pearl GTL facility contributed to a major premium-base-oil supply problem, but evidence presented in the video suggests Pennzoil's base-oil formulation may have begun changing before that disruption.
API created an emergency provisional licensing process to address supply-driven component substitutions; ILMA separately requested emergency flexibility from GM for dexos licensing.
A formulation change does not automatically mean that the new oil is bad or unsuitable.
For engine protection, rely on the current viscosity grade, specification, OEM approval, and application requirements rather than assuming a familiar product name always represents the same formulation.

Technical note: Laboratory comparisons apply to the specific samples tested. Commercial lubricant formulations, approvals, packaging, and regional product availability may change over time. Always verify the requirements and approvals shown on the current product container and current technical data sheet.