This difference between 3.4 and 3.5 is the difference between 3.4 and 3.5...not a great deal.
However, that's what specifications are, they are lines in the sand drawn by OEMs and industry bodies, to address issues that they have experienced in practice.
Next part of those PMs (clarification, with the BITOG face of Amsoil, who was not talking for, or on behalf of Amsoil) was the question of which OTHER specifications do Amsoil say that they meet/exceed, or recommend their lubricants for that have never been tested against, as they simply don't believe that they matter that much.
My mention to TiredTrucker was against his statement that his engines "needed" a specification, while my mention was that Amsoil "recommend" lubricants for engines that "need" the specifications, and are not necessarily tested, or confirm to the letter of those specifications.
3.4 versus a specified 3.5 is no biggie...however, they are recommending it to customers whose OEMs state a needed specification. The specification is 3.5...it's not met.
Law of probabilities is that all will be good, will be satisfactory, and that a meltdown won't occur that you would be arguing their warranty with.
Unless Amsoil can demonstrate that they have actually done the 93K214 tests, have independently verified test reports, and can thus state with credulity that they meet/exceed, but don't want to pay royalties/licencing.
However, that's what specifications are, they are lines in the sand drawn by OEMs and industry bodies, to address issues that they have experienced in practice.
Next part of those PMs (clarification, with the BITOG face of Amsoil, who was not talking for, or on behalf of Amsoil) was the question of which OTHER specifications do Amsoil say that they meet/exceed, or recommend their lubricants for that have never been tested against, as they simply don't believe that they matter that much.
My mention to TiredTrucker was against his statement that his engines "needed" a specification, while my mention was that Amsoil "recommend" lubricants for engines that "need" the specifications, and are not necessarily tested, or confirm to the letter of those specifications.
3.4 versus a specified 3.5 is no biggie...however, they are recommending it to customers whose OEMs state a needed specification. The specification is 3.5...it's not met.
Law of probabilities is that all will be good, will be satisfactory, and that a meltdown won't occur that you would be arguing their warranty with.
Unless Amsoil can demonstrate that they have actually done the 93K214 tests, have independently verified test reports, and can thus state with credulity that they meet/exceed, but don't want to pay royalties/licencing.