QHorsepower 5W30

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: Carzzz
any recent VOA of PP?


Plenty of UOAs, PP 5W-30 contains more calcium and boron.

So for ottotheclown, QHP is not the same as PP.


I bet it's very close, though...
 
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
At $8 for a five quart jug, this stuff was an absolute steal!


hehe, you got that right! I snagged a bunch with that rebate too! After seeing this excellent VOA im am happy I have 30qts worth of this in the garage.
 
Originally Posted By: Jehartley
So, is this now called Enhanced Durability? Because I can't find QHorsepower on Quakers website.


Q Horsepower is now Ultimate Durability.

Advanced Durability = Dino
Enhanced Durability = Blend
Ultimate Durability = Synthetic

The Ultimate bottle even says Q Horsepower in small print on the front.
 
I recently had an UOA of QS GB done by OAI and it had much more boron and moly. I've been using the QS for awhile so the moly and boron had to have come from the QS. I know it wasn't QS HP, but it seems like it would have as much moly and boron as QS GB. Maybe a bad assumption but do we know if QS HP would have less? If not, I wouldn't put it past B-stone just giving known old, generic numbers for QS HP and not even testing the sample.
 
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
I recently had an UOA of QS GB done by OAI and it had much more boron and moly. I've been using the QS for awhile so the moly and boron had to have come from the QS. I know it wasn't QS HP, but it seems like it would have as much moly and boron as QS GB. Maybe a bad assumption but do we know if QS HP would have less? If not, I wouldn't put it past B-stone just giving known old, generic numbers for QS HP and not even testing the sample.


What makes you believe Blackstone would do that?
 
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
I recently had an UOA of QS GB done by OAI and it had much more boron and moly. I've been using the QS for awhile so the moly and boron had to have come from the QS. I know it wasn't QS HP, but it seems like it would have as much moly and boron as QS GB. Maybe a bad assumption but do we know if QS HP would have less? If not, I wouldn't put it past B-stone just giving known old, generic numbers for QS HP and not even testing the sample.


That's why you don't tell the the oil or even the grade. Make them determine it from their tests. If they give you numbers that are completely bogus. Ask them to retest.
 
Originally Posted By: sunfire
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
I recently had an UOA of QS GB done by OAI and it had much more boron and moly. I've been using the QS for awhile so the moly and boron had to have come from the QS. I know it wasn't QS HP, but it seems like it would have as much moly and boron as QS GB. Maybe a bad assumption but do we know if QS HP would have less? If not, I wouldn't put it past B-stone just giving known old, generic numbers for QS HP and not even testing the sample.


That's why you don't tell the the oil or even the grade. Make them determine it from their tests. If they give you numbers that are completely bogus. Ask them to retest.


Yeah good point. In the case of my UOA, OAI didn't know it was Quaker State. The form asked for the manufacture of the oil and I wrote in SOPUS lol.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top