quote:I'm sure you're talking about QS synthetic. And I'd be willing to bet it's not A3-02. Probably A3-98. As far as better than Mobil 1, hardly. These are still Group III oils, and the A3 rating (if it is indeed A3-02) only means these oils have a somewhat higher HT/HS rating than the A5 rated Mobil 1. In other words, this is nothing to get excited about. Edit: I just checked the data sheet. It is A3-98. A3-98 has been replaced by A3-02, so the fact that this oil meets an outdated spec is meaningless, IMO. [ February 16, 2003, 07:23 PM: Message edited by: G-Man II ]
Originally posted by Dr. T: Talk about OTC A3's...the PDS's on Q.S.'s website indicate that both the 5-30 and 10-30's pass A3. Does this make them better than M-1...or at least considering??
quote:Well, I actually think the real bottom line is that the only distinguishing spec between A3 and A5 is the HTHS numbers. And as long as Mobil formulates its Xw30 Mobil 1s on the low end of the 30wt range, they're probably never going to be A3 rated.
Originally posted by Dr. T: Bottom line is both the Trisyn and now SS 5-30 and 10-30 were NEVER A-3 rated...group III aside...
quote:Yes, and as Johnny has pointed out several times, the MSDS is wrong. He should know, since he works for Pennzoil-QuakerState.
Originally posted by metroplex: The most recent QS MSDS for its synthetics (june july 2002) show that they're PAO synthetics. basestock is 1-decene homopolymer, hydrogenated.
quote:Someone get their high-powered attorneys, I smell a lawsuit brewing... A manufacturer is supposed to keep their MSDS accurate. It's the same as if you wrote an MSDS for sulfuric acid as being "non-toxic, non-corrosive, etc..." They're either lying, writing inaccurate MSDS's, or they have switched to a PAO for QS Synthetic since July 2002, or whomever works at QS-Pennzoil isn't getting the right info.
Yes, and as Johnny has pointed out several times, the MSDS is wrong. He should know, since he works for Pennzoil-QuakerState.