Quaker state Ultimate Protection is GTL

[wemay]

And that was false. They are both available and they grade them differently. Did you even look at the back label in the above pic. They have BOTH oils on the label at a different tierView attachment 260592

I won't argue the point. Quaker State released this information in a press release some time ago. Besides, in the image you've shared you're circling the Full Synthetic (which used to be QSUD) and the Quaker State Ultimate Protection (QSUP). Which is exactly what I've been saying.QSUP is not QSUD.

1. QSUD is now QSFS
2. QSUP is their new, higher tier, Walmart
exclusive 20k mile motor oil. Which in this thread and past (posted by @KCJeep) discusses it being GTL in the SDS.

 

[kschachn]

Ironically the same crew that criticized the SDS information routinely uses SDS’s to sort through their favorite M1’s flavors for PAO content.

That’s actually a bit different. API Annex E does not allow the substitution of a Group IV base stock for a Group III without retesting. Blenders can substitute any Group III base as long as it meets the performance requirements. As noted, method of manufacture is excluded in this substitution so it’s irrelevant that the Group III is derived from GTL as far as that goes.

 

[doublebase]

Lake Speed Jr.

He tested Quaker State Full Synthetic, not the 20k mile version.

Ok, I missed that. Thanks!

 

[JAG]

kschachn, are you saying that base oil substitution rules also apply to what is stated in the SDS? For example, if the manufacturer substitutes a different type of non-GTL Group III for GTL and the original SDS shows only GTL, are you saying that base oil substitution rules allow them to not change the SDS to replace the GTL mentioning with the new?

 

[kschachn]

kschachn, are you saying that base oil substitution rules also apply to what is stated in the SDS? For example, if the manufacturer substitutes a different type of non-GTL Group III for GTL and the original SDS shows only GTL, are you saying that base oil substitution rules allow them to not change the SDS to replace the GTL mentioning with the new?

No not at all. The two are not connected. SDS are produced for a different reason as I’m sure you know and they weren’t always accurate for exact formulation as long as the toxicity and flammability information is the same.

I used to write SDS as part of my job and they are good for their intent but to reverse engineer a product from them is not practical.

KCJeep was criticizing their use to show the use of PAO but not the specificity of a GTL derived Group III. I was noting that a blender can substitute another Group III base without retesting. Group I, II and III are similar if not identical in chemical structure and although they may have different CAS numbers, may not trigger a revision to the SDS. But a switch away from PAO would.