Mobil 1 oil weight

[Ameer Antar]

-------------------- Original Message --------------------
 > Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 08:03:10 -0400
> From: "Taka Mizutani" [t44tqtro at gmail.com]
> Subject: Re: Mobil 1 oil weight
> To: "Ameer Antar" [antar at comcast.net]
> Cc: Quattro List [quattro at audifans.com]
> Message-ID:
>     [79698a910705010503s72ec9de6rc5346328d4a357f at mail.gmail.com]
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Once again, you're spouting misinformation.
>
> The OLD Pennzoil Platinum was 100% PAO based, group V basestock.
 
OK, but where am I going to get oil that old? 
And, I think you meant group IV. Group V is ester oils, used in A/C systems,
not motor oils. 

>
> The NEW stuff is the same hydrocracked group III stuff that everyone now
> calls synthetic.
>
> Whether you doubt it or not, you're just plain WRONG- it was 100% PAO based,
> that's why I have about
> 30qts. of it in the garage.
 
Are you saying just because it isn't 100% PAO, that it can't be group IV? From
my reading what's important is what the main component is: petroleum or PAO. It
doesn't make sense to call something that has a PAO base, group III since the
oil is made using a very different process.

>
> The basestock of an oil is not OPINION, it's FACT. Just because you choose
> to believe incorrect information doesn't make it right. The formulation has
> nothing to do with personal preference.
I don't think that's what I was saying. The opinion is in what oil you choose,
not what it's made out of. 

>
> I'm not talking about performance, I'm talking about the base stock of the
> oil- my post was directly addressing the fact that your INCORRECT
> information about oil basestock is pure misinformation.
>

Not really, I copied that info right off the Mobil website, so if it's wrong,
then they are. I never said Mobil was 100% PAO BTW.