Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeK
Oh what a slippery slope!
The STP MSDS LINK shows the majority content to be a mineral oil base with something less than 5% added ZDDP. The mineral oil is listed as "mixture" so that would include viscosity modifiers and tackifiers.
Has the 60+% base oil content of STP been so adulterated that it is actually no longer a functional lubricant, or have the lawyers absolved the company of liability by insisting it be mixed with a 'lubricant' so failure liability falls elsewhere?
Is the 'not a lubricant' actually engineering test FACT or legal OPINION?
|
What company would not want to increase it's sales by 90%?
If the product truly was a lubricant there would be no need for a legal opinion as engineering test facts would prove it to be so. With the lack of engineering test facts that prove it can be used 100%, the facts do prove 10% as evidenced by the length of time the product has been sold and the lack of lawsuits to prove otherwise and the willingness of a for profit company not looking for the max sales.