Royal Purple horsepower gains

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: deven
They never dyno'd RP on a stock tune.
Car came in. Oil was changed to Subaru 5w30 with Subaru filter and then dyno'd 3-4 times. Then the Subaru got a COBB tune and dyno'd again 3-4 times. Then the oil and filter were changed to Royal Purple 5w30 HPS and then dyno'd 3-4 times.
As to why they dyno RP last, RP has made it very clear as to why. Because their Synerlec additive clings to metal parts and if it were to be dyno'd first there would be residual synerlec additive still remaining in the engine after RP is drained and the next oil dyno'd would probably lead to better dyno numbers.


Yes they did deven. Go back and look. They did both oils stock and with a tune.

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: BHopkins
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Originally Posted By: GMorg
I'm still curious if I am missing something here. Were all of the RP runs done after a tune? Were any RP runs done under the same conditions as the stock oil? Am I reading too much into the time stamps on the graphs?


Both oils were tested 3-4 runs on the stock tune and then also using a custom tune. Both oils were tested under the exact same conditions.


Are you sure about that? I don't see it that way. One was first. The other was second. One would have been tested immediately following dirty oil. The second would have been tested immediately following motor oil with only minutes of run time on it. One was tested earlier in the day than the other, with different ambient conditions. Not what I would consider a controlled study.

I find it interesting that every time I see a dyno test of motor oils, the favorable one is always tested last.

One


Come on man. What more do you want. Both vehicles were tested using fresh oil of the same weight in each brand( both were synthetic as well ), had multiple runs done on each brand stock and w/ a tune, used the same dyno machine, and it was done on the same day. Clearly an attempt was made to make it a real comparison and to have each oil tested in the same manner.

Your contention that the Subaru oil was tested after dirty oil and RP wasn't just doesn't really hold up as being hugely influential as you think it is. So a tiny bit of used oil was in the sump before testing the Subaru oil. SO WHAT! That would only have an impact( and a minimal one at best if any )if they only did one dyno run on the new oil. They did at least 3 runs. Also, using your own scenario if the used oil was worn out and sheared if anything it would have helped the Subaru oil as it would have thinned it out some.

As to changes in temp. Temps effecting the outcome is a possibility certainly. However, how do you not have ambient temp effect such a test to some degree? Short of having a climate controlled building( highly unlikely you will find any place with a dyno in such a condition )you just can't keep it exactly the same. RP did the ebst they could on this.

To keep the results fair you need to use the same dyno machine. You can't have 2 cars at the same time on one dyno so one of them has to be done 1st. You do all the runs using one brand of oil then do the other after. We don't know what time of day this was done other than the photo's show it to be daylight. There is just as much chance the temp hurt RP's results as they went last. If the tests started in the AM then by the time RP was tested it was later in the day and probably warmer and/or more hummid. That would give the Subaru oil the edge if it was run in cooler temps which favor more HP. For me the temp is really a non factor as it was done in April. Even in TX the temp will be cooler and less humid in April.

I think people on this site purposely go out of their way to be negative and suspicious about everything and especially so with RP. Many just plain go out of their way to try and discredit everything as if they alone know what is the best way to do everything. They look for negatives where they just don't exist.

This test by RP is EXACTLY the kind of test scenario people here at BITOG have been clamoring for and about for as long as I can remember. Same vehicle, tested on the same dyno and on the same day, and using the same weight/kind of oils that were changed before the dyno runs. Now when they get it they are still unhappy and want it even more unrealistically hard.

Come on now people. This is about as close as it can be done to a legit comparison between 2 brands of oil and the power results they may return.

 

[NHHEMI]

I wanted to add a comment ^^^ about why the oil with the power increase is always shown last. I forgot though and ran out of edit time.

It is simple really. Pretty standard to test the competition 1st to establish the baseline you are trying to out due. Then you test your oil to see if it beat it. Nothing fishy about it nor is it some kind of advantage. Just a common sense approach to how you would conduct such tests.

 

[geeman789]

Originally Posted By: NHHEMI



Come on man. What more do you want...

I think people on this site purposely go out of their way to be negative and suspicious about everything and especially so with RP. Many just plain go out of their way to try and discredit everything as if they alone know what is the best way to do everything. They look for negatives where they just don't exist.


Come on now people. This is about as close as it can be done to a legit comparison between 2 brands of oil and the power results they may return.


Anyone who knows ANYTHING about engine output and dynos understands that repeatability of results is always suspect , and thus takes any advertised dyno results or comparisons with a degree of caution.

Intercooled cars, like this one, are particularily susceptible to temperature fluctuations, particularily the intercooler. Without real world airflow, the engine heat "soaks..." the intercooler, lowering its efficiency dramatically. Hotter air is less dense air, and more likely to push the detonation threshhold... less power is the result.

How about oil temperature...? We all know that oil at ambient temps is much much thicker than oil at operating temps... what was the oil temp in the runs...? Undocumented, just like air temps , coolant temps etc, all variables that can, and do impact the horsepower results.

Just marketing, without any real science...!

If you choose to blindly believe these results, good for you. And good for RP, because that is exactly what they are hoping for...

 

[deven]

Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Originally Posted By: deven
They never dyno'd RP on a stock tune.
Car came in. Oil was changed to Subaru 5w30 with Subaru filter and then dyno'd 3-4 times. Then the Subaru got a COBB tune and dyno'd again 3-4 times. Then the oil and filter were changed to Royal Purple 5w30 HPS and then dyno'd 3-4 times.
As to why they dyno RP last, RP has made it very clear as to why. Because their Synerlec additive clings to metal parts and if it were to be dyno'd first there would be residual synerlec additive still remaining in the engine after RP is drained and the next oil dyno'd would probably lead to better dyno numbers.


Yes they did deven. Go back and look. They did both oils stock and with a tune.

yes you are correct. They did.

 

[SilverC6]

Purple Valvoline make big power!!!

Car go fast!!!!!

 

[deven]

Originally Posted By: SilverC6
Purple Valvoline make big power!!!

Car go fast!!!!!

drink it. make your brain faster.

 

[Clevy]

So is this advertising saying that there is a 9hp difference using RP vs another brand?
If that's the case I'm calling hogwash. I've seen dyno runs using a chassis dyno change more than 9hp without any changes to tuning whatsoever. The only change was the first run was at 9am,the second at 3pm.
When my bike was dynotuned it was 3hp difference from when the original tune was written,and when I brought it back because of some mid-throttle running inconsistencies. The runs were measured a day apart.
And dont dynamometers have a tolerance of 3-5 percent?

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Clevy
So is this advertising saying that there is a 9hp difference using RP vs another brand?
If that's the case I'm calling hogwash. I've seen dyno runs using a chassis dyno change more than 9hp without any changes to tuning whatsoever. The only change was the first run was at 9am,the second at 3pm.
When my bike was dynotuned it was 3hp difference from when the original tune was written,and when I brought it back because of some mid-throttle running inconsistencies. The runs were measured a day apart.
And dont dynamometers have a tolerance of 3-5 percent?


It's advertising hype that some people choose to believe and others question the validity. Honestly I call it hogwash too, but I have no dog in this fight........

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: Clevy
I've seen dyno runs using a chassis dyno change more than 9hp without any changes to tuning whatsoever. The only change was the first run was at 9am,the second at 3pm.
And dont dynamometers have a tolerance of 3-5 percent?



Indeed. The rollers are FAR from accurate, and really only useful for bragging rights and tuning the same car repetitively. At one of our LX meets in 06 we rented a chassis dyno and ran 32 cars on it. My car dyno'd 368 and then 389 hp at the wheels. The difference? Time of day.

Barometric pressure and temp (density altitude for the drag racers) are known to change around during a day and the effect on engine output can be dramatic...

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: geeman789
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI



Come on man. What more do you want...

I think people on this site purposely go out of their way to be negative and suspicious about everything and especially so with RP. Many just plain go out of their way to try and discredit everything as if they alone know what is the best way to do everything. They look for negatives where they just don't exist.


Come on now people. This is about as close as it can be done to a legit comparison between 2 brands of oil and the power results they may return.


Anyone who knows ANYTHING about engine output and dynos understands that repeatability of results is always suspect , and thus takes any advertised dyno results or comparisons with a degree of caution.

Intercooled cars, like this one, are particularily susceptible to temperature fluctuations, particularily the intercooler. Without real world airflow, the engine heat "soaks..." the intercooler, lowering its efficiency dramatically. Hotter air is less dense air, and more likely to push the detonation threshhold... less power is the result.

How about oil temperature...? We all know that oil at ambient temps is much much thicker than oil at operating temps... what was the oil temp in the runs...? Undocumented, just like air temps , coolant temps etc, all variables that can, and do impact the horsepower results.

Just marketing, without any real science...!

If you choose to blindly believe these results, good for you. And good for RP, because that is exactly what they are hoping for...



Wow, because I am not nit picking the results to death down to the tiniest fraction I apparently don't know anything about dyno's, engine power, etc.... Ok, whatever. I never said this was some kind of all encompassing test that can be applied to all oils all the time. I simply said on that day the RP oil did provide gains over the Subaru oil.

So why have anything dyno'd if it is so unreliable. By your way of thinking nothing from a dyno is valid because it is just too unreliable so why would anyone use one for any reason? Why even build them.

Man people make me laugh at times. A basic, fair, comparison test where everything possible was done to test each oil the same and yet people still have to tear it apart and act like it is fishy/suspect. I wonder if this was some other brand than RP if the skepticism would be as bad?

I would say for what it is that the test was fair and provided valid results. Looks to me like they tried their best to handle each oil the same and to control the variables as much as they could.

Some people will never be happy no matter what RP does.

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: Clevy
So is this advertising saying that there is a 9hp difference using RP vs another brand?
If that's the case I'm calling hogwash. I've seen dyno runs using a chassis dyno change more than 9hp without any changes to tuning whatsoever. The only change was the first run was at 9am,the second at 3pm.
When my bike was dynotuned it was 3hp difference from when the original tune was written,and when I brought it back because of some mid-throttle running inconsistencies. The runs were measured a day apart.
And dont dynamometers have a tolerance of 3-5 percent?


Clevy;

Before calling hogwash take the time to read the link. The RP oil did in fact provide HP gains over the other oil( Subaru synthetic ). RP used the same weight oil, made sure it was synthetic vs synthetic, used the same dyno machine on the same day, did multiple runs with each, and they used fresh oil( changed before doing the runs on each brand ).

Is it 100% fool proof? No of course not but come on it is pretty darn good and they made an attempt to do it right.

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: Clevy
I've seen dyno runs using a chassis dyno change more than 9hp without any changes to tuning whatsoever. The only change was the first run was at 9am,the second at 3pm.
And dont dynamometers have a tolerance of 3-5 percent?



Indeed. The rollers are FAR from accurate, and really only useful for bragging rights and tuning the same car repetitively. At one of our LX meets in 06 we rented a chassis dyno and ran 32 cars on it. My car dyno'd 368 and then 389 hp at the wheels. The difference? Time of day.

Barometric pressure and temp (density altitude for the drag racers) are known to change around during a day and the effect on engine output can be dramatic...


Well, if the Subaru oil was done first that means the RP oil was done later in the day when it would be hotter( pictures show daylight so I assume they started in the AM not middle of day ). If it was hotter and/or more humid for the RP runs that would actually hurt their results not help. Also, this was done in April not August and even in Texas the temps are going to be a lot milder in April. I think people are looking for ways to discredit this too hard.

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: Clevy
I've seen dyno runs using a chassis dyno change more than 9hp without any changes to tuning whatsoever. The only change was the first run was at 9am,the second at 3pm.
And dont dynamometers have a tolerance of 3-5 percent?



Indeed. The rollers are FAR from accurate, and really only useful for bragging rights and tuning the same car repetitively. At one of our LX meets in 06 we rented a chassis dyno and ran 32 cars on it. My car dyno'd 368 and then 389 hp at the wheels. The difference? Time of day.

Barometric pressure and temp (density altitude for the drag racers) are known to change around during a day and the effect on engine output can be dramatic...


This is why there are correction factors for taking data produced under different ambient conditions and correcting them to standard conditions. Any decent dyno instrumentation package will include the sensors and math to do this.

 

[surfstar]

Originally Posted By: deven
Originally Posted By: MalfunctionProne
I have RP oil and RP oil filter on the truck.

Redline is a better oil, but higher HTHS, so I put the Purple in there. Silky smooth

Royal Purple gets beat on because it seems to be a somewhat goofy (Purple?,) gimmicky, and ezpenexpensive oil. BUT... if you DO LIKE I DID and GIVE IT A SHOT.. You tend to say "You know what? This oil is amazing."

As far as freeing up internal resistance and lessening friction, it probably does with the oil under its purple guise, in some kind of way better than about any oil.. except Redline.. which is why I mix them. They just don't tell us a whole lot about it.

Give it a try. It is awesome.

This is crazy but when I read your post it seemed like you were speaking my mind word for word.

Couple more things on Redline oil and why I don't use it. First, I also believe it to be better than Royal Purple(HA, so much for fanboy) but two reasons I dont use it. One it really makes my engine feel sluggish and two, my fuel economy always takes a hit. Presumably due to high HTHS but happens even if I go a grade down.


The fact that you are in the same group as GearHeadTool, makes me not want to be in that group. I'll stick to non-red and purple dyed oils.

 

[NHHEMI]

It looks like the dyno testing was actually done on March 25, 2014 according to the dyno info given. I was going by the date on the RP info which was April 4th. Guess that was just when it was released.

I looked up the weather for Houston, TX where the tests were done for the date in question( Weather Underground website )for those wanting more info. Temps ranged from 60.1F and 60% humidity at 10AM to a high of 70F and 31% humidity at 3PM. The temp swing wasn't huge( some )but humidity did drop quite a bit during the day which could impact the results to a degree. After looking at the info closer I wish they had shown the slips for all the runs not just the few they did.

Looks like the testing ran late morning through midday and was finished around 3PM or so based on the info on the slips( printing came after 3PM ). They don't show all the runs so I can only give info( closest approx. time given - should be within 30 minutes of time on slip )for the run times shown...

Subaru Oil Baseline 2 11:30AM = 66F and 37% humidity
RP HPS stock run 2 2:15PM = 69.1F and 35% humidity
RP HPS custom run 4 2:49PM = 70F and 31% humidity
RP HPS stock run 3 3:17PM = 70F and 31% humidity

Looks like when the RP was tested they went from stock to custom and back to stock. I would like to know if the Subraru oil was similarly tested?

All in all I still think it was a pretty fair test BUT I don't have a problem with anyone wanting a bit more info( I would a bit myself ). It is those who question all of it that I have issue with.

HOpe this info helps some of you with questions.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: NHHEMI

So why have anything dyno'd if it is so unreliable. By your way of thinking nothing from a dyno is valid because it is just too unreliable so why would anyone use one for any reason? Why even build them.

Man people make me laugh at times. A basic, fair, comparison test where everything possible was done to test each oil the same and yet people still have to tear it apart and act like it is fishy/suspect. I wonder if this was some other brand than RP if the skepticism would be as bad?



Brand of oil would not change my opinion. As stated, dynos are great TUNING tools for setting up cars and evaluating mods on same car. But once you start according them such incredible resolution then you better know how they work and what they are measuring.

a few HP does not a conclusion make...

 

[Al]

If you jump through enough hoops and are able to get access to this:

https://www.exxonmobilchemical.com/Chem-...s_guide_en.aspx

You will get a pretty good picture how many ways there are to formulate multi-viscosity syn oils...Generally Exxon (who has a zillion times more brain power than RP) recommends various metholodogy of their Base Stocks (PAO's, mPAO's ,AN's, and Various grades of esters.

Generally 6cSt. and 8cSt. Various percentages of 3 cSt. to 5 cSt AN's or esters, a VM Package. and a Add pack...made by Infinium, Lubrizol, Croda, etc.

RP makes none of this stuff. Hard to take their claims seriously. Fudged data in one shape or another.

 

[deven]

I think Royal Purple has a hand in deflate gate. I'm notifying the NFL.

 

[GMorg]

My point is still being missed. The custom tune run was at 1:49, before ALL listed stock runs on RP. NO runs are listed for RP before adjustments. My question related to whether it is even possible to make adjustments between Stock oil and RP oil and conclude that RP was tested under the same conditions.

I have seen several posters say that RP oil was tested under the same conditions at stock oil while ignoring that the data provided shows that the Stage 1 tune was done before the stock tune for the RP runs. In the text, the link suggests a sequence of events that do not seem to be compatible with the data that they show. That is what troubles me.

I don't expect a statistical power test, or even a great experimental design for this type of data. That part doesn't bother me. However, to imply one thing having done something else implies that either the author of the link did not understand what was done or that the the author is not being truthful -- that bothers me.

I was hoping that someone would read the time stamps and tell me where I am wrong. Or, someone would explain that there are no stored data on this vehicle and that it is possible to change tunings back and forth with repeatability. I have not heard either.