Royal Purple Oil Experience - 2005 Mustang GT

Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay, NOW we're getting somewhere. Another cam, more details, and a possible explanation to tie everything together.

If we can find a few more cams on each oil, then we might have ourselves a trend worth considering.

For example, if every Mobil 1 cam has the same blemishes, and every Royal Purple cam comes out with a mirror finish, then we can start saying something about the two oils.

See? It's not so hard.
cheers3.gif
 
Well, we know for sure how well RP does at 73k miles, what we will never know is how the M1 cams would look by then...

2k05gt, didn't you state you felt a ridge when rubbing a penny over the M1 cam? Did the RP cam have the same felt ridge?
 
Originally Posted By: glxpassat
Well, we know for sure how well RP does at 73k miles, what we will never know is how the M1 cams would look by then...

2k05gt, didn't you state you felt a ridge when rubbing a penny over the M1 cam? Did the RP cam have the same felt ridge?


No not on the RP Cam journals, it was not a ridge it was just rough, it left some copper from the penny on the surface. I did not get any copper on the RP journals when I used the Penny.
 
Originally Posted By: wapacz
Any one know what the spec and tolerances are for a new cam in these engines?


Here are the Specs could not find tolerances

Gross Lift: .432 / .432 w/1.8

Adv. Duration: 232 / 260 at the lobe
Duration @ .050: 175 / 198 at the lobe

Adv. Duration: 246 / 274 at the valve
Duration @ .050: 193 / 216 at the valve
 
Ford spec for the cam journals is 1.0610"-1.0607" on all 2Vs and 4Vs, not sure if the 3V has a different spec.
 
Here are some specs for the 5.4L 3V and 4.6L 3V that may be useful. The lobe lift loss spec probably the most so. These are from the '05-06 Ford FSM on CD.

Lobe lift: 0.217" (I & E)
Allowable Lobe lift Loss: 0.005"
Journal Diameter: 1.126-1.127"

5.4L and 4.6L 3V cam specs were identical.
 
There's enough evidence in this thread to quiet the RP hater crowd some, that's for sure. There's no doubt those RP cams look almost perfect. Whether the difference is marginal or not, there is indeed a difference worth mentioning.

Now if we could only get RP for less than $11/quart here in Canada it might be worth buying.

Does anyone know where RP oil spec sheets can be had?
 
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Sorry IMO more information was given about those two cams then some happy guy eating a steak. LOL we can go on forever! BTW I do enjoy your posts, and information you share here!
11.gif


Thanks for the props. No hard feelings.

We both seem to agree that it's not enough to say "this is all I have to go on." The explanation has to be plausible, too.

Let me just point out one thing. Mobil 1 5w-20 is factory-approved for the Mustang. Don't you think that if factory-approved oils were this bad, we would know about it? Don't you think maybe Ford would pull the approval for Mobil 1 or change the spec or something? Honestly, think about it.


I think Ford is playing this game to win, so yes they would pull the spec for sure. They are pretty confident in their spec's for that engine. My comments were based on what I saw from a picture, and information given with that picture, nothing more. Given the miles and OCI's it appeared that RP did a better job, again based on pictures. I'm not a fan of either oil, but I think RP did OK here.
 
Originally Posted By: miker1
Nice car!!! Has anyone ever cut open an oil filter after using RP to see what it looks like ?


I did with a pure one filter, then back flushed it with solvent, then poured the solvent through a coffee filter. The filter was brown but there was nothing I could see with the naked eye. Looking inside my valve cover it was clean and shiny like new, while with the previous oil (mobil 1 0w-40) it was stained a light caramel color. The RP removed this "varnish" in less than 1K miles.
 
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Let me just point out one thing. Mobil 1 5w-20 is factory-approved for the Mustang. Don't you think that if factory-approved oils were this bad, we would know about it? Don't you think maybe Ford would pull the approval for Mobil 1 or change the spec or something? Honestly, think about it.


I think Ford is playing this game to win, so yes they would pull the spec for sure. They are pretty confident in their spec's for that engine.

Exactly.

So, next question: If what we see in the pics really is significant wear, and if it is because of the oil, what are the odds that Ford did not discover it in their hundreds of thousands of miles of testing on these engines?

I think you'll agree that the odds are pretty darn slim.

So, judging from the fact that Mobil 1 5w-20 still has its certification, then we have two possible conclusions:

1. Those cams saw abnormal stress. IF TRUE, this would mean the oil is not at fault.

2. The "wear" we see is insignificant. IF TRUE, this means that even if Royal Purple is better, the difference isn't a big deal. Considering that Royal Purple also costs more and the additional ZDDP probably isn't doing the catalytic converter any favors, this point would be important to consider.

Personally, I am leaning toward the second one.
 
Maybe just maybe Synerlac is not really a marketing gimmick that many(including me)thought it was. Less friction leads to less heat which leads to less varnish/discoloration and so on.

I guess we can chalk RP as another oil that may be hard to read in a UOA. A LOT of people here dislike Royal Purple solely due to its poor UOA's and the price its sold at.

I just want to take this post to applaud NHHEMI who is a staunch believer and user of RP. He takes a lot of flak from others for being outspoken about his loyalty to RP. So far he has definitely taken a high road and not chimed in as to say I told you so. Well unless he was banned...I'll stop right here.
 
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Let me just point out one thing. Mobil 1 5w-20 is factory-approved for the Mustang. Don't you think that if factory-approved oils were this bad, we would know about it? Don't you think maybe Ford would pull the approval for Mobil 1 or change the spec or something? Honestly, think about it.


I think Ford is playing this game to win, so yes they would pull the spec for sure. They are pretty confident in their spec's for that engine.

Exactly.

So, next question: If what we see in the pics really is significant wear, and if it is because of the oil, what are the odds that Ford did not discover it in their hundreds of thousands of miles of testing on these engines?

I think you'll agree that the odds are pretty darn slim.

So, judging from the fact that Mobil 1 5w-20 still has its certification, then we have two possible conclusions:

1. Those cams saw abnormal stress. IF TRUE, this would mean the oil is not at fault.

2. The "wear" we see is insignificant. IF TRUE, this means that even if Royal Purple is better, the difference isn't a big deal. Considering that Royal Purple also costs more and the additional ZDDP probably isn't doing the catalytic converter any favors, this point would be important to consider.

Personally, I am leaning toward the second one.


I actually think we both agree. I'm a fan of thinner oils, and FMC. My bet is the wear is insignificant. My comments were based on what I saw in the picture.

Your statement here is exactly what I think is happening:

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
2. The "wear" we see is insignificant. IF TRUE, this means that even if Royal Purple is better, the difference isn't a big deal. Considering that Royal Purple also costs more and the additional ZDDP probably isn't doing the catalytic converter any favors, this point would be important to consider.

Personally, I am leaning toward the second one.



Now maybe if we ran both cams for a total of 300,000 miles we might know a little more about which oil protected better.
 
It really is a nice feeling to come to an agreement after a steady debate.
cheers3.gif


This has got me thinking about something else: if the ZDDP is what made the difference, then there's no reason to praise Royal Purple for the result. It's just a different formulation to fit different priorities (Royal Purple 5w-20 is API SL, Mobil 1 5w-20 is API SM), and any company could have come up with it.

Now, if both products were SM, and Royal Purple still outperformed Mobil 1, THAT would be impressive even if the difference were small.
 
On a site where we discuss even the smallest of 'perceived' benefits often backed up by no facts or pictures, I think the difference is significant in this case. Let us not forget that the RP cams were run for almost twice the miles, with a longer oci. Again, another significant fact. SM or SL, the difference is obvious.

If I were to choose between these two oils in this application, it would be an easy decision. Maybe an SL rated M1 oil would show similar results, but who knows
21.gif


I like a previous response which suggested any SM rated oil might show the same results as the M1 cams. If so, it begs the question, why use a high priced syn like M1?
 
If RP refused to go SM because of the ZDDP reduction, then they deserve credit. After all, how easy would it be for them to reduce ZDDP? Heck, it would probably increase their profit margin a little.

Originally Posted By: webfors
I like a previous response which suggested any SM rated oil might show the same results as the M1 cams. If so, it begs the question, why use a high priced syn like M1?


Deposit control, reduced volatility, extended OCIs, etc...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

mbres2000
2016 Mustang GT oil recommendation
Replies
10
Views
422
ZeeOSix
P
2022 Mustang GT Oil Recommendation
Replies
10
Views
502
StumblingElk
F
oil observation
Replies
11
Views
965
nascarnation
R
Help me select oil for 2020 Ford Explorer ST
Replies
7
Views
1K
FatOrangeCat
A
What is the right oil to use on a fresh flat tappet engine AFTER break in oil?
2 3
Replies
42
Views
10K
Randy_R
Back
Top