Royal Purple research giving me a panic attack????

[fredfactory]

Originally Posted By: deven
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL


I can get Motul for less than RP, AMSOIL, Mobil 1, PU.....etc up here and I KNOW it is majority PAO because it is sold as full synthetic in Germany.

Various Mobil products are also majority PAO (their EP 0w-20, M1 0w-40 now again) and yet their prices are the same as their other lubes that have higher group III content.

Other than conversations with marketing folk, what proof do we have that the entire API line of Royal Purple products are majority PAO? Their MSDS sheets are useless and their PDS isn't much better.

Also:

http://www.royalpurpleconsumer.com/wp-content/uploads/PS_API_MotorOIl.pdf

Their 0w-20 has an MRV of 34,200cP. That's higher than M1 0w-40!!! LOL (31,000cP):

http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/GLXXENPVLMOMobil_1_0W-40.aspx

And MASSIVELY heavier than competing Mobil products like the AFE 0w-20, which has an MRV of only 9,200cP:

http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/GLXXENPVLMOMobil1_0W-20.aspx

Which does NOT point to a majority PAO base, nor does the fact that despite its poor cold temperature performance, it still has a lower flash point than the Mobil 1 AFE 0w-20 product (420F vs 435F) which is approximately 30% PAO based (verified by MSDS)

So I think you can perhaps now begin to understand the skepticism some of us have regarding people stating their API line of products is PAO-based just because some marketing jockey said this might be the case.

Now from that same PDS, you'll note their 0w-40 has MUCH better specs. An MRV of 20,000cP and a flash point of 465F. THAT would point to this product being potentially majority PAO based. So perhaps, like Mobil and Castrol, SOME of the RP products are majority PAO. SOME of the products are not

You'll see a similar trend if you compare the 5w-30 to the 5w-40; the 5w-40 has better cold temperature performance pointing to better base stocks.

I Understand your point but until there are baseline data points which clearly state that this number or that number makes an oil Grp. III or PAO or POE, to me they shall remain numbers. And to compare MRV, CCS or whatever numbers are doing so blindly because there are no guidelines. An oil that has poor data points to another may just perform much better INSIDE an engine because neither you nor I know the WHOLE picture of a formulated oil. Going on numbers alone is foolish.


OVERKILL is right here. Easy to see Royal P is thicker than Mobil1 when very cold. If you live in a cold climate, not sure RP is the best.

 

[fredfactory]

Originally Posted By: deven
Well I own a speed shop in Rhode Island with 3 locations so we see our share of engine block teardowns. Like any job you start to see a pattern developing with certain oils, good or bad.


You never control for the many other variables that stress an engine. For example, if I noticed that a few people who drank coffee every day had heart attacks later, I might blame the coffee, although those people were overweight/smokers too. Lots of variables to look at. What brand of synth oil you use is not predictive of outcomes. Any will work. Been shown thousands of times that people generally have good results with any name brand synth oil.

If RP is better, proof would come in the form of wear test results, controlling variables as closely as possible. Its the way of getting at truth.

 

[deven]

Originally Posted By: fredfactory
Originally Posted By: deven
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL


I can get Motul for less than RP, AMSOIL, Mobil 1, PU.....etc up here and I KNOW it is majority PAO because it is sold as full synthetic in Germany.

Various Mobil products are also majority PAO (their EP 0w-20, M1 0w-40 now again) and yet their prices are the same as their other lubes that have higher group III content.

Other than conversations with marketing folk, what proof do we have that the entire API line of Royal Purple products are majority PAO? Their MSDS sheets are useless and their PDS isn't much better.

Also:

http://www.royalpurpleconsumer.com/wp-content/uploads/PS_API_MotorOIl.pdf

Their 0w-20 has an MRV of 34,200cP. That's higher than M1 0w-40!!! LOL (31,000cP):

http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/GLXXENPVLMOMobil_1_0W-40.aspx

And MASSIVELY heavier than competing Mobil products like the AFE 0w-20, which has an MRV of only 9,200cP:

http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/GLXXENPVLMOMobil1_0W-20.aspx

Which does NOT point to a majority PAO base, nor does the fact that despite its poor cold temperature performance, it still has a lower flash point than the Mobil 1 AFE 0w-20 product (420F vs 435F) which is approximately 30% PAO based (verified by MSDS)

So I think you can perhaps now begin to understand the skepticism some of us have regarding people stating their API line of products is PAO-based just because some marketing jockey said this might be the case.

Now from that same PDS, you'll note their 0w-40 has MUCH better specs. An MRV of 20,000cP and a flash point of 465F. THAT would point to this product being potentially majority PAO based. So perhaps, like Mobil and Castrol, SOME of the RP products are majority PAO. SOME of the products are not

You'll see a similar trend if you compare the 5w-30 to the 5w-40; the 5w-40 has better cold temperature performance pointing to better base stocks.

I Understand your point but until there are baseline data points which clearly state that this number or that number makes an oil Grp. III or PAO or POE, to me they shall remain numbers. And to compare MRV, CCS or whatever numbers are doing so blindly because there are no guidelines. An oil that has poor data points to another may just perform much better INSIDE an engine because neither you nor I know the WHOLE picture of a formulated oil. Going on numbers alone is foolish.


OVERKILL is right here. Easy to see Royal P is thicker than Mobil1 when very cold. If you live in a cold climate, not sure RP is the best.

I know OVERK1LL is right. Numbers dont lie. But to say that that oil will perform better INSIDE an engine because of those numbers is doing injustices to the other. A guy can run 40 meter dash in 4.9 seconds while the other runs it in 5.4 seconds. You can't conclude that the guy with the faster time is going to be a better football player on the field. Thats all I'm trying to get across across!

 

[NHHEMI]

A serious question to think about( for the open minded anyway )...

Why is it that BITOG members on the whole are willing to accept answers/info from oil companies OTHER than RP on their products( like when Pennzoil did the Q&A here )but when RP tech answers a question via e-mail or makes the info available in some way to the public it is not to be believed? More than one person has e-mailed RP tech with the base stock question and received the same exact answer = most of their oils are primarily PAO. It is never believed though. RP isn't even given credit for actually answering the question which most won't do.

I also hear people complain all the time on this site that oil companies won't reveal info on their product, like base stock type, because it is proprietary. They get mad because they won't give the info they asked for( in e-mails and they usually post what they sent and the response ).

So my question is, if we are willing to write to say Mobil 1 or Pennzoil and ask questions one would assume that implies a willingness to accept that answer as truthful correct? It says that even more to me when the people get mad if no answer is given. If you were predisposed NOT to believe the answer you wouldn't be upset you didn't get one right? If you didn't expect to get a truthful answer why would you even write and ask to begin with?

So if the BITOG masses are willing to believe what Pennzoil said in the Q&A held here a while back( and count me in as believing ), or what Mobil 1/Castrol/Amsoil/whatever brand you wish to use, says in an e-mail response to a member who posts the info here, why does no one believe what RP says in their e-mail responses? I don't get it other than it is a clear indicator of how negative people are about that company and it's products.

 

[kschachn]

For me that's easy. I almost never believe anyone who posts here or elsewhere that they have insider information about a product that was obtained by personal communication. People can and do make up things for a variety of reasons and I have no clue what their motivation might be.

As for a Q&A with a tech from a manufacturer, the same philosophy sort of applies except that here, we do have a reasonable expectation that the person answering the questions is indeed who they say they are. But when it is just an individual saying they have (or had) such a communication, well....

Here, I have a question for you. Tell me one thing that someone said ExxonMobil stated in a private communication that "we" rely upon for decision making.

Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
A serious question to think about( for the open minded anyway )...

Why is it that BITOG members on the whole are willing to accept answers/info from oil companies OTHER than RP on their products( like when Pennzoil did the Q&A here )but when RP tech answers a question via e-mail or makes the info available in some way to the public it is not to be believed? More than one person has e-mailed RP tech with the base stock question and received the same exact answer = most of their oils are primarily PAO. It is never believed though. RP isn't even given credit for actually answering the question which most won't do.

I also hear people complain all the time on this site that oil companies won't reveal info on their product, like base stock type, because it is proprietary. They get mad because they won't give the info they asked for( in e-mails and they usually post what they sent and the response ).

So my question is, if we are willing to write to say Mobil 1 or Pennzoil and ask questions one would assume that implies a willingness to accept that answer as truthful correct? It says that even more to me when the people get mad if no answer is given. If you were predisposed NOT to believe the answer you wouldn't be upset you didn't get one right? If you didn't expect to get a truthful answer why would you even write and ask to begin with?

So if the BITOG masses are willing to believe what Pennzoil said in the Q&A held here a while back( and count me in as believing ), or what Mobil 1/Castrol/Amsoil/whatever brand you wish to use, says in an e-mail response to a member who posts the info here, why does no one believe what RP says in their e-mail responses? I don't get it other than it is a clear indicator of how negative people are about that company and it's products.

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: fredfactory

OVERKILL is right here. Easy to see Royal P is thicker than Mobil1 when very cold. If you live in a cold climate, not sure RP is the best.


To take a page out of the RP naysayers who are always twisting things and looking for a way to discredit positive RP results...

That video is useless and proves nothing because we don't know all of the "real" variables. They only showed the temp being taken of one of the oils which incidentally was the Wal-Mart oil that did the worst. How do we know that the Amsoil, RP, and Mobil 1 were also at the same -40.6F like the Wal-Mart oil was? I know of the 3 oils the Mobil 1 had the least frost on the bottle. Maybe it was sitting out longer under heat or something? Who knows.

They do not show us that they actually put the temp probe in the other 3 oils and we actually see the Amsoil one opened and never tested for temp on film, It is pretty clear the Amsoil oil at least wasn't checked for temp. Maybe the Mobil 1 was only at -25F and Amsoil and RP were in the -30F range somewhere? Who can say as we don't know the actual temp of those 3.

Also, were all 4 bottles removed at the exact same time or was the Mobil 1 taken out 1st and if so how long did it sit before the other 3 were taken out? Did the order they came out of the freezer impact the results? Did the Mobil 1 come 1st, Amsoil 2nd, RP 3rd, and then the Wal-Mart come last? Who knows as we don't have the data/video proof to know. We just have the testers word.

Did Mobil 1 or one of the other oil mfg's tested ask/pay them to do the test?

I have no reason to disbelieve the video but I am just pointing out that if the RP oil did the best people would be all over it with the EXACT same stupid comments, and minute nitpicking, like I made.

I have to say if my vehicle sat for 24hours at -40F I wouldn't want to try and start it with any of those oils. Not even the Mobil 1( although clearly it would flow the best of the 4 tested ). If that is the kind of environment your engine faces then you need a block heater AND you should use 0W30 not 5W30. -40F is extreme.

 

[fredfactory]

I'm not seeing the bias against RP that NHHEMI is seeing. Lots of people doubt some of the poo coming out of many marketing departments at many companies too. RP is not being picked on.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: deven

I Understand your point but until there are baseline data points which clearly state that this number or that number makes an oil Grp. III or PAO or POE, to me they shall remain numbers. And to compare MRV, CCS or whatever numbers are doing so blindly because there are no guidelines.


Actually, there are guidelines regarding the labelling of the products that ties to their CCS and MRV performance (the 0w-xx, 5w-xx...etc designations are directly tied to CCS/MRV). And I don't think you understand my point because those numbers DO actually tell us a lot about whether an oil is potentially group III or PAO based. PAO has MASSIVELY better cold temperature performance than Group III, which requires dosing with PPD's to achieve reasonable cold temperature performance. Also, heavy PAO bases (which are less volatile) still have extremely good cold temperature performance, this is not the case with Group III, which will require the use of a lighter base with PPD's to match a PAO-based formula.

Originally Posted By: deven
An oil that has poor data points to another may just perform much better INSIDE an engine because neither you nor I know the WHOLE picture of a formulated oil. Going on numbers alone is foolish.


Doubtful in this case, as we are specifically discussing products that are all within the API approval envelope. Keep that in mind. I am specifically avoiding discussing their racing oils because there is no PDS data (or MSDS data) for those products, so comparisons between THOSE products and the products we DO have information about is basically impossible outside of direct tear-down testing which nobody here is going to fund.

So, keeping this discussion exclusively to the API-approved products, my opinion is that some of their products, like their 0w-40 and 5w-40, are in fact likely majority PAO, whilst others in that same product line, like their 0w-20 and 5w-30 are not.

This doesn't make them bad products BTW. This simply makes certain grades of this product line less of a deal than other grades in the same product portfolio. I see no compelling reason to use their 0w-20 over Mobil 1 0w-20, which is obviously better in two clearly defined ways. On the other hand, their 0w-40 and 5w-40 are both excellent and are possibly a better deal at the same price as competing versions of those grades from other manufacturers.

AMSOIL BTW, gives us plenty of information on their high-tier products:
http://www.amsoil.com/shop/by-product/mo.../?code=AZFQT-EA

You can see a very detailed run down of the product's specs in the above link including CCS, NOACK volatility....etc. The -51C pour point is another data point that would indicate that this product is majority PAO-based.

On the other hand, their 5w-40:
http://www.amsoil.com/shop/by-product/mo.../?code=EFMQT-EA

is less impressive IMHO. But then we are starting the dialog about European performance specs which bring with them a much broader suite of tests and approvals.

I'm not an RP hater. But I'm not a fanboy either. I see nothing exciting about most of their API product line that would compel me to seek it out over more readily available products with the same or more approvals. On the other hand, their 0w-40, if it was LL-01 approved, I would try, as it has some excellent specs and strikes me as a potentially excellent product.

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
For me that's easy. I almost never believe anyone who posts here or elsewhere that they have insider information about a product that was obtained by personal communication. People can and do make up things for a variety of reasons and I have no clue what their motivation might be.

As for a Q&A with a tech from a manufacturer, the same philosophy sort of applies except that here, we do have a reasonable expectation that the person answering the questions is indeed who they say they are. But when it is just an individual saying they have (or had) such a communication, well....

Here, I have a question for you. Tell me one thing that someone said ExxonMobil stated in a private communication that "we" rely upon for decision making.

Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
A serious question to think about( for the open minded anyway )...

Why is it that BITOG members on the whole are willing to accept answers/info from oil companies OTHER than RP on their products( like when Pennzoil did the Q&A here )but when RP tech answers a question via e-mail or makes the info available in some way to the public it is not to be believed? More than one person has e-mailed RP tech with the base stock question and received the same exact answer = most of their oils are primarily PAO. It is never believed though. RP isn't even given credit for actually answering the question which most won't do.

I also hear people complain all the time on this site that oil companies won't reveal info on their product, like base stock type, because it is proprietary. They get mad because they won't give the info they asked for( in e-mails and they usually post what they sent and the response ).

So my question is, if we are willing to write to say Mobil 1 or Pennzoil and ask questions one would assume that implies a willingness to accept that answer as truthful correct? It says that even more to me when the people get mad if no answer is given. If you were predisposed NOT to believe the answer you wouldn't be upset you didn't get one right? If you didn't expect to get a truthful answer why would you even write and ask to begin with?

So if the BITOG masses are willing to believe what Pennzoil said in the Q&A held here a while back( and count me in as believing ), or what Mobil 1/Castrol/Amsoil/whatever brand you wish to use, says in an e-mail response to a member who posts the info here, why does no one believe what RP says in their e-mail responses? I don't get it other than it is a clear indicator of how negative people are about that company and it's products.


Never said anyone relies on anything from anyone. Just pointing out the double standard here when it comes to RP. Posted info from other oil mfg's are generally taken as legit while stuff from RP is not even if it is copies of e-mail communications. I have been here at BITOG a long time now and I have seen it again and again.

If someone posts a response from Mobil 1, Castrol, Pennzoil, etc... the response itself may be debated a bit, but no one questions the integrity of the poster nor if the info they were given, that they posted, actually came from the oil mfg. It is just a general given what they have posted is what really was sent in e-mails. Now, if RP is involved it is a whole different set of standards. People want the CIA to verify it is legit and people such as yourself question the motives of the poster. Wow! Just wow.

As far as the base stock situation with RP tech. I have contacted them many times over the years with questions and always found them to be honest and forthright. I have even got to know a few guys from the company through various auto websites. I have never asked a question that I felt I received an untruthful answer to. They will even say don't use our product when it doesn't meet your needs( mechanical or warranty ). They have given me no reason not to believe their answers stating their oils are mostly PAO based.

As far as doubting info posted from e-mails sent to RP tech support the doubter always has the ability to e-mail the RP tech themselves and ask the same question for verification. RP tech support is great about answering questions in a timely manner to the best of their ability. They also always include their name so you know who to respond to. IF you doubt what someone posts here from RP then go to RP's website and send an e-mail to tech support through their company website addressed to the specific tech you want to ask. No easier way to verify the answer was accurate, and came from the mfg and not someone you feel has an agenda, if you doubt it.

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: fredfactory


OVERKILL is right here. Easy to see Royal P is thicker than Mobil1 when very cold. If you live in a cold climate, not sure RP is the best.


Interesting video, but I think M1 was helped somewhat by the fact that its bottle has a larger diameter pour spout. But M1 was probably also hurt by the fact that it was the HM version, which is somewhat thicker than the regular.

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: fredfactory
I'm not seeing the bias against RP that NHHEMI is seeing. Lots of people doubt some of the poo coming out of many marketing departments at many companies too. RP is not being picked on.


OMG stop. You are killing me.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
A serious question to think about( for the open minded anyway )...

Why is it that BITOG members on the whole are willing to accept answers/info from oil companies OTHER than RP on their products( like when Pennzoil did the Q&A here )but when RP tech answers a question via e-mail or makes the info available in some way to the public it is not to be believed? More than one person has e-mailed RP tech with the base stock question and received the same exact answer = most of their oils are primarily PAO. It is never believed though. RP isn't even given credit for actually answering the question which most won't do.


This seems to contradict this:

Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
I also hear people complain all the time on this site that oil companies won't reveal info on their product, like base stock type, because it is proprietary. They get mad because they won't give the info they asked for( in e-mails and they usually post what they sent and the response ).

Either they are giving us useful information or they are unwilling to give us details. It can't be both. I tend to think it is primarily the latter. ALL the oil companies are intentionally vague with the information they've provided us; name a company, they've been vague. The Q&A's have not given us any real technical insight on anything.

MOST of the information we discuss regarding products (not to be confused with anecdotes and opinion along with hyperbole and conjecture) comes from two data sources:

1. Manufacturer PDS's where we can often glean useful information about a product like:

A) Volatility and flash point
B) Low temperature performance via CCS/MRV, which can also point to types of base stocks used
C) OEM approvals carried by the specific product, which indicate a certain minimum level of performance being met

2. Manufacturer MSDS where we've discovered we can often find out base oil percentages in many products.

Royal Purple's MSDS sheets are useless for #2 and their product data sheets are missing NOACK and CCS (these things are hit and miss with other manufacturer's products too to be fair) but since all the RP API products are on one PDS, it lessens the likelihood that it will be regularly updated as information for a given product changes. There are no PDS's for any of their other product lines that tell us ANYTHING useful about those products however, and that's quite annoying.

Now of course Royal Purple is NOT alone here in providing less than useful information. The Castrol data sheets are awful as well, often citing minimums for a given spec (MRV < 60,000cP for example). But on the other hand, many of the Mobil and SOPUS data sheets are excellent! And this is the case for companies like Redline and AMSOIL, which also provide decent product data for each of their products on individual pages that can be easily updated. Their MSDS's are unfortunately, not as detailed as some of the majors though.

Motul PDS's are missing some data as well, but at least you can look them up on their German site to see if they are truly synthetic or not, LOL

 

[fredfactory]

Who cares as long as RP makes the engine run "real smooth".

Truth doesn't matter, purple dye does.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: HosteenJorje
Not any better than Mobil I or Pennzoil Ultra. Some individuals think they are getting a better oil because they pay more for it. Overpriced and over rated.

I'm splitting hairs but I'd prefer RP 0W-20 over most OTC 0W-20s including M1 and PU/PP.
But at 5 buck/qt, you can get the superior TGMO 0W-20 for that price, I'd of course pass on the sale.
At 3 bucks/qt? Sure why not if I was going through (using) a lot of 0W-20 oil.

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
A serious question to think about( for the open minded anyway )...

Why is it that BITOG members on the whole are willing to accept answers/info from oil companies OTHER than RP on their products( like when Pennzoil did the Q&A here )but when RP tech answers a question via e-mail or makes the info available in some way to the public it is not to be believed? More than one person has e-mailed RP tech with the base stock question and received the same exact answer = most of their oils are primarily PAO. It is never believed though. RP isn't even given credit for actually answering the question which most won't do.


This seems to contradict this:

Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
I also hear people complain all the time on this site that oil companies won't reveal info on their product, like base stock type, because it is proprietary. They get mad because they won't give the info they asked for( in e-mails and they usually post what they sent and the response ).

It isn't a contradiction. It is only shown as such because you have clipped out the rest of the post I made which when read together ties it all together.

In the 1st quote I am commenting on how if someone posts an e-mail response( or we have a board Q&A like they did with Pennzoil and Mobil 1 )the info/answers given are generally believed with little if any doubt that I have ever seen. When RP responds to a question in someone's e-mail, and it gets posted here, it is questioned. That is a double standard.

In the 2nd quote what I am talking about is sort of a furtherance of a point made in the 1st quote and that continues on in the 3rd paragraph you don't have quoted. People get mad when say Mobil 1 won't reveal their base stock because it is proprietary. The fact they get mad means they would have believed the answer if given one IMO. When RP reveals it uses PAO to direct questions people don't believe it and it is dumped on or the posters integrity is called into question.

Could I have worded it better? Perhaps. Am I contradicting myself? hardly. I make a fair and reasonable point about the double standard around here for RP info.

 

[NHHEMI]

Now if we want to talk about contradictory statements or perhaps hypocrisy...

Originally Posted By: fredfactory
I'm not seeing the bias against RP that NHHEMI is seeing. Lots of people doubt some of the poo coming out of many marketing departments at many companies too. RP is not being picked on.


Originally Posted By: fredfactory
Who cares as long as RP makes the engine run "real smooth".

Truth doesn't matter, purple dye does.


I guess it is hard to see bias if you don't have a mirror handy to look in there bud. And where is all this truth you talk of?

 

[kschachn]

But the video does correlate with published data to some extent, does it not?

Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
To take a page out of the RP naysayers who are always twisting things and looking for a way to discredit positive RP results...

That video is useless and proves nothing because we don't know all of the "real" variables. They only showed the temp being taken of one of the oils which incidentally was the Wal-Mart oil that did the worst. How do we know that the Amsoil, RP, and Mobil 1 were also at the same -40.6F like the Wal-Mart oil was? I know of the 3 oils the Mobil 1 had the least frost on the bottle. Maybe it was sitting out longer under heat or something? Who knows.he 4 tested ). If that is the kind of environment your engine faces then you need a block heater AND you should use 0W30 not 5W30. -40F is extreme.

 

[turtlevette]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
But the video does correlate with published data to some extent, does it not?



So its OK to accept backyard hillbilly science when it supports your view? Then reject an experienced speed shop opinion when it doesn't.

I don't see you attempting to bring any data to the table. Go over to yellowbullet or other hard core racing forums and see what they use.

 

[kschachn]

Well does it or doesn't it? The video was dismissed as not being credible, but does it contradict the published data? OVERKILL posted some numbers. Then someone posted a video that appears to agree with the numbers. The video gets decried as unprofessional and potentially inaccurate. Does that make the numbers OVERKILL posted inaccurate as well?

And why?

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: kschachn
But the video does correlate with published data to some extent, does it not?

So its OK to accept backyard hillbilly science when it supports your view? Then reject an experienced speed shop opinion when it doesn't.

I don't see you attempting to bring any data to the table. Go over to yellowbullet or other hard core racing forums and see what they use.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM

I'm splitting hairs but I'd prefer RP 0W-20 over most OTC 0W-20s including M1 and PU/PP.


Curious as to how preferring an oil that is 25,000cP heavier @ -40C can be construed as splitting hairs but obsessing over a 10cSt difference in 40C visc and describing it as massive is somehow not?

Now of course M1 0w-20 has a lower VI (173) than the RP 0w-20 (177) (likely why you prefer it) yet the difference between the two oils below 0C is significant.

This is yet another example as to why obsessing over VI is so extremely short-sighted. Without looking at MRV one would assume that the lighter oil, of the same grade, would be thinner everywhere. But this is clearly not the case.

Extrapolating MRV backwards for the two products we get:

AFE 0w-20/RP 0w-20
-40C 9200/34200
-35C 4600/17100
-30C 2300/8550
-25C 1150/4275
-20C 575/2137
-15C 288/1069

If we continue to -5C we get:
-10C 144/534
-5C 72/267.2

At some point between -15C and 40C there is a crossover and the RP product becomes slightly lighter when measured via the ASTM D-445 method (42.58cSt vs 44.8cSt @ 40C).

This underlines the importance of considering all elements of a product's performance when comparing it to a like product from another manufacturer. One could reasonably reverse the above comparison using the 0w-40's from each company and the point would be just as valid.

Now of course this doesn't factor in OEM approvals or volatility but that's outside the scope of this comparison.