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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Y_K
Pareidolia and Apophenia cover most of marketing.

Any experience, objective or subjective, with Amsoil, LE or TRC?


Hi,

I would also add logical fallacies, non-sequitur comparisons, selective inclusion/exclusion, straw arguments, anecdotal conclusions, and appeals to authority, emotional attachments, outright deception and good old fashioned political/personal agendas to round out the marketing set.

If by LE you mean Lubrication Engineers and TRC you mean Texas Refinery Corp then yes I have a great deal of experience with those 2 and with Amsoil only from my own personal experience.

(Remember, 99.5% of what I do is totally industrial and Amsoil does not have a large footprint in that arena and TRC is not something I encounter much outside of the Texoma/La. Area.)

Short answer- they are all excellent products and based on my professional experience they will all perform to the highest standards of the class lubricant you choose. (I promote and work with LE the most but that’s not because of the product performance but their overall value add. They have a full service lubrication engineering group that sets up lubrication programs and custom designs solutions for unique needs but that’s really not applicable in the topic of individual car usage)
That’s an objective opinion based on reliable and vetted examinations over a broad range of industries and applications.

Now for the “subjective” opinion (this is lubrication engineering focused but generally accurate for any testing scenario) I hope that some insight into the full spectrum lubrication engineering testing and analysis methods and what to look for may benefit some people and maybe clear up some of the mud and misunderstanding (and how to read what these claims say in light of how they determined it to make your own qualified opinion) regarding product testing and promoting.

The information is scientifically derived from testing but the observations and conclusions are mine and are not meant to be binding or anything else since I have never done a cross study to compare the data.

Qualifier

I use the standards laid out by ASTM, ASM, ISO, API and others as applicable (even when doing custom design of experiments) and go the full spectrum from the DFMEA/ functional testing/NDT/DT so they are not just ad hoc. I self-perform many and others farm out to other firms who conduct the required specialized testing so there are often several different sets of eyes on them. (Often including the affected parties because they want their witnesses present especially when I am the 3rd party called to do an impartial RCFA)

One limiting factor I point out in the testing process is the cost of the testing because that can affect the results and conclusion. Some of these cost BIG money and often times the cost of the damage/sought objective does not justify of high level testing.

(it’s like the difference between the drug store drug test versus a full blown mass spectrometer combined with gas chromatography- BELIEVE me when I tell you that this has been a complete game changer many times. That’s why I always tell people to don’t just look at the pretty report- you BETTER look at ALL the data and tests along with parameters, control points, inclusions and exclusions and a whole lot of other “stuff” otherwise that pretty chart is functionally useless for any meaningful result.)

I point this out because I am a human like everyone else here but have to maintain that professional detachment when I do my job and let the facts speak for themselves otherwise I have no more credibility than a carnival barker.

Baseline Data and “rules of engagement”

This needs to be the first thing anyone does before they even begin to make a product statement. You have to separate the “product” from everything else that adversely affects the product. A lot of people hold the mistaken belief that an oil is some kind of “miracle liquid” that does everything by itself- the truth is that the oil is only 1/3 of the tribology triangle and can easily be overcome by the other 2 and then there are external factors beyond tribology that have an effect as well. If you are the type who doesn’t blame a dog for barking because that’s what they do then it’s equally unfair to praise (or condemn) an oil for failing to deliver desired results when all the forces of physics combined with “human factors” that make it impossible to do what it was designed to do.

In my lingo, if you call the oil the “failure mode” then you need to identify the “failure mechanisms” that created the failure state of the oil to see exactly where the fault lies. Results may be surprising.

1) Even though they contribute to the failure and need to be assessed, I exclude “human factors” from a technical analysis simply because they are beyond the product. If you are a fan of the 100k mile OC it’s really hard to blame the oil for failing. This is why I always start with a system review because many times PM schedules do not meet the service requirements, business decisions (often procurement types who buy on price point rather than application requirements) and plain old arrogant ignorance where they use what they “think” rather than what a machine really needs.

2) OEM/Standard Testing Vs. Field Testing. A lot of people promote that a product meets or exceeds this or that. Everybody wants to claim they are higher on a ladder than everyone else. Even when true, that’s at best pseudo-science and at worst can be the cause of failure itself. All these standards exist to compare a given product to a “universal “laboratory standard. This may or may not be applicable to your individual situation. The reason companies publish this data is caveat emptor and legal protection. If they (the OEM) conduct a test and you (the end user) do not make sure this test is applicable in your application they will come back and tell you that’s not their problem. This is where lubrication application engineering comes in. I have found in many cases that to meet application requirements that I have to spec out a product that scores higher in 1 or 2 specific categories regardless of everything else. (Or go to the vendor and brew a special recipe but that’s beyond the scope of this post because the average car owner does not have this option available)
3) The machine itself- Let me tell you the truth about machine design and manufacturing from one that had done it from the concept all the way through the decommissioning. All mass produced machines are produced to a design standard with a range of acceptability. You can have a machine at the tight end, loose end or all over the place. (I’m talking in terms of fit, bore alignments, dimensions, roundness and everything else) This can create a wear pattern and failure path from day 1 that no oil can prevent. This is why under PAS 55 and the new ISO 55000 standards and the AMI strongly promote equipment management programs that start at the manufacturer that demand strict adherence all the way through the casting, machining, HT/CT processes and final assembly and ending with strict baseline testing (temperature controlled metrology, vibration, run in and so forth) before it will even be considered for purchase. This is the true beginning of the asset lifecycle management process and the baseline for all future cost management because no amount of maintenance, TLC, emu oil or anything else can overcome the dynamic forces of a given machine that is engineered and built to sloppy tolerances. Again, this is well beyond the ability of the average car owner. I’m not going to even touch on up front engineering and design but if that’s wrong the machine is hopeless and beyond the scope of this post.

4) External forces- In the automotive world there are few forces that are not widely known and recognized. Excessive temperatures (hot and cold), particulate contamination (mostly silica from dust and maybe road salts and a few others), intrusion from glycol, solvents/soot from fuel and maybe transmission fluid to name a few are the most common. In industry, any number and concentrations of process particulates, chemicals and temperatures will be encountered. Even when the oil chemistry accounts for them, the ratio of volume of oil vs. the amount of contamination multiplied by time may be more than oil can overcome. (This may be mitigated by a different change protocol) That’s a hard thing to capture measure and correlate to the life expectancy of any oil. Regardless, it’s unfair to blame the oil when it’s simply overwhelmed by these things.

5) Bad Batching- Every manufacturer has made a bad batch of something and QA/QC didn’t catch it before it went out the door. Granted they are responsible for the damage but if that’s a truly isolated incident then it should not be counted against the product proper. (This would not cover or remove liability from the event itself)
Those are the most common things I have seen.

So, when I remove those 5 baselines and look at the oil proper, my subjective opinion is that I can count the number of true “oil failures” I have experienced on both hands with a few fingers remaining. Thus is why I am vendor neutral and am comfortable telling anyone that any quality product (that meets the application) will perform satisfactorily.

When I measure product claims against those baselines, my subjective opinion is that for the most part ( there are a few exceptions) they are all meaningless because if the test criteria doesn’t match the end use application and address the specific data points I need then the test was worthless.
 
Which is why i just bought Formula Shell at $13/jug (thank you Home Depot) for the 2.4 Sonata's next change. Meets mfc specs.
 
Originally Posted By: ccapital83
I saw somethings about it like, getting thick in under 6,000 mile intervals, unusual wear,


can you provide links to these reviews? Maybe we could help you evaluate the quality of the opinion.
 
Originally Posted By: SilverC6
A bit defensive about RP here, aren't we?

So if RP is no better or no worse than other oils, why pay the premium?

It's certainly your perogative to buy what you want.

But if there is no definitive proof that RP is "better", why pay a premium of 50% to 100% more for the privilege of using it?

The same can be said for "boutique" oils from any blender or manufacturer.

Is it innovation, superior base stocks, more horsepower, or slick marketing that you are paying for?


In my opinion the price premium is probably due to RP being predominantly PAO based oil. Now will it make a difference in wear? Who knows! Your guess would be as good as mine. Its like buying a pair of trousers, one's from Banana Republic are probably going to be more expensive than GAP even though they are owned by the same parent company but will function just as same. The more expensive ones are probably made from better quality materials.
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
You mean you wish more people picked an oil based on website testimonials, random emails with the company, emotion, and because your engine "likes" it?

Use what you want, but I'll take a manufacturer's PDS any day over the things I listed. And BTW it isn't based on a UOA or VOA either.

Originally Posted By: deven
I wish more people on this board would think the way you do. Picking an oil by whats on paper is so rampant on BITOG that it makes me miss the old days of this forum.

You can choose an oil by their PDS. I choose my oil by direct teardowns of other engines and how that particular oil performed in it. This is how I have come to choose my oil. It will always trump any PDS I ever see. Your money, your choice buddy.
 
Well I'm just as much a data geek as anyone else, I would love to see those direct teardown results especially if they make a comparative test between other motor oils ran in identical test engines. That would be data we have rarely seen here on BITOG. Did you do these tests yourself or where did you see the results?

Originally Posted By: deven
You can choose an oil by their PDS. I choose my oil by direct teardowns of other engines and how that particular oil performed in it. This is how I have come to choose my oil. It will always trump any PDS I ever see. Your money, your choice buddy.
 
Originally Posted By: deven
Originally Posted By: SilverC6
A bit defensive about RP here, aren't we?

So if RP is no better or no worse than other oils, why pay the premium?

It's certainly your perogative to buy what you want.

But if there is no definitive proof that RP is "better", why pay a premium of 50% to 100% more for the privilege of using it?

The same can be said for "boutique" oils from any blender or manufacturer.

Is it innovation, superior base stocks, more horsepower, or slick marketing that you are paying for?


In my opinion the price premium is probably due to RP being predominantly PAO based oil. Now will it make a difference in wear? Who knows! Your guess would be as good as mine. Its like buying a pair of trousers, one's from Banana Republic are probably going to be more expensive than GAP even though they are owned by the same parent company but will function just as same. The more expensive ones are probably made from better quality materials.


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)
21.gif


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
21.gif


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.
 
Thanks for posting that ISO55000, some of us need to be reminded of logical fallacies of their own doing, me being guilty at times, like you point out. I consider myself one NOT to be dooped into a fallacy, but on forums like this, it just happens as i am nowhere near an expert on tribology. I am part of growing movement of 'real science'.
 
Dysfunctional Science

Science is at a tipping point because, having fragmented into specialties and sub-specialties, it is no longer equipped to deal with falsifying data. The barricades of technical jargon and self-serving politics prevent the specialists from seeing what would be all too obvious from a higher vantage point. Such a system is averse to outside challenges by ‘those who transcend the conventional,’ and leading authorities feel free to ignore them. Of course, before the modern barriers went up, crucial scientific contributions were accepted from many ‘outsiders’ like William Herschel and Michael Faraday, those who “may be free of current dogmas and prejudices, able to see the world with fresh eyes.” [Albert Einstein] Few universities have shown the courage to insist on a broad and balanced picture of present knowledge or an even-handed comparison of theoretical assumptions and available alternatives. To apply such basic standards today would risk discrediting entire departments.
Dysfunctional Education

In truth we could be as far from a meaningful “theory of everything” as stone-age man was from setting foot on the Moon. Our universities foster narrow, theoretical lockstep. Essential self-correction would require the opposite, a broader horizon, with an eye to ideas and critical facts across many disciplinary boundaries. That would, in fact, mean a return to the interdisciplinary ways of natural philosophy. Knowledge should be open to criticism, and criticism should not be limited to one’s closest peers. It is one of the worst failings of modern education that students are not encouraged to cultivate critical thinking or to explore broader possibilities. Today’s ‘good student’ is asked to conform, to absorb pre-packaged knowledge much like modern fast food. But instead of certainties, we should be feeding students with doubts and mysteries, for they stimulate the imagination and motivate individual research. That is the way to achieve breakthroughs.

Research Funding

Consensus science and the desperate need to publish papers in a few ‘recognized’ journals drives peer-review censorship, selective data publication, confirmatory bias, and in some cases fraud. Requests for research funding should be subject to public cross-examination. If the research cannot be explained and justified to well-educated arbitrators, drawing upon qualified criticism, what is the basis for confidence in today’s multi-billion dollar scientific adventures? “Trust us, we’re the experts,” is not acceptable. Blind trust has led to misbegotten multi-billion dollar projects like the $9 billion Large Hadron Collider and the $16 billion, 30 year long International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), which when viewed critically, fall far short of the scientific justification the public has every right to expect.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: fredfactory
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
....................................... I started using it when I was young and heavily into muscle cars and hot rods and it was definitely a superior product( base stock, additives, wear protection, etc... ). I have continued using it even after getting out of that side of the automotive world because RP oils are a quality product and that is what I want to use. I like how my vehicles run with it( smooth and quiet )and I get good results( i.e. protection and wear ).

The RP bashing here just goes too far. NO respect for the product( based on NOTHING! )and no respect for those who sue it.


First of all, RP came into existence in 1986, at a time when Mobil1 and Amsoil was dominant in the synthetic world. I doubt if RP was better than those two at that time. And when Pennz, Havoline, Valvo, Castrol etc. came on the market, RP still failed to distinguish itself.

The fact that your engines are "smooth and quiet" etc. doesn't mean any good synth oil from 1986 to the present wouldn't have given you the same results.

One fact thats kind of cool about RP is from http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a8715/royal-purple-its-the-additives-stupid/ where they point out that RP makes its own additives. While that is cool, I actually think getting an additive package from Lubrizol or Afton results in a high quality synth oil too.


Nothing I say will matter to you it is clear. You are like so many here with a set in stone attitude that RP is just no good. Continue to harp away I am not going to respond further. If you ever want to discuss RP with an open mind that is different.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: zpinch
Dysfunctional Science

Science is at a tipping point because, having fragmented into specialties and sub-specialties, it is no longer equipped to deal with falsifying data. The barricades of technical jargon and self-serving politics prevent the specialists from seeing what would be all too obvious from a higher vantage point. Such a system is averse to outside challenges by ‘those who transcend the conventional,’ and leading authorities feel free to ignore them. Of course, before the modern barriers went up, crucial scientific contributions were accepted from many ‘outsiders’ like William Herschel and Michael Faraday, those who “may be free of current dogmas and prejudices, able to see the world with fresh eyes.” [Albert Einstein] Few universities have shown the courage to insist on a broad and balanced picture of present knowledge or an even-handed comparison of theoretical assumptions and available alternatives. To apply such basic standards today would risk discrediting entire departments.
Dysfunctional Education

In truth we could be as far from a meaningful “theory of everything” as stone-age man was from setting foot on the Moon. Our universities foster narrow, theoretical lockstep. Essential self-correction would require the opposite, a broader horizon, with an eye to ideas and critical facts across many disciplinary boundaries. That would, in fact, mean a return to the interdisciplinary ways of natural philosophy. Knowledge should be open to criticism, and criticism should not be limited to one’s closest peers. It is one of the worst failings of modern education that students are not encouraged to cultivate critical thinking or to explore broader possibilities. Today’s ‘good student’ is asked to conform, to absorb pre-packaged knowledge much like modern fast food. But instead of certainties, we should be feeding students with doubts and mysteries, for they stimulate the imagination and motivate individual research. That is the way to achieve breakthroughs.

Research Funding

Consensus science and the desperate need to publish papers in a few ‘recognized’ journals drives peer-review censorship, selective data publication, confirmatory bias, and in some cases fraud. Requests for research funding should be subject to public cross-examination. If the research cannot be explained and justified to well-educated arbitrators, drawing upon qualified criticism, what is the basis for confidence in today’s multi-billion dollar scientific adventures? “Trust us, we’re the experts,” is not acceptable. Blind trust has led to misbegotten multi-billion dollar projects like the $9 billion Large Hadron Collider and the $16 billion, 30 year long International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), which when viewed critically, fall far short of the scientific justification the public has every right to expect.


This is a very cynical view of science. It sounds like it was pulled from an anti-evolution or anti-global warming web site, written to make the reader doubt currently accepted science, and instead accept it's own false version. I am in the science field, and this is not a fair representation. I am sure the author is trying to sell you something.

I also fail to see how this is relevant to discussion about RP.
 
Originally Posted By: zpinch
Thanks for posting that ISO55000, some of us need to be reminded of logical fallacies of their own doing, me being guilty at times, like you point out. I consider myself one NOT to be dooped into a fallacy, but on forums like this, it just happens as i am nowhere near an expert on tribology. I am part of growing movement of 'real science'.


Its a constant effort to force yourself to maintain a high degree of objectivity but I am no longer subject to such human failings as you mere mortals experience since I devoted myself to logic and reason.

Now I spend most of my time wishing people would not stare at me funny, tell me I look like the devil and pointing at my ears.

I guess we can add the law of unintended consequence to the mix.

Live long and prosper
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Well I'm just as much a data geek as anyone else, I would love to see those direct teardown results especially if they make a comparative test between other motor oils ran in identical test engines. That would be data we have rarely seen here on BITOG. Did you do these tests yourself or where did you see the results?

Originally Posted By: deven
You can choose an oil by their PDS. I choose my oil by direct teardowns of other engines and how that particular oil performed in it. This is how I have come to choose my oil. It will always trump any PDS I ever see. Your money, your choice buddy.


crackmeup2.gif
crackmeup2.gif
crackmeup2.gif
crackmeup2.gif


I am not laughing at you personally kschachn just FYI. It is just that what you posted made me laugh. We have had your EXACT request/scenario posted here before and the RP naysayers still twisted, manipulated, and discredited it despite photographic proof RP did a great job. Note I am not saying it showed RP to be the best or anything like that. Just that it showed it performed well.

There was a thread with photos of Mustang cams that were out of cars run hard( drags and "spirited" use on the street as I recall - deven will probably remember better ). It compared the wear of the cam(s) run on RP to the cam(s) run on M1. While both oils did their job and protected the cams to a satisfactory level the RP cam lobes were shiny, unmarred, and like new while the M1 cam lobes had some visible scarring/wear even in a photo. Nothing dangerous or anything but clearly RP protected better.

Despite the clear proof that the RP did a great job( and that is all the thread was about, it wasn't to say M1 was no good )it made no difference. The detractors twisted and turned everything around to discredit the fine job RP did. They really jumped on the fact that wear was measured with calipers which really can't be used accurately in that situations. The measurements were just put out there to show the RP cams showed less "hand measured" wear. That became the rallying cry for the haters. That discredited the clear visual evidence.

In the end the photos clearly showed, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the RP did an excellent job at protecting the cams from wear. Didn't matter though. On this site RP is never any good and is never right. A classic example of this is how RP was bashed as inferior all those years when it was API SL and SM was out. It was not as good only being SL. "If RP ever comes out with an API SM I might try it but until then I will stick with better oils" was the naysayers company line. Then when API SN came out RP came out with a new oil line that was API SN certified. Did the naysayers give it a chance and try it as they said they would? NOOOO! Suddenly the new oil was no good because it didn't have Synerlec like the old SL formula did. Suddenly RP was bad for meeting current spec and the old formula was now good? I mean WTH???? RP just can't win here.

Should a similar thread ever get started I guarantee you the same situation will develop. You might be open minded and willing to give RP a shot but most won't no matter what is posted.

Like deven I too have torn down a lot of engines run solely on RP( drag engines mainly )and it is amazing how well their oil protected the internal components. To be fair I should point out the engines I tore down were run on the old API SL formula and a couple using the XPR stuff. I have not torn down an engine using the new HPS( very similar though to the old SPI SL )or API oils. We actually started increasing the tear down intervals because it was clear that we were doing it too soon.

I realize this will all be dismissed as emotional and anecdotal evidence but for me what I see with my own eyes trumps any data sheets as deven says. I also know that my "fanboy status" is at least based off actual product use. I don't run around praising it without having experience to back it up unlike most naysayers here. I really hope you are as open minded as you say if the chance ever arises for you.

cheers3.gif
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Well I'm just as much a data geek as anyone else, I would love to see those direct teardown results especially if they make a comparative test between other motor oils ran in identical test engines. That would be data we have rarely seen here on BITOG. Did you do these tests yourself or where did you see the results?

Originally Posted By: deven
You can choose an oil by their PDS. I choose my oil by direct teardowns of other engines and how that particular oil performed in it. This is how I have come to choose my oil. It will always trump any PDS I ever see. Your money, your choice buddy.

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.
 
Originally Posted By: deven
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Well I'm just as much a data geek as anyone else, I would love to see those direct teardown results especially if they make a comparative test between other motor oils ran in identical test engines. That would be data we have rarely seen here on BITOG. Did you do these tests yourself or where did you see the results?

Originally Posted By: deven
You can choose an oil by their PDS. I choose my oil by direct teardowns of other engines and how that particular oil performed in it. This is how I have come to choose my oil. It will always trump any PDS I ever see. Your money, your choice buddy.

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.


But deven you are just talking anecdotal and emotional evidence here. I mean how can you even begin to try and base your opinion on what you actually see working with engines to all of the hard facts and evidence the naysayers use to trash the stuff.

You and I are blind and stupid. All these years using the stuff because it has worked so well is not a valid reason to continue to use it. Instead we should base our opinions and what we use for oil on internet [censored] like the BITOG elite do. Well that and the oil's color and price. Lord knows if it is not amber and if it can't be bought at Wal-Mart in a 5qt jug for $5 p/qt it is no good.

crackmeup2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: deven
Originally Posted By: SilverC6
A bit defensive about RP here, aren't we?

So if RP is no better or no worse than other oils, why pay the premium?

It's certainly your perogative to buy what you want.

But if there is no definitive proof that RP is "better", why pay a premium of 50% to 100% more for the privilege of using it?

The same can be said for "boutique" oils from any blender or manufacturer.

Is it innovation, superior base stocks, more horsepower, or slick marketing that you are paying for?


In my opinion the price premium is probably due to RP being predominantly PAO based oil. Now will it make a difference in wear? Who knows! Your guess would be as good as mine. Its like buying a pair of trousers, one's from Banana Republic are probably going to be more expensive than GAP even though they are owned by the same parent company but will function just as same. The more expensive ones are probably made from better quality materials.


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)
21.gif


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
21.gif


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.
 
Well, OK so here we go again. Just like the "evidence" that the makeup of RP oils is predominately PAO is/was revealed to you in a personal email, the evidence of teardown results are based on your personal experience and interpretation.

Really, that is a meaningless answer. So there are no numbers, no data, no nothing that shows "RP against M1 (insert competitor's oil here) vs. xxx in X motor comparison" or any such thing. I wish you did, at least we would have something worthwhile to discuss here instead of endless bickering about personal perception.

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.
 
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Originally Posted By: deven
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Well I'm just as much a data geek as anyone else, I would love to see those direct teardown results especially if they make a comparative test between other motor oils ran in identical test engines. That would be data we have rarely seen here on BITOG. Did you do these tests yourself or where did you see the results?

Originally Posted By: deven
You can choose an oil by their PDS. I choose my oil by direct teardowns of other engines and how that particular oil performed in it. This is how I have come to choose my oil. It will always trump any PDS I ever see. Your money, your choice buddy.

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.


But deven you are just talking anecdotal and emotional evidence here. I mean how can you even begin to try and base your opinion on what you actually see working with engines to all of the hard facts and evidence the naysayers use to trash the stuff.

You and I are blind and stupid. All these years using the stuff because it has worked so well is not a valid reason to continue to use it. Instead we should base our opinions and what we use for oil on internet [censored] like the BITOG elite do. Well that and the oil's color and price. Lord knows if it is not amber and if it can't be bought at Wal-Mart in a 5qt jug for $5 p/qt it is no good.
crackmeup2.gif


I know right!! I had a guy come in the other day with his Lexus on a bed who was racing his car on TGMO 0w20 and his lobes and bearings were wiped. But because TGMO does so well on paper here, people would have an aneurysm if I said anything bad!
 
Originally Posted By: zpinch
Thanks for posting that ISO55000, some of us need to be reminded of logical fallacies of their own doing, me being guilty at times, like you point out. I consider myself one NOT to be dooped into a fallacy, but on forums like this, it just happens as i am nowhere near an expert on tribology. I am part of growing movement of 'real science'.


People doubting peer-review science because an internet blowhard tells them there are problems with peer-reviewed science. Without even looking at the peer-reviewed science or seriously considering it.
People not doubting the internet blowhard.
People accepting the internet blowhard's version of scientific laws, which is subject to zero scientific scrutiny, since it takes exactly zero scientific scrutiny to publish a web site or book.

That seems like a huge logical fallacy to me.
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Well, OK so here we go again. Just like the "evidence" that the makeup of RP oils is predominately PAO is/was revealed to you in a personal email, the evidence of teardown results are based on your personal experience and interpretation.

Really, that is a meaningless answer. So there are no numbers, no data, nothing that shows "RP against M1 xxx in X motor" or any such thing. I wish you did, at least we would have something worthwhile to discuss here instead of endless bickering about personal perception.

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.

Yes you are right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top