Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
^^^Just say Thank You Mori!
Lol...thanks Moribundman!
^^^Just say Thank You Mori!
Lol...thanks Moribundman!
Royal Purple research giving me a panic attack????
- Thread starter ccapital83
- Start date
- Status
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
or because they read some data sheet and "think" it is subpar or mediocre?
I am only going to take issue with this part of your post. The PDS data is provided by the manufacturers of the products. It has no bias or opinion associated with it, it is simply data, data that can be compared to competing products and carries with it no agenda.
The PDS data provided by Royal Purple clearly indicates that some of their products have exceptional cold temperature performance and some of their products have mediocre cold temperature performance. That is not an opinion, it is a fact. Ergo, I do not "think" this, it is clearly demonstrated in their PDS data when contrasted to products from other manufacturers. Trying to marginalize this fact because it doesn't align with your opinion of the product does nothing but undermine the point you are trying to make.
This is not the same as saying the product is bad or voicing opinion about the colour, their marketing....etc. It is just a simple numbers-based comparison of data provided by RP and its competitors. This data demonstrates the cold temperature performance of the products and on that parameter, there are better deals than certain products in the Royal Purple product line. On the other hand, there were also examples in that same product portfolio that demonstrated exceptional performance making them top of the heap.
It is a matter of taking the good with the bad. They have some stand-outs (like their 0w-40) and some comparatively poor performers (like their 0w-20). This is the same for any manufacturer. That's why it is nice to have these numbers to look at to help one make an educated decision rather than basing their choice on marketing madness or the opinion of others which may be based on things like bias against lubricant colour or marketing style.
or because they read some data sheet and "think" it is subpar or mediocre?
I am only going to take issue with this part of your post. The PDS data is provided by the manufacturers of the products. It has no bias or opinion associated with it, it is simply data, data that can be compared to competing products and carries with it no agenda.
The PDS data provided by Royal Purple clearly indicates that some of their products have exceptional cold temperature performance and some of their products have mediocre cold temperature performance. That is not an opinion, it is a fact. Ergo, I do not "think" this, it is clearly demonstrated in their PDS data when contrasted to products from other manufacturers. Trying to marginalize this fact because it doesn't align with your opinion of the product does nothing but undermine the point you are trying to make.
This is not the same as saying the product is bad or voicing opinion about the colour, their marketing....etc. It is just a simple numbers-based comparison of data provided by RP and its competitors. This data demonstrates the cold temperature performance of the products and on that parameter, there are better deals than certain products in the Royal Purple product line. On the other hand, there were also examples in that same product portfolio that demonstrated exceptional performance making them top of the heap.
It is a matter of taking the good with the bad. They have some stand-outs (like their 0w-40) and some comparatively poor performers (like their 0w-20). This is the same for any manufacturer. That's why it is nice to have these numbers to look at to help one make an educated decision rather than basing their choice on marketing madness or the opinion of others which may be based on things like bias against lubricant colour or marketing style.
Originally Posted By: 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.
You're obsession over MRV and CCS differences between oils when the spec's have ZERO relevance to the OP and 99.99% of the rest of us is curious. Furthermore, trying to guesstimate viscosities by extrapolating north from -40 degrees simply doesn't work with any sort of consistency therefore it can't be relied upon at all.
What does have relevancy to every user is cold start-up viscosity at more typical start-up temp's and RP 0W-20's KV40 of 42.6cSt is noticeably lower than the 45.8cSt (not the PDS typo of 44.8) of M1 0W-20.
So yes I do prefer RP over M1 if the price was the same.
Of course since TGMO is`superior to both at a bargain price I would buy either.
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.
You're obsession over MRV and CCS differences between oils when the spec's have ZERO relevance to the OP and 99.99% of the rest of us is curious. Furthermore, trying to guesstimate viscosities by extrapolating north from -40 degrees simply doesn't work with any sort of consistency therefore it can't be relied upon at all.
What does have relevancy to every user is cold start-up viscosity at more typical start-up temp's and RP 0W-20's KV40 of 42.6cSt is noticeably lower than the 45.8cSt (not the PDS typo of 44.8) of M1 0W-20.
So yes I do prefer RP over M1 if the price was the same.
Of course since TGMO is`superior to both at a bargain price I would buy either.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
You're obsession over MRV and CCS differences between oils when the spec's have ZERO relevance to the OP and 99.99% of the rest of us is curious.
I think it is decidedly less curious than your obsession with VI, which is based on a whopping two data points with very little change between them when compared to the massive range encapsulated by the difference in visc from the CCS/MRV measuring temperatures and operating temperature.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Furthermore, trying to guesstimate viscosities by extrapolating north from -40 degrees simply doesn't work with any sort of consistency therefore it can't be relied upon at all.
Actually, since it has been noted by a number of tribologists on this site in the past as being a reasonable way to compare lower temp visc, and this is backed by a number of product data sheets that show this works, it is certainly a lot better than pretending that the values calculated from VI somehow magically extend below OC when the tribologists have stated that they don't.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
What does have relevancy to every user is cold start-up viscosity at more typical start-up temp's and RP 0W-20's KV40 of 42.6cSt is noticeably lower than the 45.8cSt (not the PDS typo of 44.8) of M1 0W-20.
So 3cSt is a "relevant difference" but 25,000cP, or even 1,000cP if we get closer to 0C is irrelevant? LOL!!!
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
So yes I do prefer RP over M1 if the price was the same.
Of course since TGMO is`superior to both at a bargain price I would buy either.
Yeah, the superiority clearly demonstrated by the zero manufacturer approvals and a completely group III base oil. AWESOME SAUCE!!!
Speaking of obsessions......
You're obsession over MRV and CCS differences between oils when the spec's have ZERO relevance to the OP and 99.99% of the rest of us is curious.
I think it is decidedly less curious than your obsession with VI, which is based on a whopping two data points with very little change between them when compared to the massive range encapsulated by the difference in visc from the CCS/MRV measuring temperatures and operating temperature.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Furthermore, trying to guesstimate viscosities by extrapolating north from -40 degrees simply doesn't work with any sort of consistency therefore it can't be relied upon at all.
Actually, since it has been noted by a number of tribologists on this site in the past as being a reasonable way to compare lower temp visc, and this is backed by a number of product data sheets that show this works, it is certainly a lot better than pretending that the values calculated from VI somehow magically extend below OC when the tribologists have stated that they don't.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
What does have relevancy to every user is cold start-up viscosity at more typical start-up temp's and RP 0W-20's KV40 of 42.6cSt is noticeably lower than the 45.8cSt (not the PDS typo of 44.8) of M1 0W-20.
So 3cSt is a "relevant difference" but 25,000cP, or even 1,000cP if we get closer to 0C is irrelevant? LOL!!!
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
So yes I do prefer RP over M1 if the price was the same.
Of course since TGMO is`superior to both at a bargain price I would buy either.
Yeah, the superiority clearly demonstrated by the zero manufacturer approvals and a completely group III base oil. AWESOME SAUCE!!!
Speaking of obsessions......
Correction, I meant to say,
"...since TGMO is superior to both at a bargain price I would buy neither."
"...since TGMO is superior to both at a bargain price I would buy neither."
Originally Posted By: Tony10s
I don't pay much attention to marketing either ... I use what I want to use, be it Quaker State, Pennzoil, Valvoline, Castrol, Havoline, etc (synthetic or conventional). I would use RP also, but I would only buy it if it was on sale.
Agreed, and everything is geographical. If I had to buy oil at retail prices without sales, RP fits between M1 and M1 EP here. That's not bad. My supplier gives it to me at a good cost, too. So, if it is affordable and one likes the company, go right ahead. If one doesn't, then don't. Basically, for comparison's sake, RP 0w-40 is a good bargain in comparison to M1 0w-40 here, generally speaking. It's a darned poor bargain in comparison to Delvac 1.
I don't pay much attention to marketing either ... I use what I want to use, be it Quaker State, Pennzoil, Valvoline, Castrol, Havoline, etc (synthetic or conventional). I would use RP also, but I would only buy it if it was on sale.
Agreed, and everything is geographical. If I had to buy oil at retail prices without sales, RP fits between M1 and M1 EP here. That's not bad. My supplier gives it to me at a good cost, too. So, if it is affordable and one likes the company, go right ahead. If one doesn't, then don't. Basically, for comparison's sake, RP 0w-40 is a good bargain in comparison to M1 0w-40 here, generally speaking. It's a darned poor bargain in comparison to Delvac 1.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
You're obsession over MRV and CCS differences between oils when the spec's have ZERO relevance to the OP and 99.99% of the rest of us is curious.
I think it is decidedly less curious than your obsession with VI, which is based on a whopping two data points with very little change between them when compared to the massive range encapsulated by the difference in visc from the CCS/MRV measuring temperatures and operating temperature.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Furthermore, trying to guesstimate viscosities by extrapolating north from -40 degrees simply doesn't work with any sort of consistency therefore it can't be relied upon at all.
Actually, since it has been noted by a number of tribologists on this site in the past as being a reasonable way to compare lower temp visc, and this is backed by a number of product data sheets that show this works, it is certainly a lot better than pretending that the values calculated from VI somehow magically extend below OC when the tribologists have stated that they don't.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
What does have relevancy to every user is cold start-up viscosity at more typical start-up temp's and RP 0W-20's KV40 of 42.6cSt is noticeably lower than the 45.8cSt (not the PDS typo of 44.8) of M1 0W-20.
So 3cSt is a "relevant difference" but 25,000cP, or even 1,000cP if we get closer to 0C is irrelevant? LOL!!!
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
So yes I do prefer RP over M1 if the price was the same.
Of course since TGMO is`superior to both at a bargain price I would buy either.
Yeah, the superiority clearly demonstrated by the zero manufacturer approvals and a completely group III base oil. AWESOME SAUCE!!!
Speaking of obsessions......
Nice try but using using your simplistic "halving formula" would make M1 0W-20 lighter than Sustina 0W-20 even at -35C when in fact the opposite is the case. And extrapolating further things get even further out of whack since Sustina is a whopping 50% lighter at 0C than M1.
And yes TGMO which is 40% lighter than M1 at 0C is clearly superior to 99.99% of users where MRV has ZERO relevance. And TGMO is approved for every manufacturer that specifies an API 0W-20 which is all the Japanese manufacturers.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
You're obsession over MRV and CCS differences between oils when the spec's have ZERO relevance to the OP and 99.99% of the rest of us is curious.
I think it is decidedly less curious than your obsession with VI, which is based on a whopping two data points with very little change between them when compared to the massive range encapsulated by the difference in visc from the CCS/MRV measuring temperatures and operating temperature.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Furthermore, trying to guesstimate viscosities by extrapolating north from -40 degrees simply doesn't work with any sort of consistency therefore it can't be relied upon at all.
Actually, since it has been noted by a number of tribologists on this site in the past as being a reasonable way to compare lower temp visc, and this is backed by a number of product data sheets that show this works, it is certainly a lot better than pretending that the values calculated from VI somehow magically extend below OC when the tribologists have stated that they don't.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
What does have relevancy to every user is cold start-up viscosity at more typical start-up temp's and RP 0W-20's KV40 of 42.6cSt is noticeably lower than the 45.8cSt (not the PDS typo of 44.8) of M1 0W-20.
So 3cSt is a "relevant difference" but 25,000cP, or even 1,000cP if we get closer to 0C is irrelevant? LOL!!!
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
So yes I do prefer RP over M1 if the price was the same.
Of course since TGMO is`superior to both at a bargain price I would buy either.
Yeah, the superiority clearly demonstrated by the zero manufacturer approvals and a completely group III base oil. AWESOME SAUCE!!!
Speaking of obsessions......
Nice try but using using your simplistic "halving formula" would make M1 0W-20 lighter than Sustina 0W-20 even at -35C when in fact the opposite is the case. And extrapolating further things get even further out of whack since Sustina is a whopping 50% lighter at 0C than M1.
And yes TGMO which is 40% lighter than M1 at 0C is clearly superior to 99.99% of users where MRV has ZERO relevance. And TGMO is approved for every manufacturer that specifies an API 0W-20 which is all the Japanese manufacturers.
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: Tony10s
I don't pay much attention to marketing either ... I use what I want to use, be it Quaker State, Pennzoil, Valvoline, Castrol, Havoline, etc (synthetic or conventional). I would use RP also, but I would only buy it if it was on sale.
Agreed, and everything is geographical. If I had to buy oil at retail prices without sales, RP fits between M1 and M1 EP here. That's not bad. My supplier gives it to me at a good cost, too. So, if it is affordable and one likes the company, go right ahead. If one doesn't, then don't. Basically, for comparison's sake, RP 0w-40 is a good bargain in comparison to M1 0w-40 here, generally speaking. It's a darned poor bargain in comparison to Delvac 1.
Yeah, I forget that the prices are different for you where you are in Canada. Here, RP is the most expensive oil on the shelf (except for the recent sale I noticed on the 0W-20 oil). Right now, Mobil 1 and Mobil 1 EP are priced the same at WM in my area ... so, if I had to choose between RP and the Mobil 1 oils, I would choose Mobil 1 EP. But right now, I don't need to buy any oil anyway.
Originally Posted By: Tony10s
I don't pay much attention to marketing either ... I use what I want to use, be it Quaker State, Pennzoil, Valvoline, Castrol, Havoline, etc (synthetic or conventional). I would use RP also, but I would only buy it if it was on sale.
Agreed, and everything is geographical. If I had to buy oil at retail prices without sales, RP fits between M1 and M1 EP here. That's not bad. My supplier gives it to me at a good cost, too. So, if it is affordable and one likes the company, go right ahead. If one doesn't, then don't. Basically, for comparison's sake, RP 0w-40 is a good bargain in comparison to M1 0w-40 here, generally speaking. It's a darned poor bargain in comparison to Delvac 1.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2006
- Messages
- 2,326
M1 0W-20 is better because of it's PAO content; at least that's what I've been reading here lately...
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Nice try but using using your simplistic "halving formula" would make M1 0W-20 lighter than Sustina 0W-20 even at -35C
OK, you need to explain your logic here.
According to this thread:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2818344
The MRV for Sustina 0w-20 is 9,620cP.
According to this PDS:
https://mobiloil.com/en/motor-oils/mobil-1/mobil-1-advanced-fuel-economy
The MRV for M1 0w-20 is 9,200cP
So yes, the MRV for the Mobil 1 product is lower. What data do you have that contradicts this? Or is going to be one of your typical claims where you never present anything to support it?
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
when in fact the opposite is the case.
So, if this is a fact, can you please present a data sheet or MRV data at temperatures above -40C that supports your claim. Your claim, you need to back it up. You saying something is or isn't the case is nowhere near enough here.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
And extrapolating further things get even further out of whack since Sustina is a whopping 50% lighter at 0C than M1.
According to what, your VI calculator? I doubt you have actual visc measurements for both lubricants, am I right? Also, we've seen data sheets that support halving up to -15C, I'm sure above that (and I've stated as such) there is our crossover where the polymers take over and and the oil becomes thinner at a faster rate. This would make sense when comparing a PAO-based lubricant which is relying on the natural VI of the base stocks, which will have a much more linear viscosity plot than something that is using lighter bases and more VII.
Apply some logic and common sense here CATERHAM. Shannow has shown the plot of two base oils with the same VI, one being PAO the other being Group III and the difference in how they plotted below 0C was dramatic. Apply the same plotting technique to these products and it is very easy to see why two oils will yield very different curves depending on how they are based even if the one that has the more dramatic thickening is actually thinner above 0C and has a higher VI.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
And yes TGMO which is 40% lighter than M1 at 0C is clearly superior to 99.99% of users where MRV has ZERO relevance. And TGMO is approved for every manufacturer that specifies an API 0W-20 which is all the Japanese manufacturers.
You must be an awesome salesman, I love how you switch over to percentages to make numbers sound bigger, LOL! You'll downplay the 25,000cP difference between the RP 0w-20 and M1 0w-20 (and Sustina 0w-20 and probably many others) but you'll hype up a calculated visc value by converting to a percentage so that a number like 10cSt all of a sudden sounds far larger than it is.
TGMO has the basic API approval. That's it. You can try to make that sound more fancy than it is (another sales technique) with your verbiage but ultimately it is just Group III synthetic with a high viscosity index. Whoopdie doo. Any other mainstream 0w-20 on the market has more OEM approvals than this oil, including the AFE product with both Ford and GM approvals along with the ACEA stuff.
Nice try but using using your simplistic "halving formula" would make M1 0W-20 lighter than Sustina 0W-20 even at -35C
OK, you need to explain your logic here.
According to this thread:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2818344
The MRV for Sustina 0w-20 is 9,620cP.
According to this PDS:
https://mobiloil.com/en/motor-oils/mobil-1/mobil-1-advanced-fuel-economy
The MRV for M1 0w-20 is 9,200cP
So yes, the MRV for the Mobil 1 product is lower. What data do you have that contradicts this? Or is going to be one of your typical claims where you never present anything to support it?
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
when in fact the opposite is the case.
So, if this is a fact, can you please present a data sheet or MRV data at temperatures above -40C that supports your claim. Your claim, you need to back it up. You saying something is or isn't the case is nowhere near enough here.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
And extrapolating further things get even further out of whack since Sustina is a whopping 50% lighter at 0C than M1.
According to what, your VI calculator? I doubt you have actual visc measurements for both lubricants, am I right? Also, we've seen data sheets that support halving up to -15C, I'm sure above that (and I've stated as such) there is our crossover where the polymers take over and and the oil becomes thinner at a faster rate. This would make sense when comparing a PAO-based lubricant which is relying on the natural VI of the base stocks, which will have a much more linear viscosity plot than something that is using lighter bases and more VII.
Apply some logic and common sense here CATERHAM. Shannow has shown the plot of two base oils with the same VI, one being PAO the other being Group III and the difference in how they plotted below 0C was dramatic. Apply the same plotting technique to these products and it is very easy to see why two oils will yield very different curves depending on how they are based even if the one that has the more dramatic thickening is actually thinner above 0C and has a higher VI.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
And yes TGMO which is 40% lighter than M1 at 0C is clearly superior to 99.99% of users where MRV has ZERO relevance. And TGMO is approved for every manufacturer that specifies an API 0W-20 which is all the Japanese manufacturers.
You must be an awesome salesman, I love how you switch over to percentages to make numbers sound bigger, LOL! You'll downplay the 25,000cP difference between the RP 0w-20 and M1 0w-20 (and Sustina 0w-20 and probably many others) but you'll hype up a calculated visc value by converting to a percentage so that a number like 10cSt all of a sudden sounds far larger than it is.
TGMO has the basic API approval. That's it. You can try to make that sound more fancy than it is (another sales technique) with your verbiage but ultimately it is just Group III synthetic with a high viscosity index. Whoopdie doo. Any other mainstream 0w-20 on the market has more OEM approvals than this oil, including the AFE product with both Ford and GM approvals along with the ACEA stuff.
You know, I've read countless RP threads on this board. The common denominator in each of these threads is a peeing match between the pro and anti RPers out there.
It's regurgitating the same stuff in each thread over a minimum 10 pages and 150+ posts later.
So far, I've learned nothing new and I'll bet none of you have either.
It's regurgitating the same stuff in each thread over a minimum 10 pages and 150+ posts later.
So far, I've learned nothing new and I'll bet none of you have either.
Originally Posted By: Tony10s
Here, RP is the most expensive oil on the shelf (except for the recent sale I noticed on the 0W-20 oil).
Up here, the issue that sinks RP at places like Walmart or Canadian Tire is when specials are on and stock is at a reasonable level. QSUD, for instance, or PP, might go down to, say, $30 a jug. When RP goes on sale, it's like 10% off, which changed it from the $50 area to $45, which isn't so good.
Here, RP is the most expensive oil on the shelf (except for the recent sale I noticed on the 0W-20 oil).
Up here, the issue that sinks RP at places like Walmart or Canadian Tire is when specials are on and stock is at a reasonable level. QSUD, for instance, or PP, might go down to, say, $30 a jug. When RP goes on sale, it's like 10% off, which changed it from the $50 area to $45, which isn't so good.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
You're obsession over MRV and CCS differences between oils when the spec's have ZERO relevance to the OP and 99.99% of the rest of us is curious.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Another oil choice would be Petro-Canada Supreme 0W-30. It is heavier than M1 both in terms of MRV and HTHSV but lighter than GC.
Obfuscation ?
Or Contradiction ?
You're obsession over MRV and CCS differences between oils when the spec's have ZERO relevance to the OP and 99.99% of the rest of us is curious.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Another oil choice would be Petro-Canada Supreme 0W-30. It is heavier than M1 both in terms of MRV and HTHSV but lighter than GC.
Obfuscation ?
Or Contradiction ?
Originally Posted By: sir1900
You know, I've read countless RP threads on this board. The common denominator in each of these threads is a peeing match between the pro and anti RPers out there.
It's regurgitating the same stuff in each thread over a minimum 10 pages and 150+ posts later.
So far, I've learned nothing new and I'll bet none of you have either.
They all pretty much start and end the same that's for sure. I do however find them entertaining, and occasionally learn something from them.
You know, I've read countless RP threads on this board. The common denominator in each of these threads is a peeing match between the pro and anti RPers out there.
It's regurgitating the same stuff in each thread over a minimum 10 pages and 150+ posts later.
So far, I've learned nothing new and I'll bet none of you have either.
They all pretty much start and end the same that's for sure. I do however find them entertaining, and occasionally learn something from them.
Originally Posted By: Tony10s
Here, RP is the most expensive oil on the shelf AT WAL-MART IN 5QT JUGS (except for the recent sale I noticed on the 0W-20 oil).
Fixed it for you.
In parts stores, and even at Wal-Mart itself, RP qt bottles are priced right there with the other synthetics. Sometimes a little more and sometimes a little less.
For instance here are some local( to me )Wal-Mart qt bottle regular prices...
RP API 5W20 - $7.97 **
Castrol Edge 5W20 - $7.99
M1EP 5W20 - $8.98
Valvoline Synpower 5W20 - $7.98
** - FWIW Wal-Mart doesn't appear to carry RP HPS 5W20 but they do have the HPS 5W30 for $8.72 a qt. The M1EP 5W30 is $8.98 like the 5W20 so you can even get RP HPS, in a qt bottle, for less than a qt bottle of M1EP at Wal-Mart.
RP API 5W20 is actually cheaper, p/qt bottle, than M1EP, Edge, and Synpower. QSUD and PP are both sold for less( approx. $6.50 p/qt bottle ). Can't get a price on PU but I am sure it would easily be at least $7.50.
I know, I know, the 5qt bottles are cheaper than RP 5qt bottles. Not my point. Blanket statements about "RP being the most expensive on the shelf" are just not accurate. Go to any parts store and the same pricing differences/range as I show above will be there. RP API will be a little cheaper than some and a little more than others.
Not everyone buys their oil at Wal-Mart and not everyone wants or needs a 5qt jug. Wal-Mart 5qt jug pricing is not the end all be all. You can also go online or find local sources like speed shops where you can get it for even less as I do.
Here, RP is the most expensive oil on the shelf AT WAL-MART IN 5QT JUGS (except for the recent sale I noticed on the 0W-20 oil).
Fixed it for you.
In parts stores, and even at Wal-Mart itself, RP qt bottles are priced right there with the other synthetics. Sometimes a little more and sometimes a little less.
For instance here are some local( to me )Wal-Mart qt bottle regular prices...
RP API 5W20 - $7.97 **
Castrol Edge 5W20 - $7.99
M1EP 5W20 - $8.98
Valvoline Synpower 5W20 - $7.98
** - FWIW Wal-Mart doesn't appear to carry RP HPS 5W20 but they do have the HPS 5W30 for $8.72 a qt. The M1EP 5W30 is $8.98 like the 5W20 so you can even get RP HPS, in a qt bottle, for less than a qt bottle of M1EP at Wal-Mart.
RP API 5W20 is actually cheaper, p/qt bottle, than M1EP, Edge, and Synpower. QSUD and PP are both sold for less( approx. $6.50 p/qt bottle ). Can't get a price on PU but I am sure it would easily be at least $7.50.
I know, I know, the 5qt bottles are cheaper than RP 5qt bottles. Not my point. Blanket statements about "RP being the most expensive on the shelf" are just not accurate. Go to any parts store and the same pricing differences/range as I show above will be there. RP API will be a little cheaper than some and a little more than others.
Not everyone buys their oil at Wal-Mart and not everyone wants or needs a 5qt jug. Wal-Mart 5qt jug pricing is not the end all be all. You can also go online or find local sources like speed shops where you can get it for even less as I do.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: sir1900
You know, I've read countless RP threads on this board. The common denominator in each of these threads is a peeing match between the pro and anti RPers out there.
It's regurgitating the same stuff in each thread over a minimum 10 pages and 150+ posts later.
So far, I've learned nothing new and I'll bet none of you have either.
They all pretty much start and end the same that's for sure. I do however find them entertaining, and occasionally learn something from them.
Yup, they sure do. Someone asks a question about RP and instead of it getting answered in a constructive manner as most such questions are here, and SHOULD BE, it turns into a playground brawl. I am part of it and I admit it but I will be darned if I will let people who by their own admission haven't used it discredit my experiences, opinions, and posts on the topic of RP. If I went into threads about their favorite oil and called it "unicorn tears" or dismissed their posts as just "anecdotal" or "emotional fanboyism" I would get a time out from the site by the Mod's. The anti RP folks are allowed free reign to insult and belittle others though?
Sure would be nice if every thread about RP didn't end like this one has and how they ALL do here. I really do try and stay out of the who's is bigger contests but I get so frustrated with the bull hooey and the snide comments and insults that I usually fail and start bickering back. I also love how the passionate RP defenders are always the ones blamed in these threads by most for these threads going bad, BUT, the same members who start the negatives in every RP thread get a pass.
Such a shame that RP can not be discussed like any other brand. Fact is here at BITOG for whatever reason it can't. Too many people with a clear bias against it who won't allow that.
Originally Posted By: sir1900
You know, I've read countless RP threads on this board. The common denominator in each of these threads is a peeing match between the pro and anti RPers out there.
It's regurgitating the same stuff in each thread over a minimum 10 pages and 150+ posts later.
So far, I've learned nothing new and I'll bet none of you have either.
They all pretty much start and end the same that's for sure. I do however find them entertaining, and occasionally learn something from them.
Yup, they sure do. Someone asks a question about RP and instead of it getting answered in a constructive manner as most such questions are here, and SHOULD BE, it turns into a playground brawl. I am part of it and I admit it but I will be darned if I will let people who by their own admission haven't used it discredit my experiences, opinions, and posts on the topic of RP. If I went into threads about their favorite oil and called it "unicorn tears" or dismissed their posts as just "anecdotal" or "emotional fanboyism" I would get a time out from the site by the Mod's. The anti RP folks are allowed free reign to insult and belittle others though?
Sure would be nice if every thread about RP didn't end like this one has and how they ALL do here. I really do try and stay out of the who's is bigger contests but I get so frustrated with the bull hooey and the snide comments and insults that I usually fail and start bickering back. I also love how the passionate RP defenders are always the ones blamed in these threads by most for these threads going bad, BUT, the same members who start the negatives in every RP thread get a pass.
Such a shame that RP can not be discussed like any other brand. Fact is here at BITOG for whatever reason it can't. Too many people with a clear bias against it who won't allow that.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Nice try but using using your simplistic "halving formula" would make M1 0W-20 lighter than Sustina 0W-20 even at -35C
OK, you need to explain your logic here.
According to this thread:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2818344
The MRV for Sustina 0w-20 is 9,620cP.
According to this PDS:
https://mobiloil.com/en/motor-oils/mobil-1/mobil-1-advanced-fuel-economy
The MRV for M1 0w-20 is 9,200cP
So yes, the MRV for the Mobil 1 product is lower. What data do you have that contradicts this? Or is going to be one of your typical claims where you never present anything to support it?
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
when in fact the opposite is the case.
So, if this is a fact, can you please present a data sheet or MRV data at temperatures above -40C that supports your claim. Your claim, you need to back it up. You saying something is or isn't the case is nowhere near enough here.
I have given you the data before when you high-jacked that PP 0W-20 vs TGMO thread a while back with a similar M1 praising rant, which you have conveniently chosen to forget. Anyway here it is again.
M1 has a CCS @-35C of 4110cP. Source PQIA.
Sustina's CCS @-35C is 3550cP from the same source you got their MRV.
Despite M1 having a 4% lower MRV it's CCS viscosity is already 14% higher at -35C and that viscosity trend continues to 0C where Sustina is 50% lighter.
So much for relying the MRV spec' to predict viscosities at warmer temp's.
MRV and CCS spec's aren't very relevant at temp's warmer than -30C for 0W-XX oils. You agree that using a viscosity calculator KV40/KV100 spec's will predict viscosity down to at least 0C. The ultra high VI 0W-20s like TGMO, MGMO and SynGard are 40% or more lighter at that temperature and that head start advantage as temp's decline further should hold up until at least -30C if the Sustina spec's are anything to go by.
Since this thread is about RP 0W-20 it is 12% lighter than M1 at 0C and it's MRV is 20,000cP, typical for a 0W-20. The 34,000cP figure is for their 0W-40, they have obviously been transposed. RP's lower 0C viscosity advantage vs M1 should be good to at least -10C and perhaps lower, it is really hard to predict short of actually trying both oils in a car with an OP gauge.
The other thing to remember when choosing any 0W-20 regardless of what it's MRV/CCS spec's are, if the start-up temp' are below -30C you're starting the engine well within the cold cranking and borderline pumping limits of the oil. Once the engine fires up what's important next is how quickly the oil warms up and thins out. Since the high VI oils are so much lighter as you approach 0C the oil pump will come out of bypass mode sooner on idle and you'll be able to use progressively more rev's out of bypass as the oil continues to warn up and thin out.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Nice try but using using your simplistic "halving formula" would make M1 0W-20 lighter than Sustina 0W-20 even at -35C
OK, you need to explain your logic here.
According to this thread:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2818344
The MRV for Sustina 0w-20 is 9,620cP.
According to this PDS:
https://mobiloil.com/en/motor-oils/mobil-1/mobil-1-advanced-fuel-economy
The MRV for M1 0w-20 is 9,200cP
So yes, the MRV for the Mobil 1 product is lower. What data do you have that contradicts this? Or is going to be one of your typical claims where you never present anything to support it?
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
when in fact the opposite is the case.
So, if this is a fact, can you please present a data sheet or MRV data at temperatures above -40C that supports your claim. Your claim, you need to back it up. You saying something is or isn't the case is nowhere near enough here.
I have given you the data before when you high-jacked that PP 0W-20 vs TGMO thread a while back with a similar M1 praising rant, which you have conveniently chosen to forget. Anyway here it is again.
M1 has a CCS @-35C of 4110cP. Source PQIA.
Sustina's CCS @-35C is 3550cP from the same source you got their MRV.
Despite M1 having a 4% lower MRV it's CCS viscosity is already 14% higher at -35C and that viscosity trend continues to 0C where Sustina is 50% lighter.
So much for relying the MRV spec' to predict viscosities at warmer temp's.
MRV and CCS spec's aren't very relevant at temp's warmer than -30C for 0W-XX oils. You agree that using a viscosity calculator KV40/KV100 spec's will predict viscosity down to at least 0C. The ultra high VI 0W-20s like TGMO, MGMO and SynGard are 40% or more lighter at that temperature and that head start advantage as temp's decline further should hold up until at least -30C if the Sustina spec's are anything to go by.
Since this thread is about RP 0W-20 it is 12% lighter than M1 at 0C and it's MRV is 20,000cP, typical for a 0W-20. The 34,000cP figure is for their 0W-40, they have obviously been transposed. RP's lower 0C viscosity advantage vs M1 should be good to at least -10C and perhaps lower, it is really hard to predict short of actually trying both oils in a car with an OP gauge.
The other thing to remember when choosing any 0W-20 regardless of what it's MRV/CCS spec's are, if the start-up temp' are below -30C you're starting the engine well within the cold cranking and borderline pumping limits of the oil. Once the engine fires up what's important next is how quickly the oil warms up and thins out. Since the high VI oils are so much lighter as you approach 0C the oil pump will come out of bypass mode sooner on idle and you'll be able to use progressively more rev's out of bypass as the oil continues to warn up and thin out.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Nice try but using using your simplistic "halving formula" would make M1 0W-20 lighter than Sustina 0W-20 even at -35C
OK, you need to explain your logic here.
I know exactly his logic. He's using the straight VI plot and extending it as high or low in the temp. range as he wants. That's where all those fantastic numbers like 40% lighter or heavier come from.
You are right that he is a good salesman and that is why he avoids the MRV and CCS numbers. They give more realistic differences in single digit to low double digit percentage points at the very extreme low tempertaurtes. Since oil viscosity vs temperature doesn't follow a linear relationship, but instead is a non-linear one, the closer you get to the operating temperature, the smaller the difference in viscosity.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Nice try but using using your simplistic "halving formula" would make M1 0W-20 lighter than Sustina 0W-20 even at -35C
OK, you need to explain your logic here.
I know exactly his logic. He's using the straight VI plot and extending it as high or low in the temp. range as he wants. That's where all those fantastic numbers like 40% lighter or heavier come from.
You are right that he is a good salesman and that is why he avoids the MRV and CCS numbers. They give more realistic differences in single digit to low double digit percentage points at the very extreme low tempertaurtes. Since oil viscosity vs temperature doesn't follow a linear relationship, but instead is a non-linear one, the closer you get to the operating temperature, the smaller the difference in viscosity.
- Status
Similar threads
