I was hoping for more from Royal Purple. I'm now running GC instead.
Royal Purple 5W/30 - Lexus RX 300 - 6,000 Miles
- Thread starter LoveTheLube
- Start date
- Status
What were you hoping for?
I don't see anything wrong with it, but it's not the ZOMFG stellar report everybody wants to have... but with near a quarter million miles on your SUV, what did you expect?
Wear rates per kilomile are still very low, viscosity & TBN are fine, potassium & sodium look like your air filter is doing OK. More insolubles found than I'd like to see - what filter did you use?
Wear rates per kilomile are still very low, viscosity & TBN are fine, potassium & sodium look like your air filter is doing OK. More insolubles found than I'd like to see - what filter did you use?
Not to hijack this thread, but why do heavily used engines wear more? I would think they would wear *less* since clearances have opened up over time. There must be something to this since many "High Mileage" oils seem to advertise boosted anti-wear additives. Why is this necessary? The engine in this UOA seems to bear this out as Toyota/Lexus engines are generally very low wearing engines, but as this engine has a quarter million miles on it, it's showing higher than normal wear metals, though certainly not at a problem level.
Me too curious about What filter? If the filter is not defective the engine may be giving up the ghost with the very high insol.
Also, what's with the low zinc I though the RP had high SL loading over 1000PPM? No high EP to balance the high (diesel)detergent add pack.
Also, what's with the low zinc I though the RP had high SL loading over 1000PPM? No high EP to balance the high (diesel)detergent add pack.
How bout trending? What did the OP run previously? How did that stuff read? I cant blame the oil but the engine is havng a fit for sure. Analyse those used oil filter contents! Thats where the heavy wear particulates are!
The Si does look a tiny bit high, no?
Originally Posted By: btanchors
Not to hijack this thread, but why do heavily used engines wear more? I would think they would wear *less* since clearances have opened up over time. There must be something to this since many "High Mileage" oils seem to advertise boosted anti-wear additives. Why is this necessary? The engine in this UOA seems to bear this out as Toyota/Lexus engines are generally very low wearing engines, but as this engine has a quarter million miles on it, it's showing higher than normal wear metals, though certainly not at a problem level.
This is why trending works in UOA's. In the beginning of engine or componet life, the engine/componet wears more. As the engine breaks in, wear decreases....when it is nearing it's end of life, wear increases. Kinda like the human body!
Not to hijack this thread, but why do heavily used engines wear more? I would think they would wear *less* since clearances have opened up over time. There must be something to this since many "High Mileage" oils seem to advertise boosted anti-wear additives. Why is this necessary? The engine in this UOA seems to bear this out as Toyota/Lexus engines are generally very low wearing engines, but as this engine has a quarter million miles on it, it's showing higher than normal wear metals, though certainly not at a problem level.
This is why trending works in UOA's. In the beginning of engine or componet life, the engine/componet wears more. As the engine breaks in, wear decreases....when it is nearing it's end of life, wear increases. Kinda like the human body!
This is a very good report at a whooping quarter million miles! Insolubles were a little high, but the 3.0L V6 engines made in the RX300 were known for this, especially with higher mileage. Overall, very good.
Last edited:
That looks like an extremely good report to me.
Originally Posted By: Ayrton
That looks like an extremely good report to me.
It is and I'd like to reiterate basing one's decision after using the product for a few OCIs. Switching from RP -> GC and taking a UOA will not achieve anything of value to base decisions on.
I'd also like to reiterate that basing an oil's "performance" within a few ppm doesn't make any sense at all.
That looks like an extremely good report to me.
It is and I'd like to reiterate basing one's decision after using the product for a few OCIs. Switching from RP -> GC and taking a UOA will not achieve anything of value to base decisions on.
I'd also like to reiterate that basing an oil's "performance" within a few ppm doesn't make any sense at all.
Evening, all. Let me start by saying this engine is a replacement for the factory engine that was close to death when I bought the car used. It was a victim of the oil gelling issue this engine is known for. I've been running synthetic in the engine since it replaced the prior engine in an attempt to keep the gelling to a minimum.
I was hoping to see a little less wear than the report showed(I agree with bt and ARCO in thinking that an older engine would be less prone to wear since everything has settled into place). I have been using a Toyota filter since day one (the 90915-YZZB9 filter until they discontinued it and now use the 90915-YZZD1 filter).
As a side note, one reason I decided to give up the RP in favor of the GC is because Amazon went up $4/qt on the RP and AutoZone was running a sale and I got 5 qts of GC and a filter for $30.
I think that covers all the questions everyone asked. As for previous oil, I was a PP man for a very long time before deciding to give the RP a try for the past 3 or so oil changes. I'll do another analysis after the next oil change to see if the GC made any difference in Cu, Pb, and Sn levels.
As a side note, most of the miles on the engine have been highway miles. Lately, I've had to endure a lot more stop-and-go traffic than normal. Not sure if that would make a difference.
I was hoping to see a little less wear than the report showed(I agree with bt and ARCO in thinking that an older engine would be less prone to wear since everything has settled into place). I have been using a Toyota filter since day one (the 90915-YZZB9 filter until they discontinued it and now use the 90915-YZZD1 filter).
As a side note, one reason I decided to give up the RP in favor of the GC is because Amazon went up $4/qt on the RP and AutoZone was running a sale and I got 5 qts of GC and a filter for $30.
I think that covers all the questions everyone asked. As for previous oil, I was a PP man for a very long time before deciding to give the RP a try for the past 3 or so oil changes. I'll do another analysis after the next oil change to see if the GC made any difference in Cu, Pb, and Sn levels.
As a side note, most of the miles on the engine have been highway miles. Lately, I've had to endure a lot more stop-and-go traffic than normal. Not sure if that would make a difference.
- Status
