Is Royal Purple worth it?

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
True. My response had nothing to due with additive package but rather a pour point claim that is either very generous from Royal Purple or 3 competitors are vastly understating the pour point performance of their respective product.

The claim has been made that RP HPS is Group IV. The pour points are realistic for that; I've also seen higher ones with PAO base stocks. I'm sure the percentage of PAO has a great deal to do with it, but I'm also unsure of lab error in the pour point measure. The CCS numbers aren't bad, although I do question their use of four significant figures, whereas they use only three for the MRV. Their 5w-30 seems to have about the best cold numbers, at least in comparison to some of the competition.

We do know that a PAO base should give some decent cold weather numbers, but it's certainly no guarantee, and we can probably assume the base stock is a mix like everyone else, where it may be primarily Group IV, but we don't know what else is in the mix.

Considering their target market, they should be more interested in publicizing HTHS and zinc content. The HPS line's target market probably doesn't include a huge amount of winter starts. It would "work" fine in my F-150, I'm sure, but I'd be hesitant about using a boutique in it.

 

[SlipperyPete]

Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Originally Posted By: T-Stick
I find it somewhat amusing that when a person expresses their lack of enthusiasm or disinterest about Royal Purple they automatically become a "hater" of it. Thats the way political agendas and games are played.

For the average DD vehicle I don't know that RP offers any advantage over other better priced synthetics and in some cases reviews and test results would show it inferior to other top tier synthetics. For some people I think if they pay more they think they are getting a superior product.


The games you speak of are played by the anti RP crowd and NOT the loyal users. No question about it. RP users on BITOG do not try and force our like of the product on to others. At most we might ask you actually use it before trashing it. Just once I would like to see an RP thread on BITOG not get ruined by the infantile "haters" who just have to try and bring it down. That will never happen here though.

What gets me and makes me respond is the WAY so many comment about RP and how so may clearly go out of their way at every chance to beat up on it. If you don't want to use it then don't. No one cares and no one is trying to make anyone use it. But, when people make it their life's mission to talk negatively about it in every thread that comes up, and especially when they haven't even used it, those of us who do get sick of it.

The whole price and color thing also gets really old fast. The claims of tons of bad UOA's with it are totally false but they continue on. It also seems that RP is held to a standard no other oil here is. RP can do no right by some. RP was bad because it was API SL and others had moved on to API SM/SN. Synerlec was touted as snake oil as well. When RP moves on to API SN suddenly it is average at best and the SL stuff was the good stuff and suddenly Synerlec is this amazing additive everyone misses. People here are always saying when RP is sold for the same price as PP/VVL/QS/M1 synthetics at Wal-Mart in 5 qt jugs they would use it but yet when a deal comes out where it is priced exactly like that they STILL say it is too much and then start comparing the cost of it to conventional oil in the 5qt jug prices.

BITOG as a whole is a very RP unfriendly place. There absolutely is a group with a bias and agenda here against RP that does a good job of creating a mob mentality against it. I have used it for decades with excellent results and while I could care less what other people use I get sick of being told my choice sucks.

If you have never used it there is no way you had bad results, or any results, with it actually. Saying it is bad or good, over priced, not as good as brand X, etc... is foolish. You have nothing to base that on but speculation if you haven't used it. I have never used Enos oil therefor I have no opinion as I have nothing to base that opinion on. If I were to chime in on an Enos thread with any kind of view that isn't very basic it is just hot air.

If RP costs too much for you then don't use it. Very simple. Value is determined by the user so for others it may not be too expensive( and again, for the millionth time, RP is priced the same as the name brand synthetics in qt bottles and can be had for the same or even less than WM 5qt jug synthetic prices on sale ). Having to chime in and say you won't use it because of cost, or color, or what someone else supposedly said brings nothing to the discussion of value. All it does is tick off those who do use it and like it. Of course for some that is their goal.

I apologize for the novel here but why people can't see why RP users get upset on this site baffles me almost as much as the anti RP feelings.


Why do you care? You don't make Royal Purple do you?

 

[T-Stick]

Quote:

The games you speak of are played by the anti RP crowd and NOT the loyal users. No question about it. RP users on BITOG do not try and force our like of the product on to others. At most we might ask you actually use it before trashing it. Just once I would like to see an RP thread on BITOG not get ruined by the infantile "haters" who just have to try and bring it down. That will never happen here though.

What gets me and makes me respond is the WAY so many comment about RP and how so may clearly go out of their way at every chance to beat up on it. If you don't want to use it then don't. No one cares and no one is trying to make anyone use it. But, when people make it their life's mission to talk negatively about it in every thread that comes up, and especially when they haven't even used it, those of us who do get sick of it.

The whole price and color thing also gets really old fast. The claims of tons of bad UOA's with it are totally false but they continue on. It also seems that RP is held to a standard no other oil here is. RP can do no right by some. RP was bad because it was API SL and others had moved on to API SM/SN. Synerlec was touted as snake oil as well. When RP moves on to API SN suddenly it is average at best and the SL stuff was the good stuff and suddenly Synerlec is this amazing additive everyone misses. People here are always saying when RP is sold for the same price as PP/VVL/QS/M1 synthetics at Wal-Mart in 5 qt jugs they would use it but yet when a deal comes out where it is priced exactly like that they STILL say it is too much and then start comparing the cost of it to conventional oil in the 5qt jug prices.

BITOG as a whole is a very RP unfriendly place. There absolutely is a group with a bias and agenda here against RP that does a good job of creating a mob mentality against it. I have used it for decades with excellent results and while I could care less what other people use I get sick of being told my choice sucks.

If you have never used it there is no way you had bad results, or any results, with it actually. Saying it is bad or good, over priced, not as good as brand X, etc... is foolish. You have nothing to base that on but speculation if you haven't used it. I have never used Enos oil therefor I have no opinion as I have nothing to base that opinion on. If I were to chime in on an Enos thread with any kind of view that isn't very basic it is just hot air.

If RP costs too much for you then don't use it. Very simple. Value is determined by the user so for others it may not be too expensive( and again, for the millionth time, RP is priced the same as the name brand synthetics in qt bottles and can be had for the same or even less than WM 5qt jug synthetic prices on sale ). Having to chime in and say you won't use it because of cost, or color, or what someone else supposedly said brings nothing to the discussion of value. All it does is tick off those who do use it and like it. Of course for some that is their goal.

I apologize for the novel here but why people can't see why RP users get upset on this site baffles me almost as much as the anti RP feelings.


If an oil costs more than its peers and does not show equal or better test results than its peers, why would someone buy it to see if they like it? They are not going learn anything more from using it a time or two. You can use any appropriately specified oil on the market for a time or two with satisfactory results. That is simply applying logic before spending your money. It does not mean its a bad oil or or that its hated; it simply means there is no compelling reason to buy it on the basis of price or performance over any other lower priced and equally or better performing synthetics.

 

[T-Stick]

Here is a link where oils are tested for wear capability. RP does not show itself outstanding in the area where it makes its greatest claims of superior film strength.

http://540ratblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/motor-oil-wear-test-ranking/

Note in the ranking list that the conventional Castrol GTX 5W-20 is ranked #20 and the RP synthetic 5W-20 API SN is ranked #32. Why would someone pay more for less?

 

[T-Stick]

Correction on ranking in the link. A couple different links carry the tests with different numbers assigned. I could no longer edit the previous post. In the link I gave Castrol GTX is #33 and RP is #47. However Chevron conventional is #19.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: T-Stick
Here is a link where oils are tested for wear capability. RP does not show itself outstanding in the area where it makes its greatest claims of superior film strength.

http://540ratblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/motor-oil-wear-test-ranking/

Note in the ranking list that the conventional Castrol GTX 5W-20 is ranked #20 and the RP synthetic 5W-20 API SN is ranked #32. Why would someone pay more for less?

Thanks for the link.

M1 5W30 ranked very high at 9th without additives.

Conventional 5W30 Chevron Supreme is very high too at 19th.

House brand O’Reilly 5W30 is very good too at 44th.

According to this study, no thicker oil than what is recommended in the OM is needed.

 

[RazorsEdge]

Originally Posted By: T-Stick
Here is a link where oils are tested for wear capability. RP does not show itself outstanding in the area where it makes its greatest claims of superior film strength.

http://540ratblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/motor-oil-wear-test-ranking/

Note in the ranking list that the conventional Castrol GTX 5W-20 is ranked #20 and the RP synthetic 5W-20 API SN is ranked #32. Why would someone pay more for less?


Those tests do not directly relate to a running engine,sorry.

if you use some of those oils that score well in those "tests" in an actual high performance engine,they will not do as well as some of those that do not score very well.

PERIOD.

It may not be that they have high levels of zinc, it may not be because they have high levels of whatever. It IS because they do a better job of lubricating an actual RUNNING ENGINE.

If you really want to test oil you need to do tests on actual engines! You people that rely on what you read on the "internet" as truth,need an eye opener.Goto an engine shop,see what they use,etc. Get some reliable data and go from there in your oil choices.

 

[T-Stick]

The test is equal to all oils with relation to film strength and heat. The only way to make comparisons between oils is to test them under the exact same criteria. All oils are developed thru testing not just running them in engines. As the tester says it is only testing one component of the motor oil. However its interesting for all the RP hype on their film strength they do not demonstrate superior film strength when their oil is tested under the same conditions as other oils.

This methodology is far more scientific than those who say you need to run RP and listen to how smooth the engine sounds.

Another example where RP shows it has less performance than other synthetics is in the Noack Tests.

10.9 loss for 5w-30 RP http://www.pqiamerica.com/March2013PCMO/consolidatedpagerndb3.html

6.6 and 9.3 for loss for Pennzoil http://www.pqiamerica.com/March2013PCMO/consolidatedpagefinl.html

So where is the actual data to show that RP performs equal to or better than other synthetics? Tests have been developed as industry standards of comparison. What industry standard can you point to which would show RP worth the cost?

I would venture to say there are far more engine shops which don't use RP than that do.

 

[deven]

Originally Posted By: T-Stick
Here is a link where oils are tested for wear capability. RP does not show itself outstanding in the area where it makes its greatest claims of superior film strength.

http://540ratblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/motor-oil-wear-test-ranking/

Note in the ranking list that the conventional Castrol GTX 5W-20 is ranked #20 and the RP synthetic 5W-20 API SN is ranked #32. Why would someone pay more for less?


That guy is a contradiction in writing. First he says he doesnt want to be tied to a oil company by taking money and before that he keeps plugging Brad Penn Oil and their oil concentrate.
Right there I stopped reading. Enough said!

 

[T-Stick]

You were just looking for the place to stop reading....that seems typical for RP users ... stop reading and make a judgment before you have all the information. Whatever he thinks of Brad Penn, the test results do not show Brad Penn as the standout oil so he must be less biased than those who market RP who cannot show any testing data to backup their claims.

 

[deven]

Originally Posted By: T-Stick
You were just looking for the place to stop reading....that seems typical for RP users ... stop reading and make a judgment before you have all the information. Whatever he thinks of Brad Penn, the test results do not show Brad Penn as the standout oil so he must be less biased than those who market RP who cannot show any testing data to backup their claims.


Who is that guy and why should be believe his work?

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: T-Stick
You were just looking for the place to stop reading....that seems typical for RP users ... stop reading and make a judgment before you have all the information. Whatever he thinks of Brad Penn, the test results do not show Brad Penn as the standout oil so he must be less biased than those who market RP who cannot show any testing data to backup their claims.




What kind of idiot gives this testing even a second thought.
The oils tested haven't been able to lay down an anti-wear layer and it in NO WAY represents how an oil operates in an engine.
If we are to accept this testing methodology the pert plus tested better than many engine oils did.
So since you seem to accept this as useable info let me know how pert works for you.

 

[RazorsEdge]

When your able to provide me with more then "tests" I'll talk,until then,you've shown none of us anything.

 

[T-Stick]

So is RP an untested oil?

 

[T-Stick]

Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: T-Stick
You were just looking for the place to stop reading....that seems typical for RP users ... stop reading and make a judgment before you have all the information. Whatever he thinks of Brad Penn, the test results do not show Brad Penn as the standout oil so he must be less biased than those who market RP who cannot show any testing data to backup their claims.




What kind of idiot gives this testing even a second thought.
The oils tested haven't been able to lay down an anti-wear layer and it in NO WAY represents how an oil operates in an engine.
If we are to accept this testing methodology the pert plus tested better than many engine oils did.
So since you seem to accept this as useable info let me know how pert works for you.


The testing and results are equally applied. It does not mean other substances could not test better than motor oil in this test, it just simply shows the film strength of oils tested under pressure. I suppose you would discount the Noack test also since that shows a higher boil off for RP.

Even if we lay testing aside there is quite a bit of real world data to support the premise that RP cannot show any real world advantage to using it. Please provide one reason from your data that you accept that would show RP as being worth the money.

 

[T-Stick]

Please tell me how you would go about establishing comparitive testing of a number of motor oils in a number of identical engines by duplicating the exact same conditions between all engines while at the same time also duplicating all of the real world daily driving scenarios so that every aspect of the oil could be tested at the same time in the exact same way. And when the parameters of this test are defined please point to where we can go to see the results of RP being tested in this manner against other oils.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: T-Stick
I would venture to say there are far more engine shops which don't use RP than that do.

I should hope that would be the case. I don't think RP could keep up with demand if even half the shops out there switched to their products.

 

[T-Stick]

So then we can't use engine shops, as was suggested, to determine the value of RP because for various reasons far more don't use RP than do.

 

[T-Stick]

RP's website says:
At Royal Purple, we scientifically engineer high performance synthetic oils that outwork the competition in the laboratory, on the road and in the yard.

The RP clan here discounts tests, but RP says the lab shows their products as being superior. Since RP says their products outperform others in the lab--please post the lab results which demonstrate this.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: T-Stick
Please tell me how you would go about establishing comparitive testing of a number of motor oils in a number of identical engines by duplicating the exact same conditions between all engines while at the same time also duplicating all of the real world daily driving scenarios so that every aspect of the oil could be tested at the same time in the exact same way.


Mobil does it all the time. As does Mercedes, Porsche, BMW....etc. That's why those engine companies have their own certifications. Porsche has a really cool engine test rig that replicates laps of the Nurburgring for example.

Mobil has an extensive on-site test facility where they not only test engines but multiple cars. Think thermostatically controlled rooms with individual dynometers that can replicate any sort of load, whilst the manipulation of ambient temperature can be done to replicate cold starts, winter driving....etc.

Quote:
And when the parameters of this test are defined please point to where we can go to see the results of RP being tested in this manner against other oils.


RP doesn't the resources of XOM, SOPUS or BP, so I don't think it is necessarily reasonable to expect them to be able to do the same kind of in-house testing they do. On the other hand, they could pay to have certain specifications/approvals that they currently don't have. AMSOIL for example recently began, at the behest of their dealers and the consumers at large, obtaining the European manufacturer approvals like BMW LL-04, VW...etc. That was a really big step forward for them IMHO and gives them access to a broader user base, people who won't use a non-approved product in their bimmer for example.