Royal Purple HPS 10w40, October 2019

Messages
8,859
Location
Texas
I want to like Royal Purple, I really do. But I'd like a lot less "meh" for the dollar to be honest. And the fact that it says "Indiana" on the label now instead of "Porter, TX" doesn't help.

ROYAL PURPLE HPS-190920.jpg
 
Messages
1,415
Location
South Carolina
It looks like a pretty generic SN+ add pack with 50% more ZDDP and moly. Boring. For most older hot rods, I'd rather have the higher P-V coefficient and nearly same add pack with Valvoline VR1. Either that or a far better add pack in Driven GP-1 which is also cheaper.
 
Messages
15,014
Location
Canada
I have to say, I like it - not too thick 40-weight; nice shot of moly and boron; and good amounts of Zn and P. Really surprised TBN isn't higher with the amount of Ca and Mg there is - should be closer to 9, no?
 
Messages
157
Location
Arizona
It's because most modern synthetics have become boutique oil. You can get a low volatility, high detergent synthetic anywhere now for a good price. I still like Royal Purple HMX though because they add a ton of detergent and TBN is above 10. Probably the best high mileage oil out there. RP recently changed HMX to "Meet or exceed API SN" without the donut. I wonder what they changed. It used to be API SL with a donut symbol..
 

SR5

Messages
5,476
Location
Down Under
I like it, a synthetic oil with a strong add pack. Good Moly (134ppm), good Boron (96 ppm) and lots of Zinc (1218 ppm). With a healthy Ca and Mg (1223 + 653 = 1876 ppm) detergent / TBN package. For comparison vanilla M1 5W30 was recently tested here Mo = 75, B = 94, Zn = 758, Ca = 1034, Mg = 734 , Ca + Mg = 1768 Don't get me wrong, not dissing M1, a very well respected oil made on good base stock. Just saying the RP has a solid add pack. BTW just to add that an ICP oil analysis atomises the molecules and counts the atoms (so to speak) so moly figures are directly comparable, regardless if they are using tri-nuclear moly or not.
 
Messages
1,415
Location
South Carolina
Originally Posted by SR5
BTW just to add that an ICP oil analysis atomises the molecules and counts the atoms (so to speak) so moly figures are directly comparable, regardless if they are using tri-nuclear moly or not.
Not always. ICP can't distinguish what the moly comes from. It can't tell if it's Molyvan 3000 (friction reducer), Molyvan 855 (friction reducer, anti-wear), or Vanlube BHC (anti-oxidant), for example. Some oils contain as many as 4 different types of moly-containing compounds blended together. The friction reduction with trinuclear MoDTC at 135 vs 75 ppm is marginal and certainly not enough to overcome the increased friction that accompanies the higher ZDDP content. (Which the majority of engines won't benefit from anyway.) If I were a betting man, I'd put money on M1 5w-30 having a lower friction coefficient than RP HPS if both were run in an SRV.
 
Last edited:

SR5

Messages
5,476
Location
Down Under
Fair enough RDY4WAR, your detailed analysis is the way to go. I was more commenting, that sometimes when you point at lowish Moly numbers on a M1 product, a fanboy jumps up and says "trinuclear moly !! ..... we still win !!!", when I think the numbers should be taken at face value unless you know something exact about the formulation of the add pack used (real chemical information) or something exact about mechanical test of the oil (real wear / friction numbers). Yes I think M1 is a great oil, but I also think this RP has a fine add pack. A lot of Japanese motorcycles call for a 10W40 oil with high ZDDP, I would certainly give this a go in that application. Like you said not too much moly, so it should be OK with wet clutches, as I've seen MC specific oils with a bit of moly before.
 

SR5

Messages
5,476
Location
Down Under
Thanks mate, good to know. I have no knowledge of the company history. I've pick up RP a few times, but in Oz it's way expensive, we are talking $95 for 5L. Tin that !!! So I put it back down again. Right now I can get Shell Helix Ultra 5W40 on sale at $37 for 5L. A full GTL synthetic that is rated API SN/CF; ACEA A3/B3, A3/B4; BMW LL-01; MB 229.5, 226.5; VW 502.00/505.00; Porsche A40; Renault RN0700, RN0710; PSA B71 2296, and Ferrari approved. Or the high Moly, Nulon 10W40 fast-flow full synthetic also for about $42 (5L) everyday, and much less on sales. I'm just chatting BTW, because I like to talk oil. Right now I'm using Valvoline DuraBlend 10W40 semi-Synthetic that is SN & A3/B4, got it on sale, and my car calls for a Euro rated A3 40 grade oil.
 
Messages
1,415
Location
South Carolina
Originally Posted by SR5
Thanks mate, good to know. I have no knowledge of the company history. I've pick up RP a few times, but in Oz it's way expensive, we are talking $95 for 5L. Tin that !!! So I put it back down again. Right now I can get Shell Helix Ultra 5W40 on sale at $37 for 5L. A full GTL synthetic that is rated API SN/CF; ACEA A3/B3, A3/B4; BMW LL-01; MB 229.5, 226.5; VW 502.00/505.00; Porsche A40; Renault RN0700, RN0710; PSA B71 2296, and Ferrari approved. Or the high Moly, Nulon 10W40 fast-flow full synthetic also for about $42 (5L) everyday, and much less on sales. I'm just chatting BTW, because I like to talk oil. Right now I'm using Valvoline DuraBlend 10W40 semi-Synthetic that is SN & A3/B4, got it on sale, and my car calls for a Euro rated A3 40 grade oil.
I'm the same about talking oil. I could discuss it 24/7. The topic never gets old. While typing this, I'm also texting the owner of an oil company about the blending properties of esters and VI improvers.
 
Messages
15,091
Location
Upper Midwest
Originally Posted by RazorsEdge
There are a couple of posts deleted from this thread why!?
I don't know exactly, but I would guess it is because some people cannot comment on certain brands without resorting to using overhyped marketing statements or unsubstantiated and unfounded criticism. Just a guess.
 
Messages
1,415
Location
South Carolina
Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by RazorsEdge
There are a couple of posts deleted from this thread why!?
I don't know exactly, but I would guess it is because some people cannot comment on certain brands without resorting to using overhyped marketing statements or unsubstantiated and unfounded criticism. Just a guess.
Some information was posted that involves confidential information. I overstepped.
 
Last edited:
Top