Royal Purple Gear Oil for diffential. No good??

[Jim Allen]

That white paper drives me nuts! It's hard not to give a fancy white paper like the one from Amsoil a lot of credence. Nonetheless, that particular paper set my Bovine Scatology detector off. It was just too convenient, with RP being Amsoils number one target competitor.

Sometimes, the convenient answer is the true one and in the absence of more independent tests on that level, or at least something similar from RP that counters it, we must accept it at face value. It's hard to believe a big, largely reputable company like Amsoil would fake results. Too easy to prove if they did. If they didn't fake or distort results, the only answers are, A) a bad batch RP oil, or B) the RP isn't all it's cracked up to be. I do think the performance of the oil in the white paper was lower than the results we see in the field and from the few RP gear oil UOAs that surface. I can't help but think there's something "else" here. I have used RP gears oils with good results so far (e.g. my diff hasn't exploded) but at this point, I wouldn't blame an objective person who has been looking at data for not using RP gear oils in favor of Amsoil.

 

[unDummy]

I would have no problem running the RP for 30k miles.
And, if you fear it so much, use something else at the next scheduled interval.

The Amsoil paper is why I still use and recommend M1 and Redline.

 

[aquariuscsm]

I tried M1 and hated it. Made my rear diff whine. The bottles also had a bunch of flaky stuff floating around the bottom of the bottle. It`s said additive fallout is not an issue,but I won`t be using it. I`ve had Amsoil AGL for a long time now and my car`s rear diff is silent. On the additive fallout note,I have a half quart of the AGL left (my car`s rear diff only holds 1 1/2 quarts) that`s over a year old and there`s no additive fallout whatsoever on the bottom of the bottle.

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
A lot of people seem to have missed the OP's point. He wasn't comparing Royal Purple to Amsoil, he was comparing it to Mobil 1:
Originally Posted By: MikeStaten
Is Mobil 1 gear oil better than Royal Purple??

Originally Posted By: MikeStaten
I was concernced that Royal Purple seemed to do worse than Mobil 1 and Mobil 1 is about half the price.

Amsoil may be biased one way or another, but at least their whitepaper references standard, repeatable tests. This isn't just some stuff that we have to take Amsoil's word for. Anyone at any of hundreds of labs across the country could go to work today and verify the results. Their choice of tests and the marketing may be questionable, but the results themselves are probably reliable and to some extent useful in and of themselves. This is more than can be said for a lot of the advice you get from people, even on this website.

I'd say the OP's concern was reasonable, even if it was unnecessary.


I didn't miss his point but he is basing his RP concerns on that trash from Amsoil. Hence my comments about don't buy into the [censored] in that study. To be fair after trashing the company so to speak over the white papers and their marketing SOP I wanted to mention their products are actually very good. Unlike so many on this site I try hard to be fair and give credit where it is due even if it comes with criticism where it is due.

I also question their test results( especially on RP )when their results were so vastly different from what the mfg posts on the product. I took the time to post a comparison of what RP posts for data and comapre it to what the "Toilet Papers" said. I came up with many instances where the data completely conflicted. So in response to you, and what Jim said, about lack of other evidence I say we have it. Compare the results from Amsoil with RP's published data and then decide who you wannt to believe.

Also, just repeating what I was told( I am not saying this is ture but I wouldn't doubt it that is for sure )and that was the lab used had some kind of ties to Amsoil so was it really independant as they claimed? PLUS Amsoil paid for the testing so if you want to go by the standards people on this site apply to that kind of testing( see the boat section and the RP test from BTC hubbub )the results are completly suspect and bought and paid for.

 

[Jim Allen]

Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
...PLUS Amsoil paid for the testing so if you want to go by the standards people on this site apply to that kind of testing( see the boat section and the RP test from BTC hubbub )the results are completly suspect and bought and paid for.

I kinda doubt it. All RP has to do is duplicate those tests exactly and then it's a "he said-he said" and both sides are even. If RP has, I'd like to see it. I'm not bashing RP here, or standing up for Amsoil, but I just can't go as far as saying Amsoil falsified or altered the data. Something isn't right about it, but what???

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
...PLUS Amsoil paid for the testing so if you want to go by the standards people on this site apply to that kind of testing( see the boat section and the RP test from BTC hubbub )the results are completly suspect and bought and paid for.

I kinda doubt it. All RP has to do is duplicate those tests exactly and then it's a "he said-he said" and both sides are even. If RP has, I'd like to see it. I'm not bashing RP here, or standing up for Amsoil, but I just can't go as far as saying Amsoil falsified or altered the data. Something isn't right about it, but what???


If you had read any of the [censored] going on in the boat section about how the testing done by BTC on RP products had to be rigged because RP paid for the testing to be done you would have got my sarcasm. I was poking fun at people on this site and their double standards. You know, Amsoil pays for a study( possibly done by a lab with some kind of ties to their company - but still paid for by them )and everyone treats the results like they are out of the bible. RP pays BTC to test their product( which they do with no input from RP and they even provided the boat and oil )and everyone says because RP paid them to do the test it is rigged. That was my point. I was saying if you rip RP for buying test results and disbelieve them why do you believe the white papers from Amsoil? Is that more clear now?

Also, at the time the white papers were talked about here I took the time to compare the results given on the various fluids with what those mfg's had posted on their sites for product data. The testing done by Amsoil in those test were standard tests. RP had already done most of that testing( possibly all - as I recall most of the data was therrto compare with a few not ). I found many glaring inconsistancies. So, I say the data is there to look at. Look at what the white papers say for test such and such and then go to RP's site and see their resutls. The testing by Amsoil was nothing special. Just standard tests.

 

[NHHEMI]

Hey Jim;

I went back and found the data I had put up about RP to counter the white papers. I will post it below for you. Just note that the data was what was listed at that time the white papers were discussed here. Any data I show for RP was publicly available from them on their site.

Possibly data has changed since as this was a couple years ago but at the time it was how RP said their product performed in the same tests Amsoil did. I just posted what RP's data was on the things Amsoil reported on.


Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
On the ASTM D-2270 Viscosity test both Amsoil & RP = 165( high # is good )

I don't know enough about the J306 test to comment on what it means and RP does not provide enough data to compare it to what Amsoil claims. That one you have to just go by what Amsoil says. They say RP failed. I am going to contact RP and see what they say when I have time.

On the low-temperature viscosity/Brookfield Viscosity Test (ASTM D-2983)There is a MAJOR difference between what Amsoil claims and what RP claims. Based on false claims about an RP product by Amsoil in the past I will believe RP. Using RP's #'s they actually do better than Amsoil. SAE 75W must be less than 150,000 cP at -40°C (-40°F). Amsoil comes in at 68,150 and claims a ridiculously bad 389,500 for RP. RP claims a 59,911.

Amsoil then makes this statement...


Originally Posted By: "Amsoil"
Royal Purple and Lucas failed the cold-temperature Brookfield requirements for 75W gear
lubes, as well as the high-temperature requirements for SAE 90 gear lubes, effectively disqualifying them entirely from the
SAE 75W-90 category. Royal Purple Max-Gear, having also failed the Shear Stability Test, was the only gear lube to fail
every parameter of the SAE J306 requirements


I say Bull. I can't contradict the J306 test because RP doesn't give the data but they did better than Amsoil in the Broofield test. Sounds like more false and inaccurate statements by Amsoil about the competition which they are famous for.

In the standard pour point test method(ASTM D-97)Amsoil claims a -37 pour point for RP when RP claims a -40. Not a huge difference but once again Amsooil making a false( IMO )claim. They claim a lower pour point for their product of -50. They then go on to say...


Originally Posted By: "Amsoil
It is important to have a low pour point combined with a low Brookfield viscosity value since it is possible to have a good low pour point but only a marginal Brookfield viscosity. Castrol SYNTEC is a good example of this. SYNTEC had the best pour point of the gear lubes tested, but a borderline
Brookfield viscosity pass at 149,850 cP. Lucas 75/90 Synthetic, on the other hand, did not perform well in either area. It
showed a pour point of -37°C (-35°F) and a Brookfield viscosity of greater than 2,000,000 cP. AMSOIL Severe Gear 75W-
90 and Torco SGO Synthetic had the best combined Brookfield and pour point scores.


I would say that is false because they have the completely outrageous 300K Brookfield test data on RP. I highly question the accuracy of that test result. When you factor in RP's claimed 59,911 Brookfield teste result( which was lower than Amsoil )and a respectable -40 pour point test( again their test data better than Amsoils claim ), I would say RP was right there with them in this test.

Can't comment on the Oxidation testing as that data is not available on RP's site.

Next 4 are all related( (2)ASTM D-2783, ASTM D-3233, ASTM D-4172 ).

1) - 4 ball EP weld point. RP has the same test results in both data sheets( 400 )which is the same as the Amsoil.

2) - 4 ball EP load-wear index. RP tests low according to Amsoil. No data from RP to compare to.

3) - falex extreme pressure test. Yeah, okay, RP tested the same as the dino 80W-90's. Please. Can't dispute it of course as that is not data I can check but come on.

4) - 4 ball wear test. RP just below Amsoil. No RP data to compare.

* - so RP performs at the top in 2 but only slightly better or as good as 80W-90 dino on the others? Does anyone else find that hard to believe?

In the Copper Corrosion (ASTM D-130) test Amsoil claims RP fails the GL-5 portion but doesn't test on the MIL( ?? ). RP says they pass the copper corrosion test.

They even try to use Price as a test case in this paper. 1st of all pricing is very different depending on where you buy it. They have RP listed at $13.95 and their product at $11.75. What a JOKE! You can get RP MaxGear anywhere for $9.

In the end this test like all of Amsoil's( and Mobil 1 does it as well )"look how great we are" tests are slective tests chosen to pump them up while putting down their competition. This is not a unique thing to Amsoil or even the synthetic fluid market by any stretch but IMO it is sleezy.

There is also data on RP's site for their product never mentioned in this Amsoil study. So for all those who I just KNOW are thinking there is a reason( ie; it performed poorly so they don't want to admit it )why RP didn't have some of the data posted in this test for me to compare I can say the same about Amsoil. Where are these other tests and why were they not run? How many other tests did you run, that your product performed poorly in, so you didn't include that?

I would like to know how does Amsoil explain some of these very different results claiming poorer #'s than RP got( and one that was way off the chart and really questionable )? How do they explain a failing copper corrosion test when the mfg got a pass? If you are going to take Amsoil at face value on all their claims you have to do the same for RP. So, how does the big differences get explained? I know I have an opinion. I am curious if Amsoil bothered to check the test results they got vs what the mfg of the other products got so when a huge difference occured they might have rechecked it for accuracy? Or, did they just say wahoo we can trash them now?

 

[d00df00d]

How in the heck can you come into a thread where almost every single post supports the use of Royal Purple in the OP's application, and continue to insist there is an anti-RP bias on this site? You might want to consider the effect you yourself are having on Royal Purple's rep.

Either way, it doesn't matter who says what about tests done on Royal Purple by an independent lab. The truth is not a democracy. It's highly unlikely that an independent lab would willingly falsify results. Those labs depend on their reliability. If they were caught falsifying, they would be in trouble.

If the same test is done on the same oil with two slightly different results, then that is probably just normal variation in the mix. If the results are wildly different, then either two different formulations are being used in the different tests or the formulator has poor control over their mix. Or, there could have been a plain old mistake.

Whatever the case, we have plenty of perfectly reasonable and VASTLY more likely explanations without having to resort to conspiracy hypotheses.

It avails nothing to insist that anything negative about your favorite brand was simply fabricated.

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
How in the heck can you come into a thread where almost every single post supports the use of Royal Purple in the OP's application, and continue to insist there is an anti-RP bias on this site? You might want to consider the effect you yourself are having on Royal Purple's rep.

Either way, it doesn't matter who says what about tests done on Royal Purple by an independent lab. The truth is not a democracy. It's highly unlikely that an independent lab would willingly falsify results. Those labs depend on their reliability. If they were caught falsifying, they would be in trouble.

If the same test is done on the same oil with two slightly different results, then that is probably just normal variation in the mix. If the results are wildly different, then either two different formulations are being used in the different tests or the formulator has poor control over their mix. Or, there could have been a plain old mistake.

Whatever the case, we have plenty of perfectly reasonable and VASTLY more likely explanations without having to resort to conspiracy hypotheses.

It avails nothing to insist that anything negative about your favorite brand was simply fabricated.


I love how guys like you put words into my mouth or try to take points I make and turn them into something else. You also have extremely poor reading comprehension my friend.

No anti RP bias on BITOG? What site do you visit?

The OP's concern, and ENTIRE REASON for starting this thread, was due to the Amsoil white papers and the highly suspect results they show not only for RP but other brands like Redline. My comments were made about those white papers and the fact they are really suspect in their results so don't take them as absolute to the exclusion of other data and user experience. Too many people think they are the holy bible of gear oils or soemthing and that is just untrue. One test, done one time, with questionable results yet they are put forth as the end all be all.

The OP starting this thread is proof that people take those results serious. While the % to which they are accurate is unknown I have no doubt they are highly suspect. I said just use the RP and sleep well. Other comment branching off from there came as a result of others comments.

I was also having some fun with those who put so much faith in the WP's yet then turn around and say any testing done by RP must be rigged because they paid for it. I find the comaprison to be very valid since right now we have tests paid for by RP being blasted as rigged( because they paid for them not questioning the data reported so much )and then we have a white papers topic, again, which were paid for by Amsoil and so many people treat it as a holy document. You can't add 1+1 and get2??

Hypocrisy runs rampant on this site.

I am in no way hurting RPs' rep. That is funny. I actually get PM's all the time from people thanking me for my posts about it and showing the bull others push. I like it so I recommend it and point out the false info people post and that is hurting it here? HA! Good one. Might tick of people who like to bash it but hardly hurting the rep of the company or oil.

Wow.

 

[d00df00d]

I think I'm just going to let that response stand. Pretty sure you just proved all the points I was trying to make, and even a few more that I wasn't.

 

[mc130fox]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
I think I'm just going to let that response stand. Pretty sure you just proved all the points I was trying to make, and even a few more that I wasn't.


The comment above is otherwise known by children as the "Rubber & Glue Defense".

 

[d00df00d]

No, it's just not wanting to bloat the thread further because I don't think there's anything more to be gained, and most people looking on will see nothing but bickering. I'd be happy to share my response with you by PM. Just let me know.

 

[Johnny]

Originally Posted By: mc130fox
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
I think I'm just going to let that response stand. Pretty sure you just proved all the points I was trying to make, and even a few more that I wasn't.


The comment above is otherwise known by children as the "Rubber & Glue Defense".


You registered in 2004 and your just now making your first post. Welcome back

 

[unDummy]

Royal Purple 28k UOA in 4cyl Tacoma:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1462816

Amsoil 28k UOA in 8cyl Tundra:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1694228

I'll make the assumption that the above diffs are in a similar family(maybe identical but doubt it 8" Toyota rearend???). I also might assume that the sump is smaller in a Tacoma. I would also think that the the 4cyl would create less stress then a v8. And, that the Tundra weighs more and stresses the end a little more. DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSION.

F$%^ the Amsoil whitepaper and the RoyalPurple boattest.

Use whatever you want and PROVE IT TO YOURSELF WITH A UOA.

I do install and recommend the boutique brands. I've never seen a failure caused by either. But, I don't use RP myself unless dirt cheap. The OTC Mobil1, Castrol, Pennzoil.... synthetics have never failed me either! I also scored a bunch of Lucas motor and gear oil at Pepboys. Didn't gain/lose any MPG. Didn't create/hide any noises. No failure with Lucas either.

[censored] and cry all you want. Just run some UOAs among the brands and see what works for you. Post the UOAs if you want my seriously biased towards preventive maintenance and timely maintenance intervals opinion.

 

[DieselTech]

Redline

 

[gonesurfing]

Originally Posted By: unDummy
Royal Purple 28k UOA in 4cyl Tacoma:

I'll make the assumption that the above diffs are in a similar family(maybe identical but doubt it 8" Toyota rearend???). I also might assume that the sump is smaller in a Tacoma. I would also think that the the 4cyl would create less stress then a v8. And, that the Tundra weighs more and stresses the end a little more. DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSION.


I posted the Tacoma UOA. It takes about 4qts to get the oil to the bottom of the fill hole. There is no doubt that the 4cyl has less torque than the v8, but since it is a 4cyl 4x4, the gear ratio is 4.10:1.

 

[Bror Jace]

Yes, OP's first post is understandable considering the kind of bad advice that is available on the net ... but nothing wrong with RP MaxGear.

Leave it in for a reasonable amount of time (less if you submerge your diffs) and then drain it. Refill with MaxGear again if you can get it at a decent price.