I doubt it. They just quit whining and are letting us run with the ball a bit before the hammer comes down.
I don't get the big deal to be honest.
I don't get the big deal to be honest.
Emailed RP regarding basestocks on SN oils.
- Thread starter donnyj08
- Start date
- Status
Quote:
[/quote]Actually their 0W-20 with it's 177 VI is higher than most traditionally formulated 0W-20's like M1 and PP so it certainly uses polymer thickeners just not the latest very high VI PMA type.
The claim that all their oils are PAO/GP V based I don't believe. For example their 5w30 has a MRV of only 25,200cP. There are dino's with a MRV in that area. By comparison the GP III based Pennzoil Platinum 5w30 has a MRV of only 13,300cP. Now RP's 5W-40 may be PAO based since it has a MRV of 13,340cP.
That's the thing about RP, there is a lot of inconsistency in their product line. If they had more complete PDS info including NOACK and HTHSV then if they do have some particularly well formulated oils they would stand out. As it stands, with a couple of exceptions, I'm generally not impressed.
Quote:
Quote:
Jim I'm just pointing out that their products vary a lot in composition. One should also note that the RP email didn't say they used GP IV & V base oils exclusively. A more pointed question such as, do you use any GP III or even some GP II oils in any of your formulations would be more telling.
[/quote]Actually their 0W-20 with it's 177 VI is higher than most traditionally formulated 0W-20's like M1 and PP so it certainly uses polymer thickeners just not the latest very high VI PMA type.
The claim that all their oils are PAO/GP V based I don't believe. For example their 5w30 has a MRV of only 25,200cP. There are dino's with a MRV in that area. By comparison the GP III based Pennzoil Platinum 5w30 has a MRV of only 13,300cP. Now RP's 5W-40 may be PAO based since it has a MRV of 13,340cP.
That's the thing about RP, there is a lot of inconsistency in their product line. If they had more complete PDS info including NOACK and HTHSV then if they do have some particularly well formulated oils they would stand out. As it stands, with a couple of exceptions, I'm generally not impressed.
Quote:
Quote:
Jim I'm just pointing out that their products vary a lot in composition. One should also note that the RP email didn't say they used GP IV & V base oils exclusively. A more pointed question such as, do you use any GP III or even some GP II oils in any of your formulations would be more telling.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: donnyj08
I understand that RP, Amsoil, Redline, ect. do not fit your "idea" of a great motor oil, because they lack astronomical VI, but i dont think it is fair to condemn any of them on that basis, simply because a VI of 150 is plenty thin for most climates, albeit eliminating super cold ones such as Canada and other very northern countries around the world.
To be fair to CATERHAM, he's not in the coldest part of Canada by any stretch of the imagination, and if VI is an important specification to him, then it's an important specification to him. As for "food for thought," CATERHAM has given us plenty of food for thought on the subject. Note that he has gone on record several times expressing his approval of their 0w-20 - not his favourite 0w-20, but among them.
I'm a big fan of RP myself. I've used their products (and still do) and have been happy with them. As was pointed out, RP has a very wide variety of products with different performance levels, and any individual RP product may impress me, but not you, or vice versa.
What impresses me about RP is that their lines involve both API and non-API products. Further, their industrial lube catalog is probably second only to XOM. Here, their pricing isn't bad, but not great.
I understand that RP, Amsoil, Redline, ect. do not fit your "idea" of a great motor oil, because they lack astronomical VI, but i dont think it is fair to condemn any of them on that basis, simply because a VI of 150 is plenty thin for most climates, albeit eliminating super cold ones such as Canada and other very northern countries around the world.
To be fair to CATERHAM, he's not in the coldest part of Canada by any stretch of the imagination, and if VI is an important specification to him, then it's an important specification to him. As for "food for thought," CATERHAM has given us plenty of food for thought on the subject. Note that he has gone on record several times expressing his approval of their 0w-20 - not his favourite 0w-20, but among them.
I'm a big fan of RP myself. I've used their products (and still do) and have been happy with them. As was pointed out, RP has a very wide variety of products with different performance levels, and any individual RP product may impress me, but not you, or vice versa.
What impresses me about RP is that their lines involve both API and non-API products. Further, their industrial lube catalog is probably second only to XOM. Here, their pricing isn't bad, but not great.
Thanks Garak.
If I lived in Phoenix in the summer I'd still prefer high VI oils. 110F is still a cold start-up for an engine.
And don't let anyone tell you otherwise, as high a VI as possible is the holy grail as far as a motor oil's viscosity is concerned. While most are aware of the benefits of a high VI oil on start-up (the oil is lighter) it also applies at the other temperature extreme when a high VI oil will retain more of it's viscosity at high temp's.
If an engine oil's viscosity is optimized at normal operating temp's, a high VI oil will provide a larger viscosity safety margin if higher oil temp's do occur since the oil will not thin out as rapidly as tempertures rise. This attribute is very appealing to auto manufacturers because it means an even lighter oil can be specified for a given viscosity high temp' safety margin.
I do like many RP, Amsoil and Red Line products and use them.
RP's 0W oils do have higher than average VIs, Amsoil's 0W-40 has a high VI and RL has some very high VI oils specifically their 0W-40 (197 VI). So I certainly don't condemn these brands.
Having said that, I do champion class leading oils when I uncover them.
BTW, one high VI 0W-20 I forgot to mention was the SynGard GF-5 0W-20 (HTHSV 2.7cP, VI 220) made by Cross Oil of Smackover, AR.
If I lived in Phoenix in the summer I'd still prefer high VI oils. 110F is still a cold start-up for an engine.
And don't let anyone tell you otherwise, as high a VI as possible is the holy grail as far as a motor oil's viscosity is concerned. While most are aware of the benefits of a high VI oil on start-up (the oil is lighter) it also applies at the other temperature extreme when a high VI oil will retain more of it's viscosity at high temp's.
If an engine oil's viscosity is optimized at normal operating temp's, a high VI oil will provide a larger viscosity safety margin if higher oil temp's do occur since the oil will not thin out as rapidly as tempertures rise. This attribute is very appealing to auto manufacturers because it means an even lighter oil can be specified for a given viscosity high temp' safety margin.
I do like many RP, Amsoil and Red Line products and use them.
RP's 0W oils do have higher than average VIs, Amsoil's 0W-40 has a high VI and RL has some very high VI oils specifically their 0W-40 (197 VI). So I certainly don't condemn these brands.
Having said that, I do champion class leading oils when I uncover them.
BTW, one high VI 0W-20 I forgot to mention was the SynGard GF-5 0W-20 (HTHSV 2.7cP, VI 220) made by Cross Oil of Smackover, AR.
Originally Posted By: donnyj08
Feel free to email RP in a manner you see fit. As for me i have no basis to quiz or question what they have told me.
Hi Donny, I've got nothing against RP, but I understand what Caterham is saying there. You have to be very careful about stuff that marketing people tell you.
Quote:
"Although Royal Purple oil formulations are considered proprietary, I am authorized to share with you that we use a proprietary combination of premium synthetic Group IV(PAO) and Group V base stocks. The additive packages are also the very best available for each."
If that comes from a sales/marketing bod, then to to me that does NOT mean that they use Group IV / Group V exclusivity. Sorry for the skepticism, but I've seen too many carefully worded marketing type statements that are written in the hope that you will read more into the statement than is actually written.
BTW. I've got nothing against RP *except* that it costs $100 for 5 quarts of 5W30 here.
Feel free to email RP in a manner you see fit. As for me i have no basis to quiz or question what they have told me.
Hi Donny, I've got nothing against RP, but I understand what Caterham is saying there. You have to be very careful about stuff that marketing people tell you.
Quote:
"Although Royal Purple oil formulations are considered proprietary, I am authorized to share with you that we use a proprietary combination of premium synthetic Group IV(PAO) and Group V base stocks. The additive packages are also the very best available for each."
If that comes from a sales/marketing bod, then to to me that does NOT mean that they use Group IV / Group V exclusivity. Sorry for the skepticism, but I've seen too many carefully worded marketing type statements that are written in the hope that you will read more into the statement than is actually written.
BTW. I've got nothing against RP *except* that it costs $100 for 5 quarts of 5W30 here.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
If I lived in Phoenix in the summer I'd still prefer high VI oils. 110F is still a cold start-up for an engine. And don't let anyone tell you otherwise, as high a VI as possible is the holy grail as far as a motor oil's viscosity is concerned.
And that's the food for thought that people shouldn't forget. Notice that you are talking about VI and not MRV or CCV. I may have reason to worry about the latter two, but not everyone does.
I do pay some attention to VI. And if automakers weren't, we'd still see straight grades specified.
And back to the original topic, I think it would be hard to know much about the base stock of all RP's line. I'm pretty sure some of their industrial stuff is semi-synthetic. Considering they have everything from SN stuff to racing oils, one would suspect some differences. I know the elimination of pour point on the data sheets gave me pause. Generally speaking, no one eliminates publication of a specification when a reformulation results in an improvement.
If I lived in Phoenix in the summer I'd still prefer high VI oils. 110F is still a cold start-up for an engine. And don't let anyone tell you otherwise, as high a VI as possible is the holy grail as far as a motor oil's viscosity is concerned.
And that's the food for thought that people shouldn't forget. Notice that you are talking about VI and not MRV or CCV. I may have reason to worry about the latter two, but not everyone does.
I do pay some attention to VI. And if automakers weren't, we'd still see straight grades specified.
And back to the original topic, I think it would be hard to know much about the base stock of all RP's line. I'm pretty sure some of their industrial stuff is semi-synthetic. Considering they have everything from SN stuff to racing oils, one would suspect some differences. I know the elimination of pour point on the data sheets gave me pause. Generally speaking, no one eliminates publication of a specification when a reformulation results in an improvement.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Thanks Garak.
If I lived in Phoenix in the summer I'd still prefer high VI oils. 110F is still a cold start-up for an engine.
And don't let anyone tell you otherwise, as high a VI as possible is the holy grail as far as a motor oil's viscosity is concerned. While most are aware of the benefits of a high VI oil on start-up (the oil is lighter) it also applies at the other temperature extreme when a high VI oil will retain more of it's viscosity at high temp's.
If an engine oil's viscosity is optimized at normal operating temp's, a high VI oil will provide a larger viscosity safety margin if higher oil temp's do occur since the oil will not thin out as rapidly as tempertures rise. This attribute is very appealing to auto manufacturers because it means an even lighter oil can be specified for a given viscosity high temp' safety margin.
I do like many RP, Amsoil and Red Line products and use them.
RP's 0W oils do have higher than average VIs, Amsoil's 0W-40 has a high VI and RL has some very high VI oils specifically their 0W-40 (197 VI). So I certainly don't condemn these brands.
Having said that, I do champion class leading oils when I uncover them.
BTW, one high VI 0W-20 I forgot to mention was the SynGard GF-5 0W-20 (HTHSV 2.7cP, VI 220) made by Cross Oil of Smackover, AR.
CATERHAM I truly do respect your expertise on motor oil. Please don't think it was or is my intent to argue with you. I realize that a high high VI is in fact better in a cold start, and probably in areas that I do not understand to your extent. I was not intending to accuse you of not liking those brands of oil, I was just simply stating according you your post most of their oils do not meet the criteria as your "ideal" oil, from a VI index stand point.
My point was, and correct me If I am wrong, a VI index of 150 is not too thick to provide adequate protection in a mild climate, I agree that thinner on start up is better for flow to the top of and engine, but a VI of 150 or so is still very pumpable.
CATERHAM, do you happen to know the HTHSV of the RP 5W20 SN oil?
Thanks Garak.
If I lived in Phoenix in the summer I'd still prefer high VI oils. 110F is still a cold start-up for an engine.
And don't let anyone tell you otherwise, as high a VI as possible is the holy grail as far as a motor oil's viscosity is concerned. While most are aware of the benefits of a high VI oil on start-up (the oil is lighter) it also applies at the other temperature extreme when a high VI oil will retain more of it's viscosity at high temp's.
If an engine oil's viscosity is optimized at normal operating temp's, a high VI oil will provide a larger viscosity safety margin if higher oil temp's do occur since the oil will not thin out as rapidly as tempertures rise. This attribute is very appealing to auto manufacturers because it means an even lighter oil can be specified for a given viscosity high temp' safety margin.
I do like many RP, Amsoil and Red Line products and use them.
RP's 0W oils do have higher than average VIs, Amsoil's 0W-40 has a high VI and RL has some very high VI oils specifically their 0W-40 (197 VI). So I certainly don't condemn these brands.
Having said that, I do champion class leading oils when I uncover them.
BTW, one high VI 0W-20 I forgot to mention was the SynGard GF-5 0W-20 (HTHSV 2.7cP, VI 220) made by Cross Oil of Smackover, AR.
CATERHAM I truly do respect your expertise on motor oil. Please don't think it was or is my intent to argue with you. I realize that a high high VI is in fact better in a cold start, and probably in areas that I do not understand to your extent. I was not intending to accuse you of not liking those brands of oil, I was just simply stating according you your post most of their oils do not meet the criteria as your "ideal" oil, from a VI index stand point.
My point was, and correct me If I am wrong, a VI index of 150 is not too thick to provide adequate protection in a mild climate, I agree that thinner on start up is better for flow to the top of and engine, but a VI of 150 or so is still very pumpable.
CATERHAM, do you happen to know the HTHSV of the RP 5W20 SN oil?
Last edited:
I don't think they publish their HTHS values, which is pretty much the norm, but unfortunate. Perhaps they'd provide that information over the phone or by email if asked. If RP wants to separate themselves from the pack, they should publish some of these things.
CATERHAM may know the value, but I don't. I'd guess it's in line with the usual SN/GF-5 suspects, and certainly lower than those non-ILSAC oils like Red Line.
CATERHAM may know the value, but I don't. I'd guess it's in line with the usual SN/GF-5 suspects, and certainly lower than those non-ILSAC oils like Red Line.
Originally Posted By: Garak
I don't think they publish their HTHS values, which is pretty much the norm, but unfortunate. Perhaps they'd provide that information over the phone or by email if asked. If RP wants to separate themselves from the pack, they should publish some of these things.
CATERHAM may know the value, but I don't. I'd guess it's in line with the usual SN/GF-5 suspects, and certainly lower than those non-ILSAC oils like Red Line.
I would guess it would have to be between 2.6 and 2.8 to be 20wt, it would however be interesting to know the oils true thickness within that range.
I don't think they publish their HTHS values, which is pretty much the norm, but unfortunate. Perhaps they'd provide that information over the phone or by email if asked. If RP wants to separate themselves from the pack, they should publish some of these things.
CATERHAM may know the value, but I don't. I'd guess it's in line with the usual SN/GF-5 suspects, and certainly lower than those non-ILSAC oils like Red Line.
I would guess it would have to be between 2.6 and 2.8 to be 20wt, it would however be interesting to know the oils true thickness within that range.
I agree with CATERHAM for the most part. The only thing you run into is the risk of the VI's breaking down and causing more varnish/deposits and more volatility.
It really depends on how the formulator is getting the ultra high VI. In almost all studies I've read, 0w oils and oils with larger spread between w and viscosity, show higher volatility and a greater tendency to shear.
This is why you see companies like Redline and others make oils with little to no VM'ers. There are drawbacks.
For daily driver cars, this is less likely to be an issue.
It really depends on how the formulator is getting the ultra high VI. In almost all studies I've read, 0w oils and oils with larger spread between w and viscosity, show higher volatility and a greater tendency to shear.
This is why you see companies like Redline and others make oils with little to no VM'ers. There are drawbacks.
For daily driver cars, this is less likely to be an issue.
I am contemplating running 5w20 this winter in my Corolla's 1ZZFE which has only seen 30 weight up until now. The car has been backspec'd for 20 wt. and it makes perfect sense that "no oil is thin enough at start up"...
On the other hand my b-i-l has over 200K on his 1ZZFE and it has never seen anything but 5w30 conventional so I sometimes think that I (we) overthink this stuff...
On the other hand my b-i-l has over 200K on his 1ZZFE and it has never seen anything but 5w30 conventional so I sometimes think that I (we) overthink this stuff...
Originally Posted By: pbm
On the other hand my b-i-l has over 200K on his 1ZZFE and it has never seen anything but 5w30 conventional so I sometimes think that I (we) overthink this stuff...
Of we course we do and its completely unnecessary but part of it fun!
On the other hand my b-i-l has over 200K on his 1ZZFE and it has never seen anything but 5w30 conventional so I sometimes think that I (we) overthink this stuff...
Of we course we do and its completely unnecessary but part of it fun!
Originally Posted By: jayg
Originally Posted By: pbm
On the other hand my b-i-l has over 200K on his 1ZZFE and it has never seen anything but 5w30 conventional so I sometimes think that I (we) overthink this stuff...
Of we course we do and its completely unnecessary but part of it fun!
This is the point I was trying to make. Many engines run 200-300k on low VI bulk conventional oils. But it is very interesting and fun to discuss.
Originally Posted By: pbm
On the other hand my b-i-l has over 200K on his 1ZZFE and it has never seen anything but 5w30 conventional so I sometimes think that I (we) overthink this stuff...
Of we course we do and its completely unnecessary but part of it fun!
This is the point I was trying to make. Many engines run 200-300k on low VI bulk conventional oils. But it is very interesting and fun to discuss.
Originally Posted By: buster
It really depends on how the formulator is getting the ultra high VI. In almost all studies I've read, 0w oils and oils with larger spread between w and viscosity, show higher volatility and a greater tendency to shear.
This is why you see companies like Redline and others make oils with little to no VM'ers. There are drawbacks.
True for the 'old school' VIIs, but CATERHAM (and many actual tribologists) claim(s) that the new PMA type of VII are actually shear-proof, so they are something which we would WANT added to the (hopefully already high VI) basestocks.
Now, there are some tribologists/chemical engineers out there who claim that even the supposedly excellent PMA VIIs will shear with the resultant negative effects under certain circumstances.
Whether or not they are too 'old school', or close-mined to accept something new and improved, which goes against their theories/previous training, who knows?
It really depends on how the formulator is getting the ultra high VI. In almost all studies I've read, 0w oils and oils with larger spread between w and viscosity, show higher volatility and a greater tendency to shear.
This is why you see companies like Redline and others make oils with little to no VM'ers. There are drawbacks.
True for the 'old school' VIIs, but CATERHAM (and many actual tribologists) claim(s) that the new PMA type of VII are actually shear-proof, so they are something which we would WANT added to the (hopefully already high VI) basestocks.
Now, there are some tribologists/chemical engineers out there who claim that even the supposedly excellent PMA VIIs will shear with the resultant negative effects under certain circumstances.
Whether or not they are too 'old school', or close-mined to accept something new and improved, which goes against their theories/previous training, who knows?
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: buster
It really depends on how the formulator is getting the ultra high VI. In almost all studies I've read, 0w oils and oils with larger spread between w and viscosity, show higher volatility and a greater tendency to shear.
This is why you see companies like Redline and others make oils with little to no VM'ers. There are drawbacks.
True for the 'old school' VIIs, but CATERHAM (and many actual tribologists) claim(s) that the new PMA type of VII are actually shear-proof, so they are something which we would WANT added to the (hopefully already high VI) basestocks.
Now, there are some tribologists/chemical engineers out there who claim that even the supposedly excellent PMA VIIs will shear with the resultant negative effects under certain circumstances.
Whether or not they are too 'old school', or close-mined to accept something new and improved, which goes against their theories/previous training, who knows?
Great points! You'd think Amsoil, Red Line, and Royal Purple would have jumped on that bandwagon. They haven't? Why? They probably have good reasons for why they didn't, so who do we believe?
Originally Posted By: buster
It really depends on how the formulator is getting the ultra high VI. In almost all studies I've read, 0w oils and oils with larger spread between w and viscosity, show higher volatility and a greater tendency to shear.
This is why you see companies like Redline and others make oils with little to no VM'ers. There are drawbacks.
True for the 'old school' VIIs, but CATERHAM (and many actual tribologists) claim(s) that the new PMA type of VII are actually shear-proof, so they are something which we would WANT added to the (hopefully already high VI) basestocks.
Now, there are some tribologists/chemical engineers out there who claim that even the supposedly excellent PMA VIIs will shear with the resultant negative effects under certain circumstances.
Whether or not they are too 'old school', or close-mined to accept something new and improved, which goes against their theories/previous training, who knows?
Great points! You'd think Amsoil, Red Line, and Royal Purple would have jumped on that bandwagon. They haven't? Why? They probably have good reasons for why they didn't, so who do we believe?
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
They probably have good reasons for why they didn't, so who do we believe?
If their formulas are selling sufficiently well and perform within specifications with a slightly lower VI, I suppose there's not a lot of reason for the smaller companies to switch.
They probably have good reasons for why they didn't, so who do we believe?
If their formulas are selling sufficiently well and perform within specifications with a slightly lower VI, I suppose there's not a lot of reason for the smaller companies to switch.
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
They probably have good reasons for why they didn't, so who do we believe?
If their formulas are selling sufficiently well and perform within specifications with a slightly lower VI, I suppose there's not a lot of reason for the smaller companies to switch.
OTOH if the higher VI is the best wouldn't the smaller so called cutting edge companies want the very best. Amsoil and Red line come to mind here..........
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
They probably have good reasons for why they didn't, so who do we believe?
If their formulas are selling sufficiently well and perform within specifications with a slightly lower VI, I suppose there's not a lot of reason for the smaller companies to switch.
OTOH if the higher VI is the best wouldn't the smaller so called cutting edge companies want the very best. Amsoil and Red line come to mind here..........
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
They probably have good reasons for why they didn't, so who do we believe?
If their formulas are selling sufficiently well and perform within specifications with a slightly lower VI, I suppose there's not a lot of reason for the smaller companies to switch.
OTOH if the higher VI is the best wouldn't the smaller so called cutting edge companies want the very best. Amsoil and Red line come to mind here..........
very interesting thoughts here, what is true??
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
They probably have good reasons for why they didn't, so who do we believe?
If their formulas are selling sufficiently well and perform within specifications with a slightly lower VI, I suppose there's not a lot of reason for the smaller companies to switch.
OTOH if the higher VI is the best wouldn't the smaller so called cutting edge companies want the very best. Amsoil and Red line come to mind here..........
very interesting thoughts here, what is true??
I'm not sure, demparpaint. After all, RP does try to cater to some old school North American applications. Perhaps they're catering to the fear of shear.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
