Is Royal purple worth the extra $$?

[T-Stick]

All good oil companies have their testimonials so that does not make RP worth the additional dollars over the other same tier performance options. How do you quantify testimonials against each other?

If RP's PAO base cannot demonstrate tested superiority over the more competitive options, then it essentially is nothing more than marketing with no return on investment.

To characterize those who don't use RP, due to the lack of empirical data to justify its premium as "haters;" simply shows that the RP advocates have little to base empirical data to base their case on.

How would running it for a few oil changes so you can say "I'm a user" change anything in an objective analysis?

 

[gfh77665]

Originally Posted By: deven
People who love Royal Purple usually love it because they are gear heads who use Royal Purple in their modified racing engines and then after a couple of years open up an engine and marvel at how well the components look and how little to no wear there is. I belong in this category. I own a very reputable speed shop and have torn down many an engine running on Royal Purple and every single time there is little to no wear. Of all the engines torn down and all the various oils used all my mechanics unequivocally agrees that Royal Purple tends to protect the best. This conclusion is not based just on visual inspection but also careful measurements of components before and after.

The second type of people are those who have never given Royal Purple a fair shot and bad mouth them from what they read on the internet and want to conclude that an oil is not top tier oil because the so called "numbers" are inferior to some cheap alternative. Better yet they read used oil analysis here and split hairs about how it has more wear than other oils in different applications.

Thank you for the links and numbers. As insightful as they may be I elect to use Royal Purple because my "real world" experience has shown it to be a top notch and the finest out there. Tearing open over 100's of engines run on Royal Purple and the results speak for themselves.


Thank you Deven! That personal account OUGHT to shut up the hate, but I know it won't, sadly. The haters can't do simple math (RP goes 10k-12k intervals & less filters to buy) and most have never even tried RP, but they will stupidly persist, saying things like "it's a junk oil not fit for an old lawnmower", and so on. So, so sad to see them drag down BITOG's credibility like they do.

 

[gfh77665]

Originally Posted By: T-Stick

To characterize those who don't use RP, due to the lack of empirical data to justify its premium as "haters;" simply shows that the RP advocates have little to base empirical data to base their case on.


Where is the "empirical data" in the following statements?

Its junk oil.
Its not fit for a lawnmower.
Its a scam.
It made my 1981 Yugo run ruff.
Its a rip off.
Its garbage.


The very ones who make statements like these above are the very ones who have never even tried RP, and then angerly demand "scientific data" from those opposed to RP bashing.

Go figure.

 

[FutureDoc]

Yes, but if you ran any other like-quality oil and tore down the engines, what would you see? Would other oil be causing failure or wear that is worthy of cost/replacement? You are tearing down an engine here so at what point is there a return on investment for a "higher priced oil"? Tearing down the engine and claiming the oil can easily be a spurious result. Oil is not the only thing affecting wear... you need to limit other variables if you are going to make a causal claim. I am sure other oils can claim the same "result'.

Next, racing engines are not "real world" examples for 99% of the vehicle in this forum. Actually, the conditions are completely different (I don't tear down the wagon's engine unless I can't get groceries). In my fleet, there has not be one recorded engine failure as a result of oil or engine wear. Really, it is the transmission or electrical issues that kill my vehicles (or really send them to the auction block). We use bulk oil changed at 5000/7500 for either bulk conventional/Synblend and we put the miles on them (20-30K a year and some are 8+ years old). If you do a cost analysis (and that is really RP problem), then is RP worth the extra $$ if the component it is keeping "little wear" on a component that does not normally kill a vehicle (I would say rust, transmission, electrical, and perception). Cheap insurance? Not really as you are doubling the price of the product for no return. Heck if your warranty limits the OCI, you are REALLY pouring purple dye down the drain. That is the big difference between oil for the grocery-getter and track-day toys.

No one is arguing that it is a bad oil. Above average - upper end: sure, but people argue against the price and really the price for the return on investment.

 

[deven]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Problem is that people who love Royal Purple categorise anyone who doesn't as a hater.

Got any pics ?

It's an unusual career combination, speed shop and pharmacist

It is clear that people in this thread dont like Royal Purple but for the "hate" to be imminently based from a PDS or MSDS is asanine. I bet that everyone in this thread who bash Royal Purple have probably never tried it even once. I have never tried Amsoil so when someone creates a thread on it you bet I wont chime in and say its bad because I read the PDS and since I dont like some of the numbers then clearly its not worth it.

I've been fortunate enough to have a career in pharmacy affording me to raise enough capital to open up a speed shop. It maybe a weird combination but not all pharmacists are all nerdy

We have plenty of pics at the shop but we do not put them on the internet. When and if you are around my neighborhood you are more than welcome to come by and check things out.

 

[NHHEMI]

Once again I feel compelled to speak up even though I said I was out. I have bit my tongue so to speak and have been good to my word to this point. However, the whining about being called haters by the well known RP bashers is just ridiculous and warrants a response. There ARE those on this site who go out of their way to post negatively about RP any chance they get and those same folks by their own admission haven't used RP before. To me that justifies calling them out and labeling them as haters and bashers and the like.

If a person has never run RP oil how can they truly form a "valid" opinion on it, call it junk, overpriced, etc...? I don't get that. For those who have not used RP yet insist on constantly berating the product how do you justify that? Do you do that with other things in life or is it just RP?

With zero experience to back up such claims I am truly amazed that people feel it is ok to make such negative comments about the quality of the product or better yet tell actual users they are wrong. Just doesn't add up to me, sorry. What really amazes me is how so many will listen to someone who hasn't used a product over someone who has! Over the years I have seen how new members pickup on and parrot the BITOG anti-RP party line and turn into RP bashers even though they too haven't used it. It is almost comical.

If I started telling some of the RP bashers here that they were ignorant about a favored product of theirs, or calling it garbage and junk, while never having used it myself, I wager most of them would get a bit testy as well. However, here at BITOG it is ok to bash RP with no experience to justify the negative claims. Just asinine IMO and especially on a site about oil where people should be more educated than that.

I have used it, for decades, and had nothing but good results. Have had excellent used oil analysis and like the other member above I have actually torn engines apart that ran on it( not as many as he has but quite a few - 10+ - I used to be into drag racing, muscle cars, and hot rods so I did a lot of engine work )and the insides were spotless and had no discernable wear. While I have not done any tear downs on engines run on the new RP API formula I have had used oil analysis done that show it to be a fine oil.

As I have said many times I really don't care what others use and like. No one will ever find me berating another member over their oil choice nor find me trying to sway others to use RP. You will also never see me claim it is "the best oil" out there for all applications. I try and stick to speaking about the products I like and refrain from commenting on those I don't. I certainly will not speak as if I know everything about a product I have never used! I wish others could be as respectful of the RP users on this site.

It is one thing to constantly post negatively about RP if you actually used it and it failed. I have seen no evidence however from the regular RP bashers here that ANY actual hands on experience/use is behind their clear and obvious hatred of the product. Rather it is stupid things like the color, marketing( like all oil companies don't get carried away with their marketing ), etc... or it is inaccurate info such as it being over priced. Nothing is ever said about I don't like it because I used it and it didn't work well or I had a problem with it. Nothing like that which would justify such negativity. Just little, stupid, things that have NO BEARING on RP's quality.

RP can not get a fair shake on this site. Just a simple fact. Too many with an agenda unrelated to the product's actual quality. While that is not a big deal for those of us with experience and who know it performs well it is kind of a shame that new members to the site, who may not know as much about oil and who come here to try and learn, are mislead about such a fine product line.

A real shame.

 

[deven]

Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Yes, but if you ran any other like-quality oil and tore down the engines, what would you see? Would other oil be causing failure or wear that is worthy of cost/replacement? You are tearing down an engine here so at what point is there a return on investment for a "higher priced oil"? Tearing down the engine and claiming the oil can easily be a spurious result. Oil is not the only thing affecting wear... you need to limit other variables if you are going to make a causal claim. I am sure other oils can claim the same "result'.

Next, racing engines are not "real world" examples for 99% of the vehicle in this forum. Actually, the conditions are completely different (I don't tear down the wagon's engine unless I can't get groceries). In my fleet, there has not be one recorded engine failure as a result of oil or engine wear. Really, it is the transmission or electrical issues that kill my vehicles (or really send them to the auction block). We use bulk oil changed at 5000/7500 for either bulk conventional/Synblend and we put the miles on them (20-30K a year and some are 8+ years old). If you do a cost analysis (and that is really RP problem), then is RP worth the extra $$ if the component it is keeping "little wear" on a component that does not normally kill a vehicle (I would say rust, transmission, electrical, and perception). Cheap insurance? Not really as you are doubling the price of the product for no return. Heck if your warranty limits the OCI, you are REALLY pouring purple dye down the drain. That is the big difference between oil for the grocery-getter and track-day toys.

No one is arguing that it is a bad oil. Above average - upper end: sure, but people argue against the price and really the price for the return on investment.

I think you hit the nail on the head. I dont think any modern oil will cause nearly enough wear to a point of failure. Agreed that Mobil 1, Pennzoil Platinum, Valvoline, Quaker State etc will give you great protection for a long long time just as RP. Now is RP worth more $$? If you're looking at it the way you are then clearly the answer is no. For me RP is worth the extra $$ because I like the fact that for an extra $15/ oil change I get a PAO base and a very stout add pack. I can justify $15 so thats why I use it.

 

[FutureDoc]

You don't have to use a product to give an opinion about the price-point based on readily available data, It is called an informed decision. I say it is overprice (being the most expensive option on the shelf and rarely discounted) and the "data" ie VOA, UOA, does not suggest that the investment is worth the additional cost. If X oil @ $5 per qt gets me to the end of the serviceable life of the vehicle, then even $7 M1 is not worth it. And that is the heart of the argument. It is cost v benefit. Cost is not a black/white quantifiable (although we try) decision metric. There are other things happening to determine "worth". At $9+ per quart, one really is not getting anything more than what other oils can provide at a lower cost.

I have never been to Moscow but I know I would not want to live there. I have not owned a Lear-jet but I know it would be wasteful for my morning commute or even my holiday travels. I have not been to a MMA fight but if you ask me if $XXX per ticket is worth it, I would say "no".

 

[123Saab]

Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
You don't have to use a product to give an opinion about the price-point based on readily available data, It is called an informed decision. I say it is overprice (being the most expensive option on the shelf and rarely discounted) and the "data" ie VOA, UOA, does not suggest that the investment is worth the additional cost. If X oil @ $5 per qt gets me to the end of the serviceable life of the vehicle, then even $7 M1 is not worth it. And that is the heart of the argument. It is cost v benefit. Cost is not a black/white quantifiable (although we try) decision metric. There are other things happening to determine "worth". At $9+ per quart, one really is not getting anything more than what other oils can provide at a lower cost.

I have never been to Moscow but I know I would not want to live there. I have not owned a Lear-jet but I know it would be wasteful for my morning commute or even my holiday travels. I have not been to a MMA fight but if you ask me if $XXX per ticket is worth it, I would say "no".


$7.86 on amazon and free shipping.

 

[deven]

Futuredoc, as true as your statement maybe I was addressing the people who look at the PDS and label an oil to be bad just by dissecting the numbers.

Every year the NY Yankees have the highest payroll and if you look at their line-up with all the eye popping numbers you'd bet that they will win the world series. We all know that is not the case every year!

 

[deven]

Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
You don't have to use a product to give an opinion about the price-point based on readily available data, It is called an informed decision. I say it is overprice (being the most expensive option on the shelf and rarely discounted) and the "data" ie VOA, UOA, does not suggest that the investment is worth the additional cost. If X oil @ $5 per qt gets me to the end of the serviceable life of the vehicle, then even $7 M1 is not worth it. And that is the heart of the argument. It is cost v benefit. Cost is not a black/white quantifiable (although we try) decision metric. There are other things happening to determine "worth". At $9+ per quart, one really is not getting anything more than what other oils can provide at a lower cost.

I have never been to Moscow but I know I would not want to live there. I have not owned a Lear-jet but I know it would be wasteful for my morning commute or even my holiday travels. I have not been to a MMA fight but if you ask me if $XXX per ticket is worth it, I would say "no".

To each their own. We all decide to spend our money in different ways. With your frugal thinking I hope you always own a car thats the cheapest to own because we all know that it'll get you from point A to B just as same as the next more expensive option.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: gfh77665
Originally Posted By: deven
People who love Royal Purple usually love it because they are gear heads who use Royal Purple in their modified racing engines and then after a couple of years open up an engine and marvel at how well the components look and how little to no wear there is. I belong in this category. I own a very reputable speed shop and have torn down many an engine running on Royal Purple and every single time there is little to no wear. Of all the engines torn down and all the various oils used all my mechanics unequivocally agrees that Royal Purple tends to protect the best. This conclusion is not based just on visual inspection but also careful measurements of components before and after.

The second type of people are those who have never given Royal Purple a fair shot and bad mouth them from what they read on the internet and want to conclude that an oil is not top tier oil because the so called "numbers" are inferior to some cheap alternative. Better yet they read used oil analysis here and split hairs about how it has more wear than other oils in different applications.

Thank you for the links and numbers. As insightful as they may be I elect to use Royal Purple because my "real world" experience has shown it to be a top notch and the finest out there. Tearing open over 100's of engines run on Royal Purple and the results speak for themselves.


Thank you Deven! That personal account OUGHT to shut up the hate, but I know it won't, sadly. The haters can't do simple math (RP goes 10k-12k intervals & less filters to buy) and most have never even tried RP, but they will stupidly persist, saying things like "it's a junk oil not fit for an old lawnmower", and so on. So, so sad to see them drag down BITOG's credibility like they do.


And API conventional that meets Fords specs go 10K intervals also. Do you have a point there? I doubt it since you are fixated on fictional "hate".

 

[billythekid]

Originally Posted By: deven

Every year the NY Yankees have the highest payroll and if you look at their line-up with all the eye popping numbers you'd bet that they will win the world series. We all know that is not the case every year!


Dodgers took that title a few years ago

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: deven
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Yes, but if you ran any other like-quality oil and tore down the engines, what would you see? Would other oil be causing failure or wear that is worthy of cost/replacement? You are tearing down an engine here so at what point is there a return on investment for a "higher priced oil"? Tearing down the engine and claiming the oil can easily be a spurious result. Oil is not the only thing affecting wear... you need to limit other variables if you are going to make a causal claim. I am sure other oils can claim the same "result'.

Next, racing engines are not "real world" examples for 99% of the vehicle in this forum. Actually, the conditions are completely different (I don't tear down the wagon's engine unless I can't get groceries). In my fleet, there has not be one recorded engine failure as a result of oil or engine wear. Really, it is the transmission or electrical issues that kill my vehicles (or really send them to the auction block). We use bulk oil changed at 5000/7500 for either bulk conventional/Synblend and we put the miles on them (20-30K a year and some are 8+ years old). If you do a cost analysis (and that is really RP problem), then is RP worth the extra $$ if the component it is keeping "little wear" on a component that does not normally kill a vehicle (I would say rust, transmission, electrical, and perception). Cheap insurance? Not really as you are doubling the price of the product for no return. Heck if your warranty limits the OCI, you are REALLY pouring purple dye down the drain. That is the big difference between oil for the grocery-getter and track-day toys.

No one is arguing that it is a bad oil. Above average - upper end: sure, but people argue against the price and really the price for the return on investment.

I think you hit the nail on the head. I dont think any modern oil will cause nearly enough wear to a point of failure. Agreed that Mobil 1, Pennzoil Platinum, Valvoline, Quaker State etc will give you great protection for a long long time just as RP. Now is RP worth more $$? If you're looking at it the way you are then clearly the answer is no. For me RP is worth the extra $$ because I like the fact that for an extra $15/ oil change I get a PAO base and a very stout add pack. I can justify $15 so thats why I use it.


Again you have not shown that is PAO based. All anyone has provided is a facebook post from a Royal Purple marketing rep which is the same department that posted some claims like using Royal Purple prevents rust.

The advantage of PAO is superior cold weather pumping performances, I have posted the virgin specs of PAO and a few of the higher valued group III base stocks and royal purple API does not match virgin PAO let alone a finished product.
http://www.pqiamerica.com/2012 April results/Amsoil.htm
http://www.pqiamerica.com/March2013PCMO/roylprp.htm

See the difference AMSOIL Signature Series is a PAO based PCMO and in extreme cold -30 the pumping viscosity is 3,398, Royal Purple is 5,562.

A GTL base PU is 3,827 and Mobil 1 is 3,937. Facebook posts from an marketing rep must hold some serious weight. Because Royal Purple API is really a average performer in VOA and UOA data.

 

[deven]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: deven
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Yes, but if you ran any other like-quality oil and tore down the engines, what would you see? Would other oil be causing failure or wear that is worthy of cost/replacement? You are tearing down an engine here so at what point is there a return on investment for a "higher priced oil"? Tearing down the engine and claiming the oil can easily be a spurious result. Oil is not the only thing affecting wear... you need to limit other variables if you are going to make a causal claim. I am sure other oils can claim the same "result'.

Next, racing engines are not "real world" examples for 99% of the vehicle in this forum. Actually, the conditions are completely different (I don't tear down the wagon's engine unless I can't get groceries). In my fleet, there has not be one recorded engine failure as a result of oil or engine wear. Really, it is the transmission or electrical issues that kill my vehicles (or really send them to the auction block). We use bulk oil changed at 5000/7500 for either bulk conventional/Synblend and we put the miles on them (20-30K a year and some are 8+ years old). If you do a cost analysis (and that is really RP problem), then is RP worth the extra $$ if the component it is keeping "little wear" on a component that does not normally kill a vehicle (I would say rust, transmission, electrical, and perception). Cheap insurance? Not really as you are doubling the price of the product for no return. Heck if your warranty limits the OCI, you are REALLY pouring purple dye down the drain. That is the big difference between oil for the grocery-getter and track-day toys.

No one is arguing that it is a bad oil. Above average - upper end: sure, but people argue against the price and really the price for the return on investment.

I think you hit the nail on the head. I dont think any modern oil will cause nearly enough wear to a point of failure. Agreed that Mobil 1, Pennzoil Platinum, Valvoline, Quaker State etc will give you great protection for a long long time just as RP. Now is RP worth more $$? If you're looking at it the way you are then clearly the answer is no. For me RP is worth the extra $$ because I like the fact that for an extra $15/ oil change I get a PAO base and a very stout add pack. I can justify $15 so thats why I use it.


Again you have not shown that is PAO based. All anyone has provided is a facebook post from a Royal Purple marketing rep which is the same department that posted some claims like using Royal Purple prevents rust.

The advantage of PAO is superior cold weather pumping performances, I have posted the virgin specs of PAO and a few of the higher valued group III base stocks and royal purple API does not match virgin PAO let alone a finished product.
http://www.pqiamerica.com/2012 April results/Amsoil.htm
http://www.pqiamerica.com/March2013PCMO/roylprp.htm

See the difference AMSOIL Signature Series is a PAO based PCMO and in extreme cold -30 the pumping viscosity is 3,398, Royal Purple is 5,562.

A GTL base PU is 3,827 and Mobil 1 is 3,937. Facebook posts from an marketing rep must hold some serious weight. Because Royal Purple API is really a average performer in VOA and UOA data.

Can you show me proof that the pumping viscosity of 5562 makes an oil not PAO. Would love to see a SAE paper on this.

 

[dave1251]

What would that prove? You said you will support a company that says it uses a PAO base stock. I have provided PAO pumping characteristics for PAO base PCMO's and PAO base stock. Royal Purple does preform no were near a PAO based PCMO in fact it performs with nearly 40% higher cold pumping viscosity then PAO.

I provided you with well known examples of GTL and group III products and Royal Purple performs like a group III base product. So if by some slim margin Royal Purple is a PAO based product yet performs like a group III based product what good does the claim of the product being a PAO based product merit?

Also keep in mind Royal Purple has been slapped fairly hard in the past for making false advertising claims thus when evidence is provided that a post on Facebook is likely bunch of baloney and there is a history of shady and false advertising claims from Royal Purple I find it very strange that when provided data the suggests that the product is not what is presented defenders are willing to die on the sword just because a company says otherwise even after the company has been called out and caught in a web of falsehoods.

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: deven
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Again you have not shown that is PAO based. All anyone has provided is a facebook post from a Royal Purple marketing rep which is the same department that posted some claims like using Royal Purple prevents rust.

The advantage of PAO is superior cold weather pumping performances, I have posted the virgin specs of PAO and a few of the higher valued group III base stocks and royal purple API does not match virgin PAO let alone a finished product.
http://www.pqiamerica.com/2012 April results/Amsoil.htm
http://www.pqiamerica.com/March2013PCMO/roylprp.htm

See the difference AMSOIL Signature Series is a PAO based PCMO and in extreme cold -30 the pumping viscosity is 3,398, Royal Purple is 5,562.

A GTL base PU is 3,827 and Mobil 1 is 3,937. Facebook posts from an marketing rep must hold some serious weight. Because Royal Purple API is really a average performer in VOA and UOA data.

Can you show me proof that the pumping viscosity of 5562 makes an oil not PAO. Would love to see a SAE paper on this.


At this point, does it really matter? dave1251 has posted data showing other oils that have significantly lower CCS than the supposedly PAO based RP. If it is PAO, it doesn't perform as well at low temperature as other oils that you can buy for less.

 

[deven]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
What would that prove? You said you will support a company that says it uses a PAO base stock. I have provided PAO pumping characteristics for PAO base PCMO's and PAO base stock. Royal Purple does preform no were near a PAO based PCMO in fact it performs with nearly 40% higher cold pumping viscosity then PAO.

I provided you with well known examples of GTL and group III products and Royal Purple performs like a group III base product. So if by some slim margin Royal Purple is a PAO based product yet performs like a group III based product what good does the claim of the product being a PAO based product merit?

Also keep in mind Royal Purple has been slapped fairly hard in the past for making false advertising claims thus when evidence is provided that a post on Facebook is likely bunch of baloney and there is a history of shady and false advertising claims from Royal Purple I find it very strange that when provided data the suggests that the product is not what is presented defenders are willing to die on the sword just because a company says otherwise even after the company has been called out and caught in a web of falsehoods.

I have really credible contacts at RP that I talk to that tell me that their basestocks are PAO. Not some FB posting. I just got off the phone with one of my contacts at RP and they reiterated that all their oils except one is fully PAO base. Yes I will take his word over your data because I have an established relationship with him over you and AGAIN your numbers are all speculative numbers. Just because a Grp III oil can have similar CCV numbers as Royal Purple does not mean RP cant be a PAO oil. Until there is concrete proof about that I say its just speculation on everyone's part. We will agree to disagree!

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
What would that prove? You said you will support a company that says it uses a PAO base stock. I have provided PAO pumping characteristics for PAO base PCMO's and PAO base stock. Royal Purple does preform no were near a PAO based PCMO in fact it performs with nearly 40% higher cold pumping viscosity then PAO.

I provided you with well known examples of GTL and group III products and Royal Purple performs like a group III base product. So if by some slim margin Royal Purple is a PAO based product yet performs like a group III based product what good does the claim of the product being a PAO based product merit?

Also keep in mind Royal Purple has been slapped fairly hard in the past for making false advertising claims thus when evidence is provided that a post on Facebook is likely bunch of baloney and there is a history of shady and false advertising claims from Royal Purple I find it very strange that when provided data the suggests that the product is not what is presented defenders are willing to die on the sword just because a company says otherwise even after the company has been called out and caught in a web of falsehoods.


Thanks for the refresher. I recall reading that now. I'll stick with Mobil 1, its almost always cheaper, always easier to get [for me], on sale more often and in more places. Finally no one has been able to prove RP is any better and justify why I should pay more for it when I see no benefit.

I do like their filters, and if I could get a good price on them I'd give it a try.

 

[deven]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Originally Posted By: deven
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Again you have not shown that is PAO based. All anyone has provided is a facebook post from a Royal Purple marketing rep which is the same department that posted some claims like using Royal Purple prevents rust.

The advantage of PAO is superior cold weather pumping performances, I have posted the virgin specs of PAO and a few of the higher valued group III base stocks and royal purple API does not match virgin PAO let alone a finished product.
http://www.pqiamerica.com/2012 April results/Amsoil.htm
http://www.pqiamerica.com/March2013PCMO/roylprp.htm

See the difference AMSOIL Signature Series is a PAO based PCMO and in extreme cold -30 the pumping viscosity is 3,398, Royal Purple is 5,562.

A GTL base PU is 3,827 and Mobil 1 is 3,937. Facebook posts from an marketing rep must hold some serious weight. Because Royal Purple API is really a average performer in VOA and UOA data.

Can you show me proof that the pumping viscosity of 5562 makes an oil not PAO. Would love to see a SAE paper on this.


At this point, does it really matter? dave1251 has posted data showing other oils that have significantly lower CCS than the supposedly PAO based RP. If it is PAO, it doesn't perform as well at low temperature as other oils that you can buy for less.

It matters because the Grp III oil CCV numbers Dave is referring to could easily have some PAO in it that can easily cascade the numerical values. Most oil formulations are proprietory information and to compare them without a 100% certainty as to what the exact composition of their basestock, it is then comparing blindly.