the lights are on but nobody is home.
\
or we r being played, which is ok too.
\
or we r being played, which is ok too.
My open mind wants to try Royal Purple
- Thread starter glxpassat
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
I listed all the ~standards~ RP does not meet compared other oil that are priced LOWER.
1 - For the second time that is WRONG!!!!! Royal Purple meets/exceeds GM4718M which is the oil spec you listed reference the Vette. GM4718M is listed right on the back of the oil bottle. So that is one off your list right there. I already told you that in my reply you are referrencing here. I also pointed out short of the 5W-50 stuff for the 5.4L Mustangs it also meets or exceeds Ford spec's and that RP oils are very popular with the Mustang/Lighting/Harley Davidson SC crowd who will use an oil that meets spec but is not on the mfg's "list".
If you were only referring to the new 5.4L GT's synthetic 5W-50 requirement RP doesn't even make a 5W-50 oil. Can't meet a 5W-50 oil spec when you don't offer that weight now can you. So now they are a bad oil because they don't offer a specific weight? Amsoil, Redline, and Valvoline do not have a 5W-50 either so are they now considered no better than $2 dino oil too? Do any conventional oil companies even offer a dino 5W-50? Any 5W-50 I have found has been synthetic. I found M1, Motorcraft, Castrol Syntec, Penzoil Platinum, and Quaker State Q as offering it. SO they are all better than Amsoil, RP, Redline, Valvoline, and the other companies that do not offer a 5W-50? I mean that is basically what you are saying.
2 - Also, how do you know RP does not "MEET" those other standards? Are you saying only an oil that is OE Certified can meet an oil spec? Do you have the list of all those standards and the test data on the RP oil to check? Or, like most RP bashers, are you just making unsupported and baseless claims because you hate it?
As I said before I don't know what those other spec's( ie; BMW, Porsche, etc... )are as I am not into foreign vehicles. RP may well meet some or even all of them? I don't know and because of that I won't say yes or no unlike you. I wager you actually don't either and are just basing everything off OE lists and assuming those lists are the Holy Bible of oil quality. You are making a lot of assumptions and false statements in this thread for someone who has been here so long and thinks of himself as oil knowledgable.
Using your logic Mobil 1 5W-30 full synthetic oil( one I have seen you time and again recommend to people )is no better than Safety-Kleen or ServicePro 5W-30 because they both appear on the same oil spec list( GM6094M ). By the same token you say Safety-Kleen and ServicePro 5W-30 are both superior oils to RP, Amsoil, and Redline 5W-30 becaue those 3 well known oil mfg's 5W-30 offerings are not on GM's list.
It is all about being on lists with guys like you. As long as an oil is on a list it is better than an oil not on the list. Even if the oil not on the list exceeds the oil spec's of those on the list. Doesn't matter it has to be bad because it is not OE certified/approved. Do any of you saying this kind of stuff know how absolutely ridiculus that is. It just blows my mind the way so many on here, touting themselves as some kind of oil expert, can be so misguided.
I listed all the ~standards~ RP does not meet compared other oil that are priced LOWER.
1 - For the second time that is WRONG!!!!! Royal Purple meets/exceeds GM4718M which is the oil spec you listed reference the Vette. GM4718M is listed right on the back of the oil bottle. So that is one off your list right there. I already told you that in my reply you are referrencing here. I also pointed out short of the 5W-50 stuff for the 5.4L Mustangs it also meets or exceeds Ford spec's and that RP oils are very popular with the Mustang/Lighting/Harley Davidson SC crowd who will use an oil that meets spec but is not on the mfg's "list".
If you were only referring to the new 5.4L GT's synthetic 5W-50 requirement RP doesn't even make a 5W-50 oil. Can't meet a 5W-50 oil spec when you don't offer that weight now can you. So now they are a bad oil because they don't offer a specific weight? Amsoil, Redline, and Valvoline do not have a 5W-50 either so are they now considered no better than $2 dino oil too? Do any conventional oil companies even offer a dino 5W-50? Any 5W-50 I have found has been synthetic. I found M1, Motorcraft, Castrol Syntec, Penzoil Platinum, and Quaker State Q as offering it. SO they are all better than Amsoil, RP, Redline, Valvoline, and the other companies that do not offer a 5W-50? I mean that is basically what you are saying.
2 - Also, how do you know RP does not "MEET" those other standards? Are you saying only an oil that is OE Certified can meet an oil spec? Do you have the list of all those standards and the test data on the RP oil to check? Or, like most RP bashers, are you just making unsupported and baseless claims because you hate it?
As I said before I don't know what those other spec's( ie; BMW, Porsche, etc... )are as I am not into foreign vehicles. RP may well meet some or even all of them? I don't know and because of that I won't say yes or no unlike you. I wager you actually don't either and are just basing everything off OE lists and assuming those lists are the Holy Bible of oil quality. You are making a lot of assumptions and false statements in this thread for someone who has been here so long and thinks of himself as oil knowledgable.
Using your logic Mobil 1 5W-30 full synthetic oil( one I have seen you time and again recommend to people )is no better than Safety-Kleen or ServicePro 5W-30 because they both appear on the same oil spec list( GM6094M ). By the same token you say Safety-Kleen and ServicePro 5W-30 are both superior oils to RP, Amsoil, and Redline 5W-30 becaue those 3 well known oil mfg's 5W-30 offerings are not on GM's list.
It is all about being on lists with guys like you. As long as an oil is on a list it is better than an oil not on the list. Even if the oil not on the list exceeds the oil spec's of those on the list. Doesn't matter it has to be bad because it is not OE certified/approved. Do any of you saying this kind of stuff know how absolutely ridiculus that is. It just blows my mind the way so many on here, touting themselves as some kind of oil expert, can be so misguided.
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
I listed all the ~standards~ RP does not meet compared other oil that are priced LOWER.
1 - For the second time that is WRONG!!!!! Royal Purple meets/exceeds GM4718M which is the oil spec you listed reference the Vette. GM4718M is listed right on the back of the oil bottle. But it is not on the mfg's "list".
So that is one off your list right there.
(Keyword="one")
If you were only referring to the new 5.4L GT's synthetic 5W-50 requirement RP doesn't even make a 5W-50 oil.
I found M1, Motorcraft, Castrol Syntec, Penzoil Platinum, and Quaker State Q as offering it.
(that's one off your list, the only one)
2 - Also, how do you know RP does not "MEET" those other standards?
(show me the test results that it DID! Safer to say it does not pass if it did not submit for testing than to WISH it would)
As I said before I don't know what those other spec's( ie; BMW, Porsche, etc... )are as I am not into foreign vehicles. RP may well meet some or even all of them?
**I don't know**
(that says it all)
Using your logic Mobil 1 5W-30 full synthetic oil( one I have seen you time and again recommend to people )is no better than Safety-Kleen or ServicePro 5W-30 because they both appear on the same oil spec list( GM6094M ). By the same token you say Safety-Kleen and ServicePro 5W-30 are both superior oils to RP, Amsoil, and Redline 5W-30 becaue those 3 well known oil mfg's 5W-30 offerings are not on GM's list.
(no, I said they are comparable, not "superior")
It is all about being on lists with guys like you. As long as an oil is on a list it is better than an oil not on the list. Even if the oil not on the list exceeds the oil spec's of those on the list. Doesn't matter it has to be bad because it is not OE certified/approved.
(hello, it depends on the severity of the testing)
Maybe Royal Purple should adopt a Unicorn as it's mascot, to match-up with it's pretty purple colour and symbolize it's fantsy-driven theme of it comparing to oils which submit and pass rigourous tests.
Any oil that passes tough oem extended drain sequences, I have respect for and refer to as a "good" oil. There are at least 50 oils passing MB's sequence, RP is NOT one of them, but costs more.
Still, I'm waiting to hear about a better standard to compare oils than oem test sequences.
lol, it's like a 5ft 150lb extreme fighter who talks a big talk, but won't fight.
I listed all the ~standards~ RP does not meet compared other oil that are priced LOWER.
1 - For the second time that is WRONG!!!!! Royal Purple meets/exceeds GM4718M which is the oil spec you listed reference the Vette. GM4718M is listed right on the back of the oil bottle. But it is not on the mfg's "list".
So that is one off your list right there.
(Keyword="one")
If you were only referring to the new 5.4L GT's synthetic 5W-50 requirement RP doesn't even make a 5W-50 oil.
I found M1, Motorcraft, Castrol Syntec, Penzoil Platinum, and Quaker State Q as offering it.
(that's one off your list, the only one)
2 - Also, how do you know RP does not "MEET" those other standards?
(show me the test results that it DID! Safer to say it does not pass if it did not submit for testing than to WISH it would)
As I said before I don't know what those other spec's( ie; BMW, Porsche, etc... )are as I am not into foreign vehicles. RP may well meet some or even all of them?
**I don't know**
(that says it all)
Using your logic Mobil 1 5W-30 full synthetic oil( one I have seen you time and again recommend to people )is no better than Safety-Kleen or ServicePro 5W-30 because they both appear on the same oil spec list( GM6094M ). By the same token you say Safety-Kleen and ServicePro 5W-30 are both superior oils to RP, Amsoil, and Redline 5W-30 becaue those 3 well known oil mfg's 5W-30 offerings are not on GM's list.
(no, I said they are comparable, not "superior")
It is all about being on lists with guys like you. As long as an oil is on a list it is better than an oil not on the list. Even if the oil not on the list exceeds the oil spec's of those on the list. Doesn't matter it has to be bad because it is not OE certified/approved.
(hello, it depends on the severity of the testing)
Maybe Royal Purple should adopt a Unicorn as it's mascot, to match-up with it's pretty purple colour and symbolize it's fantsy-driven theme of it comparing to oils which submit and pass rigourous tests.
Any oil that passes tough oem extended drain sequences, I have respect for and refer to as a "good" oil. There are at least 50 oils passing MB's sequence, RP is NOT one of them, but costs more.
Still, I'm waiting to hear about a better standard to compare oils than oem test sequences.
lol, it's like a 5ft 150lb extreme fighter who talks a big talk, but won't fight.
But in a gas engine, none of those specs and approvals mean anything. Only the API SL matters! So in that regard, D1 compares favorably with $2 Supertech just like RP. And based on my experience, I would use the $2 oil before I would use D1 again!
(Oh, I'm talking about diesel engines, fyi)
And, I've looked at more than one UOA of RP..
(but you just said to run both once and do a single UOA, remember???)
(Oh, I'm talking about diesel engines, fyi)
And, I've looked at more than one UOA of RP..
(but you just said to run both once and do a single UOA, remember???)
When MB went from 229.3 to 229.5, they allowed more wear to occur in their specs to pass. Many of these tests are to make sure the motor receives adequate protection with less emissions. Factory's bow to the poleticians and EPA. RP has not bowed to anyone and still produces SL rated oils with sufficient amounts of ZDDP to protect your motor.
The best standard of comparison in your motor is to do UOA's and read the data.
The best standard of comparison in your motor is to do UOA's and read the data.
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
(Oh, I'm talking about diesel engines, fyi)
You were not recommending it for use in diesel motors on the Audi forums. And at the time that T&SUV became available a few years ago, there was practically no UOA's in gas motors to base your recommendations on.
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
(but you just said to run both once and do a single UOA, remember???)
Run as many as makes you feel good...
(Oh, I'm talking about diesel engines, fyi)
You were not recommending it for use in diesel motors on the Audi forums. And at the time that T&SUV became available a few years ago, there was practically no UOA's in gas motors to base your recommendations on.
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
(but you just said to run both once and do a single UOA, remember???)
Run as many as makes you feel good...
Originally Posted By: glxpassat
When MB went from 229.3 to 229.5, they allowed more wear to occur in their specs to pass. Many of these tests are to make sure the motor receives adequate protection with less emissions. Factory's bow to the poleticians and EPA.
Actually the 229.5 criteria are much more stringent than the 229.3. The 229.5 adds a criteria for chlorine content and a whole new series of "wartung 2000" tests. The OM 602A test criteria are generally tighter although some remain the same.
The one test that is a bit misleading, and I believe the genesis of your statement, is the M111E cam wear test. At first glance it does look like the allowable cam wear has been increased from 3.0 to 5.0. But the important distinction is that the test duration was lengthened from 257 hours to 439 hours. So the actual allowable wear per hour has been reduced to the equivalent of 2.9 by the 229.3 test parameters.
When MB went from 229.3 to 229.5, they allowed more wear to occur in their specs to pass. Many of these tests are to make sure the motor receives adequate protection with less emissions. Factory's bow to the poleticians and EPA.
Actually the 229.5 criteria are much more stringent than the 229.3. The 229.5 adds a criteria for chlorine content and a whole new series of "wartung 2000" tests. The OM 602A test criteria are generally tighter although some remain the same.
The one test that is a bit misleading, and I believe the genesis of your statement, is the M111E cam wear test. At first glance it does look like the allowable cam wear has been increased from 3.0 to 5.0. But the important distinction is that the test duration was lengthened from 257 hours to 439 hours. So the actual allowable wear per hour has been reduced to the equivalent of 2.9 by the 229.3 test parameters.
Last edited:
jpr, you may be correct, it's been a long time since 229.5 came out and I just remember a thread about it here, and it appeared that they were allowing for more wear in the cam area. I just don't recall anything about the number of hours, but that may not have been evident. Thanks!
Audi Junkie
Man, talking to you is like beating your head against the wall. You just don't listen. All you want to do is bash RP with your twisted logic and you refuse to listen to anyone else.
I will say this thread has been very enlightening, for me anyway, about certain members on this site. While some useful info about RP and oil testing has come to light, and some valid and well worded and thought out reasons not to use it have as well( some even from me
), I think it has also shown that many here do NOT have open minds. It has also clearly been shown that many here are NOT as smart or knowledgeable as previously thought. Some have been shown to outright, intentionally, lie because they just don't like a product. What a shame and embarassment it is. I hope people will now take another look at ALL products slammed here because a lot of it is pure bull.
You can continue to say RP is a bad oil because it hasn't been tested against certain standards all you want but your contention means absolutely nothing. You can breeze over the fact you tried to say it didn't meet GM or Ford( minus the 5W-50 )spec's to hide the fact you are talking without knowing what you are talking about in the hopes people don't catch you. You can jump onto the others spec's now, which btw I fully admit I don't know about( so what? it isn't a big deal ), and attack RP on them. Go for it man it is becoming laughable the lengths to which you and others will go to try and bring RP down.
I don't get the whole little man talking a big fight label you are throwing at me though? Maybe you are looking in a mirror because you, and a couple others, clearly don't have a clue and post nothing but falsehoods and opinions as fact. Some of you haven't even used RP so how you can bash it and hate it so is beyond me. I have actually used it with great results and when I say something about it it is researched and I speak truth( or at least what I believe to be the truth - always posted in good faith ). I am not the one running around saying intentional falsehoods nor making stuff up. I haven't said use RP where Porsche standard XYZ is called for and be fine. No, I say I don't know when I don't and I also say don't use it when you can't verify it meets the called for spec's.
I have nothing to prove to you whatsoever. YOU are the one who keeps making claims that are false not me. YOU and some others need to prove the lies and ridiculous claims you are making not me. I stick to facts and have right along.
You can continue to say because RP( or any oil doesn't matter )is a poor oil because the company hasn't tested it's product against such and such a standard all you want. You can also say because it is not certified it can't or didn't pass those tests. That does NOT make it a bad oil nor does it mean the oil couldn't pass the test. It simply means they have chosen NOT to "PAY" for testing. They do not test with ANY mfg however so it isn't just the ones you listed. Just as RP does meet other mfg oil standards, that it is not certified as meeting and is not on the almighty "list", so could it meet some or even all of the ones you list? IF you don't know or can;t get the standard spec's + RP test data to confirm then don't use it in that situation. Pretty simple. Doesn't make RP bad nor mean it "can't" meet the spec just means you don't know.
Like it or not RP does not feel the need to pay for these tests and certification. Until YOU show test data saying they absolutely do not pass the test you can;t say they don't. YOu simply say I don't know as I have.
I give up. You have your mind set in stone and I am not going to keep arguing with you about it. There is nothing I can say, that hasn't already been said, that you will believe or at least reconsider. You and some others hate RP and your mission is to ensure everyone else does too. Clearly by any means possible as well. Truth has little to do with it for some of you.
Man, talking to you is like beating your head against the wall. You just don't listen. All you want to do is bash RP with your twisted logic and you refuse to listen to anyone else.
I will say this thread has been very enlightening, for me anyway, about certain members on this site. While some useful info about RP and oil testing has come to light, and some valid and well worded and thought out reasons not to use it have as well( some even from me
You can continue to say RP is a bad oil because it hasn't been tested against certain standards all you want but your contention means absolutely nothing. You can breeze over the fact you tried to say it didn't meet GM or Ford( minus the 5W-50 )spec's to hide the fact you are talking without knowing what you are talking about in the hopes people don't catch you. You can jump onto the others spec's now, which btw I fully admit I don't know about( so what? it isn't a big deal ), and attack RP on them. Go for it man it is becoming laughable the lengths to which you and others will go to try and bring RP down.
I don't get the whole little man talking a big fight label you are throwing at me though? Maybe you are looking in a mirror because you, and a couple others, clearly don't have a clue and post nothing but falsehoods and opinions as fact. Some of you haven't even used RP so how you can bash it and hate it so is beyond me. I have actually used it with great results and when I say something about it it is researched and I speak truth( or at least what I believe to be the truth - always posted in good faith ). I am not the one running around saying intentional falsehoods nor making stuff up. I haven't said use RP where Porsche standard XYZ is called for and be fine. No, I say I don't know when I don't and I also say don't use it when you can't verify it meets the called for spec's.
I have nothing to prove to you whatsoever. YOU are the one who keeps making claims that are false not me. YOU and some others need to prove the lies and ridiculous claims you are making not me. I stick to facts and have right along.
You can continue to say because RP( or any oil doesn't matter )is a poor oil because the company hasn't tested it's product against such and such a standard all you want. You can also say because it is not certified it can't or didn't pass those tests. That does NOT make it a bad oil nor does it mean the oil couldn't pass the test. It simply means they have chosen NOT to "PAY" for testing. They do not test with ANY mfg however so it isn't just the ones you listed. Just as RP does meet other mfg oil standards, that it is not certified as meeting and is not on the almighty "list", so could it meet some or even all of the ones you list? IF you don't know or can;t get the standard spec's + RP test data to confirm then don't use it in that situation. Pretty simple. Doesn't make RP bad nor mean it "can't" meet the spec just means you don't know.
Like it or not RP does not feel the need to pay for these tests and certification. Until YOU show test data saying they absolutely do not pass the test you can;t say they don't. YOu simply say I don't know as I have.
I give up. You have your mind set in stone and I am not going to keep arguing with you about it. There is nothing I can say, that hasn't already been said, that you will believe or at least reconsider. You and some others hate RP and your mission is to ensure everyone else does too. Clearly by any means possible as well. Truth has little to do with it for some of you.
Last edited by a moderator:
i wont go so far as to say it sucks, butt it is overpriced, to me.
the enhanced performance claims are pretty subjective,
i dont care for the whole concept.
i sure dont think it would hurt anything.
the enhanced performance claims are pretty subjective,
i dont care for the whole concept.
i sure dont think it would hurt anything.
Other than it's pertty colour, what is the most compelling reason to use Royal Purple?
Why all the negativity towards those who dont care for RP??
I think Pennzoil Platinum is a wonderful oil, it has shown far more better uoa's and better results than RP, if everyone wants to say they think PP sucks, I could care less! It is my opinion and belief that RP is more hype than results!
I am not going to defend PP if someone wants to say it sucks like Royal Purple does, I know that PP does not suck, and that it is regarded as a very good oil and why it gets recommended as often as it does.
If RP did perform good for more than a handful of people then it would get recommended too. But it doesnt so who gives a &^%$!!!
I think Pennzoil Platinum is a wonderful oil, it has shown far more better uoa's and better results than RP, if everyone wants to say they think PP sucks, I could care less! It is my opinion and belief that RP is more hype than results!
I am not going to defend PP if someone wants to say it sucks like Royal Purple does, I know that PP does not suck, and that it is regarded as a very good oil and why it gets recommended as often as it does.
If RP did perform good for more than a handful of people then it would get recommended too. But it doesnt so who gives a &^%$!!!
As I mentioned in a similar thread.....only the subject was Redline oil.....some people feel passionate about their chosen brand / method.
This is a good thing.....hopefully we can disagree, and still respect one another......I for 1......have learned a LOT from this website....and am thankful for this place of learning.
I have not used Royal Purple......but don't have anything against it.
I have redline in my old ride right now......so I cannot hold price as a reason.
So many oils.....so little time........
One question that I would ask of the folks at Royal Purple.....if I were considering it.....is what the HTHS values are for their oils....they don't have it listed on their website.
I am NOT a knowlegable person on all things oil.....just an end user here to learn.
Thank you to those members who have the knowledge....and are willing to take the time to share it with folks like me.
This is a good thing.....hopefully we can disagree, and still respect one another......I for 1......have learned a LOT from this website....and am thankful for this place of learning.
I have not used Royal Purple......but don't have anything against it.
I have redline in my old ride right now......so I cannot hold price as a reason.
So many oils.....so little time........
One question that I would ask of the folks at Royal Purple.....if I were considering it.....is what the HTHS values are for their oils....they don't have it listed on their website.
I am NOT a knowlegable person on all things oil.....just an end user here to learn.
Thank you to those members who have the knowledge....and are willing to take the time to share it with folks like me.
As far as HT/HS, my guess is that is returns the same HT/HS to cSt@+100C ratio as it's plain old dino oil cousins', rather than the higher HT/HS of a Redline or German Syntec with their exotic PAO base oil.
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
As far as HT/HS, my guess is that is returns the same HT/HS to cSt@+100C ratio as it's plain old dino oil cousins', rather than the higher HT/HS of a Redline or German Syntec with their exotic PAO base oil.
Seeing how higher HTHS puts a drag on the motor, I can then see how they can claim a little more power. Again, performance can be measured on the dyno as well as the UOA...
As far as HT/HS, my guess is that is returns the same HT/HS to cSt@+100C ratio as it's plain old dino oil cousins', rather than the higher HT/HS of a Redline or German Syntec with their exotic PAO base oil.
Seeing how higher HTHS puts a drag on the motor, I can then see how they can claim a little more power. Again, performance can be measured on the dyno as well as the UOA...
- Status
Similar threads
