Royal Purple
- Thread starter Johnny
- Start date
- Status
Seems like we have a great case of "magazintitus" blown out of proportion clams and false advertising.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Originally Posted By: MrBigBlock
Seems like we have a great case of "magazintitus" blown out of proportion clams and false advertising.
Yeah ...just like the cat back exhaust on a 4 banger jeep. Peterson's 4WD just ran out of dyno time with the publishing deadline ..but the butt dyno measured outstanding performance increases. Feature length advertisements.
Royal Purple is a fine oil.
There is no such thing as magic oil.
Seems like we have a great case of "magazintitus" blown out of proportion clams and false advertising.
Yeah ...just like the cat back exhaust on a 4 banger jeep. Peterson's 4WD just ran out of dyno time with the publishing deadline ..but the butt dyno measured outstanding performance increases. Feature length advertisements.
Royal Purple is a fine oil.
There is no such thing as magic oil.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
There is no such thing as magic oil.
There ya go, getting my hopes up. First there was no Santa, then no tooth fairy, now there are no magic oils? What do I have left to live for?
On a more serious note, I think it's a little crazy how all these oil companies are waging war with each other. Someone must be getting ready to go bankrupt.
There is no such thing as magic oil.
There ya go, getting my hopes up. First there was no Santa, then no tooth fairy, now there are no magic oils? What do I have left to live for?
On a more serious note, I think it's a little crazy how all these oil companies are waging war with each other. Someone must be getting ready to go bankrupt.
Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: ADFD1
They could also bury their heads in the sand like Mobil did when Asland called them out on their Mobil 1 5w-30.
AD
Their head in the sand? So far Mobil hasn't played the silly X games, to their credit.
Not to their credit. The claims say that Mobil 1 5W-30 doesn't even meet the minimum wear protection for the Seq IVA test. They probably know it doesn't, and don't want to prove it by entering a challenge.
Originally Posted By: ADFD1
They could also bury their heads in the sand like Mobil did when Asland called them out on their Mobil 1 5w-30.
AD
Their head in the sand? So far Mobil hasn't played the silly X games, to their credit.
Not to their credit. The claims say that Mobil 1 5W-30 doesn't even meet the minimum wear protection for the Seq IVA test. They probably know it doesn't, and don't want to prove it by entering a challenge.
Originally Posted By: chevrofreak
Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: ADFD1
They could also bury their heads in the sand like Mobil did when Asland called them out on their Mobil 1 5w-30.
AD
Their head in the sand? So far Mobil hasn't played the silly X games, to their credit.
Not to their credit. The claims say that Mobil 1 5W-30 doesn't even meet the minimum wear protection for the Seq IVA test. They probably know it doesn't, and don't want to prove it by entering a challenge.
I think Mobil is wise to not acknowledge the claim. It reminds me of the old adage "when you wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty, but the pig don't care". Why should Mobil jump into the pig pen? If there is truly merit to the claim, it will come into the light.
Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: ADFD1
They could also bury their heads in the sand like Mobil did when Asland called them out on their Mobil 1 5w-30.
AD
Their head in the sand? So far Mobil hasn't played the silly X games, to their credit.
Not to their credit. The claims say that Mobil 1 5W-30 doesn't even meet the minimum wear protection for the Seq IVA test. They probably know it doesn't, and don't want to prove it by entering a challenge.
I think Mobil is wise to not acknowledge the claim. It reminds me of the old adage "when you wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty, but the pig don't care". Why should Mobil jump into the pig pen? If there is truly merit to the claim, it will come into the light.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Big Jim
I think Mobil is wise to not acknowledge the claim. It reminds me of the old adage "when you wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty, but the pig don't care". Why should Mobil jump into the pig pen? If there is truly merit to the claim, it will come into the light.
Agreed.
Also, it's impossible to rebut a claim without repeating it.
Given their position in the consumer market and the number of OEM approvals they have, Mobil is sitting pretty for now. They probably figure that, if they leave their competitors' claims alone, they won't tarnish Mobil's image enough to worry about. In other words, Mobil would spend more money fighting the claims than they'd recover in sales. They'll probably just file it away for the future in case their lawyers ever get bored.
I think Mobil is wise to not acknowledge the claim. It reminds me of the old adage "when you wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty, but the pig don't care". Why should Mobil jump into the pig pen? If there is truly merit to the claim, it will come into the light.
Agreed.
Also, it's impossible to rebut a claim without repeating it.
Given their position in the consumer market and the number of OEM approvals they have, Mobil is sitting pretty for now. They probably figure that, if they leave their competitors' claims alone, they won't tarnish Mobil's image enough to worry about. In other words, Mobil would spend more money fighting the claims than they'd recover in sales. They'll probably just file it away for the future in case their lawyers ever get bored.
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
That's a gear oil test, Razi. It has no relevance to engine oils.
That article has been thoroughly and soundly discredited, and the magazine eventually published a retraction.
Help me out here. discredited how/why? Saying it applies to gear oils doesn't mean much to me, sorry. It seems like if it reduces wear it reduces wear. I'm sure I just don't understand. Can you explain??
Thanks!
Ken
That's a gear oil test, Razi. It has no relevance to engine oils.
That article has been thoroughly and soundly discredited, and the magazine eventually published a retraction.
Help me out here. discredited how/why? Saying it applies to gear oils doesn't mean much to me, sorry. It seems like if it reduces wear it reduces wear. I'm sure I just don't understand. Can you explain??
Thanks!
Ken
Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: ADFD1
They could also bury their heads in the sand like Mobil did when Asland called them out on their Mobil 1 5w-30.
AD
Their head in the sand? So far Mobil hasn't played the silly X games, to their credit.
We have our opinions, mine is if Mobil really passed the tests with flying colors with their 5W30 oil they'd be all over Ashland. Silence means to me, they have issues with the product.
AD
Originally Posted By: ADFD1
They could also bury their heads in the sand like Mobil did when Asland called them out on their Mobil 1 5w-30.
AD
Their head in the sand? So far Mobil hasn't played the silly X games, to their credit.
We have our opinions, mine is if Mobil really passed the tests with flying colors with their 5W30 oil they'd be all over Ashland. Silence means to me, they have issues with the product.
AD
Originally Posted By: kbuzbee
Help me out here. discredited how/why? Saying it applies to gear oils doesn't mean much to me, sorry. It seems like if it reduces wear it reduces wear. I'm sure I just don't understand. Can you explain??
Thanks!
Ken
Here's the issue as I understand it -- I am only an amateur, so I will eagerly accept correction if an expert would like to step in.
The test they used generates a lot of pressure at a tiny point for long periods of time, and the only oil that'll be there is whatever manages to climb up the roller. This is a lot like many areas in a transmission: there is very high sustained pressure and shock loading, and the gears and bearings basically sit in an oil bath and rely on the oil splashing and climbing up for lubrication.
In that kind of scenario, you basically have to accept that the oil film will be largely broken or sheared away. Instead, you load the oil up with anti-wear additives to make the metal-to-metal contact as safe as possible.
The thing is, that kind of point loading almost never occurs in an engine. It sort of happens in valvetrains, but only intermittently and with nowhere near the same pressure. Moreover, and crucially, the oil in an engine isn't just splashed around. It's actively pumped through most of the heavily loaded areas. This means that there is almost always some kind of oil film in place. Since the film is rarely broken, anti-wear additives rarely come into play (if at all).
Moreover, anti-wear additives can be (very slightly!) corrosive to some metals, and are often poisonous to catalytic converters over the long term. So, an oil loaded up with them might do better in the magazine's test, but actually perform worse in an engine.
So, the test is not only irrelevant, but possibly misleading.
Just to stress the point, this doesn't necessarily mean that Royal Purple is bad oil. It just means that the magazine test is worthless.
Does that make sense?
Help me out here. discredited how/why? Saying it applies to gear oils doesn't mean much to me, sorry. It seems like if it reduces wear it reduces wear. I'm sure I just don't understand. Can you explain??
Thanks!
Ken
Here's the issue as I understand it -- I am only an amateur, so I will eagerly accept correction if an expert would like to step in.
The test they used generates a lot of pressure at a tiny point for long periods of time, and the only oil that'll be there is whatever manages to climb up the roller. This is a lot like many areas in a transmission: there is very high sustained pressure and shock loading, and the gears and bearings basically sit in an oil bath and rely on the oil splashing and climbing up for lubrication.
In that kind of scenario, you basically have to accept that the oil film will be largely broken or sheared away. Instead, you load the oil up with anti-wear additives to make the metal-to-metal contact as safe as possible.
The thing is, that kind of point loading almost never occurs in an engine. It sort of happens in valvetrains, but only intermittently and with nowhere near the same pressure. Moreover, and crucially, the oil in an engine isn't just splashed around. It's actively pumped through most of the heavily loaded areas. This means that there is almost always some kind of oil film in place. Since the film is rarely broken, anti-wear additives rarely come into play (if at all).
Moreover, anti-wear additives can be (very slightly!) corrosive to some metals, and are often poisonous to catalytic converters over the long term. So, an oil loaded up with them might do better in the magazine's test, but actually perform worse in an engine.
So, the test is not only irrelevant, but possibly misleading.
Just to stress the point, this doesn't necessarily mean that Royal Purple is bad oil. It just means that the magazine test is worthless.
Does that make sense?
Last edited:
This is great reading. I have been sitting back and watching you guys jump on this like Sharks on a wounded swimmer. What a riot. RP "caght" and "finally nailed" for doing what all oil mfg's do. What a bunch of hypocrites.
It's ok for the popular oils on this site to make similar so called "misleading" claims( and they DO all the time )but because RP did it they are the devil. You guys are just hilarious. Thanks for the laugh. I needed one today.
Not really. Other companies are a tad more careful with the claims. Take the purple hat off for second and read. Royal Purple crossed the line.
All oil mfgr's routinely cross the line. This time around, the little guy was picked on by the BP bully on the block. If you go to RP's website there are numerous articles with valid test data, and the reality is just a small percentage of the articles on the website were removed due to some questionable content.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Not really. Other companies are a tad more careful with the claims. Take the purple hat off for second and read. Royal Purple crossed the line.
Are you serious? An Amsoil rep taking shots at "questionable claims" made by other companies?
Not really. Other companies are a tad more careful with the claims. Take the purple hat off for second and read. Royal Purple crossed the line.
Are you serious? An Amsoil rep taking shots at "questionable claims" made by other companies?
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Not really. Other companies are a tad more careful with the claims. Take the purple hat off for second and read. Royal Purple crossed the line.
Are you serious? An Amsoil rep taking shots at "questionable claims" made by other companies?
100% serious.
Please show me the claims the claims Amsoil makes about horsepower, MPG, wear. Royal Purple crossed the line. If Amsoil crossed the line, do you think BP would have hesitated?
You need to take the purple glasses off and read. I keep writing this, but you are very seriously biased.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Not really. Other companies are a tad more careful with the claims. Take the purple hat off for second and read. Royal Purple crossed the line.
Are you serious? An Amsoil rep taking shots at "questionable claims" made by other companies?
100% serious.
Please show me the claims the claims Amsoil makes about horsepower, MPG, wear. Royal Purple crossed the line. If Amsoil crossed the line, do you think BP would have hesitated?
You need to take the purple glasses off and read. I keep writing this, but you are very seriously biased.
Originally Posted By: Challenger71
All oil mfgr's routinely cross the line. This time around, the little guy was picked on by the BP bully on the block. If you go to RP's website there are numerous articles with valid test data, and the reality is just a small percentage of the articles on the website were removed due to some questionable content.
EXACTLY Thank you for some common sense being applied to the situation FINALLY!
The field day going on at this site over this issue makes me laugh due to the double standards so many on here apply to RP vs the other brands. If this were ANY OTHER brand most people would laugh it off or claim some kind of bias but because it is RP, the resident whipping post oil company, this is a completely legit witch hunt. What a joke. Almost everything RP is being taken to task for here and by the NAD is done by other oil companies ALL THE TIME including a very popular oil company on this site! What a joke.
Quote:
NAD recommended that Royal Purple discontinue its use of consumer testimonials reporting specific performance attributes in the absence of reliable independent evidence showing performance capability.
“Anecdotal evidence based solely on the experiences of individual consumers is insufficient to support product efficacy claims, including claims related to horsepower, torque, fuel economy or engine heat,” the organization stated. “While the advertiser may quote from published articles if it provides clear and conspicuous attribution to the publisher, it may not rely on such articles to support efficacy claims for which it has no reliable independent validation.”
So let me get this right, RP can no longer use consumer feedback/testimonials, nor independant results done by outside sources, in advertising for their product like every other mfg of every product made does? They must only use results and reports/feedback that conform to the NAD's view on what is legit, truthful, or worthy of being used. What kind of crack pot ruling is that? Who is the NAD to say testimony I send to RP, should I choose to send it and they choose to use it, can not be used by RP in their advertising? That is a pretty arrogant ruling.
If I write to RP and tell them I saw a .5MPG fuel economy increase using RP over the FF they can not use that, as a consumer testimonial( not as a lab result which they do not do ), because it is just anecdotal and unsupported? RP can't show HP TV's dyno PROVEN HP gains, post endorsements/test results from various car magazines that tested/used their product( will auto mfg's be denied the right to use JD Power's or Car and Driver awards in advertising now? ), because that too is anecdotal. Yeah right. What a complete and total joke this is. Does NAD have a list of what tests and what labs must be used for the claims to be legit? If not then they have no grounds to chastise RP for claims they make when other oil companies do the same or worse.
RP has not claimed these gains without providing where they got the results. They don't just say it does XXX and then never say where it comes from. Ok, in a TV or magazine ad they may just say it does XXX but what oil company, or ANY company for that matter, provides all the supporting data for their claims in every ad? They don't is the truthful answer. RP, like all mfg's, provides their data on their site and through literature upon request. SOP for all mfg's.
They are also very clear as to what tests were done and what edorsement comes from where. What a complete crock that this is being used to attack them especially since it is how things are done in this country for ANY product. RP did nothing all the others have not and do not do.
Quote:
NAD recommended Royal Purple discontinue claims such as “Increases horsepower and torque by as much as 3 percent,” “Reduces Engine Wear by 80 percent,” “Superior Oxidation Stability” and “Provides Film Strength Up to 400 Percent.”
“If industry-standard tests or tests with carefully documented controls were abandoned, there would be no basis whatsoever for making any meaningful claims about the relative efficacy of motor oils,” BP said in its challenge.
NAD recommended that Royal Purple discontinue claims that stated, “Improves fuel economy by as much as 5 percent” and “Fuel economy improvement up to 5 percent or more” because its Environmental Protection Agency testing was inconclusive and the “Oklahoma State Study” and single cylinder Labeco CLR diesel engine testing cited in Royal Purple’s advertising was not relevant. The NAD noted the 1997 OSU Study was “outdated and nothing in the record demonstrated that the formulations of the competitors’ oils were similar to those available for sale on the market today.”
BP Lubricants said it hired the independent laboratory Southwest Research Institute, in San Antonio, to analyze power output of gasoline engines with Royal Purple Oil and with BP’s Castrol oil for comparisons. “The results were provided to the challenger’s expert statistician who was not informed of the identity of the candidate oils,” NAD stated. “The challenger’s [BP’s] expert determined a 0.9 percent difference in power between the oils, which did not rise to the level of statistical significance, and is well below the 3 percent claim made by the advertiser.”
SwRI did additional tests to independently determine the differences in fuel economy, emissions data and engine temperature between Royal Purple and Castrol motor oils. According to SwRI, “there was no statistically significant difference between the fuel economy, emissions data or engine temperature between the two candidate oils,” NAD said.
So let me get this right. BP hires a company to do testing and THEIR EXPERTS results are accepted as gospel and RP's data and testing is a lie? Ok. Now in the future all testing must be done at this research lab by this expert for any claims to be made. Got it.
Also, when certain oil companies publish their test results it is always taken as 100% true on here but RP does not get the same benefit of the doubt? RP manipulates data and other such rubbish claims but everyone else who makes claims about their product or the competition is 100% above board and truthful. Yup, ok. I hope the NAD is now going to move on to all the claims made by other oil companies and clean up the business because RP ahs done nothing every other oil mfg from Castrol to Penzoil as not done.
Quote:
Following its review of the non-anecdotal evidence in the record, NAD recommended that Royal Purple discontinue the claims, “Reduces emissions up to 20 percent or more” and “Reductions in emissions of 20 percent or more” because the studies on which the claims were based were outdated and not consumer-relevant.
I love this one. RP had data to support this but it is older and not the new, in, today, now and happening data so it is completely irrelevant. Wow. Doesn't say the data was/is wrong just outdated and not consumer-relevant. IMO this is nit picking to the highest degree and IMO shows RP had data to back this up that the NAD chooses not to recognize. A bias or agenda?
Quote:
NAD also recommended the advertiser discontinue its unsupported claim that Royal purple motor oil is “API/ILSAC Certified.” Noting that API and ILSAC licenses and certifications have many categories with different meanings, the NAD recommended that the company discontinue its claim that its synthetic oils are “generally ‘API/ILSAC Certified.’”
In fact, no Royal Purple products are certified to current ILSAC specifications.
The American Petroleum Institute licenses its trademarked Service Symbol, or ‘donut,’ for display on qualified engine oils, and also licenses the ILSAC ‘starburst’ logo for oils that meet the auto industry’s latest energy-conserving standards. In API’s online directory of licensees for its Engine Oil Licensing and Certification Program, Royal Purple has a total of 23 passenger car and diesel engine oil products listed, all licensed to use the API donut. Five of these may additionally display the words ‘energy conserving’ within the donut logo, but none of the Royal Purple products are licensable to the current ILSAC GF-4 specification and they cannot display the starburst logo.
I have been a RP user since 1990 and I have NEVER seen them claim any certification they do not have. Now, like ALL oil mfg's they might claim to "meet or exceed" a certification or oil standard, when not actually certified, but they NEVER outright claim to be certified if they are not. Meets/exceeds XXX yes but actually certified when not - NO WAY!
Their bottles have never carried the API Starburst unless they were certified to do so. They carry the API donut with the API service level they actually are certified as meeting. I see no dishonesty there and do not understand this one in the least.
I think this attack on them bugs me the most. This is NOT something RP alone has done. Not even close. Other oil companies have done far worse including a certain oil company so popular on here. Not too long ago this popular oil company on this site was using symbols that looked just like the API Starburst and claiming to meet that certification requirements( never said they were actually certified - just used a look alike Starburst symbol ). So, what is worse? To say our oils meet such and such a certification level/oil standard OR to start using look alike symbols to try and fool people? Which company is the most dishonest and which is trying to fool the consumer?
Quote:
Royal Purple also voluntarily agreed to discontinue the claims, “most advanced,” “unsurpassed performance” and “unparalleled performance,” steps the NAD said were necessary and proper to avoid confusion in the marketplace.
“While Royal Purple also believes that the tests and testimonials it supplied as evidence accurately portray the benefits of using its synthetic oil in a wide variety of applications, it defers to the NAD’s position that those tests and testimonials alone are insufficient to support specific performance attribute claims in consumer advertising,” the company said in its response to NAD. “... [Royal Purple] has already made changes to its advertising in accordance with the NAD recommendations and will continue to implement NAD’s recommendations and analysis in developing Royal Purple’s future advertising.”
Ok, so RP has agreed to stop using a couple questionable advertising terms and has agreed to reword a few other things. Not a big deal and actually probably the only legit part of all this. I know most will take this as a sign they were wrong but I don't see it that way( on everything they were taken to task on ). You know, if you read this thread without reading the article first you would think RP was charged with/lost on more than they actually were. People, as usual, are blowing this way out of proportion and adding things not covered in the case.
Make no mistake that despite the fact I like this oil and company I do not think they are perfect. When they truly do something wrong they should be held accountable. This [censored] going on here and in this article is completely ridiculous though. I want to know when the NAD is going after all the other oil companies now for the same stuff. One in particular comes to mind that has a long documented history of false claims yet I have never seen them gone after here or legally.
What a waste of time this is/was. Where is the NAD in regards to Mobil and their questionable API certification issue brought up by Valvoline? Here you have a company that actually was certified to meet such and such a standard that has been shown( allegedly )to not meet it. Is that not more of a problem, warranting their time and efforts to protect the consumer, than worrying about MPG and HP gains an oil company makes? Where are they with that problem? Why have they not told Mobil to stop claiming that certification if they don't meet it? Where is the API in this? No, let's pick on RP and stop them from using customer testimonials instead.
Just a joke. Feel free to bash me and say I only look through Purple colored glasses
and such but with the exception of one or two people there isn't a person in this thread who is even trying to look at it in a fair light. Most are clearly predisposed to believe anything negative about RP at face value period. Please apply the same standard to ALL companies.
All oil mfgr's routinely cross the line. This time around, the little guy was picked on by the BP bully on the block. If you go to RP's website there are numerous articles with valid test data, and the reality is just a small percentage of the articles on the website were removed due to some questionable content.
EXACTLY Thank you for some common sense being applied to the situation FINALLY!
The field day going on at this site over this issue makes me laugh due to the double standards so many on here apply to RP vs the other brands. If this were ANY OTHER brand most people would laugh it off or claim some kind of bias but because it is RP, the resident whipping post oil company, this is a completely legit witch hunt. What a joke. Almost everything RP is being taken to task for here and by the NAD is done by other oil companies ALL THE TIME including a very popular oil company on this site! What a joke.
Quote:
NAD recommended that Royal Purple discontinue its use of consumer testimonials reporting specific performance attributes in the absence of reliable independent evidence showing performance capability.
“Anecdotal evidence based solely on the experiences of individual consumers is insufficient to support product efficacy claims, including claims related to horsepower, torque, fuel economy or engine heat,” the organization stated. “While the advertiser may quote from published articles if it provides clear and conspicuous attribution to the publisher, it may not rely on such articles to support efficacy claims for which it has no reliable independent validation.”
So let me get this right, RP can no longer use consumer feedback/testimonials, nor independant results done by outside sources, in advertising for their product like every other mfg of every product made does? They must only use results and reports/feedback that conform to the NAD's view on what is legit, truthful, or worthy of being used. What kind of crack pot ruling is that? Who is the NAD to say testimony I send to RP, should I choose to send it and they choose to use it, can not be used by RP in their advertising? That is a pretty arrogant ruling.
If I write to RP and tell them I saw a .5MPG fuel economy increase using RP over the FF they can not use that, as a consumer testimonial( not as a lab result which they do not do ), because it is just anecdotal and unsupported? RP can't show HP TV's dyno PROVEN HP gains, post endorsements/test results from various car magazines that tested/used their product( will auto mfg's be denied the right to use JD Power's or Car and Driver awards in advertising now? ), because that too is anecdotal. Yeah right. What a complete and total joke this is. Does NAD have a list of what tests and what labs must be used for the claims to be legit? If not then they have no grounds to chastise RP for claims they make when other oil companies do the same or worse.
RP has not claimed these gains without providing where they got the results. They don't just say it does XXX and then never say where it comes from. Ok, in a TV or magazine ad they may just say it does XXX but what oil company, or ANY company for that matter, provides all the supporting data for their claims in every ad? They don't is the truthful answer. RP, like all mfg's, provides their data on their site and through literature upon request. SOP for all mfg's.
They are also very clear as to what tests were done and what edorsement comes from where. What a complete crock that this is being used to attack them especially since it is how things are done in this country for ANY product. RP did nothing all the others have not and do not do.
Quote:
NAD recommended Royal Purple discontinue claims such as “Increases horsepower and torque by as much as 3 percent,” “Reduces Engine Wear by 80 percent,” “Superior Oxidation Stability” and “Provides Film Strength Up to 400 Percent.”
“If industry-standard tests or tests with carefully documented controls were abandoned, there would be no basis whatsoever for making any meaningful claims about the relative efficacy of motor oils,” BP said in its challenge.
NAD recommended that Royal Purple discontinue claims that stated, “Improves fuel economy by as much as 5 percent” and “Fuel economy improvement up to 5 percent or more” because its Environmental Protection Agency testing was inconclusive and the “Oklahoma State Study” and single cylinder Labeco CLR diesel engine testing cited in Royal Purple’s advertising was not relevant. The NAD noted the 1997 OSU Study was “outdated and nothing in the record demonstrated that the formulations of the competitors’ oils were similar to those available for sale on the market today.”
BP Lubricants said it hired the independent laboratory Southwest Research Institute, in San Antonio, to analyze power output of gasoline engines with Royal Purple Oil and with BP’s Castrol oil for comparisons. “The results were provided to the challenger’s expert statistician who was not informed of the identity of the candidate oils,” NAD stated. “The challenger’s [BP’s] expert determined a 0.9 percent difference in power between the oils, which did not rise to the level of statistical significance, and is well below the 3 percent claim made by the advertiser.”
SwRI did additional tests to independently determine the differences in fuel economy, emissions data and engine temperature between Royal Purple and Castrol motor oils. According to SwRI, “there was no statistically significant difference between the fuel economy, emissions data or engine temperature between the two candidate oils,” NAD said.
So let me get this right. BP hires a company to do testing and THEIR EXPERTS results are accepted as gospel and RP's data and testing is a lie? Ok. Now in the future all testing must be done at this research lab by this expert for any claims to be made. Got it.
Quote:
Following its review of the non-anecdotal evidence in the record, NAD recommended that Royal Purple discontinue the claims, “Reduces emissions up to 20 percent or more” and “Reductions in emissions of 20 percent or more” because the studies on which the claims were based were outdated and not consumer-relevant.
I love this one. RP had data to support this but it is older and not the new, in, today, now and happening data so it is completely irrelevant. Wow. Doesn't say the data was/is wrong just outdated and not consumer-relevant. IMO this is nit picking to the highest degree and IMO shows RP had data to back this up that the NAD chooses not to recognize. A bias or agenda?
Quote:
NAD also recommended the advertiser discontinue its unsupported claim that Royal purple motor oil is “API/ILSAC Certified.” Noting that API and ILSAC licenses and certifications have many categories with different meanings, the NAD recommended that the company discontinue its claim that its synthetic oils are “generally ‘API/ILSAC Certified.’”
In fact, no Royal Purple products are certified to current ILSAC specifications.
The American Petroleum Institute licenses its trademarked Service Symbol, or ‘donut,’ for display on qualified engine oils, and also licenses the ILSAC ‘starburst’ logo for oils that meet the auto industry’s latest energy-conserving standards. In API’s online directory of licensees for its Engine Oil Licensing and Certification Program, Royal Purple has a total of 23 passenger car and diesel engine oil products listed, all licensed to use the API donut. Five of these may additionally display the words ‘energy conserving’ within the donut logo, but none of the Royal Purple products are licensable to the current ILSAC GF-4 specification and they cannot display the starburst logo.
I have been a RP user since 1990 and I have NEVER seen them claim any certification they do not have. Now, like ALL oil mfg's they might claim to "meet or exceed" a certification or oil standard, when not actually certified, but they NEVER outright claim to be certified if they are not. Meets/exceeds XXX yes but actually certified when not - NO WAY!
Their bottles have never carried the API Starburst unless they were certified to do so. They carry the API donut with the API service level they actually are certified as meeting. I see no dishonesty there and do not understand this one in the least.
I think this attack on them bugs me the most. This is NOT something RP alone has done. Not even close. Other oil companies have done far worse including a certain oil company so popular on here. Not too long ago this popular oil company on this site was using symbols that looked just like the API Starburst and claiming to meet that certification requirements( never said they were actually certified - just used a look alike Starburst symbol ). So, what is worse? To say our oils meet such and such a certification level/oil standard OR to start using look alike symbols to try and fool people? Which company is the most dishonest and which is trying to fool the consumer?
Quote:
Royal Purple also voluntarily agreed to discontinue the claims, “most advanced,” “unsurpassed performance” and “unparalleled performance,” steps the NAD said were necessary and proper to avoid confusion in the marketplace.
“While Royal Purple also believes that the tests and testimonials it supplied as evidence accurately portray the benefits of using its synthetic oil in a wide variety of applications, it defers to the NAD’s position that those tests and testimonials alone are insufficient to support specific performance attribute claims in consumer advertising,” the company said in its response to NAD. “... [Royal Purple] has already made changes to its advertising in accordance with the NAD recommendations and will continue to implement NAD’s recommendations and analysis in developing Royal Purple’s future advertising.”
Ok, so RP has agreed to stop using a couple questionable advertising terms and has agreed to reword a few other things. Not a big deal and actually probably the only legit part of all this. I know most will take this as a sign they were wrong but I don't see it that way( on everything they were taken to task on ). You know, if you read this thread without reading the article first you would think RP was charged with/lost on more than they actually were. People, as usual, are blowing this way out of proportion and adding things not covered in the case.
Make no mistake that despite the fact I like this oil and company I do not think they are perfect. When they truly do something wrong they should be held accountable. This [censored] going on here and in this article is completely ridiculous though. I want to know when the NAD is going after all the other oil companies now for the same stuff. One in particular comes to mind that has a long documented history of false claims yet I have never seen them gone after here or legally.
What a waste of time this is/was. Where is the NAD in regards to Mobil and their questionable API certification issue brought up by Valvoline? Here you have a company that actually was certified to meet such and such a standard that has been shown( allegedly )to not meet it. Is that not more of a problem, warranting their time and efforts to protect the consumer, than worrying about MPG and HP gains an oil company makes? Where are they with that problem? Why have they not told Mobil to stop claiming that certification if they don't meet it? Where is the API in this? No, let's pick on RP and stop them from using customer testimonials instead.
Just a joke. Feel free to bash me and say I only look through Purple colored glasses
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Not really. Other companies are a tad more careful with the claims. Take the purple hat off for second and read. Royal Purple crossed the line.
Are you serious? An Amsoil rep taking shots at "questionable claims" made by other companies?
100% serious.
Please show me the claims the claims Amsoil makes about horsepower, MPG, wear. Royal Purple crossed the line. If Amsoil crossed the line, do you think BP would have hesitated?
You need to take the purple glasses off and read. I keep writing this, but you are very seriously biased.
Pablo telling me I am biased.
That's rich.
You are one of the most biased people on this site. A nice guy don't get me wrong but you are every bit as biased towards Amsoil as I am RP if not more so.
I have read the article thanks. Most of it is complete rubbish. I would love to see your favorite company held up to this same scrutiny. They would fair no better if it was an honest evaluation.
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Not really. Other companies are a tad more careful with the claims. Take the purple hat off for second and read. Royal Purple crossed the line.
Are you serious? An Amsoil rep taking shots at "questionable claims" made by other companies?
100% serious.
Please show me the claims the claims Amsoil makes about horsepower, MPG, wear. Royal Purple crossed the line. If Amsoil crossed the line, do you think BP would have hesitated?
You need to take the purple glasses off and read. I keep writing this, but you are very seriously biased.
Pablo telling me I am biased.
I have read the article thanks. Most of it is complete rubbish. I would love to see your favorite company held up to this same scrutiny. They would fair no better if it was an honest evaluation.
Last edited:
I don't pretend I'm not biased. Of course I'm biased. Is that some secret??
Amsoil is held to the same scrutiny all the time. They have learned to word their marketing material appropriately. RP crossed the line. The HP stuff in particular is nonsense.
Amsoil is held to the same scrutiny all the time. They have learned to word their marketing material appropriately. RP crossed the line. The HP stuff in particular is nonsense.
- Status
