RP SN?
- Thread starter Mikey V.
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Yeah,because RP`s claim to fame was the Synerlec additive. I wouldn`t buy the SN version,only the HPS.
Buy the HPS if you want the old formula.
0w40 and 5w40 are not SN.
0w40 and 5w40 are not SN.
I would imagine it is still good. All oils that went to SN have to abide by the same rules, so my theory is that if RP SL/SM is one of the best in that category (for readily available oils, IMO/IME), then RP SN will be one of the best SN.
"Best" being subjective and based on my experience using the oil in multiple cars for many, many miles.
"Best" being subjective and based on my experience using the oil in multiple cars for many, many miles.
Anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that anti-wear properties of SN oils are not as good as SL and SM were.
OK, this is not directed at anyone in particular nor specifically to this thread. Just a general comment.
I have been laughing my tuckuss off lately over RP SN posts. Back when RP only had SL offerings( popular weights anyway - few SM )and SM was out RP was regularly trashed( by most )because they wouldn't reformulate and cut back on ZDDP and such. RP was "BAD OIL" because of it. A "GOOD OIL" would have been certified to SM.
Then SN comes out and everyone is all in a frenzy over the new rating. RP finally reformulates to offer an oil that meets the new rating, plus they keep a formula with the ZDDP and synlerlac( basically the old SL stuff renamed ), so they can offer something to everyone. Basically what Amsoil does and, rightfully so, gets praised for( i.e. offering something for everyone's needs ). Should be good and end the RP trashing right? Ha.
Now a lot of people are beating up on RP SN because it isn't as good as the old SL stuff. HUH???
Doesn't matter that to be certified to SN the new RP oils have to meet the same standards as all other SN oils which are praised around here. RP SN gets beat up on. Bottom line is, on this site, no matter what RP does people will turn it into a negative in some form.
You have no choice but to laugh at the hypocrisy that runs rampant on this site at times.
Again, not trying to start anything with anyone in particular. Just an observation. If you think I am wrong search out the old RP threads and read how when it was SL it wasn't as good as the SM oils and how it should reformulate to meet SM or it was crud. Then look more recently around the time SN came out and RP reformulates at how people now talk about the SL being the good stuff and the SN is junk.
I have been laughing my tuckuss off lately over RP SN posts. Back when RP only had SL offerings( popular weights anyway - few SM )and SM was out RP was regularly trashed( by most )because they wouldn't reformulate and cut back on ZDDP and such. RP was "BAD OIL" because of it. A "GOOD OIL" would have been certified to SM.
Then SN comes out and everyone is all in a frenzy over the new rating. RP finally reformulates to offer an oil that meets the new rating, plus they keep a formula with the ZDDP and synlerlac( basically the old SL stuff renamed ), so they can offer something to everyone. Basically what Amsoil does and, rightfully so, gets praised for( i.e. offering something for everyone's needs ). Should be good and end the RP trashing right? Ha.
Now a lot of people are beating up on RP SN because it isn't as good as the old SL stuff. HUH???
You have no choice but to laugh at the hypocrisy that runs rampant on this site at times.
Again, not trying to start anything with anyone in particular. Just an observation. If you think I am wrong search out the old RP threads and read how when it was SL it wasn't as good as the SM oils and how it should reformulate to meet SM or it was crud. Then look more recently around the time SN came out and RP reformulates at how people now talk about the SL being the good stuff and the SN is junk.
NHHEMI, that's why I said it's anecdotal. Not enough data out there yet on SL vs SM vs SN.
- Status
