There’s a lot of ways to measure”performance.” I wonder in what ways the R&P is their highest performer. If it meets all the Euro specs, why not say at least they recommend it for those also? Why is it only recommended for non-Euro applications? What’s a couple tenths HTHS among friends?
We know that Valvoline (like M1) doesn’t hesitate to recommend products they consider to be suitable, even if they don’t have the explicit license or endorsement. Their PDSs quite often list separately the licenses and approvals from their “recommendations” or “meets requirements.”
So Valvoline states both the VR&P is their “highest performing product” while also pairing it only with API and ILSAC licensing a relative pittance of recommendations for Ford and Chrysler.
It’s one thing to have so few OEM endorsements. But Valvoline isn’t even recommending it for Japanese OEMs or Korean makers.
How can the same oil that is the “highest performer” in the line still not meet Valvoline’s OWN internal threshold of recommendations for the many other places where it would meet viscosity requirements?
I think it’s probably as simple as this: by some particular measures (cleanliness, especially, but perhaps just the things ILSAC and AP measure), VRP is absolutely the highest performing oil that Valvoline makes. But there must be a reason they continue to offer more tailored products for other applications. It’s not cheap to proliferate so many niche oils. Those products must justify their existence in the face of face of a new “wonder” oil that is the internal competitor threatening to obsolete them.
I’m a huge fan of VRP, it’s been a wonder oil in my experience so far. But I do not believe it is the best oil Valvoline makes for every application, and there are almost certainly products in their portfolio that will outperform it by different measures.