Royal Purple is overpriced and shears down to paint thinner.
What is the deal with Royal purple?
- Thread starter KieferS
- Start date
- Status
Well that's their problem, they drive Camaros.
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Originally Posted By: KieferS
..Nothing wrong with K&N..i have one on the end of the BBk intake, with the plenum and throtle body and i had a very noticable loss in throttle response when i switched to paper element while i was cleaning the K&N.
Really loud exhaust note = mandatory on mustangs, hehe
Mustangs definitely have the bad assest sounding V8`s on the planet!!!!!!!!! I 2nd the mandatory high performance exhaust on Mustangs.........it should be a sin not to have it!
buddy of mine has an older mustang ls with flowmaster exhaust, i do have to admit it sounds amazing, nice and deep sounding
Originally Posted By: KieferS
..Nothing wrong with K&N..i have one on the end of the BBk intake, with the plenum and throtle body and i had a very noticable loss in throttle response when i switched to paper element while i was cleaning the K&N.
Really loud exhaust note = mandatory on mustangs, hehe
Mustangs definitely have the bad assest sounding V8`s on the planet!!!!!!!!! I 2nd the mandatory high performance exhaust on Mustangs.........it should be a sin not to have it!
buddy of mine has an older mustang ls with flowmaster exhaust, i do have to admit it sounds amazing, nice and deep sounding
its the most noticable sound.
I can't distinguish between 5.0 or 4.6 but I can tell its a Mustang before hearing it.
I hear its the OHC design that gives the engine its smooth, humble garble. Something even a high end OHV Vette cannot duplicate.
I can't distinguish between 5.0 or 4.6 but I can tell its a Mustang before hearing it.
I hear its the OHC design that gives the engine its smooth, humble garble. Something even a high end OHV Vette cannot duplicate.
well the 5.0 sounds kinda bassy and classic, and the OHC 4.6 sounds smooth and roarish like. I can distinguish the 281 from the 302 because the 4.6 sounds alot better imo.
But anyone whose done headers on a 5.0 has fallen in love with it
20 minute job FTW.
Alright- so what about Redline? im thinking about doing to UOA- each with 5k miles- one on RP and one on RL. Does anyone have anything to say about the RL before i go ahead and try that out too? UOA would be nice
But anyone whose done headers on a 5.0 has fallen in love with it
Alright- so what about Redline? im thinking about doing to UOA- each with 5k miles- one on RP and one on RL. Does anyone have anything to say about the RL before i go ahead and try that out too? UOA would be nice
I certainly wouldn't dump Synpower for Royal Purple on the advice of an advertorial, which is what those "articles" are.
From the few UOAs and other data I've seen published here there is nothing special about Royal Purple other than it's color
.
From the few UOAs and other data I've seen published here there is nothing special about Royal Purple other than it's color
.Royal Purple can be purchased, if you look for it, at the same price or even less than the other premium synthetics. I only pay $5.75-$6.50 p/qt for it depending on where I get it. Go to a national parts store chain and yes it is very expensive. Shop around for it( use dealer locator on their web site to find all retailers/distributors in your state )to find a deal just as you would with any brand you choose to use.
Royal Purple is an EXCELLENT oil despite the negative comments about it made frequently on this site. For some reason there is a big anti bias towards it here on this site. They even get pounded on for marketing their product like everyone else does. The big difference I see with RP is they simply talk about their product and never the competition. What really makes me chuckle is we are not to believe what RP says at all. It is just marketing hype and all [censored]. However, we should take for gospel what the popular brand( here )mfg's say about their product. It really is quite humorous.
RP would be an excellent choice for your Mustang. Just as Redline would. Or, M1, PP, VVSP, Amsoil, etc... RP is every bit as good as any other brand that is popular on this site. If you want to try it do so and it should perform well for you.
Royal Purple is an EXCELLENT oil despite the negative comments about it made frequently on this site. For some reason there is a big anti bias towards it here on this site. They even get pounded on for marketing their product like everyone else does. The big difference I see with RP is they simply talk about their product and never the competition. What really makes me chuckle is we are not to believe what RP says at all. It is just marketing hype and all [censored]. However, we should take for gospel what the popular brand( here )mfg's say about their product. It really is quite humorous.
RP would be an excellent choice for your Mustang. Just as Redline would. Or, M1, PP, VVSP, Amsoil, etc... RP is every bit as good as any other brand that is popular on this site. If you want to try it do so and it should perform well for you.
Last edited by a moderator:
RP compares to $2 dino oils, and that's being generous.
If that 4.6L mustang motor is stock, run 5w20 motorcraft oil in it. I don't care how you drive it, thats going to be the best oil for your application.
If you put cams/blower/etc on it, and change the air/fuel ratio, then you will want something different, but 5w20 motorcraft is going to give you great results.
11 bucks for 5 quarts of oil, 3 bucks for a filter. Done.
Change it when the book says to change it.
If you put cams/blower/etc on it, and change the air/fuel ratio, then you will want something different, but 5w20 motorcraft is going to give you great results.
11 bucks for 5 quarts of oil, 3 bucks for a filter. Done.
Change it when the book says to change it.
Originally Posted By: NHSilverado
Royal Purple is an EXCELLENT oil despite the negative comments about it made frequently on this site... RP is every bit as good as any other brand that is popular on this site.
These statements may or not be true, but the basic problem is that there is not enough technical data available to prove or disprove them conclusively. RP PCMO's are API approved and apparently GM4718M approved, but that's the full extent of independent approvals and certifications that they carry. So discussions about the merits of Royal Purple inevitably devolve to questions of faith not science.
As far as UOA's go, Iron levels frequently (but not always) seem to be a bit elevated. Other than that, there does not seem to be anything remarkable about them. That is, if I were to give you a sampling of wear metal readings from 5 UOAs from comparable engines and miles, I don't think anybody would be able to spot the RP.
Royal Purple is an EXCELLENT oil despite the negative comments about it made frequently on this site... RP is every bit as good as any other brand that is popular on this site.
These statements may or not be true, but the basic problem is that there is not enough technical data available to prove or disprove them conclusively. RP PCMO's are API approved and apparently GM4718M approved, but that's the full extent of independent approvals and certifications that they carry. So discussions about the merits of Royal Purple inevitably devolve to questions of faith not science.
As far as UOA's go, Iron levels frequently (but not always) seem to be a bit elevated. Other than that, there does not seem to be anything remarkable about them. That is, if I were to give you a sampling of wear metal readings from 5 UOAs from comparable engines and miles, I don't think anybody would be able to spot the RP.
I didnt really like the M1, i used it in the jetta and didn't have too good an experience with it, and the UOA here are average.
Redline seems to give good UOA, and i'm using their gear oil for my diffrential and i can't complain. I may give them a try too.
Redline seems to give good UOA, and i'm using their gear oil for my diffrential and i can't complain. I may give them a try too.
Originally Posted By: NHSilverado
For some reason there is a big anti bias towards it here on this site. They even get pounded on for marketing their product like everyone else does. The big difference I see with RP is they simply talk about their product and never the competition. What really makes me chuckle is we are not to believe what RP says at all. It is just marketing hype and all [censored]. However, we should take for gospel what the popular brand( here )mfg's say about their product. It really is quite humorous.
I will try to explain why there is bias against RP here and some other places. I'll try to do this as objectively as a I can. When the site first started in 2002 and into 2003-2004 all manner of UOA's were posted just as now. Every RP UOA posted showed a severe thinning and relatively higher wear metals. This wasn't just a couple samples as can happen with certain oils in a given engine. Also, prior to that in the late 1990's in the Summit catalog RP oils were advertised as a blend. I'm not making this stuff up. So combine these two things - we all assumed RP was not 100% PAO. Not too many PAO oils shear to that degree. Then look at the high catalog price. RP got a reputation, and it stuck. I will say here and now, the formulation used then does not appear to be anything like the formulation now.
As for the advertising - well the comparisons against some pretty low cost oils are right on their web site, yes mostly in the form of "magazine comparos" I'm not saying anything is wrong with this, it's their choice - but to say "never the competition" is disingenuous at best.
I am glad you find humor in the bias of mankind - if you didn't you would go wacko.
For some reason there is a big anti bias towards it here on this site. They even get pounded on for marketing their product like everyone else does. The big difference I see with RP is they simply talk about their product and never the competition. What really makes me chuckle is we are not to believe what RP says at all. It is just marketing hype and all [censored]. However, we should take for gospel what the popular brand( here )mfg's say about their product. It really is quite humorous.
I will try to explain why there is bias against RP here and some other places. I'll try to do this as objectively as a I can. When the site first started in 2002 and into 2003-2004 all manner of UOA's were posted just as now. Every RP UOA posted showed a severe thinning and relatively higher wear metals. This wasn't just a couple samples as can happen with certain oils in a given engine. Also, prior to that in the late 1990's in the Summit catalog RP oils were advertised as a blend. I'm not making this stuff up. So combine these two things - we all assumed RP was not 100% PAO. Not too many PAO oils shear to that degree. Then look at the high catalog price. RP got a reputation, and it stuck. I will say here and now, the formulation used then does not appear to be anything like the formulation now.
As for the advertising - well the comparisons against some pretty low cost oils are right on their web site, yes mostly in the form of "magazine comparos" I'm not saying anything is wrong with this, it's their choice - but to say "never the competition" is disingenuous at best.
I am glad you find humor in the bias of mankind - if you didn't you would go wacko.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
What I`ve always wondered about RP is like what Pablo said about it being a synth blend oil. Word on a very famous Nissan forum is the same thing,that it`s a synth blend. I`ve also read on a few car forums that they use BP base stock. Would that make RP a group III like Syntec if they both in fact use the same BP base stock? But of course everything you read on the net can`t be taken as gospel seeing it is "the net".
KieferS said:well i'm not running a 4 banger econo box either
but yes, they did go down to a 5w30. regardless, 5 HP gain or so was pretty impressive.
I have a hard time using the search feature on this site, but does anyone have any UOA or anything with RP? [/quote/]
5hp doesnt mean squat in a daily driver, and wont do much in a drag race either. Its like a K&N giving you 2hp at 5000rpms, it doesnt really matter.
Originally Posted By: OilGuy
Originally Posted By: jpr
Originally Posted By: jpr
NHSilverado said:
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
You might try looking at a recently posted UOA.
You're right, I haven't looked at any recently posted UOA's, but I know a lot of the UOA's from further back in the past have shown a big problem with RP shearing out of grade; and not just shearing back a little either, but rather shearing completely out of grade.
You might try looking at a recently posted UOA.
You're right, I haven't looked at any recently posted UOA's, but I know a lot of the UOA's from further back in the past have shown a big problem with RP shearing out of grade; and not just shearing back a little either, but rather shearing completely out of grade.
Originally Posted By: NHSilverado
....despite the negative comments about it made frequently on this site. For some reason there is a big anti bias towards it here on this site.
....because it is a lousy, overhyped, overblown oil? >
Originally Posted By: NHSilverado
....RP would be an excellent choice for your Mustang.
Not quite so fast. Mobil 1 would be better!
....despite the negative comments about it made frequently on this site. For some reason there is a big anti bias towards it here on this site.
....because it is a lousy, overhyped, overblown oil? >
Originally Posted By: NHSilverado
....RP would be an excellent choice for your Mustang.
Not quite so fast. Mobil 1 would be better!
Don't you guys get it? It's [censored]' PURPLE!!!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
