Would it be fair to say NAB ruled RP mislead and told them to correct it?
Why is Royal Purple so expensive?
- Thread starter Jaymus
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: GrampsintheSand
Would it be fair to say NAB ruled RP mislead and told them to correct it?
Yes. Absolutely.
It is fair to say that in the "OPINION OF" the NAD RP mislead and then the NAD told them to( actually recommended but close enough )correct it.
I agreed to that point in the big RP thread about this situation in the Oil Industry forum. Mislead is not LIE though and it does not mean they have questions about their certifications as has been stated in this thread. Most oil mfg's mislead to some extent. I am disappointed in RP if they have intentionally mislead as I have always felt they were above that stuff. It is a shame they have sunk to the level of another company so popular on here if they have intentionally mislead folks. I am not quite sure it is as bad as some are thinking it is because I have only seen that one link on this with a few quotes and what I saw in thata rticle was not intentional misleading other than possibly the ILASC thing but as I said I never saw them do that so I question if it was reported accurately in the article.
Just not enough info in that ONE article to be sure the whole case and such was represented accurately and fairly in that article. I would love to see the actual evidence/proof myself.
People in this thread however have said RP flat out lied and that they have cetification issues. I have asked for proof is all. I didn't see where they had lied or had certification issues in that article. That is twisting what was said there by those here with a clear agenda against RP( yes I have a pro RP agenda ).
To me the claims here imply that...
1 - RP has flat out said they are actually certified to meet things they are not. I take that to mean, using the API Starburst as an example when not certified to do so, or saying they actually are API Starburst certified when they aren't. I just haven't seen that done. I have seen MEETS such and such used but that is not lieing( unless they don't actually meet the spec ).
2 - RP is having problems with certifications they currently have. Saying RP has certification issue implies that. Something along the lines of Valvoline/Ashland making the claims about M1( think it was the 5W-30 )not actually meeting the certification they carried. THAT is a company having certification issues. There have been no challenges to RP's current actual certifications. By BP/NAD in that article/link or others.
I just want people to be clear in what they post. If you are going to say these things you should be able to back them up. Just be fair and hold RP to the same standard the other brands are. Don't make general and non specific claims because they get blown WAY out of proportion to the truth because so many on here hate them. Pretty soon people are going to be saying it is Purple Canola oil because they heard it on BITOG.
Would it be fair to say NAB ruled RP mislead and told them to correct it?
Yes. Absolutely.
I agreed to that point in the big RP thread about this situation in the Oil Industry forum. Mislead is not LIE though and it does not mean they have questions about their certifications as has been stated in this thread. Most oil mfg's mislead to some extent. I am disappointed in RP if they have intentionally mislead as I have always felt they were above that stuff. It is a shame they have sunk to the level of another company so popular on here if they have intentionally mislead folks. I am not quite sure it is as bad as some are thinking it is because I have only seen that one link on this with a few quotes and what I saw in thata rticle was not intentional misleading other than possibly the ILASC thing but as I said I never saw them do that so I question if it was reported accurately in the article.
Just not enough info in that ONE article to be sure the whole case and such was represented accurately and fairly in that article. I would love to see the actual evidence/proof myself.
People in this thread however have said RP flat out lied and that they have cetification issues. I have asked for proof is all. I didn't see where they had lied or had certification issues in that article. That is twisting what was said there by those here with a clear agenda against RP( yes I have a pro RP agenda ).
To me the claims here imply that...
1 - RP has flat out said they are actually certified to meet things they are not. I take that to mean, using the API Starburst as an example when not certified to do so, or saying they actually are API Starburst certified when they aren't. I just haven't seen that done. I have seen MEETS such and such used but that is not lieing( unless they don't actually meet the spec ).
2 - RP is having problems with certifications they currently have. Saying RP has certification issue implies that. Something along the lines of Valvoline/Ashland making the claims about M1( think it was the 5W-30 )not actually meeting the certification they carried. THAT is a company having certification issues. There have been no challenges to RP's current actual certifications. By BP/NAD in that article/link or others.
I just want people to be clear in what they post. If you are going to say these things you should be able to back them up. Just be fair and hold RP to the same standard the other brands are. Don't make general and non specific claims because they get blown WAY out of proportion to the truth because so many on here hate them. Pretty soon people are going to be saying it is Purple Canola oil because they heard it on BITOG.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: MHHEMI
I contend people are making claims unsupported by the facts...Not just a summary of some case where we don't see the actual evidence so we only get 2nd hand quotes and comments.
Following is first hand quote directly from NAD's website: http://www.nadreview.org/start.aspx
NAD recommended that the advertiser discontinue its unsupported claim that Royal Purple motor oil is “API/ILSAC Certified.”
I have to think the NAD knows what claims were actually made, and the difference between "meets specs" and "certified".
Tom NJ
I contend people are making claims unsupported by the facts...Not just a summary of some case where we don't see the actual evidence so we only get 2nd hand quotes and comments.
Following is first hand quote directly from NAD's website: http://www.nadreview.org/start.aspx
NAD recommended that the advertiser discontinue its unsupported claim that Royal Purple motor oil is “API/ILSAC Certified.”
I have to think the NAD knows what claims were actually made, and the difference between "meets specs" and "certified".
Tom NJ
Thanks. I have to say though I still would like to see what RP actually said. I never personally saw anything other than meets used unless they actually have been certified. Has to be related to the ILSAC part of it becaus they do have a lot of API certified oils.
Thanks again.
Thanks again.
Last edited:
Here are all of the API approvals. And you are correct, none have ILSAC approval.
http://eolcs.api.org/DisplayLicenseInfo.asp?LicenseNo=0777
http://eolcs.api.org/DisplayLicenseInfo.asp?LicenseNo=0777
Originally Posted By: GrampsintheSand
This place is worse than any ricer forum.
Its about as bad as a couple of years ago when everyone on another couple of forums I read bashed Amsoil day and night (SCAmsoil was the favored epithet) for not bothering with API certification and for relying on direct sales. I guess its just RP's turn now. Or maybe M1's. I lose track.
I've seen precious little truly persuasive argument either for or against RP oils. The "bad" UOAs often referred to are in what I'd call extreme applications (like the turbo LS-6 currently on the UOA page, which may be a bad build or just exceptionally hard on oil and its own internals.) While most of the "outstanding" analyses for the mainstream oils tend to be in little 4-bangers and v6 engines. Lets not compare cap guns to battleships. The other point of argument about RP is price, but that's a little over-stated if you ask me. Even at $100 per change, oil is *NEVER* going to be a significant portion of the cost of owning a car. Period! You pay more than that in insurance and registration every year, let alone tires, fuel, coolant, brake jobs, and the amortized purchase price of the car. Yes, its smart to shop for value, but I'm not going to waste my time scouring for oil at below $3/quart thinking I'm saving my bank account- I'd rather just skip Starbucks and eat at home more often (oh wait, I already DO that). Until I see or perform some analyses in engines that do great on other oils, I'll keep an open but critical mind, and that applies to RP, Amsoil, Schaeffers, and garden-variety Pennzoil too.
As for the whole argument over wild advertizing claims... I still think the #1 offender is Castrol. Doesn't stop me from using some of their products, because they are good. The engineers who made the oil aren't responsible for the behavior of the twits in marketing. And frankly I was never happy with Amsoil's "we're so good we don't need API certification" argument from a few years back, although time and testing seems to have borne out at least part of that. Unfortunately I've just come to expect a large amount of bullfeathers to be thrown around in automotive product sales, so I don't even bother letting it get to me anymore.
Who wants the soapbox next???
This place is worse than any ricer forum.
Its about as bad as a couple of years ago when everyone on another couple of forums I read bashed Amsoil day and night (SCAmsoil was the favored epithet) for not bothering with API certification and for relying on direct sales. I guess its just RP's turn now. Or maybe M1's. I lose track.
I've seen precious little truly persuasive argument either for or against RP oils. The "bad" UOAs often referred to are in what I'd call extreme applications (like the turbo LS-6 currently on the UOA page, which may be a bad build or just exceptionally hard on oil and its own internals.) While most of the "outstanding" analyses for the mainstream oils tend to be in little 4-bangers and v6 engines. Lets not compare cap guns to battleships. The other point of argument about RP is price, but that's a little over-stated if you ask me. Even at $100 per change, oil is *NEVER* going to be a significant portion of the cost of owning a car. Period! You pay more than that in insurance and registration every year, let alone tires, fuel, coolant, brake jobs, and the amortized purchase price of the car. Yes, its smart to shop for value, but I'm not going to waste my time scouring for oil at below $3/quart thinking I'm saving my bank account- I'd rather just skip Starbucks and eat at home more often (oh wait, I already DO that). Until I see or perform some analyses in engines that do great on other oils, I'll keep an open but critical mind, and that applies to RP, Amsoil, Schaeffers, and garden-variety Pennzoil too.
As for the whole argument over wild advertizing claims... I still think the #1 offender is Castrol. Doesn't stop me from using some of their products, because they are good. The engineers who made the oil aren't responsible for the behavior of the twits in marketing. And frankly I was never happy with Amsoil's "we're so good we don't need API certification" argument from a few years back, although time and testing seems to have borne out at least part of that. Unfortunately I've just come to expect a large amount of bullfeathers to be thrown around in automotive product sales, so I don't even bother letting it get to me anymore.
Who wants the soapbox next???
440Magnum for president!
Good points!
Good points!
I understand the difference between "meets spec" and "certified" when it comes to referencing industry standards, however, IMHO if a product implies in any way that it meets a specification, it should have run all of the required tests, by the specified methods, in qualified labs, and comply with all of the limits and other requirements in the standard. Once you have gone to this expense and have all the data, why not go for the certification? The cost of filing and maintaining certification is insignificant compared to the credibility gained and marketing benefit for engines under warranty.
For this reason, I become suspicious of any "meets the requirements of" claims not accompanied by a certification mark. That's not to say that the oil is bad (it may even be better), only that it likely was not fully tested or did not meet some of the requirements. If so, then any implication by its referencing the standard can be misleading to the average consumer.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe most RP oils contain more phosphorus than permitted by ILSAC GF-4. If so, then referencing ISLAC in a manner that implies compliance is just plain wrong.
Tom NJ
For this reason, I become suspicious of any "meets the requirements of" claims not accompanied by a certification mark. That's not to say that the oil is bad (it may even be better), only that it likely was not fully tested or did not meet some of the requirements. If so, then any implication by its referencing the standard can be misleading to the average consumer.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe most RP oils contain more phosphorus than permitted by ILSAC GF-4. If so, then referencing ISLAC in a manner that implies compliance is just plain wrong.
Tom NJ
standing ovation!
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: GrampsintheSand
This place is worse than any ricer forum.
Its about as bad as a couple of years ago when everyone on another couple of forums I read bashed Amsoil day and night (SCAmsoil was the favored epithet) for not bothering with API certification and for relying on direct sales. I guess its just RP's turn now. Or maybe M1's. I lose track.
I've seen precious little truly persuasive argument either for or against RP oils. The "bad" UOAs often referred to are in what I'd call extreme applications (like the turbo LS-6 currently on the UOA page, which may be a bad build or just exceptionally hard on oil and its own internals.) While most of the "outstanding" analyses for the mainstream oils tend to be in little 4-bangers and v6 engines. Lets not compare cap guns to battleships. The other point of argument about RP is price, but that's a little over-stated if you ask me. Even at $100 per change, oil is *NEVER* going to be a significant portion of the cost of owning a car. Period! You pay more than that in insurance and registration every year, let alone tires, fuel, coolant, brake jobs, and the amortized purchase price of the car. Yes, its smart to shop for value, but I'm not going to waste my time scouring for oil at below $3/quart thinking I'm saving my bank account- I'd rather just skip Starbucks and eat at home more often (oh wait, I already DO that). Until I see or perform some analyses in engines that do great on other oils, I'll keep an open but critical mind, and that applies to RP, Amsoil, Schaeffers, and garden-variety Pennzoil too.
As for the whole argument over wild advertizing claims... I still think the #1 offender is Castrol. Doesn't stop me from using some of their products, because they are good. The engineers who made the oil aren't responsible for the behavior of the twits in marketing. And frankly I was never happy with Amsoil's "we're so good we don't need API certification" argument from a few years back, although time and testing seems to have borne out at least part of that. Unfortunately I've just come to expect a large amount of bullfeathers to be thrown around in automotive product sales, so I don't even bother letting it get to me anymore.
Who wants the soapbox next???
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: GrampsintheSand
This place is worse than any ricer forum.
Its about as bad as a couple of years ago when everyone on another couple of forums I read bashed Amsoil day and night (SCAmsoil was the favored epithet) for not bothering with API certification and for relying on direct sales. I guess its just RP's turn now. Or maybe M1's. I lose track.
I've seen precious little truly persuasive argument either for or against RP oils. The "bad" UOAs often referred to are in what I'd call extreme applications (like the turbo LS-6 currently on the UOA page, which may be a bad build or just exceptionally hard on oil and its own internals.) While most of the "outstanding" analyses for the mainstream oils tend to be in little 4-bangers and v6 engines. Lets not compare cap guns to battleships. The other point of argument about RP is price, but that's a little over-stated if you ask me. Even at $100 per change, oil is *NEVER* going to be a significant portion of the cost of owning a car. Period! You pay more than that in insurance and registration every year, let alone tires, fuel, coolant, brake jobs, and the amortized purchase price of the car. Yes, its smart to shop for value, but I'm not going to waste my time scouring for oil at below $3/quart thinking I'm saving my bank account- I'd rather just skip Starbucks and eat at home more often (oh wait, I already DO that). Until I see or perform some analyses in engines that do great on other oils, I'll keep an open but critical mind, and that applies to RP, Amsoil, Schaeffers, and garden-variety Pennzoil too.
As for the whole argument over wild advertizing claims... I still think the #1 offender is Castrol. Doesn't stop me from using some of their products, because they are good. The engineers who made the oil aren't responsible for the behavior of the twits in marketing. And frankly I was never happy with Amsoil's "we're so good we don't need API certification" argument from a few years back, although time and testing seems to have borne out at least part of that. Unfortunately I've just come to expect a large amount of bullfeathers to be thrown around in automotive product sales, so I don't even bother letting it get to me anymore.
Who wants the soapbox next???
intersting to say the least.
i'm trying right now to visit their website http://www.royalpurple.com but i cannot get there, i cannot resolve the URL, looks like their DNS is currently defunct.
what i noticed in the stores is less of RP on the shelves. i use the RP Purple Ice product (it works great), but recently my local PepBoys stopped carrying it.
i'm trying right now to visit their website http://www.royalpurple.com but i cannot get there, i cannot resolve the URL, looks like their DNS is currently defunct.
what i noticed in the stores is less of RP on the shelves. i use the RP Purple Ice product (it works great), but recently my local PepBoys stopped carrying it.
Yup Royal Purples web site is down. Maybe they are making the changes that were "suggested" to them.
Originally Posted By: GrampsintheSand
Yup Royal Purples web site is down. Maybe they are making the changes that were "suggested" to them.
not their website (actual webserver), but their DNS is down. without being able to resolve the URL to IP your browser cant get there. you might try typing the IP of their webite into your browser URL location. i dont know what IP their site was so i cant try it. if their DNS and website are at the same location then i guess its possible their ISP has issues (or ISP shut it down for lack of payment, etc) and no traffic can get in or out, etc.
Yup Royal Purples web site is down. Maybe they are making the changes that were "suggested" to them.
not their website (actual webserver), but their DNS is down. without being able to resolve the URL to IP your browser cant get there. you might try typing the IP of their webite into your browser URL location. i dont know what IP their site was so i cant try it. if their DNS and website are at the same location then i guess its possible their ISP has issues (or ISP shut it down for lack of payment, etc) and no traffic can get in or out, etc.
2:25PM and it worked for me.
It's more expensive because they want you to think it's worth more. They also are a small mfg which makes costs higher as well.
Originally Posted By: Johnny
2:25PM and it worked for me.
Yup...back up now....sez their motor oils are licensed and I quote (cut and paste) "Royal Purple’s motor oils for passenger cars and trucks are API licensed."
2:25PM and it worked for me.
Yup...back up now....sez their motor oils are licensed and I quote (cut and paste) "Royal Purple’s motor oils for passenger cars and trucks are API licensed."
And that is correct, just not licensed for API SM.
LOL...I understand. But to say RP is API licensed on a "old" license standard" no longer in effect is misleading as heck Johnny.
Link works fine for me.
Originally Posted By: EMPIRE
not their website (actual webserver), but their DNS is down.
I thought the DNS server belongs to your ISP, not Royal Purple.
not their website (actual webserver), but their DNS is down.
I thought the DNS server belongs to your ISP, not Royal Purple.
Originally Posted By: GrampsintheSand
LOL...I understand. But to say RP is API licensed on a "old" license standard" no longer in effect is misleading as heck Johnny.
Well, not exactly. API SL is still a spec recognized by API and older cars say use API SL in the car. Now we all know API SM is backward compatible, but the SL spec is still good for those cars. Now once API says SL is obsolete, then they will not be able to put that on the donut. There are many brands of commercial oils that still list SL in their donut. Now if RP came out and said our oil meets the API spec for your brand new 2009 whatever, that would be misleading.
LOL...I understand. But to say RP is API licensed on a "old" license standard" no longer in effect is misleading as heck Johnny.
Well, not exactly. API SL is still a spec recognized by API and older cars say use API SL in the car. Now we all know API SM is backward compatible, but the SL spec is still good for those cars. Now once API says SL is obsolete, then they will not be able to put that on the donut. There are many brands of commercial oils that still list SL in their donut. Now if RP came out and said our oil meets the API spec for your brand new 2009 whatever, that would be misleading.
- Status