What is the deal with Royal purple?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't think there is anything bad or wrong with RP. As a boutique oil, you have to be convincingly better than M1/PP. I don't think RP is.
 
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
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".


RP is not a blend. it is full synthetic( let's not debate what that means either - we all know what blend means vs full synthetic ). To my knowledge RP uses PAO base stocks not Grp III. I actually asked once about what grp base stocks they use and was told PAO.

Originally Posted By: "Royal Purple"
Is Royal Purple synthetic motor oil?

Yes. Royal Purple Motor Oils are composed of a proprietary formulation of synthetic base oils and synthetic additives containing iso-paraffinic diluents.


I think for people to compare RP to paint thinner or say any $2 dino oil is as good is ludicrous and lends no validity to their arguments.

Again, the anti bias here rears it's ugly head. Very little backing of it as well. Just rhetoric. Basing current day opinion on test results from a decade+ ago is kind of ridiculous isn't it? What popular oil on here right now would test as well as it does now back then? What popular oil here uses the same formula now they did in the 90's? Do you hold any of these oil's today to the performance they produce over 10 years ago and base your current opinion on the past? Just curious.

All I can say is I have used it for 15+ years and I have NEVER had a problem with it. I am extremely happy wiith how it has performed in both my daily driver's and my drag engines. IMO it is top notch stuff. Others are free to feel otherwise but I have trouble biting my tongue when some on here feel the need to say such ridiculous things as it shears to paint thinner, $2 dino is as good, or as one guy in another thread said bacon grease or a handful of gravel were better. That stuff is lame.

Oh, and OilGuy. If you are going to quote me on something make sure "I" am the one who actually said it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Quote:
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".


BP produces all groups of oil, including Group IV PAO and esters.

At one lubricatnt symposium, I heard that RP used BP PAO and ConnocoPhillips (CP) PAO.

CP produces excellent PAO's.
 
Quote:
According to Royal Purple's Martin, oil really doesn't become what it is until you add the additives.

"All of the benefits are in the additives," says Martin. "Even in terms of racing oils most oil companies purchase additive packages. There are only a handful of additive suppliers globally. So in many cases the oils are basically the same with the only differences being the marketing. We actually manufacture our own additives. We aren't a refinery so we buy our base oil but that's the flour in the cake. The two major characteristics of our additives is the film strength, which is the load carrying characteristics of the oil not just the wear, and the oxidation resistance."


This was a good article.

Quote:
"There are several different types of base oils," explains Royal Purple's Martin. "In automotive applications there's Group 2 and lower, then Group 3 and Group 4 (Group 4 being synthetics). Really, if you have a Group 4 from BP/Amoco vs. Exxon/Mobil there's not going to be much of a difference. The refinement process is identical, and the tech specs will be virtually the same. Where you gain your benefit and tell the difference between any two branded oils is your additives. That's how you enhance and tweak the performance of the oil. The base oil is only going to do so much, just like the flour in the cake."

It has been said before many times, but a well-formulated mineral oil will outperform a poorly formulated synthetic. Synthetic is inherently better base oil vs. base oil but if you fall asleep on the additive end of it a mineral base oil could be tweaked enough to out perform in some applications.

Synthetic is a better starting point but it's really what you do with it, say race oil manufacturers like Royal Purple, Amsoil, Red Line, Joe Gibbs Racing Oil and others.

David Vizard Dyno Tests Joe Gibbs Racing Oil -
 
Originally Posted By: jpr
Originally Posted By: OilGuy
Originally Posted By: jpr
NHSilverado said:
RP PCMO's are API approved and apparently GM4718M approved, but that's the full extent of independent approvals and certifications that they carry.


Last I saw from GM, RP is nowhere to be found on the GM4718M list - not even on the conventional-level GM6094M list - at least other synthetics that claim GM4718M w/o being on the independently validated list show up as independently validated as GM6094M level performance.

At least the 15W-40 is still a PAO blend.
I cited that since the GM4718M is reportedly listed on their oils bottles. It may be true, since the GM4718M spec seems to be somewhat unique in that you can actually buy the paper which details the requirements and are not reliant on manufacturer testing. If that's the case, it would be possible for RP to verify the oil meets the standard without having the official GM blessing.


while you can buy the paper (i have) which details the testing, if you read it you will find that you have to submit the results to GM for approval, it has to be done through one of their labs, any changes have to be submitted, etc.

if Good Mother doesn't show it on the GM4718M list, it ain't approved, no matter what it says on the bottle. probably the famous "meets or exceeds" verbage.
 
Originally Posted By: NHSilverado

Oh, and OilGuy. If you are going to quote me on something make sure "I" am the one who actually said it.


My bad NHS, I just tried to feature the statement I wanted to address and obviously failed to link up the quoter with my quick editing.

If a company has no problem meeting or exceeding a performance spec level (actually taken the tests and passed), I'm sure they'd have no problem easily proving this to the world by showing the data to the 3rd party for independent validation. IF you've actually done the testing - and passed, independent validation is the key. Otherwise, they simply want you to believe them because they said so or printed a spec name on a bottle or data sheet.
 
Originally Posted By: cheetahdriver
Originally Posted By: jpr
Originally Posted By: OilGuy
Originally Posted By: jpr
NHSilverado said:
RP PCMO's are API approved and apparently GM4718M approved, but that's the full extent of independent approvals and certifications that they carry.


Last I saw from GM, RP is nowhere to be found on the GM4718M list - not even on the conventional-level GM6094M list - at least other synthetics that claim GM4718M w/o being on the independently validated list show up as independently validated as GM6094M level performance.

At least the 15W-40 is still a PAO blend.
I cited that since the GM4718M is reportedly listed on their oils bottles. It may be true, since the GM4718M spec seems to be somewhat unique in that you can actually buy the paper which details the requirements and are not reliant on manufacturer testing. If that's the case, it would be possible for RP to verify the oil meets the standard without having the official GM blessing.


while you can buy the paper (i have) which details the testing, if you read it you will find that you have to submit the results to GM for approval, it has to be done through one of their labs, any changes have to be submitted, etc.

if Good Mother doesn't show it on the GM4718M list, it ain't approved, no matter what it says on the bottle. probably the famous "meets or exceeds" verbage.
Totally agree with you. I was just looking to explain why RP can reliably state "meets GM4718M specifications" without actually stating "has GM approval"
 
Wow,and the bashing of RP continues. Amazingly,a friend of mine,just sold his 2005 Ford lightening with 200,000 miles and upon selling it,it never used a drop of you guess it,Royal Purple oil!

Yet alot of you so-called oil experts on this forum,bash this oil,say it shears too much out of grade,it's a blend,blah blah blah.I've said it before,there's nothing wrong with this oil.
I've ran this oil as well,had no problems,or regrets.

But some of you just feel the need to bash this oil any chance you get
33.gif
 
Originally Posted By: DragRace

Yet alot of you so-called oil experts on this forum,bash this oil,say it shears too much out of grade,it's a blend,blah blah blah.I've said it before,there's nothing wrong with this oil.
I've ran this oil as well,had no problems,or regrets.

But some of you just feel the need to bash this oil any chance you get
33.gif



one of the few exceptions where it supossedly performed well
 
Originally Posted By: DragRace

But some of you just feel the need to bash this oil any chance you get
33.gif



I wouldnt bash it but I dont like their inflated prices or their mis-informed marketing. Pretty much the same reason a lot of us dont like Castrol GTX.
 
Well..the truth is i just wanted to run it because it's purple
LOL.gif

But i think i may be having second thoughts about this Royal Purple now. The UOA aren't all that for the price of it.
I'm now trying to find the RL UOAs
 
Other oil companies can show builder approvals, factory-fills and oem service. RP cannot. Can we can compare RP to Mobil 1 0w-40 and German Syntec, both costing much less. Over the long haul in specifc applications, there is zero room for comaparison. Let's pitch-in for RI_RS4 to run RP 5w-40 in his car, just to see what happens.
 
Originally Posted By: KieferS
They seem to really be pushing the 'More HP gain' propoganda- with papers to back it up.. I was watching Powerblock a few weeks ago on SPIKE, and the dyno should like a 5HP gain..there website is filled with proof from other TV shows, such as trucks, ETC. and magazines that show a dyno proven power gain too. Albeit, this is over dino, but still- what is everyones opinion of RP? ..i'll be honest, i'm considering ditching the Synpower i got BOGO and trying out the royal purple for a change on the 2000 mustang i just bought with the 4.6.


It was also backed up by a Joe Gibbs Oil paper. It is a quality oil that is just a bit too expensive for the average user.

There is a mustang UOA, supercharged, who beat the [censored] out of the car and RP was outstanding.

No matter what anyone says on this site, it IS an outstanding product.
 
Originally Posted By: badtlc


It was also backed up by a Joe Gibbs Oil paper. It is a quality oil that is just a bit too expensive for the average user.


But please dont tell us the paper has small print detailing the tuneup they did at the same time or the switch to a different grade oil. Those are my issues with the "test data" they seem to throw around.
 
Originally Posted By: Dyoel182
Originally Posted By: badtlc


It was also backed up by a Joe Gibbs Oil paper. It is a quality oil that is just a bit too expensive for the average user.


But please dont tell us the paper has small print detailing the tuneup they did at the same time or the switch to a different grade oil. Those are my issues with the "test data" they seem to throw around.


Considering it was a test to promote Joe Gibbs Racing oil (which did perform best but I don't know that you can buy that over the counter), I think some credible results can be taken from the other oils uses.
 
Originally Posted By: KieferS
They seem to really be pushing the 'More HP gain' propoganda- with papers to back it up.. I was watching Powerblock a few weeks ago on SPIKE, and the dyno should like a 5HP gain..there website is filled with proof from other TV shows, such as trucks, ETC. and magazines that show a dyno proven power gain too. Albeit, this is over dino, but still- what is everyones opinion of RP? ..i'll be honest, i'm considering ditching the Synpower i got BOGO and trying out the royal purple for a change on the 2000 mustang i just bought with the 4.6.


I have an 02 Tundra 3.4 V6. I have used RP exclusively from 2,880 miles to 72K. I consistently got 17-18 mpg on the hwy, traveling the same speeds, roads and I always used the same brand/type of gas. I switched to Synpower (same weight, 5w-30) about 2K ago and now I am only getting 14-15mpg. I did not notice a gain/loss in HP, just fuel mileage. My air filter is clean, plugs were changed approximately 8K ago with the factory brand/gap and the truck has 74,383 miles on it and it has been babied all its life.
 
everyones opinion will be different. If it works for you and had good results with it then you will believe it is a good oil for the cost.

If you try it and not to impressed with it does that mean it is bad?? Some say yes, some say no.

I personally have never tried it and never will. I am basing my thoughts on it (that it is over priced, marginal performer) from the things i hear others say about it that have used it and they werent to impressed with it and the uoa i occasionally see on it.

There is a uoa on an 08 ranger posted now that it performmed well in. Some do, some dont.
 
I too read a magazine article of someone who dynoed an engine, with conventional, and then royal purple. It was NOT an apples to apples test. (conventional 10w40,RP5w30). Do these people think we are really that stupid? I too will never use it based on the things I hear on this forum about UOA'S.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top