Royal Purple Oil Experience - 2005 Mustang GT

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Have you tried the new API SN RP oils which lack Synerlec?


^^That`s what`s making me afraid to use RP anymore. They took out the additive that they claim makes their oil do what it does. I did a UOA with RP 20W50 (SJ rated w/Synerlec) and there were no wear metals at all in the test results. BUT,will the "synerlec-less" RP be as good,or is it just an average over the counter synth,no longer in the "boutique" status?


You can still get RP 20W50 and most of the other weights with Synerlac. NO worries there. Just pick the right line. As said above their HPS Street oil still has it. Available weights are 5W20, 5W30, 10W30, 10W40 and 20W50. IMO this is just their previous API SL formulas renamed. They also still have current API licenses for other weights in SJ like your 20W50.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Has anyone here tried the "new" sn without-Synerlec" RP yet? Does it still have that odd "rubber" smell to it?


I am using the new 5W20 SN stuff and it does not have that same odd smell as the old SL formula's did.


I wonder if it was the Synerlec that gave RP that odd smell. Always reminded me of AFT. I emailed them and they said the HPS should be available at the chains early next year. I`m definitely going to give it a try once I can find it.
 
Originally Posted By: DragRace
One of the best threads on this forum IMO. Thanks for updating!


^^ABSOLUTELY! This is probably the best thread ever on BITOG. An oil comparison complete with teardown pics and measurements.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Originally Posted By: DragRace
One of the best threads on this forum IMO. Thanks for updating!


^^ABSOLUTELY! This is probably the best thread ever on BITOG. An oil comparison complete with teardown pics and measurements.


Im a believer
smile.gif


Id buy Non-Synerlec RP API SN as well. But that just me.
 
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
You can still get RP 20W50 and most of the other weights with Synerlac. NO worries there. Just pick the right line. As said above their HPS Street oil still has it. Available weights are 5W20, 5W30, 10W30, 10W40 and 20W50. IMO this is just their previous API SL formulas renamed. They also still have current API licenses for other weights in SJ like your 20W50.

I'll make a new thread on this so I don't hijack this thread but...the RP HPS oils appear to have different additive concentrations from the API SL RP oils in the VOAs of the HPS oils in this link: http://forums.corvetteforum.com/c3-tech-...and-others.html
 
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Originally Posted By: DragRace
One of the best threads on this forum IMO. Thanks for updating!


^^ABSOLUTELY! This is probably the best thread ever on BITOG. An oil comparison complete with teardown pics and measurements.


With different drivers, cars and conditions unfortunately. I think the OP's information regarding how the oil performed in his application is excellent. It really does prove that RP has worked well in his car, engine, and even after all the mods continued to protect. His tear-downs prove this!
thumbsup2.gif


But what kind of conclusions we can draw about the other engine/car, which he didn't drive or own..... I think there are a lot of unanswered questions there, particularly since that car has now spun a rod bearing....
 
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Originally Posted By: DragRace
One of the best threads on this forum IMO. Thanks for updating!


^^ABSOLUTELY! This is probably the best thread ever on BITOG. An oil comparison complete with teardown pics and measurements.


With different drivers, cars and conditions unfortunately. I think the OP's information regarding how the oil performed in his application is excellent. It really does prove that RP has worked well in his car, engine, and even after all the mods continued to protect. His tear-downs prove this!
thumbsup2.gif


But what kind of conclusions we can draw about the other engine/car, which he didn't drive or own..... I think there are a lot of unanswered questions there, particularly since that car has now spun a rod bearing....

OVERK1LL, you must be in one heck of a good mood to be going this easy.
wink.gif


As you said earlier, we have no before measurements, only after measurements. Plus, the procedure for taking the measurements (as it was reported) was lacking in several important ways. So, really, we have no meaningful data on anything.

Even if we did have meaningful data, we wouldn't be able to draw a valid conclusion because we have no idea how either car was driven. We could just take the OP's word for it, but his past couple of posts about his buddy's car have demonstrated to us that he doesn't always disclose all relevant information on time.

That said, I do have to say we're on the right track here. As futile as this whole exercise has been, it's still at least one step ahead of "my engine runs smoother with Brand X..."
 
Originally Posted By: webfors
I believe it was the stang running m1 that spun a bearing.. .?


Yes, the car (also modified) that was the original "mobil 1 cam photos" car has now spun a rod bearing. I'm thinking that there is more going on with that car than we know.
 
I think this thread has proven that RP 5W-20 isn't junk, which was an undeserved reputation anyway.

Whether it is "better" than M1 5W-20 is still up in the air, but like I've said in the past the M1 lobe tracking and cam bore scarring is typical from what I've personally seen from 4.6s run hard on SM/GF-4 20 weight oils of various brands. I've never seen any lubrication related failures on that front just the parts don't look as wear free as I'd like.
 
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Originally Posted By: deven
Royal Purple still has synerlec but only if you get their new "HPS" line or the 5w40 flavor only.


Are you sure that the 5W40 actually has it? The 5W40 is API SM which required a big drop in ppm of ZDDP over SL. That is why RP resisted reformulating for so long. RP's Synerlac relies heavily on ZDDP. If the 5W40 actually does have it then I would say the 0W40 and 15W40, their other 2 SM rated weights, would as well.


Hi NHHEMI,

Yes, or at least this is what I am led to believe by Royal Purple. I started this thread with the email I received from RP.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2390250
 
Originally Posted By: deven
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Originally Posted By: deven
Royal Purple still has synerlec but only if you get their new "HPS" line or the 5w40 flavor only.


Are you sure that the 5W40 actually has it? The 5W40 is API SM which required a big drop in ppm of ZDDP over SL. That is why RP resisted reformulating for so long. RP's Synerlac relies heavily on ZDDP. If the 5W40 actually does have it then I would say the 0W40 and 15W40, their other 2 SM rated weights, would as well.


Hi NHHEMI,

Yes, or at least this is what I am led to believe by Royal Purple. I started this thread with the email I received from RP.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2390250


Thanks. Had no idea they reformulated the 0W40/15W40. They are both still API SM according to the API website. Seems odd to reformulate them and keep them at that same service level which is now technically obsolete. Maybe the API site is just behind or something?
 
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Thanks. Had no idea they reformulated the 0W40/15W40. They are both still API SM according to the API website. Seems odd to reformulate them and keep them at that same service level which is now technically obsolete. Maybe the API site is just behind or something?


I don't know. Making a 0w-40 or a 15w-40 into SN isn't terribly useful, considering nothing really specifies SN in those grades. As far as I know, the 15w-40 has the latest diesel specs, and the 0w-40 concentrates more on the European market.

I haven't seen the latest bottles, so I cannot say for sure.
 
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
cam bore scarring is typical from what I've personally seen from 4.6s run hard on SM/GF-4 20 weight oils of various brands.


That`s why I can`t understand the mind set of running a Prius oil in a muscle car. Every Z32 owner I`ve seen who`s spun a bearing was with 10W30 while racing for extended periods. Then you get the dino 20W50 users who`ve been racing their Z32`s since they bought them brand new passing the 300,000 mile mark,still on original turbos and still having factory spec compression in all cylinders. If I ever buy a V8 Mustang there`s no way I`m running a 20 weight oil.
 
Last edited:
Man I really wish I was able to respond to.this thread from somewhere other than my phone...
smirk.gif

I must admit that I am a Royal Purple fan, have been for years after seeing how nasty my EXTREMELY well maintained BMW engines looked after 3x,xxx to ~80,xxx miles running exclusively on German Castrol, BMW Synthetic, and MobilONE oils. Taking the valve cover off and dropping the oil pan on my 328 with est40k miles (Just after I had gotten it, back in 2006 I think), and having the entire service history showing that the original owner had the oil changed every 4.5-5.5k miles with GC at the dealership (and OE Mahle filters), I could not believe how awful the inside looked. Everything I could see.was coated in varnish and there were literal clumps of sludge all over the place. I cleaned both off as best I could, ran a few very short (500-800) OCI's with some having Seafoam added for the last 100 or so miles, and with two I did full flushes (Amsoil flush, followed by a fill of cheap oil run for 25mi, drain, run a gallon of M1 I had through the engine, then filled with oil for use). After that point, the car has seen exclusively Royal Purple and Redline oils, RP about 2/3 oil changes with the third being RL. My engine looks incredibly clean, and my mechanic/friend couldnt believe how clean everything was while helping with the cooling system overhaul and with the supercharger/intercooler/cams install and tune.
I have never used any other engine oil additives since, but I have used Seafoam twice (1/3 for throttle body cleaning, 1/2 in brake booster line + PCV line, and the rest in gas tank), the Amsoil "Power Foam" once for intake cleaning and a very mild piston soak, but neither was introduced directly into the oil.
I use Redline SI-1 about 3x per OCI or every 1500mi, I use Techron Concentrate whenever I feel like it, and occasionally will add a few ounces of Seafoam to the 15+gal tank. I also will sometimes add a xylene/toluene blend to the gas at a 15-25% concentration as it ups the 94 octane significantly, allowing an extra 2.5psi of boost easily. I run 100oct and 105oct race gas maybe one in ten to twelve fill ups over the summer, and sometimes blend 2-4gal of 105 to the rest 93 before a big track day to mess with af ratios, timing, etc.

Point being, while I do baby my car, I also.drive the snot out of it. Still, with a heavily modified engine making more than double the factory bhp, it is in great shape, which I attribute to diligent (overzealous?) maintenance and very high quality fluids.
I dont understand the RP bashing I see on here, especially from people who have never tried it?

Also, as a man of science (Biochemical Engineering, in fact, though focused on Psychopharmacology), I understand the need of some people for evidence vs proof, etc. But you will never get that, and it only comes across as holier-than-thou when you ask someone to "prove" something you state that is unfalsifiable, and then use the fact that they can't "prove" that RP is/did better as your own "proof" that it is worse!
I know I'm new here, but that exact attitude is one of the most grating things in the entire field of science. In this case, an anecdotal report, or perhaps a small sample size case study, the OP did a thorough and unbiased documentation of why he believes RP performs better than M1 in his application, backing it up with many photographs, measurements, and observations. He even went out of his way to add to his sampling. And still, people say things like "interesting maybe, but it has no meaning".
Well, thats wrong. Be a HEALTHY SKEPTIC, not a fanboy! Appreciate good results, dont look for reasons why the oil you dislike "has no merit" and then try to prove that the oil.you do like, which by all accounts performed poorly, is not really to blame.

Is this forum really so jaded? I hope not...

2k05GT: wonderful job, man! I sincerely applaud the amount of.work you.put into.this! Very refreshing, and also, very nice Mustang
smile.gif
not a big domestic car guy myself, but.the new 'stangs are pretty wicked!

I apologize.if this.comes.across as harsh, thats not the intent. I just think that the middle ground, between opinion and undisputed fact, is the reason we are all here. To constantly put people down for exploring tbis seems backwards, and will only serve to keep people from speaking up about their experiences for.fear of being "bashed". I really like this forum, so please try to understand where im coming from...

Thank you everyone, and have a happy New Year!
Sincerely,
nleksan
 
Great post, nleksan. I agree with everything you said. I hope to see you posting more in the future.
2k05GT, I want to thank you too for all of your posts and efforts to make this thread.
 
Originally Posted By: JAG
Great post, nleksan. I agree with everything you said. I hope to see you posting more in the future.
2k05GT, I want to thank you too for all of your posts and efforts to make this thread.


Like I said earlier,this is one of the best topics on this forum,period.Thanks for your post nleksan!
 
Thank you very much, JAG and DragRace! I have read a number of posts by both of you and have enjoyed every one, so I very much appreciate the compliments!
smile.gif


Also, FWIW (to add to my prior post), there really is NOTHING here that can be considered "SCIENTIFIC", in the truest sense of the word... UOA's don't prove or disprove anything, and pretty much everything people post as "proof" of why, say, Mobil1 is completely superior to RP, is stated in a way that is "un-falsifiable", making it, by definition, NOT SCIENCE.. In fact, that drops it square into the PSEUDO-SCIENCE category, right next to subliminal self-help tapes and whatnot.

Perhaps, if we were all in this TOGETHER, to seek answers without constantly stumbling (and falling flat on our faces) due to our own biases, we would actually achieve something. But as long as there is this "in-fighting" about "MY OIL CAN BEAT UP YOUR OIL!", results will never come and the forum will become as stagnant as a mosquito puddle in the Florida Everglades...

I AM NOT saying this to "call out" or "be mean" or whatever to anyone, I am just stating my opinion. I think this place is FULL of some absolutely brilliant minds, and I can only imagine how much could be accomplished if all of these brilliant minds worked together instead of against one another...
 
Originally Posted By: nleksan
Also, as a man of science (Biochemical Engineering, in fact, though focused on Psychopharmacology), I understand the need of some people for evidence vs proof, etc.

"The need of some people?" You talk about the demand for evidence like it's the demand for an apple martini.

Some of us want claims to be backed up with evidence, and are willing to put some thought into whether that evidence really backs up what's being said. Others are satisfied with big pictures and elaborate stories with grand statements. This shouldn't be written off as different strokes for different folks.


Originally Posted By: nleksan
But you will never get that

This gets repeated a lot here, as though it means that we should accept whatever we do get instead of evidence. I hope that's not what you meant.


Originally Posted By: nleksan
it only comes across as holier-than-thou when you ask someone to "prove" something you state that is unfalsifiable, and then use the fact that they can't "prove" that RP is/did better as your own "proof" that it is worse!

What exactly was said that is unfalsifiable? Who's claiming that RP "is worse?"


Originally Posted By: nleksan
In this case, an anecdotal report, or perhaps a small sample size case study, the OP did a thorough and unbiased documentation of why he believes RP performs better than M1 in his application, backing it up with many photographs, measurements, and observations. He even went out of his way to add to his sampling. And still, people say things like "interesting maybe, but it has no meaning".

The reasons for those criticisms have been amply spelled out. As a "man of science," you should be able to understand them clearly. If you'd care to address them, I'm sure we're all ears.

The OP gets an A for effort, and his investigations are a dang sight better than 99% of what we get here. No one disagrees on that. Would you rather we praise him for his efforts and just gloss over what he got wrong? You're criticizing people for being condescending; would it be better if they were patronizing instead?


Originally Posted By: nleksan
Be a HEALTHY SKEPTIC, not a fanboy! Appreciate good results, dont look for reasons why the oil you dislike "has no merit" and then try to prove that the oil.you do like, which by all accounts performed poorly, is not really to blame.

Calling out errors in the OP's investigations is NOT the same thing as saying Royal Purple is garbage and Mobil 1 is better. I'm really hoping you understand this, and that your comments above are based on a misreading of the thread.


Originally Posted By: nleksan
I apologize.if this.comes.across as harsh, thats not the intent.

There's nothing "harsh" about straightforwardly criticizing an argument. Those who can dish it out should be able to take it, wouldn't you agree?
wink.gif



Originally Posted By: nleksan
To constantly put people down for exploring tbis seems backwards, and will only serve to keep people from speaking up about their experiences for.fear of being "bashed".

Of course.

At the same time, cheering people on just for putting in effort, regardless of their errors, is the same thing as allowing shiny pictures and strong convictions to stand in for good information. Bad information is worse than no information.

Besides, it would be better if people understand that criticizing what someone says is not the same thing as criticizing the person saying it.

As a "man of science," you should know these things.
wink.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top