Royal Purple - Hollywood

[UnleashedBeast]

Then you can call this guy a liar.

LINK

0% antifreeze was traced in that sample. Despite 8 ppm potassium, explain the 0%. Let's also not forget, this sample was taken after 8,000 miles.

 

[UnleashedBeast]

Sid's 5W-30 HPS sample with 5,000 miles.

Calcium is 2378 ppm, 400 higher than the sample above (but 3000 less miles), ~1300 ppm lower than virgin (defeating your theory)
Sodium is 8 ppm, (agreed that it's abnormal in the sample above)
Potassium is in the same ballpark.
ZDDP has reduced to near API SN max accepted levels (defeating your theory)
Boron is 17 ppm, depite you saying it should not be there
Barium is 0, but is only 2 ppm in the sample above
Moly is 143, 0 in the sample above (making me agree this sample is actually base RP formulation, not HPS)

I'm leaning that the sample above is RP's base formulation, not HPS. I found another sample of base RP formulation that also had high ppm of sodium. Therefore, it is base RP, not HPS.

Sid's sample did still shear, even without fuel or antifreeze dilution present in the sample.

 

[ottocycle]

The test for glycol, like many "standard tests", is not reliable for all chemistries. Just as with the presence of potassium (along with silicon and sodium) as an indicator for glycol, this would be known by someone with a real knowledge of oil content and oil analysis. Oil analysis is a tool primarily used to monitor equipment condition; oil condition monitoring is a secondary function. Oil analysis is also one of several analytical tools used for condition-based maintenance, and it is intended to be used as a trending tool. The trend is to compare the content and condition of one oil type from one piece of equipment, to itself. Once either the oil, equipment, or equipment operation are significantly changed, the comparison is no longer valid. These one-shot tests on used oil samples taken at the end of an oil change are close to worthless, much like trying to find the "best" oil using only spectrometric elemental oil analysis. A tool used incorrectly is not an effective tool. It is possible to drive a wood screw into a 2x4 by hitting it with a hammer, but that doesn't mean it is a good idea.

What we have provided is evidence that the conclusions drawn from the UOA report in post #30 are erroneous. Nothing in the responses subsequent to Jim's reply (not even the concession that you now think it is RP API SN) changes that. Furthermore, comparisons to an obviously different oil from a different engine have no bearing.

If you, or anyone else here, would like to discuss Royal Purple oils, oil analysis, or my qualifications, I would be happy to oblige. It would be more efficient to do so over email, though, and you would have my explicit OK to post anything discussed (verbatim, of course). We are available M - F 8am to 5pm CST @ 281-354-8600 or [email protected].

Regards,

Chris Barker
Technical Services Manager
Royal Purple LLC.

 

[01cobravortech]

The test for glycol, like many "standard tests", is not reliable for all chemistries. Just as with the presence of potassium (along with silicon and sodium) as an indicator for glycol, this would be known by someone with a real knowledge of oil content and oil analysis. Oil analysis is a tool primarily used to monitor equipment condition; oil condition monitoring is a secondary function. Oil analysis is also one of several analytical tools used for condition-based maintenance, and it is intended to be used as a trending tool. The trend is to compare the content and condition of one oil type from one piece of equipment, to itself. Once either the oil, equipment, or equipment operation are significantly changed, the comparison is no longer valid. These one-shot tests on used oil samples taken at the end of an oil change are close to worthless, much like trying to find the "best" oil using only spectrometric elemental oil analysis. A tool used incorrectly is not an effective tool. It is possible to drive a wood screw into a 2x4 by hitting it with a hammer, but that doesn't mean it is a good idea.

What we have provided is evidence that the conclusions drawn from the UOA report in post #30 are erroneous. Nothing in the responses subsequent to Jim's reply (not even the concession that you now think it is RP API SN) changes that. Furthermore, comparisons to an obviously different oil from a different engine have no bearing.

If you, or anyone else here, would like to discuss Royal Purple oils, oil analysis, or my qualifications, I would be happy to oblige. It would be more efficient to do so over email, though, and you would have my explicit OK to post anything discussed (verbatim, of course). We are available M - F 8am to 5pm CST @ 281-354-8600 or [email protected].

Regards,

Chris Barker
Technical Services Manager
Royal Purple LLC.

Chris you have a very convenient argument here. I mean you've done everything possible to dismiss any credibility that a used oil analysis has. And used oil analysis do more than just show what the inside of that motor may be experiencing. They are an excellent tool, for someone who doesn't have your sophisticated equipment or means of testing oil, to determine what oil is best for their application. And in a rather poorly veiled way, you are implying that these used oil anlaysis should just be dumped into the hefty bag, as not being the least bit credible, considering that Amsoil's product isn't showing the shortcoming your RP oil is.

I mean once we get past all the high fallutin language from the 'industry' that's really what you are trying to suggest to those who would come across your comments.

 

[ottocycle]

Chris you have a very convenient argument here. I mean you've done everything possible to dismiss any credibility that a used oil analysis has. And used oil analysis do more than just show what the inside of that motor may be experiencing. They are an excellent tool, for someone who doesn't have your sophisticated equipment or means of testing oil, to determine what oil is best for their application. And in a rather poorly veiled way, you are implying that these used oil anlaysis should just be dumped into the hefty bag, as not being the least bit credible, considering that Amsoil's product isn't showing the shortcoming your RP oil is.

I mean once we get past all the high fallutin language from the 'industry' that's really what you are trying to suggest to those who would come across your comments.

I did not intend to imply that used oil analysis is not worthwhile. It absolutely is a great tool. However, it is but one tool to be used in monitoring the condition of a piece of equipment (in this case automotive engines) and the oil used in that equipment. The current popular consumer use of this tool is a bit of misapplication. Some useful information can be gleaned from it, but an elemental UOA report is far from a definitive method for comparing oils. That is not what it is intended for.

Also, the wording was not gussied-up or otherwise made more complicated than it needed to be to disparage or exclude anyone. The language used was the most appropriate for the topic at hand. Used oil analysis is a scientific analytical process and, unfortunately, the information and education required to make best use of that tool is not as accessible as the service that is offered to the consumer.

I am completely sympathetic to the desire and effort to identify and evaluate products that I lay out my money for, but if the effort is applied incorrectly, the results will be flawed. I can offer some guidelines to make these efforts more useful, though, and they apply to analysis of any lubricant.

1. A baseline sample must be supplied to the lab so that a valid point of reference is available. "Universal Averages" are universally incorrect.

2. Ideally the baseline sample would be after the oil is installed with minimum usage (a couple of minutes idling the engine, for example). This will ensure that the baseline has picked up any contaminants that are resident in the engine and that will show up in later samples. If this is not done, be aware that anything residual in the engine will show up in later samples and NOT be accounted for in the baseline. At a minimum, send a clean sample of new oil from one of the bottles used for the oil change. Once the "behavior" of that particular oil in that particular engine has been established, then a good clean "end of use" sample may be used to spot check what is happening. Be aware that if the oil brand, product line, or viscosity grade is changed, the process must start over; the historical information is not valid for a new oil, a radical change in usage, or rebuilt/reconditioned equipment.

3. There should be at least one sample in the middle of the oil change interval (for example pull a sample at 4,000 miles if you plan to change the oil at 8,000 miles). This sample, along with the baseline and last sample will provide 3 points for a trend. This is important because the rate of change (wear metals, viscosity, additive content, contamination, etc.) is incredibly useful information and much more important than a single snapshot with unaccounted for variables.

4. The way a sample is taken is very important. If the sample is taken from the first oil or last oil to come out of the drain hole, it will contain a higher level of crud than if taken from the middle of the drain. Lighter density material will be on top (e.g. fuel) and heavier stuff will be on the bottom (water, particulates, crud, etc.). To improve the oil sample taken, it would also be best to pull the sample while the engine is running and from oil flow before it goes through the filter, but very few vehicles are equipped in such a way to do this. The best method for the enthusiast that balances convenience, safety and accuracy will be pulling a sample with a vampire pump through the dipstick tube (just after shutting off the engine), making sure the pump tubing doesn't scrape and pull material from the bottom of the oil pan. If this is not possible, pull a sample from the middle of the drain, as described above, just after the engine is shut off. This is not ideal, but will be closer to representative than other methods.

Consistency and removal or at least identification of variables is key.

The reason for my direct participation is that our product was being disparaged based on personal bias and incorrect/misinterpreted information. If the facts presented and interpretation of those facts were accurate, we have no reason to interject. We will not post on forums with the intent of flag waving or sword rattling, and as a policy, we do not disparage any reputable product or manufacturer in the attempt to make our products look better.

My offer for discussion of this subject or any other that is lubrication related still stands, but other direct contact concerning this thread will likely be through Jimmy.

Thank you for your time.

Chris Barker

 

[01cobravortech]

I did not intend to imply that used oil analysis is not worthwhile. It absolutely is a great tool. However, it is but one tool to be used in monitoring the condition of a piece of equipment (in this case automotive engines) and the oil used in that equipment. The current popular consumer use of this tool is a bit of misapplication. Some useful information can be gleaned from it, but an elemental UOA report is far from a definitive method for comparing oils. That is not what it is intended for.

Also, the wording was not gussied-up or otherwise made more complicated than it needed to be to disparage or exclude anyone. The language used was the most appropriate for the topic at hand. Used oil analysis is a scientific analytical process and, unfortunately, the information and education required to make best use of that tool is not as accessible as the service that is offered to the consumer.

I am completely sympathetic to the desire and effort to identify and evaluate products that I lay out my money for, but if the effort is applied incorrectly, the results will be flawed. I can offer some guidelines to make these efforts more useful, though, and they apply to analysis of any lubricant.

1. A baseline sample must be supplied to the lab so that a valid point of reference is available. "Universal Averages" are universally incorrect.

2. Ideally the baseline sample would be after the oil is installed with minimum usage (a couple of minutes idling the engine, for example). This will ensure that the baseline has picked up any contaminants that are resident in the engine and that will show up in later samples. If this is not done, be aware that anything residual in the engine will show up in later samples and NOT be accounted for in the baseline. At a minimum, send a clean sample of new oil from one of the bottles used for the oil change. Once the "behavior" of that particular oil in that particular engine has been established, then a good clean "end of use" sample may be used to spot check what is happening. Be aware that if the oil brand, product line, or viscosity grade is changed, the process must start over; the historical information is not valid for a new oil, a radical change in usage, or rebuilt/reconditioned equipment.

3. There should be at least one sample in the middle of the oil change interval (for example pull a sample at 4,000 miles if you plan to change the oil at 8,000 miles). This sample, along with the baseline and last sample will provide 3 points for a trend. This is important because the rate of change (wear metals, viscosity, additive content, contamination, etc.) is incredibly useful information and much more important than a single snapshot with unaccounted for variables.

4. The way a sample is taken is very important. If the sample is taken from the first oil or last oil to come out of the drain hole, it will contain a higher level of crud than if taken from the middle of the drain. Lighter density material will be on top (e.g. fuel) and heavier stuff will be on the bottom (water, particulates, crud, etc.). To improve the oil sample taken, it would also be best to pull the sample while the engine is running and from oil flow before it goes through the filter, but very few vehicles are equipped in such a way to do this. The best method for the enthusiast that balances convenience, safety and accuracy will be pulling a sample with a vampire pump through the dipstick tube (just after shutting off the engine), making sure the pump tubing doesn't scrape and pull material from the bottom of the oil pan. If this is not possible, pull a sample from the middle of the drain, as described above, just after the engine is shut off. This is not ideal, but will be closer to representative than other methods.

Consistency and removal or at least identification of variables is key.

The reason for my direct participation is that our product was being disparaged based on personal bias and incorrect/misinterpreted information. If the facts presented and interpretation of those facts were accurate, we have no reason to interject. We will not post on forums with the intent of flag waving or sword rattling, and as a policy, we do not disparage any reputable product or manufacturer in the attempt to make our products look better.

My offer for discussion of this subject or any other that is lubrication related still stands, but other direct contact concerning this thread will likely be through Jimmy.

Thank you for your time.

Chris Barker

Chris you've provided a lot of great details and information and I thank you for it, however for the average person trying to trek their way across the 'best oil claims' the UOAs are what is going to keep our interest. and in many cases close the deal on the issue. I think that RP's oil is at the top of the heap, but those UOAs for the average person, just haven't made your case any stronger.


From me personally, I have ALWAYS sent in a 'virgin' sample from Amsoil. Its what Blackstone originally requested, to insure a accurate analysis of the UOA,

 

[UnleashedBeast]

Chris,

What about shearing. Royal Purple's new formulations have all exhibiting viscosity decrease from VOA to UOA. I've yet to see one sample of Royal Purple HPS after ~5,000 miles that hadn't decreased to the 9.0 or less cSt @ 100*C.

Explain.

 

[UnleashedBeast]

"Crickets"

 

[01cobravortech]

"Crickets"

My question Troy..is why all of a sudden...a post from one of the more reputable RP guys? And why the suggestion, that we can just pretty much throw out the data on the UOAs?


And oil expert I'm not, but why is it that time and time again, especially in the UOA thread you put together for the GT500 crew, do the results show that the Amsoil SS oil is hardly a 'marketing ploy' as so many like to quip.

I mean if UOAs whether by Blackstone, Amsoil or anyone else, serve no useful benefit...then we might as well just go with the company line and use Mobil 1 and swallow their marketing...



It just baffles me how the guys on the real technical side, like Chris, don't understand that the layman like me, have to use UOAs to get a better idea as to what is the best oil, because we don't have access to their sophisticated equipment, testing, etc.

It actually quite disappointing to see a RP disinformation agent...covertly dismiss the findings of a UOA...

 

[5.0Flareside]

My question Troy..is why all of a sudden...a post from one of the more reputable RP guys? And why the suggestion, that we can just pretty much throw out the data on the UOAs?


And oil expert I'm not, but why is it that time and time again, especially in the UOA thread you put together for the GT500 crew, do the results show that the Amsoil SS oil is hardly a 'marketing ploy' as so many like to quip.

I mean if UOAs whether by Blackstone, Amsoil or anyone else, serve no useful benefit...then we might as well just go with the company line and use Mobil 1 and swallow their marketing...



It just baffles me how the guys on the real technical side, like Chris, don't understand that the layman like me, have to use UOAs to get a better idea as to what is the best oil, because we don't have access to their sophisticated equipment, testing, etc.

It actually quite disappointing to see a RP disinformation agent...covertly dismiss the findings of a UOA...

its laughable at best..

RP and its employees are continuing to try to cover up they're change in direction and quality as a company.

no oil that costs near 10 a qt retail MSRP should perform as poorly as any of the RP API approved or HPS oils do in the terms of shearing down to a lower viscosity rating, or have a massive deterioration of the additive pack as seen in UOA's vs virgin specs.

 

[SID297]

"Crickets"

You posted that after 5:00pm on Friday. You could at least give him time to get a cup of coffee down on Monday morning.:lol1:

 

[UnleashedBeast]

You posted that after 5:00pm on Friday. You could at least give him time to get a cup of coffee down on Monday morning.:lol1:

Darn you Travis and your Spock logic.

 

[UnleashedBeast]

OK, it's Friday.....

*crickets*

 

[Jimmysidecarr]

Chris,

What about shearing. Royal Purple's new formulations have all exhibiting viscosity decrease from VOA to UOA. I've yet to see one sample of Royal Purple HPS after ~5,000 miles that hadn't decreased to the 9.0 or less cSt @ 100*C.

Explain.

Show us the reports... there Crickets.

Please.

 

[UnleashedBeast]

Show us the reports... there Crickets.

Please.

You earned that facepalm, since I posted this in post #42 in this thread. Both RP HPS samples sheared to a 20 grade lubricant. Virgin viscosity is 11.x cSt @ 100*C.

Sample taken from the SVTP GT by Travis himself.

 

[Jimmysidecarr]

You earned that facepalm, since I posted this in post #42 in this thread. Both RP HPS samples sheared to a 20 grade lubricant. Virgin viscosity is 11.x cSt @ 100*C.

Sample taken from the SVTP GT by Travis himself.

I understand you love Amsoil, it's a very good oil. However you appear to be completely obsessed with this viscosity loss on our ultra high film strength HPS series oils which you attribute to shearing as if shearing is set in stone as the cause.

Per the lab report from Blackstone Labs:

"The viscosity was fine for a 5W/30 grade oil. You were concerned about shearing, but it was still okay this time. The viscosity isn't an issue, especially since wear metals were low. The TBN was still good at 4.5."

So if the viscosity is not an issue for Blackstone Labs, why are you trying to poke holes in an oil that has double if not triple the film strength of any Amsoil ever made?

I think your concerns are misplaced.

:beer:

 

[fastashell]

Removal of troll droppings

 

[Jimmysidecarr]

why would an oil company put purple dye in their oil

When we first started the company we used a non-functional purple dye simply for the ease of identification purposes. This was due to being primarily being used for certain problematic and expensive pieces of industrial equipment, and the maintenance departments wanted the oil to look different from their normal oil.
Now it also serves to make it a little more difficult for anyone planning on counterfeiting or tampering with the product.

 

[SID297]

When we first started the company we used a non-functional purple dye simply for the ease of identification purposes. This was due to being primarily being used for certain problematic and expensive pieces of industrial equipment, and the maintenance departments wanted the oil to look different from their normal oil.
Now it also serves to make it a little more difficult for anyone planning on counterfeiting or tampering with the product.

I remember you guys changing the bottle to discourage counterfeiting too.

 

[UnleashedBeast]

So if the viscosity is not an issue for Blackstone Labs, why are you trying to poke holes in an oil that has double if not triple the film strength of any Amsoil ever made?

Triple the film strength, yet can't maintain viscosity in the 11.x range? Normal shearing like this indicates excessive use of VI (Viscosity Improvers). If this is the case, then HPS is also using cheaper hydrocracked base oils.

Care to share NOACK % of HPS in all SAE grades?