Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
The Greasy Spoon
Royal Purple - Hollywood
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jimmysidecarr" data-source="post: 13948493" data-attributes="member: 11681"><p>The UOA in post #30 does not look like the API-SN, HPS, or XPR formulations. Here is the list of discrepancies that make me question whether the results are from RP API-SN or HPS oils, or valid at all:</p><p></p><p>- More than trace amount of boron (11 ppm); not in API-SN, HPS, or XPR formulation </p><p>- More than trace amount of barium (16 ppm); not in API-SN, HPS, or XPR formulation</p><p>- Molybdenum (6ppm) is completely wrong; not in API-SN oils, should be over 100ppm for HPS</p><p>- Sodium is wrong; it is not in the HPS formulations and is at a higher level in the API SN formulations</p><p>- Calcium (1972 ppm) is much too low for HPS, and is a little low for API-SN</p><p>- Zinc and phosphorus are much too low for HPS, and too low for API-SN</p><p></p><p>This is either a bad analysis, not the oil that it is claimed to be, or it also appears to have some coolant contamination. The presence of potassium is a dead giveaway to anyone that understands UOA reports and engine oil formulation, and silicon and sodium are also commonly found in antifreeze.</p><p></p><p><strong>If this is a Royal Purple engine oil</strong>, it is the API SN version and is not HPS. Assuming it is, in fact, Royal Purple SAE 5W-30 (API-SN) and not a completely different oil, it has been diluted (likely by engine coolant), which would explain:</p><p></p><p>- the reduction in all of the elementals that are supposed to be there</p><p>- the presence of potassium</p><p>- the reduced viscosity</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jimmysidecarr, post: 13948493, member: 11681"] The UOA in post #30 does not look like the API-SN, HPS, or XPR formulations. Here is the list of discrepancies that make me question whether the results are from RP API-SN or HPS oils, or valid at all: - More than trace amount of boron (11 ppm); not in API-SN, HPS, or XPR formulation - More than trace amount of barium (16 ppm); not in API-SN, HPS, or XPR formulation - Molybdenum (6ppm) is completely wrong; not in API-SN oils, should be over 100ppm for HPS - Sodium is wrong; it is not in the HPS formulations and is at a higher level in the API SN formulations - Calcium (1972 ppm) is much too low for HPS, and is a little low for API-SN - Zinc and phosphorus are much too low for HPS, and too low for API-SN This is either a bad analysis, not the oil that it is claimed to be, or it also appears to have some coolant contamination. The presence of potassium is a dead giveaway to anyone that understands UOA reports and engine oil formulation, and silicon and sodium are also commonly found in antifreeze. [B]If this is a Royal Purple engine oil[/B], it is the API SN version and is not HPS. Assuming it is, in fact, Royal Purple SAE 5W-30 (API-SN) and not a completely different oil, it has been diluted (likely by engine coolant), which would explain: - the reduction in all of the elementals that are supposed to be there - the presence of potassium - the reduced viscosity [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
The Greasy Spoon
Royal Purple - Hollywood
Top