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="ottocycle" data-source="post: 13949160" data-attributes="member: 111247"><p>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 Once either the oil, equipment, or equipment operation are significantly changed, the comparison is no longer valid.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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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 <a href="mailto:rpautotech@royalpurple.com">rpautotech@royalpurple.com</a>.</p><p></p><p>Regards,</p><p></p><p>Chris Barker</p><p>Technical Services Manager</p><p>Royal Purple LLC.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ottocycle, post: 13949160, member: 111247"] 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]rpautotech@royalpurple.com[/email]. Regards, Chris Barker Technical Services Manager Royal Purple LLC. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
The Greasy Spoon
Royal Purple - Hollywood
Top