Dark engine internals from Royal Purple oil?
Trending Topics
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
I did notice that with RP though, it seems darker than most others, but I think its just a die issue.
Oh and paint it black, your a dick-I thought you were banned.
If you use the stuff you can buy at VatoZone, I can see that..
but their XPR oil has done very well in UOA tests. You do have to special order that though and it's $10/qt.
PLEASE don't lump all RP oils into the same category. Don't be a parrot.
If you use the stuff you can buy at VatoZone, I can see that..
but their XPR oil has done very well in UOA tests. You do have to special order that though and it's $10/qt.
PLEASE don't lump all RP oils into the same category. Don't be a parrot.
I ordered it from Speed Inc once, and once from Summit or Jegs.
Here's a UOA on it:
http://speedtalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9482
Last edited by Paint_It_Black; May 2, 2009 at 01:59 PM.
BP Lubricants said it hired the independent laboratory Southwest Research Institute, in San Antonio, to analyze power output of gasoline engines with Royal Purple Oil and with BP’s Castrol oil for comparisons. “The results were provided to the challenger’s expert statistician who was not informed of the identity of the candidate oils,” NAD stated. “The challenger’s [BP’s] expert determined a 0.9 percent difference in power between the oils, which did not rise to the level of statistical significance, and is well below the 3 percent claim made by the advertiser.”
SwRI did additional tests to independently determine the differences in fuel economy, emissions data and engine temperature between Royal Purple and Castrol motor oils. According to SwRI, “there was no statistically significant difference between the fuel economy, emissions data or engine temperature between the two candidate oils,” NAD said.
Following its review of the non-anecdotal evidence in the record, NAD recommended that Royal Purple discontinue the claims, “Reduces emissions up to 20 percent or more” and “Reductions in emissions of 20 percent or more” because the studies on which the claims were based were outdated and not consumer-relevant.
NAD also recommended the advertiser discontinue its unsupported claim that Royal purple motor oil is “API/ILSAC Certified.” Noting that API and ILSAC licenses and certifications have many categories with different meanings, the NAD recommended that the company discontinue its claim that its synthetic oils are “generally ‘API/ILSAC Certified.’”
In fact, no Royal Purple products are certified to current ILSAC specifications.
The American Petroleum Institute licenses its trademarked Service Symbol, or ‘donut,’ for display on qualified engine oils, and also licenses the ILSAC ‘starburst’ logo for oils that meet the auto industry’s latest energy-conserving standards. In API’s online directory of licensees for its Engine Oil Licensing and Certification Program, Royal Purple has a total of 23 passenger car and diesel engine oil products listed, all licensed to use the API donut. Five of these may additionally display the words ‘energy conserving’ within the donut logo, but none of the Royal Purple products are licensable to the current ILSAC GF-4 specification and they cannot display the starburst logo.
So RP oil DID see a 1% increase in power, and doesn't conform to GF-4 specifications. Both great things. Conforming to new GF-4 specs would mean it had it's Zinc and other anti-wear metals cut in half or more because of emissions reasons.
Here's an independant test out of Australia showing bearing wear, the XPR is the old "R 51" just renamed:
http://www.animegame.com/cars/Oil%20Tests.pdf




