switched to royal purple (a little long)
10-06-2010, 03:42 PM
#61
how long u plan to run that oil ? and what filter do u use ?
im currently running quaker state synthetic with k&n oil filter for 10k miles, that my goal, after 4-5k I will send in oil sample for UOA ( use oil analyse ). see what they say.
im currently running quaker state synthetic with k&n oil filter for 10k miles, that my goal, after 4-5k I will send in oil sample for UOA ( use oil analyse ). see what they say.
10-06-2010, 07:24 PM
#65
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: In the garage fixing LT1
Posts: 634
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Used Wal-Mart 5w-30 in my old Buick for years. Never burned oil and always passed emissions. Mechanics who tested it used to comment on how well maintained the engine was. I changed the oil every 6000 miles. Sold it at 300,000 miles.
10-07-2010, 12:06 AM
#66
^^Wal Mart super tech actually isnt bad, on BITOG it gets decent reviews. After seeing what patman had to say about LT1 oils he maintains the 2 European Formulas sold here (German Castrol and 0W-40 Mobil 1) produce the lowest wear numbers in LT1s. Ill be running the M1, it's cheaper then the GC by $1.20 a qt, with an M1 filter. Its among the best you can buy and the same thing as a K&N
10-08-2010, 02:00 AM
#68
On The Tree
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oil is Oil IMO. I've used cheap Autozone oil. $10 for 5 quarts jug. IDK, but I think as long as you change your oil like you're supposed to, it probably won't make too much of a difference if you're driving it fast all the time anyway. My friend used to buy the dollar store oil and he used it in all of his old chevy's. He hasn't had to rebuild anything yet and drives them all the time! I will admit that I won't buy the cheapest oil unless I'm broke, but honestly I don't think there's too much of a difference. I think you guys are all wasting your money on good advertising. It all comes from the Middle East anyway. Lol
10-08-2010, 07:22 AM
#69
TECH Resident
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: In a house
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Might wanna read up on Royal purple. Some stores are actually not carrying it anymore because of a few reports that were released apparently. False claims, "lab tests" and some other info made me switch to Mobil 1. My .02, don't kill the messenger.
10-08-2010, 07:54 AM
#70
Hey:
Here you go the down and dirty on RP, I would not use it.
excerpt info:
"Royal Purple Ltd. was black and blue after BP Lubricants USA took it to task over advertising claims for its synthetic motor oil, finding a receptive audience in the advertising industry’s self-regulatory forum.
The National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus recommended Porter, Texas-based Royal Purple modify or discontinue numerous advertising claims for its synthetic motor oil, following a challenge by Wayne, N.J.-based BP Lubricants. The NAD examined comparative performance and superiority claims in print, broadcast and Internet advertising. In some of the advertising, Royal Purple compared its performance to Castrol, Shell, Amsoil and other motor oil brands.
NAD recommended that Royal Purple discontinue its use of consumer testimonials reporting specific performance attributes in the absence of reliable independent evidence showing performance capability.
“Anecdotal evidence based solely on the experiences of individual consumers is insufficient to support product efficacy claims, including claims related to horsepower, torque, fuel economy or engine heat,” the organization stated. “While the advertiser may quote from published articles if it provides clear and conspicuous attribution to the publisher, it may not rely on such articles to support efficacy claims for which it has no reliable independent validation.”
NAD recommended Royal Purple discontinue claims such as “Increases horsepower and torque by as much as 3 percent,” “Reduces Engine Wear by 80 percent,” “Superior Oxidation Stability” and “Provides Film Strength Up to 400 Percent.”
“If industry-standard tests or tests with carefully documented controls were abandoned, there would be no basis whatsoever for making any meaningful claims about the relative efficacy of motor oils,” BP said in its challenge.
NAD recommended that Royal Purple discontinue claims that stated, “Improves fuel economy by as much as 5 percent” and “Fuel economy improvement up to 5 percent or more” because its Environmental Protection Agency testing was inconclusive and the “Oklahoma State Study” and single cylinder Labeco CLR diesel engine testing cited in Royal Purple’s advertising was not relevant. The NAD noted the 1997 OSU Study was “outdated and nothing in the record demonstrated that the formulations of the competitors’ oils were similar to those available for sale on the market today.”
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.
Royal Purple also voluntarily agreed to discontinue the claims, “most advanced,” “unsurpassed performance” and “unparalleled performance,” steps the NAD said were necessary and proper to avoid confusion in the marketplace.
“While Royal Purple also believes that the tests and testimonials it supplied as evidence accurately portray the benefits of using its synthetic oil in a wide variety of applications, it defers to the NAD’s position that those tests and testimonials alone are insufficient to support specific performance attribute claims in consumer advertising,” the company said in its response to NAD. “... [Royal Purple] has already made changes to its advertising in accordance with the NAD recommendations and will continue to implement NAD’s recommendations and analysis in developing Royal Purple’s future advertising.”
BP Lubricants did not return phone calls from Lube Report requesting comment on NAD’s decision."
Dub
Here you go the down and dirty on RP, I would not use it.
excerpt info:
"Royal Purple Ltd. was black and blue after BP Lubricants USA took it to task over advertising claims for its synthetic motor oil, finding a receptive audience in the advertising industry’s self-regulatory forum.
The National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus recommended Porter, Texas-based Royal Purple modify or discontinue numerous advertising claims for its synthetic motor oil, following a challenge by Wayne, N.J.-based BP Lubricants. The NAD examined comparative performance and superiority claims in print, broadcast and Internet advertising. In some of the advertising, Royal Purple compared its performance to Castrol, Shell, Amsoil and other motor oil brands.
NAD recommended that Royal Purple discontinue its use of consumer testimonials reporting specific performance attributes in the absence of reliable independent evidence showing performance capability.
“Anecdotal evidence based solely on the experiences of individual consumers is insufficient to support product efficacy claims, including claims related to horsepower, torque, fuel economy or engine heat,” the organization stated. “While the advertiser may quote from published articles if it provides clear and conspicuous attribution to the publisher, it may not rely on such articles to support efficacy claims for which it has no reliable independent validation.”
NAD recommended Royal Purple discontinue claims such as “Increases horsepower and torque by as much as 3 percent,” “Reduces Engine Wear by 80 percent,” “Superior Oxidation Stability” and “Provides Film Strength Up to 400 Percent.”
“If industry-standard tests or tests with carefully documented controls were abandoned, there would be no basis whatsoever for making any meaningful claims about the relative efficacy of motor oils,” BP said in its challenge.
NAD recommended that Royal Purple discontinue claims that stated, “Improves fuel economy by as much as 5 percent” and “Fuel economy improvement up to 5 percent or more” because its Environmental Protection Agency testing was inconclusive and the “Oklahoma State Study” and single cylinder Labeco CLR diesel engine testing cited in Royal Purple’s advertising was not relevant. The NAD noted the 1997 OSU Study was “outdated and nothing in the record demonstrated that the formulations of the competitors’ oils were similar to those available for sale on the market today.”
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.
Royal Purple also voluntarily agreed to discontinue the claims, “most advanced,” “unsurpassed performance” and “unparalleled performance,” steps the NAD said were necessary and proper to avoid confusion in the marketplace.
“While Royal Purple also believes that the tests and testimonials it supplied as evidence accurately portray the benefits of using its synthetic oil in a wide variety of applications, it defers to the NAD’s position that those tests and testimonials alone are insufficient to support specific performance attribute claims in consumer advertising,” the company said in its response to NAD. “... [Royal Purple] has already made changes to its advertising in accordance with the NAD recommendations and will continue to implement NAD’s recommendations and analysis in developing Royal Purple’s future advertising.”
BP Lubricants did not return phone calls from Lube Report requesting comment on NAD’s decision."
Dub
10-08-2010, 01:18 PM
#72
On The Tree
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: LaPlata, MD
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mine was the same way took the ticking away and when it starts to come back slightly when its cold only is when i change the oil again roughly... 1500 or so miles lol my car sits alot so i change frequently royal purple is amazing
10-08-2010, 11:56 PM
#76
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've never really noticed much difference between oils. I started with RP when I first got my motor built because of the hype, but it was too expensive and I jumped around a lot trying to find the right oil. Lately I've been using stuff like valvoline durablend. It seems to like it ok. Of all the oils I used, I still burn almost a quart every 1-2k or more miles, also no smoke or leaks. I change it at 3k.
Last edited by Marc3.4V6; 10-09-2010 at 10:52 AM.
