Royal Purple 5/30 and 10/30

[FTD]

I went to Advanced Auto today to get some Royal Purple. They only have 5/30 and 10/30 in stock. Is there a problem or risk with putting either of these weights in the car?

[Cloudsurfer]

Pretty sure Royal Purple makes a 5W40. If you want to go with RP, I would use the correct weight.

[mikefocke]

The vario-cam mechanism is sensitive to oil weights.

[FTD]

Thanks to both of you. I called Advanced and spoke with an informed person that said I absolutely need the 0 weight and recommended I go with 0/40 [RP doesn't have a 0/50] even though they don't carry it and can't order it. I found a 'performance' shop that will match the [coincidental] Advanced Auto sale price. Today is a great day.

[timothy]

4 Wheel Parts carries 5W40 (check store for availability)

5300 Frontage Rd.
Forest Park, GA 30297
404-363-9768

911 Cobb Parkway N
Marietta, GA 30062
770-427-9840

4570 Buford Hwy NW
Norcross, GA 30071
770-840-0365

[FTD]

thanks for your research.

[ekam]

5W30 and 10W30 are for Japanese motors. Could do with 0W50 or 5W40 I guess depending on the climate of the state you live in.

[JFP in PA]

Until Royal Purple (any weight) has ACEA A3, B3, B4; I wouldn't touch it............

[Paul]

IMO if it's not on Porsche's list of approved oils don't use it.

[Frodo]

Why do you suppose it is that some of the most highly touted motor oils (Royal Purple, Red Line, etc.) don't seem to make the list? (I'm guessin' somehow it's money-related, but I don't really know.)

Paul, what do you use? What do you think of the Castrol synthetic?

[JFP in PA]

Originally Posted by Frodo

Why do you suppose it is that some of the most highly touted motor oils (Royal Purple, Red Line, etc.) don't seem to make the list? (I'm guessin' somehow it's money-related, but I don't really know.)

Paul, what do you use? What do you think of the Castrol synthetic?

Rather than “speculate on the monetary veracity” of the Porsche list, why not do some research on what specifications (e.g.: ACEA ratings) the oils that they do “approve” have or don’t have? Could just be eye opening as well as informative………..

[FTD]

I have researched oil for the last year on this forum, in other forums, in discussions with autoXers, generic internet search, etc. I never came across ACEA commentary however. Hmmmm. I'm an expert on many things, but not all things, which is why I appreciate forums like this so that I can find others who are.

Thought I would share this below because I think its funny. Access to web sites are blocked from my work computer.

Blocked Page information

URL - http://www.petrenko.biz/go.php sid=7&said=liquidweb&q=porsche+approved+oil&sref=http%3A//www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dporsche+approved+oil%26aq%3 D0%26oq%3DPorsche+approved+oi&url=http%3A//porsche-tsb-approved-oil.poultrys.us
Block Category - Extreme;Pornography

go figure

[Lil bastard]

Originally Posted by JFP in PA

Rather than “speculate on the monetary veracity” of the Porsche list, why not do some research on what specifications (e.g.: ACEA ratings) the oils that they do “approve” have or don’t have? Could just be eye opening as well as informative………..

ACEA (European Automobile Manufacturers Association) Ratings aren't really any different or more stringent than those from API (Am. Petroleum Institute) or SAE (Soc. of Automotive Engineers), it's just those crazy Euros coming up with their own system to prove that they - the United States of Europe, aka the EU, are just as good as we are.

And, don't confuse a ratings claim as a certification. NO oil is ACEA approved - the ACEA does not approve motor oil. The Mfgrs. are just claiming to be in compliance with ACEA testing standards. Oil mfgrs. are responsible for their own testing and conformance to ACEA specs is voluntary. Just because a manufacturer doesn't claim ACEA compliance for their product, doesn't mean it isn't, especially if they are already complying with API or SAE specs.

I think we're seeing waaay too much Oil paranoia here lately. People obsess about which oil to use and then add a K&N or Gauze filter which introduce far more contaminates than oem, or go 15k mi. between service intervals. That's kinda like smoking in the doctor's waiting room.

Choose a name brand synthetic of your choice, swap between 7500 or annually (unless your conditions dictate otherwise), and you'll be fine. Using MB1 under these circumstances will not increase the odds that you'll grenade your engine anymore than if you choose Pirelli or Continental shoes for the car. Remember, EVERY Boxster leaving Stuttgart or Uusikaupunki, for better or for worse, has a belly full of Mobil 1.

If your engine does implode, it's much more likely that the poorly engineered IMS bearing or RMS are to blame.

PS to learn more about ACEA see: http://www.enerplus.com.my/images/acea-oil-sequence.pdf
and: http://www.lubritecinc.com/PDF/2008synpcmo.pdf

[JFP in PA]

Originally Posted by Lil bastard

ACEA (European Automobile Manufacturers Association) Ratings aren't really any different or more stringent than those from API (Am. Petroleum Institute) or SAE (Soc. of Automotive Engineers), it's just those crazy Euros coming up with their own system to prove that they - the United States of Europe, aka the EU, are just as good as we are.

And, don't confuse a ratings claim as a certification. NO oil is ACEA approved - the ACEA does not approve motor oil. The Mfgrs. are just claiming to be in compliance with ACEA testing standards. Oil mfgrs. are responsible for their own testing and conformance to ACEA specs is voluntary. Just because a manufacturer doesn't claim ACEA compliance for their product, doesn't mean it isn't, especially if they are already complying with API or SAE specs.

I think we're seeing waaay too much Oil paranoia here lately. People obsess about which oil to use and then add a K&N or Gauze filter which introduce far more contaminates than oem, or go 15k mi. between service intervals. That's kinda like smoking in the doctor's waiting room.

Choose a name brand synthetic of your choice, swap between 7500 or annually (unless your conditions dictate otherwise), and you'll be fine. Using MB1 under these circumstances will not increase the odds that you'll grenade your engine anymore than if you choose Pirelli or Continental shoes for the car. Remember, EVERY Boxster leaving Stuttgart or Uusikaupunki, for better or for worse, has a belly full of Mobil 1.

If your engine does implode, it's much more likely that the poorly engineered IMS bearing or RMS are to blame.

PS to learn more about ACEA see: http://www.enerplus.com.my/images/acea-oil-sequence.pdf
and: http://www.lubritecinc.com/PDF/2008synpcmo.pdf

Unfortunately, you are dead wrong on the ACEA. Unlike the API, which is self policing, ACEA REQURIES that you submit your finished product to an independent outside lab that runs the tests and determines which rating category the product fall into.................

From the ACEA documents on their website:

All engine performance testing used to support a claim of compliance with these ACEA sequences must be generated according to the European Engine Lubricants Quality Management System (EELQMS). This system, which is described in the ATIEL Code of Practice1, addresses product development testing and product performance documentation, and involves the registration of all candidate and reference oil testing and defines the compliance process. Compliance with the ATIEL Code of Practice is mandatory for any claim to meet the requirements of the 2007 issue of these ACEA sequences.

[Jake Raby]

If your engine does implode, it's much more likely that the poorly engineered IMS bearing or RMS are to blame.

There is now a fix for those implosions... I can't believe no one has mentioned it here yet :-)
Development continues...
http://www.flat6innovations.com/saving-an-engine-ims-retrofit

BTW- The IMS is not lubricated by the engine's oil. The IMS bearing is sealed, which is a major cause of it's issues and failures..

Our retrofit and update Ceramic Hybrid IMS bearings are not sealed.

[Lil bastard]

Originally Posted by JFP in PA

Unfortunately, you are dead wrong on the ACEA. Unlike the API, which is self policing, ACEA REQURIES that you submit your finished product to an independent outside lab that runs the tests and determines which rating category the product fall into.................

From the ACEA documents on their website:

All engine performance testing used to support a claim of compliance with these ACEA sequences must be generated according to the European Engine Lubricants Quality Management System (EELQMS). This system, which is described in the ATIEL Code of Practice1, addresses product development testing and product performance documentation, and involves the registration of all candidate and reference oil testing and defines the compliance process. Compliance with the ATIEL Code of Practice is mandatory for any claim to meet the requirements of the 2007 issue of these ACEA sequences.

It's just a rating, nothing more. They may require an independent lab (never said they didn't), but so what? I doubt that any of the testing, API, SAE, ILSAC, JASO or ACEA is done in-house, it's more cost-effective and unbiased to do the tests from an independent lab.

You're making out that AECA standards are the Holy Grail of motor oil definition and that's simply NOT the case. It's not the one REAL truth from the overseer of us... all, it's the Euro car mfgrs. - the same ones who give you the M96 motor and the nikisil liners from BMW and Jaguar.

What about ILSAC (International Lubricant Standardization and Approval Committee), JASO (Japanese Automotive Standards Organization) in addition to API and SAE. All these organizations have well prepared and thought out standards and most modern oils will easily pass them all. Those that don't won't have missed by much and certainly any oil passing any of these standards will not be 'bad' for a car.

That doesn't even take into account all the independent specifications published from the car manufacturers too, such as the Volkswagen Group's VW50*.0* or Daimler Benz's MB22*.** , FORD's WSS and those from GM, Vauxhall, Saab, Volvo, BMW, PSA, Porsche and others. GM even has a separate standard specifically for the Corvette - spec #4718M. In fact, several of these standards were adopted by the AECA, including some from the API and SAE, rather than developing their own. Many european car mfgrs. make no reference to AECA in their owners manuals at all, only recommending their own standards (Porsche being one of them) with reference to compatibility with 'lesser' AECA grades should an emergency top-up be required.

The fact that independent labs are 'required' is fairly meaningless today. Do you believe that major oil companies are going to outright lie about the capabilities of their product, or more specifically doctor or fake the test results? In today's litigant happy society? That's conspiratorial thinking and in no way precludes a company from bribing an independent lab to 'fudge' the results, so maybe there's some of that going on as well? Is that your inference?

If you look at the chart link I included, you'll see many respected brands of oil that are not AECA rated. That does not mean they're not good oils. But, what it does mean is not many of them are marketed in the EU. Then again, many, like Royal Purple and RedLine are.

Motor Oil is as much about marketing (perhaps more) as it is about performance. There is a HUGE profit margin on motor oil, especially mineral oil which is essentially a left over by-product of fractional distillation of fuels - it's the 7 or so % leftover after extracting all the volatile elements - you can't have motor oil with a low flashpoint or you'll truly blow up the motor. For mineral oil, the packaging costs more than the actual oil. The same is true of synthetics, though to a slightly lesser degree. If it were in their interest to have AECA testing done, don't you think the few thousand bucks invested would pay off big time in advertising and sales? If so, why are they not doing it? RedLine and Royal Purple are available in the UK and presumably selling well enough to stay there. If AECA ratings were so important, why aren't their competitors sceaming it from the rooftops that these oils are inferior simply because they're not so rated?

Sorry, it's just a rating, a set of standards, which aren't even universally accepted by the world, or even the EU.

I stick to my belief that AECA standards are no more stringent or reliable than those from API or SAE at least in the practical sense. Any motor oil with these ratings (comparable ratings that is) are just as good as any other for a daily street driver so long as you observe the proper service intervals.

[JFP in PA]

Originally Posted by Lil bastard

It's just a rating, nothing more. They may require an independent lab (never said they didn't), but so what? I doubt that any of the testing, API, SAE, ILSAC, JASO or ACEA is done in-house, it's more cost-effective and unbiased to do the tests from an independent lab.

You're making out that AECA standards are the Holy Grail of motor oil definition and that's simply NOT the case. What about ILSAC (International Lubricant Standardization and Approval Committee), JASO (Japanese Automotive Standards Organization) in addition to API and SAE. All these organizations have well prepared and thought out standards and most modern oils will easily pass them all. Those that don't won't have missed by much and certainly any oil passing any of these standards will not be 'bad' for a car.

That doesn't even take into account all the independent specifications published from the car manufacturers too, such as the Volkswagen Group's VW50*.0* or Daimler Benz's MB22*.** , FORD's WSS and those from GM, Vauxhall, Saab, Volvo, BMW, PSA, Porsche and others. GM even has a separate standard specifically for the Corvette - spec #4718M. In fact, several of these standards were adopted by the AECA, including some from the API and SAE, rather than developing their own. Many european car mfgrs. make no reference to AECA in their owners manuals at all, only recommending their own standards (Porsche being one of them) with reference to compatibility with 'lesser' AECA grades should an emergency top-up be required.

The fact that independent labs are 'required' is fairly meaningless today. Do you believe that major oil companies are going to outright lie about the capabilities of their product, or more specifically doctor or fake the test results? In today's litigant happy society? That's conspiratorial thinking and in no way precludes a company from bribing an independent lab to 'fudge' the results, so maybe there's some of that going on as well? Is that your inference?

If you look at the chart link I included, you'll see many respected brands of oil that are not AECA rated. That does not mean they're not good oils. But, what it does mean is not many of them are marketed in the EU. Then again, many, like Royal Purple and RedLine are.

Motor Oil is as much about marketing (perhaps more) as it is about performance. There is a HUGE profit margin on motor oil, especially mineral oil which is essentially a left over by-product of fractional distillation of fuels - it's the 7 or so % leftover after extracting all the volatile elements - you can't have motor oil with a low flashpoint or you'll truly blow up the motor. For mineral oil, the packaging costs more than the actual oil. The same is true of synthetics, though to a slightly lesser degree. If it were in their interest to have AECA testing done, don't you think the few thousand bucks invested would pay off big time in advertising and sales? If so, why are they not doing it? RedLine and Royal Purple are available in the UK and presumably selling well enough to stay there. If AECA ratings were so important, why aren't their competitors sceaming it from the rooftops that these oils are inferior simply because they're not so rated?

Sorry, it's just a rating, a set of standards, which aren't even universally accepted by the world, or even the EU.

I stick to my belief that AECA standards are no more stringent or reliable than those from API or SAE at least in the practical sense. Any motor oil with these ratings (comparable ratings that is) are just as good as any other for a daily street driver so long as you observe the proper service intervals.

Problem remains that API went “self policing”; meaning you can claim to comply based upon your own testing. API also allows “component testing”; meaning that you can test an additive package or base stock, then change the formulation all over the map and still be “API.” Unfortunately, the API has become the marketing and lobbying arm of the US petroleum industry; not its watchdog.

ACEA, on the other hand, requires finished product testing. Change a component, or a formula, and even though the ingredients all had ACEA ratings, the formula no longer does. To hold ACEA ratings, it must be retested. This is why several grades of Mobil 1 “lost” their ratings after a reformulation from Group IV to Group III base stocks. It is also why Porsche (and others) tend to “approve ACEA rated products; you know what you are dealing with and the “view” is not clouded by commercial interests.

Individual conversations with technical people from Shell. Mobil 1, Red Line and Royal Purple have all confirmed this, as well as that the testing is time consuming and expensive; which is why RP and others do not have it.

[Lil bastard]

The AECA is no more a watchdog than anyone else - it's the Euro car mfgrs. assn! We're not talking NASA here, they do not even have their own labs, they're adminstrators, bureaucrats!

FYI, Mobil 1 didn't lose it's rating because of AECA, it lost it's ratings because of a counter-suit by Castrol over MB1's suit charging them with mis-labeling their oil as synthetic while containing mineral base stocks (ironically something MB1 now does after legally redefining the meaning of the term 'synthetic' to mean that some mineral derived base stocks are acceptible within the meaning 'synthetic'). The outgrowth of which is the legal marketing term 'Semi-synthetic' used in britain and the EU.

The troubling thing is your inference that without an AECA rating, the company producing the oil is knowingly producing an inferior product and perpetrating a fraud against the consumer, or that their oil is automatically inferior without the rating. And I just don't buy into those concepts, especially in the given context.

[JFP in PA]

Originally Posted by Lil bastard

The troubling thing is your inference that without an AECA rating, the company producing the oil is knowingly producing an inferior product and perpetrating a fraud against the consumer, or that their oil is automatically inferior without the rating. And I just don't buy into those concepts, especially in the given context.

In my world, it is good that this is troubling, as there are companies, and RP has demonstrated this for one, that make claims that their products cannot back up, and they subsequently have to withdraw or modify. Another way to put it is that they “got caught”.

Standards exist for a reason; if they are not upheld, you have no idea what you are buying. In the state where I live, some gas stations voluntarily participate in a state run program where a “mystery shopper” buys gas and tests everything from correct delivery volume to octane ratings. The testing body publishes their findings, which include the non participating stations as well. Last quarter, the results indicated that of the 6,000 stations sampled, 3500 (some participating, some not) where out of compliance. Most common issue: Short volume delivery (getting less than one gallon when the pump says one, a neat trick when gas was $4 a gallon), and octane levels well below indicated pump values. Interestingly, one station was actually selling 93 octane out of all of its pumps, regardless of price. In any case, my question would be that if you knew these standards existed, where would you buy your gas…………..?

[Lil bastard]

Originally Posted by JFP in PA

In my world, it is good that this is troubling, as there are companies, and RP has demonstrated this for one, that make claims that their products cannot back up, and they subsequently have to withdraw or modify. Another way to put it is that they “got caught”.

Standards exist for a reason; if they are not upheld, you have no idea what you are buying. In the state where I live, some gas stations voluntarily participate in a state run program where a “mystery shopper” buys gas and tests everything from correct delivery volume to octane ratings. The testing body publishes their findings, which include the non participating stations as well. Last quarter, the results indicated that of the 6,000 stations sampled, 3500 (some participating, some not) where out of compliance. Most common issue: Short volume delivery (getting less than one gallon when the pump says one, a neat trick when gas was $4 a gallon), and octane levels well below indicated pump values. Interestingly, one station was actually selling 93 octane out of all of its pumps, regardless of price. In any case, my question would be that if you knew these standards existed, where would you buy your gas…………..?

Apples to oranges. The AECA does not do random retail sampling. If it did then maybe your arguement would be valid.

Standards do exist for a reason and there are just as many political and nationalist reasons for the AECA to exist as there are scientific ones. Especially when one considers the capitalist base of their existence and the fact that their standards are not independently created, but rather are mostly a compilation of other existing standards - just look at all their footnotes.

But, while in some empirical world some ultimate truth may exist, the fact is that all these other oil companies are selling their products and the world's recycle centers are not bulging with an exorbitant number of blown engines attributable to a single oil brand or sector which does not have a particular rating.

There are so many contributing factors to most engine failures that oil, if changed properly, is usually the least of them. Only when oil service intervals are ignored does oil seem to be a significant factor. Driving style, delayed maintenance and such are often much greater factors.

You seem to have a predisposition to worrying about and distrusting Big Brother. On the other hand, you seem to be buying right into their marketing rhetoric.