Royal Purple 5/30 and 10/30

[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.

[JFP in PA]

Originally Posted by Lil bastard

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.

If you’re implying that I have “ethics”, you are correct. I distrust those that have proven worthy of distrust, like RP. Mobil 1 reformulated, but had the decency to drop their claims for ACEA ratings, but without doing anything to bring that fact to your attention. In the Cartesian coordinates of ethics, that puts them at “accept, but verify” level. They make some decent products, but you need to do your own homework to be sure the products are what you really want. Their 15W-50 is a good example; used to have ACEA and yielded pretty good UOA. Now it does not have any ACEA, and UOA says it has trouble “staying in grade” between changes in a mildly driven street car (in this case, a Cadillac). Something has changed, and not for the better; but the lack of standards testing ratings implies “caveat emptor”…………

[Lil bastard]

Originally Posted by JFP in PA

If you’re implying that I have “ethics”, you are correct. I distrust those that have proven worthy of distrust, like RP. Mobil 1 reformulated, but had the decency to drop their claims for ACEA ratings, but without doing anything to bring that fact to your attention. In the Cartesian coordinates of ethics, that puts them at “accept, but verify” level. They make some decent products, but you need to do your own homework to be sure the products are what you really want. Their 15W-50 is a good example; used to have ACEA and yielded pretty good UOA. Now it does not have any ACEA, and UOA says it has trouble “staying in grade” between changes in a mildly driven street car (in this case, a Cadillac). Something has changed, and not for the better; but the lack of standards testing ratings implies “caveat emptor”…………

Fair enough.

[CJ_Boxster]

I would just like to add that I've used Royal purple 10-40w in my boxster before and it ran great and I've used it on my other vehicles and after about the 2nd-5th oil change I would notice the engines would run alot smoother...

I remember pulling off my valve covers in my old Mustang to adjust the valves seen the rocker arms and metal body of the head were dark brown... as if the years of use had left a brown/blackish stain on the internal engine parts. Months later and 2 oil changes later using Royal Purple, I had to replace the valve cover gasket and i noticed all the internal engine parts under that same valve cover (even the underside of the valve cover) were CLEANNNNNN, no more brown burnt oil and fuel stain was found on the engine.

I mean it looked like a low mileage engine on the inside of the engine on the surface. So I give it my thumbs up especially now that they have 0-40w which is the recommended oil weight.