Only problem with Royal Purple is the price. I have used it in my v8 mustangs for several years now. Runs quiet and slightly helped fuel economy.

Everyone has opinions about what the best oil is. Lol. Google 'Mobile 1 oil'. It has just as many disgruntled users.
Personally, I am hoping to find an Amsoil dealer nearby to swap all of my cars to

 

Er - no. An oil destrying brass parts is not a matter of opinion. Glad it has worked for you, but just becaue YOU like it or haven't had issues with it it doesn't make it a good oil.

Good luck with the Amsoil.

 

Have you personally witnessed RP destroying bearings? (copper parts, there should be no brass in an engine)
I haven't. And when I googled it, I saw no first hand accounts of damaged engines, transmissions, or diffs. It was all 'buddy of a buddy told me' blah blah.
As far as my opinion about it, it is no different than those opinions about Mobil 1 oil being good.
Do I think that mobil 1 oil is bad? No. Do I think that RP and Amsoil are better oils? Yes due to their higher zinc and phosphorus properties which lubricate internals better. Will either ever meet MB specs? No. Due to government regulations about their zinc content.
The life of an engine is more about routine oil changes with the recommended weight than which brand of oil is better than another.
My point is don't speak matter of factly about a specific oil being bad without having facts or first hand account.

 

In addition www.bobistheoilguy.com is a great website to review various oil discussions

 

Actually, I do have first-hand experience. I partially own an indy Audi/VW/Porsche shop and we've had a number of cars some in with spun bearings and destroyed tranny synchros and shift forks (which btw are made of brass, not copper) after running Royal Purple oil for only several thousand km. Unlike some other members on this site, I don't pull things out of my a$$. Furthermore, one of my best friends - a chemical and meachnical engineer - is in the synthetic lubricant manufacturing industry, so I've also learned a thing or two from him.

The ZDDP is only a small part of the equation. There are oils that have 5 times the amount of ZDDP that you get in the highest ZDDP content 229.5 approved oil but that doesn't make them better for everyday use. If you're running a dragster and rebuid your engine every three races then it may be the right oil for you, but just because it applies to one type of situation it doesn't make it universally true.

ExxonMobil spends more annualy on R&D alone than AMSOIL and Royal Purple's gross annual sales combined. AMG and Porsche engineers among others get ExxonMobil to manufacture a specific oil formulation made to the exact specifications and needs of a particular engine, just like BMW did with Castrol with the TWS oil for the ///M enignes. Are you really going to try and tell me that it's all only a matter of opinion? If RP or AMSOIL can't be bothered to even submit a sample for approval (let alone receive the same), it speaks volumes about the quality of their product.

 

Now that is the type of response I can respect.
I can't speak for Amsoil but I just read 2 mins ago that RP does have 229.5 approval on of one their oils.
I have never tried any of their fluids in a manual tranny.
It would be interesting to know how an equal oil weight to the mfr recommended in RP would cause oil starvation in a engine bearing and cause it to spin

 

Which RP oil is 229.5 approved? I'm curious, because RP is big on the "meets or exceeds" approach to marketing their oils. (Which I think is smart...why be one of those oils that just meets Porsche A40 when you can exceed it?). One interesting factoid is that the Viscosity, cSt (ASTM D445) @ 100ºC of the M1 0W-40 is 13.5. For the 5W-40 RP, the listed spec is an astounding 15.7...not passing judgement, just sayin'.

 

Apparently it was BS. The only mb approved royal purple that I could find was the tranny fluid.

Interesting note on the CST. Good food for thought since the max for a oil to be '40' rated is 16.3

 

AFAIK the only MB approved oil (229.51 spec, not 229.5) from those two manufacturers is the AMSOIL 5W40 European Formula. And, the lower-SAPS 229.51 spec is NOT approved for use in the M156 engine in North America because of the high sulphur content of our gas. It would be fine to use in Europe where the gas is much cleaner and of course on diesel engines with the DPFs.

 

That's a pretty large assumption, no?

 

Really? If you think that it is a large or invalid assumption, can you please suggest a different reason why an oil manufacturer would not want a stamp of approval on their product - essentially an endorsement resulting in increased sales - from a major vechicle manufacturer since it doesn't cost them anything to submit a sample for testing? They are claiming their product is superior to their competition and surpasses those same vechicle manufacturer standards, yet they have either never tried to or have failed to get their products approved. Why not get the VW / BMW / MB / Porsche / Nissan approval for their amazing oil and easily generate five times the revenue? If some tiny, insignificant lubricant companies from Greece, South Africa, Poland, Croatia and Kazakhstan among many others can get MB 229.5 approval, why can't these three American companies that would have you belive they make the greatest oil on Earth (AMSOIL, Royal Purple & Red Line) get the same? Please enlighten me - I am all ears.

Yeah, you drank the kool-aid all right.

 

Just put liqui moly 5w40 leichtlauf in your engine and be done with it.

 

While I would never recommend using an unapproved oil, I do work for an oil manufacturer, and years ago we had an oil targeted for gasoline vehicles, we were sure it would meet the diesel standards of the time, but didn't feel that the market was big enough to warrant the testing and certification costs.
Certification is pretty expensive.

My guess is that Royal Purple just doesn't meet the specs, whether whatever it fails on would compromise engine life, or not, who knows.

 

I think it is because they would have to lower the lubrication properties to meet auto mfr specs.

The specs from various mfrs are catered to fuel economy more than engine wear characteristics.
And honestly, the general public doesn't care. I would venture to bet 60% of the car owners only run the oil grade called out on their engine oil cap and/or owners manual without ever paying attention to whether it meets a MB, Ford, GM, etc spec. Its all about what is on sale that week.

 

WHOSE diesel standards? Not all diesels have the MB fine particulate filters that require the use of the 229.51 spec oils.

Twenty years ago, when engine protection was the only concern and I changed the oil every 3000 km, I used to run "diesel-grade" oils in all of my cars. I used AMSOIL in my 1986.5 stroker 928 track rat and it was probably the best oil for the job.

Now you now have engines like the 4.2L Audi motors that have passages that are so small and narrow (less than 1 mm in diameter) they're essentially capilarries, and you need oil that can get up those passages in sufficient quantity to both lubricate and cool those parts - hence the VW 502.00/505.00 oil spec. Your AMSOIL - no matter how good it's HTHS is (and in that regard it is certainly among the best oils out there) can't flow through those passages. What ends up happening as a result is that your crankshaft bearings will experience less wear than with Mobil 1 0W40, but your timing chain tensioner bearing will suffer more as a result and prematurely fail. The camshaft adjusters are hydraulically operated and depend on the oil pressure. With a VW 502/505 approved oil, the racket lasts only about a second or two at startup until sufficient pressure builds up. With AMSOIL/RP/RL of the same viscosity grade, the racket lasts 20 seconds, during which time the cam adjusters are essentually running dry. That's a far cry from it being a beter oil for the application.

When film shear strength was all that mattered, AMSOIL/RP/RL were great oils for a smal-block pushrod engine, a 50-year old deisgn where everythign was liberally drenched and saturated in oil. The truth of the matter is that the very fact that they were pure PAO or Ester-based oils which gave them the great HTHS is now preventing them from flowing in places where modern european performance engines require higher-flow oil rates for lubrication and cooling.

You then add the modern oil fuel efficiency requirements (the more viscous the oil, the more friction it generates and flows less readily), where again the AMSOIL/RP/RL fall flat on their face becaused they're much too thick to begin with. In order to make them flow at the required flow rates, they would by definition need to dilute the oil so much with friction modifiers that it would essentially lose the advantage it has (the excellet HTHS).

And, you then add the extended drain intervals (once a year or 16,000 km) vs. the previous 3-5000 km of 15 years ago, and again the AMSOIL/RP/RL fail. Especially if you mostly drive short distances, in a year or 16,000 km you create so much acidity in the crankcase that even oils with the best TBNs drop down to nothing. Mobil 1 0W40 (new) has a TBN of 11.8. After 16,000 km the TBN is down to about 4.5. Royal Purple on the other hand starts off with a TBN of around 8, but after only 2-3000 km the TBN is down to below 3. Do you still think those brass component failures reported with RP oil are unrelated to the oil itself?

So - just because AMSOIL was a great oil for your 25-year-old American muscle car (which is was and still is), it doesn't - can't - even make it on the list that the M156 motor in the C63 requires in terms of lubrication properties. It has absolutely nothing to do with the cost of certification - those are fairly insignificant. It has all to do with the fact that they came up with somethign that worked in the past but is now almost useless except for very specialized applications. TDK made excellent cassete tapes (magnetic media), Kodak made excellent film (silver nitrate) and Polaroid made instant photos available, but technology has changed to the point where none of them is relevant despite the fact that 30 years ago they were the leaders in their fields. The same applies here to engine oil. The engines have changed, their lubrication requirements have changed, and the very things that made the AMSOILs/RPs/RLs of this world great for the old American muscle car engines unfortunately makes them unsuitable for the new generation of european motors. That's it in a nutshell. Again, if you have a 70's muscle car, these are the some of the best oils for your engine. If you have a C63, they are some of the worst.

Anyway - enough with the "Oils 101" primer. There is certainly enough material available to everyone in this day and age that you can instantly access, or even better, buy me and my chemical & mechanical engineer friend that worked in the sythetic lubricant industry a good bottle single malt scotch, and we'll let you pick our brains for as long as the bottle lasts.

 

Very good.

The first sentence is only partially correct - yes, fuel economy is major factor, but so is the ability of the oil to flow through small passages and last for a long time. As for the rest, you are 100% correct. That is exactly why the "big three" - OK, the "small three" now - still build motors that are only 1/2 as efficient in terms of output vs. displacement at the Europeans, but are able to (almost) run even with vegetable oil in the crankcase.

 

I used LubroMoly / LiquiMoly on all of my BMWs and Audis until 2008. Not a bad oil by any means, but about halfway though 2008 when all of the oil formulations changed due to the EURO 5/V standars, the Mobil 1 0W40 is pretty much the best oil on the market for wear protection that still meets the BMW / VW / MB specs (which we have confirmed by UOAs at the shop). Definitely approved and a good oil - no worse than the Formula M 5W40 if you can still get it - but not as good as the M1 0W40, especially the stuff that comes of the lab in France instead of the Texas refinery which AFAIK produce slightly different base stocks because what you can market as synthetic oil in the US is different for what you can call synthetic in other parts of the world.

M1 0W40 all the way until someone makes somethign better for the M156 engine that I can get my hands on in NA.

 

Are you sure about that?

 

My comments earlier on the certification requirements were for the industry API/ILSAC specs. The individual I spoke to said that it was quite an expensive process.
I don't know what additional work is required for MB certification.

 

Sure, it costs them something - but while API certification is somewhere in the six-digit range, manufacturer approval costs are much lower. At least from a financial standpoint, for a comany the size of AMSOIL there would be no issues with getting mfg approval. If they can afford to spend the $ to get an API stamp, another few thousand is nothing if they can double or triple their sales as a result.

As I said earlier, even tiny, small lubricant companies from central and eastern Europe or Asia can get MB approval. And, if AMSOIL / Poyal Purple / Red Line can't afford to spend $300K to get API certification (never mind the lower amounts to get mfg approvals), what does that say about their abiity to spend moeny on R&D and actually produce a decent oil? These are not mom-and-pop corner grocery stores - as per their own claim, AMSOIL for example is a company that "sells millions of gallons of oil per year". So, some insignificant lube company from Croatia, Greece or Kazkhstan that sells maybe 20,000 liters (5,000 gallons) of oil annualy at best can get the MB stamp of approval, but AMSOIL, Royal Purple or Red line can't? Sorry, but I just don't buy it. If it doesn't have MB spec approval, it's because it doesn't meet the spec, not because they are too poor to spend the money on it. If they are in fact too poor to spend the money so they can sell more of their really amaizing oil, then they are certainly too poor to make it really amazing in the first place. They can go to Dragon's Den / Shark Tank and get the freakin' funds. Hell, I'd loan it to them myself if the oils were good enough to meet the specs but they're just stapped for $300K. So - can we please stop with grasping at straws? It's your car and if you want you can put lavender oil in the crankcase, but just because you bought into the very powerful MLM marketing propaganda it doesn't make it a good oil for your C63.

See http://www.carbibles.com/engineoil_bible_amsoilFAQ.html for AMSOIL's own explanation of API certification costs and their bu11$h!t stories and excuses. Oh, it's the API that mandates no more than 1% sulfated ash content, so let's use that as an excuse not to get API certification because my oil has more of it. Well, Mobil 1 0W40 has 1.3% sulfated ash, yet meets API SN, SM, SL, SJ specs in addition to all the relevant mfg specs. There's good synthetic oil and then there's good snake oil, and unfortunately in places like litigation-happy USA it is all to easy to brainwash the masses into confusing the two.

 

 

You know - you got me. In the absolute sense, I am lying. I have no excuse. You Sir are correct - in additon to whatever adminstrative fees they may have to pay, they will also have to make at least some phonecalls, send a few letters, ship over a package or two with some oil or maybe even get someone to fly over, which as you eloquently pointed out, isn't free. Hell, some secretary could even break a nail in the process and then they would lose an additional 5 minutes of productivity while she is looking for her nail file, and that certainly isn't free either. Or worse, they could have someone like you working on their staff. Imagine what THAT would cost them.


Are you just tryign to wind me up or are you really that f___ing thick? Really?

 

How do you know that MB doesn't charge extra to be on the list? I know Mobil/Exxon pays MB to have the Mobil 1 sticker on their AMG cars. Could it be a marketing ploy? Exxon muscling MB to keep out the lesser companies? Exxon does have a huge advertising budget, witness all the Mobil1 stickers on race cars, even F1. Just conjecturing here, not taking any sides.

 

I'm willing to guess assumptions are just being made...

 

Becaue I know several people who work in the petroleum, and more specifically, synthetic lubricant industry. Jason's assumption is wrong.

While ExxonMobil does have an agreement with MB or Porsche about being the factory fill, the consideration is not necessarily monetary. ExxonMobil spends $h!t10ad$ of their own money developing and tweaking a specific oil formulation for a particular application working alongside the MB or Porsche engineers, and in exchange they get to be the factory fill for x number of years and are able to advertise it as such. It is no different from Continental or Yokohama having the MO tires that every MB ships with (or Bridgestone, Michelin or Pirelli with their N-spec tires for Porsche). The manufacturer ponies up the resources and develops the oil (or tire) for that particular application alongside the automotive engieers while the car or engine is being designed, and in exchange they get to be the factory oil (or tire).

That is a completely different process from the other lubricant manufacturers however, who simply need to meet the oil spec once developed, and yes, I admit, possibly pay some nominal appliction or testing fee but certainly not pour tons of money to "buy" the approval. The costs are nothign like what the API charges for their certifications (talk about marketing ploys and big oil scratching each others' backs).

Regarding F1, that is a different animal altogether. Those guys do pay quite an amount for the advertising they receive. However, the lubrication requirements of an F1 motor or any other race motor are completely different from those of a street vehicle, so what applies to race cars has nothign to do with what applies to street vehicles. Ironically, the AMSOILs of this world would protect a race engine better than anythign Mobil 1 has commercially availalble. And, just FYI, the Mercedes AMG F1 team is partialy funded by Petronas, not ExxonMobil, and they use Petronas fuel and lubricants.

An oil manufacturer can also sponsor a specific race series, but in this case it's the organizing body that gets the funding, and teams running the "official" oil may get additonal prizes or incentives in exchage for advertising space on their cars. ExxonMobil spends a lot of money to be the official NASCAR oil, but only about half the teams run their oil (see dicussion on the subject on BITOG at http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums...Number=1134887). Again, it's similar with tires, where Ontario CASC-OR for example is currently sponsored by Toyo. Toyo has an agreement with CASC (just like Pirelli has an agreement with Bernie Ecclestone) and CASC mandates that all cars run the same Toyo tires which the GT, GS and GA class competitors get for free. Advertising has nothing to do with getting approval though.


P.S. Just so there is no additional confusion and assumptions, what I mean by "free" when it comes to getting their oil certified doesn't mean free in the absolute sense. I mean free as in, say, getting your company to be ISO 9001 certified. Yes, there are nominal administrative costs associated with it, but it's not a "pay a $5,000,000 fee for a seal of approval" deal. I hope that addresses the next six questions some of you were going to ask.