No, it does not mean there is a difference. If they ran the dyno tests 10 times using each of the two oils, they will get a different peak hp score on each run due to natural variations in conditions. Without knowing the std deviation of the result it is hard to conclude that the royal purple outperforms. The fact that the mean or the mode was 0.9% higher and does not meet statistical signifcance implies you cannot conclude one is better than the other.

Agreed. Your gaskets must leak like a sieve.

I believe I have responded to the point on alleged performance gain. Second, I doubt the DOT regulates motor oil. You must mean the SAE or the API. No there is no evidence to show that these oils provide superior lubrication. Without standardized testing or an independent body such as the api measuring the quality of the oil you cannot assume they meet any standards whatsoever. In fact vehicle manufacturers specifically state in the owners manual not to use an oil that is not api certified with the starburst logo. Your warranty will be voided on parts that fail due to oil related causes if you do.
Once again, these so called performance oil has a lot to gain by complying with the starburst standard. Scamsoil has been using a logo that looks remarkably like the starburst in order to fool consumers there's some standard of quality when there is none.

Marco,

SAE standards are only used to measure the viscosity of the motoroil, and that is how they get the "5w50" numbers, for example. There is no SAE standard to measure the lubricating, cooling, or cleaning performance of a motoroil.

The "ilsac starburst logo" and the "api service logo" (which is FAR more important than the startburst logo) issued by the American Petroleum Institute, or API, and they work together with OEM's like GM and FORD to set performance and composition standards for motor oils based on the needs of specific motors. The starbust logo is a very basic approval which says that motor oil is fine for gasoline engines. The API service logo is much more in depth, which is essential to look for if your engine requires a specific API standard of motor oil. (most important for diesel engines)

"The association’s chief functions on behalf of the industry include advocacy and negotiation with governmental, legal, and regulatory agencies; research into economic, toxicological, and environmental effects; establishment and certification of industry standards; and education outreach."

The API also works with the DOT and EPA to determine what sort of things they want to approve. If there is an environmental concern, the API will adjust it standards requirements to disqualify certain oils from getting the ilsac starburst or api service sticker.

This is the case with some of the performance motor oils like Royal Purple and Brad Penn. Firstly, they do not want to pay ILSAC/API to re-certify their oils. They are very small companies, much smaller than Shell, Castrol, or Mobil, for example. Secondly, their chemical composition makes their "enviromental friendliness" extremely dubious. The will also not get the coveted "energy conserving" decal from API because they are PERFORMANCE based motor oils, not ECONOMY based motor oils.

Like I said before, it boils down to the DOT, EPA, and API trying to enforce their standards on the motoring public.

Hoosier R6 tires do not have a DOT sticker. Does that make them garbage?

Don't go around waving the API starburst flag in the air claiming it to be the end-all-be-all of motor oil specifications. It is not.

The whole basis of the article is that the ILSAC standards have been updated and Royal Purple didn't bother to get recertified, and can't afford to fight any judgements.

lulz

Not true. The automakers have a big say in which oils are approved and which are not. SAE have their test methods, Porsche has their test standards, VW has their test standards etc. I would rather trust an oil that is tested and approved by these manufacturers and a regulating organization than a self-regulating private company whose sole purpose is to maximize profit.

For street use, where most drivers who have to drive in rain or cold weather. Yes.

No, it is about Royal Purple et al making dubious anecdotal and non-scientific claims about their performance compared to the approved brands such as Mobil1. You said that these oils are designed to maximize performance, yet RP claims they also maximize fuel efficiency. Which is it?

would be funny if they found out the rednecks that were using royal purple in the commercials hadn't changed their oil in years, and were shocked to see a performance increase

I guess it's just a coincidence that RP was 0.9% better in this test, is a group V oil, on top of the blind scratch and wear tests done by third party groups and magazines. A re-occuring coincidence that is... weird. I'd still put my money on the horse that is coincidentally the re-occurring winner.

It's both. You're thinking of performance gains from mods like running a bigger CC motor, injectors, turbo's, etc. You're forgetting about performance which goes hand-in-hand with fuel economy like drivetrain resistance, weight, wind resistance, to name a few.

Wow, and i thought I sucked for using a Quaker bulk for one oil change.

I think im gonna get shunned

Thanks for buying that line from RP's marketing dept. Once again, statistical insignificance means that the 0.9% can be due to natural variations in the test that have nothing to do with the oil, so I'm not sure how you can claim it is better. RP is not recommended by any vehicle manufacturer. Vehicle manufacturers, API, SAE have come up with their own standardized testing methods to determine which oil is suitable for your car. Why use RP when you can use something like Mobil1 that is recommended by BMW, Porsche, Corvette as factory fills?


Too bad there is no evidence it performs better.

Did you ever think that maybe the factory wants you to use these products because they have some kind of evil business pact with oil companies and whether they do any good or harm to your motor, they could care less as long as profits roll in?

You're not sure how I can claim it to be better? I'll tell you how, BP's own indepedent study coincidentally proved RP to be better by 0.9%, an insignificant factor due to statistical chance. Here's how my logic works: 0.9% could be on the lowest end of the scale of it's performance. By that logic, RP is truly above and beyond the competition. To back it up, there have been additional 3rd party tests which prove this (you can speculate on whether or not these have been sponsored by RP or not, which is irrelevant considering we'll never know).

Like I said, the 0.9% could be on RP's poorest performing test to date. And all the other tests show its median. Why don't you provide me with 3 source links for scratch and wear testing comparing RP and other brands, depicting how RP performs poorly. I guarantee you will have to spend quite some time to pull out even 1 test showing RP falling behind the competition.

It's really hard to please you. If I give you links and sources to these independent studies, which are not posted on RP's website, you'll just veto it and say it's an extension of RP's marketing dept. Going by your logic, you just can't lose. It's so ignorant and stubborn.

Let the guy use his ultra refined dino oil claiming to be synthetic (mobil1, castrol, etc.).

We all know any true synthetic oil is better. :D

Uh, not really, because the manufacturers will have far more negative goodwill from failing motors or catalytic converters from bad oil than they would from oil company sponsorship. Besides, with extended drain intervals, they are selling less oil than before.

That's a non-sequitur argument. You have no data points showing that it was 0.9%. You just have the studies findings showing that the difference was not statistically significant. As I stated before, you will get different hp measurements every time you do a dyno run, so differences could be nothing to do with the oil.

The absence of evidence does not prove that RP is better or worse than the competition. The only facts that we do know are that RP is not recommended by manufacturers because it is not an oil that meets the specification criteria based on a standardized test method.

You're right, I can't lose. I'm stubborn because science and engineering is about controlling for the variables with very specific test criteria and statistical analysis to measure differences. When engineers build something as critical as a space shuttle, they want to choose parts that meet a specific test spec. They will not chose a part which doesn't meet a required spec but where the company makes non-scientific based claims of superior performance.

Like it or not, Royal Purple is still a good oil. The main points that the BP is telling Royal Purple is that they need to take down their customer anecdotes and their own comments stating things along of the lines of "Unsurpassed" crap that virtually every company says. There's nothing in those tests stating that Royal Purple doesn't do a good job; BP merely recommended them to take down unsubstantiated claims.

While Mobil1 is also a good oil, they still have some questionable products in their lineup. There's a lot of flake going on about their 5w30 synth oil not meeting the minimum wear protection for the Seq IVa test.