Which engine oil gives best protection for a highmileage NSX

[NSXGMS]

"Regardless, I think you have said in so many ways that the crew chief for team NSXGMS HPDE racing has made up his mind, and at this point no one short of Soichiro Honda will likely change it. Clearly, everyone should be using the 10W30 spec with the factory oil filters and crush waters without exception before you have an aneurysm.

Quite the opposite in fact. I would be willing to switch to 100w oil if there were evidence, expert opinion or experience that indicated it was the most ideal choice but no one, including you, has presented anything that would indicate Honda's recommendation of 30wt was not the best weight to use under all circumstances in a stock-internals NSX motor.

If it was so obvious, as you suggest, that 30wt wasn't the best choice under certain circumstances please point me in the right direction. All I've seen is lots of people disagreeing with me with nothing concrete to back it up, including you. I have yet to see something other than amateur opinions and gereralized theories that support the practice of deviating from 30wt.

Obviously many of your references are really eluding to my comments on the recent track oil thread. :

I have never even seen this track oil thread.

 

[john@johnhudakracing]

Quite the opposite in fact. I would be willing to switch to 100w oil if there were evidence, expert opinion or experience that indicated it was the most ideal choice

If it was so obvious, as you suggest, that 30wt wasn't the best choice under certain circumstances please point me in the right direction.

Fair enough. Actually, I am not sure if you read it but I thought the link swerve posted was very supportive and informative as to some preliminary reading.

I have never even seen this track oil thread.

I see. There were several recent discussions on this apparently contentious issue. :tongue: :biggrin:

http://www.nsxprime.com/forums/showthread.php?t=117084
http://www.nsxprime.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124613

 

[LJSB]

amateur opinions and gereralized theories

Nailed it right on the head and it's just not this thread or this topic.

 

[john@johnhudakracing]

amateur opinions and gereralized theories

Nailed it right on the head and it's just not this thread or this topic.

Hey- if you guys want factory pro opinions, then maybe you guys should start talking to some. No need to get it second-hand. Obviously the problem isn't the information, it is the source and this is really just about club penis pecking order. As I suggested, maybe go talk to HPD instead of [insert tuner/club weenie] next time. I doubt any of them will care to deal and argue with you for hours on end over what the factory owners manual says about engine oil for the track, but it is worth a try.

 

[NSXGMS]

Hey- if you guys want factory pro opinions, then maybe you guys should start talking to some. No need to get it second-hand. Obviously the problem isn't the information, it is the source and this is really just about club penis pecking order. As I suggested, maybe go talk to HPD instead of [insert tuner/club weenie] next time. I doubt any of them will care to deal and argue with you for hours on end over what the factory owners manual says about engine oil for the track, but it is worth a try.

Again, you're really coming down hard for someone who can't even point to a link or give a quote or expert opinion stating you're right.

You seem to be taking this personally when I just want to know why you and several others here are so sure I shouldn't be putting the weight Honda recommends in my car. Not one person that has claimed I'm nuts has posted anything to support their position yet continue to say I'm wrong. At least I can point to the Honda manual. Is the manual gospel? Of course not. I never said it was. But I have seen nothing else on the topic that would suggest I or anyone else deviate from the manual's recommendation.

I'm not going to root through three threads to find something you say is there--just copy and paste the pertinent info here and I will be happy to look at it and change my tune immediately if it supports your position to my satisfaction. In the time it took you to write those posts that have no data or references you could have copied and pasted some links, data or at least the names and credentials of the people you've spoken with that support your position. Even dropping names would be adequate for me.

If the practice is as obviously beneficial as you suggest it is the data and references should be plentiful and quickly found.

 

[LJSB]

Obviously the problem isn't the information, it is the source and this is really just about club penis pecking order.

???????????????????????

 

[NSXGMS]

I took the initiative and did your research for you--apparently it was far too tough for people to simply copy and paste some statements.

Apparently Shad @ CT recommends a higher viscosity than 30wt for most track applications on a stock-internals NSX motor and so does Nick Eustace.

These two opinions alone are enough to convince me that it is likely beneficial to run a higher viscosity than 30wt for track applications.

If the folks who were suggesting I was wrong were aware of these two opinions I'm sure they would have been posted but they weren't which tells me that no one had any data to back up their statements until I found it for them.

So to all that suggest I'm ignorant, argumentative and stubborn I have just bent over backwards to prove myself wrong and am glad to have done it. I'm only after the truth and simply expect people who make statements and claims or disagree to offer some data or opinions to support them.

 

[john@johnhudakracing]

In the time it took you to write those posts that have no data or references you could have copied and pasted some links, data or at least the names and credentials of the people you've spoken with that support your position. Even dropping names would be adequate for me.

I posted links, and I dropped plenty of names on this thread, including Niffenegger at HPD in recognition of the high-bar to challenge discerning enthusiast minds on nsxprime. :wink:

I'm not going to root through three threads to find something you say is there--just copy and paste the pertinent info here and I will be happy to look at it and change my tune immediately if it supports your position to my satisfaction.

I took the initiative and did your research for you--apparently it was far too tough for people to simply copy and paste some statements.

If the folks who were suggesting I was wrong were aware of these two opinions I'm sure they would have been posted but they weren't which tells me that no one had any data to back up their statements until I found it for them.

Glad to hear you decided to take the initative and search/read before replying.

So to all that suggest I'm ignorant, argumentative and stubborn I have just bent over backwards to prove myself wrong and am glad to have done it.

Apparently Shad @ CT recommends a higher viscosity than 30wt for most track applications on a stock-internals NSX motor and so does Nick Eustace. These two opinions alone are enough to convince me that it is likely beneficial to run a higher viscosity than 30wt for track applications.

Sounds like cooler heads have prevailed. Glad to hear you found an answer on track oil from someone with qualifications that were acceptable to you. You learned something new today, and that's really all that matters.

 

[LJSB]

There's a big difference between the oil needs of the OP and HPD.

Want to learn about lubricants, oil, viscosity and how it relates to engines and racing? Listen to Bill Maxwell.
BTW that's who the folks at HPD listen to as well.:wink:

 

[Ski_Banker]

I took the initiative and did your research for you--apparently it was far too tough for people to simply copy and paste some statements.

Apparently Shad @ CT recommends a higher viscosity than 30wt for most track applications on a stock-internals NSX motor and so does Nick Eustace.

These two opinions alone are enough to convince me that it is likely beneficial to run a higher viscosity than 30wt for track applications.

If the folks who were suggesting I was wrong were aware of these two opinions I'm sure they would have been posted but they weren't which tells me that no one had any data to back up their statements until I found it for them.

So to all that suggest I'm ignorant, argumentative and stubborn I have just bent over backwards to prove myself wrong and am glad to have done it. I'm only after the truth and simply expect people who make statements and claims or disagree to offer some data or opinions to support them.

In so many ways...wow.

 

[swerve2007]

If the folks who were suggesting I was wrong were aware of these two opinions I'm sure they would have been posted but they weren't which tells me that no one had any data to back up their statements until I found it for them.

thank you, we were blind....
edit: in all reality it is kind of obvious that an oem manual would only cover recommendations for street driving/conditions as nsx was sold as a street legal vehicle. you can't call it a bible.

 

[NSXGMS]

thank you, we were blind....
edit: in all reality it is kind of obvious that an oem manual would only cover recommendations for street driving/conditions as nsx was sold as a street legal vehicle. you can't call it a bible.

That may or may not be true but nobody posted anything specific indicating that there was reason to deviate from the manual. The only reason I clung to the manual's recommendation is because nobody posted anything else contradicting it.

This includes John who only posted (in this thread) the HPD home page link which is useless and dropped names of Le Mans car techs who's experience with stock-internals NSX motors is presumably limited or nonexistent.

I don't understand how anyone could be so sure about something and not be able to even post a single reference to support it. Statements like "It's obvious" are laughably ignorant and obtuse. It's obviously not obvious since I was backing up people's claims for them. Perhaps it's not me who has to search/read before replying. The onus to research is on the maker of the claim.

And BTW, there was plenty of solid data and opinion in the search I performed stating that there was no reason to deviate from 30wt but the opinions of the two people I mentioned carry more weight in my opinion for various reasons. A very strong argument could still be made that 30wt is the ideal weight for a tracked stock-internals NSX motor so again the consensus is far from obvious.

 

[john@johnhudakracing]

Want to learn about lubricants, oil, viscosity and how it relates to engines and racing? Listen to Bill Maxwell.

Right. Next time I go to setup a car corrale / club lunch I'll make sure to put thou father on the invite list. I have not yet heard about the benefits of running a fully synthetic motor oil in my sports car.

This includes John who only posted (in this thread) the HPD home page link which is useless and dropped names of Le Mans car techs who's experience with stock-internals NSX motors is presumably limited or nonexistent.

I've been waiting for this line to pop-up.

What was I thinking? Lee is racing lowly Civic SI's in SSB at run-offs this year. Greg just works on Porsches. Neither could possibly have the cross domain expertise to assist you with engine oil in your almighty Acura NSX Supercar at an HPDE. Worse still, they could be over-qualified.

so again the consensus is far from obvious.

Sounds like the debate will rage on. Maybe you'll just have to wait until the final episode.

Captains Log. Star Date. 08232.009

"We have crash landed on Epsilon-NSXGMS during a poker run. The life is primitive but strangely curious. Concerned, our medical team has examined their rectums and conluded that they seem unusually tight. We will use detailers mist to hold them off and await rescue from star fleet."

 

[LJSB]

Right. Next time I go to setup a car corrale / club lunch I'll make sure to put thou father on the invite list. I have not yet heard about the benefits of running a fully synthetic motor oil in my sports car.

My father is dead 13 years and if you know where to send the invite I'd sure like to get the address as I've often wondered how things worked out.:biggrin:

 

[john@johnhudakracing]

My father is dead 13 years and if you know where to send the invite I'd sure like to get the address as I've often wondered how things worked out.:biggrin:

Blasphemy! There can be only one! Speaking of thou father, I think we should all take a moment of pause on this thread to give thanks too thou real father...

"Dearly-Beloved. We are gathered together on NSXPRIME to give thanks to the 8th wonder of the world, the Acura NSX Supercar. As presiding pastor today, it is my honor to deliver this eulogy in honor of our dearly departed companion, Soichiro Honda. While nothing can bring him back, each of us can best honor his image by honoring his cars."

Now Ken Sax will deliver an excerpt from Psalm 4-4 - Maintenance Schedule.
"API Service Grade: SG, SAE viscosity: 10 W-30 recommended in temps above 0 degrees. Fuel Efficient oil: Identified by the words, “Energy Conserving II” Spark Plugs. NGK PFR6G-11......"

 

[swerve2007]

Statements like "It's obvious" are laughably ignorant and obtuse. It's obviously not obvious since I was backing up people's claims for them. Perhaps it's not me who has to search/read before replying. The onus to research is on the maker of the claim.

the only laughable part is the way you constantly turn things around to blame anyone but yourself for this rant. if you READ what i wrote it said that the reason why you would NOT find that info in the manual was because nsx was sold as a street car therefore manual info ONLY APPLIES TO STREET CONDITIONS- get it?, pretty OBVIOUS to me and everyone else. nowhere in that post i am trying to convince you what to use. you are blinded by your own self-righteusness, everyone was patient and nice to you when you constantly attack our knowledge when in fact you were wrong all along. and btw, i did give you a shortcut to a scientific document explaining oil behavior at different temps.

 

[NSXGMS]

the only laughable part is the way you constantly turn things around to blame anyone but yourself for this rant. if you READ what i wrote it said that the reason why you would NOT find that info in the manual was because nsx was sold as a street car therefore manual info ONLY APPLIES TO STREET CONDITIONS- get it?, pretty OBVIOUS to me and everyone else. nowhere in that post i am trying to convince you what to use. you are blinded by your own self-righteusness, everyone was patient and nice to you when you constantly attack our knowledge when in fact you were wrong all along. and btw, i did give you a shortcut to a scientific document explaining oil behavior at different temps.

So I guess that's why there are many expert opinions out there suggesting not to deviate from 30wt for the NSX such as Mobil 1 and Redline techs among others?

Again, I'm not sure why you and everyone else are so hung up on my adherence to the manual when I only did so because it was the only reputable and specific indicator anyone could point to that specifically addressed oil weight for NSX motors in any conditions.

Would you also say that Honda's fuel recommendations are automatically null and void at the track since the manual only "applies to street conditions"? They might be but I'm not going to deviate from that unless there's some evidence suggesting I do so.

If there's adequate specific data or expert opinion that contradicts the manual I'll deviate from it in an instant.

 

[swerve2007]

Again, I'm not sure why you and everyone else are so hung up on my adherence to the manual when I only did so because it was the only reputable and specific indicator anyone could point to that specifically addressed oil weight for NSX motors in any conditions.
.

again, you don't get it even when it is clearly spelled out- it is not your adherence to the manual, you were arguing that everyone is wrong because it is not in the manual, regardless of what 'data' you were provided, until you finally decided otherwise after shad set you straight. aparently even when proven so you can never be doubted. and thats the point i am making- nothing to do with oil, gasoline or whatever scenario you are going to produce next.

 

[NSXGMS]

again, you don't get it even when it is clearly spelled out- it is not your adherence to the manual, you were arguing that everyone is wrong because it is not in the manual, regardless of what 'data' you were provided, until you finally decided otherwise after shad set you straight. aparently even when proven so you can never be doubted. and thats the point i am making- nothing to do with oil, gasoline or whatever scenario you are going to produce next.

No, this isn't true at all. Maybe you took it that way but I never said nor do I believe the manual must be adhered to at all times. I don't believe that and never did and you won't be able to find me saying it.

However, since the manual was the only piece of postable data anyone had that's what I'm going to go by and it does carry a lot of weight. People were saying I was foolish to suggest only using 30wt for the NSX when they couldn't post anything other than a general viscosity theory. That's not enough to convince anyone, IMO, to deviate from a manual.

The opinion of multiple experienced stock-internals and AM internals NSX engine builders like Shad and Nick Eustace who have seen the results of different oil weights specifically on NSX engines both on and off the track is enough for me to deviate from the manual.

The general opinions of Mobil 1 and Redline techs is not enough to make me deviate from the manual either and they suggest 30wt.

 

[Ski_Banker]

No, this isn't true at all.

Now we know what is located at the end of the internet. NSXGMS making the above logic statement, which restarts the whole internet over again. :tongue:

 

[BATMANs]

I did several months of research on oils trying to determine if there was a better oil. I primarly was looking at Royal Purple and Redline.

What I discovered, is that oils, both dino and synthetic, are vastly different, in both their basestock and their additives. These differences contribute to differences in performance.

The API classifies oils into five different groups.

Group I base oils are the least refined of all of the groups. They are usually a mix of different hydrocarbon chains with little or no uniformity. While some automotive oils use these stocks, they are generally used in less demanding applications.

Group II base oils are common in mineral based motor oils. They have fair to good performance in the areas of volatility, oxidation stability, wear prevention and flash/fire points. They have only fair performance in areas such as pour point and cold crank viscosity. Group II base stocks are what the majority of engine oils are made from. 3000 mile oil changes are the norm.

Group III base oils are subjected to the highest level of refining of all the mineral oil stocks. Although not chemically engineered, they offer improved performance in a wide range of areas as well as good molecular uniformity and stability. By definition they are considered a synthesized material and can be used in the production of synthetic and semi-synthetic lubricants. Group III is used in the vast majority of full synthetics or synthetic blends. They are superior to group I and II oils but still have limitations. Some formulations are designed for extended oil changes. AMSOIL XL Motor Oils, Castrol Syntec and many others fall into this category.

Group IV are polyalphaolefins (PAO) which are a chemically engineered synthesized basestocks. PAOs offer excellent stability, molecular uniformity and performance over a wide range of lubricating properties. AMSOIL SAE Synthetic Motor Oils and Mobil 1 primarily use group IV basestocks. PAO is a much more expensive basestock than the highly refined petroleum oil basestock of Group III.

Group V base oils are also chemically engineered stocks that do not fall into any of the categories previously mentioned. Typical examples of group V stocks are Esters, polyglycols and silicone. Redline uses an ester basestock.

In the 90s, Mobil filed suit against Castrol for falsely advertising Syntec oil as synthetic, when in fact it contained a Group III, highly hydroprocessed mineral (Dino) oil, instead of a chemically synthesized (group IV or V) basestock. Due to the amount that the mineral oil had been chemically changed, the judge decided in Castrol's favor. As a result, any oil containing this highly hydroprocessed mineral (Dino) oil (currently called Group III basestock by the American Petroleum Institute) can be marketed as a synthetic oil. Since the original synthetic basestock (polyalphaolefin or PAO) is much more expensive than the Group III basestock, most of the oil blenders switched to the Group III basestock, which significantly increased their profit margins.

When I was trying to decide between Royal Purple and Redline, I discovered AMSOIL. What impressed me about AMSOIL was that it used the same basestock as the stock Mobil 1 (Group IV PAO basestock), but used oil analysis reports showed AMSOIL used higher levels of detergents and anti-wear additives. This was somewhat confirmed when Mobil 1 came out with their Extended Performance Mobil 1. When Mobil 1 came out with this new product, at the time they claimed that it had about 50% more detergent and anti-wear additives than the regular Mobil 1.

What turned me off to Royal Purple were several poor used oil analysis reports I reviewed, and the fact that they did not say on their website what type of basestock they used. Other companies such as Redline, Mobil 1, and AMSOIL were very up front with their basestock, so I wondered what Royal Purple was trying to hide.

My research indicated to me that Redline was (and still is) a very good oil, but I was somewhat concerned that its basestock was Group V, an ester basestock, and I'd read a few bad reports on the ester's effects on seals in the Corvette transmission.

Now, I'm heading towards Amsoil.

 

[nsxotic911]

I did several months of research on oils trying to determine if there was a better oil. I primarly was looking at Royal Purple and Redline.

What I discovered, is that oils, both dino and synthetic, are vastly different, in both their basestock and their additives. These differences contribute to differences in performance.

The API classifies oils into five different groups.

Group I base oils are the least refined of all of the groups. They are usually a mix of different hydrocarbon chains with little or no uniformity. While some automotive oils use these stocks, they are generally used in less demanding applications.

Group II base oils are common in mineral based motor oils. They have fair to good performance in the areas of volatility, oxidation stability, wear prevention and flash/fire points. They have only fair performance in areas such as pour point and cold crank viscosity. Group II base stocks are what the majority of engine oils are made from. 3000 mile oil changes are the norm.

Group III base oils are subjected to the highest level of refining of all the mineral oil stocks. Although not chemically engineered, they offer improved performance in a wide range of areas as well as good molecular uniformity and stability. By definition they are considered a synthesized material and can be used in the production of synthetic and semi-synthetic lubricants. Group III is used in the vast majority of full synthetics or synthetic blends. They are superior to group I and II oils but still have limitations. Some formulations are designed for extended oil changes. AMSOIL XL Motor Oils, Castrol Syntec and many others fall into this category.

Group IV are polyalphaolefins (PAO) which are a chemically engineered synthesized basestocks. PAOs offer excellent stability, molecular uniformity and performance over a wide range of lubricating properties. AMSOIL SAE Synthetic Motor Oils and Mobil 1 primarily use group IV basestocks. PAO is a much more expensive basestock than the highly refined petroleum oil basestock of Group III.

Group V base oils are also chemically engineered stocks that do not fall into any of the categories previously mentioned. Typical examples of group V stocks are Esters, polyglycols and silicone. Redline uses an ester basestock.

In the 90s, Mobil filed suit against Castrol for falsely advertising Syntec oil as synthetic, when in fact it contained a Group III, highly hydroprocessed mineral (Dino) oil, instead of a chemically synthesized (group IV or V) basestock. Due to the amount that the mineral oil had been chemically changed, the judge decided in Castrol's favor. As a result, any oil containing this highly hydroprocessed mineral (Dino) oil (currently called Group III basestock by the American Petroleum Institute) can be marketed as a synthetic oil. Since the original synthetic basestock (polyalphaolefin or PAO) is much more expensive than the Group III basestock, most of the oil blenders switched to the Group III basestock, which significantly increased their profit margins.

When I was trying to decide between Royal Purple and Redline, I discovered AMSOIL. What impressed me about AMSOIL was that it used the same basestock as the stock Mobil 1 (Group IV PAO basestock), but used oil analysis reports showed AMSOIL used higher levels of detergents and anti-wear additives. This was somewhat confirmed when Mobil 1 came out with their Extended Performance Mobil 1. When Mobil 1 came out with this new product, at the time they claimed that it had about 50% more detergent and anti-wear additives than the regular Mobil 1.

What turned me off to Royal Purple were several poor used oil analysis reports I reviewed, and the fact that they did not say on their website what type of basestock they used. Other companies such as Redline, Mobil 1, and AMSOIL were very up front with their basestock, so I wondered what Royal Purple was trying to hide.

My research indicated to me that Redline was (and still is) a very good oil, but I was somewhat concerned that its basestock was Group V, an ester basestock, and I'd read a few bad reports on the ester's effects on seals in the Corvette transmission.

Now, I'm heading towards Amsoil.

This was pretty much the exact same conclusion I had when I had done studies on Mobil 1, RP, Amsoil, RLI and others.

Mobil 1 is "good enough" for most applications.

Amsoil is better than "good enough" for pretty much all applications.

Redline is on par with Amsoil, +/-, EXCEPT their tranny oil - which actually can sludge up trannys. Most people don't know/admit/accept that.

RP is a mixed bag all around. It's not bad, but it's the #'s that count, and their true numbers show no better, and sometimes 'worse' than Mobil 1.
-In other words, it's not worth more $$ than Mobil 1 imo. If you want to spend big bucks on oil, go with Amsoil, Redine or Renewablelube.com

 

[ralph cerbone]

My father is dead 13 years and if you know where to send the invite I'd sure like to get the address as I've often wondered how things worked out.:biggrin:

is this for real,some of these guys need a guinea backhand ,i'am sure you know what i mean !!!!!!

 

[4mulacar]

I did several months of research on oils trying to determine if there was a better oil. I primarly was looking at Royal Purple and Redline.

What I discovered, is that oils, both dino and synthetic, are vastly different, in both their basestock and their additives. These differences contribute to differences in performance.

The API classifies oils into five different groups.

Group I base oils are the least refined of all of the groups. They are usually a mix of different hydrocarbon chains with little or no uniformity. While some automotive oils use these stocks, they are generally used in less demanding applications.

Group II base oils are common in mineral based motor oils. They have fair to good performance in the areas of volatility, oxidation stability, wear prevention and flash/fire points. They have only fair performance in areas such as pour point and cold crank viscosity. Group II base stocks are what the majority of engine oils are made from. 3000 mile oil changes are the norm.

Group III base oils are subjected to the highest level of refining of all the mineral oil stocks. Although not chemically engineered, they offer improved performance in a wide range of areas as well as good molecular uniformity and stability. By definition they are considered a synthesized material and can be used in the production of synthetic and semi-synthetic lubricants. Group III is used in the vast majority of full synthetics or synthetic blends. They are superior to group I and II oils but still have limitations. Some formulations are designed for extended oil changes. AMSOIL XL Motor Oils, Castrol Syntec and many others fall into this category.

Group IV are polyalphaolefins (PAO) which are a chemically engineered synthesized basestocks. PAOs offer excellent stability, molecular uniformity and performance over a wide range of lubricating properties. AMSOIL SAE Synthetic Motor Oils and Mobil 1 primarily use group IV basestocks. PAO is a much more expensive basestock than the highly refined petroleum oil basestock of Group III.

Group V base oils are also chemically engineered stocks that do not fall into any of the categories previously mentioned. Typical examples of group V stocks are Esters, polyglycols and silicone. Redline uses an ester basestock.

In the 90s, Mobil filed suit against Castrol for falsely advertising Syntec oil as synthetic, when in fact it contained a Group III, highly hydroprocessed mineral (Dino) oil, instead of a chemically synthesized (group IV or V) basestock. Due to the amount that the mineral oil had been chemically changed, the judge decided in Castrol's favor. As a result, any oil containing this highly hydroprocessed mineral (Dino) oil (currently called Group III basestock by the American Petroleum Institute) can be marketed as a synthetic oil. Since the original synthetic basestock (polyalphaolefin or PAO) is much more expensive than the Group III basestock, most of the oil blenders switched to the Group III basestock, which significantly increased their profit margins.

When I was trying to decide between Royal Purple and Redline, I discovered AMSOIL. What impressed me about AMSOIL was that it used the same basestock as the stock Mobil 1 (Group IV PAO basestock), but used oil analysis reports showed AMSOIL used higher levels of detergents and anti-wear additives. This was somewhat confirmed when Mobil 1 came out with their Extended Performance Mobil 1. When Mobil 1 came out with this new product, at the time they claimed that it had about 50% more detergent and anti-wear additives than the regular Mobil 1.

What turned me off to Royal Purple were several poor used oil analysis reports I reviewed, and the fact that they did not say on their website what type of basestock they used. Other companies such as Redline, Mobil 1, and AMSOIL were very up front with their basestock, so I wondered what Royal Purple was trying to hide.

My research indicated to me that Redline was (and still is) a very good oil, but I was somewhat concerned that its basestock was Group V, an ester basestock, and I'd read a few bad reports on the ester's effects on seals in the Corvette transmission.

Now, I'm heading towards Amsoil.

You have performed extremely good research and are at a high level of understanding of oils, very few people understand that the vast majority of synthetic oils avialable for sale to the general public are indeed synthetic blends with a dino oil basestock. I was impressed reading your entry, I have had to diseminate over 5000 oil reports from my years as an analyst/techician for a predcitive maintnance group where my specialty was current signature analysis before I started managing the group.

The STLE (Society of Tribologists and Lubriaction Engineers)are where the techicians and engineers in my group earned there certifications from and as an amatuer racer this group of individuals have been an alliance to my racing efforts that I could not afford to not listen to.

I currently exclusivly use Red Line products in my Atlantic(avatar) but have had to ensure all the seals are compatable for the additives and basestock parameters I face. You are on the right track in your research and should you have an oil failure I sure you are definitly equiped to garner a proper conclusion. My hat is off to you for making the effort to understand what you are talking about!

 

[LJSB]

is this for real,some of these guys need a guinea backhand ,i'am sure you know what i mean !!!!!!

Hey, it's the internet, whatta ya gonna do?