5w-30 compared by LSJr - NAPA, Amsoil, RP, ST

[ltslimjim]

I saw yours Ford Boss Me dropped praise too

Lake being so knowledgeable is why this vid is so misleading. I’ve personally started threads at least 2 or 3 times here with Lake vids I thought presented invaluable information. This vid is not one of them because he should be up front that:

Using wear alone does not conclude an oil is good or bad or comparable to another.

The UOA wear numbers of each oil are all within the margin of error of each other. In fact a UOA is not the right tool to compare oils based on wear.

Exactly. misleading video at best. At best. The fact someone like fordbossme runs with it is self-evident proof that Lake’s “conclusions” instead contribute to mere confirmation bias rather than truly teaching others. Dumbing down the video for casual observers runs the risk for this by not sticking to all of the facts. I wonder if it’s just a business choice he has made. He has to know better, right?

 

[burbguy82]

I generally agree, he's a cut above. But he is way off the mark if he even mentions the word "science" and "conclusion" in the same sentence within any video he has made so far.

I dont agree.

The tests he did are conclusive, or at least as conclusive as he can display on a 30 min video.

The results of which, are up for debate as to what it applies to. For the test, and its interval, Napa oil did perform the best, within the same parameters. Will that repeat, yes, under the same conditions with the same oils and same engine. Does that apply to everyones engine, and driving conditions, no.

The issue is, the comments here by some, which extrapolate the results from the tests, like:

"that does not show the performance of the oil in long drain intervals, and therefore the test is worthless"......

No kidding, but that was not the purpose of the test, nor was it a goal set to be proven or disproven from the test. Nowhere in the video does he say "this is the best oil" or "this oil will last longest" or " you should go out today and buy this oil"

I have said something similar before, but who cares what the oil is, or how it looks of smells, what most care about is how a product performs.

The real variable is the engine, and no two are alike nor are they driven the same way under the same conditions, so any test will be "inconclusive".....and to that point, I agree with you.

I liken it to the "Forged in Fire" TV series, when they test the knives. They state "its not what the knife does to the thing, it is what the thing does to your knife".

I would like to see the same test, as he offered in the video, between Amsoil SS, HPL, RP, and Redline, the major boutique oils, although most would likely have a conniption fit and mental breakdown.

 

[4WD]

As much as this group likes to say you can’t compare oils this way has anyone shown a series of identical in engine tests produce inconsistent results? He’s got an engine hooked up to a dyno in a lab, that’s a pretty great environment for repeatability.

Now as the experimenter it’s on him to show this but I’d also ask what evidence to the contrary do we have to be so certain you can’t do this?

Looking at the reports he showed the difference in wear metals 2 hr - 0 hr was
Amsoil: 24 ppm
Super tech: 20 ppm
Royal Purple: 20 ppm
NAPA: 12 ppm

If he ran that engine a bunch of times with a fresh batch of the same oil and found the wear metals only varied by a few ppm and if he took multiple samples from the same run and sent them to the lab and found those results only varied by a few ppm, a difference of 12 ppm would start to look pretty significant.

Personally I’d also like to see going from a known low wear to a high wear oil and then back to the low wear oil to show the wear history isn’t a factor, but again with that kind of setup you could get a handle on that.

If he’s sticking with dyno testing - would be interesting to see a tracer test conclude that the single flush is even enough when you are playing with PPM … and not add new rings to the test
(Albeit that was likely what he was really there to test)
The larger particles test was pretty wise on his part

 

[Glenda W.]

As much as this group likes to say you can’t compare oils this way has anyone shown a series of identical in engine tests produce inconsistent results? He’s got an engine hooked up to a dyno in a lab, that’s a pretty great environment for repeatability.

Now as the experimenter it’s on him to show this but I’d also ask what evidence to the contrary do we have to be so certain you can’t do this?

Looking at the reports he showed the difference in wear metals 2 hr - 0 hr was
Amsoil: 24 ppm
Super tech: 20 ppm
Royal Purple: 20 ppm
NAPA: 12 ppm

If he ran that engine a bunch of times with a fresh batch of the same oil and found the wear metals only varied by a few ppm and if he took multiple samples from the same run and sent them to the lab and found those results only varied by a few ppm, a difference of 12 ppm would start to look pretty significant.

Personally I’d also like to see going from a known low wear to a high wear oil and then back to the low wear oil to show the wear history isn’t a factor, but again with that kind of setup you could get a handle on that.

IMO that would be the beginning of an interesting test. A problem though is it’s still only using one(wear) of many things an oil needs to do well to be considered great.

 

[Pablo]

As much as this group likes to say you can’t compare oils this way has anyone shown a series of identical in engine tests produce inconsistent results? He’s got an engine hooked up to a dyno in a lab, that’s a pretty great environment for repeatability.

Now as the experimenter it’s on him to show this but I’d also ask what evidence to the contrary do we have to be so certain you can’t do this?

Looking at the reports he showed the difference in wear metals 2 hr - 0 hr was
Amsoil: 24 ppm
Super tech: 20 ppm
Royal Purple: 20 ppm
NAPA: 12 ppm

If he ran that engine a bunch of times with a fresh batch of the same oil and found the wear metals only varied by a few ppm and if he took multiple samples from the same run and sent them to the lab and found those results only varied by a few ppm, a difference of 12 ppm would start to look pretty significant.

Personally I’d also like to see going from a known low wear to a high wear oil and then back to the low wear oil to show the wear history isn’t a factor, but again with that kind of setup you could get a handle on that.

Maybe, multiple times, plus not knowing - all blind. Just an outsider fills the sample bottles, outsider fills engine. And another uninvolved person runs the dyno. Even then "wear metals" is incorrect.

 

[4WD]

Maybe, multiple times, plus not knowing - all blind. Just an outsider fills the sample bottles, outsider fills engine. And another uninvolved person runs the dyno. Even then "wear metals" is incorrect.

Don’t forget - he’s selling piston rings, YT, and UOA’s …
The oil is oil

 

[ltslimjim]

Maybe, multiple times, plus not knowing - all blind. Just an outsider fills the sample bottles, outsider fills engine. And another uninvolved person runs the dyno. Even then "wear metals" is incorrect.

It’s a video so far from real world results; reality is not a brief dyno test other than the dyno test itself in a vacuum, and you have commenters and even popular YT personalities having their masses buying into an incorrect take; running with the results out of context. FBM even claims it was Amsoil’s signature series. More shade at Amsoil and boosting his ego; “I was right all along!” Proves how irresponsible Lake is being.

 

[ford250]

LSJR makes videos talking about what he loves and does for a living and doesn’t try to be anything other than himself from what I can tell. No characters or exaggerated personas. He never does click bait titles like Scotty Kilmer for example. And seems to have a good network of people wiling to work with him which says a lot IMO. Some of ya’ll should lighten up. Or maybe even start up your own YT channel about oil and lead the way.

Agree

 

[ATex7239]

I dont agree.

The tests he did are conclusive, or at least as conclusive as he can display on a 30 min video.

The results of which, are up for debate as to what it applies to. For the test, and its interval, Napa oil did perform the best, within the same parameters. Will that repeat, yes, under the same conditions with the same oils and same engine. Does that apply to everyones engine, and driving conditions, no.

The issue is, the comments here by some, which extrapolate the results from the tests, like:

"that does not show the performance of the oil in long drain intervals, and therefore the test is worthless"......

No kidding, but that was not the purpose of the test, nor was it a goal set to be proven or disproven from the test. Nowhere in the video does he say "this is the best oil" or "this oil will last longest" or " you should go out today and buy this oil"

I have said something similar before, but who cares what the oil is, or how it looks of smells, what most care about is how a product performs.

The real variable is the engine, and no two are alike nor are they driven the same way under the same conditions, so any test will be "inconclusive".....and to that point, I agree with you.

I liken it to the "Forged in Fire" TV series, when they test the knives. They state "its not what the knife does to the thing, it is what the thing does to your knife".

I would like to see the same test, as he offered in the video, between Amsoil SS, HPL, RP, and Redline, the major boutique oils, although most would likely have a conniption fit and mental breakdown.

The resulting data can only be considered conclusive for a very limited sample size and scope (eg, one engine that is heavily modified, one grade, four specific oils, during one test with limited parameters.)

Science: the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.

Conclusive: (of evidence or argument) serving to prove a case or theory.

This test can be considered scientific and conclusive, we just have to be realistic on the scope, results and meaning.

 

[Glenda W.]

Again even if accurate and repeatable the wear numbers are such a small piece of a very large picture that makes an oil stand out. There’s no basis to claim an oil is better, worse, or equal to another solely based on this. And if you believe what’s being commented on YouTube and other parts of the web a good portion of Lakes audience now believes the cheap vs expensive oil debate has now proven by science….

 

[burbguy82]

This test can be considered scientific and conclusive, we just have to be realistic on the scope, results and meaning.

That is my point exactly. That is what I meant on extrapolation of the results. You put it in a better way. Some interpret this video as "tell all be all", and that is clearly not the case.

 

[TiGeo]

If you, a BITOGer, had a YT channel and wanted to do an oil video...what would it be? What type of content/testing/etc.?

 

[ford250]

I dont agree.

The tests he did are conclusive, or at least as conclusive as he can display on a 30 min video.

The results of which, are up for debate as to what it applies to. For the test, and its interval, Napa oil did perform the best, within the same parameters. Will that repeat, yes, under the same conditions with the same oils and same engine. Does that apply to everyones engine, and driving conditions, no.

The issue is, the comments here by some, which extrapolate the results from the tests, like:

"that does not show the performance of the oil in long drain intervals, and therefore the test is worthless"......

No kidding, but that was not the purpose of the test, nor was it a goal set to be proven or disproven from the test. Nowhere in the video does he say "this is the best oil" or "this oil will last longest" or " you should go out today and buy this oil"

I have said something similar before, but who cares what the oil is, or how it looks of smells, what most care about is how a product performs.

The real variable is the engine, and no two are alike nor are they driven the same way under the same conditions, so any test will be "inconclusive".....and to that point, I agree with you.

I liken it to the "Forged in Fire" TV series, when they test the knives. They state "its not what the knife does to the thing, it is what the thing does to your knife".

I would like to see the same test, as he offered in the video, between Amsoil SS, HPL, RP, and Redline, the major boutique oils, although most would likely have a conniption fit and mental breakdown.

Your correct and yes I’d love to see a test like this with Redline

 

[burbguy82]

If you, a BITOGer, had a YT channel and wanted to do an oil video...what would it bem What type of content/testing/etc.?

Me?

I would bring the best info, the best way I could.....or....I would do dumb stuff to gain viewership, whichever gained more following and money.

 

[burbguy82]

Your correct and yes I’d love to see a test like this with Redline

Funny really. Most of these YT tests are with over the shelf oil, and when one compares to Rp, they choose the SAE version, not the real stuff. It would be good to see a video on boutique stuff, to see the value in the higher cost. Ill bet they will all perform well, and close to each other.

 

[Glenda W.]

Funny really. Most of these YT tests are with over the shelf oil, and when one compares to Rp, they choose the SAE version, not the real stuff. It would be good to see a video on boutique stuff, to see the value in the higher cost. Ill bet they will all perform well, and close to each other.

That would be interesting!! The real twist would be to sneak in a conventional oil and at the end reveal it also would show similar wear metals.

 

[PontiacHO]

Does Lack Speedo account for the rate of wear per dyno run on this test engine? Using the same engine factors in, even he tested the same oil repeatedly. Folks, it’s whoever pays for their oil to be best. He’s not making these videos out of the kindness of his heart. It’s his living… Don’t forget that Lack Sped hawked Pennzoil for a long time. Do searches for real UOAs here for more revealing results.

 

[levi]

Once upon a time, in a Galaxy far, far away... I was a sales rep for a multi branded oil distributor. Was subject to more than a few seminars from various oil manufacturers. And these were not necessarily presented for or by sales purposes.

The one thing I came away with from all of this - no one agrees on anything when it comes to technical data and analysis. Same data reviewed by 3 or more tribologists, or lubrication engineers, or merely interested parties, will in all likelihood produce an equal number of conclusions and interpretations of meaning.

Nothing has changed, it seems, since the leaving aforementioned Galaxy.

But I love this forum.

 

[OVERKILL]

I dont agree.

The tests he did are conclusive, or at least as conclusive as he can display on a 30 min video.

The results of which, are up for debate as to what it applies to. For the test, and its interval, Napa oil did perform the best, within the same parameters. Will that repeat, yes, under the same conditions with the same oils and same engine. Does that apply to everyones engine, and driving conditions, no.

The issue is the use of UOA's and their accuracy/repeatability. As @dnewton3 said in his comments earlier in the thread:

- these tests ignore the statistical variability regarding "normality" (though he does acknowledge the existence of variation, he does nothing to account for it)
- I'm not a fan of his "total wear metals" method; I don't believe adding data values for separate elements is a good way to understand "wear"
- singular UOAs are NOT by any stretch a proper way to compare/contrast one lube to another; small sample sets are rife with variability which cannot be accurately predicted without decent quantity of data (30 samples min)


If I have a Chronograph with 5% variability and I fire one round of each: Hornady Whitetail, Federal Blue Box, Winchester Western, and the results stack like this:
- Hornady: 2,732fps
- Federal: 2,756fps
- Winchester: 2,714fps

And conclude that the Federal is the fastest. This is the same test, with the same parameters.

Would you describe these results as conclusive?

In fact, technically, the Chronograph test is more direct than a UOA, because you are measuring bullet speed directly, while with a UOA, "wear" is being inferred from parts per million contamination measurement of a lubricant with a tool that's blind to contaminants with a size above ~5 microns.

The UOA approach is more akin to doing a tire wear comparison, but determining wear by measuring the amount of rubber and other tire compound constituents collected on a 4x4' section of the track.

 

[ATex7239]

The issue is the use of UOA's and their accuracy/repeatability. As @dnewton3 said in his comments earlier in the thread:

- these tests ignore the statistical variability regarding "normality" (though he does acknowledge the existence of variation, he does nothing to account for it)
- I'm not a fan of his "total wear metals" method; I don't believe adding data values for separate elements is a good way to understand "wear"
- singular UOAs are NOT by any stretch a proper way to compare/contrast one lube to another; small sample sets are rife with variability which cannot be accurately predicted without decent quantity of data (30 samples min)


If I have a Chronograph with 5% variability and I fire one round of each: Hornady Whitetail, Federal Blue Box, Winchester Western, and the results stack like this:
- Hornady: 2,732fps
- Federal: 2,756fps
- Winchester: 2,714fps

And conclude that the Federal is the fastest. This is the same test, with the same parameters.

Would you describe these results as conclusive?

In fact, technically, the Chronograph test is more direct than a UOA, because you are measuring bullet speed directly, while with a UOA, "wear" is being inferred from parts per million contamination measurement of a lubricant with a tool that's blind to contaminants with a size above ~5 microns.

The UOA approach is more akin to doing a tire wear comparison, but determining wear by measuring the amount of rubber and other tire compound constituents collected on a 4x4' section of the track.

Technically, no. But also kinda yeah, if you set out to find out which one’s faster with the equipment and resources you have at your disposal. Does your example or this LSJR video stand up to rigorous peer review, no. But does it present information in an easily digestible format for mass consumption and provide some entertainment value, I think so.