Lake Speed Jr. Reviews Several 0w-40's

Joined
Jun 28, 2017
Messages
6,804
Location
Show Me


Video Title: I Tested 3 Formulas of Mobil 1, Then Picked Pennzoil

Reviews several of Mobil's 0w-40's, Along w/Pennzoil Ultra Platinum, stating they are all different & that the 0w-40 Supercar is different from 0w-40 ESP. He curently used 5w-30 Pennzoil Ultra Platinum & decides to use 0w-40 Pennzoil Ultra Platinum in his "Wombat" Porsche to see how they compare. Reminds, us that a UOA can only see particles 10 microns & below. Best to use two drains of the same oil, what he calls a "Double Flush", allows us to see a more accurate results in a UOA since leftover oil in the sump can cause some unwanted additive competition possibly increasing wear & misleading results. Also, Goes over these oils using FTIR spectrum tool to see their differences of base oil.

Pennzoil Ultra Platinum 0w-40 (Non Euro) Link
Mobil Supercar 0w-40 GM Dexos R
Mobil ESP x3 0w-40 ACEA C3 - API SN (Euro)
Mobil FS 0w-40 ACEA A3/B4 - API SP (Euro)
 
Last edited:
Actually for an ICP it is much smaller than 10 microns, and it's based on other factors as well:

 
...Best to use two drains of the same oil, what he calls a "Double Flush", allows us to see a more accurate results in a UOA since leftover oil in the sump can cause some unwanted additive competition possibly increasing wear & misleading results...
This won't go over well with those who look for differences between fills.
 
I didn’t realize the Super Car 0w40 has a similar formula to the previous FS 0w40! I always liked the PAO/Ester formula. Good info IMO.
This video's ESP x3 API SN was similar to SuperCar formulation. I do want to point out to our readers their is a new replacement product called 0w-40 ESP x4 that now meets ACEA C3 & API SP this video did not test.
This won't go over well with those who look for differences between fills.
May not know any better & is a good reminder to "let the dust settle" sort of speak to get a more accurate UOA reading.
 
Last edited:
I have a distinct disdain for "tests" like those LSJr runs because there is essentially no ability to claim something is better/worse than another lube based on one or two UOAs. And I mean none, zilch, nada, zippo ... To be fair to him, he's not the only person who puts way too much trust in a few UOAs; it's a problem most everyone practices and that includes most BITOGers.

UOAs are great tools, but they are so very much misunderstood, misused, and misinterpreted. The technology itself (in this case, ICP) is very robust and known to be fairly accurate when properly set up and calibrated. But that's only part of the story.

The problem comes with having a sample size of one (or a small set). This is very, very poor methodology; it completely ignores the topics of product variation, process variation, and gauge R&R. It is of the utmost importance to not only understand averages, but the variation of anything you test/track.

Looking at one or two UOAs and thinking one can claim something is better (or not) is a fool's errand and really illuminates the limitations of LSJr's understanding of the UOA as a tool. Whereas you can look at a singular UOA and compare/contrast it to other large groups (macro analysis), it is completely useless to take a few samples from one source and think you understand the standard deviation of the application in micro analysis. As the sample size drops off, the reliability of the stdev calculation (accuracy of result) plummets; going essentially parabolic in its degradation in both positive and negative directions with fewer and fewer samples. It takes a minimum of 30 samples to even remotely get a decently reliable stdev value; and 50 would be better.

For him to claim "statistically something significant" happened in a couple UOAs is, without any doubt, an indication of his total lack of understanding of statistics and proper testing methodology. I abhor this kind of summary; it's just junk science.


I would remind folks to read this to understand where UOAs can help us, and where they can be misleading.


.
 
Last edited:
I didn’t realize the Super Car 0w40 has a similar formula to the previous FS 0w40! I always liked the PAO/Ester formula. Good info IMO.
I used to buy the old original 0-40 formula in the 12Qt garage boxes but I haven't even seen the SC formula on the shelves locally.
The original formula was kinda a boutique oil at regular prices and I ran it in all 5 of or vehicles, now I'm looking for something else.
 
I have a distinct disdain for "tests" like those LSJr runs because there is essentially no ability to claim something is better/worse than another lube based on one or two UOAs. And I mean none, zilch, nada, zippo ... To be fair to him, he's not the only person who puts way too much trust in a few UOAs; it's a problem most everyone practices and that includes most BITOGers.
.
I suspect his trust in UOAs come more from the financial incentives in owning a company that sells one of the most expensive UOA kits on the market. For instance, his suggestion in doing a UOA on a brand new consumer car engine...pointless. Might as well pee in a cup and put a scoop of peanut butter in the sample container because there's so much muck and gunk in that first drain you can't get the least bit of actionable information out of it.

Testing has a place, but testing just for the sake of testing is foolish. If you have a very low pretest probability of a condition existing, and you perform a test that has low specificity, you run an ultra high risk of having a false positive -- which will lead you to make decisions that can be much worse than doing nothing at all.
 
I used to buy the old original 0-40 formula in the 12Qt garage boxes but I haven't even seen the SC formula on the shelves locally.
The original formula was kinda a boutique oil at regular prices and I ran it in all 5 of or vehicles, now I'm looking for something else.
I used up my stash long ago. Looks like the price of super car is at a point where a boutique is a better option.
 
Or just go with Mobil Delvac 0W40, which is a proven product, licensed and imo, better than the 0W40s tested in the video.
Yes delvac esp 0w-40 is a phenomenal oil with its 4.1 hths and its 14.6 kv100 is similar to any other 15w-40 with a 4.1 hths as well yet still has a low vii of 176. It's just hard to get and very pricey. The 5w-40 is a lot more common and cheaper but a bit less good but not bad. 3.8 hths with 13.8 kv100. Same -48 pour point with a vii of 169.
 
I have a distinct disdain for "tests" like those LSJr runs because there is essentially no ability to claim something is better/worse than another lube based on one or two UOAs. And I mean none, zilch, nada, zippo ... To be fair to him, he's not the only person who puts way too much trust in a few UOAs; it's a problem most everyone practices and that includes most BITOGers.

UOAs are great tools, but they are so very much misunderstood, misused, and misinterpreted. The technology itself (in this case, ICP) is very robust and known to be fairly accurate when properly set up and calibrated. But that's only part of the story.

The problem comes with having a sample size of one (or a small set). This is very, very poor methodology; it completely ignores the topics of product variation, process variation, and gauge R&R. It is of the utmost importance to not only understand averages, but the variation of anything you test/track.

Looking at one or two UOAs and thinking one can claim something is better (or not) is a fool's errand and really illuminates the limitations of LSJr's understanding of the UOA as a tool. Whereas you can look at a singular UOA and compare/contrast it to other large groups (macro analysis), it is completely useless to take a few samples from one source and think you understand the standard deviation of the application in micro analysis. As the sample size drops off, the reliability of the stdev calculation (accuracy of result) plummets; going essentially parabolic in its degradation in both positive and negative directions with fewer and fewer samples. It takes a minimum of 30 samples to even remotely get a decently reliable stdev value; and 50 would be better.

For him to claim "statistically something significant" happened in a couple UOAs is, without any doubt, an indication of his total lack of understanding of statistics and proper testing methodology. I abhor this kind of summary; it's just junk science.


I would remind folks to read this to understand where UOAs can help us, and where they can be misleading.


.
I do not think it's his misunderstanding, but him marketing UOA services he sells.
 
Yes delvac esp 0w-40 is a phenomenal oil with its 4.1 hths and its 14.6 kv100 is similar to any other 15w-40 with a 4.1 hths as well yet still has a low vii of 176. It's just hard to get and very pricey. The 5w-40 is a lot more common and cheaper but a bit less good but not bad. 3.8 hths with 13.8 kv100. Same -48 pour point with a vii of 169.
I can buy a 5 gallon pail of 0w40 Delvac for C$150 which works out to about $6 USD/quart. That engine oil and other industrial fluids and lubricants are found in equipment costing up to millions of dollars and in service for thousands of hours.
That lowers the bar for over priced Barbie car oil drained after 200 hours or less.
Delvac CK-4/SP is now available in 5w30, 10W30 and 15W40 and should put the lubricant industry on notice.

LSJr would never test Delvac 0W40 against the others in this video because he’s chicken.
 
Last edited:
I can buy a 5 gallon pail of 0w40 Delvac for C$150 which works out to about $6 USD/quart. That engine oil and other industrial fluids and lubricants are found in equipment costing up to millions of dollars and in service for thousands of hours.
That lowers the bar for over priced Barbie car oil drained after 200 hours or less.
Delvac CK-4/SP is now available in 5w30, 10W30 and 15W40 and should put the lubricant industry on notice.
Wow that cheap for 5 gals up in canada. Here it's 250 usd. I've seen delvac 1300 ck/sp only in 15w-40 so far. I'd buy the 10w-30 version for my newer truck if it was the same price and availability.
 
100% sure he said ESP. I forwarded to the relevant bit....


Please start from time stamp 9:35. LSJ said. "The old European Car formula was also a PAO/Ester blend just like this Mobil Supercar oil is..." I think LSJ mixed up the old FS and the ESP as he essentially mentioned both at the same time. And if you go to Mobil's website, the ESP is also API SP rated, not SN (https://www.mobil.com/en-us/passenger-vehicle-lube/pds/na-xx-mobil-1-esp-x4-0w-40). With that being said, the ESP has also changed its formula from ESP x 3 to ESP x 4, and he may be comparing the old ESP x 3 which is no longer available as per Mobil's own site.
 
Back
Top