Lake Speed Junior High Zinc Oil new video

[buster]

But that’s not the point. A simple spectrographic analysis is just that, a measure of those (mostly dissolved) metals that can be measured. It is highly influenced by multiple significant variables which highly influence the result - especially in the “real world” examples that are endlessly and breathlessly posted here as some kind of absolute proof. An ASTM test procedure is not the same, nor is any other controlled environment. Even a race is far more controlled than what is posted here. It certainly occurs over a much shorter interval and conditions.

Of course, but it does tell you something. It does show wear metals, viscosity control, TAN, TBN etc. And from that data you can tell to some degree what oil is holding up better in your engine.

If I run consecutive oils back-to-back repeatedly under as close to consistent conditions as possible and notice deviations from one brand to the other, that is telling me something. Now one can easily come to the wrong conclusion. I fully agree. I also agree that comparing oils via UOA's is very challenging at best due to the things you mentioned.

 

[OVERKILL]

LSJ told me via msg that they were able to correlate UOA engine wear with teardown engine wear. That's enough for me to believe UOA's are valid tools.

Lake is also pretty brand agnostic, which I appreciate.

Which I think I've already addressed in my previous response to this, no? Doug Hillary also tracked UOA wear metals in his extensive fleet testing, and used those numbers as condemnation points, but this was also a fleet of identical engines operated the same way on a single lubricant, over millions of kilometers.

I don't think anybody is saying UOA's aren't valid tools, so I'm not sure where that's coming from? But they are often misused or far too much read into the results. Terry Dyson was also famous for "reading the tea leaves" on UOA's, though most of that was from before my time on here.

You've previously used the F1 example, and I think that again just underscores that in controlled conditions with a known lubricant in a known application with extensive history that you can correlate UOA results with actual performance. But that doesn't translate to Joe Blow tossing TGMO into his Camry, driving 5,000 miles, dumping it, putting in PP and because the TGMO had 2ppm less iron, concluding that the TGMO is the superior lubricant that produces less wear.

 

[buster]

Which I think I've already addressed in my previous response to this, no? Doug Hillary also tracked UOA wear metals in his extensive fleet testing, and used those numbers as condemnation points, but this was also a fleet of identical engines operated the same way on a single lubricant, over millions of kilometers.

I don't think anybody is saying UOA's aren't valid tools, so I'm not sure where that's coming from? But they are often misused or far too much read into the results. Terry Dyson was also famous for "reading the tea leaves" on UOA's, though most of that was from before my time on here.

You've previously used the F1 example, and I think that again just underscores that in controlled conditions with a known lubricant in a known application with extensive history that you can correlate UOA results with actual performance. But that doesn't translate to Joe Blow tossing TGMO into his Camry, driving 5,000 miles, dumping it, putting in PP and because the TGMO had 2ppm less iron, concluding that the TGMO is the superior lubricant that produces less wear.

Yeah I think we agree more than we disagree. I personally wouldn't fret over one oil showing minor differences in wear to another. I look at UOAs mostly for viscosity and just contaminants etc. But I do place some value on the wear metals too.

Also, I'm not trashing the boutique brands. HPL and RL are top notch oils that spare no expense. However I personally do like data and validation. And I honestly think it sucks that Amsoil is the only one providing industry standard test results. But I also know how expensive it is.

I also think the majors make very good oils too.

 

[OVERKILL]

Even the ASTM IVB looks at PPM of wear.

View attachment 284253

The Sequence IVB Test uses a Toyota engine with dual overhead camshafts, direct-acting mechanical lifter valvetrain system. The original intent for the new test was to be a direct replacement for the Sequence IVA. Due to inherent differences in valvetrain system design between the Sequence IVA and IVB engines, it was necessary to alter existing test conditions to ensure adequate wear was produced on the valvetrain components to allow discrimination among the different lubricant formulations. A variety of test conditions and wear parameters were evaluated in the test development. Radioactive tracer technique (RATT) was used to determine the wear response of the test platform to various test conditions. To reduce test variability, the “Golden Stand” concept was introduced, requiring every Sequence IVB test stand to be identical and single-sourced. The final test conditions were selected, and lubricant discrimination, test repeatability and reproducibility were demonstrated in testing at two laboratories. The wear parameter selected for evaluation of lubricant performance was the intake lifter volume loss.

 

[buster]

I always liked this from Machinery Lubrication:

"In conclusion, used oil analysis is a great tool, but you must understand how to properly manipulate the data and interpret the results. You must know not only the averages but also if there are any abnormalities embedded in those averages and how large the standard deviation is.

Unfortunately, you’ll never know how many abnormalities are present, nor if they have been pre-screened for you, because most oil analysis services do not perform this extra filtering. You can take solace in the fact that if your results are near or less than “universal average,” you’re probably in good shape. You are, in essence, “normal.”

https://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/30383/engines-oil-analysis

 

[kschachn]

I always liked this from Machinery Lubrication:

"In conclusion, used oil analysis is a great tool, but you must understand how to properly manipulate the data and interpret the results. You must know not only the averages but also if there are any abnormalities embedded in those averages and how large the standard deviation is.

Unfortunately, you’ll never know how many abnormalities are present, nor if they have been pre-screened for you, because most oil analysis services do not perform this extra filtering. You can take solace in the fact that if your results are near or less than “universal average,” you’re probably in good shape. You are, in essence, “normal.”

https://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/30383/engines-oil-analysis

I’d say it’s equally if not more important how the data is obtained. When I worked in a research lab the PhD mathematicians could easily spot poor data collection (or an invalid premise) when they were properly analyzing your data.

 

[buster]

I think we all agree that 1. It's very tricky and not a good thing to use UOA's to compare oils. 2. Nothing beats a tear down or RATT testing.

My overall point was if wear metals do spike, it's not imaginary and you may have an issue. I never would think that a $30 UOA is going to reveal the best oil to me.

 

[OVERKILL]

I always liked this from Machinery Lubrication:

"In conclusion, used oil analysis is a great tool, but you must understand how to properly manipulate the data and interpret the results. You must know not only the averages but also if there are any abnormalities embedded in those averages and how large the standard deviation is.

Unfortunately, you’ll never know how many abnormalities are present, nor if they have been pre-screened for you, because most oil analysis services do not perform this extra filtering. You can take solace in the fact that if your results are near or less than “universal average,” you’re probably in good shape. You are, in essence, “normal.”

https://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/30383/engines-oil-analysis

Yes, that's an excellent summation and very much inline with my own view of the tool.

I do UOA's primarily just to confirm that everything looks OK; that nothing jumps out. I've also been working on extended drains with HPL, so I think they add some value there. Of course there's also the entertainment angle, which I think everybody here is invested in to some degree, we like to see the test results, even if they prove to not provide anything actionable.

 

[Glenda W.]

Let’s say we give Napa Synthetic the “round” for a few less ppm wear metals. Now lets move on to engine/piston cleanliness, oxidation resistance, shear stability etc etc. all the way to round 12. Lake is not providing all the data necessary to crown a winner, yet we continue to deal with the YouTube educated here making claims based on the “Lake Effect”.

 

[OVERKILL]

Let’s say we give Napa Synthetic the “round” for a few less ppm wear metals. Now lets move on to engine/piston cleanliness, oxidation resistance, shear stability etc etc. all the way to round 12. Lake is not providing all the data necessary to crown a winner, yet we continue to deal with the YouTube educated here making claims based on the “Lake Effect”.

Exactly. This is why the OE testing protocols are a body of tests that must be passed in order to obtain an approval, not a "run a UOA and choose the lowest iron" rubber stamping exercise.

 

[The Critic]

I have a lot of respect for Lake, generously sent him Youtube Thanks a few times.

He also used a picture that I posted on this forum and used it in one of his videos.

Pictures I had originally posted: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/post-your-latest-oil-change.108957/post-5277586

 

[Jetronic]

Is the TEOST still relevant? I don't know. I think it has some merit. Look what Amsoil discovered with RL years ago...who would have thought a highly PAO/POE based oil would fail the test.

Does it matter? No idea. But if I spend a good amount of money on a turbo charged engine I'd like to know how good the oil is at protection turbo charger deposits. Show me.....

View attachment 284249

Pretty sure that was due to the extremely high amount of moly in Red Line oils. the winning Castrol product has very little if any.

 

[buster]

I guess I never got hung up or even noticed LSJ making recommendations based on just UOA's. I like the data she's shared which includes going to Valvoline's Engine lab to get scoop on VRP and also providing some baseline testing including shear stability among different grades of oils.

But this all comes full circle back to validation for which only meeting specifications can give you that. If UOA's don't then there is no way to know other than if your oil meets a specification and if the company gives what % they exceed it by.

I see no other way. Which leads me back to maybe the pro Euro crowd is right. You kind of get the best of both worlds - more demanding specs but also full certification that you met/passed it.

Torco has an excellent webiste and they really do a nice job going into their philosophy. But even that brand has no validation at all. It's really taking a risk they know what they're doing and they worked it all out via their additive suppliers.

This is why I'm pretty selective with boutique brands. I know I can trust HPL, RL and Amsoil. Amsoil provides a lot of good testing data. The other two have great reputations based on experience and staff they have.

 

[Glenda W.]

I guess I never got hung up or even noticed LSJ making recommendations based on just UOA's. I like the data she's shared which includes going to Valvoline's Engine lab to get scoop on VRP and also providing some baseline testing including shear stability among different grades of oils.

But this all comes full circle back to validation for which only meeting specifications can give you that. If UOA's don't then there is no way to know other than if your oil meets a specification and if the company gives what % they exceed it by.

I see no other way. Which leads me back to maybe the pro Euro crowd is right. You kind of get the best of both worlds - more demanding specs but also full certification that you met/passed it.

Torco has an excellent webiste and they really do a nice job going into their philosophy. But even that brand has no validation at all. It's really taking a risk they know what they're doing and they worked it all out via their additive suppliers.

This is why I'm pretty selective with boutique brands. I know I can trust HPL, RL and Amsoil. Amsoil provides a lot of good testing data. The other two have great reputations based on experience and staff they have.

As you posted before from Lingenfelter. These oils are torture tested.

 

[buster]

Pretty sure that was due to the extremely high amount of moly in Red Line oils. the winning Castrol product has very little if any.

You just bought a new car. $80k. Turbo. Are you going to run Red Line or HPL with high moly knowing 1. they both use high moly which may reflect poorly on TEOST. 2. neither one are certified.

 

[buster]

As you posted before from Lingenfelter. These oils are torture tested.

View attachment 284259

I have to say that's a great endorsement for Amsoil. There was a video of the lead guy saying they tested about 5 different brands. He made the point that they all did well, but they did notice differences with Amsoil. Also note they're not using Amsoil Euro oils (not that they would in a GM engine but still).

 

[Glenda W.]

I have to say that's a great endorsement for Amsoil. There was a video of the lead guy saying they tested about 5 different brands. He made the point that they all did well, but they did notice differences with Amsoil. Also note they're not using Amsoil Euro oils (not that they would in a GM engine but still).

Yep. It’s one thing to be approached by an oil company for sponsorship. It’s another to have the capability to test all oils and approach the best oil company.

 

[buster]

It's always been a love/hate with Amsoil for me. Go to any forum or site and the Amsoil army will come at you with half-truths blazing. If you can look beyond that and some of their past marketing flops, they make a very good product.

Could be even better maybe if they cut the middleman out.

 

[OVERKILL]

I see no other way. Which leads me back to maybe the pro Euro crowd is right. You kind of get the best of both worlds - more demanding specs but also full certification that you met/passed it.

Yes, and this goes for additive packages that are pre-approved too IMHO, which is what HPL uses, but then internally tests and top treats the final product and doesn't send it through the certification process.

I'm more comfortable starting with an LL-01, 229.5, 502 00/505 00, 229.5, A40 additive package from say Infineum, that then gets blended with PAO/AN/Ester with some FM top treat, validated via testing, than I am with something that starts with some generic GF-6 add pack that somebody goes hog on and then recommends for every approval under the sun.

 

[DirectRejection]

You just bought a new car. $80k. Turbo. Are you going to run Red Line or HPL with high moly knowing 1. they both use high moly which may reflect poorly on TEOST. 2. neither one are certified.

My answer is yes, Sir.