Yes and we’ve validated certain aspects to be incorrect.
LSJR Boutique vs OTS shootout
- Thread starter rstsco
- Start date
Noted.
If we can get a TEOST result for Valvoline Restore and Protect it can maybe give us a better idea of how relative the test is. If Valvoline Restore and Protect can clean deposits, and prevent them from forming, how will it perform on the TEOST and how relevant will it be?
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2023
- Messages
- 1,647
Hard to say. TEOST 33C seems to just measure the likelihood of an oil to break down, oxidize, and polymerize at high heat. It doesn't cycle temperature, which might give the oil time within an optimal solubility window to re-dissolve deposits.If we can get a TEOST result for Valvoline Restore and Protect it can maybe give us a better idea of how relative the test is. If Valvoline Restore and Protect can clean deposits, and prevent them from forming, how will it perform on the TEOST and how relevant will it be?
I think it is fairly likely that Valvoline Restore and Protect may not show any stand-out results if the test doesn't create the conditions under which its chemistry activates. I don't know though, this is all speculation. Eager to see the results.
Edit: If they're using TEOST MHT, then that cycles temp. Not sure which they use.
Great points.
This Stribeck curve info ties into the chart in post 498. The reason the friction in an engine making big HP (which means high loads on moving parts like the dyno engine they used for the data in post 498) can make more HP with thicker viscosity is because the level of friction decreases more in the boundary and mixed lubrication realms (due to more film thickness) than the increase in the oil sheering friction in the hydrodynamic lubrication realm from the viscosity increase.
Less friction between rubbing parts in the boundary and mixed realms will also mean less wear. Lower HP and low engine loads will show less drastic differences between viscosity use, so another reason that more demanding use conditions like track use, heavy towing, etc will benefit from using higher viscosity. And a higher viscosity will always give more wear protection headroom (more film thickness) regardless of the use conditions.
Less friction between rubbing parts in the boundary and mixed realms will also mean less wear. Lower HP and low engine loads will show less drastic differences between viscosity use, so another reason that more demanding use conditions like track use, heavy towing, etc will benefit from using higher viscosity. And a higher viscosity will always give more wear protection headroom (more film thickness) regardless of the use conditions.
Last edited:
The high powered engine scenario is more true to your statement the lower the rpm of operation. Higher rpm promotes better journal centricity and faster transition of the rings and piston skirts from boundary to EHD/HD lubrication regimes. In engines turning higher rpm, the scale moves to the right. A Pro Stock engine, making ~3 hp/ci naturally aspirated at 10,000+ rpm, makes more power on 0W-8 than 10W-30. When that 0W-8 is heated to 180+°F, yet more power is found. This is a stark contrast to a high powered diesel turning 3500 rpm at most.
If the engine is stock, this is not as relevant. It's like the 0W-20 vs 5W-30 debate within a lot of modern car circles. Some people probably imagine the 0W-20 as point C and going to a 5W-30 makes it to point D or even point A. In reality, the 0W-20 is likely point A and the 5W-30 is closer to point B.
Of course this is looking at it from purely a friction standpoint. The viscosity can also affect ring seal which affects power as well. If a stock(ish) engine makes more power on a higher viscosity oil, it's unlikely to be due to friction and more likely to be due to improved ring seal.
The friction amount in the mixed and hydrodynamic lubrication realms depend on many factors - viscosity, load and relative speed of the moving surfaces. You would have to hold two of those factors constant while changing the third, and do that for all three factors to see the affect of each on the level of friction. Of course the operational points on the Stribeck curve's x-axis move to the right as the RPM increases (other factors constant) because a higher relative speed of parts increases the film thickness between them, and that is true for any engine regardless of the HP being made.
And what is the actual real time oil viscosity (HTHS) in both cases at operating temps? At some point, if the real time viscosity is too low, the friction level is going to increase and cause more friction and power loss. Chip in the LSJr video concluded that more viscosity and film thickness made more power. Was it all from better ring sealing? ... hard to say it was all from ring sealing, but based on the Stribeck curve it could have also resulted in less friction at the same time. A high powered diesel engine turning at 3500 RPM is going to lose power too if the friction level goes up due to an inadequate film thickness.
Yes, I pointed out that lower HP and lower loads won't show as drastic of a change. Points C & D are specific to the mixed lubrication, and points A & B are specific to the hydrodynamic lubrication. A higher viscosity oil, even going from xW-20 to xW-30, while keeping speed and load constant, will make both points C and A move to the right on the curve because there is more film thickness between the moving parts (Hersey No. increased), which will decrease rubbing friction and reduce wear.
Yes, the Stribeck curve is only looking at friction as a function of viscosity, speed and load ... so not accounting for other things that oil viscosity may affect like ring sealing. Nor looking at what the AF/AW tribofilm affect difference between oils are in boundary and mixed lubrication may be. Lots of factors going on, and friction between moving parts is one of those factors. If an engine is losing HP with thinner oil then it's likely due to increased friction from lack of film thickness, and probably also some less ring sealing. What Chip presented in the chart in post 498 concludes that the engine made more T & HP with thicker oil (he indicated more film thickness too) when the oil was cooler and the oil pressure higher (due to the higher viscosity). If the engine loads are really high in an engine like the dyno engine LSJr uses to collect this data, the friction level could increase substantially if the film thickness decreases far enough.
Last edited:
So does all the major oil companies. Wear is wear. If under the same testing conditions one item wears less than another then that still counts for something. Doesn't count for everything under every temp load and use case but there is a lot of useful info gain from it.
I wouldn't know. I don't use either. I use CAT. So long as it's consistent testing
100%. Doing short OCI I don't really care so much about NOAK or shear. They're nice though but not what's deciding.
I do too on basic wear metals, they don't do gasoline fuel dilution for obvious reasons. I have a huge CAT engine re manufacture facility with a modern oil lab. It is about 4 miles away from my house.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked