LSJR Boutique vs OTS shootout

[FlyingTexan]

I understand the cost, and for me/others that are doing it, free from FCP which is about the only way using LM products makes sense b/c as you say, it's not cheap for a somewhat average product. So firstly, I'm not up on all this testing - it seems to me the two things that stood out were the shear test which it did poorly/matches my results when I used it (red circled data points in my table below). I also note the fan-fave Mobil 1 0W40 also returned a v. low ending viscosity but admittedly it's one data point and a dataset doesn't a data point make but that oil is recommended ad-nauseum here. The other was this other TEOST test where it did the best which for turbos would be a good one to do well in (at least as I understand the test). Seems like the tungsten-based friction modifier did well to allow more power and less heat (that one is interesting to me). Still see it as doing well in this but most here seem to value the shear values the most. Yes, in a turbo shear strenght is clearly important but is it really the end-all for daily use vehicles when folks generally only go to 5K miles for a change and you can do the free thing? If I used it again I'd change after every track event b/c free but the HPL has proved out as being the way to go there for me at least for the forseeable future - would be interesting to test it again and see if the heat/power thing is even real/"feelable". Yes, I know, predator blood

View attachment 313693

But you’re comparing intervals with track days against intervals without. You induced a new variable. Why does sheering matter if the other numbers all look good?

 

[FlyingTexan]

I have used some Liqui Moly in the past and liked it, product 4600 5W-30 to be exact. Does this extremely poor sheer test result mean all of Liqui Moly oils are garbage? I have been looking at their 4210 0W-30 oil, (have never purchased it or used it yet) which has some group 4 and the BMW LL-04 rating, which I don't think the Molygen Lake Speed tested does not have. Would anything in the 4210 specs tell you it may do better in the sheer testing? I noticed that the Molygen rated number 1 or two in the other tests, which seems to be practically ignored. I almost appear to be a Liqui Moly fanboy I guess, I try not to be a fanboy of any brand. I do try to do USA owned products, which means I would have to stick to Mobil or Conoco Phillips (Red Line, Kendall etc.) for shelf oils, or Amsoil, HPL and Driven boutiques, which I don't use right now. Anyhow, Liqui Moly is expensive for a mostly group 3 base oil product. I do know, at least in my past experience, they do make some decent stuff, worth the price? maybe not. As long as I am putting stuff out there, I am currently using Motul 8100 X Clean + EFE 5W-30, which I also like. Next, I plan to use either this same oil in their 0W-30 version or somebody else's 0W-30. I already used the Mobil 1 ESP 0W-30, that is off the list for now.

If you change oil frequently then the other numbers don’t really matter. I use AMSOIL Signature Series in my diesel but in my Grenadier I beat on it pretty well and use Molygen and change often (actually right now it’s motul 300v). I think it’s more important to start with your use cases. If you’re not doing extended drain intervals then why bother jumping for an oil that’s designed for it? Nothing can be everything. One oil might do better holding particulates in suspension, one might handle contaminants like moisture better, one might clean better, one might resist sheering better, one might have better NOAK, and one might have much better performance at 10k miles. All most people are doing here is focusing on their use cases. Which I’m 100% doing. And the “best” oils I see from others are clearly not my best. For me the Molygen is great and I’ll be honest, money isn’t a factor. I hate when people talk about what’s best and mention the cost. We’re talking less than a tank of gas in cost between them all for at a minimal 5k of driving.

 

[shortyb]

If you change oil frequently then the other numbers don’t really matter. I use AMSOIL Signature Series in my diesel but in my Grenadier I beat on it pretty well and use Molygen and change often (actually right now it’s motul 300v). I think it’s more important to start with your use cases. If you’re not doing extended drain intervals then why bother jumping for an oil that’s designed for it? Nothing can be everything. One oil might do better holding particulates in suspension, one might handle contaminants like moisture better, one might clean better, one might resist sheering better, one might have better NOAK, and one might have much better performance at 10k miles. All most people are doing here is focusing on their use cases. Which I’m 100% doing. And the “best” oils I see from others are clearly not my best. For me the Molygen is great and I’ll be honest, money isn’t a factor. I hate when people talk about what’s best and mention the cost. We’re talking less than a tank of gas in cost between them all for at a minimal 5k of driving.

Wow, 20 pages. I haven't kept up but with regard to this thought process, I believe this is what @TiGeo was alluding to. First, some DO consider the cost of oil to be important. FCP allows an LM user to lower the overall cost of an oil that some consider overpriced for what it is. Second, shear IS important to those that have fuel dilution or an engine that is hard on an oil, in order to maintain a modicum of film thickness. Which seems to be quite few European ones. Start with a 30wt. that can shear out of grade quickly, then throw on additional degradation with added fuel? Can seriously lower protection even if OCIs are shortened. So yeah, a good majority of use cases are focused on this and numbers CAN matter.

 

[kschachn]

The only way someone can be correct is faulty data? Real world usage produces no results for you?

Learn up on what actually constitutes a valid test yielding meaningful data and we'll discuss it later. You've got a ways to go on that.

 

[kschachn]

If you change oil frequently then the other numbers don’t really matter. I use AMSOIL Signature Series in my diesel but in my Grenadier I beat on it pretty well and use Molygen and change often (actually right now it’s motul 300v). I think it’s more important to start with your use cases. If you’re not doing extended drain intervals then why bother jumping for an oil that’s designed for it? Nothing can be everything. One oil might do better holding particulates in suspension, one might handle contaminants like moisture better, one might clean better, one might resist sheering better, one might have better NOAK, and one might have much better performance at 10k miles. All most people are doing here is focusing on their use cases. Which I’m 100% doing. And the “best” oils I see from others are clearly not my best. For me the Molygen is great and I’ll be honest, money isn’t a factor. I hate when people talk about what’s best and mention the cost. We’re talking less than a tank of gas in cost between them all for at a minimal 5k of driving.

Your adoption of what is meaningful data is apparently highly dependent on your opinion.

 

[buster]

Wondering when/if Lake will go to Amsoil HQ.

 

[buster]

Did a quick search yesterday and found something interesting. Savant came up with TEOST TT which they claim correlates better with turbo charger deposits. In the TEOST TT, high moly oils do well and in some cases better than oils with no moly.

So the bottom line is I wouldn't be overly concerned with HPL or RL's TEOST 33 results. It's inconclusive.

In this test though, they're specifically referring to Molyvan 855. So if you're using multi type moly, these results may not mean as much.


"The TEOST Turbo Bench Test, as Savant is calling the new test method, is an update to the Thermo-oxidation Engine Oil Simulation Test 33C. According to the companys website, the TEOST 33C simulates the effect of engine operating conditions on the oxidation and deposit-forming tendencies of engine oils, particularly in the high-temperature conditions produced in turbochargers."

 

[OVERKILL]

Did a quick search yesterday and found something interesting. Savant came up with TEOST TT which they claim correlates better with turbo charger deposits. In the TEOST TT, high moly oils do well and in some cases better than oils with no moly.

So the bottom line is I wouldn't be overly concerned with HPL or RL's TEOST 33 results. It's inconclusive.

In this test though, they're specifically referring to Molyvan 855. So if you're using multi type moly, these results may not mean as much.


"The TEOST Turbo Bench Test, as Savant is calling the new test method, is an update to the Thermo-oxidation Engine Oil Simulation Test 33C. According to the companys website, the TEOST 33C simulates the effect of engine operating conditions on the oxidation and deposit-forming tendencies of engine oils, particularly in the high-temperature conditions produced in turbochargers."



View attachment 314276

View attachment 314277

View attachment 314278

View attachment 314280

And this I think further underscores the issues with TEOST 33C. Not only is it viewed as inadequate by OEM's to the point that Toyota, Honda and GM have developed their own tests but even the labs that are running it are developing alternatives that better correlate with real world results.

 

[buster]

Here is where i got this from if anone wants to double check what I posted. I did a very quick scan.

https://www.vanderbiltchemicals.com/resources/Friction_Modifiers_in_Engine_Oils_Vol_2.pdf

 

[buster]

Also found this:

"Molyvan® 855 is an excellent oil soluble molybdenum ester/amide friction reducer with antiwear and antioxidant properties that does not contain sulfur or phosphorus"


https://www.vanderbiltworldwide.com/documents/TDS_MOLYVAN_855_Web.pdf

 

[buster]

I think at this point I wouldn't put much faith in TEOST 33. I'd take TEOST 33 with a grain of salt. It may tell you something but it's probably very limited in scope.

 

[ltslimjim]

I think at this point I wouldn't put much faith in TEOST 33. I'd take TEOST 33 with a grain of salt. It may tell you something but it's probably very limited in scope.

At the bare minimum, it fails oils high in certain moly additives that should or could be passing otherwise. A false positive fail?

 

[4wd]

At the bare minimum, it fails oils high in certain moly additives that should or could be passing otherwise. A false positive fail?

D8447 could be closer to inter-cooled/coolant fed (steady-state) temps …

 

[buster]

https://www.tannasking.com/product/teost/

So the change occurred in 2022.

"As engine designs have evolved over the years, particularly turbochargers, the need for an additional modification to the TEOST® platform became evident. ASTM D6335, the original turbocharger bench test, also known as TEOST® 33C, was developed in the early 1990s to screen engine oils by their tendency to form coking deposits within the elevated temperature zones of the turbocharger. While the 33C protocol remains relevant for this purpose, turbocharger deposits that are more oxidative in nature and occur at lower temperatures can also be a problem, driving the need for a lower temperature test that also retains volatile components. The TEOST Turbo® test method and instrument were developed to meet this need.

“With many auto manufacturers choosing to add turbochargers to their vehicles to improve fuel efficiency, we knew there was a need to expand the TEOST® platform to better simulate conditions experienced in these modern turbocharger designs,” says John Bucci, Vice President of Technical Development at The Savant Group. “We are very pleased with the recent news that the TEOST Turbo® was approved and published by ASTM International. Utilizing the Tannas TEOST® instrument for this test will benefit OEMs and oil & additive manufacturers due to its precise, correlative data and the relatively fast testing speed.”

The bench-top design makes the TEOST Turbo® an affordable option for simulating engine operating environments and certain field performance conditions. In addition to the adoption of the TEOST Turbo® into test method D8447, this platform also provides a flexible and powerful research tool with options to apply custom conditions such as adjustable temperature zones, pump speeds, catalytic materials, and other modification options to simulate desired engine operating conditions."

 

[ltslimjim]

Thanks for digging into the research @buster

 

[rstsco]

Wondering when/if Lake will go to Amsoil HQ.

I emailed him: "Are you still planning a trip to Amsoil’s HQ and shooting a video for YouTube?"

He responded: " did that last year. It is the video on Motorcycle oil."

I watched it and it was only about motorcycle oil and their development and testing. Barely a whisper of automobile engine oils, other than some sharing of base stock.

I guess he won't be doing a deep dive on Amsoil's PCMOs.

 

[chris719]

I’d say the wear metal test is pretty decent for determining wear metals

For that to be true, you would have to know the margin of error on the test and if the analytical method even correlates with actual wear in a teardown. You realize that the sample preparation is critical and the method has limits to what kind of particulate sizes it can digest, right? I have seen BMW S65 engines on the forum with consistently good UOA but metal flakes in the filter from the bearings!

 

[Azimuth]

I'm curious how the mid/low SAPS Euro additive package we've seen used in some 0/5W-30 oils (Mobil/Valvoline/Pennzoil/HPL) would fair in the TEOST given that it doesn't seem to have moly. Could this be the way to go for turbo charged engines in the future?

 

[relentless044]

Like I mentioned in my original post AMSOIL Signature Series was consistently great in almost every category. IMO that’s pretty darn impressive. Can’t wait until March for the new and improved formulation!

I know, makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing its in everything, my vg33, 2.7L ecoboost, 7.3 godzilla, looks like a clear winner for whatever you ask it to do, except I just remembered its not in anything, the shelby is running dominator 20w50

 

[53' Stude]

Lake's been teasing the testing of Amsoil Signature Series for a while, but he went much further by testing HPL, Redline, LiquiMoly, Ravenol, Mobil 1, and Driven oils. All tests followed the same method on a dyno.

Glad I don’t and won’t watch this person. Rather talk to David at HPL than him