LSJR Boutique vs OTS shootout

And yet it had the lowest engine dyno wear metal rate, along with a low temperature during those dyno runs, a high peak engine torque, and a really low turbo deposit rating.

If you have a turbocharged engine and want to push it hard, get high performance, and change your oil frequently, all of a sudden it looks like a great choice.
No, it had a marginally different wear rate, in an engine with very low demand (non-DI, non-turbocharged NA V8).

In the turbocharged engines that I do own, I would not want an oil that has 15-18% shear and ends up a 20 grade.
 
The testing goes way beyond taking oil samples. He also tests oil vs water temps' delta, KRL shear, Torque, TEOST, followed up with an oil cost comparison.

In summary: "When it comes to engine oils, there isn't one best oil. All of these oils have different characteristics, and depending on what your application is, one of the chemistries here might be better for you".

I'm surprised that a cost comparison was included at all.

I mean, clearly, if you thought one of these oil's best fit your specific application, you'd buy it.

Why would cost matter?
 
No, it had a marginally different wear rate, in an engine with very low demand (non-DI, non-turbocharged NA V8).

In the turbocharged engines that I do own, I would not want an oil that has 15-18% shear and ends up a 20 grade.
This is my interpretation of it too. The amount of shear compared to oils that are the same price or cheaper in this test completely rules it out for me. I’d rather run the Mobil 1 that was tested where it basically finished middle of the road at everything but didn’t have any one big weak point like that.
 
This is my interpretation of it too. The amount of shear compared to oils that are the same price or cheaper in this test completely rules it out for me. I’d rather run the Mobil 1 that was tested where it basically finished middle of the road at everything but didn’t have any one big weak point like that.
So that means they are using inferior and less shear stable VII.
 
Comparative results for what they're worth..

Wear/oil temp/torque/KRL/TEOST/PDSC/cost

Amsoil-2/2/6/6/2/2/3

Driven-1/1/1/2/5/8/6

HPL-3/4/5/1/6/1/4

Liquimoly-1/2/2/7/1/6/5

Ravenol-2/4/4/5/1/5/8

M1-2/3/3/6/4/4/2

Redline-4/6/8/4/7/7/7

PUP-3/5/7/3/3/3/1
 
And yet it had the lowest engine dyno wear metal rate, along with a low temperature during those dyno runs, a high peak engine torque, and a really low turbo deposit rating.

If you have a turbocharged engine and want to push it hard, get high performance, and change your oil frequently, all of a sudden it looks like a great choice.

As I said in my other comment seeing all these oils not really shear during a 2 hour dyno run makes me curious how much real world use you’d need to match the amount of wear the KRL test produces.
This wear metal comparison is absolutely ridiculous.
1-2ppm is a statistical error. Also, he compares Redline 5W30, which has HTHS of 3.7, which is a higher HTHS than Castrol Edge 5W40, on par with Mobil 1 0W40. RL will create more resistance, more heat, and less performance. HPL No VII has HTHS of 3.4 in the PCMO series. That is almost ACEA A/C3 minimum. LM just lists minimum HTHS and would not be surprised HTHS is just there at 2.9mPas.
 
VII selection is important too. Star-type VII has poor deposit control, but is shear stable. Olefin copolymer VII is better in preventing deposits. It's not always just about the shear stability of a VII.
Just to note… the HPL oil used in this test was the No VII flavor.

On another note, does this mean that HPL’s Premium line has better deposit control than their Premium Plus line? (Olefin vs star VIIs). I’m sure that the overall oil formulation also plays a large role in deposit control.
 
This wear metal comparison is absolutely ridiculous.
1-2ppm is a statistical error. Also, he compares Redline 5W30, which has HTHS of 3.7, which is a higher HTHS than Castrol Edge 5W40, on par with Mobil 1 0W40. RL will create more resistance, more heat, and less performance. HPL No VII has HTHS of 3.4 in the PCMO series. That is almost ACEA A/C3 minimum. LM just lists minimum HTHS and would not be surprised HTHS is just there at 2.9mPas.
True, but you can manipulate COF too, which RL tries to do through the use of high moly. So HT/HS is one thing, but you can also alter COF.
 
Just to note… the HPL oil used in this test was the No VII flavor.

On another note, does this mean that HPL’s Premium line has better deposit control than their Premium Plus line? (Olefin vs star VIIs). I’m sure that the overall oil formulation also plays a large role in deposit control.
Impossible to know unless you test it. XYZ of this and that doesn't tell you anything other than a simple baseline of components. Have to balance everything out from dispersant, detergent, AW, polarity etc. to achieve deposit control formulation. That's why it always comes full circle back to testing.
 
OilPDS KV100VOA KV100used oil analysis KV100HTHSOil temp rankTorque rankTest orderIron ppm
Redline 5W-3011.9cSt12.0cSt11.9cSt3.7cP8817
Pennzoil 5W-3010.3cSt10.2cSt10.1cSt~3.1cP (estimate)7726
Ravenol 5W-3011.1cSt10.7cSt10.8cSt3.25cP6435
LiquiMoly 5W-3010.3cSt10.9cSt10.6cSt2.9cP2244
HPL NVII 5W-3010.54cSt10.1cSt10.1cSt3.4cP5555
Mobil 1 Truck and SUV 5W-3010.0cSt10.4cSt10.0cSt~3.1cP (estimate)4365
Driven 5W-3011.9cSt11.3cSt11.7cSt3.5cP1174
AMSOIL 5W-3010.3cSt10.2cSt10.0cSt3.11cP3685

Decided to put this in a table. I don't follow the "total wear metals" thing, so I've just included iron here. Oils are ranked in terms of order tested, you can see some correlation with both:
1. Iron PPM, is slightly higher for the first two oils tested, then stabilizes.
2. Oil temp, the first three oils all ran the hottest, the lower viscosity and higher shear LM oil deviates from that trend, as does the Driven LM30, but it tracks pretty well with test order.

Was nice to hear the engine has over 7,000 pulls on it, that was one of the questions I would have had if that information wasn't shared. One thing I am curious about is this special "designed to wear fast" camshaft from Comp, which they state can get results in 2hrs (the duration of these runs) vs 100. I'm thinking how that factors into the results relative to the test order. It was installed fresh at the beginning of the previous testing that was done, and it had 24hrs of run-time on it by the time it was done.

Interesting his commentary on the Ravenol DXG having "almost no VII" and yet it's clearly middle of the pack in KRL shear performance, which seems to undermine that claim. It doesn't do appreciably better than Mobil 1 in this respect, and worse than Pennzoil.

It's also interesting to see how KRL performance doesn't really align with the 2hr in service testing. The LM oil actually increased in viscosity via used oil analysis, while it sheared massively in the KRL.

In application, it would seem that the LM was actually (due to shear and HTHS) the lightest oil tested, and this has influenced both oil temperature and torque. The Driven racing oil, despite being the 2nd heaviest, and experiencing viscosity increase, produced the lowest oil temps (though was also the 2nd last oil tested) and most torque which I expect is due to additive package choices made (he notes it's based on SN chemistry as well, which is interesting in this context, though perhaps not influential).
 
I'll take what we can get for testing content.
KRL may not show lowest wear numbers but I think's it's nice to have for longer intervals or at least keeping up visc during regular intervals. Still not watched yet but will soon. Thanks (y)
 
This wear metal comparison is absolutely ridiculous.
1-2ppm is a statistical error. Also, he compares Redline 5W30, which has HTHS of 3.7, which is a higher HTHS than Castrol Edge 5W40, on par with Mobil 1 0W40. RL will create more resistance, more heat, and less performance. HPL No VII has HTHS of 3.4 in the PCMO series. That is almost ACEA A/C3 minimum. LM just lists minimum HTHS and would not be surprised HTHS is just there at 2.9mPas.
We don’t know the experimental error for any of these tests. So call them all close enough to not mean anything and let’s just focus on the KRL test.

How much real world use does it take to match that amount of shear? We also don’t know that and that and until you have some handle on how that test correlates to your engine that result may be meaningful or it might not really matter.
 
Back
Top Bottom