LSJR Boutique vs OTS shootout

[TiGeo]

Not a hater, but stopped watching his last video when he said an oil filter gets more efficient the longer you keep it on. Not sure how that can be defended, but if the kool-aid is in your favorite flavor, drink up.

Isn't that same/how the air filters work? Efficiency gain as it loads up a bit?

 

[Urshurak776]

Isn't that same/how the air filters work? Efficiency gain as it loads up a bit?

Correct, but it does NOT apply to oil filters. @ZeeOSix explained it way better than I ever could.

 

[buster]

Not a hater, but stopped watching his last video when he said an oil filter gets more efficient the longer you keep it on. Not sure how that can be defended, but if the kool-aid is in your favorite flavor, drink up.

No one is perfect. Still a net positive in my book.

One thing I think that gets overlooked is how Lake is not brand loyal at all, which is good. He was using Pennzoil Ultra Platinum, Valvoline Restore and Protect in his van and now HPL. He goes to any lab he's invited to and talks about oil. So at least he appears to be unbiased.

 

[GW.]

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). 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

Yes. To me this seems like the perfect oil for short oci’s on a turbo. Wear and turbo cleanliness strong suits.

 

[altaylar]

I didn’t insinuate that any of them were. But the average HTHS between all 8 oils is 3.2575 or 3.26 rounded. Only two oils had an HTHS of 3.5 or greater. So it can be deduced that you were referring to the Redline with an HTHS of 3.7. Which is a niche market product that I’m comfortable claiming the majority here probably don’t routinely use (or push). Most of the oils recommended here, based on HTHS, are euro oils that hold a plethora of quality approvals.

In statistic, you use "one out of sample" or winsorized average, or some other method to mitigate the outlier effect if you are comparing and outlier to the group average. Especially if your sample is this small. What is the delta HTHS between Pennzoil Ultra Platinum or Molygen vs Redline? Now it does not seem as small as 3.3 vs 3.7, does it? Now the picture is more like redline 5w20 vs 5w30.

@Glenda W. my point is, unfortunately there is a good number of members here, and many with thousands of posts, that HTHS level and engine protection match almost one to one, and sometimes thin oils recommended by the manufacturers will blow your engine as soon as the warranty is over. I think we should all remember from this video that there are multiple functions an oil serves, and often what makes it excel in one, hurts it on another. The usual tradeoff stuff.

And I am saying all these while running 5w40 on a car that spesifies 0w20. But I think my application calls for it, and I am against that blanket statement of "run 2-3 grade higher than your manufacturers recommend because government forces them to do so" argument

 

[altaylar]

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). 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

One of the best tables I have seen in a while. Really detailed, thanks for posting

 

[GW.]

In statistic, you use "one out of sample" or winsorized average, or some other method to mitigate the outlier effect if you are comparing and outlier to the group average. Especially if your sample is this small. What is the delta HTHS between Pennzoil Ultra Platinum or Molygen vs Redline? Now it does not seem as small as 3.3 vs 3.7, does it? Now the picture is more like redline 5w20 vs 5w30.

@Glenda W. my point is, unfortunately there is a good number of members here, and many with thousands of posts, that HTHS level and engine protection match almost one to one, and sometimes thin oils recommended by the manufacturers will blow your engine as soon as the warranty is over. I think we should all remember from this video that there are multiple functions an oil serves, and often what makes it excel in one, hurts it on another. The usual tradeoff stuff.

And I am saying all these while running 5w40 on a car that spesifies 0w20. But I think my application calls for it, and I am against that blanket statement of "run 2-3 grade higher than your manufacturers recommend because government forces them to do so" argument

I agree a balanced formulation is important.


It just seems the other 300 thick vs thin threads would be a better arena for the bickering and or taunts.

 

[ltslimjim]

Isn't that ironic? LOL

On a serious note to your rankings of the winners (Pennzoil Ultra Platinum & AMSOIL Signature Series scoring well across most testing), I had a thought that it seems as if AMSOIL Signature Series is simply a better version of Mobil 1 Truck and SUV in some ways; which we have seen has “similar” blending to boutiques (PAO, ANs with AMSOIL Signature Series/HPL having generous amounts of esters) and another reason many like the ESP lineup as well (which would have been really interesting seeing it tested here instead of T & SUV)

Couldn’t that highlight the key differences in modern oils being more towards their top treat and additive package for end goal results, rather than base oil chasing? (Looking at Valvoline Restore and Protect and its additive doing the piston deposit cleaning, while knowing it’s not an extended drain oil)

Of course, amounts of each type of base oils that get blended is anyone’s guess, but we are aware there is even more import these days to the rest of the oils overall formulation rather than simply chasing base oils. (Unless you really want to extend intervals, and this requires boutiques blending and cost for repeatability & headroom)

 

[ltslimjim]

I would argue Teost is the least valuable, given its sensitivity to Mo, and PDSC (oxidation) being the most valuable. There's a strong correlation between oxidation resistance and turbo coking as oxidation is the first step in coking. Thus, I consider PDSC results to be a better representation of an oil's resistance to not only turbo coking but also varnish, deposits, and sludge in general.

I think you may be right. If HPL in a vacuum is truly cooked, yeah that TEOST test shows what is possible to happen in lab, but in the field they show the most resistance to oxidation in the first place. So, in a test it looks to test poorly, but on the job is it a nothing burger and actually better at deposit resistance than all the rest? What is more likely?

 

[TiGeo]

One of the best tables I have seen in a while. Really detailed, thanks for posting

Hey thanks! I've done a used oil analysis on every (ok...I missed one) oil change since new on this car, thought it would make a good dataset and something fun to track.

 

[scrllock]

Not a hater, but stopped watching his last video when he said an oil filter gets more efficient the longer you keep it on. Not sure how that can be defended, but if the kool-aid is in your favorite flavor, drink up.

the ironic part about that is that in the video he referenced with that comment, they told him specifically that oil filters and air filters behave differently in terms of efficiency. a good editor should have caught that.

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.

I don't think Mobil 1 0w40 was included in this particular test, but it did have one of the lowest shear rates in the KRL test that it was included on. Problem is none of these are standardized and he picks oils almost at random between euro, SP, racing oils, etc.

FCP is nice but it doesn't make any justification for LM given they sell better oils and the price premium is negated by shopping there anyway.

 

[ltslimjim]

It’s no surprise, but I think it’s interesting how this test served to confirm people’s pre-existing biases to some extent. If you were a LiquiMoly user before, then you can sink your teeth into its results with the exception of shear and feel good about what you’re using. If you like Ultra Platinum, this showed you there’s probably no reason to change what you’re doing.

I’ve settled into Mobil 1, and while I don’t use Truck & SUV, these results tell me that, as I already felt, XOM offers a totally quality/reliable choice for a very fair price. The conclusion? You really can’t go wrong.

At the same time, it clearly can make a difference depending on as Lake said several times “application dictates chemistry” for optimal recommendations. @TiGeo moved on from LM to HPL for a regularly tracked and sampled vehicle. He uses UOA as a tool to determine the change was well worth it. If using LM on a shorter interval and not regularly tracking? Superb product for OTS. But there are other factors to consider depending on application. That’s why we’re here.

 

[buster]

On a serious note to your rankings of the winners (Pennzoil Ultra Platinum & AMSOIL Signature Series scoring well across most testing), I had a thought that it seems as if AMSOIL Signature Series is simply a better version of Mobil 1 Truck and SUV in some ways; which we have seen has “similar” blending to boutiques (PAO, ANs with AMSOIL Signature Series/HPL having generous amounts of esters) and another reason many like the ESP lineup as well (which would have been really interesting seeing it tested here instead of T & SUV)

Couldn’t that highlight the key differences in modern oils being more towards their top treat and additive package for end goal results, rather than base oil chasing? (Looking at Valvoline Restore and Protect and its additive doing the piston deposit cleaning, while knowing it’s not an extended drain oil)

Of course, amounts of each type of base oils that get blended is anyone’s guess, but we are aware there is even more import these days to the rest of the oils overall formulation rather than simply chasing base oils. (Unless you really want to extend intervals, and this requires boutiques blending and cost for repeatability & headroom)

I agree. And there are now more novel components being used as we've seen from the articles shared where the Mobil 1 engineer talks about using chemistry from other industries. I think in general you get what you pay for, however, it's how it's all put together in the end that matters most.

 

[buster]

I think you may be right. If HPL in a vacuum is truly cooked, yeah that TEOST test shows what is possible to happen in lab, but in the field they show the most resistance to oxidation in the first place. So, in a test it looks to test poorly, but on the job is it a nothing burger and actually better at deposit resistance than all the rest? What is more likely?

There are instances where bench testing doesn't correlate at all to real world results. Happens quite a bit. Valvoline talked about that in the LSJ video. Modeling that doesn't predict what was observed in the field etc.

Years ago Amsoil would publish TFOUT data for proof of their oxidation resistance. Yet in the real world we saw SS go up a grade. Wasn't necessarily bad, but it was an example where field wasn't matching TFOUT. TFOUT is a simple bench testing that is better for prescreening oils.

I would argue that AMSOIL Signature Series is every bit if not more oxidation resistant than HPL despite the PDSC numbers. Take a look at the IIIH test which tests for oxidation thickening and deposits. AMSOIL Signature Series results are really impressive.

Some oils barely pass this. Amsoil crushed even when doubling it. Mobil 1 too.

I'd love to see HPL put through a double length IIIH test.

https://blog.amsoil.com/amsoil-crus...Om0ic3OF8L5057WkczKgxNLQ001w2L3saAkf5EALw_wcB

 

[Pablo]

There are instances where bench testing doesn't correlate at all to real world results. Valvoline talked about that in the LSJ video. Modeling that doesn't predict what was observed in the field etc.

Years ago Amsoil would publish TFOUT data for proof of their oxidation resistance. Yet in the real world we saw SS go up a grade. Wasn't necessarily bad, but it was an example where field wasn't matching TFOUT.

I would argue that AMSOIL Signature Series is every bit if not more oxidation resistant than HPL despite the PDSC numbers. Take a look at the IIIH test which tests for oxidation thickening and deposits. AMSOIL Signature Series results are as good as I've ever seen.

Some oils barely pass this. Amsoil crushed even when doubling it. Mobil 1 too.

https://blog.amsoil.com/amsoil-crus...Om0ic3OF8L5057WkczKgxNLQ001w2L3saAkf5EALw_wcB

People see HPL TBN and drool. That seems kind of obvious to me.

 

[Wireman1987]

and i will continue to run Mobil 1 and Pennzoil Platinum/or ultra. without even clicking play

 

[buster]

I'm genuinely curious why HPL uses so much Mg/Ca. TBN is sort of a relic. A lot of SA. Does it help keep engines cleaner? Does all that added detergent service a specific purpose? The Mg is what I think gives it good TBN retention. Maybe it's that high to handle severe use cases in which oxidation limits are reached so you want that added detergent to handle any potential large TAN increases.

Mobil 1 ESP is now using "Next Gen Cleaning agents". Probably in other Mobil 1 lines too if I had to guess (Mobil 1 Advanced Clean?). AMSOIL Signature Series doesn't use as much Ca/Mg as HPL yet keeps engines extremely clean including pistons.

Mobil 1 Advanced Clean has 70% less detergent than HPL yet can clean per XOM and is good for 20k miles (strong oxidation resistance).

 

[TiGeo]

So in the end, folks will like what they like/not like what they don't like regardless of testing and data, shocker. Get off my lawn.

 

[ltslimjim]

I'm genuinely curious why HPL uses so much Mg/Ca. TBN is sort of a relic. A lot of SA. Does it help keep engines cleaner? Does all that added detergent service a specific purpose? The Mg is what I think gives it good TBN retention. Maybe it's that high to handle severe use cases in which oxidation limits are reached so you want that added detergent to handle any potential large TAN increases.

Mobil 1 ESP is now using "Next Gen Cleaning agents". Probably in other Mobil 1 lines too if I had to guess (Mobil 1 Advanced Clean?). AMSOIL Signature Series doesn't use as much Ca/Mg as HPL yet keeps engines extremely clean including pistons.

Mobil 1 Advanced Clean has 70% less detergent than HPL yet can clean per XOM and is good for 20k miles (strong oxidation resistance).

Interesting. @Pablo Didn’t the original flavor of Signature Series in the 2000s (0w-30 iirc?) have a much higher Calcium content at the time? (Back when SL/SM was still the API spec of that time)

 

[OVERKILL]

To be fair, the engine they are testing is quite vanilla. I am quite sure if they used a turbo boxer instead with a leaning set up to emulate g forces, things would be different.

But i think this is a great video probing there is more to an oil than just HTHS. It bothers me to see the oil recommendations in a way that "everyone should up their grade and choose the thickest oil of that grade"

Which oils tested had low HTHS?