LSJR Calls Out YouTube AI-generated Video Referencing Him

[hemioiler]

Really? LOL! You think a 20 weight will stay in grade in a Camaro that is used at the track? Not if anything other than a drag strip. You´re putting LSJr´ś statement to a ridiculous test there and I am confident he would never run a 20 weight at the track in a car like that. I don´t believe it would stay in grade. But if it did, I bet his statement would hold true.

You misread my message.

 

[mojoe]

That has already been shown to you here or elsewhere on this site. It’s been discussed ad nauseam. Keeping parts separated is what prevents wear and the most significant method of doing that is through film thickness. This is directly related to the HT/HS of the oil. A higher HT/HS is better at keeping the parts separated under

However, never does the wear curve deflect downward as HT/HS is decreased. Yes, other factors come into play such as boundary layer additives but wear never decreases due to a lower viscosity in the oil.

I haven't seen one single study that shows that there is no conclusive evidence to support the idea that there is a possibility that a higher viscosity oil may not always produce less wear. You are simply citing evidence for the claim that higher viscosity results in less wear.

 

[mojoe]

I’m so confused as to how you’re defining and determining the measurement of wear here.

What do you mean by "measurement"?

 

[edyvw]

That is about 5 track days worth of track driving, and 5k mile OCI? Massive!
And over here I change my oil every 4 track days or 1500 miles with 300v

Yeah. But when I did 1 1/2hrs session, I did not stop at all. It was a super hot day, and everyone left the track, except me. So I stayed on track until closing, alone. Tires did not like it, wore out rear pads that day completely, and regardless that at 5,100ft, especially with such high temperature (101°F), cooling off the engine is really hard, the oil cooler did its job, and I have never seen the oil temperature go above 265°F.
Interestingly, whether I am on track or not, I have to add 0.5qt of oil in 5k, and consumption did not increase at all.

 

[kschachn]

I haven't seen one single study that shows that there is no conclusive evidence to support the idea that there is a possibility that a higher viscosity oil may not always produce less wear. You are simply citing evidence for the claim that higher viscosity results in less wear.

You’re new here, look around. It’s been beat to death in multiple threads. But based on your posting so far I’m not sure it will help.

 

[kschachn]

What do you mean by "measurement"?

How is wear being measured?

 

[mojoe]

How is wear being measured?

Exactly what do you mean by "being"? I am confused.

 

[mojoe]

You’re new here, look around. It’s been beat to death in multiple threads. But based on your posting so far I’m not sure it will help.

There have been tons of claims, with tons of evidence and studies, supporting that higher viscosity results in less wear. If you think I am not aware of that, you have completely misunderstood what I am saying.

 

[altaylar]

I'm not an engineer, so when you say things like "boundary lubrication regime, while a major factor in mixed and mixed/boundary" I have no idea what you are talking about. While it sounds very impressive, I don't think I have to know that in order to determine whether or not higher viscosity oils, based on Glenda's use of "viscosity", may not always show less wear than lower viscosity oils.

Actually I think those things are good to learn anyways, and quite fascinating I have to say. But then, I am an engineer so it might be me being a nerd.

The idea is, and I am massively simplifying here, you want oil between the metal surfaces coming close to each other to make sure there is no (metal to metal) contact. Imagine putting some melted butter on your finger tips, and rubbing them each other gently. They will slide easier, because it will be butter that sticked to your thumb sliding on butter that sticked to your index finger. Low friction (easy slide) and no damage to your skin. Call this hydrodynamic lubrication (even though it does not make much sense on this example). But there will be times when you won`t have the luxury of having the lubricant between the mating surfaces and then metal to metal contact happens, which you call boundry lubrication. Then hopefuly even if the oil is not there, it has left some residue that sticked to the material that still softens the contact.

So high HTHS oil will help making it less likely to fall into boundry lubrication situation. But once you are there, other things, such as antiwear additives, will play an important role. If, for example, you are using a HPL oil with billions ppm molly and trillion ppm zddp, the chances are the damage/wear will be far less then what it would be with a low saps oil, all else equal

 

[Nessism1]

Here we go again, a LSJ video where people here parse every word he says, and look to complain.

What he said, is that a 0W-20 oil, as long as it's "in grade", shows no more wear during UOA, than a 30 grade oil. That's all. Basis for his claim is huge numbers of UOA tests performed.

Complain all you want that UOA doesn't properly reflect wear protection. Failing a better metric, it's the best we have.

 

[kschachn]

Exactly what do you mean by "being"? I am confused.

Yes I agree.

 

[kschachn]

Here we go again, a LSJ video where people here parse every word he says, and look to complain.

What he said, is that a 0W-20 oil, as long as it's "in grade", shows no more wear during UOA, than a 30 grade oil. That's all. Basis for his claim is huge numbers of UOA tests performed.

Complain all you want that UOA doesn't properly reflect wear protection. Failing a better metric, it's the best than most of us have.

Yes, under most circumstances in most engines an oil with an HT/HS of 2.6 or so is adequate to prevent excessive wear. That’s exactly what the science shows. However, here we have the claim that it can provide superior wear protection to an oil with a higher HT/HS.

 

[Nessism1]

Yes, under most circumstances in most engines an oil with an HT/HS of 2.6 or so is adequate to prevent excessive wear. That’s exactly what the science shows. However, here we have the claim that it can provide superior wear protection to an oil with a higher HT/HS.

Theory is well and good. LSJ is simply saying, that UOA tests don't bear out the claim. That's all.

Personally, it's hard for me to believe that an oil with a lower HTHS will provide similar protection, but at the same time, I'm not here to tell anyone LSJ is lying. The proof is in the testing, and he has the data.

I'm perfectly willing to accept this at face value. That said, given an extreme use case, I'm going thicker regardless, because science supports it.

 

[altaylar]

Yes, under most circumstances in most engines an oil with an HT/HS of 2.6 or so is adequate to prevent excessive wear. That’s exactly what the science shows. However, here we have the claim that it can provide superior wear protection to an oil with a higher HT/HS.

Actually there is a massive leap one needs to take from the data he has to reach that conclusion.
Do you think an average car using 0w20 vs 5w30 is the same (in the US)? In a massive pool of data, the chances are cars with 5w30 are older vehicles. Even if one assumes no advancement on surface finishing and coating over the years (which I guess we all would disagree), those cars will have higher milage on average. So if nothing else, that would be a comparision of 0w20 running new cars vs 5w30 running older cars (on average).

But if you are making a youtube video, you don`t want to bother with nuances

 

[mojoe]

I want to clarify, and then I'm done with this thread. I understand that what LSJR said about lower viscosity sometimes resulting in less wear goes against long-held wisdom and what many consider settled science. I don't dispute that is the case. I also understand that LSJR does not provide any studies or acceptable testing, so far, to verify these claims. I understand that he should. I do not dispute that. I also acknowledge the possibility that LSJR may be dead wrong, and I'm not saying he's not. So:

LSJR may very well be dead wrong when he claims that lower viscosity oils may often provide better wear protection than higher viscosity oils. He needs to provide the data before we can accept these claims. I do not automatically believe everything he says. If it contradicts something I believe to be true, I question it. If it doesn't sound right, I will question it.

So here's my position: If he is wrong, and he has no evidence to support these claims, his credibility takes a huge hit. His whole business, and his YouTube channel depends on his credibility. It makes no sense to me that he would do that. I and many others believe he provides a lot of good, accurate, and valuable information. Plus, and it's only an opinion based on my own perception and gut feeling, he does not come across as a fraud or a huckster. Therefore, before I slam the door and write him off as a fool or a fraud, I am willing to see if he produces any further evidence to support these claims. While the doubt is understandable and justified, just because his claims here fly in the face of accepted wisdom, that does not rule out the possibility that he is right. I don't claim that he is right or wrong at this point, and I will proceed accordingly.

 

[Plumb Bob]

That's easy: Trying to make comparative analysis between lubricants

That and searching for Moly...wink wink.

 

[OVERKILL]

I want to clarify, and then I'm done with this thread. I understand that what LSJR said about lower viscosity sometimes resulting in less wear

But is that what he says? Or does he say that a lower viscosity lubricant (implying a fully formulated product) can produce less wear than another lubricant?

This goes back to my original answer to you and why those technical details are so important. And which builds on a point @buster made about formulation and additives. Since there are different lubricating regimes in an engine, and not all of them hydrodynamic, a lower viscosity lubricant with a superior additive package may provide lower overall wear than a higher viscosity lubricant with an inferior additive package. Provided the constraints on viscosity are reasonable, IE, we aren't talking like 0W-8 in an application calling for 0W-40.

It is when isolating for viscosity, IE a specific additive package from Lubrizol put in both a 5W-30 and a 5W-20 that the data shows that the further right you push things on the Stribeck curve, the lower the overall amount of wear that is experienced.

 

[altaylar]

I want to clarify, and then I'm done with this thread. I understand that what LSJR said about lower viscosity sometimes resulting in less wear goes against long-held wisdom and what many consider settled science. I don't dispute that is the case. I also understand that LSJR does not provide any studies or acceptable testing, so far, to verify these claims. I understand that he should. I do not dispute that. I also acknowledge the possibility that LSJR may be dead wrong, and I'm not saying he's not. So:

LSJR may very well be dead wrong when he claims that lower viscosity oils may often provide better wear protection than higher viscosity oils. He needs to provide the data before we can accept these claims. I do not automatically believe everything he says. If it contradicts something I believe to be true, I question it. If it doesn't sound right, I will question it.

So here's my position: If he is wrong, and he has no evidence to support these claims, his credibility takes a huge hit. His whole business, and his YouTube channel depends on his credibility. It makes no sense to me that he would do that. I and many others believe he provides a lot of good, accurate, and valuable information. Plus, and it's only an opinion based on my own perception and gut feeling, he does not come across as a fraud or a huckster. Therefore, before I slam the door and write him off as a fool or a fraud, I am willing to see if he produces any further evidence to support these claims. While the doubt is understandable and justified, just because his claims here fly in the face of accepted wisdom, that does not rule out the possibility that he is right. I don't claim that he is right or wrong at this point, and I will proceed accordingly.

Often when empirical findings contradict with theory, that is either a data issue, or the model had assumptions that was not representative of the universe the data was pooled from. Here, to use the corpus of UOA to assess the wear aproximated through the small metal articles in the used oil, one needs to make various assumptions. Is viscosity the only difference between those two oils? Are cars in both groups the same or similar? I doubt this is the case since 0w20 specced manuals appeared later on, so an average car must be younger.
etc. etc.

Overall, I don`t think there is much room for doubt at this point that all else equal, 5w30 should protect better than 0w20 an average vehicle.

 

[tolian21]

What he said, is that a 0W-20 oil, as long as it's "in grade", shows no more wear during UOA, than a 30 grade oil

Thats not all he said, he also said that in some cases 0w-20 provides better protection than 0w-30, what are those cases and evidence?

 

[tolian21]

If he is wrong, and he has no evidence to support these claims, his credibility takes a huge hit. His whole business, and his YouTube channel depends on his credibility.

He did put 0w-8 Toyota TGMO oil in one of his cars.