LSJR Calls Out YouTube AI-generated Video Referencing Him

[mojoe]

It actually is pretty simple. Either you do or you don't believe every word he has said. It seems to me you do. Even when he says stuff that he hasn't backed up, such as his oil filter efficiency claims. Not sure how he can be "trusted" until then. I base that on Lakes own criteria of his "science."

Not a hater, I just want facts to match up with claims, which he doesn't do sometimes. The oil filter efficiency one is a doozy.

Now, if you still don't see what I mean, then not much more I can say to you.

I DO NOT believe every word he says; I'm just not calling him a fraud/liar/idiot. I'm willing to see if there is more to the story; to see if he does have data to back up his claims. I'm not arrogantly slamming the door and insinuating those things. Do you provide verifiable studies and documents for every claim you make? How do I know you are not a bot? Do I need fingerprints and a background investigation before I can believe you? I probably know a lot more about the person on YouTube known as LSJR than I know about you. When I look at LSJR and his claims and the information he presents, and then I see you (and others) as a random poster on a message board, I don't know anything about either of you. I have no reason to believe/doubt one any more than the other. None of that makes you suspicious or dishonest or untrustworthy. Unfortunately, due to the way YouTube and forums like this work, we can't all sit down in a room together (with LSJR) where we could hash this all out in about 10 minutes: "Lake - what you are claiming contradicts what many of us have considered settled science and knowledge for a long time. Let's see the studies and testing upon which you base those claims". Then he would or he wouldn't. Instead, we have accusations and/or implications that LSJR is a fraud, an idiot, a liar, deceptive, taking advantage of simpletons like me, etc., etc. . . . all without any further investigation that rules out the possibility that he may be correct, or that there may be more to the story that validates at least some of what he claims. SHOULD he provide all of that proof up front? Is he irresponsible for making these claims without doing so? Maybe so - I want to see all of it too - but that does not mean he's a fraud/liar/deceiver/idiot. Should we take what he says with a grain of salt, not accepting everything as gospel? Of course - just like everything on the internet, including you and me and everything we say. That does not mean he's a clown who does not provide a lot of good information, and that seems to be the position of many in here, who seem to take it very personally, in a way that goes well beyond a disagreement over facts and opinions.

 

[OVERKILL]

Seems like the only way to really test it would be run test engines on a Dyno one engine with 20wt and the other one 30wt, change the oil when the manufacturer recommendams and see which one can't go any more and do it at least a few times.
Or measure everything put the engines together and run them for like 2,000 to 3,000 hours, take them apart again and measure everything. Then do it a few times.
Something like that.

Yes, controlled tear-down testing is the only proper way to gauge relative engine wear performance. It's unfortunately extremely time consuming and expensive.

You could as @kschachn alluded to, do some bench tests, but some sort of test sequence is going to be more comprehensive, like say the M 271 Wear Test which measures cam wear, piston ring wear, bearing wear and timing chain wear:

 

[hemioiler]

Yes, you are a hater. You, and many others, are glamming onto the oil filter claim, and discrediting his entire body of work, because you don't agree. Personally, I'm waiting for clarification, and I'm smart enough to know that I don't know everything.

Getting back to the video in question, the message is clear: 20 weight oil can protect acceptably, as long as it stays in grade. Seems to be solid information.

I was quite confused by his claim that "20 weight oil can protect acceptably, as long as it stays in grade". And he says he's basing that off of a bunch of used oil analysis, but I don't see any work he did to try to isolate it to different engines or requirements from them. A guy racing his camaro on the track is definitely going to accelerate wear by using a 20 grade instead of a 30 or 40. Same with a guy working his heavy duty gasser towing all day every day. But the little grandpa in his kia can probably eek by just fine on 20 grade.

So he painted with a really wide brush with that claim.

 

[mojoe]

I was quite confused by his claim that "20 weight oil can protect acceptably, as long as it stays in grade". And he says he's basing that off of a bunch of used oil analysis, but I don't see any work he did to try to isolate it to different engines or requirements from them. A guy racing his camaro on the track is definitely going to accelerate wear by using a 20 grade instead of a 30 or 40. Same with a guy working his heavy duty gasser towing all day every day. But the little grandpa in his kia can probably eek by just fine on 20 grade.

So he painted with a really wide brush with that claim.

"20 weight oil can protect acceptably, as long as it stays in grade".

"as long as it stays in grade". That's his claim here. How well it stays in grade under different conditions is a different subject and a different claim.

 

[Nessism1]

A guy racing his camaro on the track is definitely going to accelerate wear by using a 20 grade instead of a 30 or 40. Same with a guy working his heavy duty gasser towing all day every day. But the little grandpa in his kia can probably eek by just fine on 20 grade.

So he painted with a really wide brush with that claim.

What is YOUR evidence of these claims?

As long as metal to metal contact is avoided, the oil is doing its job. If that can be accomplished with thin oil, that's a benefit, because friction and heat is reduced. A "thick" oil is only needed when the contact pressure is pushing through the film layer. Thicker oil provides a safety margin, but it also increases friction. The ideal oil is the thinnest that eliminates metal to metal contact, but nothing more.

 

[OVERKILL]

I was quite confused by his claim that "20 weight oil can protect acceptably, as long as it stays in grade". And he says he's basing that off of a bunch of used oil analysis, but I don't see any work he did to try to isolate it to different engines or requirements from them. A guy racing his camaro on the track is definitely going to accelerate wear by using a 20 grade instead of a 30 or 40. Same with a guy working his heavy duty gasser towing all day every day. But the little grandpa in his kia can probably eek by just fine on 20 grade.

So he painted with a really wide brush with that claim.

It's also important to keep in mind the API carve-outs for the lower grades, that lower the bar on various parameters. So even in testing, if we are talking API/ILSAC, all oils are not held to the same standard.

The great equalizer then are approvals like those from Mercedes, VW and the like, where, as you'll note in the table above, at least in the M 271 wear test, a 229.71 oil like Mobil 1 ESP X2 0W-20 has the same performance requirements as a heavier product with 229.51 like Mobil 1 ESP X4 0W-40.

 

[mojoe]

Yes, controlled tear-down testing is the only proper way to gauge relative engine wear performance. It's unfortunately extremely time consuming and expensive.

You could as @kschachn alluded to, do some bench tests, but some sort of test sequence is going to be more comprehensive, like say the M 271 Wear Test which measures cam wear, piston ring wear, bearing wear and timing chain wear:
View attachment 318309

To be sure I understand, used oil analysis provide no meaningful info regarding engine wear?

 

[mojoe]

What is YOUR evidence of these claims?

As long as metal to metal contact is avoided, the oil is doing its job. If that can be accomplished with thin oil, that's a benefit, because friction and heat is reduced. A "thick" oil is only needed when the contact pressure is pushing through the film layer. Thicker oil provides a safety margin, but it also increases friction. The ideal oil is the thinnest that eliminates metal to metal contact, but nothing more.

Yeah, I need some comprehensive studies to back those wild claims! LOL!

 

[Nessism1]

To be sure I understand, used oil analysis provide no meaningful info regarding engine wear?

used oil analysis do provide useful information. They are not definitive, though. Given that folk like us are not engine designers, smart money is on taking what information is readily available, and using it to our advantage. Said another way, engines showing big metal particulate counts are indicating a problem. Low particle count suggests a good running engine. Strive for low, and be happy. Most is a result of the engine proper, but the oil used can contribute.

 

[OVERKILL]

What is YOUR evidence of these claims?

As long as metal to metal contact is avoided, the oil is doing its job. If that can be accomplished with thin oil, that's a benefit, because friction and heat is reduced. A "thick" oil is only needed when the contact pressure is pushing through the film layer. Thicker oil provides a safety margin, but it also increases friction. The ideal oil is the thinnest that eliminates metal to metal contact, but nothing more.

That greatly simplifies lubrication though. Parts in an engine don't all operate in one single lubrication regime. One of the things we discussed several years ago when the thinner grades like 0W-16, 0W-12 and 0W-8 were emerging was the optimization of the positioning of components on the Stribeck Curve where it was discovered that the lowest friction, and thus the best fuel economy, was attained not in hydrodynamic lubrication (zero wear), but in mixed, where some wear takes place, but that the interaction between FM's and AW chemicals to minimize this wear resulted in less friction than if the parts were fully separated.

This is why the emphasis with thinner and thinner lubricants has always been "acceptable" wear, not reduced wear. As more parts operate in the mixed/boundary regime, more wear is necessarily taking place. However the AMOUNT of wear can be minimized, as can the wear rate, through special coatings, surface conditioning and of course as it always has, through the AW and FM compounds present in the lubricant.

 

[buster]

https://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/653/wear-oil-analysis

Good basic overview of what a used oil analysis can do and not do.

 

[Urshurak776]

I DO NOT believe every word he says; I'm just not calling him a fraud/liar/idiot. I'm willing to see if there is more to the story; to see if he does have data to back up his claims. I'm not arrogantly slamming the door and insinuating those things. Do you provide verifiable studies and documents for every claim you make? How do I know you are not a bot? Do I need fingerprints and a background investigation before I can believe you? I probably know a lot more about the person on YouTube known as LSJR than I know about you. When I look at LSJR and his claims and the information he presents, and then I see you (and others) as a random poster on a message board, I don't know anything about either of you. I have no reason to believe/doubt one any more than the other. None of that makes you suspicious or dishonest or untrustworthy. Unfortunately, due to the way YouTube and forums like this work, we can't all sit down in a room together (with LSJR) where we could hash this all out in about 10 minutes: "Lake - what you are claiming contradicts what many of us have considered settled science and knowledge for a long time. Let's see the studies and testing upon which you base those claims". Then he would or he wouldn't. Instead, we have accusations and/or implications that LSJR is a fraud, an idiot, a liar, deceptive, taking advantage of simpletons like me, etc., etc. . . . all without any further investigation that rules out the possibility that he may be correct, or that there may be more to the story that validates at least some of what he claims. SHOULD he provide all of that proof up front? Is he irresponsible for making these claims without doing so? Maybe so - I want to see all of it too - but that does not mean he's a fraud/liar/deceiver/idiot. Should we take what he says with a grain of salt, not accepting everything as gospel? Of course - just like everything on the internet, including you and me and everything we say. That does not mean he's a clown who does not provide a lot of good information, and that seems to be the position of many in here, who seem to take it very personally, in a way that goes well beyond a disagreement over facts and opinions.

Lake? Is that you? OMG, somebody pinch me! Swoon.....

In all seriousness, I'm just asking for the proof in the pudding. That's it. Doesn't seem that hard to me. LOTS of other members here are asking for the same thing, and most of them have far better understanding of this than I do. Glenda, Zee0Six, K, etc. Until then, it's just a claim. Lake, in an email to another member here, also showed a lack of understanding of the standardized testing done for filter efficiency, which is something that someone with his credentials SHOULD understand.

Bottom line, until he comes up with proof, I don't trust what he says. YMMV, but I bet you won't be keeping an oil filter on your car forever.

 

[buster]

To be sure I understand, used oil analysis provide no meaningful info regarding engine wear?

It's difficult to account for changing climate, interval length, oil chemistry etc. Keeping variables consistent makes it problematic for comparing oils using UOA. However, UOA can tell you a lot - viscosity change, TBN reserve, change in oxidation value. All very valuable.

If you can really keep variables consistent and you notice significant changes in certain wear metals, you can come to some reasonable conclusion that wear rates changed.

 

[Nessism1]

That greatly simplifies lubrication though. Parts in an engine don't all operate in one single lubrication regime. One of the things we discussed several years ago when the thinner grades like 0W-16, 0W-12 and 0W-8 were emerging was the optimization of the positioning of components on the Stribeck Curve where it was discovered that the lowest friction, and thus the best fuel economy, was attained not in hydrodynamic lubrication (zero wear), but in mixed, where some wear takes place, but that the interaction between FM's and AW chemicals to minimize this wear resulted in less friction than if the parts were fully separated.

This is why the emphasis with thinner and thinner lubricants has always been "acceptable" wear, not reduced wear. As more parts operate in the mixed/boundary regime, more wear is necessarily taking place. However the AMOUNT of wear can be minimized, as can the wear rate, through special coatings, surface conditioning and of course as it always has, through the AW and FM compounds present in the lubricant.

Count me as one that's in favor of complete isolation of metal to metal contact. I'll error in favor of a thicker oil grade, as needed, not as opinion suggests, though. Thing is, how are we to know what the minimum oil viscosity is needed for any given engine? UOA is our only tool. If I had an engine calling for thinner than 20 weight, I'd have some serious heartburn. I can understand moving up a grade or so, from 20 to 30 for example, but I don't believe most of said engines need a 40 grade.

 

[buster]

What is YOUR evidence of these claims?

As long as metal to metal contact is avoided, the oil is doing its job. If that can be accomplished with thin oil, that's a benefit, because friction and heat is reduced. A "thick" oil is only needed when the contact pressure is pushing through the film layer. Thicker oil provides a safety margin, but it also increases friction. The ideal oil is the thinnest that eliminates metal to metal contact, but nothing more.

You can also have a poorly formulated 30 wt that doesn't protect as well as a good 20 grade.

 

[OVERKILL]

To be sure I understand, used oil analysis provide no meaningful info regarding engine wear?

Go back to my bathroom scale analogy, if the weight differences are sufficient enough, they will be visible, but you are still making an inference because you are not measuring a mass of material removed but inferring that from elemental decay in plasma, not knowing the origin of those elements, and then extrapolating that to wear.

If you search out @TiGeo's extensive tracking of used oil analysis on his ride, he saw an uptick in metals that caused him to go looking, and he found a failing component. On the other hand, if you look at @wwillson's roller follower failure on his Pentastar, this was not revealed in his used oil analysis but discovered via consistent filter autopsy. The particles being shed in his case were too large to be picked up by used oil analysis, which is not unusual with rapid onset failure as I mentioned earlier in the thread.

Dr. Haas experimented with extremely thin oils in his Navigator and saw a considerable uptick in wear (running a 0W-8 equivalent labelled as "0W-5" IIRC in a 5W-30 application), so that highlights that with extreme deviation from spec, it's possible to create enough of an issue that it's observable via used oil analysis.

It's when one tries to make comparative observations on performance when we are talking about single digit variances in parts per million that the tool is being abused, as it simply lacks the resolution to be able to be used in this manner in isolation.

 

[GW.]

used oil analysis do provide useful information. They are not definitive, though. Given that folk like us are not engine designers, smart money is on taking what information is readily available, and using it to our advantage. Said another way, engines showing big metal particulate counts are indicating a problem. Low particle count suggests a good running engine. Strive for low, and be happy. Most is a result of the engine proper, but the oil used can contribute.

Correct. Mostly used oil analysis are used for fleets. They have trends on each piece of equipment and when something spikes or trends higher they know something is going on. Tom NJ said it best IMO “It’s what the engine is doing to the oil, not what the oil is doing to the engine”.

The problem here is most people don’t do enough used oil analysis to even know what’s normal. I’m one of them…

 

[buster]

Amsoil intentionally used their 0w20 on the IVB.

https://www.swri.org/sites/default/files/sequence-ivb-test.pdf

 

[buster]

UOA is only detecting certain particle size too. So hypothetically you could have sample A showing more iron than sample B but there could be more catastrophic wear going on with sample B that isn't being detected, hence the limitation. I think that's correct? Anyone? Probably rare that happens but I suppose it is possible...

 

[OVERKILL]

You can also have a poorly formulated 30 wt that doesn't protect as well as a good 20 grade.

Yes, this is possible.

What we do have multiple examples of are applications of the same engine or engine family that, due to the anticipated usage profile (consistent with what @hemioiler mentioned) have heavier oils specified.

Probably the one most harped about on here by myself was the "Track Pack" version of the Mustang GT, which, while mechanically identical to its non-track sibling, had different ECM programming and an oil cooler and instead of spec'ing 5W-20, spec'd 5W-50.

Other examples would be the HD and SRT HEMI's, which are far lower production, spec'ing 0W-40 while the high volume 5.7L spec's 0W-20.

GM used to spec 5W-30 for the Camaro and Corvette on the street and 15W-50 for them on the track.