LSJR Calls Out YouTube AI-generated Video Referencing Him

[OVERKILL]

You do have a very good point. While I strongly believe "garbage in garbage out" principle, and would not want to rely on UOA for wear results, a corpus of thousands of UOA can provide some value there, even if they are not a meaningful metric for a single engine.

I also have been saying that higher viscosity does not necessarily mean better protection. If that was the case, additives would not be the most expensive part of an oil. (Though a caveat here, insufficient HTHS is definitely a source of wear. So for high temp applications, going higher in viscosity, which in turn a proxy for hths, is crucial. Does not metter if that is for the engine, or gearbox/diff)

I've pointed this out for years, so my apologies for stating it once again, but the problem with used oil analysis used recreationally is the desire to read more into the results than they can convey. This presents because they are the only tool perceived as providing this wear "insight".

It's the old "when you've only got a hammer, everything looks like a nail". used oil analysis are the only cost-effective tool we have available, so of course the desire to be able to divine wear performance of individual lubricants and use this data comparatively will naturally emerge, but this necessarily involves acknowledging that you are ignoring the limitations of this tool. It's like trying to run precision rifle with a shotgun.

Blackstone, who of course has a massive UOA database, has stated that there is no observable difference in wear performance between spec lubricants when contrasting used oil analysis. This does not mean wear performance differences don't exist, but that you aren't able to flesh-out what those differences are using this tool, which shouldn't be surprising, given that this is not one of the purposes of the tool.

And you are quite right, viscosity alone is not some singular determinant of wear prevention and control. It's part of a system that involves the additive package, whose role is to prevent and reduce wear in areas that are not protected exclusively via viscosity, such as components functioning in the mixed, mixed/boundary or boundary lubrication regimes.

That said, the lower you go with viscosity, the more areas that potentially move left on the Stribeck curve, moving out of no wear (hydrodynamic) into mixed, mixed/boundary or even boundary, where some manner of wear, no matter how small, is occurring. This is why I brought up the 0W-16/0W-12/0W-8 testing and conversation we had on here years ago earlier in the thread, because it was all about acceptable wear as a result of reducing friction and improving fuel economy.

This is also why I brought up the API/ILSAC carve-outs for the thinner oils, where the bar has been lowered on a few of the tests/parameters. But, as I noted then, this does not have to be the case, Mercedes for example, does not adjust their wear performance limits for thinner oils in the same engine test. This doesn't mean that a full-SAPS oil might not actually perform better, but at least the bar is held constant regardless of viscosity.

 

[kschachn]

So, back to my original question, used oil analysis do, or at least can, provide meaningful information regarding engine wear when used and interpreted properly?

There are no standardized tests for wear that utilize a spectrographic analysis as the tool. Uncontrolled used oil analysis are affected by many outside parameters that are far more significant than the oil being used. No way to tease out the insignificant variable in this test method.

He’s talking out his rear end if he’s thinking he’s doing this here. But you have him saying it’s in the noise, so why is this even a question?

The way people use $35 used oil analysis on here and claim one oil is better in wear are making claims that are whack. No other way to describe it.

 

[kschachn]

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.

But there’s the claim that it protects better than a -30 grade.

 

[mojoe]

Those that have been here for a while surely have read the official wear studies posted. Unfortunately most are pay to download online. But again higher viscosity always shows less wear. It’s not made up. I could only dig up a few pages of hundreds of pages per study. Here is an example. I can’t seem to download the charts for free.

View attachment 318359

Are you open to the possibility, as LSJR says, that in many cases a lower viscosity provides superior lubrication? Or do you simply rule that out? For the record, I'd like to see the evidence too.

 

[OVERKILL]

Are you open to the possibility, as LSJR says, that in many cases a lower viscosity provides superior lubrication? Or do you simply rule that out? For the record, I'd like to see the evidence too.

As @buster pointed out, a better additized lower viscosity oil could conceivably provide better AW performance than a heavier oil with an inferior additive package, that does not mean that lower viscosity provides superior lubrication however. There are enough parts in an engine that operate within mixed, mixed/boundary or boundary that reduced AW performance in those areas due to a lower performing AW package could overwhelm the reduction in wear in the limited number of areas that might move from mixed to hydrodynamic due to the increase in viscosity.

 

[mojoe]

As @buster pointed out, a better additized lower viscosity oil could conceivably provide better AW performance than a heavier oil with an inferior additive package, that does not mean that lower viscosity provides superior lubrication however. There are enough parts in an engine that operate within mixed, mixed/boundary or boundary that reduced AW performance in those areas due to a lower performing AW package could overwhelm the reduction in wear in the limited number of areas that might move from mixed to hydrodynamic due to the increase in viscosity.

Not sure if that was a "yes" or a "no", but my question was specifically directed at Glenda's assertion that "higher viscosity always shows less wear". That's a blanket, broad sweeping statement. In no way am I saying it's wrong, I'm merely asking if it's possible that may not always be true. I'm not asking for examples or explanations.

 

[TiGeo]

Starting off 2026 as MLOB.

 

[GW.]

Are you open to the possibility, as LSJR says, that in many cases a lower viscosity provides superior lubrication? Or do you simply rule that out? For the record, I'd like to see the evidence too.

I’m 100% open to reading an official study that shows lower viscosity providing better protection and re-evaluating my opinion. I understand the limitations of a used oil analysis so I personally don’t think that trumps measured wear.

Working for a GM dealer I have personally torn down engines with the upper rod bearing halves worn. These were viscosity related failures caused by overheating due to improper fan clutch engagement(technically lack of engagement). GM eventually released a TSB to install a different fan clutch on plow trucks.

I do understand that an oil that can’t pump at low temperatures will cause damage. The study page I posted even mentioned this. I’m assuming people are choosing the correct winter rating.

 

[buster]

I was doing a search to try and find a study Shell did that showed a 5w20 having lower piston ring wear than an equivalent 5w30. This was likely an engine specific case though. I'll see if i can find it.


This isn't it, but came up in my search. It's funny to think we're still talking about the same questions from 20 years ago with still no definitive answer on many of these topics lol.

Thread 'Shell - Oil Analysis - F1'

Apr 10, 2006

http://www.usgpindy.com/news/story.php?story_id=3015

quote:

---

“Every time that the car goes out, we take a sample of engine oil and a sample of gearbox oil and put it through a machine that fires X-rays at the lubricant. By looking at the way those X-rays bounce off the particles inside the oil, it tells us what is in the oil.

“When two bits of metal rub together, even if you lubricate them very well, you are always going to get a little bit of wear. Some metal particles come off and end up in the oil. We use this equipment to tell us what particles are in the oil – from...

• buster
• Replies: 13
• Forum: Passenger Car Motor Oil (PCMO) - Gasoline Vehicles

Here is a quote:
To do this, the Honda Racing F1 Team utilize the
Optima 5300V Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) to analyze samples of
gearbox oil taken from the dynamometer and correlate these samples to
those taken trackside. By plotting the ‘normal’ wear of the gearbox
internals and mapping the increase in wear metals, it is possible to build a
profile of what levels of wear are considered acceptable and not race
critical. When trackside samples fall outside of these levels and an
increase in wear metals is greater than expected then a decision is to be
taken whether to change the gearbox or not. This decision is critical and a
gearbox change before the four race limit will result in a 5 place penalty

 

[buster]

Even Mobil has said they measure wear with some very high-end equipment. Goes beyond a used oil analysis.

 

[buster]

2005 LOL

I believe in LeMans 24hr they run a 50 grade to account for fuel dilution (longer race, more fuel = lower viscosity).

Also in this post below it was likely for HP gains.

J

Post in thread 'Viscosity Affects Piston Rings'

Feb 22, 2005

I do not think that the film strength is going to be any differnet in the ring area then any place else on the engine. THe film strength is set by the make up of the base stock and VII's! I think the RING MOVEMENT and OIL FLOW PATERN around the rings and piston are what was significant in the study posted by motorbike!

The problem with the study was the information that was missing!! WHat type of wear was takeing place on the cam, followers, lifters, rod bearings, oil pump drives etc?????? An engine is a complex mix of metalurgy adn parts. You have to ballance wear across the entire...

• JohnBrowning

 

[GW.]

Not sure if that was a "yes" or a "no", but my question was specifically directed at Glenda's assertion that "higher viscosity always shows less wear". That's a blanket, broad sweeping statement. In no way am I saying it's wrong, I'm merely asking if it's possible that may not always be true. I'm not asking for examples or explanations.

I should reword my original post to all the wear studies I’ve read(5-6) have always shown higher viscosity equals lower wear. I’m sure there’s many many more studies out there and I’ll never read them all.

You’re right as I also don’t like blanket statements, but I sure made one

 

[MParr]

Starting off 2026 as MLOB.

View attachment 318364

Where's the"Insufferable" square?

 

[buster]

Looks like I was off, 20 components.

 

[buster]

Post #22 was what I was thinking of. He quotes the Shell study (AEHass) but puts his two cents in. I don't agree with everything he says.

L

Thread 'Viscosity at startup'

Aug 20, 2005

The theory goes that a 5w30 is better at startup than a 15w40. And so the theory goes that a 15w40 is better at high temperatures. Are these oils pretty close to the same viscosity when starting up on a 50F day? Are they close enough that if you want high temp protection and don't see temps below 40F there is nothing to be gained by using a 5w30 and maybe something to be gained by using a 15w40? And is a 15w40 more shear stable at normal operating temperatures?

How's that for three questions in one paragraph? If oils are really multi-grade and their vescosity rises with temperature and...

• LarryL
• Replies: 43
• Forum: Passenger Car Motor Oil (PCMO) - Gasoline Vehicles

 

[Nessism1]

Some people around here hang on every word, every comment, and just look to bash. It's getting old.

Count me as a LSJ supporter. The vast majority of what he states is correct, and useful. He's not perfect, nor am I, and likely you too.

 

[OVERKILL]

Not sure if that was a "yes" or a "no", but my question was specifically directed at Glenda's assertion that "higher viscosity always shows less wear". That's a blanket, broad sweeping statement. In no way am I saying it's wrong, I'm merely asking if it's possible that may not always be true. I'm not asking for examples or explanations.

It's a clarification.

Higher viscosity can refer to two different things:
1. Higher viscosity in isolation
2. A higher viscosity lubricant (fully formulated)

The studies @Glenda W. references are talking about higher viscosity in isolation. Viscosity being the only variable. However, when we are discussing fully formulated lubricants, we necessarily are discussing the product as a whole in which case the additive package is just as important in dictating product performance, and is effectively a singular factor in the boundary lubrication regime, while a major factor in mixed and mixed/boundary.

You said "lower viscosity", but it was unclear whether you meant viscosity in isolation, or a lower viscosity lubricant, so I gave you a comprehensive answer that covers both.

 

[GW.]

For the record I have nothing against a good 20 grade. My current vehicles/conditions aren’t ideal for it, but if I had a hybrid or another vehicle with low oil temps I’d be using it.

 

[OVERKILL]

For the record I have nothing against a good 20 grade. My current vehicles/conditions aren’t ideal for it, but if I had a hybrid or another vehicle with low oil temps I’d be using it.

Same. And I appreciate the role of a robust additive package, that's why I was thrilled when Dave developed me that A40/LL-01/229.5 full-SAPS additive package in a 0W-20 product, get all the AW goodness of a full-SAPS Euro lube, but in the spec grade for my 5.7L HEMI.

 

[edyvw]

Not sure if that was a "yes" or a "no", but my question was specifically directed at Glenda's assertion that "higher viscosity always shows less wear". That's a blanket, broad sweeping statement. In no way am I saying it's wrong, I'm merely asking if it's possible that may not always be true. I'm not asking for examples or explanations.

I can give you two data points I have.
I am on the phone, but in UOA section you can find this.
One winter I used Castrol Edge 0W30 (HTHS 3.58cP). Very cold winter, lot’s of ski runs, stating on ski parking lots at -30 etc.
Iron was 10ppm nothing else. Good report.
That summer I ran Castrol Edge 0W40. Basically same base stock quality, because 0W40 is just both thicker 0W30 in this case. HTHS 3.7cP.
However, 0W40 had extensive track time. It actually had track sessions as long as 1 1/2hrs at 5100ft altitude and ambient temperature 101f. 5k oci, maybe some 800mls of track time.
Iron: 10ppm, aluminum actually 1ppm lower out of 3 I think.
So what gives? Track is where wear happens. Constantly close to redline. Two things I extrapolated:
1. Good street oils are perfectly fine for track.
2. Winter obviously has an impact.

So, is it possible that 0W20 will have lower wear than Motul 0W30 with HTHS 3.5 in my Sequoia? Maybe. Because it is thinner, in short trips where oil temperature is not reached, has better flow, etc, etc.
Will it be better in summer? Who knows. But for example 1ppm aluminum drop is nothing but statistical noise. So, yes, things are possible, but my point is, there are too many variables to actually make solid conclusion.
Why I run 0W30 in Sequoia when it says 0W20? Because I like bit more of protection and AW margin, and it feels warmer around my heart.