LSJR Calls Out YouTube AI-generated Video Referencing Him

[IndyFan]

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.

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.

As for gradpa and his kids, I see 0w20 handle much more than that with every OCI on either of my Jeeps.

Here´s an example not as extreme as yours, but more stress than most people will put on a 0w20 or any other oil, for that matter. It will show you why I have great confidence in it. It´s much more than your grandpa will put on his Kia.

I did a 6.2k OCI in my Jeep Wrangler that included a trip to Moab. 22 hours each way at 80-85mph. With 4.56 gears, it was turning some fairly high RPM for hours on end. I did a week of off-roading, including rock crawling in temps that got into the high 80´s, with the AC on much of the time. There were a couple excursions on roads along the CO River where I drove in a pretty spirited manner, going through the gears, getting into high RPM a good number of times. (Having fun, of course.)

The used oil analysis showed the oil at 7.98 at 100 degrees C. Not only was it still in grade, it was higher than some show in their VOA. I have never seen it get out of grade. The lowest I have seen was 7.37, even with towing. The PDS showed somewhere around 8.4 to 8.8 for virgin oil at that time, IIRC. Didn´t drop much and certainly did not drop out of grade.

The oil on that Moab run, btw, was Mobil 1 Extended Performance 0w20. Not track use. But I´d say it was pretty high stress in a variety of ways.

The longest OCI I ever did, btw, was on Mobil 1 Extended Performance 0w20 and it wound up at a very respectable 7.93. It went 8,000 miles with a wide variety of driving from commuting to off-road to towing. It was in the engine all winter, which included a good number of very cold starts and more idling than other times of year.

Not sure how many times I´ve mentioned this on the forum, but my old 08 Jeep 3.8 ran 196k on mostly 5w20 and 0w20 for 17 years. Towing, off-roading in all kinds of conditions, etc. It was running like new when I sold it and is still running great at over 230k for its current owner.

The fear of 20 weight oil is irrational. But if that´s you, then run a 30 weight. I doubt it will hurt. Might even help, but most won´t keep a vehicle long enough to find out.

 

[IndyFan]

Ehhh, you are kind of side-stepping the whole Stribeck curve discussion. Also, I'm not sure who is arguing that used oil analysis show that thicker oils show less wear? Generally, those who criticize the abuse and misuse of used oil analysis, such as myself, apply this pretty universally.

Ehh, yeah, I was responding to something said in the middle of it.

But I ask you this. What´s the biggest misuse of used oil analysis´s in your mind?

Truthfully, most of us don´t do a used oil analysis with every oil change, so we get what we can from it. Most people operate on faith that their oil is doing its job in their engine. I´ve probably done 20-25 used oil analysis´s in something like 700,000 to 1,000,000+ miles of driving among all the cars and trucks I have owned in my lifetime. That´s urinating in the ocean. I have fortunately never spotted a problem in a used oil analysis and never wore an engine out. Never had one even run badly.

 

[OVERKILL]

Ehh, yeah, I was responding to something said in the middle of it.

But it's an important factor. This is a necessarily complex discussion and I think that Lake's biggest obstacle is trying to distill something with a massive amount of variables down to something simple and comprehensible for the masses. And as we've seen, often the masses have a wrong takeaway regardless.

Tribology is a complex subject, but hey, it's less complex than fission! So it does have that going for it

But I ask you this. What´s the biggest misuse of UOA´s in your mind?

That's easy: Trying to make comparative analysis between lubricants. And these are often made even worse by them being single runs in totally uncontrolled operating conditions, meaning that not only is the data itself all statistical noise, being well within the error bars for the test, but the conditions under which these supposed baselines are established are a hot mess of unaccounted for variables. It's like giving a chimp methamphetamine then locking him in a white room with 40 burritos and a laxative and then endeavoring to find genius in his poo art.

 

[mojoe]

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.

Re: "viscosity", I was referring to whatever Glenda meant when she said "viscosity".

 

[slybunda]

How so? He said you could use it in the U.S.

He said can use 0w8 in America and 10w60 in the sahara

 

[OVERKILL]

Re: "viscosity", I was referring to whatever Glenda meant when she said "viscosity".

Right, so if you don't know what Glenda was referring to, then that's sufficiently ambiguous to warrant the comprehensive explanation I've given you.

 

[edhackett]

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.

Yes, and as I'm sure you're aware, the latest ACEA sequences maintain or lower the limits for wear on the thinner oils. The valve train wear limit for C6 and C7 was lowered to 2.7 from the 3.3 that is the limit for C2-C5 oils. C6 and C7 also impose a GDI chain wear limit that is not part of the C2-C5 sequences.

As you point out, there are XW-20 oils and then there are XW-20 oils.

https://www.acea.auto/files/2023_ACEA_oil_sequences_light-duty_engines.pdf

Ed

 

[mojoe]

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.

Cool! So the answer is "higher viscosity always shows less wear" may not always be true. See how easy that was? That's all I was asking.

 

[edyvw]

Cool! So the answer is "higher viscosity always shows less wear" may not always be true. See how easy that was? That's all I was asking.

Because you have various variables that you cannot influence: ambient temperature, exploitation, fuel, etc.
But generally, HTHS is what slows wear. You don’t want too much, not too little. I personally like HTHS between 3.5 and 4cP.
What is little is determined what is acceptable wear for manufacturer to meet CAFE requirements etc.

 

[rstsco]

used oil analysis are a snapshot of a dynamic environment. First, you need to know what the values are of a virgin sample of an oil. Then you should only possibly consider data from only one or two used oil analysis if the oil is dropping out of grade for any useful initial analysis. Factors to look at are fuel dilution and shear stability of a particular oil in a particular engine and how it was driven during that OCI. Dead of winter up north and the car is allowed to idle until warm, then driven short trips, equals higher fuel dilution, most of the time. Towing a trailer in the mountains in the summer, possibly the oil may shear. Again, it completely depends on the specific oil in a specific engine driven in a specific manner.

Where used oil analysis are truly helpful is when you've been running the same oil for multiple OCIs and driven in a predictable pattern. Then you can compare multiple samples taken in sequential order, looking for anomalies based on the trend of your data for your vehicle.

And if nothing else, used oil analysis can be fun to look at, stimulating the over-think-everything part of one's brain. Bonus for posting it on BITOG and asking a few questions.

 

[mojoe]

Right, so if you don't know what Glenda was referring to, then that's sufficiently ambiguous to warrant the comprehensive explanation I've given you.

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.

 

[altaylar]

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.

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

 

[edhackett]

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...

Yes, particle size is an issue. Here's a video where Lake Speed Jr. addresses that elephant in the room. He did wear testing on GTX Classic 20W-50 and GTX 20W-50 using a reciprocating ring on liner test at SWRI. UOA of the test oil gave results opposite to the actual wear due to the particle sizes generated by the differing additive packs.

I've started the video at the relevant point. Watch the whole video for full context and methodology.



Ed

 

[kschachn]

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.

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

 

[kschachn]

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.

That’s an entirely imaginative question completely devoid of any supporting evidence.

 

[Spring Break '92]

When he was talking about 0W-20 being superior in the regard that it does not shear out of grade as fast as a 5W-30, people might take him to mean that the 5W-30 does not protect as well as the 0W-20. What I got from it is that according to the 10,000 used oil analysis, even if the average 5W-30 sheared out of grade faster than the average 0W-20, it theoretically could have sheared down above or maybe even to where the 0W-20 likely started out in its KV100 viscosity. So then given this situation the 5W-30 would still be protecting at least as well as a 0W-20 that's still in grade, it would seem.

 

[mojoe]

That’s an entirely imaginative question completely devoid of any supporting evidence.

What studies do you have that will conclusively show there is no supporting evidence?

 

[kschachn]

What studies do you have that will conclusively show there is no supporting evidence?

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 loading and always produces less wear. The graph (as shown on here multiple times) is not linear, with an inflection point near an HT/HS of about 2.6. This is why manufacturers have back-specified 20-grades since under most circumstances they will still provide acceptable protection and produce acceptable wear without changes to engine design. Below a -20 grade engine designs are employed to keep wear at an acceptable level.

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.

 

[SavageWS6]

Once you dive down the rabbit hole further, you start hunting for the chemistry, additive packs, KRL and HTHS

The biggest worry when running a 0W20 is that sheering out of grade, at say 16wt or below causing havoc because you no longer have that HTHS which the engine sees.

LSJr did a review on Mobil 1 products. I was specifically looking at sheer and PDSC via HPL lab. The Mobil 1 Truck and SUV formula peaked my interest sheering the least. Which gives me confidence protecting my engines & it being a readily avail off the shelf product is nice not having to hunt boutique oils

 

[OVERKILL]

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.

Understanding the subject is indeed a foundational requirement of understand why the answer to your question is not a binary yes or no and requires context as to what aspects of "wear" we are talking about here.

A lack of understanding or knowledge about complex subjects is why we have people parroting that we can cheaply run grids on wind and solar.

Here's a Machinery Lubrication article on lubrication:
https://machinerylubricationindia.com/magazine/2024/sep-oct/tribology-explained/

This is the Stribeck curve, borrowed from that article:

Simplified:

Hydrodynamic: Parts don't touch
Mixed: Some parts or bits of parts touch
Boundary: Parts touch

Viscosity is what separates parts. Makes parts not touch. Journal bearings operate here.

In mixed mixed/boundary, there is a combination of parts not touching (hydrodynamic) and parts touching (boundary). Wear in this realm is then controlled by viscosity (preventing parts from touching) and AW/FM additives. Increasing viscosity typically shifts parts that operate in this regime to the right, so less touching, less wear. Reducing viscosity goes the other direction.

Boundary, wear is controlled by the AW additives, whose performance can be influenced/improved by FM's. More viscosity MAY move components operating out of this realm into mixed, reducing wear, but it may also not, depends on the parts in question.

Engines have parts operating mostly in hydrodynamic and mixed. Parts also can move through different phases in use. Piston rings are one such item, as the combination of combustion pressure and a thin oil film at the top of the cylinder change the operating regime from where the piston is say in the centre of the bore on the combustion or exhaust stroke.

Followers on a camshaft can go from hydrodynamic on the base circle to mixed or boundary on the nose. Pushrods and cups will be mixed or boundary. Rockers acting on the valve stem may start as hydrodynamic and as the pressure increases as the valve opens, transition through mixed into boundary.

As you can see on the simplified graph, there's this sweet spot where we cross over from full hydrodynamic (no wear) into mixed (some wear) where friction continues to decline. This is the area that OEM's targeted with thinner oils. Hence the focus on "acceptable" wear, which is ensured through the use of metallurgy, special coatings and the lubricant additive package.

But, as I previously mentioned, the API/ILSAC allows for reduced performance for thinner oils in some areas, so while wear is "acceptable" the specifications certainly don't ensure that it is the same, let alone lower.