LSJr video about vis, wear, viscosity, etc

[Adkcedarman]

I’ve been in the old school camp that anything under 5w20 is probably sacrificing protection for EPA / Fuel Economy. I believe that assumption has frequently been proven to be at least close to accurate in the few areas it has not been 100% accurate. Yes, thinner oils are getting better, but there is still a challenge to protect an engine properly with a thinner oil rather than just using a healthy weight in the first place. For me on the Canadian border, a 5w30 checks all the boxes i need and there’s no reason to limit the headroom of protection off roading, towing, idling, etc by using a thinner oil.

 

[Drewby83]

I don't see why folks get up in arms about the facts of HTHS levels and thicker films protecting better. LSJr isn't going to buy you a new engine. Xw20 can give you good results when used appropriately in the right applications. Some would rather get a fraction less MPGs and have less wear 100k down the road. Run a Xw20 if you want and don't get offended when LSJr gets challenged, corrected, or has gaps filled in by accurate facts. Group hug?

 

[kschachn]

I guess if you want the highest possible HTHS then you need to choose weather to sacrifice cold flow (low spread) or volatility/shear stablity (high spread) and maybe price/availability. So not just fuel economy.

So I guess that puts you in the camp that prioritizes HTHS. (Straight 50 weight all the things?) Maybe other people that make or own cars care about those other things too.

Surprised my Mazda is staying togeter with Dexos 1 SP 5w-30 swill.

What a non sequitur.

 

[ltslimjim]

Even the flat earth group that took a trip to the South Pole still didn't believe what they saw, lol.

I didn't look into it. Heard something about the one's that went down there as (flat earthers) and DID believe were all in on the big conspiracy after all/paid off etc and never true "flat earthers"

 

[TiGeo]

Too click-batey for me. I'm out.

 

[OVERKILL]

I've never had a motor with lifter failure so when I hear about it, I guess I consider that a problem with the hardware. If that makes me wrong, I don't want to be right.

It's a supplier problem though, not a design issue, that's why all the major pushrod engines from a variety of manufactures had the same issue. Stellantis changed to German manufactured lifters, which was supposed to solve the problem, not sure what Ford and GM have done.

It's certainly a hardware problem, but not one pertaining to design. This is somewhat different from say Toyota's current issue with the 3.5L TT V6 failing, which is an issue exclusive to that engine and may in fact be a design issue.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I didn't look into it. Heard something about the one's that went down there as (flat earthers) and DID believe were all in on the big conspiracy after all/paid off etc and never true "flat earthers"

Don't want to derail the thread, but Google "flat earth visit to the south pole". Some true flat earthers actually changed their minds when the light bulb went off. There was backlash that the ones who changed their minds were "plants" by the conspiracy theory community ... but that wasn't really the case. Wikipedia has a page on the expedition.

 

[rstsco]

It's like arguing which beer is better. It all gets you drunk.

Not everyone drinks beer to get drunk. One of my greatest joys in life is drinking a pint of Guinness in a pub in London while people-watching.

The oil and filters I choose to use are personal to me. After watching the video, bonus that my oil choice is high in moly!

 

[johnmyster]

What a non sequitur.

In the days before CAFE, why did multiple grades of oil exist if the only downside is fuel economy?

In the days before multigrade, did everything only use SAE 50?

Seems like evidence that there is a downside to defaulting to all the thickness all the time. But then again, this is bitog, where we like to take generalizations as absolutes and follow them to the end of the earth.

 

[johnmyster]

It's a supplier problem though, not a design issue, that's why all the major pushrod engines from a variety of manufactures had the same issue. Stellantis changed to German manufactured lifters, which was supposed to solve the problem, not sure what Ford and GM have done.

One approach is to design a thing that is manufacturable.

 

[OVERKILL]

One approach is to design a thing that is manufacturable.

I blame offshoring. The pre-VCT HEMI lifters were fine, there was a change when VCT was implemented. GM seemed to start having their problem around the same time. Ford had it right out of the gate with the 7.3L.

It's not like non-failing roller lifters are overly hard to design, we had them for decades.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Multi-grade motor oils have been around since 1952. The main purpose of them was so people didn't have to change oil for winter and summer seasons, but instead run an appropriate multi-viscosity oil all year round. Had nothing to do with "getting better fuel economy" back then. That came later when the EPA and CAFE focused on squeezing more an more fuel economy from vehicles.

 

[kschachn]

In the days before multigrade, did everything only use SAE 50?

Seems like evidence that there is a downside to defaulting to all the thickness all the time. But then again, this is bitog, where we like to take generalizations as absolutes and follow them to the end of the earth.

View attachment 347741

One of the major reasons was the lack of multi-grades that would be suitable for winter. A 20W-20 was not the same as today's 5W-20 grade.

 

[kschachn]

Multi-grade motor oils have been around since 1952. The main purpose of them was so people didn't have to change oil for winter and summer seasons, but instead run an appropriate multi-vicoslity oil all year round. Had nothing to do with "getting better fuel economy" back then. That came later when the EPA and CAFE focused on squeezing more an more fuel economy from vehicles.

Oh but Bitog.

And the manifold benefits of lower-HT/HS oils.

 

[johnmyster]

Multi-grade motor oils have been around since 1952. The main purpose of them was so people didn't have to change oil for winter and summer seasons, but instead run an appropriate multi-viscosity oil all year round. Had nothing to do with "getting better fuel economy" back then. That came later when the EPA and CAFE focused on squeezing more an more fuel economy from vehicles.

As I said, and now you've said, it's almost like there are other tradeoffs to consider than just fuel economy when going to the full thick camp.

So here in 2026, you can get a wide spread multigrade that addresses cold start, has as much hths as one could want, and then criticize it for volatility and shear stability. Maybe that's why the bitog's prized 0w-80 doesn't exist (beyond not being necessary.)

 

[ZeeOSix]

As I said, and now you've said, it's almost like there are other tradeoffs to consider than just fuel economy when going to the full thick camp.

The only real "trade off" is possibly a slight decrease in fuel economy with a higher HTHS viscosity. What other trade offs do you think there are?

So here in 2026, you can get a wide spread multigrade that addresses cold start, has as much hths as one could want, and then criticize it for volatility and shear stability.

Volatility and permanent shear stability are pretty much independent factors based on the oils formulation and not very connected to the W grade, KV100 grade and HTHS viscosity of the oil.

 

[johnmyster]

It's not like non-failing roller lifters are overly hard to design, we had them for decades.

Which has been my point entirely. And yet new we turn to fancy oils with the highest of high hths ratings to try and keep valvetrains from being castrophic failures or at a minimum the limiting factor in the motor.

 

[johnmyster]

The only real "trade off" is possibly a slight decrease in fuel economy with a higher HTHS viscosity. What other trade offs do you think there are?

These.

Volatility and shear stability are pretty much independent factors based on the oils formulation and not very connected to the W grade, KV100 grade and HTHS of the oil.

Except for that pesky association with wide viscosity spreads and the requisite "formulation" to achieve them.

Now that I've lead you full circle, perhaps this thread of yours will refresh your memory.

Post in thread '5W-20 With Lowest Volitility NOACK Rating?'

Mar 5, 2018

SonofJoe - thanks for your comments, very informative.

• ZeeOSix

 

[ZeeOSix]

These.

Except for that pesky association with wide viscosity spreads and the requisite "formulation."

Now that I've lead you full circle, perhaps this thread of yours will refresh your memory.

Post in thread '5W-20 With Lowest Volitility NOACK Rating?'

Mar 5, 2018

SonofJoe - thanks for your comments, very informative.

• ZeeOSix

Geez ... trolling again. You led nobody "full circle", lol. In that thread I simply said:
"It's probably been discussed before, but what full synthetic motor oils have the lowest Volatility NOACK rating in 5W-20? I've found that a lot of manufactures don't always show the NOACK number."

It basically reinforces my comment above that viscosity doesn't really correlate well to something like Noack volatility. You can look at many different oils in the same multi-viscosity and they have a large range of Noack based one their formulations. And what SonofJoe said supports that fact in his following statement.

"VII polymer type & SSI will impact on Noack. For a given viscometric balance, a 5W20 based on Hydrogenated Styrene-Diene (HSD) VII will have a lower Noack than one based on cheaper, commoner Olefin Copolymer (OCP) VII. Likewise, an oil based on high SSI (ie more shearable) VII will give you a lower Noack than the same VII with a lower SSI (typically used in European oils)."

 

[OVERKILL]

Which has been my point entirely. And yet new we turn to fancy oils with the highest of high hths ratings to try and keep valvetrains from being castrophic failures or at a minimum the limiting factor in the motor.

Oil grade has zero impact on this specific problem.