LSJr - Viscosity Breakdown: The Silent Engine Killer Revealed!

[RevvCats]

Why does viscosity retention matter? Unless viscosity and HTHS drop significantly, does any of this matter? Yes sure, I prefer a 1% loss compared to a 7% loss.

I mean it doesn’t matter until it thins out too much and you scuff or seize a bearing. Lake comes from a racing background where that kinda failure is going to hit you fast and hard if the oil gets too thin, and some of us do track our cars.

It’s a fair point that the margin for error for the vast majority of people daily driving is going to be a lot more generous, and some of these differences are splitting hairs. That goes for a lot of oil specs. PAOs outclass Group 3 in a pile of ways but I’ve found off the shelf Group 3 oils hold up shockingly well daily driven in my mustang over long drain intervals. Why spend a lot more money on what’s going to be a marginal improvement at best?

On a related side note, it seems that we have sold our souls to YouTube views/subs (and money). We’re busy supporting an algorithm that doesn’t reflect honesty and integrity

They did a legit and interesting test in the video, especially with the eight custom blended base oils with different VII. Sure there’s follow ups I’d love to see done, but what the tested and the methodology all seemed pretty above board. What part do you think was dishonest?

 

[userfriendly]

Thanks for posting that link, I was thinking about that thread recently.

In 2015 Solarent was working in Calgary, Alberta, then moved to Toronto, then Ohio.
Missing from action, I’ll guess working for

www.hollyfrontier.com

 

[xpeteyjtx]

I mean it doesn’t matter until it thins out too much and you scuff or seize a bearing. Lake comes from a racing background where that kinda failure is going to hit you fast and hard if the oil gets too thin, and some of us do track our cars.

It’s a fair point that the margin for error for the vast majority of people daily driving is going to be a lot more generous, and some of these differences are splitting hairs. That goes for a lot of oil specs. PAOs outclass Group 3 in a pile of ways but I’ve found off the shelf Group 3 oils hold up shockingly well daily driven in my mustang over long drain intervals. Why spend a lot more money on what’s going to be a marginal improvement at best?

They did a legit and interesting test in the video, especially with the eight custom blended base oils with different VII. Sure there’s follow ups I’d love to see done, but what the tested and the methodology all seemed pretty above board. What part do you think was dishonest?

I respect Lake Speed Jr and the other folks in the video. I learned a lot. The title of the video seems a little dramatic… but I can see how I’m being a little too picky/negative.

 

[dnewton3]

B/c it's the single most important variable for protecting your engine's moving parts so losing it is well...."not good" and as we know here on BITOG, more is always better!

I would take issue with this comment, but I'm not doing so just to be argumentative. I truly see this as a much wider topic that just "viscosity".

Yes - vis is important. But what if you have a viscous fluid that has the appropriate HT/HS value, but the oil has no other part of the additive package? No detergent/inhibitor portion? No anti-foam portion? No anti-wear portion? Vis is NOT, by any means, the "single most important variable". Because frankly to single out any characteristic is to ignore the other important things other elements do. How important would HT/HS be if you had no anti-foam? How little would HT/HS matter if you had sludge/soot build up in a short OCI?

Lubricants as we use them are finished products which blend many aspects into a compromise for the intended application. Lubes which are intended for more severe use or longer OCIs are going to need "more" of things which will push their capability past the "normal" oils.

What I would say is that the most important thing a lube does is "control wear". And lubes have many jobs/criteria which help achieve that goal. Vis is just one of many things which are tasked to help control wear. All things in moderation, as it were. I want a well-blended final product; not a hyper sensitive lube which focuses on just one thing.

As long as the MOFT (or greater) is maintained for the intended OCI, then having "more" vis really doesn't improve wear control to any tangible degree.

Having a good HT/HS value is more akin to assuming a vis retention over time such that the oil won't shear down in "X" miles of use. But if the oil stays "in grade", and yet allows soot to amalgamate, or the oil to foam badly and cavitate in the pump, well, then vis really isn't the problem we'd want to be concerned about.

IMO vis is no more or less important than any other task the oil does, for the intended application and OCI duration which is selected.

 

[MVAR]

I’m on the same page with the smell test being completely unreliable… that 14.4k sample from my Eco smelled literally like straight gasoline to my nose, and WearCheck used GC and reported <1%. I’m just curious because I don’t think anybody else’s UOAs have noted anywhere close to a 20% viscosity loss on HPL PCEO.

I’m also fairly sure if you called HPL this is likely well outside the margin of error of anything they’ve seen either with the millions of miles accumulated on fleet vehicles using PCEO. Those are vehicles under much more severe use cases and going 15-20k mile OCIs with hundreds of hours of idle time as well. Just trying to help you make sure the result was real and not something reported wrong (didn’t they send you the wrong report originally?).

So I received a response from Wear Check. They only test for fuel dilution if viscosity drops into the grade below. Since my sample was still in grade, although near the bottom of being in grade, it wasn’t tested for fuel dilution. When they do run the test it is with GC.

 

[RDY4WAR]

Yes, wrong report was on pg1 of the link.

I had stated in a previous post that I think there might have been a bit of leftover PUP 5/30 & EC30 left in to bring the value down so much(both of those are light 30 wt's). There's another PCMO 5/30 run in it right now so we'll see how that one turns out.

The lower value in some elements also corroborates dilution from a previous sample.

 

[Sam_Julier]

If you don't have cold winter temps, the No-VII line would probably work well, no VII to shear.

I don’t understand why you would not run No VII oils in cold temperatures? I ran one of our 240s to Stowe VT many times the past two winters. Including a trip during a polar vortex and a -11 start; by 1pm it was -17 in Waterbury VT.

I felt the engine started more easily.

 

[kschachn]

I don’t understand why you would not run No VII oils in cold temperatures? I ran one of our 240s to Stowe VT many times the past two winters. Including a trip during a polar vortex and a -11 start; by 1pm it was -17 in Waterbury VT.

I felt the engine started more easily.

As long as the winter rating for the no-VII was appropriate you are fine. "Cold" is relative, -11F is not too cold for an oil with a 5W rating and you can go quite a bit lower.

 

[fantastic]

Okay, I've contemplated this data over a few days & I've got to ask a question. Perhaps I didn't collect everything in the video but based on this graph of tested oil below wouldn't it have been a fairer comparison for HPL to use an equivalent 40 grade rather than testing a sheer stable NO VII 5w-30?

All the other competitor oils have VII's in them so why wouldn't HPL test a 0w-40 or 5w-40 WITH VII'S in them? In my opinion that would've been more reflective comparison. To me this data test seemed to have shown HPL the obvious "Winner", w/lowest shear, w/o testing an equivalent product. A more close range multi-grade no VII oil is going to show more sheer stable, less visc. breakdown, than a VI wider range mult-grade (No VII 5w-30 vs VI 5w-40)

Don't take my position as though I do not appreciate the data regardless. Just trying to understand why a very sheer stable product was chosen to "Compare". Perhaps this test was to simply show differences w/o being an equivalent test?

 

[kschachn]

Any monograde (which is what a no-VII oil is) will have absolute shear (not “sheer”) stability compared to one with VM. It just so happens that this particular monograde also meets the requirements for a multi-grade oil.

So yes in that sense it is a fait accompli that the HPL product wins. No oil with VM will ever show the same shear stability as a monograde if the test is severe enough, regardless of the quality of the polymer nor the grade spread.

 

[Azimuth]

It would be nice to see how the Mobile 1 ESP X3 0w-40 performs, which has a reported HTHS of 3.8 from the M1 website.

 

[Astro14]

Okay, I've contemplated this data over a few days & I've got to ask a question. Perhaps I didn't collect everything in the video but based on this graph of tested oil below wouldn't it have been a fairer comparison for HPL to use an equivalent 40 grade rather than testing a sheer stable NO VII 5w-30?

All the other competitor oils have VII's in them so why wouldn't HPL test a 0w-40 or 5w-40 WITH VII'S in them? In my opinion that would've been more reflective comparison. To me this data test seemed to have shown HPL the obvious "Winner", w/lowest shear, w/o testing an equivalent product. A more close range multi-grade no VII oil is going to show more sheer stable, less visc. breakdown, than a VI wider range mult-grade (No VII 5w-30 vs VI 5w-40)

Don't take my position as though I do not appreciate the data regardless. Just trying to understand why a very sheer stable product was chosen to "Compare". Perhaps this test was to simply show differences w/o being an equivalent test?


View attachment 229400

That is a question for Lake Speed, jr. Not HPL.

This is his video.

And, please, everyone.

Shear - is what happens to molecules that reduces viscosity.

Sheer - means thin, or see through, fabric.

 

[buster]

Both ESP oils show a viscosity loss of only 1.2 and 2.2% after 90 runs.

 

[Kalle.J]

This "Video" was more of a proof of concept or a show of force then an actual test comparing oils.

Both ESP oils show a viscosity loss of only 1.2 and 2.2% after 90 runs.

Well that might be but not using KRL test metod, so not comparable.

 

[buster]

This "Video" was more of a proof of concept or a show of force then an actual test comparing oils.



Well that might be but not using KLR test metod, so not comparable.

Yeah they're using the Kurt Orbahn test which is different than the KRL. Not sure which is better. KRL may be the most severe of the 3.

 

[travis8352]

Okay, I've contemplated this data over a few days & I've got to ask a question. Perhaps I didn't collect everything in the video but based on this graph of tested oil below wouldn't it have been a fairer comparison for HPL to use an equivalent 40 grade rather than testing a sheer stable NO VII 5w-30?

All the other competitor oils have VII's in them so why wouldn't HPL test a 0w-40 or 5w-40 WITH VII'S in them? In my opinion that would've been more reflective comparison. To me this data test seemed to have shown HPL the obvious "Winner", w/lowest shear, w/o testing an equivalent product. A more close range multi-grade no VII oil is going to show more sheer stable, less visc. breakdown, than a VI wider range mult-grade (No VII 5w-30 vs VI 5w-40)

Don't take my position as though I do not appreciate the data regardless. Just trying to understand why a very sheer stable product was chosen to "Compare". Perhaps this test was to simply show differences w/o being an equivalent test?


View attachment 229400

The test was not to show the superiority of HPL oils it was to compare how an oil with lots of VII shears to an oil with no VII shears.

 

[Kalle.J]

The test was not to show the superiority of HPL oils it was to compare how an oil with lots of VII shears to an oil with no VII shears.

And how many other oils market them self's as NO VII oils. Don't be so gullible.

 

[RevvCats]

I would take issue with this comment, but I'm not doing so just to be argumentative. I truly see this as a much wider topic that just "viscosity".

I agree there’s a lot more to what makes a good oil than its viscosity stability but you can live with a poor / depleted additive pack, you can’t live an oil thats too thin. It’s like food vs air, you need both to live but you can go longer without eating than breathing.

Now the chance of your oil thinning out too much to hit that point of no return while daily driving is pretty low, modern engines can handle some pretty thin oil. On the track though at high temp and sustained high rpm operation you’ve got a lot less wiggle room, and worrying about shear stability is a valid concern.

 

[PoorMans180SX]

For as interesting of a video as this is, there’s still the marketing you’ve gotta sift through.

LM 10W-60 and M1 5W-50 which have loads of VII show significant sheering, that’s neat to see but how do HPL’s various 5W-50 and 10W-60 oils hold up? They don’t show that.

HPL 5W-30 no VII takes comes out looking unfazed but how do their other 5W-30 hold up or other off the shelf 5W-30? They don’t show that.

Showing the effect is real with the few off the shelf oils they chose is fine, showing that the type of VII matters with those custom blends is fine (best part of the video to me), throwing the lone HPL no VII in there is pure marketing.

My other nitpick as I’ve said is that they don’t give any sense of how much in engine time this test mimics. Is it equivalent to a track weekend or 5-10k miles of daily driving? OCI that most of us would consider reasonable. Or would it take tens of thousands of miles to see that level of sheering? Intervals few of us would ever attempt to run.

Well you can see that the infineum VIIs shear more than the VIIs that HPL uses, so you already have your answer.

And how many other oils market them self's as NO VII oils. Don't be so gullible.

Dave just said that Lake specified the oils he wanted in the test/video. Don’t be so cynical.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

Okay, I've contemplated this data over a few days & I've got to ask a question. Perhaps I didn't collect everything in the video but based on this graph of tested oil below wouldn't it have been a fairer comparison for HPL to use an equivalent 40 grade rather than testing a sheer stable NO VII 5w-30?

All the other competitor oils have VII's in them so why wouldn't HPL test a 0w-40 or 5w-40 WITH VII'S in them? In my opinion that would've been more reflective comparison. To me this data test seemed to have shown HPL the obvious "Winner", w/lowest shear, w/o testing an equivalent product. A more close range multi-grade no VII oil is going to show more sheer stable, less visc. breakdown, than a VI wider range mult-grade (No VII 5w-30 vs VI 5w-40)

Don't take my position as though I do not appreciate the data regardless. Just trying to understand why a very sheer stable product was chosen to "Compare". Perhaps this test was to simply show differences w/o being an equivalent test?


View attachment 229400

Or, take this data on the flipside. Now that you know the HPL No VII series does not shear & lose HTHS, you can better target the oil needed to protect your engine and not have to choose an initially higher HTHS and all that extra viscosity which brings its own complications including heavier cranking load when cold and the associated mileage hit as well from using a heavier HTHS than needed.