LSJr - Viscosity Breakdown: The Silent Engine Killer Revealed!

[kschachn]

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.

But only if the cause of a viscosity deviation is mechanical shear of the VM, which I contend is rather rare. Far more common is fuel dilution, and a no-VII oil will dilute and thin with fuel just the same. It will have better long-term stability but in the short term it is just one higher-viscosity liquid being diluted by one with a lower viscosity.

I guess I'll take my chances and the hit of those complications with a higher HT/HS oil.

 

[edhackett]

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

There are two separate sets of data here. One is the wide range commercial offerings that were chosen to find out how they would fair under this test. They provide interesting and relevant information, but are not part of the experiment. A 0W or 5W-40 HPL was not chosen instead of the HPL 5W-30 No VII as it wasn't relevant to the actual experiment. This study wasn't to prove HPL was superior.

The experiment was how various base oils and VII improvers perform. The no VII 5W-30 was chosen as the control and the experimental oils were formulated to match the viscosity of that oil. If this was a publication quality study, the proper thing would have been to blend a PAO and GIII 5W-30 with no VII to use as controls. The use of an off the shelf(anybody's) no VII 5W-30 was perfectly fine given the intended audience of this study.

Lake does a good job with his videos, this being no exception.

Ed

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

But only if the cause of a viscosity deviation is mechanical shear of the VM, which I contend is rather rare. Far more common is fuel dilution and a no-VII oil will dilute and thin with fuel just the same.

I guess I'll take my chances and the hit of those complications with a higher HT/HS oil.

We’re agreeing on that… I was specifically referencing these oils that show large HTHS losses under the KRL testing. Then on top of that one would have to deal with any fuel dilution.

If we use my most recent 3.5EB sample and look at the UOA, we know that under the KRL test my oil should have lost ~1% viscosity (so from ~11.2 cSt to ~11.1), toss in <1% fuel dilution, and we end up at my final viscosity of 12.7cSt. So for the engine’s recommendation of using a 30 grade oil, in this case there is no need to use a higher HT/HS to maintain protection over the duration of the 15k OCI.

Definitely not saying every engine is the same, but once the operating parameters are known (how much shear & dilution at a given mileage), an oil containing no VMs will be a very straightforward evaluation of the thinnest oil that will do the job.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

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

Ravenol.

"Due to the USVO® technology we achieve an extremely high viscosity stability. We avoid the disadvantages of polymeric viscosity improvers while taking advantage of them. This improves engine protection, performance, engine cleanliness and oil drain intervals. The USVO® technology makes it possible that the product has no shear losses during the entire change interval and is extremely stable to oxidation. This unique technology helps oil lubricate faster, thereby minimizing friction while keeping the engine clean and efficient."

https://www.ravenol.de/en/company/innovations/usvo

 

[Sam_Julier]

@HPL Plant Manager When have a moment could you add the 10W40 No VII properties to your site please. Thanks!

 

[Kalle.J]

Ravenol.

"Due to the USVO® technology we achieve an extremely high viscosity stability. We avoid the disadvantages of polymeric viscosity improvers while taking advantage of them. This improves engine protection, performance, engine cleanliness and oil drain intervals. The USVO® technology makes it possible that the product has no shear losses during the entire change interval and is extremely stable to oxidation. This unique technology helps oil lubricate faster, thereby minimizing friction while keeping the engine clean and efficient."

https://www.ravenol.de/en/company/innovations/usvo

Thats your interpretation? Really

 

[TiGeo]

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.

Yes, this was the point of the comment I made in response to someone saying "viscosity drop isn't a big deal" or something to that effect. Yes it is but certainly all oil variables are in the mix here. For my use, it's very important but even if it drops a lot it's still going to be a 30 grade most likely so no real drama on just about any modern Euro 40 grade for me.

 

[robertcope]

Interesting video but it also feels like a scare tactic of sorts. "Oh noes, my oil may shear and my engine blow up!" Except we all collectively have millions of miles on engines that have not blown up from oil that shears. Yes, M1 0W-40 may shear. You think Porsche doesn't know that and how that impacts their engines? Anyhow, interesting video.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

Ravenol.

"Due to the USVO® technology we achieve an extremely high viscosity stability. We avoid the disadvantages of polymeric viscosity improvers while taking advantage of them. This improves engine protection, performance, engine cleanliness and oil drain intervals. The USVO® technology makes it possible that the product has no shear losses during the entire change interval and is extremely stable to oxidation. This unique technology helps oil lubricate faster, thereby minimizing friction while keeping the engine clean and efficient."

https://www.ravenol.de/en/company/innovations/usvo

Ravenol failed spectacularly in my 3.5 EcoBoost. Back to back 6k mile UOAs where Ravenol DXG was out of grade with essentially zero fuel dilution. I don’t know where the disconnect is, but considering Ravenol was ~20% more than HPL and delivered absolute results… they should be ashamed.

On top of that, my 2nd UOA showed that they sent me a 5L package that said it was d1G2 compliant, yet the UOA from that jug clearly showed what was in it was still d1G1… it was quite the hullabaloo if you care to go read that thread. I ditched Ravenol on the spot and haven’t looked back. Zero regrets.

 

[fantastic]

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.

I disagree, I see there were two parties involved in this video (LSJr & HPL). I'm pretty sure HPL was the one to compile the testing parameters not LSJr. Knowing HPL is a site sponsor here it seems logical & reasonable to ask on this topic video that was performed in the HPL facilities. This is a question for either or.

 

[Astro14]

I disagree, I see there were two parties involved in this video (LSJr & HPL). I'm pretty sure HPL was the one to compile the testing parameters not LSJr. Knowing HPL is a site sponsor here it seems logical & reasonable to ask on this topic video that was performed in the HPL lab.

The host of the show was LSJ. It is his YouTube Channel. HPL said that they were simply in support.

Please read this post, by HPL:

Post in thread 'LSJr - Viscosity Breakdown: The Silent Engine Killer Revealed!'
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/t...nt-engine-killer-revealed.384737/post-6940349

So, no, your supposition is not logical, not reasonable, and in fact, in conflict with what was said in other posts.

You are the only one pushing your agenda, it is inaccurate, and it is inappropriate.

 

[fantastic]

You are the only one pushing your agenda, and it is inappropriate.

What "agenda" do I have? I've been very clear about my appreciation for the video & HPL's support of this forum so what you are claiming here is simply not true. I did not see the post you referenced & Lake would be the one to ask. I'd thought I'd read all of the responses here. Regardless, Thanks @HPL Plant Manager @High Performance Lubricants for participating in this testing.

 

[Astro14]

What "agenda" do I have? I've been very clear about my appreciation for the video & HPL's support of this forum so what you are claiming here is simply not true. I did not see the post you referenced & Lake would be the one to ask. I'd thought I'd read all of the responses here. Regardless, Thanks @HPL Plant Manager @High Performance Lubricants for participating in this testing.

Your agenda, your claim, made in this post:

Post in thread 'LSJr - Viscosity Breakdown: The Silent Engine Killer Revealed!'
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/t...nt-engine-killer-revealed.384737/post-6943439

To me this data test seemed to have shown HPL the obvious "Winner", w/lowest shear, w/o testing an equivalent product.

You accuse them, point blank, of “rigging” the test.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Thats your interpretation? Really

View attachment 229455

Keep reading the link.

"Thanks to the special combination (formulation) of the high quality fully synthetic base oils and selected special additives (without the use of polymer thickeners), an extensive process sequence can be used to manufacture outstanding oils with excellent performance thanks to their various lubrication properties."

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

Your agenda, your claim, made in this post:

Post in thread 'LSJr - Viscosity Breakdown: The Silent Engine Killer Revealed!'
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/t...nt-engine-killer-revealed.384737/post-6943439



You accuse them, point blank, of “rigging” the test.

Astro, this is not @ you, simply using your email as a good lead-in for my argument.

I’m guessing here, as I haven’t combed every single UOA posted to the board over the past 6 months, that my UOA at 14.4k miles on my tuned 3.5EB “may” be the longest documented run that’s been shared here for the No VII series. WearCheck did the UOA, so there’s no concerns that:
1. The UOA was “rigged”, or;
2. Fuel % was incorrect since WC uses GC for that measurement.

Even with a 500+rwhp tune running E30 for a majority of those 14k+ miles (I finally drained it at 15,912), there is ZERO viscosity loss; in fact, it thickened some just as @High Performance Lubricants told us it would LONG before anybody had gone 15k on this oil. I get that some people have a hard time believing without seeing, or even doing themselves, but between what Dave shared about the No VII series, what this thread’s testing performed for LSJr’s testing showed from the lab, and my UOA… this is clear, rock solid data that not only does HPL know exactly what their oils will do in operation, but also that their oils are capable of performance that very few people believe are possible.

Call me a fanboy, I don’t give a flying crap. Show me other 15k UOAs from Castrol, Pennzoil, Redline, whoever… that averaged less than 2ppm iron/1k miles, did not drop down to a 20 grade, and still have nearly 8 TBN left at the 15k mile mark. I’d wait, but we’d have to pause the internet while all other comers fail miserably. Some of you have claimed it’s merely shtick; I say between the 15-30% ethanol content even thru winter, the hot tune, and my driving style (24k+ miles in the past 14 months and plenty of sub-5-second 0-60 runs), I’ve given HPL’s oils nearly a worst-case scenario to show it’s not capable of what Dave has calmly told this board his oils will do. And the UOA is proof that it does.

It’s almost hilarious to see the mental gymnastics that some members will perform in public to try to discredit proof after proof after proof that it really is possible to break the mold given to us by Big Oil, let alone with their own products simply mixed and used in the “right” manner. People say they want data, now believe it. Just like Astro’s flawless run on his Benz.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

Astro, this is not @ you, simply using your email as a good lead-in for my argument.

Data below from 6.5k run @ 35k total miles on Ravenol DXG (untuned) vs. 14,400 mile run @ 83k total miles on HPL No VII Euro 5w30 (tuned, E30) - HPL UOA is on top.

Which oil would you want in YOUR $15k EcoBoost engine??

SAMPLE INFORMATION	Unit of Measurement	Reject Limit	Result
Sample Date			03 May 2024
Machine Age	miles		82988
Oil Age	miles		14394
Oil Changed			Not Changed
CONTAMINATION
Fuel		>4.0	<1.0
Water		>0.2	NEG
Glycol			NEG
WEAR METALS
Iron	ppm	>150	29
Chromium	ppm	>20	<1
Nickel	ppm	>5	0
Titanium	ppm		<1
Silver	ppm	>2	0
Aluminum	ppm	>40	15
Lead	ppm	>50	0
Copper	ppm	>155	11
Tin	ppm	>10	<1
Vanadium	ppm		0
Cadmium	ppm		0
ADDITIVES
Boron	ppm	200	53
Barium	ppm		3
Molybdenum	ppm	85	732
Manganese	ppm		4
Magnesium	ppm	525	1162
Calcium	ppm	4300	2381
Phosphorus	ppm	1000	862
Zinc	ppm	1100	991
Sulfur	ppm	20200	7511
CONTAMINANTS
Silicon	ppm	>30	25
Sodium	ppm	>400	10
Potassium	ppm	>20	1
INFRA-RED
Soot %	%		0.1
Nitration	Abs/cm	>20	21.6
Sulfation	Abs/.1mm	>30	55.9
FLUID DEGRADATION
Oxidation	Abs/.1mm	>25	48.1
Base Number (BN)	mg KOH/g	11.0	7.78
VISUAL
White Metal	scalar	NONE	NONE
Yellow Metal	scalar	NONE	NONE
Precipitate	scalar	NONE	NONE
Silt	scalar	NONE	NONE
Debris	scalar	NONE	NONE
Sand/Dirt	scalar	NONE	NONE
Appearance	scalar	NORML	NORML
Odor	scalar	NORML	NORML
Emulsified Water	scalar	>0.2	NEG
Free Water	scalar		NEG
FLUID PROPERTIES
Visc @ 100°C	cSt	11.19	12.7

 

[Astro14]

@SubieRubyRoo - The recent UOA on the S600 was, indeed, gratifying. Not nearly as impressive as @wwillson running 30,000 miles, or your run above, but impressive nonetheless.

The point of the video was to discuss how various oils lose viscosity through shear, and how quickly various VIs shear in comparison. LSJ structured the test, and it was interesting. I don’t always agree with what he says, but this time I thought he was spot on. The best way to show the role of VI in viscosity loss was to test an oil without VI. So, he chose one.

And HPL generously volunteered their lab for the test - with many thanks to Dave, who was able to clear off his schedule from their own testing to accomplish that.

For some to suggest that HPL rigged the test to show the superiority of their oil is both missing the point of the video, and trash talking where it isn’t merited.

Back to the oil - yeah, I am genuinely impressed with how the HPL held up in my S600. I drained it because the first sample was lost and I hit the MB 10,000 mark. But at 10,000 miles, that 5W40 supercar looked ready for another 10,000 miles, easy, with strong TBN, and good viscosity and very low wear.

Not to go too far off topic from the thread - viscosity loss testing of VI - but there is one other really important point from your run in the EB, my run, and Wayne’s - that HPL is actually cheaper to use than ordinary products.

I’ve seen it said, several times, that you’re better off using a cheap oil and changing it often. You “get the same results as a boutique oil at lower cost.”

Well, clearly, that isn’t true. The HPL can stay in service for a long time. The cost/mile for HPL is lower than a regular oil used at 3,000 or even, 5,000 mile, intervals. That is an important point.

That is exactly why some large entities, that run big fleets, have chosen HPL after extensive testing. Their operating cost per mile, or per hour, in the case of machinery, goes down by using the better oil.

Those entities aren’t looking for the “cool” factor - they are saving money, plain and simple.

 

[350Rocket]

My gm LS 4.8 in my work truck was 12.83 at 5k with 1.23% coolant in the oil. Lots of idle time, not sure of the hours but it was below 20% on the OLM. No fuel present (but I know Blackstone isn't good for that).

Much less demanding engine, but it sheared to 11.9 for me over 6600 miles in my Mazda 3. Analysis done by OAI.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/2010-mazda-3-2-5-mzr-6600-miles-m1-fs-0w-40-sp.383507/

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

Astro- in a way your trust in HPL and the results the S600 put up are at least as impressive as mine… EcoBoosts certainly aren’t cheap to replace, but I’m willing to bet that a new engine for the S600 is likely higher than buying a new car in some instances!

I also agree that to the video’s point, that shear & viscosity loss is an important piece of oil choice. That’s why I brought up, but maybe didn’t word eloquently enough about what the No VII showed over a long OCI in an engine family (EcoBoost) that’s been shown repeatedly here in UOAs to take almost every single oil out of grade, whether thru simple fuel dilution or mechanical shear. This includes the Ravenol DXG I ran in the past, which has multiple different marketing methods (USVO, PAO/Grp V references) to make one think that oil justifies its ~$20+/qt price- but my UOA showed it didn't stay in grade at a mere 65% OLM use.

No VII Euro exhibited neither shortcoming at more than double that OCI. The data’s pretty clear. Thanks for making more concise points than I do sometimes.

 

[High Performance Lubricants]

I disagree, I see there were two parties involved in this video (LSJr & HPL). I'm pretty sure HPL was the one to compile the testing parameters not LSJr. Knowing HPL is a site sponsor here it seems logical & reasonable to ask on this topic video that was performed in the HPL facilities. This is a question for either or.

With all due respect, you were really wet here. I was not even in the building when these were defined or run and I clearly stated Lake calls his own shots for the test requirements. Lake is competent as a Formulator. We pride ourselves on being an ethical company, and that something that I would never compromise. Going forward, Lake Speed will still have access to our lab. We have a great working relationship and we will run whatever he wants to run within the capacity of our lab. I’m not really sure what the agenda is here but if you do not trust us, we’re probably not a good match for each other.

Our relationship with BITOG is simply a sponsor agreement to help support the community. Wayne does an excellent job on this forum. He spends countless and thankless hours taking care of it.

I’m not big on false accusations. I would be delighted to see your proof of what you imply.

David