Three 0w-16 choices I am considering next.

[OVERKILL]

Nope.

HTHS is the condition(s) the lubricant is in. Viscosity @ HTHS is the fluid property being measured. You're just using "HTHS" as a moniker for "HTHS viscosity", which has caused some confusion here. Obviously a lube 'experiencing' a property doesn't affect the conditions it's in...it's the other way around.

If you couldn't pick up this simple grammatical nuance after 17+ years and 60k posts on this forum, you need to hit the books.

When we refer to HTHS, we are referring to HTHS viscosity, a defined property like in ASTM D4741-21:

This is also how it appears on a lot of product data sheets:

Because it's a property defined by a specific test, with specific parameters, using it generally, to describe conditions, which may not be reflective of those of the test is problematic.

The purpose of the HTHS test is to determine viscosity under those specific conditions, which are those of temporary shear, as experienced in the rod bearings, NOT permanent viscosity loss.

The condition he was trying to describe:

all break down one grade due to HTHS after having been run.

was permanent viscosity loss due to shear.

Underscoring this further, the information he was referencing, presented by LSJ, was not as the result of the HTHS test, but was obtained with a KRL, which is a completely different test mechanism, for an entirely different standard: DIN 51350-6, shear stability of polymer-containing lubricating oils by the Shell four-ball tester. This test is NOT run at high temperature, but at 60C.

Nice job projecting. You literally wrote two paragraphs whining about new members.

You've likely seen few, if any of the posts I was referencing, as they were made in threads or posts that have been removed by moderators due to their nature being as described.

I do applaud you for the setup for this post, and the subsequent delivery of your snark in the planned follow-up however! Well played.

As a side note, I've been lurking this forum much longer than LSJr has even posted and wish that he would be more in-depth. Am honestly surprised his videos are as popular as they are and that BITOG hasn't nuked mentions of him off the site (yet).

That's what I was getting at with my post about not singling this guy out, because his takeaway is all too common due to how these videos are structured. Lake is playing the algorithm to be successful on the (youtube) platform, and in doing so, he has to follow the formula, and this means not only using click-baity titles and sensationalizing things, but also skipping over nuance and technical details that would make his videos more technically useful, but considerably less successful because they'd be "boring"; they'd be less palatable to Joe Average.

An example of this is the considerable deviation from spec for M1 FS 0W-40 in his testing. Virgin visc is nowhere near where it should have been, according to Mobil's PDS, but that wasn't mentioned in the video, or in the discussions here until I brought it up. If we are testing the properties of a product and one of them baselines at a considerably different position from where it should, I'd expect that to be a red flag and prompt some dialogue and further investigation.