Is this an accurate test on motor oil

Messages
24,228
Location
PNW
Originally Posted by JLTD
Plus it's a total ripoff of Project Farm's format.
Guess YouTubers can't patent their channel style ... LOL That will be coming someday soon.
 
Messages
599
Location
Ontario, Canada
I just wish all the know it all, and smart [censored] people on here who just look to to discredit every single persons personal experience, with oil...who people like this who go out of their way to try and test oils, would actually just make their own videos. I mean since so many people certain ones in particular constantly ask for proof, and then even when proof is given they still discredit it, you would think they would themselves create a video themselves since they seem to be able to point out every single flaw, you would think they would be eager to prove or have their own perfect unflawed test. There are a lot of take aways that do prove some oils in some of the videos such as project farm that totally translate into real world use, such as cold pouring....and flow etc. It's time people that constantly ridicule or say That all of these videos are flawed etc....to back up their supreme intelligence. People love to chirp, and look for one reason to discredit you...but when it comes time to offer up their own evidence as to why everyone and or their videos are wrong, just hear crickets.
 

4WD

Messages
13,222
Location
Texas
We already have industries, institutions, and agencies that have chemists, engineers, and chemical engineers … And advanced labs with test protocols … and they hold both chemical and formula patents They also work hand and hand with equipment OEM's etc … Must conduct Proof of Performance tests to get the approval. This other stuff is entertaining …
 
Messages
55
Location
ON
Channels like Project Farm have some interesting and entertaining content, but the subject is so complex that it's impossible to really test for different scenarios adequately at home. It's worth noting that Project Farm is quite open about the fact his testing isn't laboratory quality, and to not treat it as such. That being said, his methodology is usually quite sound. And some of his videos (like the Seafoam videos) might not talk about chemical composition or do "lab" style testing, but they do provide very convincing before / after comparisons and anecdotal evidence.
 
Messages
14,023
Location
...
Originally Posted by domer10
I just wish all the know it all, and smart [censored] people on here who just look to to discredit every single persons personal experience, with oil...who people like this who go out of their way to try and test oils, would actually just make their own videos. I mean since so many people certain ones in particular constantly ask for proof, and then even when proof is given they still discredit it, you would think they would themselves create a video themselves since they seem to be able to point out every single flaw, you would think they would be eager to prove or have their own perfect unflawed test. There are a lot of take aways that do prove some oils in some of the videos such as project farm that totally translate into real world use, such as cold pouring....and flow etc. It's time people that constantly ridicule or say That all of these videos are flawed etc....to back up their supreme intelligence. People love to chirp, and look for one reason to discredit you...but when it comes time to offer up their own evidence as to why everyone and or their videos are wrong, just hear crickets.
What about this video test tells you about the oil and how it will perform in your engine? Is this your video?
 

Bud

Messages
2,802
Location
Texas
Originally Posted by kschachn
Never mind, it's not even worth the effort to comment.
And yet you did. cheers
 
Messages
8,305
Location
Virginia
Originally Posted by 4WD
We already have industries, institutions, and agencies that have chemists, engineers, and chemical engineers … And advanced labs with test protocols … and they hold both chemical and formula patents They also work hand and hand with equipment OEM's etc … Must conduct Proof of Performance tests to get the approval. This other stuff is entertaining …
This is a great answer ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Way to go 4wd... You get the gold star for the day.
 
Messages
8,305
Location
Virginia
Originally Posted by Bud
Originally Posted by kschachn
Never mind, it's not even worth the effort to comment.
And yet you did. cheers
Nah... Kschachn meant a long and technically appropriate/accurate response... I wonder if kschachn uses and dextrose in his Dextron ?? LOL
 
Messages
42,644
Location
Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted by 4WD
We already have industries, institutions, and agencies that have chemists, engineers, and chemical engineers … And advanced labs with test protocols … and they hold both chemical and formula patents They also work hand and hand with equipment OEM's etc … Must conduct Proof of Performance tests to get the approval. This other stuff is entertaining …
This. People seem to get bizarrely rev'd up when somebody torpedoes whatever faith they've got in amateur testing and this is oft followed by calls for those that have made the statement to back it with their "own testing" which completely misses the point. There are, as you indicated, standardized tests. Ones that are far more robust, repeatable and reliable than some series of home brewed bench tests. And with these standardized protocols come actual margin of error figures. The reason Pour Point for example isn't used anymore is because it isn't reliable. You'd have lubricants pass the rapid cooling of the Pour Point test protocol and the oil would gel and fail to pump in actual ambient conditions that involved a different rate of cooling. The behaviours of the waxes, PPD's and VII's were not adequately sussed out via a test that simply used gravity and a freezer, which is why CCS and MRV testing were implemented to get an actual benchmark of what mattered: A) The impact that the oil's viscosity had on the ability for the engine to crank B) The ability for the oil to get picked up and pumped This is wholly represented in the Winter rating of the lubricant.
 
Messages
14,739
Location
Upper Midwest
And specifically in the example domer10 gave, the "cold pouring....and flow" test is only representative of pouring the oil out of a container. So if you want to know what oil may be easiest to pour out of the bottle at whatever temperature they are using in the test then that video is valid. But if you want to know which oil performs best for starting in real-world cold weather (in your engine) then the winter rating gives you that. This is what is so immensely silly about the tests in those videos, that people claim they are "real world use" when in fact they are just the opposite. You don't pour oil inside the engine and it's not representative of what actually happens, same for the testing machine. But it's visually captivating and entertaining and somehow that is imagined to be a substitute for actual performance criteria.
 
Messages
660
Location
FL
Originally Posted by kschachn
And specifically in the example domer10 gave, the "cold pouring....and flow" test is only representative of pouring the oil out of a container. So if you want to know what oil may be easiest to pour out of the bottle at whatever temperature they are using in the test then that video is valid. But if you want to know which oil performs best for starting in real-world cold weather (in your engine) then the winter rating gives you that. This is what is so immensely silly about the tests in those videos, that people claim they are "real world use" when in fact they are just the opposite. You don't pour oil inside the engine and it's not representative of what actually happens, same for the testing machine. But it's visually captivating and entertaining and somehow that is imagined to be a substitute for actual performance criteria.
+Graham's Number
 
Last edited:
Top