Or doing a video on the best fishing lures.
Why do people dislike Project Farm?
- Thread starter OppositeLocK
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Heck! I'm wanting to see the Pepsi Challenge 2020!! 
Says his biggest audience is 18-44 year old females - seems a bit strange, wonder if that's an accurate metric.
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2019
- Messages
- 631
Yeah, gonna place serious doubt that that is his typical viewer lol.
Nothing misleading at all.
I find it funny, people trash these tests (also Rats Tests) who ACTUALLY show factual proof testing oils and which ones prevent wear best.
I suspect they dislike his tests because they have nothing other to offer as far as factual tests and proof.
So go with your gut, if you like the tests, choose the proper API and select from these guys, you cant go wrong vs people who think they can tell the difference in motor oils based on nothing more then the make up of oil.
Who cares if the test is relevant in an engine? One thing for sure, its more relevant then comments in forums. So choose the one that produces the least wear, you cant go wrong no matter what oil you choose, so why not choose the one best in wear?
I guess in the other case, for people who do not believe real wear tests on motor oil, then choose the oil with the most wear *LOL*
(ok, and Ill be glad to be in with the 18+ females, what's wrong with that?)
) flame on ..
Last edited:
No flame here, just to point out the sincerely delusional statement above. Factual tests that actually represent real-world operating conditions already exist for motor oils and they result in approvals, specifications and licenses. The Project Farm nonsense is neither needed, relevant, nor does it represent anything remotely real-world regarding engine operation. Your understanding is completely backwards and from your statement you show that you understand literally nothing about the characterization of motor oil properties.Nothing misleading at all.
I find it funny, people trash these tests (also Rats Tests) who ACTUALLY show factual proof testing oils and which ones prevent wear best.
I suspect they dislike his tests because they have nothing other to offer as far as factual tests and proof.
So go with your gut, if you like the tests, choose the proper API and select from these guys, you cant go wrong vs people who think they can tell the difference in motor oils based on nothing more then the make up of oil.
So post your factual tests of a whole range of motor oils ... you dont have any ... your understanding is backwards.
Purchase the oil recommended by the manufacturer, they know a heck of a lot more then you. If you choose the oil recommended with the least wear, that purchaser knows more then you.
hmmm. ... crickets ... because other then words, there is no other proof...
I watch all his videos, oil, batteries, grease ect.
They do have some merit, not exact engine contrition but flow with gravity of coarse not a pump, wear with metal to metal again not like an engine but is shows the better oils regardless for these few test.
Many love Amsoil and they did similar testing, not sure if its done anymore.
They do have some merit, not exact engine contrition but flow with gravity of coarse not a pump, wear with metal to metal again not like an engine but is shows the better oils regardless for these few test.
Many love Amsoil and they did similar testing, not sure if its done anymore.
You are really something, that is a truly bizarre comment. Porsche A40 approval is a directly applicable, factual and real-world test of oil properties. Same for Mercedes-Benz 229.5. Or BMW Longlife-01. Or Porsche C20. Any of them. you should spend some time reading through the Afton Specification Handbook and learn something about how oils are tested for real-world properties.
Project Farm nonsense? Zip and nada. Might as well perform a color or taste test since it would have the same relevancy. You're trying to legitimize something that isn't even partially relevant, this is what causes you to make a statement as you do above.
I would trust the testing done by Porsche or Mercedes, using real engines, and laboratories with controls and rigorous protocols, over some guy in his barn, who tests for things that aren’t directly applicable to engine performance.
Are you honestly suggesting that PF has more relevant results?
Re-read my post
which says ...
"Purchase the oil recommended by the manufacturer, they know a heck of a lot more then you. If you choose the oil recommended with the least wear ..."
In case you didnt understand or I didnt make myself clear.
Purchase the oil recommended by the manufacturer, they know a heck of a lot more then you. Then, instead of listening to baloney you can actually pick one of those oils recommended by the engine maker with the least amount of wear shown by these wear tests. Absolutely nothing wrong with that thinking.
(my reasoning is 100% correct)
Last edited:
The Project Farm "test" does not measure wear as it applies to an ICE. Sorry.
Do you know how wear is actually measured in an ICE? There is a method and this isn't it.
I did read your post.
You suggest that PF’s wear tests, that don’t happen in an engine, lack decent experiment controls, and gloss over precise analysis, are actually relevant to what happens in an engine over the long run.
And that’s simply not true. Complete apples to oranges comparison. The oil that produces the least wear in PF, May, or may not, work better in your engine. There’s no correlation.
His tests are meaningless. Entertaining. Interesting. But irrelevant to how the oil will perform in an engine.
Your still missing the point and I am done here, strongly recommend to others to read through my last posts.
No one is posting a wide range of test results on wear except Project and Rat.
So all I say then, post the darn tests instead of comments! *LOL*
Anyone with common sense can choose the oil type recommended by the manufacturer and take it one step further and feel good about choosing an oil out of that group with the least wear shown in these tests. Like it or not, there is nothing wrong with that thinking.
As far as anyone thinking those tests are meaningless, they are real wear tests, unlike meaningless comments in here that are nothing but empty words as much as some like to help.
This thread goes to show people will argue about pretty much anything.
If you like the videos, watch them. If you don't, then don't.
Sometimes, life is just that simple.
Life is too short and I have too many issues of my own so I don't need to go looking for trouble such as protecting the easily confused from themselves. I don't need to go looking for problems, as I have enough already.
If you like the videos, watch them. If you don't, then don't.
Sometimes, life is just that simple.
Life is too short and I have too many issues of my own so I don't need to go looking for trouble such as protecting the easily confused from themselves. I don't need to go looking for problems, as I have enough already.
Nothing misleading at all.
I find it funny, people trash these tests (also Rats Tests) who ACTUALLY show factual proof testing oils and which ones prevent wear best.
I suspect they dislike his tests because they have nothing other to offer as far as factual tests and proof.
Who cares if the test is relevant in an engine? One thing for sure, its more relevant then comments in forums. So choose the one that produces the least wear, you cant go wrong no matter what oil you choose, so why not choose the one best in wear?
I guess in the other case, for people who do not believe real wear tests on motor oil, then choose the oil with the most wear *LOL*
(ok, and Ill be glad to be in with the 18+ females, what's wrong with that?)
Not quite sure I follow you
Rats and PF's tests are at best not relevant but there are other tests out there which are technically vetted. That's the problem with their tests- they are functionally worthless.
If a test is not relevant ( as you infer in bold) then what value could it possibly have in anything?
Am I misreading you?
Wow. Got it.
Could you please define the term "real" in context with the point you are making?
What he did was neither meant to be a simulation nor a test of odour. What it shows may more or less be what it shows, not much and not nothing either. Not every oxidation test is much of a simulation, not each four ball weld test is used to find the oil or grease that shall make a bearing live that cannot survive yet. Lots of useless lowly rhetorics on many sides, almost as ugly as the Project Farm's voicing.
Just try to extend on what is to be seen and had from it. That would be so much easier to write and read on everyone. No need to ever analyse the other's personality.
In the end these videos and worse have the specialists write hundreds or thousands of entries on BITOG because they've become specialists primarily in these highlighted fields of traditionals, beliefs, misunderstandings and disinterest in more interesting problems, questions or views less well established and illuminated.
Just try to extend on what is to be seen and had from it. That would be so much easier to write and read on everyone. No need to ever analyse the other's personality.
In the end these videos and worse have the specialists write hundreds or thousands of entries on BITOG because they've become specialists primarily in these highlighted fields of traditionals, beliefs, misunderstandings and disinterest in more interesting problems, questions or views less well established and illuminated.
- Status
