New vid from Project Farm - MotorKote. I'm sold.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'll just put this out there...

So many of you say the one arm bandit AKA the timken test is totally irrelevant to whats going on inside an engine but if you knew engines you would realize its really not that far from actual... sure it doesn't replicate the crankshaft main bearings and rod bearings floating on a hydrodynamic boundary layer of oil but it DOES simulate the top end of an engine like the Honda D/B series with non-roller cam followers applying decent pressure to the camshaft in a purely friction-related contact point. Many other OHC engines have valvetrains that function like this and do not have roller lifters/followers.(think older BMW engines with lash caps and flat tappets etc) I can also see piston skirt to cylinder wall contact and scuffing a relevant situation to this so-called useless test.

You guys that are anti-additive will argue til you're blue in the face. Let it go! If someone gets a warm and fuzzy over using an additive let them!! Must you really go to such great lengths to disprove an additive and that you couldn't be convinced anyway no matter if it truly did work?!?
 
I agree with other his videos are well meaning but i tried to watch one and i wanted to jump off a bridge !
 
Originally Posted by racin4ds
I'll just put this out there...

So many of you say the one arm bandit AKA the timken test is totally irrelevant to whats going on inside an engine but if you knew engines you would realize its really not that far from actual... sure it doesn't replicate the crankshaft main bearings and rod bearings floating on a hydrodynamic boundary layer of oil but it DOES simulate the top end of an engine like the Honda D/B series with non-roller cam followers applying decent pressure to the camshaft in a purely friction-related contact point. Many other OHC engines have valvetrains that function like this and do not have roller lifters/followers.(think older BMW engines with lash caps and flat tappets etc) I can also see piston skirt to cylinder wall contact and scuffing a relevant situation to this so-called useless test.


If it was USEFUL and REPRESENTATIVE of what goes on in the top end of an engine, then surely you understand my point that the OEMS would be all over it like a rash, instead of having to perform the sequence IVA wear test, which is costly and time consuming.

See, they don't...the oil manufacturers (reputable ones that is), don't use it, and the manufacturers of the machine don't list engine oils as the uses for it. If a cheap test like this gave them any insight into how an oil wore the cam and lifters, it would be in the API sequencing.

It's an EP additive test...and there's nowhere in the engine that requires an EP additive...and the error per the test protocols is of the order of 20%.

It's got SFA to do with anything in an engine...in spite of you imagining that a sliding part is a sliding part and needs a Timken test.

Originally Posted by racin4ds
You guys that are anti-additive will argue til you're blue in the face. Let it go! If someone gets a warm and fuzzy over using an additive let them!! Must you really go to such great lengths to disprove an additive and that you couldn't be convinced anyway no matter if it truly did work?!?


The people who argue that the test IS RELEVENT in the face of industry custom, practice and recommendation need to "let it go"...you aren't arguing from a valid understanding of the operation of engines, nor the basis of the tests.

If you want to tip $20 into your engine because you want a warm and fuzzy...go do it...nobody is stopping you.

Just STOP trying to justify it on the results of improperly applied tests...

Or put up with it being discredited every time that you claim it's valid.
 
Originally Posted by Shannow

The people who argue that the test IS RELEVENT in the face of industry custom, practice and recommendation need to "let it go"..you aren't arguing from a valid understanding of the operation of engines, nor the basis of the tests....

If you want to tip $20 into your engine because you want a warm and fuzzy...go do it...nobody is stopping you.

Just STOP trying to justify it on the results of improperly applied tests...

Or put up with it being discredited every time that you claim it's valid.



+10
 
Last edited:
Once again you are arguing your belief.. nothing you said is at all convincing from a scientific point of view.. its all what if, why they didn't do this.
Your arguments are all negative run arounds.
First you argue the Timken is some sort of bandit then that its irrelevant .. I guess lubricity is irrelevant.
and since they didnt do an IVA then they must be guilty.. right
Now of course as usual at a last resort you start to discredit myself with no understanding of engine ops...
whats next more escalating insults?
Once again, dont like it .. dont try it.
 
Last edited:
Even if it did have 28% chlorine by the time it gets diluted im sure it has little to no harm. If you follow motorkote reccomendations at 2oz per Qt that would be 10oz for 5 qts lets say. 28% of 10oz would be 2.8oz. 5 Qts of oil would be 160oz. 2.8oz divided by 160oz of oil would be .0175%. That is so minimal i wouldnt worry about it personally. I tried Motorkote recently and immediately noticed smoother and quieter engine. i will do a oil analysis at 10K interval to see the results. Currently in my 08 avenger i have Schaeffers 5w-20 with 10oz of Motorkote. Im only at 1K interval so far so it will be a couple months before my UOA shows up. With so many mixed reviews on motorkote i decided to experiment myself.
 
Originally Posted by insanecoder
Once again you are arguing your belief.. nothing you said is at all convincing from a scientific point of view.. its all what if, why they didn't do this.
Your arguments are all negative run arounds.
First you argue the Timken is some sort of bandit then that its irrelevant .. I guess lubricity is irrelevant.
and since they didnt do an IVA then they must be guilty.. right
Now of course as usual at a last resort you start to discredit myself with no understanding of engine ops...
whats next more escalating insults?
Once again, dont like it .. dont try it.

Somebody needs to learn to learn rather than just being silly.
 
Originally Posted by insanecoder
Once again you are arguing your belief.. nothing you said is at all convincing from a scientific point of view.. its all what if, why they didn't do this.
Your arguments are all negative run arounds.


OK...the Timken test is an "EP" test.
Engines don't have requirements for "EP" additives.

Testing how good your engine oil is as a gearbox oil tells you NOTHING about engine wear.

Did you read the paper I linked where the military did exactly that with a range of EP testers and got DIFFERENT results ?
 
Originally Posted by insanecoder
Once again you are arguing your belief.. nothing you said is at all convincing from a scientific point of view.. its all what if, why they didn't do this.
Your arguments are all negative run arounds.
First you argue the Timken is some sort of bandit then that its irrelevant .. I guess lubricity is irrelevant.
and since they didnt do an IVA then they must be guilty.. right
Now of course as usual at a last resort you start to discredit myself with no understanding of engine ops...
whats next more escalating insults?
Once again, dont like it .. dont try it.


This is where you are confused. He's not arguing belief, he's presenting you with facts and has made multiple attempts at framing them in a manner that you'll comprehend, which you continue to fail at. This is because you like the product, have purchased the produce and need to believe it does what it says.

The Timken test, of which there are two variations, one for gear oils another for greases, is an industry standard test... For gear oil and greases. If it had ANY relevance to engine oils it would be included in the suite of tests used on engine oils, but it doesn't, so it isn't. The same body came up with much more complex tests like IVA that has been mentioned, to evaluate performance in engines. On top of that, there are a host of OEM testing protocols, some of which are incredibly involved like Porsche A40 where they run simulated lapping of the Nurburgring and then perform tear-downs with measurements. If these tests could be skipped by simply running the lubricant through an already established test for gear oils do you not think that would be embraced? Of course it would. The fact is that the pressures required for EP additives to make sense don't exist inside automotive engines. Ergo, the test that evaluates the performance of those additives isn't run on engine oils.

You've been presented with science and logic. You continue to discount both because it doesn't fit the narrative that you've already committed to. On top of that, you are arguing with an Engineer and an oil formulator on the subject and calling into question their positions because they don't align with yours. Such a scenario should certainly cause one to question their motivations and alignment.
 
I received two bottles of MotorKote for free with a vehicle, started researching went down several rabbit holes when I should be working, ended up here. I've long been VERY skeptical of ANY oil additive believing based on my own and others VOA, UOA, and other independent controlled scientific testing that basically any engine oil additive is snake oil, a waste of money, and potentially worse for your engine than just a good quality oil changed when it should be.

That said I agree with insanecoder. In my googling there's One Example of ONE guy claiming it ruined his cummins, one of the thousands of engines that are supposedly running fine with it. One failed engine does not a statistically bad product make, and no where does he provide any other supporting documentation where exhaustive testing and analysis was performed to eliminate all other possible sources of engine failure.

It seems any potential drawback is based on dogmatic conjecture.

The Project Farm video, while not a proper scientific test seems a well structured garage test of this lubricant and I find it hard to disbelief my own eyes watching his videos. I've seen nearly all of his oil additive testing vids and this one *seems* to vastly outperform all the others.

I maintain my disbelief in oil additives, while it also seems this product may provide real benefit based on youtube testing and multiple positive user comments. At worst it seems this does absolutely nothing and since I paid nothing for it I seem to have nothing to loose. I continue to be open to data that suggests otherwise and eagerly await to be proven wrong.

Thanks to everybody for your contributions, I continue to enjoy this site and the knowledge I continue to gain.

Originally Posted by insanecoder
You know I have been reading these Motorkote threads and I notice a few things about the naysayers
1) they never tried Motorkote
2) they say it doesn't work because it contradicts their beliefs(like how manufacturers would buyout the product if it really worked.. right)
3) they say its full of chlorine (one even said they have proof) but I've still to this day seen NO PROOF of chlorine
4) they say the timkin test is a fraud .. well they ran it w/o the one-arm.. its suspended weights not being touched duh (no one-arm)

Well the supporting evidence seems to be:
1) Ive not seen any complaints about Motorkote corroding their engine over 20 years in this internet age you;d think someone would have
2) no FTC lawsuits against Motorkote (unlike many other real snakeoils)
3) over 80% 5-star positive raving reviews
4) incredible experimental results (see for yourself on youtube)

Like I said .. no evidence contradicting Motorkote claims except lots of fear-mongering heresay

Oh another thing, in this age where manufacturers are pushing 10-20,000mile oil change intervals and "life-time" oils (yea right) , do you really think they have the motivation to keep your engine running after sale and after their 3-4 year warranty? They'd rather your engine die 5-8 years after sale and after warranty so they can sell you another.
 
Amsoil's take on additives: https://blog.amsoil.com/do-motor-oil-additives-work/

Quote
What do motor oil additives do?
The shelves at your local auto parts store are full of aftermarket motor oil additives and oil treatments that promise a cornucopia of benefits, such as…

Increased fuel economy
Reduced friction
Maximum horsepower
Improved engine cleanliness
To provide this added performance, aftermarket motor oil additives use different chemical components to augment the motor oil formula. Some products have advertised materials like Teflon, molybdenum or graphite.

Some have used chlorine, which can be highly corrosive when mixed with water.
...

The chemists and engineers at motor oil companies work hard to fine-tune their formulations to fulfill all the requirements of a motor oil. While aftermarket additives may claim to boost performance in one or two areas, they can't hit them all.

What's more, aftermarket oil additives are not necessary in fully formulated oils. High-quality engine oils are blended with additives that are carefully balanced to be synergistic, performing well together.


As in moisture in the oil... (Chlorine additives being highly corrosive)
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Ryan Dillin
It seems any potential drawback is based on dogmatic conjecture.

The Project Farm video, while not a proper scientific test seems a well structured garage test of this lubricant and I find it hard to disbelief my own eyes watching his videos. I've seen nearly all of his oil additive testing vids and this one *seems* to vastly outperform all the others.

Like I said .. no evidence contradicting Motorkote claims except lots of fear-mongering heresay

It is good that your trial did not indicate any harm but I'm not really sure how you would know.

But at the same time there's also no actual evidence that the additive does anything beneficial either. A few videos of people claiming stuff, or testimonals on a website are not the same as standardized test results showing efficacy. The thing is that it's not as if there aren't such tests that could be run to make such a determination and likewise there's no reason the additive company couldn't publish those results. Unfortunately such tests and results are always missing. Why is that do you think? In one of your previous posts you were looking for actual data on air filters, why aren't you looking for similar data on the efficacy of this additive?
 
Quote

It is good that your trial did not indicate any harm but I'm not really sure how you would know.

But at the same time there's also no actual evidence that the additive does anything beneficial either. A few videos of people claiming stuff, or testimonals on a website are not the same as standardized test results showing efficacy. The thing is that it's not as if there aren't such tests that could be run to make such a determination and likewise there's no reason the additive company couldn't publish those results. Unfortunately such tests and results are always missing. Why is that do you think? In one of your previous posts you were looking for actual data on air filters, why aren't you looking for similar data on the efficacy of this additive?


You're so right, I'd love to see more testing and data on this mystery substance, but it seems hard to find.
Those who have posted UOA's with it indicate no abnormal wear or adverse effects, and possibly some benefit:
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/u...1k-mi-uoa-pup-0w20-napa-plat#Post4581085
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4501444/re-motokote#Post4501444

The Project Farm vid is hard to deny as well. I think I've watched all his additive tests and not one came close to the results that MK generated.

I added it to 5w40 Mobil 1 TDT oil change for my 167k mi '06 LBZ Duramax yesterday, I can't claim any immediate difference that putting in good fresh oil wouldn't make. I didn't do a pre oil change UOA, I will do one at the next OCI to look for any abnormal wear, though results will be far from scientific, but should indicate if it's done any harm.

I understand the concern over chlorine. It's also bad for our bodies in elemental form but critical for our survival when paired with sodium.
wink.gif

Contrary to what the manufacturer claims, If in fact it does contain chlorine as Amsoil and a singular VOA suggests, I wonder if it is paired, or part of a molecule which does provide some benefit, or is at least not able to be separated or is harmless. I imagine knowing that would require a chemical analysis beyond what an elemental analysis is able to provide? The best I can find alludes to chlorinated paraffins but I can find no data to support that. Just people's words on a screen.
 
Originally Posted by Ryan Dillin
Quote

It is good that your trial did not indicate any harm but I'm not really sure how you would know.

But at the same time there's also no actual evidence that the additive does anything beneficial either. A few videos of people claiming stuff, or testimonals on a website are not the same as standardized test results showing efficacy. The thing is that it's not as if there aren't such tests that could be run to make such a determination and likewise there's no reason the additive company couldn't publish those results. Unfortunately such tests and results are always missing. Why is that do you think? In one of your previous posts you were looking for actual data on air filters, why aren't you looking for similar data on the efficacy of this additive?


You're so right, I'd love to see more testing and data on this mystery substance, but it seems hard to find.
Those who have posted UOA's with it indicate no abnormal wear or adverse effects, and possibly some benefit:
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/u...1k-mi-uoa-pup-0w20-napa-plat#Post4581085
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4501444/re-motokote#Post4501444

The Project Farm vid is hard to deny as well. I think I've watched all his additive tests and not one came close to the results that MK generated.

I added it to 5w40 Mobil 1 TDT oil change for my 167k mi '06 LBZ Duramax yesterday, I can't claim any immediate difference that putting in good fresh oil wouldn't make. I didn't do a pre oil change UOA, I will do one at the next OCI to look for any abnormal wear, though results will be far from scientific, but should indicate if it's done any harm.

I understand the concern over chlorine. It's also bad for our bodies in elemental form but critical for our survival when paired with sodium.
wink.gif

Contrary to what the manufacturer claims, If in fact it does contain chlorine as Amsoil and a singular VOA suggests, I wonder if it is paired, or part of a molecule which does provide some benefit, or is at least not able to be separated or is harmless. I imagine knowing that would require a chemical analysis beyond what an elemental analysis is able to provide? The best I can find alludes to chlorinated paraffins but I can find no data to support that. Just people's words on a screen.







If you have some left, I am sure you can mix it with some water and put it in a dish of the apparently affected metals and see what happens
21.gif
should be a pretty simple test.
 
Originally Posted by Ryan Dillin
I understand the concern over chlorine. It's also bad for our bodies in elemental form but critical for our survival when paired with sodium.
wink.gif

Contrary to what the manufacturer claims, If in fact it does contain chlorine as Amsoil and a singular VOA suggests, I wonder if it is paired, or part of a molecule which does provide some benefit, or is at least not able to be separated or is harmless. I imagine knowing that would require a chemical analysis beyond what an elemental analysis is able to provide? The best I can find alludes to chlorinated paraffins but I can find no data to support that. Just people's words on a screen.


Nobosy is accusing them of putting elemental chlorine in the oil
Chlorinated napthenes and parrafins have been around for ages...they provide EP effects, but they break down in high tmeprature situations, and form acids and corrosion.

As to user testimonial trumping SAE, API, and basic science...here's a good one.
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/1893624/1
 
re my point about why see how good your engine oil is as a gear oil, and what will it achieve ???

https://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/31107/oil-lubricant-additives


Quote
Extreme Pressure (EP) Additives
These additives are more chemically aggressive than AW additives. They react chemically with metal (iron) surfaces to form a sacrificial surface film that prevents the welding and seizure of opposing asperities caused by metal-to-metal contact (adhesive wear).
They are activated at high loads and by the high contact temperatures that are created. They are typically used in gear oils and give those oils that unique, strong sulphur smell. These additives usually contain sulphur and phosphorus compounds (and occasionally boron compounds).
They can be corrosive toward yellow metals, especially at higher temperatures, and therefore should not be used in worm gear and similar applications where copper-based metals are used. Some chlorine-based EP additives exist but are rarely used due to corrosion concerns.
 
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by Ryan Dillin
Quote

It is good that your trial did not indicate any harm but I'm not really sure how you would know.

But at the same time there's also no actual evidence that the additive does anything beneficial either. A few videos of people claiming stuff, or testimonals on a website are not the same as standardized test results showing efficacy. The thing is that it's not as if there aren't such tests that could be run to make such a determination and likewise there's no reason the additive company couldn't publish those results. Unfortunately such tests and results are always missing. Why is that do you think? In one of your previous posts you were looking for actual data on air filters, why aren't you looking for similar data on the efficacy of this additive?


You're so right, I'd love to see more testing and data on this mystery substance, but it seems hard to find.
Those who have posted UOA's with it indicate no abnormal wear or adverse effects, and possibly some benefit:
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/u...1k-mi-uoa-pup-0w20-napa-plat#Post4581085
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4501444/re-motokote#Post4501444

The Project Farm vid is hard to deny as well. I think I've watched all his additive tests and not one came close to the results that MK generated.

I added it to 5w40 Mobil 1 TDT oil change for my 167k mi '06 LBZ Duramax yesterday, I can't claim any immediate difference that putting in good fresh oil wouldn't make. I didn't do a pre oil change UOA, I will do one at the next OCI to look for any abnormal wear, though results will be far from scientific, but should indicate if it's done any harm.

I understand the concern over chlorine. It's also bad for our bodies in elemental form but critical for our survival when paired with sodium.
wink.gif

Contrary to what the manufacturer claims, If in fact it does contain chlorine as Amsoil and a singular VOA suggests, I wonder if it is paired, or part of a molecule which does provide some benefit, or is at least not able to be separated or is harmless. I imagine knowing that would require a chemical analysis beyond what an elemental analysis is able to provide? The best I can find alludes to chlorinated paraffins but I can find no data to support that. Just people's words on a screen.







If you have some left, I am sure you can mix it with some water and put it in a dish of the apparently affected metals and see what happens
21.gif
should be a pretty simple test.


I am going to try this experiment when i get home later today. i will post pictures and time data.
 
Originally Posted by Diesel12
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by Ryan Dillin
Quote

It is good that your trial did not indicate any harm but I'm not really sure how you would know.

But at the same time there's also no actual evidence that the additive does anything beneficial either. A few videos of people claiming stuff, or testimonals on a website are not the same as standardized test results showing efficacy. The thing is that it's not as if there aren't such tests that could be run to make such a determination and likewise there's no reason the additive company couldn't publish those results. Unfortunately such tests and results are always missing. Why is that do you think? In one of your previous posts you were looking for actual data on air filters, why aren't you looking for similar data on the efficacy of this additive?


You're so right, I'd love to see more testing and data on this mystery substance, but it seems hard to find.
Those who have posted UOA's with it indicate no abnormal wear or adverse effects, and possibly some benefit:
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/u...1k-mi-uoa-pup-0w20-napa-plat#Post4581085
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4501444/re-motokote#Post4501444

The Project Farm vid is hard to deny as well. I think I've watched all his additive tests and not one came close to the results that MK generated.

I added it to 5w40 Mobil 1 TDT oil change for my 167k mi '06 LBZ Duramax yesterday, I can't claim any immediate difference that putting in good fresh oil wouldn't make. I didn't do a pre oil change UOA, I will do one at the next OCI to look for any abnormal wear, though results will be far from scientific, but should indicate if it's done any harm.

I understand the concern over chlorine. It's also bad for our bodies in elemental form but critical for our survival when paired with sodium.
wink.gif

Contrary to what the manufacturer claims, If in fact it does contain chlorine as Amsoil and a singular VOA suggests, I wonder if it is paired, or part of a molecule which does provide some benefit, or is at least not able to be separated or is harmless. I imagine knowing that would require a chemical analysis beyond what an elemental analysis is able to provide? The best I can find alludes to chlorinated paraffins but I can find no data to support that. Just people's words on a screen.







If you have some left, I am sure you can mix it with some water and put it in a dish of the apparently affected metals and see what happens
21.gif
should be a pretty simple test.


I am going to try this experiment when i get home later today. i will post pictures and time data.


You won't see anything happen under those conditions. The problem with the chlorinated additives is when they enter the combustion chamber. The chlorine is released when the additive burns and combines with H to form HCl, which is a corrosive gas. HCL dissolves in water forming hydrochloric acid.

Ed
 
Originally Posted by edhackett

You won't see anything happen under those conditions. The problem with the chlorinated additives is when they enter the combustion chamber. The chlorine is released when the additive burns and combines with H to form HCl, which is a corrosive gas. HCL dissolves in water forming hydrochloric acid.

Ed


Could one not add heat to the proposed test to try and create that effect?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

john_pifer
First New Coffeemaker in 9 Years!
2 3 4
Replies
66
Views
4K
Cropduster172
B
Has anyone switched from DSLRs to Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens?
Replies
2
Views
374
bunnspecial
D
I'm DONE with "premium" oil filters
5 6 7
Replies
120
Views
36K
cheesepuffs2
wwillson
Flying the Boeing 757-200
2 3 4
Replies
71
Views
4K
john_pifer
92saturnsl2
New to me 2018 Buick Regal Tour-X Essense
2
Replies
21
Views
4K
ls1mike
Back
Top