Have you seen this YouTube testing?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Are you asking about this video in particular or the same series of videos that have already been discussed and beat to death on here?
 
Project Farm has some good testing that allows the viewer to choose. A more glorified way than most of us could do ourselves and for the every person. You don't have to agree with it, it's just another resource for us to help us pick our products.

And I do believe that PF sends off the oil samples to Blackstone Labs. Not gospel, just a guideline.
 
Last edited:
I was referring to his generalized subjective conclusions in ranking oil performance based on his variety of tests.
 
I like PFs testing. He must have quite a subscriber base and some serious money coming in, in order to buy all of the products that he tests.

And in this test, even though Amsoil came out on top, you can bet that I'm buying PP from W*M for the price.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by T-Stick
I was referring to his generalized subjective conclusions in ranking oil performance based on his variety of tests.

I've seen a couple of his vids and they're entertaining but I put more stock in what approvals an oil carries and what a product TDS has, rather than what some YouTuber says/does..but it's entertaining and harmless, enjoy it for what it is.
 
He has a large subscriber base and it results in a large monetary gain for him, this was discussed on here a while back.

And it has nothing to do with whether someone "agrees" with his testing, instead it has everything to do with whether the tests are relevant or valid. I have not seen one yet that meets either of those two criteria. For example the "flow" tests he does only show how the oil flows out of a container, not how they behave in an engine. This type of error permeates his entire series of videos.

What he's is doing is not illustrating or researching some unknown or untested critical property of oil, there's nothing "missing" from the properties we have now. He is a guy making money on YouTube by doing the same sort of demonstrations as you'd see at a county fair. A guy with a machine that makes squealing noises and smoke to wow the audience. Even if the test at hand isn't screeching and smoking the principle is the same, provide a visually captivating test that really does nothing but sell hits and views on his videos.
 
From PF:

This video is only for entertainment purposes. If you rely on the information portrayed in this video, you assume the responsibility for the results. Project Farm LLC
 
Originally Posted by ka9mnx
From PF:

This video is only for entertainment purposes. If you rely on the information portrayed in this video, you assume the responsibility for the results. Project Farm LLC

And that relates to his monthly revenue.
 
I've actually been involved in wear testing of aviation oils and greases. It's a big deal, involving a scanning electron microscope and very detailed testing.

PF's videos are very simple, and he does try to make his results somewhat relevant. I thoroughly enjoy them. The data points he generates are aspects of typical industrial tests.
 
Last edited:
One of the major flaws I note in antiwear testing is that the oil is not first heated to engine operating temps which essentially thickens it to its proper viscosity for loading. So in essence this methodology theoretically tests which oil has the best extreme pressure antiwear at startup.
 
Originally Posted by T-Stick
One of the major flaws I note in antiwear testing is that the oil is not first heated to engine operating temps which essentially thickens it to its proper viscosity for loading. So in essence this methodology theoretically tests which oil has the best extreme pressure antiwear at startup.


So you mean just like your engine is when you cold start it?
 
Originally Posted by T-Stick
One of the major flaws I note in antiwear testing is that the oil is not first heated to engine operating temps which essentially thickens it to its proper viscosity for loading. So in essence this methodology theoretically tests which oil has the best extreme pressure antiwear at startup.

Right, that's why the "wear test" (results) he does is somewhat dubious. He can not, in his garage, duplicate the heat and pressure to "activate" the lubes EP chemistry - you'd need a reference engine w/teardown for that. At best, and I'm being generous here, his test, simulates startup w/respect to film strength. But I don't know how long he's running that one arm bandit and at what load etc...so the results are what, subjective at best?? But I suppose you could argue that what's unfair to one is unfair to all, right? Not very scientific though..
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by T-Stick
One of the major flaws I note in antiwear testing is that the oil is not first heated to engine operating temps which essentially thickens it to its proper viscosity for loading. So in essence this methodology theoretically tests which oil has the best extreme pressure antiwear at startup.

What do you mean thickens it? All oil thins as the temperature increases.
 
Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by T-Stick
One of the major flaws I note in antiwear testing is that the oil is not first heated to engine operating temps which essentially thickens it to its proper viscosity for loading. So in essence this methodology theoretically tests which oil has the best extreme pressure antiwear at startup.

What do you mean thickens it? All oil thins as the temperature increases.

No, the "W" is the cold number and the 30, 40 etc is the hot number so it thickens.
 
Originally Posted by jtwrace
Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by T-Stick
One of the major flaws I note in antiwear testing is that the oil is not first heated to engine operating temps which essentially thickens it to its proper viscosity for loading. So in essence this methodology theoretically tests which oil has the best extreme pressure antiwear at startup.
What do you mean thickens it? All oil thins as the temperature increases.
No, the "W" is the cold number and the 30, 40 etc is the hot number so it thickens.

No oil thickens as the temperature increases. You need to learn what the winter performance rating actually means, and also a little basic physics along the way, Not to be too harsh but your incorrect understanding is rampant on this board at times.

Lifted from another user's post in a different thread where a similar comment was made:

[Linked Image]
 
Originally Posted by jtwrace
No, the "W" is the cold number and the 30, 40 etc is the hot number so it thickens.

Guess I was just stuck on the bolded statement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Fredxt
  • Locked
Does ILSAC + OEM OCI have consumers best interest protected?
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
Astro14
C
Do you think they are testing oil filters correctly?
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
Mewbs
Warstud
  • Locked
Project Farm - Tests Pennzoil Motor Oil
10 11 12
Replies
237
Views
26K
M56959
buster
Standard Test Method for Evaluation of the Ability of Engine Oil to Emulsify Water and Simulated Ed85 Fuel
Replies
1
Views
1K
JohnnyG
T
Subaru FA24 Oil Pressure Loss Demonstration
Replies
2
Views
1K
Trav
Back
Top