Project Farm - Tests Pennzoil Motor Oil

[OVERKILL]

Nor what I said, so a straw man point. But based on that straw man, perhaps bitog should now eliminate the subforum which often features Blackstone VOAs and comparisons since one could infer that like the ones on PF, they serve little or no purpose. Or, provide no "useful information". ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

What I'm saying about PF, to use a metaphor, I'm not willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater, as it were.

Oils aren't typically "ranked" by VOA though, that's more a curiosity thing, getting a "glimpse" into what a formulator chose for metallics. Similar to looking at MSDS sheets which might show PAO in the base oil blend for example, it doesn't tell you much, if anything, about how the product will perform, but, it does satisfy some curiosity and give people something to chat about.

Worded differently, we aren't doing "VOA shootouts" on BITOG, they are primarily used to discern formulation changes and satisfy curiosity.

 

[Deleted member 89374]

PUP did "better" according to those parameters.

What parameters exactly? Did he clearly define those parameters, or did he have his "instrumentation" professionally calibrated? Did he perform any ASTM tests?

I don't see any favoritism.

Project Farm is an influencer. Now, the FTC offers clear guidelines about the disclosures influencers must make about their connection to whatever brand they are advertising. You can read what those guidelines are here: https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/advertising-marketing/endorsements-influencers-reviews

There are simple ways around those disclosures, like using a third party. No one would ever care enough to look into Project Farm's videos more than we did here. That doesn't mean that, at the very least, we shouldn't point out the facts.

The fact is, every oil that PF tested is API certified and would do just fine in cars they are spec'd for.

Yes, all motor oils were API licensed in the video discussed in this thread. However, the video intends to steer his audience to purchase the Pennzoil Ultra Platinum product. That is because it's the poorest selling oil in their lineup, and they don't exactly want to give it away.

Pennzoil Platinum is the same product as Shell Helix Ultra SP. This product is blended the same way everywhere in the world, meaning it's a mix of Group III and GTL base oils and an Infineum Dexos 1 G3 API SP additive package. Therefore, it receives the most amount of testing and attention from Shell. Pennzoil Ultra Platinum is blended using only GTL base oils, and it's mainly an outlet to sell GTL overproduction. It uses the same Dexos 1 G3 additive package, which his basic oil analysis did not reflect. The Pennzoil Ultra Platinum in his video uses the old Dexos 1 G2 API SN Plus additive package (high Boron ppm count). I don't even know where he found this oil in stock. And right there, another flaw in his test: he should have sampled multiple batches from each product line.

Oh, his video's Pennzoil Platinum additive package was skinny, almost diluted. I'd love to know how he accomplished that.

@RDY4WAR's excellent steak comparison notwithstanding, @OVERKILL made once an excellent observation about Project Farm's motor oil videos:

I'm paraphrasing here: "Project Farm's motor oil comparison videos are about as effective in determining which one is the best as is using riffles as hammers to determine their accuracy."

 

[Sayjac]

I don't care how it's presented, a reported Blackstone VOA(s) either here or PF either provides "useful information" (my words in initial post) or it doesn't. Period. For me it's the former, because I'm not looking for way to rate or criticize the forum in which it's presented.

 

[kschachn]

Nor what I said, so a straw man point. But based on that straw man, perhaps bitog should now eliminate the subforum which often features Blackstone VOAs and comparisons since one could infer that like the ones on PF, they serve little or no purpose. Or, provide no "useful information". ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Which is clearly not the objective of the video nor is it the topic of this thread.

And you know as well as I do that the vast majority of the sweeping conclusions we see here that are based on a $30 spectrographic analysis (whether VOA or UOA) are technically unfounded and in most cases unsupported by the lab themselves. Blackstone has already unequivocally stated that there is no statistically significant difference in UOA results between any oil they have tested. It’s not the tool for that and it does not yield those results, just like the other test in that video does not.

 

[MolaKule]

...But based on that straw man, perhaps bitog should now eliminate the subforum which often features Blackstone VOAs and comparisons since one could infer that like the ones on PF, they serve little or no purpose. Or, provide no "useful information"....

Not quite.

If I have a VOA done on a sample that shows 5ppm sodium and 10ppm potassium, and then my UOA sample on the same oil shows 25ppm sodium and 55 ppm potassium, then I may suspect a head gasket leak, but the "trending" should have shown an increase in those contaminants over time.

The point is, there is some useful data to infer from a UOA when compared to a VOA but you have to know what to look for. A one time UOA "snapshot" won't cut it.

However, iron and other metals in a UOA have never been shown to correlate with wear data, with the exception being an impending catastrophic failure and then it's probably too late.

 

[ZeeOSix]

However, iron and other metals in a VOA have never been shown to correlate with wear data, with the exception being an impending catastrophic failure and then it's probably to late.

You mean UOA? Any amount of iron or other metals in a new motor oil VOA is insignificant.

 

[Bill_W]

Not quite.

If I have a VOA done on a sample that shows 5ppm sodium and 10ppm potassium, and then my UOA sample on the same oil shows 25ppm sodium and 55 ppm potassium, then I may suspect a head gasket leak,, but the "trending" should show an increase in those contaminants over time.

The point is, there is some useful data to infer from a UOA when compared to a VOA but you have to know what to look for. A one time UOA "snapshot" won't cut it.

However, iron and other metals in a VOA have never been shown to correlate with wear data, with the exception being an impending catastrophic failure and then it's probably to late.

A starting TBN is nice to know from a VOA but even that you need to know how different labs test for TBN. It is nice to compare and see if the formulation recipe changed. The recent thread on Mobil 1 would be a curiosity if the base oil changed maybe the add pack changed as well. I really like PQIA data but not always available for what I want to compare.

 

[MolaKule]

You mean UOA? Any amount of iron or other metals in a new motor oil VOA is insignificant.

Yes, I changed/edited the typo to UOA just before you posted but had already swiped.

You guys are not only observant, but post faster than a speeding bullet.

 

[Sayjac]

Which is clearly not the objective of the video nor is it the topic of this thread......

"I" don't care what the yt objective was/is, not my interest here. And, I thought the topic as stated by the OP was to see "how the (oils) differ". Four different Blackstone VOAs would appear to show how the ad pack and other aspects (e.g., tbn) of the oils differ. Seen similar done on the bitog subforum many times, other than the forum 'I' don't see the difference.

That said, I get it, you hate what PF calls "testing". Me, much like PFs BlSt VOA comparison of Kirkland Synthetic and Super Tech Synthetic with VOA showed the similarity, if nothing else I find the VOAs informative. Doesn't mean I would base a purchase decision on it, but it's Blackstone analyses, not PF. That's the point. Now if your saying Blackstone VOAs are not valid in any form or forum, well I guess that's another topic.

As for the UOA, as there's none mentioned in the PF yt, that is extraneous to the topic.

 

[Astro14]

"I" don't care what the yt objective was/is, not my interest here. And, I thought the topic as stated by the OP was to see "how the (oils) differ". Four different Blackstone VOAs would appear to show how the ad pack and other aspects (e.g., tbn) of the oils differ. Seen similar done on the bitog subforum many times, other than the forum 'I' don't see the difference.

That said, I get it, you hate what PF calls "testing". Me, much like PFs BlSt VOA comparison of Kirkland Synthetic and Super Tech Synthetic with VOA showed the similarity, if nothing else I find the VOAs informative. Doesn't mean I would base a purchase decision on it, but it's Blackstone analyses, not PF. That's the point. Now if your saying Blackstone VOAs are not valid in any form or forum, well I guess that's another topic.

As for the UOA, as there's none mentioned in the PF yt, that is extraneous to the topic.

It's not that we hate what PF calls "testing" - it's that the testing PF does on motor oil is worthless.

It has no value in the real world.

By measuring things that don't matter, he creates the illusion of "testing", without providing any useful, relevant information.

 

[Sayjac]

It's not that we hate what PF calls "testing" - it's that the testing PF does on motor oil is worthless.

It has no value in the real world.

By measuring things that don't matter, he creates the illusion of "testing", without providing any useful, relevant information.

And, point missed. I focus on the aspects of the video I can take something from, i.e. the VOAs, not the aspects that "we" think "is worthless".

Thanks for the redundant explanation.

 

[Astro14]

And, point missed. I focus on the aspects of the video I can take something from, i.e. the VOAs, not the aspects that "we" think "is worthless".

Thanks for the redundant explanation.

You made a few points in your post. I agreed with some.

I responded to the one that was in need of correction.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Has everyone forgot about the 540Rat oil testing?

 

[Astro14]

Has everyone forgot about the 540Rat oil testing?

No.

The world is full of people who absolutely fit Dunning-Krueger observation and have access to the internet.

 

[Deleted member 89374]

The world is full of people who absolutely fit Dunning-Krueger observation and have access to the internet.

The Dunning-Kruger effect might apply to whoever wrote the 540Rat blog on WordPress.com. However, I don't think it applies to Project Farm. PF seems like an intelligent guy that knows what he's doing and how to manipulate an audience under the guise of "entertainment." I believe that PF is in it for the money.

 

[ltslimjim]

The Dunning-Kruger effect might apply to whoever wrote the 540Rat blog on WordPress.com. However, I don't think it applies to Project Farm. PF seems like an intelligent guy that knows what he's doing and how to manipulate an audience under the guise of "entertainment." I believe that PF is in it for the money.

As you would expect of the majority of YouTube channels when there are such a vast number of subscribers, views per video, etc.

 

[Bill_W]

It convinces people to buy... Pennzoil, and it even steers consumers to specific products in the lineup:

View attachment 105044

View attachment 105045

View attachment 105046

Check out some of the YouTube comments from the "Oil Championship." As I said, it was a brilliant piece of marketing:

Weirdly enough, AMSOIL commented, further legitimizing Project Farm's testing video. A bad move IMHO.

Here are the "I can't afford AMSOIL, so Pennzoil is good enough for me" comments:
View attachment 105048

View attachment 105049

View attachment 105050

View attachment 105051

View attachment 105052

And there are plenty more. I am not knocking Pennzoil by any means, I'm just pointing out that PF accomplished what it set out to do: make Pennzoil look like a great choice... when compared to AMSOIL, and the only choice when compared to everything else.

I read this quite a while ago from Amsoil when researching what oil to choose for my then new 2019 Miata.
(website removed - MOD)
Notice the 4 ball wear test results.

 

[kschachn]

Notice the 4 ball wear test results.

What about them?

 

[Bill_W]

What about them?

Nevermind…

 

[Revving2Redline]

Do you $ee how many view$ he get$?

Probably just as many as X Rated multimedia but it doesn't make it anymore correct. When he compared 5w30 Redline it should have been noted that it was essentially a 40wt and it's claim to fame was it's high HTHS,Noack,etc not it's cold flow. It would have better suited to use the RL 5w20 or 0w30. I try to see which oils and fluids are the best on forums but sometimes trial and error are the best real-time simulation that's needed.