Project Farm - Tests Pennzoil Motor Oil

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
1,042
Location
So Cal
For the record those are not Amsoil words.

Technically you are not supposed to post dealer sales sites. Have a mod edit your post to only include the link to the 2013 paper ( outdated)
Updated to June 2013 PDF… Thanks.
 

dnewton3

Staff member
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
9,456
Location
Indianapolis, IN
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.
I'll nit-pick here, just a bit, for clarification.

Several years ago, I worked in cooperation with Blackstone to collect data for my UOA normalcy study. I didn't work "for" them; I never got paid or any promotional considerations. I simply coordinated with Ryan to get the data from their database (redacted of any personal info). Ryan, at the time, admitted he found my analysis interesting and they don't do that type of "in depth" analysis. They don't do "statistical" processing of info.

What Blackstone states ...

What’s the best oil to use?​

Ah, the million dollar question. We are an independent lab, so we don’t make recommendations. It has been our experience that oil is oil, and either petroleum or synthetic-based oil will work well for just about any engine.

Come on, you’re holding out on me. I should use synthetic, right?​

Buddy, you should use whatever you want. Synthetic oil won’t guarantee a longer engine life any more than my eating organic food will guarantee I’ll live until I’m 90. We here at Blackstone generally use regular petroleum-based oil because honestly, it works just as well for us.

My point? I don't know that Blackstone has ever "unequivocally stated" anything regarding statistically significant results one way or another, mainly because they are not trained to do such analysis, nor do they have the interest in doing so. If you have a direct quote from them, then I may be wrong, but this would be of great news to me.


The world of statisics can be both a blessing and a curse, as with most things in life. A little knowledge can be dangerous.
If anyone wants to understand the pros/cons, do's/don'ts, etc regarding UOAs and what conclusions are sound (or not), read this:
Statisical analysis most certainly can be used to determine not only lubricant characteristics, but also equipment characteristics, and the results of the interaction of the lubes and equipment. But, the danger lies in the mis-application of the methods, and/or mis-interpretation of the results.

I am willing to state, unequivocally, that most folks here have no idea how to properly interpret a UOA, and typically have nowhere enough data for proper analysis. THAT is a claim I am willing to stand behind 100%.
 

Jackson_Slugger

$50 Site Donor 2022
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
1,792
Location
New York
...

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.

...

All correct, as UOA's largely come from the trucking and construction industries where expensive equipment and long drain intervals make UOA's a cost effective tool to measure wear trends and issues over time. A once off for the average car isn't going to reveal much. Even a UOA every OCI for the typical passenger car/light truck is just dumb as you are spending as much as a typical OCI costs....
 

Jackson_Slugger

$50 Site Donor 2022
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
1,792
Location
New York
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.

He seems to be a bit of a smarmy douchetube to me, but whatever...
 
Joined
May 25, 2020
Messages
1,779
Location
NC, USA
He seems to be a bit of a smarmy douchetube to me, but whatever...
He made a video a few years back about his farm, and one of the points he made was that YouTube is an extra source of income. I don't hate the guy, or even dislike hime. I just wish he wasn't working so hard masking his intentions under the guise of an average blue-collar guy. He is far from being stupid or even ignorant. Admittedly, it's easy to find an audience when you're targetting a tier or two bellow your own intelectual level.
 
Joined
Nov 29, 2021
Messages
4,214
To quote from Post #1 in this thread:

BITOG Disclaimer: The Project Farm channel states that its videos are for entertainment purposes only. Project Farm does not perform ASTM tests, nor apply industry acknowledged methods and criteria, and therefore BITOG cannot endorse the results of tests of any lubricant or filter or similar product as seen on the Project Farm channel, and cautions readers giving credence to such entertainment information.

He seems to be a bit of a smarmy douchetube to me, but whatever...

Yep, that eating good grin as well as he strikes me as off-putting. Just my opinion. But I agree. Kind of looks like Beavis if you ask me.

I defer to the disclaimer. Again.. the videos presented are useless.
 
Joined
Jul 15, 2003
Messages
3,165
Location
MN
He made a video a few years back about his farm, and one of the points he made was that YouTube is an extra source of income. I don't hate the guy, or even dislike hime. I just wish he wasn't working so hard masking his intentions under the guise of an average blue-collar guy. He is far from being stupid or even ignorant. Admittedly, it's easy to find an audience when you're targetting a tier or two bellow your own intelectual level.
You could say that about any monetized YouTube channel. They aren't doing it for the fun of it. That being said, I don't think his videos are that bad.
 
Joined
May 25, 2020
Messages
1,779
Location
NC, USA
'I' find the Blackstone VOAs in the video informative, exactly as I might if the identical VOAs posted this forum.
There is nothing informative about these numbers, but plenty is wrong with how Project Farm presents them. It makes sense why he picked or just presented, the numbers for an older PUP 5W-30 formulation: because he added up the "detergent and dispersant" numbers, and PUP 5W-30 "scored" the highest. @MolaKule is this how chemistry works?


1656164501175.png


He lumps in the Moly compound with ZDDP. At a simplistic level I would say that no, friction reduction does not equate to wear reduction, they are two separate things. But this is Project Farm after all. Sweet Jesus...

1656166087157.jpg




Here are the four VOAs from the video:

Pennzoil Synthetic Blend 5W-30:

1656164906152.png


Pennzoil Full Synthetic 5W-30:
1656164993025.png


Pennzoil Platinum 5W-30:

1656164928039.png


Pennzoil Ultra Platinum 5W-30:
1656165069892.png


I call absolute bologna on these right here:

1656165515140.png


1656165565288.png


There is no way to get results this "linear" and "accurate" with Project Farm's non-standard and non-calibrated testing methods and equipment. The results are, however, in line with Pennzoil's product stack from a marketing point of view, I'll give him that.



The only useful information I got from Project Farm's video is:
  • Pennzoil Full Synthetic is the same oil as Quaker State Full Synthetic and (the now discontinued) Rotella Gas Truck. This is inferred by comparing VOAs and knowing that Shell sells the same product in various bottles under various brands in their portfolio. There is nothing wrong with that, I'm just pointing out the obvious.
  • The additive package for the Pennzoil Platinum is a bit "out of whack", however, it could also be due to the lab. I doubt PF fudged the numbers to make them fit his "testing criteria" because he presented the numbers on a Blackstone Labs sheet.
  • The Pennzoil Ultra Platinum sample is an older formulation.
There is plenty more to nitpick in the video, however, like @MolaKule, @RDY4WAR, @OVERKILL, @Astro14, and many others have pointed out, the video contains absolutely no useful information about motor oil. It's a pure show of enternainment. I kindly ask anyone who comes across this information not to use Project Farm's video discussed in this thread, or any of his lubrication videos, to make an informed decission about purchasing lubricants for their vehicle or equipment.
 
Joined
Nov 29, 2021
Messages
4,214
BITOG Disclaimer: The Project Farm channel states that its videos are for entertainment purposes only. Project Farm does not perform ASTM tests, nor apply industry acknowledged methods and criteria, and therefore BITOG cannot endorse the results of tests of any lubricant or filter or similar product as seen on the Project Farm channel, and cautions readers giving credence to such entertainment information.
 
Joined
Dec 23, 2020
Messages
850
Location
Midwest
BITOG Disclaimer: The Project Farm channel states that its videos are for entertainment purposes only. Project Farm does not perform ASTM tests, nor apply industry acknowledged methods and criteria, and therefore BITOG cannot endorse the results of tests of any lubricant or filter or similar product as seen on the Project Farm channel, and cautions readers giving credence to such entertainment information.
That's all the criticism that needed to be said about this video from the start.
 
Joined
Aug 25, 2018
Messages
2,960
Location
South Carolina
is this how chemistry works?

No, that is not how chemistry works. His thought process there is very flawed. You can't tell the detergent "strength" (for lack of a better word... my brain is still trying to process his nonsense) by just looking at the Ca and Mg concentration. You can have a huge swing in TBN between 2 oils with the same detergent concentration. Soft base vs hard base detergents is one such factor.

Adding up the Zn and P for anti-wear is asinine. Zinc doesn't have much of an anti-wear role. It's essentially just the neutralizing carrier for the molecule. The phosphorus and sulfur provide the anti-wear function with the S reacting with iron surfaces to form barriers of ferrous sulfide and the P reacting to heat and pressure to form tribofilms of polyphosphate "glass". The Zn is sitting the corner eating paste at this point, it's job over with. If you were to analyze tribofilms created by ZDDP, you'd find Zn there but just guilty by association.

ZDDP starts out as phosphorus pentasulfide which is reacted with various alcohols to form dialkyl-dithio-phosphoric acid. This is the anti-wear molecule (notice no Zn present) but it's unstable and too acidic in this form to be used in lubricants. Therefore, it's neutralized (to an extent depending on the type of ZDDP) with zinc oxide to form zinc dialkyl-dithio-phosphate (ZDDP).

I hadn't even noticed where he added up the elementals before your post. That is comical.

I will occasionally take an average of the Zn and P numbers when referring to ZDDP concentration. Say an oil has 824 ppm Zn and 706 ppm P. I'll go (824 + 706) / 2 = 765 ppm ZDDP. It makes it easier to explain to some people with one number. I don't do this is the P looks abnormal from the ZDDP concentration, such as would be see in an oil employing other phosphorus-based additives like MoDTP.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top