100% and thank you. This is an online forum, not a peer-reviewed engineering or science journal.There are quite a few “not anonymous” folks on here who make oil for a living, who are in the lubricant business, who have PhDs in the field, who regularly conduct valid, legitimate, scientific testing of oil to continue to advance the industry.
They are absolutely experts. I’m not one of them, but I can, and do, recognize true expertise in their field.
I‘ve seen, first hand, some of the testing equipment and protocols they use. Thank you @High Performance Lubricants for that insight. Really rigorous, detailed, relevant testing.
When people ascribe validity to videos like this PF test, it’s basically an insult to the actual testing and work that they do. Ignorance of that work isn’t really an excuse, as the types of tests, and results, are discussed on this forum.
But to the point that I think you’re making: we should be allowed to see posts, both from experts and from the uninformed - that’s exactly the discussion that the moderator team had last night, after several reasonable discussions from members via PM.
If we remove videos like PF, we are absolutely removing bad information, but we also appear to be controlling information about certain products.
Controlling information about certain products was never the intent. The intent was to remove bad information, but members made a good point about being able to discuss bad information, as well as the appearance of protecting a product.
Members wanted to have the opportunity to peer review and debate bad information. We listened.
Thus, the bad information was reinstated.
People are free to debate, to make up their minds, and ultimately, to believe foolish things, if they choose.
Project Farm - Tests Pennzoil Motor Oil
- Thread starter Warstud
- Start date
- Status
100% and thank you. This is an online forum, not a peer-reviewed engineering or science journal.
Appreciate it again - you guys do a good job here. I mod another online forum and a VW FB group, I get it.
I actually did that once. I told an anti-nuke "activist" that the "smoke" coming from the cooling towers as "dihydrogen monoxide." She proceeded to post a 4 paragraph rant on her Facebook page about how bad nukes and dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) are.
This 100%. While we don't like bad information being in the open, it's good to discuss it in the open. Thanks for unlocking it.
It would be cool to see those same 4 oils runs through Teost 33c, 4-ball, PDSC and/or TGA, all 4 sequences of foam testing, rust prevention, Noack, etc...
Ok - but let's be honest, that % of his viewership is about a 0 vs. the number of average consumers buying approved oils in his videos where any of them will do a fine job in their daily driven Camrys and aren't going to hurt a thing. If you are performance guy driving a car with a built engine with a flat tappet cam and don't use what the builder recommends/best oils you can to save a few bucks based on a youtuber, how much of a car guy are you anyway?There's been a few cases of people running common API oils, with insufficient ZDDP content, in their older engines with aftermarket flat tappet cams instead of an oil like Amsoil Z-Rod or Valvoline VR1 which they ran prior. Their reasoning was that Project Farm "proved" that it wasn't necessary since an oil with more ZDDP didn't show a smaller wear scar. These engines wiped a cam lobe (or multiple lobes) within a couple hundred miles. Then they wanted to argue with their builder (one of which is me) that the assembly must've been wrong since PF proved that cheap oil would protect just as well.
Naturally they get mad when warranty is denied and even madder when you tell them to take their engine to PF to have him rebuild it since they trust him more than their engine builders. Of course it's not PF's fault but the ID-10-Tango drawing their own false conclusion from his videos. PF does put a disclaimer at the very bottom of the description of his videos, the area you have click and expand to scroll through, stating the videos are for entertainment purposes only and liability lies with the viewer on how they interpret the testing. However, nobody reads the description jargon and take everything at face value and gospel without an ounce of deeper research or even 2nd opinions. To anybody not familiar with ASTM testing, the videos look like concrete data. I wish he'd put up disclaimer at the very beginning of the video similar to how TV shows display a "Do not attempt anything you are about to see at home." disclaimer. lol Something more visible.
And for those folks....that oil is most likely perfectly fine vs. the Amsoil...so what's the issue if it meets the manufacturer's approvals etc.?
But that's maybe the point here - all of the oils he "tests" are high-quality so there really isn't a bad choice (unless it's wildly inappropriate like the comments about re flat tappet cam peformance engines) so you have 4 oils in the row at Wally, all 5W30 basic syn oils for your basic Toyota Camry and you like the one that won the ice race in PF's video...ok? Would they better coming here and reading a bazillion posts that don't give any more clear of answer beyond "Use what the manufacturer recommends and oh yeah just use SuperTech/cheapest" or endless bickering about the minutiae of specifications that in a basic daily-driven vehicle mean zero in reality? I say if that's how you choose, so be it. If you like it based on cost...so be it. If you like the color/shape of the bottle...so be it...because they all work just fine in that Toyota Camry. That's his angle and he is providing entertainment that pays his bills (and he knows all of these oils are just fine to use in the correct application).
What's being singled out is deep ignorance being presented as amateur science when it is anything but. Yes I know about the disclaimer, but if that was taken literally then my comment about Britney Spears is accurate. You can't have it both ways, claim it is entertainment then proceed to provide a ranking.
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2020
- Messages
- 2,412
Yeah, would be interesting to see how the results compared to those of Project Farm.I actually did that once. I told an anti-nuke "activist" that the "smoke" coming from the cooling towers as "dihydrogen monoxide." She proceeded to post a 4 paragraph rant on her Facebook page about how bad nukes and dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) are.
This 100%. While we don't like bad information being in the open, it's good to discuss it in the open. Thanks for unlocking it.
It would be cool to see those same 4 oils runs through Teost 33c, 4-ball, PDSC and/or TGA, all 4 sequences of foam testing, rust prevention, Noack, etc...
I understand the disdain for amateur "science" in this regard - I'm a scientist, and it drives me nuts when folks present tests like this (online, I see it a lot with performance modifications to cars involving dynos) when there are huge issues wthe experimental setup and variable control but I temper it b/c in the end, it's harmless and it's likely better than most of what is out there which is zero consumer testing (I realize here is a bit different as the tests themselves aren't appropriate for oil in an ICE) but I have left many a comment in the comments section of a YouTube video about it.
Last edited:
I don't know what that means. SAE J300 and the various manufacturer approvals are an enormous body of real-world tests on motor oils that yield statistically relevant results.
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2020
- Messages
- 2,412
He tries to be as scientific about it as he can, without crazy testing equipment. It still doesn't mean his results have any real-world impact. Just like people on this website are like "omg, that oil has so much moly, it's so good." Or "this oil made my car feel smooth", or "the oil made my car feel sluggish".
The problem would come in in because you can't compare PF's "tests" to anything. They are garbage tests yielding garbage results. No one in their right mind would ever make a comparison of that nonsense with something that is actually valid.
When I bought my 2016 Volvo XC60 Pennzoil Ultra was the only oil I could find that had the A5/B5 approval.
The engine is 2.0 liters and is rated at 300 hp & 300 lb/ft torque being turbo charged and super charged.
I changed the oil and embarked on a cross country trip pulling a small v nose trailer with my motorcycle and necessary stuff to spend the winter in California.
I ran it hard running 70~80 mph and put over 10k miles on it when I had the oil changed. I ask the dealer to check the amount drained out so I could see how the oil held up. The amount drained out was not measured but he said the amount that drained looked normal.
Based on my non scientific test the oil held up very well.
There is no dip stick only the electronic check which did not indicate a low oil level. I continue to use pennzoil ultra in this particular vehicle.
90cummins
The engine is 2.0 liters and is rated at 300 hp & 300 lb/ft torque being turbo charged and super charged.
I changed the oil and embarked on a cross country trip pulling a small v nose trailer with my motorcycle and necessary stuff to spend the winter in California.
I ran it hard running 70~80 mph and put over 10k miles on it when I had the oil changed. I ask the dealer to check the amount drained out so I could see how the oil held up. The amount drained out was not measured but he said the amount that drained looked normal.
Based on my non scientific test the oil held up very well.
There is no dip stick only the electronic check which did not indicate a low oil level. I continue to use pennzoil ultra in this particular vehicle.
90cummins
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2020
- Messages
- 2,412
As terrible as his test are, they still yield "results". Real tests, like ASTM tests, also yield "results". The results of the ASTM tests could show how inaccurate PF is. Not sure if you understood that
My comment wasn't talking about oil testing, it was in regards to about testing in general on other things like the example I presented about performance upgrades for cars. Yes, plenty of oil testing to base the approvals on - I get that. Joe average doens't and in pops PF and the ice luge test!
Yes, worthless results. Not sure if you understood that. When you run proper standardized tests the equipment is standardized, the procedure is dictated, the sample size is prescribed and the analysis method is predetermined. There is none of that here, all of those are fails in the video.
You have a worse problem here in that the test he is performing is not a valid test for motor oil therefore you cannot run a valid ASTM or ISO test for comparison.
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2020
- Messages
- 2,412
I think we are all on the same page that his results are meaningless and not proper. I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make.
Sorry if I misunderstood. My point is just that this can't even be compared to a standard test.
No one is saying he is competing with SAE j300 or manufacturer tests,(which by the way change over time as well, LSPI, chain elongation, etc..)
His tests are meant to compare products using his own set of criteria using his own quipment, he subjects all products to the same conditions and same tests isn't that part of the scientific method?
I'm not saying his tests are valid in determining how these oils will hold up in service. I would not select an oil based on his tests.
having said that, It would be dishonest to say the controls he has in performing his tests using is own rules are not valid.
His Ranking system is based in how these oils passed his own devised tests.
Yeah had a 2019 Toyota Highlander throw a rod at 2,700 miles and. 2015 Charger eat a cam at 82k never went over 5k mile oic and always synthetic
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
