Project Farm - Tests Pennzoil Motor Oil

[MolaKule]

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 [e]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.

To validate, or the act of validation, means to satisfy well defined formats and other well defined input criteria, especially in the area of testing. In other words, you have some kind of standard against which you test.

Defined formats/criteria here are industry standards and testing methodologies established not by one individual in a shop, but by industry experts so apples-to-apples comparisons can be made.

I see nothing in his testing that meets this definition. Simply because he puts the same oils in the same freezer tells us nothing about what really goes on in an ICE, nor does it meet any established industry testing protocol.

And to declare any one oil better than another by his own testing criteria is laughable.

Some have asked that where, if not in PF's testing, would we get testing information. Every manf. and blender has tested his oils in a laboratory with very expensive equipment according to well established guidelines and procedures. If you choose not to believe those highly trained technical people, then that is your loss.

But don't try to convince me that PF's testing is valid. My worry is that people without much background information will take his comments and testing as yielding some kind of truth and is accurate, of which it is neither.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I'm surprised the Platinum flowed SO poorly in the cold in both his cold tests. That's not okay.

It was at -40F (same as -40C). I'm surprised they flowed as well as they did. They were all rated SAE 5W oils, so that means they would all meet the same pumpability viscosity of less than 60,000 cP at -35C (-31F) per SAE J300 when tested in a MRV machine (different test than a "cold flow" test). Even the fastest flowing oil apparently didn't pass as a 0W for pumpability, so this shows the disconnect between this kind of cold flow test to how very cold oil actually pumps in an engine, which the MRV test is suppose to determine.

Would the 5W oil that flows a little better at -40F have a slightly better pumpability in an engine? Probably, but not enough pumpability advantage to be rated as a 0W. Would the 5W oil that flows better at -40F flow a little better where oil flows by gravity like to moving parts in the valve train once the oil pump gets it there? ... probably would. But -40F is pretty extreme cold temperature. Raise it to -20F and the difference in flow you see in the video means nothing.

 

[Jackson_Slugger]

If he really believes that then why does he go through all the work producing these videos and call them tests?

If it’s true that these videos are the equivalent of a Britney Spears music video then why are you posting them in a technical forum?

I prefer looking at Free Britney than that bespeckled, Lucas Oil Stabilizer pushing tool! His "teen girls are my #1 fans" claim alone makes me want to throw him into a hay baler or wood chipper...

I do think his videos on fuel additives may have some merit, but his 'oil playoffs' are just utter crap!

 

[Jackson_Slugger]

Just 1:30 into the video and already shows his ignorance. "I was hoping to find conventional Pennzoil but only could find synthetic blend". Well, no **** Sherlock! Everything is hydrocracked today 5W-30 and below and even the "conventional" 10W-30/40's are at least partially so. Probably been that way for 20 years or more at this point...

 

[RedSpider]

You think Project Farm is ignorant, wait until you see how ignorant Pennzoil is. Fools!

 

[Dave P.]

It was at -40F (same as -40C). I'm surprised they flowed as well as they did. They were all rated SAE 5W oils, so that means they would all meet the same pumpability viscosity of less than 60,000 cP at -35C (-31F) per SAE J300 wnen tested in a MRV machine (different test than a "cold flow" test). Even the fastest flowing oil apperently didn't pass as a 0W for pumpability, so this shows the disconnect between this kind of cold flow test to how very cold oil actually pumps in an engine, which the MRV test is suppose to determine.

Would the 5W oil that flows a little better at -40F have a slightly better pumpability in an engine? Probably, but not enough pumpability advantage to be rated as a 0W. Would the 5W oil that flows better at -40F flow a little better where oil flows by gravity like to moving parts in the valve train once the oil pump gets it there? ... probably would. But -40F is pretty extreme cold temperature. Raise it to -20F and the difference in flow you see in the video means nothing.

What stood out to me was that Pennzoil really touts the extreme temperature performance of their natural gas based oils. In the video, the two crude based oils, Syn Blend and Black Label, both flowed/poured better than Platinum. Might very well be meaningless but it was somewhat startling. Maybe makes one wonder if all the talk about GTL advantages is just talk.

 

[kschachn]

What stood out to me was that Pennzoil really touts the extreme temperature performance of their natural gas based oils. In the video, the two crude based oils, Syn Blend and Black Label, both flowed/poured better than Platinum. Might very well be meaningless but it was somewhat startling. Maybe makes one wonder if all the talk about GTL advantages is just talk.

Pennzoil oils regardless of the base stock composition meet the cranking and pumpability requirements for whatever winter rating is printed on the container. That’s what matters in starting your engine. Not some ad hoc YouTube test about flow.

 

[Jeep_Riot]

If I was a betting man I’d say PF frequents this forum and other car forums to see what people say about him and his tests. I’ll put my life savings on it.

 

[wemay]

For 99.9% of consumers...

His tests are just as useful as the marketing used by the oil manufacturers to sell their oil. 6 and half a dozen...

And if you tell me "yeah, but they at least have performance specifications in small print on the back", I'll counter with yeah, and he has his disclaimer.

 

[RDY4WAR]

What stood out to me was that Pennzoil really touts the extreme temperature performance of their natural gas based oils. In the video, the two crude based oils, Syn Blend and Black Label, both flowed/poured better than Platinum. Might very well be meaningless but it was somewhat startling. Maybe makes one wonder if all the talk about GTL advantages is just talk.

That's because the conventional and syn-blend oils are employing pour point depressants (PPDs). PPDs work by resisting the crystallization of the oil during rapid cooling. Hence, it shines excellent in a quick cooldown in a freezer.

In the real world, temperature changes aren't that rapid nor drastic. Ambient temperature drops are more gradual over many hours which affects how the oil crystalizes at the lowest temperature. The realization of this (and damaged engines and transmissions leading up to it) is what lead to the demise of pour point as a major test for engine oils and the move toward pumping viscosity with a cold cranking simulator (CCS) and multi-rotor viscometer (MRV) that slowly cool the oil down over a long time. The MRV test takes 2-3 days just to bring the oil down to temperature.

That said, pour point depressants will improve MRV results at 0.5-1% concentrations (with polymethylacrylates, may differ with other/older PPDs) which is why they're using it. The synthetic GTL base oil doesn't need PPDs to pass MRV so they aren't added, hence the pour rate differs, and is exactly why you don't trust pouring ability for cold weather performance.

Pennzoil conventional and Pennzoil Platinum have similar pour points, but Platinum has a significantly lower MRV dynamic pumping viscosity. (10,500 cP vs 23,000 cP @ -35°C)

 

[kschachn]

That's because the conventional and syn-blend oils are employing pour point depressants (PPDs). PPDs work by resisting the crystallization of the oil during rapid cooling. Hence, it shines excellent in a quick cooldown in a freezer.

In the real world, temperature changes are that rapid nor drastic. Ambient temperature drops are more gradual over many hours which affects how the oil crystalizes at the lowest temperature. The realization of this is what lead to the demise of pour point as a major test for engine oils and the move toward pumping viscosity with a cold cranking simulator (CCS) and multi-rotor viscometer (MRV) that slowly cool the oil down over a long time. The MRV test takes 2-3 days just to bring the oil down to temperature.

That said, pour point depressants will improve MRV results at 0.5-1% concentrations (with polymethylacrylates, may differ with other/older PPDs) which is why they're using it. The synthetic GTL base oil doesn't need PPDs to pass MRV so they aren't added, hence the pour rate differs, and is exactly why you don't trust pouring ability for cold weather performance.

Thank you.

 

[kschachn]

And if you tell me "yeah, but they at least have performance specifications in small print on the back", I'll counter with yeah, and he has his disclaimer.

Which if taken at face value gets us back to a Britney Spears video.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

The more I think about it, the more I believe we were correct in putting the threads back into public view. Find me another place on the internet when someone can google "project farm oil tests valid" and learn that the tests are simply not valid.

I'll be darn. I just did that exact above quoted Google search and guest what was the FIRST result?

Project Farm synthetic oil comparisons

I have followed this channel for a bit and had some interesting presentations. He has done virgin oil comparisons and will include a link to one featuring all 5w30 weights of Redline, Pennzoil, Amsoil, and Kendall. Would be interested in people's opinion regarding validity of testing and...

bobistheoilguy.com

Perhaps in the future these types of videos should be moved to the Humor section?

 

[CharlieJ]

While everyone here argues about his "testing" or lack thereof, I enjoy the cold pours of the oils and the evaporative loss observations.
The wear scar "test", not so much...

 

[OVERKILL]

It was at -40F (same as -40C). I'm surprised they flowed as well as they did. They were all rated SAE 5W oils, so that means they would all meet the same pumpability viscosity of less than 60,000 cP at -35C (-31F) per SAE J300 when tested in a MRV machine (different test than a "cold flow" test). Even the fastest flowing oil apparently didn't pass as a 0W for pumpability, so this shows the disconnect between this kind of cold flow test to how very cold oil actually pumps in an engine, which the MRV test is suppose to determine.

Would the 5W oil that flows a little better at -40F have a slightly better pumpability in an engine? Probably, but not enough pumpability advantage to be rated as a 0W. Would the 5W oil that flows better at -40F flow a little better where oil flows by gravity like to moving parts in the valve train once the oil pump gets it there? ... probably would. But -40F is pretty extreme cold temperature. Raise it to -20F and the difference in flow you see in the video means nothing.

Typically, it's the CCS visc, which is much stricter, that the oil fails with modern base oils and PPD's, and that's what sets the Winter rating. So, for all we know, they might have all passed MRV at -40C, but the CCS is what kept them as 5W-xx.

 

[OVERKILL]

That's because the conventional and syn-blend oils are employing pour point depressants (PPDs). PPDs work by resisting the crystallization of the oil during rapid cooling. Hence, it shines excellent in a quick cooldown in a freezer.

In the real world, temperature changes aren't that rapid nor drastic. Ambient temperature drops are more gradual over many hours which affects how the oil crystalizes at the lowest temperature. The realization of this (and damaged engines and transmissions leading up to it) is what lead to the demise of pour point as a major test for engine oils and the move toward pumping viscosity with a cold cranking simulator (CCS) and multi-rotor viscometer (MRV) that slowly cool the oil down over a long time. The MRV test takes 2-3 days just to bring the oil down to temperature.

That said, pour point depressants will improve MRV results at 0.5-1% concentrations (with polymethylacrylates, may differ with other/older PPDs) which is why they're using it. The synthetic GTL base oil doesn't need PPDs to pass MRV so they aren't added, hence the pour rate differs, and is exactly why you don't trust pouring ability for cold weather performance.

Pennzoil conventional and Pennzoil Platinum have similar pour points, but Platinum has a significantly lower MRV dynamic pumping viscosity. (10,500 cP vs 23,000 cP @ -35°C)

My understanding is that GTL still needs PPD's, because, being a hydrocracked base, it does still have some wax in it, just not as much as other Group III bases. This would mean that they could get away with less PPD's to mitigate wax crystal formation.

The Mobil blending guide examples, which are pure PAO with a splash of Esterex still have a small dab of ppd (0.3%), likely to deal with the DI package.

The Pour Point on Shell's 4cSt GTL is -30C, much higher than what we see with their finished products (evidencing the use of PPD's), but look at that CCS! Much better than your typical Group III:

 

[OVERKILL]

For 99.9% of consumers...

His tests are just as useful as the marketing used by the oil manufacturers to sell their oil. 6 and half a dozen...

And if you tell me "yeah, but they at least have performance specifications in small print on the back", I'll counter with yeah, and he has his disclaimer.

That's not really accurate. I linked it in one of these threads and got told it wouldn't get watched because it was "oil company propaganda", but the Engineering Explained video where they visit the Mobil engine test lab was very good, and, informative. They talked about the API limits, and how they set their own product performance targets, relative to those limits.

Whether you like Mobil or not, that video presented information that was very useful in terms of understanding where Mobil targets performance, relative to some widely accepted industry standards, which certainly isn't the case with the PF stuff.

 

[mphilleo]

I've been reading this thread and really thinking about all of this.

When you cut down to it, the only things that Project Farm's tests offer are providing an easy-to-see visual gauge in its testing (no scientific "mumbo jumbo" for Joe Six Pack) and the source being unbiased and uncompensated. Some, although not all, of the PF audience are folks who may take company tests, or even outsourced 3rd party company testing, as possibly deceptive or misleading. I'll openly admit that I'd prefer a valid laboratory test over anything else, but if it's paid for by the producer company, I'm inclined to question it to an extent.

 

[Slow Car Sport Mode]

As mentioned previously, both by myself and others.. Project Farm videos do not have relevance to how motor oil works inside of an ICE and I, personally, stopped watching that channel some time ago.

You'd get about as much relevant information from some niche oil manufacturer or zMax four-ball wear test.

Seems like a waste of time to me, although one is free to shake the magic 8-ball if they wish to do so.

 

[Jackson_Slugger]

You think Project Farm is ignorant, wait until you see how ignorant Pennzoil is. Fools!

View attachment 104957

If you reread my post, you'll find I said that Pennzoil does (or at least did) list their "thicker" oils as conventional. But if this guy is testing 5W-30SP on a video channel for a living, maybe he should know that there are effectively no 5W-XX that are not synblends, even the unlisted ones which are fewer and farther between...

So if he wanted to "find" a "conventional", maybe test 10W-30, which I believe could easily be listed as a blend as well since Pz has been mixing syn into their oils for 20 years or so, according to a former employee...