I learned one thing from these oil races is now I know how long it's going to take me to add a quart of oil to my engine when it's -40.
Project Farm - Tests Pennzoil Motor Oil
- Thread starter Warstud
- Start date
- Status
So in order for any test to be valid it has to follow an ASTM standard and Millions of dollars worth of lab equipment.
Got it!
Got it!
Project Farm does some excellent testing on many products. Motor oil, however, is not one of them.
It's not even a test but at most an observation.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
In order for a test for motor oil to be valid, and relevant, it needs to follow some sort of standard and be applicable to conditions the product is going to potentially experience in service.So in order for any test to be valid it has to follow an ASTM standard and Millions of dollars worth of lab equipment.
Got it!
- Running the 4-ball weld test for gear lubes on a PCMO is an example of a valid industry standard test, it is not however, a relevant test for engine oils.
- Comparatively, running two F-150's for 200,000 miles under completely uncontrolled conditions and then doing tear-downs with measurements is not a valid industry standard test (unlike fleet testing), but the results would be, had the parameters been properly controlled, relevant for engine oils.
I feel like these threads are, for those who "want to believe", a stage upon which they can carry on; to mock and deride what's accepted, and followed in the industry, because they can't watch Jim Bob on Youtube do it, or go out and down a few pints and do it in their shed. The ridiculous strawmen erected and tone taken in their presentation really speaks to the cynicism that these sort of exchanges brings out in this type.
Anything that measures wear with a scar will be sensitive to phosphorus. In PF's videos with supplements containing phosphorus-based additives like TCP, you'll see a much smaller wear scar. That makes sense, it's EP. It won't do crap for an engine.
The 4-ball can be useful for determining the weld point of engine oils. This isn't much relevant to street oils, but is to something like a Pro Stock engine, with >1000 lbs open spring pressure across a 2.2:1 rocker with >1.2" lift at 10,500 rpm. Without sufficient EP characteristics, the pushrod tips will literally melt. The 4-ball can be used to see changes in formulas for the weld point in such niche cases.
The 4-ball can be useful for determining the weld point of engine oils. This isn't much relevant to street oils, but is to something like a Pro Stock engine, with >1000 lbs open spring pressure across a 2.2:1 rocker with >1.2" lift at 10,500 rpm. Without sufficient EP characteristics, the pushrod tips will literally melt. The 4-ball can be used to see changes in formulas for the weld point in such niche cases.
MolaKule
Staff member
Just to add, in order for any testing to produce valid results, tests must follow and conform to ASTM and other industry standards and protocols, and must be tested on yes, expensive equipment that is properly calibrated according to NIST metrologySo in order for any test to be valid it has to follow an ASTM standard and Millions of dollars worth of lab equipment.
Got it!
Metrology - Wikipedia
standards.
Go to https://www.nist.gov/ and scroll down to
STANDARDS & MEASUREMENTS
andand https://www.nist.gov/timelinelist
NIST was originally called the, National Bureau of Standards, and was founded in 1901.
An important facet of testing is "traceability" and "repeatability."
So I hope you can see that testing is much more involved than simply putting material in a freezer.
Last edited:
No, you really don't have it. That sounds harsh but if that's your comment then you really don't understand testing at all.So in order for any test to be valid it has to follow an ASTM standard and Millions of dollars worth of lab equipment.
Got it!
But you're correct that a test does need to be valid - and that's the problem here. It must make a valid measurement of a variable (which includes isolation and sample size), it must produce valid results and then those results must yield to a valid analysis. The last step is really the key since it will reflect the first two steps, but you'd rather not have the analysis show that you spent time and money performing an invalid test that was producing invalid data. But it happens, just as a proper rendering of the data from that other site running a similar test has shown.
As already explained on here the test performed here (and by that other guy) have none of that. Each and every one of those requirements is a fail. As an aside, depending on what you're researching a valid test may actually require no equipment at all. That's because it's not about money but rather about validity.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Yep, Dave and I were discussing their use of the 4-ball (setup for engine oil AW additive package tweaking, not gear oils or greases) the other day as a screening and validation tool, was a good chat. We also did talk about its use for developing gear oils and how you have to balance AW and EP, because they have some competing characteristics which this tool can be useful for determining that balance and fine tuning of, hence there being a standardized test for that.
Ultimately, as you noted, 4-ball, even as a screening tool, has limited to no value for typical PCMO applications (we aren't talking about additive package development screening, that's separate, and does involve bench testing). When you are doing racing oils, fine-tuning the AW chemistry, it can be a useful tool when setup right. The primary purpose of the device, in terms of standards-based application is for gear oils and greases, and, as we know, there are two separate standards based on this testing mechanism for that purpose. AMSOIL's use of it as a marketing tool has always been something that has caught flack due to its significant lack of relevance in typical applications.
D
Deleted member 89374
I've read this thread with great interest and quickly wanted to add my two cents.
Going back to 2019, a little over three years to date, Project Farm came out with the following video, part of an entire series:
It was a brilliant, nearly genius-level piece of marketing, with AMSOIL being the unsuspecting and non-participating party. I found it amusing that he lumped in Red Line 5W-30, an ACEA A3/B4 class lubricant, and had no business amongst ILSAC GF5 (at the time) engine oils. This fact shows how little he knows (or cares to know) about motor oil. In his mind, Red Line was AMSOIL's "boutique" competitor. I would wager that he also reads BITOG and knows that many folks who spend big bucks on motor oil will not purchase Red Line for extended drain intervals. Regular consumers steer clear of AMSOIL due to price, but what if they could afford the second-best motor oil, Pennzoil? Quickly and affordably available at Walmart and online, Pennzoil Platinum and Ultra Platinum were lumped together (if you watch all the videos, you'll see). Most, if not all, of his audience, concluded that Pennzoil was the way to go.
After the success of the "Oil Championship" marketing campaign, he made this video in February 2020:
In the video above, Shell Rotella Gas Truck beats Mobil 1 5W-30. This video came about right when Shell was pushing hard and marketing the daylights out of RTG.
The video that this thread is about is a product comparison within the Pennzoil lineup. I admit I skipped through the video because I have better things to do with ten minutes of my life. As a side note, today, Pennzoil Platinum and Ultra Platinum use identical additive packages (Dexos API SP from Infineum), so I don't know how he managed to get a "diluted" batch of Pennzoil Platinum while the Ultra Platinum had the API SN Plus additive package. Either way, the purpose of this video is to convince consumers to buy the Pennzoil Ultra Platinum motor oil, the poorest selling oil in the entire lineup, mainly because it's only sold online. It's an oddball oil that Pennzoil uses to either sell PP overstock or GTL overstock. Unless it's on sale, no one buys it.
This is not to say that Pennzoil makes poor engine oils, far from it. When it comes to maintenance, it is more important to know your vehicle or equipment and be consistent rather than just what oil you use.
Many other videos in his portfolio showcase various Shell products superior to the competition. A manufacturer-sponsored video must include a disclosure, and I haven't seen such a disclosure in any of his Pennzoil videos. Project Farm claims that he buys all the products that he reviews. I can't imagine anyone being such a fanboy of any given product that they would dedicate time and resources to make elaborate videos about their favorite motor oil. Conclusively, I can only wonder what the relationship between Project Farm and Pennzoil might be and how he manages to circumvent the disclosure of that relationship.
Going back to 2019, a little over three years to date, Project Farm came out with the following video, part of an entire series:
It was a brilliant, nearly genius-level piece of marketing, with AMSOIL being the unsuspecting and non-participating party. I found it amusing that he lumped in Red Line 5W-30, an ACEA A3/B4 class lubricant, and had no business amongst ILSAC GF5 (at the time) engine oils. This fact shows how little he knows (or cares to know) about motor oil. In his mind, Red Line was AMSOIL's "boutique" competitor. I would wager that he also reads BITOG and knows that many folks who spend big bucks on motor oil will not purchase Red Line for extended drain intervals. Regular consumers steer clear of AMSOIL due to price, but what if they could afford the second-best motor oil, Pennzoil? Quickly and affordably available at Walmart and online, Pennzoil Platinum and Ultra Platinum were lumped together (if you watch all the videos, you'll see). Most, if not all, of his audience, concluded that Pennzoil was the way to go.
After the success of the "Oil Championship" marketing campaign, he made this video in February 2020:
In the video above, Shell Rotella Gas Truck beats Mobil 1 5W-30. This video came about right when Shell was pushing hard and marketing the daylights out of RTG.
The video that this thread is about is a product comparison within the Pennzoil lineup. I admit I skipped through the video because I have better things to do with ten minutes of my life. As a side note, today, Pennzoil Platinum and Ultra Platinum use identical additive packages (Dexos API SP from Infineum), so I don't know how he managed to get a "diluted" batch of Pennzoil Platinum while the Ultra Platinum had the API SN Plus additive package. Either way, the purpose of this video is to convince consumers to buy the Pennzoil Ultra Platinum motor oil, the poorest selling oil in the entire lineup, mainly because it's only sold online. It's an oddball oil that Pennzoil uses to either sell PP overstock or GTL overstock. Unless it's on sale, no one buys it.
This is not to say that Pennzoil makes poor engine oils, far from it. When it comes to maintenance, it is more important to know your vehicle or equipment and be consistent rather than just what oil you use.
Many other videos in his portfolio showcase various Shell products superior to the competition. A manufacturer-sponsored video must include a disclosure, and I haven't seen such a disclosure in any of his Pennzoil videos. Project Farm claims that he buys all the products that he reviews. I can't imagine anyone being such a fanboy of any given product that they would dedicate time and resources to make elaborate videos about their favorite motor oil. Conclusively, I can only wonder what the relationship between Project Farm and Pennzoil might be and how he manages to circumvent the disclosure of that relationship.
Yes, it seems that between the CCS and MRV test, that the CCS test spec limit in SAE J300 would be the test that pigeon holed the W rating of the oil since both CCS and MRV viscoity must fall within the defined viscosity limits in J300 to be grades xW. Even though the test temperature is 5 deg C warmer in the CCS, the viscosity limit is nearly 10 times lower than it is for the MRV at just 5 deg C lower. When looking at and W rating in J300, it shows that just a 5 dec C change in temperature results in a huge change in viscosity, so the temperatures at which these tests are being done, the oil viscosity is super sensitive to temperature changes.
Project Farm seems to always do his entertainment "flow race" tests at -40C regardless of the W rating of the oil - gives the most dramatic effect. Seems to me, it might be a bit more "visually accurate" if he used the pumpability test temperature for the W rating for a bit more visual accuracy of how it flows for it's W rating. We've all seen these similar "flow race" flow videos showing the comparison of the same exact oil at different temperatures to see how just a 5C temperature difference between them all can effect the kinematic flow viscosity. Some of those are pretty visually dramatic.
It would be interesting to see the formal CCS and MRV test viscosity numbers on every oil that is shown in these flow races to see if there is any visual flow correlation at all going on.
Project Farm is objective and honest. It’s all you can ask.
MolaKule
Staff member
I think your answer is stated above:
"Project Farm claims that he buys all the products that he reviews"
But I agree, any compensation or pecuniary interest with or from a company to emphasize or promote a specific product should have the declaration mentioned, preferably at the beginning.
But since none of his tests have any validity, does it really matter?
How do you know?
Read the rest of the thread.
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2021
- Messages
- 5,387
I think your answer is stated above:
But since none of his tests have any validity, does it really matter?
Nope. It does not.
I've had to tell people not only about what W means in the motor oil grade, but how those tests on YouTube a la Project Farm - and others - don't count.. therefore, Objection: Relevance.
Objective. Perhaps.
Honest. Most likely.
Relevant? No.
Valid? No.
I can honestly, objectively, measure your height. Carefully compare it to the height of other BITOG members.
Then determine your IQ. Plot that IQ on graphs with other BITOG members. Then those results would be both honest, and clearly, objective.
Would they have validity?would they relate to your real world IQ?
Of course not.
And that’s what PF has accomplished here - honest, objective measurement of totally irrelevant and pointless parameters while leaping to false conclusions.
MolaKule
Staff member
He may be a nice, honest guy, but far from objective.
Again, since none of his tests have any validity, does it really matter?
He did cool the oil for 24 hrs to get it to -40C ... unknown what the exact rate was unless he put a thermocouple in the oil and plotted the temp vs time graph. So you're saying if a controlled cool down rate was used, that the oil would cold pour differently, even though all oil was cooled to the same exact end point temperature?
Example: All 3 oils are cooled from 20 C to -40C (60C total).
Oil A is cooled to -40C at 2.5C/hr (24 hrs total).
Oil B is cooled to -40C at 1.25C/hr (48 hrs total).
Oil C is cooled to -40C at 0.833C/hr (72 hrs total).
Will all 3 cold flow differently? If so, by how much ... would there be an obvious visual difference seen in one of these PF "flow race" tests?
When oil is cooled for the CCS or MRV test, is there a cool down rate stipulated in the test procedure? If so, how is the rate measured? ... is there a thermocouple in the oil that acts as a temperature feedback control for the equipment cooling down the oil? Or do they stipulate a specific volume in a specific/special test container that has been verified to cool the oil within a specific cool down rate if that container of oil was put into a specified freezer at X temperature? Actually controlling the cool down rate of a material can become pretty complicated.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
