If anything, I take away the oil races with a grain of sand. Cold flow is cold flow regardless if it's sliding down a trough or in my engine. As for the M1 cold flow, yeah that is a bit odd.."His tests are irrelevant to anything that goes on inside your engine!!!" - 77.635% of BITOG. We all know that it's for entertainment purposes only.
Now that we got this out of the way, we can all agree that oil races are fun. But, what the heck is going on with Vanilla M1 5W-30?! Odd...
...anyone ordering his coffee?
But it’s strictly entertainment that’s all it isI like homemade test videos like this. They're a lot of fun to watch! Imagine how boring this site would be if we just had a huge banner on top that said "Follow your owner's manual".
Yes but that flow is largely irrelevant in an ICE. It has to pump, not flow. The M1 flow test is a bit odd because it isn't representative of what is required. However, it goes right along with the even more stupid "lubricity test".If anything, I take away the oil races with a grain of sand. Cold flow is cold flow regardless if it's sliding down a trough or in my engine. As for the M1 cold flow, yeah that is a bit odd..
Of course, as is 99% of this site.But it’s strictly entertainment that’s all it is
So when oil companies provide their ASTM D7 "pour point" degrees, that is based on pump ability and not flow?Yes but that flow is largely irrelevant in an ICE. It has to pump, not flow. The M1 flow test is a bit odd because it isn't representative of what is required. However, it goes right along with the even more stupid "lubricity test".
Since you stated "go at it boys" then that tells me you already know this.
Pour point was shown to be an inadequate representation of the behavior of motor oil under very cold temperatures. This previously unknown deficiency gave rise to changes in SAE J300 and changed how the winter rating is determined. You're much better off using the winter rating to predict behavior than the pour point.So when oil companies provide their ASTM D7 "pour point" degrees, that is based on pump ability and not flow?
Who are these people that you reference? I don't see people getting bent, I see people giving rational and technical reasons why the "tests" are irrelevant.I have yet to understand why some people get so bent about this guy's videos. He's explained more than enough times that it's basically anecdotal conclusions. He takes requests and has over half a billion views. Good for him.
Elitists want him to have a multi-million dollar lab and years of tests that have been peer-reviewed...my goodness. There are people on YouTube causing way more harm than Project Farm.
What would be an adequate representation of a motor oils behavior running in very cold temps? From what I saw, PF video wasn't over how motor oil behaves in cold temps, but rather testing the oil's cold flow characteristics.Pour point was shown to be an inadequate representation of the behavior of motor oil under very cold temperatures. This previously unknown deficiency gave rise to changes in SAE J300 and changed how the winter rating is determined. You're much better off using the winter rating to predict behavior than the pour point.
These days the only thing pour point is used for is material characterization during blending, not predicting the cold weather performance.
Pour point was shown to be an inadequate representation of the behavior of motor oil under very cold temperatures. This previously unknown deficiency gave rise to changes in SAE J300 and changed how the winter rating is determined. You're much better off using the winter rating to predict behavior than the pour point.
These days the only thing pour point is used for is material characterization during blending, not predicting the cold weather performance.
Every time a post about him comes up, the exasperation is there, so let's not act like it isn't. For the eleventy billionth time, I think we know this about his tests already. Show me whose stuff got ruined because of Project Farm...that's probably a better barometer.Who are these people that you reference? I don't see people getting bent, I see people giving rational and technical reasons why the "tests" are irrelevant.
Maybe you take that as getting "bent" but I see it as a response to what amounts to a county fair type of demonstration. Perhaps when someone would rather believe a YouTube video rather than rationally and historically designed characterization tests that represent real-world performance they are offended when it is explained that it's not representative. Yes it takes time, money and careful methodology to obtain statistically significant and relevant data. That has always been the case.