Can you provide some examples of the flaws in his approach? Love to hear it from an actual engineer.
Sure
But first let me state that I think the guy personally is sincere and probably tries to the best of his ability and don’t care that he gets paid for it. (Based on the way videos pay, I think he should get paid- they just are not legitimately valid in terms of conclusions)
In general……
No test is any more valid than the hypothesis the test is designed to examine. The deliverable (problem statement, hypothesis, whatever) has to be clearly stated both in detail and terms that can be measured. This also means in context.
It starts off misleading (Is oil good?) then really doesn’t address that in any significant way. That’s a normal thing for marketing and advertising (teasing) but casts a very negative light on someone who is trying to “present the image’ of a legitimate authority conducting “legitimate testing” to make a solid point.
Then he switches gears and “compares’ what is most likely a straight viscosity oil against a modern multi grade. That’s like comparing an apple to a beagle.
He should have identified the oil up front then selected a modern equivalent so it could be tested both against itself (age degradation) then against the modern ( performance testing)
Any testing would have to also be against the standards the oil was manufactured to then whatever current standards are. (Standards, requirements and oils change)
Then we have the “mower thing”. Nothing was tested against it, nothing measured, no baseline on the engine or anything. All he proved was primitive motor oil could run a mower for a glass of gas.
That’s not related to age degradation or a performance comparison to modern oil.
Cute, entertaining but factually worthless.
