- Joined
- Feb 27, 2019
- Messages
- 631
They particularly dislike his oil tests. Why? Does it not seem "real world"? He tests bearings to see how much wear will occur. What's so bad or misleading about it?
Why do people dislike Project Farm?
- Thread starter OppositeLocK
- Start date
- Status
It doesn’t really simulate how the oil actually works in an engine at all, the closest to the type of wear his bearing test he does would be the cylinder rings on the walls maybe.
But I don’t hate his videos, but they’re certainly not the gospel on various oils and additives either.
But I don’t hate his videos, but they’re certainly not the gospel on various oils and additives either.
Nothing bad or misleading with going to the circus, either.
His testing isn't relevant to engines nor engine oil formulations. Comparing the results of different oils in that testing to each other is like testing which color of Prius can tow a 5th wheel easier. It's stupid and meaningless.
Even if the testing was relevant, the scar testing is difficult to get repeatable results and is easily manipulated.
The cold pour isn't a test of cold starting performance. That's a matter of dynamic viscosity, not kinematic, and requires an MRV.
Even if the testing was relevant, the scar testing is difficult to get repeatable results and is easily manipulated.
The cold pour isn't a test of cold starting performance. That's a matter of dynamic viscosity, not kinematic, and requires an MRV.
I very much enjoy his videos. I worked for Mobil oil in their Corporate Flight Department in the late 1980's and early 90's. We tested Mobil oils and greases in the fleet. The testing was laboratory grade, professional and very detailed. Including the use of an electron microscope to measure bearing wear at the near atomic level.
That's not Project Farm. He freezes the oil and watches it pour. Places a sample in a coffee pot and heats it. Uses his tester to measure some non-standard form of wear resistance. All of which is very interesting to watch.
That's not Project Farm. He freezes the oil and watches it pour. Places a sample in a coffee pot and heats it. Uses his tester to measure some non-standard form of wear resistance. All of which is very interesting to watch.
Doing pour point tests where a few different oils race each other down a board and heating oils in a coffee pot makes for easy viewing, but it isn't relevant to the actual performance of the oil. Coming to a conclusion based on these tests is like saying whatever car wins a given demolition derby is the most durable car and that's the one you should buy. Entertaining, but no real practical value.
That's it though: They're entertaining. There are certainly worse ways to spend 15 minutes of your time and that's not to say that none of them have any practical value. I really enjoyed the test he did on utility knife blades.
That's it though: They're entertaining. There are certainly worse ways to spend 15 minutes of your time and that's not to say that none of them have any practical value. I really enjoyed the test he did on utility knife blades.
My complaint was with the torque wrench test. He said the harbor freight was better than a craftsman. What about after repeated use and multiple tests. How calibrated were they from the factory? If he happened to get a craftsman that had been dropped it might not be accurate at all.
Well, I guess we are at his mercy for standardizing his test results but it seems oils with the identical approvals do not leave identical wear scars in his tests. By the way, the winner in his shoot out was Amsoil. Coincidence? Kinda fun.
He is an entertainment/information channel, not a scientific channel, and some people get that confused.
I watch his videos as entertainment. Some of the tests do show some real world results with useful information, but not necessarily in real world applications.
I watch his videos as entertainment. Some of the tests do show some real world results with useful information, but not necessarily in real world applications.
Last edited:
I like his testing of produces and find that his results mirror my experience with certain things like undercoating and construction adhesive. While his oil testing may not be laboratory grade I remember seeing oil companies use similar things in advertising and his disproving of aftermarket additives is a public service. Its easy to criticize from the comfort of the keyboard but without an actual suggestion of a test that can be performed at home or an actual improvement in the way he tests they dont carry much weight with me.
Can't stand the guy - talk to me, don't shout at me with a whiny voice. If I do watch, the sound is off.
The better question is how much is he getting paid for creating content? Monetized video views and people subscribing to his channel contribute to revenue he receives.
Where do you even begin with PF on this.
First off, there is no need whatsoever for "tests" like these. There's no gap or missing performance indicator tests that these goofy videos are providing. Either they think that somehow motor oils are insufficiently characterized and need these tests to provide information, or they think that this is some kind of global test agglomeration that somehow summarizes the overall quality of motor oil - neither one of which is even remotely true.
Second the "tests" they perform are not something that characterizes the performance of motor oil in an ICE. The cold temperature flow test is testing the cold temperature flow of the oil out of that tube or orifice and nothing more. It does not represent the actual operating performance of oil in an engine. The wear scar test is completely unrelated to motor oils in an engine as well. Nothing they do in these videos properly characterizes any property of motor oil that is relevant.
Worse than all this, even if you somehow believe the tests are relevant they do not perform any statistical analysis of the results. This is fatal in regards to drawing any conclusions from the test. For the wear scar test, if he was actually using the ASTM test equipment for gear oils and if he then performed the test in accordance with the analysis portion of that test, he'd have to then analyze the results properly. None of that is being done. On that other website that is often linked here, when a proper presentation of the results is made it is shown that all the oils test the same and there is no statistically relevant difference between any of the oils per that test. The only conclusion that can be made from that information is that you can pick any oil that was tested since none are any better or worse than another. That's quite a different conclusion than is made by the creator of those sites, isn't it?
So in the end they tests themselves are worthless, the methodology is worthless and there is no analysis of the results. The end result is the whole thing is complete and total garbage. Some people keep calling these videos "real world" but the reality is that it's just the opposite.
Last edited:
I can understand that but listen to the counterpoint from one who is qualified to speak on the subject even though through a keyboard.
I'll be the first to tell you some of his stuff is ingenious, some of it good ( didn't say accurate or relevant) and its usually entertaining.
I draw the like when he makes claim "as an expert" and promotes his finding on the same level as legitimate testing.
The reason is two fold. One- people who have reasons to "distrust the system" believe they have a new piece of knowledge and often cause damage and two- At some plants when I have to go in and solve problems, things like his videos ( and this isn't limited to FP) are somehow elevated to an "ANSI/NIST/ISO legitimate standard that I now have to disprove.
The fact is, that to deliver accurate tests with meaningful data ( speaking specifically on filtration but this is much broader)- it does take specialized equipment, carefully designed and vetted tests and discipline to the process for accuracy and this is not something the average person has the training and equipment to do.
Specifically to FP on filtering- his tests and conclusions are simply wrong combined with not being relevant to actual conditions.
That makes them not only worthless but acting on his "conclusions" potentially damaging.
JHZR2
Staff member
I cant say that his tests are "professional", though I do assume that they are resaonably "objective" from the tests he does, at least the few Ive seen (penetrating oils, and screwdriver bits). It seems like he tries to do a consistent test and provide results. For some things, this is probably sufficient. Screwdriver bits comes to mind - doing a fairly consistent job, you get more or less before they fail, and you can generally measure failure from breaking. Other stuff maybe not so much. I see it as entertainment... with some insight that may be useful. Much the same as most Youtube videos - there may be something to glean, but theyre worth what you paid for them...
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
We have many companies that formulate (and harmonizing agencies) that work directly with OEM engineers:
design >>> execute >>> evaluate >>> repeat … secure approvals … Follow PM plan … TSB’s as needed …
PF is entertainment at best, but unfortunately many don’t know that.
design >>> execute >>> evaluate >>> repeat … secure approvals … Follow PM plan … TSB’s as needed …
PF is entertainment at best, but unfortunately many don’t know that.
Less than Tom Cruise makes off of the cinema.
- Status
