Motor Oil Weights vs Lubrication Properties Testing
 

This is another Project Farm video on Youtube that I found very interesting. Several same brand oils of varying class weights are compared by testing. There can be different take-aways from his tests. One important factor for me in Vermont is cold viscosity trials. But balanced against that is the wear factor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtSwaF2evTU

Who knew motor oil races could be so entertaining.

No indication of whether the Zinc is the ZDDP that air-cooled VWs (may or may not) want.

What is the take-away? Use 5W-30 with a block heater in Winter?

freebeard, for me for this winter, I'm thinking that the 5W20 edged out the 5W30 for cold viscosity, and did a lot better that the 0Ws for wear and lubricity. For summer, I'd probably go back to 5W30.

A block heater with either would be best. Still trying to decide about the energy use of that, and convenience with vehicle outside and in snowstorms. Cords tend to get buried, and the plastic insulation shatters. Plus moisture in the contacts....

BTW, this truck has not had synthetic in the past, so there should be an improvement there right of the bat.

Currently, I drive about a thousand miles a year, so seasonal oil changes would have a short interval.

This guy does actual engine tests, not grinding bearings in oil.
https://www.youtube.com/@themotoroilgeek

Hmmm. PF doesn't just "grind bearings in oil", but nevermind let's see what else I can can learn from someone else...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwqIdFeP_1c

Okay, so I watched this guy's patter, and bailed out about 3/4 through. Not for me. Besides the obnoxious music, flash cuts, his initial premise was that his engine actually took 9 quarts, but an oil change only replaced 1/2 that. 9 quarts? Okay, what the heck, I'll take that on faith.

But his second premise, that two oil changes then eliminated residual contamination when testing a new type of oil was, sorry, bogus. Two changes of half volume leaves 25% residual. This is grade school math.

He then went on to throw random theories about jargonized chemical components and their application to over-generalized motor types ("GM small block", flat tappets, etc.), and pointed for proof to lab tests on only his one car, which had according to his own logic (adjusted for mathematical reality) contaminated samples.

This car had lots of test mileage on it, and what state its engine was in, including aged emissions components and just what PCM programming it had is impossible to know. And to test he apparently took it on test drives through his neighborhood (at what speed for different oils, route, traffic, time of year, etc.???).

To me this is a classic example of pretend science, where you do something very approximate, and then take very precise measurements of some sample to infer your own experimental precision. I see a huge number of variables in his experimental methods, no explanation of actual test conditions and no control.

Therefore, I'm willing to accept that he got the results he got, doing what her did (whatever that was) on his specific car. But enlarge that to anything useful? Not for me anyway.

Project Farm guy shows exactly what he does on screen, and clearly repeats the same conditions for different product samples. There is no cross contamination. For me the wear tests, heat aged tests, and cold temperature viscosity tests are reasonable observations, even though they take place outside of an engine. For the oils, he does also get lab chemical test results, and allows you to draw your own conclusions about their significance.

All of this stuff, in the end, is based on estimate, and is subjective, no matter who does the testing. I like PF's attitude and methods, and also his openness to commenter suggestions for improvement. There are no absolutes, in the end, it's all personal preference. We just pays our money, and takes our chances. I go with PF guy.