Wouldn't it be better to use an efficient filter (purolator pureone for example) and change it out halfway thru and extended oci (10k or more) than to use a higher capacity but lower efficiency filter such as the Bosch Distance+? If your main goal is keeping engine wear to a minimum.
Am I missing something?
- Thread starter 2James1
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2010
- Messages
- 2,451
Technically the longer you run the filter, the more efficient it becomes, until it clogs... Pureone's easily do 10k on my engines and still look in great shape when I open the can.
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: Brenden
Technically the longer you run the filter, the more efficient it becomes, until it clogs... Pureone's easily do 10k on my engines and still look in great shape when I open the can.
I thought about that fact as I was typing my post. But a filter that is more efficient to begin with would be more efficient at every point during its life until the point of clogging...right?
Technically the longer you run the filter, the more efficient it becomes, until it clogs... Pureone's easily do 10k on my engines and still look in great shape when I open the can.
I thought about that fact as I was typing my post. But a filter that is more efficient to begin with would be more efficient at every point during its life until the point of clogging...right?
Always trading flow for efficiency, aren't we?
Originally Posted By: 2James1
Originally Posted By: Brenden
Technically the longer you run the filter, the more efficient it becomes, until it clogs... Pureone's easily do 10k on my engines and still look in great shape when I open the can.
I thought about that fact as I was typing my post. But a filter that is more efficient to begin with would be more efficient at every point during its life until the point of clogging...right?
Yeah.
I use Motorcraft FL400S, P1 20195 in my LS400 for 1 year up to 14-15k miles. The car is almost 300k miles and no oil related problem. The engine is as smooth as new.
Originally Posted By: Brenden
Technically the longer you run the filter, the more efficient it becomes, until it clogs... Pureone's easily do 10k on my engines and still look in great shape when I open the can.
I thought about that fact as I was typing my post. But a filter that is more efficient to begin with would be more efficient at every point during its life until the point of clogging...right?
Yeah.
I use Motorcraft FL400S, P1 20195 in my LS400 for 1 year up to 14-15k miles. The car is almost 300k miles and no oil related problem. The engine is as smooth as new.
Several years ago I ran a 12,000 mile OCI without changing the filter and did a UOA and next run did a 12,000 mile OCI and changed the filter halfway. UOA was no different.
IMO oil filters are pretty much like an appendix, useless except for catastrophic failures. They cannot filter the small stuff and today's engines don't produce the garbage older ones did that would find their way into the filter. I honestly do not believe that the long term survival of any engine will depend on the kind of filter you use, just change it once a year and forget it. No scientific tests have been performed that show changing a filter more often increases engine life on an apple to apple comparison. All anecdotal evidence
IMO oil filters are pretty much like an appendix, useless except for catastrophic failures. They cannot filter the small stuff and today's engines don't produce the garbage older ones did that would find their way into the filter. I honestly do not believe that the long term survival of any engine will depend on the kind of filter you use, just change it once a year and forget it. No scientific tests have been performed that show changing a filter more often increases engine life on an apple to apple comparison. All anecdotal evidence
What makes you think the BD+ is less efficient that the P1? I've not seen any 'authoritative' spec showing that to be the case. Bosch tends to be vague about the micron level, but until shown otherwise I assume the 99.9% to be at a similar level as the Bosch Prem. which is considered a P1 clone.
As for switching out the P1 half way, it's 13 gram rated holding capacity is a lot of junk. In a well maintained vehicle a 10k/1year oci is doable, and as you can see from the comments some successfully run filters like the P1 beyond that. Beyond 10 to 15k the BD+ is probably more suitable just because of the increased holding capacity and greater coverage in all engine conditions. But, a filter does become more efficient with use, up to it's holding capacity limit.
As for switching out the P1 half way, it's 13 gram rated holding capacity is a lot of junk. In a well maintained vehicle a 10k/1year oci is doable, and as you can see from the comments some successfully run filters like the P1 beyond that. Beyond 10 to 15k the BD+ is probably more suitable just because of the increased holding capacity and greater coverage in all engine conditions. But, a filter does become more efficient with use, up to it's holding capacity limit.
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Spector
Several years ago I ran a 12,000 mile OCI without changing the filter and did a UOA and next run did a 12,000 mile OCI and changed the filter halfway. UOA was no different.
IMO oil filters are pretty much like an appendix, useless except for catastrophic failures. They cannot filter the small stuff and today's engines don't produce the garbage older ones did that would find their way into the filter. I honestly do not believe that the long term survival of any engine will depend on the kind of filter you use, just change it once a year and forget it. No scientific tests have been performed that show changing a filter more often increases engine life on an apple to apple comparison. All anecdotal evidence
DING! DING! DING!
We have a winner!
Two things to understand in the above quote:
1) he used DATA (not supposition and rhetoric) to prove/disprove a theory
2) he realized that filration is NOT the controlling factor in a "normal" OCI.
I'll explain #2 a bit further.
The main damage in lube'd equipment comes from particles in the 5-15um size, generally. Stuff smaller than that typically is too small to cause much damage. Stuff larger that that is easily caught in the FF filter on the first pass, and frankly, does not exist often in the first place. MOST contamination starts out small.
Contamination comes from two sources; mechanical and organic.
Mechanical stuff are particles that break off; wear metals such as Fe or such that are forcibly liberated. This stuff stays at the same size, or may break down to a smaller size. Organic are the items such as soot/insolubles. Soot starts out small; most always sub-um in size, but it can actually grow (agglomerate).
So, think of the lube in a sense of PC analysis.
The oil carrys a large amount of really small stuff, and as we look up in size, the quanity is lessor.
Genearlly, the large stuff is caught quickly on the first FF pass. The small stuff stays small because of the dispersent and detergent package of the oil additives. It is only AFTER the lube add pack is overwhelmed that soot and insolubles would grow. Until that point, the lube controls the small stuff, not the filter. If you keep your oil changed often enough, the add pack is never overwhelmed, and therefore the small stuff stays small. Hence, little damage occurs because the soot never becomes large enough to create much wear.
So, the presence of large stuff is infrequent, and caught quickly.
Small stuff is ever present, but controlled by the oil add pack to a point where it's not an issue unless you over-run the viability of the OCI.
Now, bypass filtration is very effective because it is efficient in trapping particles that are very small, thereby assisting the add-pack by greatly extending it's lifecycle, thereby extending the OCI lifecycle. But that's not really the topic here.
IOW - filters do not control wear in most applications in normal OCIs; the oil add pack does. Unless you can statisitically significantly shift the UOA wear data with FCI (filter change interval) the whole point is moot! It won't matter how often you FCI because until the oil is overwhelmed, it's in control and not the filter. You won't see a tangible shift in wear because the filter is mostly moot, ESPECIALLY in today's clean running cars made with excellent manufacturing processes!
But don't take my word for it; do you own experiment. Just like Spector did! Don't ask us for opinions; do the deed and show us your results!
Just don't be suprised if you don't find out what Spector and I already know!
Several years ago I ran a 12,000 mile OCI without changing the filter and did a UOA and next run did a 12,000 mile OCI and changed the filter halfway. UOA was no different.
IMO oil filters are pretty much like an appendix, useless except for catastrophic failures. They cannot filter the small stuff and today's engines don't produce the garbage older ones did that would find their way into the filter. I honestly do not believe that the long term survival of any engine will depend on the kind of filter you use, just change it once a year and forget it. No scientific tests have been performed that show changing a filter more often increases engine life on an apple to apple comparison. All anecdotal evidence
DING! DING! DING!
We have a winner!
Two things to understand in the above quote:
1) he used DATA (not supposition and rhetoric) to prove/disprove a theory
2) he realized that filration is NOT the controlling factor in a "normal" OCI.
I'll explain #2 a bit further.
The main damage in lube'd equipment comes from particles in the 5-15um size, generally. Stuff smaller than that typically is too small to cause much damage. Stuff larger that that is easily caught in the FF filter on the first pass, and frankly, does not exist often in the first place. MOST contamination starts out small.
Contamination comes from two sources; mechanical and organic.
Mechanical stuff are particles that break off; wear metals such as Fe or such that are forcibly liberated. This stuff stays at the same size, or may break down to a smaller size. Organic are the items such as soot/insolubles. Soot starts out small; most always sub-um in size, but it can actually grow (agglomerate).
So, think of the lube in a sense of PC analysis.
The oil carrys a large amount of really small stuff, and as we look up in size, the quanity is lessor.
Genearlly, the large stuff is caught quickly on the first FF pass. The small stuff stays small because of the dispersent and detergent package of the oil additives. It is only AFTER the lube add pack is overwhelmed that soot and insolubles would grow. Until that point, the lube controls the small stuff, not the filter. If you keep your oil changed often enough, the add pack is never overwhelmed, and therefore the small stuff stays small. Hence, little damage occurs because the soot never becomes large enough to create much wear.
So, the presence of large stuff is infrequent, and caught quickly.
Small stuff is ever present, but controlled by the oil add pack to a point where it's not an issue unless you over-run the viability of the OCI.
Now, bypass filtration is very effective because it is efficient in trapping particles that are very small, thereby assisting the add-pack by greatly extending it's lifecycle, thereby extending the OCI lifecycle. But that's not really the topic here.
IOW - filters do not control wear in most applications in normal OCIs; the oil add pack does. Unless you can statisitically significantly shift the UOA wear data with FCI (filter change interval) the whole point is moot! It won't matter how often you FCI because until the oil is overwhelmed, it's in control and not the filter. You won't see a tangible shift in wear because the filter is mostly moot, ESPECIALLY in today's clean running cars made with excellent manufacturing processes!
But don't take my word for it; do you own experiment. Just like Spector did! Don't ask us for opinions; do the deed and show us your results!
Just don't be suprised if you don't find out what Spector and I already know!
Last edited:
Reminds me of an old saying. "In God I trust, ALL others bring data" 
)
)VW bugs until the FI version cane along in the early 70s didn't use anything other than an oil screen. On the other hand, I can't see buying expensive high octane gas for a car that doesn't need it but skimping on filter changes.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: Spector
Several years ago I ran a 12,000 mile OCI without changing the filter and did a UOA and next run did a 12,000 mile OCI and changed the filter halfway. UOA was no different.
IMO oil filters are pretty much like an appendix, useless except for catastrophic failures. They cannot filter the small stuff and today's engines don't produce the garbage older ones did that would find their way into the filter. I honestly do not believe that the long term survival of any engine will depend on the kind of filter you use, just change it once a year and forget it. No scientific tests have been performed that show changing a filter more often increases engine life on an apple to apple comparison. All anecdotal evidence
DING! DING! DING!
We have a winner!
Two things to understand in the above quote:
1) he used DATA (not supposition and rhetoric) to prove/disprove a theory
2) he realized that filration is NOT the controlling factor in a "normal" OCI.
I'll explain #2 a bit further.
The main damage in lube'd equipment comes from particles in the 5-15um size, generally. Stuff smaller than that typically is too small to cause much damage. Stuff larger that that is easily caught in the FF filter on the first pass, and frankly, does not exist often in the first place. MOST contamination starts out small.
Contamination comes from two sources; mechanical and organic.
Mechanical stuff are particles that break off; wear metals such as Fe or such that are forcibly liberated. This stuff stays at the same size, or may break down to a smaller size. Organic are the items such as soot/insolubles. Soot starts out small; most always sub-um in size, but it can actually grow (agglomerate).
So, think of the lube in a sense of PC analysis.
The oil carrys a large amount of really small stuff, and as we look up in size, the quanity is lessor.
Genearlly, the large stuff is caught quickly on the first FF pass. The small stuff stays small because of the dispersent and detergent package of the oil additives. It is only AFTER the lube add pack is overwhelmed that soot and insolubles would grow. Until that point, the lube controls the small stuff, not the filter. If you keep your oil changed often enough, the add pack is never overwhelmed, and therefore the small stuff stays small. Hence, little damage occurs because the soot never becomes large enough to create much wear.
So, the presence of large stuff is infrequent, and caught quickly.
Small stuff is ever present, but controlled by the oil add pack to a point where it's not an issue unless you over-run the viability of the OCI.
Now, bypass filtration is very effective because it is efficient in trapping particles that are very small, thereby assisting the add-pack by greatly extending it's lifecycle, thereby extending the OCI lifecycle. But that's not really the topic here.
IOW - filters do not control wear in most applications in normal OCIs; the oil add pack does. Unless you can statisitically significantly shift the UOA wear data with FCI (filter change interval) the whole point is moot! It won't matter how often you FCI because until the oil is overwhelmed, it's in control and not the filter. You won't see a tangible shift in wear because the filter is mostly moot, ESPECIALLY in today's clean running cars made with excellent manufacturing processes!
But don't take my word for it; do you own experiment. Just like Spector did! Don't ask us for opinions; do the deed and show us your results!
Just don't be suprised if you don't find out what Spector and I already know!
A big font and long post does not make you right.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=258648
Originally Posted By: Spector
Several years ago I ran a 12,000 mile OCI without changing the filter and did a UOA and next run did a 12,000 mile OCI and changed the filter halfway. UOA was no different.
IMO oil filters are pretty much like an appendix, useless except for catastrophic failures. They cannot filter the small stuff and today's engines don't produce the garbage older ones did that would find their way into the filter. I honestly do not believe that the long term survival of any engine will depend on the kind of filter you use, just change it once a year and forget it. No scientific tests have been performed that show changing a filter more often increases engine life on an apple to apple comparison. All anecdotal evidence
DING! DING! DING!
We have a winner!
Two things to understand in the above quote:
1) he used DATA (not supposition and rhetoric) to prove/disprove a theory
2) he realized that filration is NOT the controlling factor in a "normal" OCI.
I'll explain #2 a bit further.
The main damage in lube'd equipment comes from particles in the 5-15um size, generally. Stuff smaller than that typically is too small to cause much damage. Stuff larger that that is easily caught in the FF filter on the first pass, and frankly, does not exist often in the first place. MOST contamination starts out small.
Contamination comes from two sources; mechanical and organic.
Mechanical stuff are particles that break off; wear metals such as Fe or such that are forcibly liberated. This stuff stays at the same size, or may break down to a smaller size. Organic are the items such as soot/insolubles. Soot starts out small; most always sub-um in size, but it can actually grow (agglomerate).
So, think of the lube in a sense of PC analysis.
The oil carrys a large amount of really small stuff, and as we look up in size, the quanity is lessor.
Genearlly, the large stuff is caught quickly on the first FF pass. The small stuff stays small because of the dispersent and detergent package of the oil additives. It is only AFTER the lube add pack is overwhelmed that soot and insolubles would grow. Until that point, the lube controls the small stuff, not the filter. If you keep your oil changed often enough, the add pack is never overwhelmed, and therefore the small stuff stays small. Hence, little damage occurs because the soot never becomes large enough to create much wear.
So, the presence of large stuff is infrequent, and caught quickly.
Small stuff is ever present, but controlled by the oil add pack to a point where it's not an issue unless you over-run the viability of the OCI.
Now, bypass filtration is very effective because it is efficient in trapping particles that are very small, thereby assisting the add-pack by greatly extending it's lifecycle, thereby extending the OCI lifecycle. But that's not really the topic here.
IOW - filters do not control wear in most applications in normal OCIs; the oil add pack does. Unless you can statisitically significantly shift the UOA wear data with FCI (filter change interval) the whole point is moot! It won't matter how often you FCI because until the oil is overwhelmed, it's in control and not the filter. You won't see a tangible shift in wear because the filter is mostly moot, ESPECIALLY in today's clean running cars made with excellent manufacturing processes!
But don't take my word for it; do you own experiment. Just like Spector did! Don't ask us for opinions; do the deed and show us your results!
Just don't be suprised if you don't find out what Spector and I already know!
A big font and long post does not make you right.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=258648
dnewton3
Staff member
You are correct.
But data analysis does.
But data analysis does.
Last edited:
And how often do we really see an oil filter plugged? If it is, it's usually because the engine has been or is being seriously neglected. It's not because someone used a single filter for two 3,000 mile OCIs, or went 5,000 on a P1.
On the factory fill or a rebuild, I imagine the filter is accomplishing something significant. During the routine life of one's engine, if one's filter is plugging, there is something wrong with the engine or the maintenance plan. I doubt there is any significant advantage in worrying about a percentage point or two in efficiency over standard OCIs and an engine in good condition.
On the factory fill or a rebuild, I imagine the filter is accomplishing something significant. During the routine life of one's engine, if one's filter is plugging, there is something wrong with the engine or the maintenance plan. I doubt there is any significant advantage in worrying about a percentage point or two in efficiency over standard OCIs and an engine in good condition.
You can't tell much about filtration from a standard UOA, Spector, so I wouldn't expect you to see much, if any, difference. If you did before and after particle counts, then you would see something. The big question would be how improvements in oil cleanliness translate into anything useful many years and miles down the road?
In terms of the full flow filter only, I think there is a level of filtration below which you won't see any significant changes in wear (there are changes going finer from what I can see but how anal do you want to get?). I honest can't tell you exactly where that range is, and it will likely vary somewhat from engine to engine, and will certainly vary a lot between gas & diesel engines, but from the research I have done, and am doing, my theory is that the lower limit in the 15-20 micron absolute area and the upper around 25. There are still a lot of full-flow filters on the market that can't reach that lower threshold of filtration and some that can't make the upper. Thank goodness for filter loading, huh?
Then you go into bypass filtration, in which you can see very large differences in oil cleanliness with a particle count and often, even in a standard UOA if the bypass filter is fine enough.
The main advantage I see to better filtration is oil life extension. The cleaner the oil, the less hard the additives have to work. Doesn't matter what type of oil. But the ROI gorilla is still standing in the corner of that room as well.
Issues with soot make filtration of higher importance with diesels than gassers. That's certainly true in the oil life extension area, where capturing soot at the smallest size possible extends the life of the dispersant qualities of the oil. This is why bypass filtration is proving more cost effective in commercial diesels than gassers. Especially these modern "soot monster" diesels.
I'm working with some guys now who design oil filtrations systems on a daily basis and their credo is, "There is no such thing as oil that's too clean." But then that pesky issue of ROI gets in the way. My general impression from them is that the current OEM requirements are at the upper limit of that cost-practical range and that they'd like to see a little better "industry standard" filtration. From what I see, the premium filters on the market with higher efficiencies probably reach that level.
It seems like everyone presupposes that you MUST run a synthetic oil to run long intervals. And combine that with bypass filtration to get the longest intervals. My current experimentation, one diesel and one gasser, involves conventional oils, or Gp III syn blends, with bypass filtration as a life extender. It will be years before I get any meaningful data out of it but I see being able to get a very long interval out of a $3-4 quart of oil vs a $10 quart of oil might just get the ROI gorilla into another room as it relates to finer filtration.
In terms of the full flow filter only, I think there is a level of filtration below which you won't see any significant changes in wear (there are changes going finer from what I can see but how anal do you want to get?). I honest can't tell you exactly where that range is, and it will likely vary somewhat from engine to engine, and will certainly vary a lot between gas & diesel engines, but from the research I have done, and am doing, my theory is that the lower limit in the 15-20 micron absolute area and the upper around 25. There are still a lot of full-flow filters on the market that can't reach that lower threshold of filtration and some that can't make the upper. Thank goodness for filter loading, huh?
Then you go into bypass filtration, in which you can see very large differences in oil cleanliness with a particle count and often, even in a standard UOA if the bypass filter is fine enough.
The main advantage I see to better filtration is oil life extension. The cleaner the oil, the less hard the additives have to work. Doesn't matter what type of oil. But the ROI gorilla is still standing in the corner of that room as well.
Issues with soot make filtration of higher importance with diesels than gassers. That's certainly true in the oil life extension area, where capturing soot at the smallest size possible extends the life of the dispersant qualities of the oil. This is why bypass filtration is proving more cost effective in commercial diesels than gassers. Especially these modern "soot monster" diesels.
I'm working with some guys now who design oil filtrations systems on a daily basis and their credo is, "There is no such thing as oil that's too clean." But then that pesky issue of ROI gets in the way. My general impression from them is that the current OEM requirements are at the upper limit of that cost-practical range and that they'd like to see a little better "industry standard" filtration. From what I see, the premium filters on the market with higher efficiencies probably reach that level.
It seems like everyone presupposes that you MUST run a synthetic oil to run long intervals. And combine that with bypass filtration to get the longest intervals. My current experimentation, one diesel and one gasser, involves conventional oils, or Gp III syn blends, with bypass filtration as a life extender. It will be years before I get any meaningful data out of it but I see being able to get a very long interval out of a $3-4 quart of oil vs a $10 quart of oil might just get the ROI gorilla into another room as it relates to finer filtration.
dnewton3
Staff member
The real life, unsung hero, in the lube world (and this is my OPINION) is a combination of high quality dino lube and bypass filtration. But that is only if you can get the ROI there. It's often easier to make the ROI pay out, because the cost of lube is much less.
In theory, if the bypass fitler keeps the lube ultra clean (which is certainly probable), then why use syn? If both the syn and the conventional lube could stay at or better than bottle clean, why pay for the syn? It is so readily apparent that dino lubes do a fantastic job until the add pack is overwhelmed. If the bypass filter keeps that from happening, there would never be a point in which the syn would overshadow the dino now, would there?
One of our members here (he's not active much anymore) finally realized that. He racks up a lot of annual miles (probably 30-40k per year) and he was running syns with bypass. He switched to dino with bypass. Saved big money on the initial fill, got the same UOA results, and was able to keep his FCI (filter change interval) the same. THAT is the sacred cow of lube OCIs.
But - again - you have to be able to meet the ROI of ANY system to make it worthwhile.
In theory, if the bypass fitler keeps the lube ultra clean (which is certainly probable), then why use syn? If both the syn and the conventional lube could stay at or better than bottle clean, why pay for the syn? It is so readily apparent that dino lubes do a fantastic job until the add pack is overwhelmed. If the bypass filter keeps that from happening, there would never be a point in which the syn would overshadow the dino now, would there?
One of our members here (he's not active much anymore) finally realized that. He racks up a lot of annual miles (probably 30-40k per year) and he was running syns with bypass. He switched to dino with bypass. Saved big money on the initial fill, got the same UOA results, and was able to keep his FCI (filter change interval) the same. THAT is the sacred cow of lube OCIs.
But - again - you have to be able to meet the ROI of ANY system to make it worthwhile.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: sayjac
What makes you think the BD+ is less efficient that the P1?
I was only basing the efficiency on what the manufacturer states. FWIW
What makes you think the BD+ is less efficient that the P1?
I was only basing the efficiency on what the manufacturer states. FWIW
Originally Posted By: 2James1
Originally Posted By: sayjac
What makes you think the BD+ is less efficient that the P1?
I was only basing the efficiency on what the manufacturer states. FWIW
Which according to the Bosch website is 99.9%, with no published corresponding micron level. The P1 is also rated 99.9%.
Originally Posted By: sayjac
What makes you think the BD+ is less efficient that the P1?
I was only basing the efficiency on what the manufacturer states. FWIW
Which according to the Bosch website is 99.9%, with no published corresponding micron level. The P1 is also rated 99.9%.
It could be anything without a micron spec listed with the efficiency. It's probably basically the same as the PureOne since they are sister filters in a way ... but that's just speculation without the missing spec info.
^^^^^Which is basically what I said in my first post here. But, the premise of the OP's question is in the BD+ being less efficient than P1.
Originally Posted By: sayjac
^^^^^Which is basically what I said in my first post here. But, the premise of the OP's question is in the BD+ being less efficient than P1.
Yep ... just saying +1 that the Bosch efficiency spec is nebulous without the missing micron specification. Heck, the D+ could be better than a P1, but nobody would ever know since Bosch is vague.
Maybe their marketing guy(s) came from Motorcraft.
^^^^^Which is basically what I said in my first post here. But, the premise of the OP's question is in the BD+ being less efficient than P1.
Yep ... just saying +1 that the Bosch efficiency spec is nebulous without the missing micron specification. Heck, the D+ could be better than a P1, but nobody would ever know since Bosch is vague.
Maybe their marketing guy(s) came from Motorcraft.
- Status
Similar threads
