OEM filter intervals for some Japanese engines

[dnewton3]

Many Honda motorcycle filter intervals have been 2x the oil interval.

Now, I just discovered that my "new" (new to me) 2000 Galant also has that same mantra, when I was perusing the manual. It specifically states that both the normal and severe service intervals show the filter goes at 2x. The "normal" 7.5k mile oil change interval only requires a 15k mile FCI. The "severe" 3k mile oil interval only calls for a 6k mile FCI. In fact, the manual simply states that the pressure rating (265psi) must be adhered to, but other than that, it just calls for a quality made filter and has no other spec. Regardless of oil interval, the filter interval is always 2x. No mention of needs for syns, or super-duper filtration. Just SH/CD or better oil and a normal filter. And that was in a vehicle made 12 years ago!

Hmmmmmm - perhaps some honesty from a few of the OEMs?

After 197k miles, it could use some cleaning perhaps. I'm going to run an ARX treatment and rinse.

After that, I might just run some trials to see if wear is shifted when the FCI is manipulated and all other inputs are held constant. Can I affect wear by moving the FCI back and forth between 1x and 2x? I suspect will confirm what they already know.

 

[Shannow]

Most stuff sold in Oz in the 70s had filters every other change, and it's probably not a bad mantra...provided the "theories" of paper drying out and breaking down, etc. etc. aren't really true. (Paper would transformers and cables run 200,000 hours under high electrical stress and minimal oil changes...another story).

Parents R16 had 5,000km oil, 10,000km filter in 1975, and with Castrol GTX 20W-50 about all that went in, the filter was "familiar" with it.

When changing to Valvoline, mechanics always did a filter change to avoid "additive clash".

I remember some mechanics used to "scratch" the housing to domonstrate that it was on the second OCI.

Then mechanics started advertising "cheap insurance", as they couldn't guarantee that the filter was 1, 2, or 10 changes old, so assumed that they needed to change it.

 

[Jim Allen]

I have been interviewing engineers in the filter biz and there is a definite service life for filters beyond contaminant capacity. You know about things like heat aging a Nitrile ADBV and to a lesser extent, the bypass valve may be a worry (though if companies like Fram test to 1,000,000 cycles, I doubt we have much to worry about). Discussed was how long the media, particularly cellulose, can endure what are essentially harsh chemicals and the process of oxidation. Extended and repeated exposure to moisture is also deleterious. I didn't get many exact details on this, but a particular media will have been tested ("certified" if you will) to be resistant to particular common situations for a period of time. I was told you may play hob trying to get that exact info but when I asked for a more or less universal "safe" number, I was given three years with longer being possible in good circumstances (low moisture, low oil temps, low acids).

FYI, I was told that shelf life is essentially unlimited IF humidity is low or the filter is protected from it. Cellulose media in particular are vulnerable to deterioration from humidity. One rule of thumb I was given is that if you see rust on the tapping plate of a stored filter, it's suspect as having been exposed to too much humidity.

In my situation, with bypass installed and long time periods, I will be testing the limits of a time interval. When you have bypass installed, primary filter life is significantly extended, so I could potentially go past 2x FCIs. On the 6.9L diesel, I am not too worried. The filter has no bypass or ADBV built-in. On the 5.4L, the filter has both.... hence the need IMO for a top quality synthetic filter.

 

[rrounds]

I run 16k miles on the filter(oversize Baldwin B7042) on my '06 S2000 and that is about 7 months of driving for us. No way in [censored] would I run 2X on the stock filter on my bike. I cut open every filter that comes off my bike, and it has a lot of clutch debris even after 73k miles.

ROD

 

[Hootbro]

Originally Posted By: rrounds
I run 16k miles on the filter(oversize Baldwin B7042) on my '06 S2000 and that is about 7 months of driving for us. No way in [censored] would I run 2X on the stock filter on my bike. I cut open every filter that comes off my bike, and it has a lot of clutch debris even after 73k miles.

ROD


Ever cut open that Baldwin on the S2000? If so, how did it hold up?

 

[rrounds]

Yes I have.
http://s949.photobucket.com/albums/ad338/rrounds/Oil Filters/

ROD

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: rrounds
I run 16k miles on the filter(oversize Baldwin B7042) on my '06 S2000 and that is about 7 months of driving for us. No way in [censored] would I run 2X on the stock filter on my bike. I cut open every filter that comes off my bike, and it has a lot of clutch debris even after 73k miles.

ROD



I hear ya, but OTOH, are we to presume Honda has never done the same? IIRC, the OCI on my 'Wing is 4k mile, and the filter is 8k miles. (Or, maybe they are both at 8k miles; I truly do not recall what the manual says). That is not an unbelievable distance for a filter, especially on a GL1800 that really does not see clutch flashing of any sort.

Regardless, I find my interest piqued at the 15k mile FCI for my Galant, and I'm itching to do some testing. Unfortunately, I drive three different vehicles each week, so accumulation could take me a while!

 

[Hokiefyd]

I understand that Japanese OEMs prefer higher-capacity oil filters and US OEMs prefer higher-efficiency oil filters. This is coming from a Purolator engineer.

This may be why some of the smaller Purolator filters (that presumably cover many of the Japanese engines) specify an efficiency rating at 40 microns instead of at 20 microns.

 

[dnewton3]

I have no basis to contest that comment; makes sense in some regard.

But I would offer this question as an oxymoron ...
If the Japanese offer longer-life fitlers by opening up the filter density (passing more and larger stuff), then why is it that (generally) their engines last so darn long????????

I come back to my premise that when oil is not compromised (used to a point of add-pack being significantly depleted) then it is the OIL that controls wear, and not a filter. Normal Full Flow fitlers are only giant chunck catchers; they deal with the abnormally large stuff, and the incident rate of such particles is relatively small. Conversely the add pack (detergents and dispersents) controll small contamination, and do so in a manner that wear is not generally affected. Only when the add-pack is depleted will contamination begin to affect wear. We can see this in UOAs that are pushed too far on "normal" oil and filters. Amazingly though, that point is MUCH further out than any anal-retentive BITOGer would ever want to admit openly in public.

Here is a thread that somewhat supports my theory:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2660244&page=1
Honda engine ran for 2x the normal UA (13k miles versus 6.3K). It also was ran down to 1/2 of the normal sump load!
If one was to double the amount of oil, and drive half that distance, the wear metals would not have really been anything to be concerned over. Running 1/2 a sump for 2x the distance will affect wear to some degree. But look at the insolubles also; at .7 when the condemnation level is .6 per Blackstone. Again, double the oil level (back to normal) and cut the OCI in half and I suspect that insoluble amount would have been very "average". No one willingly would run a sump at 1/2 capacity, but accidents happen. And yet this engine really didn't react too badly considering the conditions it ran under. Just diluting the load with fresh oil to full capacity would have cut the wear numbers in half. Cutting back to the average duration would have reduced them in half yet again.

In short, if the oil had been changed at a normal time (6.3k miles) and kept at full capacity, would the filter have had such a hard time keeping up? The oil add pack got depleted to a point where the filter succumbed and the wear was affected. But had those two conditions (low sump and 2x OCI) not occured, the filter would have easily made it to 13k miles.

That example kind of puts the anal-retentive "must use synthetics with an EaO, M1 or D+ fitler every 5k miles or your engine will explode" mantra in perspective, does it not?


That's why I think some Japanese companies realistically suggest an FCI ever other OCI. The filter just catches big chunks, and those don't come by too often. You can have a tighter filter to catch more stuff, but if the occurence rate of big particles is low, it does not matter much; a filter cannot catch any more than what is presented to it. The real damag-causing particles are in the 5-10um range, and most full-flow filters are not effective in that range. So where does the success come from? The oil add-pack! Change your oil often enough and you flush out contaminants before they do significant damage.

 

[roadrunner1]

To answer one of your original questions, my oldest son has an '95 Honda Accord with the v-tec.
The owners manual OCI is 7,500 mi. with filter changed at every other OC.
The car currently has 265,000mi. and works just fine for him to commute back and forth to school/work. We bought it at around 150,000 mi.

I do change the filter at every OC out of habit and I also have always used the e-core design on this car along with the other kids Fords without issue.

 

[Sayjac]

Being most familiar with Honda vehicles my comments are specifically regarding that brand rather than Japanese vehicles as a group. It is true that Honda 'recommends' an oil filter change every other oci. With the newer MM system, it's an A,B indicator that dictates, A oil only, B oil and filter. That said, if one takes their vehicle to a Honda dealer, a filter change is SOP with every oil change. Some Honda dealers even refuse to acknowledge that the owners manual states every other OCI for the filter, either in the manual or as a part of MM A,B system. I know this because some time back as a part of a sometimes heated thread discussion on the subject, I called Honda dealers from Charlotte NC area all the way to Atlanta Ga. The Atlanta dealer service writer hung up on me when I challenged her assertion that Honda specs a filter change every other oci using the MM A,B indicator.

All that said, I don't buy that Honda filters in particular are purposely inefficient as a part of some grand scheme to use two oci's and improve efficiency with use over two ocis. Thanks to Amsoil's recent test of some oem's it is now known that the Honda/Fram A-02 rates at ~65%@ 20um, pretty darn poor imo. Bruce T had another opinion that it's perhaps because they, in this case Honda/Toyota, are either lazy or cheap. I don't know, but it's no less valid an idea imo than that they are purposely inefficient. And while the P1 PL14610 used in many Honda is rated at 99.9% @ 40um, as ZO6 has pointed out in the past, while it hasn't been proven, that efficiency may still well be 94-5% @ 20um, pretty darn good. And whatever it is, still a heck of a lot better than the Honda A-02 oem. Just me, but I have no interest in chasing the A-02 oem for any FCI. Well, maybe if it was free or close.

Personally, I generally use the P1 PL14610 in my Accord and change it every time. With the filter being relatively inexpensive I don't see much cost benefit in every other oci filter interval. For convenience though, it could be factor. That said, I am currently running a BD+ two 15%MM oci's in the Accord, more as an experiment than anything else.

And afaik, Nissan and Toyota still recommend a filter change every oil change and many Nissans use the PL14610 or it's smaller version PL14612.

So while it may true that oil filters really only focus on the largest particles which are less a factor in wear, what has one got to lose by using a more efficient filter from the start, as long as cost reasonable.

 

[fdcg27]

To paraphrase your signiture line, fluids and filters are cheap, while any engine or transmission repairs are expensive.
First decide how much you want to spend, then plan your maintenance routine.
Don't do it the other way.
Make an informed decision.

 

[Errtt]

I don't have much knowledge when it comes to this stuff, but I can't see changing the filter every other OC. I'd want to drain as much used oil as I can. Why leave some dirty oil (in the filter) when I want as clean a change as possible.

What gets me, have read somewhere that when a filter media gets loaded, then the filter become more effective as long as the oil can pass.

I been debating on my work vehicle (97 RAV) of going from GTX to Castrol synthetic and extending my OCIs, keeping with the Toy filter. A couple hours a day highway and the miles add up fast, especially when I use it also for my days off as it gets better gas mileage than the other SUV.

Reminds me - I be doing oil & filter change early tomorrow morning @ almost 4k on the oil/filter.

 

[rrounds]

Originally Posted By: Errtt
I don't have much knowledge when it comes to this stuff, but I can't see changing the filter every other OC. I'd want to drain as much used oil as I can. Why leave some dirty oil (in the filter) when I want as clean a change as possible.

What gets me, have read somewhere that when a filter media gets loaded, then the filter become more effective as long as the oil can pass.

I been debating on my work vehicle (97 RAV) of going from GTX to Castrol synthetic and extending my OCIs, keeping with the Toy filter. A couple hours a day highway and the miles add up fast, especially when I use it also for my days off as it gets better gas mileage than the other SUV.

Reminds me - I be doing oil & filter change early tomorrow morning @ almost 4k on the oil/filter.

We do 10k miles OCI's on our '00 SSEI and 8k miles on our S2000(8600 rpm redline). If you have not done a UOA on your RAV, I would get one done to see if you can run your oil longer or a LOT longer. No need to dump good oil, thats just a waste of money.

ROD

 

[dnewton3]

Unlike most folks, I focus on tangible results and not inputs. Inputs can vary, and yet results can be consistent.

I would agree, at face value, that a "better" filter would be more beneficial. But there are two things staring us right in the face:
1) as anecdotal evidence, there are many tens-of-thousands of vehicles that follow the OEM specs with OEM type filters, and they run out to multiples of hundred-thousand miles
2) UOA data shows that wear is not greatly affected by the choice of filter, or the FCI, as long as a reasonably prescribed maintenance plan is followed

Yes, filters and fluids are cheaper than engines and trannies, but to arrogantly under-utilize any product is just as foolish as to ignorantly over-use a product. Waste is waste, regardless of where it lurks.

 

[roadrunner1]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Unlike most folks, I focus on tangible results and not inputs. Inputs can vary, and yet results can be consistent.

I would agree, at face value, that a "better" filter would be more beneficial. But there are two things staring us right in the face:
1) as anecdotal evidence, there are many tens-of-thousands of vehicles that follow the OEM specs with OEM type filters, and they run out to multiples of hundred-thousand miles
2) UOA data shows that wear is not greatly affected by the choice of filter, or the FCI, as long as a reasonably prescribed maintenance plan is followed

Yes, filters and fluids are cheaper than engines and trannies, but to arrogantly under-utilize any product is just as foolish as to ignorantly over-use a product. Waste is waste, regardless of where it lurks.



I couldn't agree more!!!!!!!

 

[Errtt]

Well as I sit here waiting for the sun to rise, I have plans to do oil & filter change this morning.
I have OEM filters and GTX and usually do a 4k OC.
In 4k, the dipstick level is still full (never add oil).
Now debating going to Castrol synthetic (will have to wait for local auto store to open), then going maybe 7.5k OCs - seems the 4k comes often with the miles I rack-up.
At almost 170k on the clock, no noticeable oil consumption/leaks, I think I'll do the synthetic this morning, then 7.5k OC or do a UOA at 7.5k to see if I can do 10k OCs.
Going to think this over another cup of coffee.

 

[Hootbro]

Originally Posted By: roadrunner1
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Unlike most folks, I focus on tangible results and not inputs. Inputs can vary, and yet results can be consistent.

I would agree, at face value, that a "better" filter would be more beneficial. But there are two things staring us right in the face:
1) as anecdotal evidence, there are many tens-of-thousands of vehicles that follow the OEM specs with OEM type filters, and they run out to multiples of hundred-thousand miles
2) UOA data shows that wear is not greatly affected by the choice of filter, or the FCI, as long as a reasonably prescribed maintenance plan is followed

Yes, filters and fluids are cheaper than engines and trannies, but to arrogantly under-utilize any product is just as foolish as to ignorantly over-use a product. Waste is waste, regardless of where it lurks.



I couldn't agree more!!!!!!!


+1 also.

This board is full of wasted bandwidth arguing about minutia engineering details that have no relation to the real world service life of the application vehicle at hand. \

Too many other factors cause cars to hit the junk yard besides oil related issues and arguing about minutia variances in oil and filter specs have no bearing in the final outcome.

Millions of high mile vehicles go many hundreds of thousands of miles on minimum spec oil and filters.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Errtt
Well as I sit here waiting for the sun to rise, I have plans to do oil & filter change this morning.
I have OEM filters and GTX and usually do a 4k OC.
In 4k, the dipstick level is still full (never add oil).
Now debating going to Castrol synthetic (will have to wait for local auto store to open), then going maybe 7.5k OCs - seems the 4k comes often with the miles I rack-up.
At almost 170k on the clock, no noticeable oil consumption/leaks, I think I'll do the synthetic this morning, then 7.5k OC or do a UOA at 7.5k to see if I can do 10k OCs.
Going to think this over another cup of coffee.


Good plan since you mentioned earlier that this vehicle sounds like it gets mostly highway miles. Highway miles are a lot easier on the oil, and 4K OCIs (even with non-syntetic oil) seems too soon for a vehicle with that kind of use.

 

[brelandt]

I put about 4K a month on my truck. I drive about 80% highway and 20% sitting in traffic thru the Bay Area.
I change my oil (Full Synthetic) and filter (Champion Lab) every 3K or about every 3 weeks.
I do work at a shop and get a 50% discount, so the cost is about the same as my daily lunch.....trivial really.
I know I'm wasting the oil but man I just feel way better going about it this way.
I went 4K once and I started losing sleep.
I need help more than my engine does......