Shop used the wrong oil filter element (cartridge), result in little to no filtration for the past year, how bad is it?

[JohsonChou]

What are you expecting it to show exactly?

If there is elevated wear. (piston ring, bearing etc).

 

[kschachn]

This paper is citing two different studies. One is for a field study. One is for a lab testing (which they added a ridiculous amount of junk in the engine). This graph is from the field study where the graph ZeeOsix quoted is from the lab testing, I personally do not think the lab testing reflect real world conditions, as no engine is gonna see 400 grams of pure dust in the engine. The lab testing study was done by a company that sells oil filter too... so it is less crediable, they might just be wanting to selll their new fancy filter.

The field study mentioned that the partical count from 5-100micron increased by 7x between 10 and 60 micron filter, this does not mean that the engine wear is 7x more. These particulates can be dust/debris that isn't filtered out by the less efficent filter that isn't engine wear metal. The paper also mentioned this:

"It is important to note thatalthough filters reduced particulatecontamination 25 microns by more than anorder of magnitude, wear metals asmeasured by spectrography were reducedby only -20%. This is due to theseverly limited capability ofspectrographic oil analysis to detectparticles 5 microns and larger(20). Theconsequence is that significantreductions in wear debris achieved byefficient filters are obscured inlaboratory analyses using standardemission spectroscopic methods."

Bascially it means that engine wear resulted in small than 5 micron particulates is only 20% more. But we don't how much engine wear there is when it results in 5 mciron particulates or larger, at least using the methods they had at the time.

The whole notion of being able to quantify “real world conditions” is generally a fantasy.

 

[MolaKule]

This paper is citing two different studies. One is for a field study. One is for a lab testing (which they added a ridiculous amount of junk in the engine).

Yes, accelerated wear testing often uses this method.

 

[NormanBuntz]

Yeah they are apologetic about it. They also said the technician that did the job 1 year ago no longer work there for another reason and would probably get fired again for this. But I don't know what else they could offer me, since the damage is done and probably long term and won't show up in short term.

You can start by asking the local shop to pay for your Blackstone analysis.

 

[JohsonChou]

The whole notion of being able to quantify “real world conditions” is generally a fantasy.

True, but field study, in most cases, is much more closer to a "real world condition".

 

[ZeeOSix]

Anyway, the oil report I am gonna get in 2 weeks is gonna tell the real story.

What kind of UOA report? Will it also have an ISO particle count. Keep in mind that special UAO test methods are needed to see contamination particles greater than 5 microns. Blackstone doesn't use that UOA methodology.

 

[twX]

This paper is citing two different studies. One is for a field study. One is for a lab testing (which they added a ridiculous amount of junk in the engine). This graph is from the field study where the graph ZeeOsix quoted is from the lab testing, I personally do not think the lab testing reflect real world conditions, as no engine is gonna see 400 grams of pure dust in the engine. The lab testing study was done by a company that sells oil filter too... so it is less crediable, they might just be wanting to selll their new fancy filter.

The field study mentioned that the partical count from 5-100micron increased by 7x between 10 and 60 micron filter, this does not mean that the engine wear is 7x more. These particulates can be dust/debris that isn't filtered out by the less efficent filter that isn't engine wear metal.

The Component Life vs Filter Rating chart (Figure 13) seems to be derived from phycial wear measurements that were taken after an engine teardown, not from particle counts: "Wear of five critical component areas in a DDA 6V-53T engine were measured: upper and lower rod bearings, slipper bushings, compression and oil piston rings, piston pins, and the main bearings."

The chart is very similar to those from other studies, such as SAE 881825 (GM), 952555, and 952557 (Donaldson). They all show approximately the same relationship between oil filter micron rating and wear, a 3-fold difference in wear for a 2-fold difference in micron rating at 99% efficiency. The relationship between oil filter efficiency and engine wear seems to be very well established in laboratory tests, and I see no reason why this relationship wouldn't also translate to normal on-road use. Field tests are challenging since there are too many uncontrolled variables to conduct a good engine wear study in the field, at least without using a very large sample of vehicles and then analyzing the results statistically.

 

[ZeeOSix]

True, but field study, in most cases, is much more closer to a "real world condition".

For sure, and any actual field study is obviously the best testing. It's always interesting to compare the lab testing to the field testing to verify where and by how much they differ.

IMO and agreeing with previous comments, you are not going to be able to tell anything from one Blackstone UOA.

 

[JohsonChou]

The Component Life vs Filter Rating chart (Figure 13) seems to be derived from phycial wear measurements that were taken after an engine teardown, not from particle counts: "Wear of five critical component areas in a DDA 6V-53T engine were measured: upper and lower rod bearings, slipper bushings, compression and oil piston rings, piston pins, and the main bearings."

The chart is very similar to those from other studies, such as SAE 881825 (GM), 952555, and 952557 (Donaldson). They all show approximately the same relationship between oil filter micron rating and wear, a 3-fold difference in wear for a 2-fold difference in micron rating at 99% efficiency. The relationship between oil filter efficiency and engine wear seems to be very well established in laboratory tests, and I see no reason why this relationship wouldn't also translate to normal on-road use. Field tests are challenging since there are too many uncontrolled variables to conduct a good engine wear study in the field, at least without using a very large sample of vehicles and then analyzing the results statistically.

Sorry, I thought you are talking about figure 11.

I think my point is figure 13 and figure 12 are from two different studies and they can't be cross referenced. Study in figure 13 did not do a UOA.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Field tests are challenging since there are too many uncontrolled variables to conduct a good engine wear study in the field, at least without using a very large sample of vehicles and then analyzing the results statistically.

Not so "uncontrolled" if it's a field study that is more controlled than just "people just randomly" using the vehicles in the field (like a fleet of taxis, which some studies have used before). There have been some pretty controlled field testing done to help focus in on the real factors involved.

 

[ZeeOSix]

They added 400 grams of contaiments directly to the oil sump to come up with the graph. DDA 6V-53T has 15L oil capacity vs my car with 10L oil capacity, and that is equivelent of 267 gram of junk in the engine. And with 60micron filter (basically rock catcher?) is only 8x worse than 10 micron filter... That does make me feel better since normal passenger car only see like 5-6 grams of containments in 5000 mile from another paper I read.

Regardless if they added 50g of test dust every hour over an 8 hour test, the fact is that the better more efficient oil filters kept the oil cleaner, and therefore resulted in less engine wear. Granted, the level of dust loading in real life isn't nearly that high, but in the real world the oil is ran through the typical engine way longer than 8 hours. An engine running at 8 hours at 60 MPH would only be 480 miles on the oil.

The bottom line is a more efficient oil filter will keep the oil cleaner and therefore result in less engine wear, especially the longer the oil is ran. If you did an oil change every 1000 miles you wouldn't need as an efficient oil filter compared to running the oil for 10,000 miles. The cumulative engine wear is proportional to the overall cleanliness of the oil times the total volume of that contaminated oil was ran through the oiling system.

 

[JohsonChou]

For sure, and any actual field study is obviously the best testing. It's always interesting to compare the lab testing to the field testing to verify where and by how much they differ.

IMO and agreeing with previous comments, you are not going to be able to tell anything from one Blackstone UOA.

What kind of UOA report? Will it also have an ISO particle count. Keep in mind that special UAO test methods are needed to see contamination particles greater than 5 microns. Blackstone doesn't use that UOA methodology.

1. I don't care about the particulate count. I only care about engine wear. From what I read, only a small portion of particulates in engine oil are actual engine wear. Most is combustion residue. These comustion residue would otherwise be filtered by the oil filter won't be filtered in my case (which would mess up the report). They however do not contribute that much to the problem.
2. Blackstone oil anaslyis can only see 5 micron and below, but that is still effective testing in my case, since I only care about the relative engine wear comparing to average. I only need to know how much excessive engine wear the shop has caused me. There is some assumption made here (engine wear that is smaller than 5 micron contributes to the same percentable of total engine wear), but I think I have no reason to believe the assumption isn't mostly correct. (people can correct me).

 

[JohsonChou]

Regardless if they added 50g of test dust every hour over an 8 hour test, the fact is that the better more efficient oil filters kept the oil cleaner, and therefore resulted in less engine wear. Granted, the level of dust loading in real life isn't nearly that high, but in the real world the oil is ran through the typical engine way longer than 8 hours. An engine running at 8 hours at 60 MPH would only be 480 miles on the oil.

The bottom line is a more efficient oil filter will keep the oil cleaner and therefore result in less engine wear, especially the longer the oil is ran. If you did an oil change every 1000 miles you wouldn't need as an efficient oil filter compared to running the oil for 10,000 miles. The cumulative engine wear is proportional to the overall cleanliness of the oil times the total volume of that contaminated oil was ran through the oiling system.

There is abosulty no doubt about that, cleaner oil is always better... But how much better is what I really wanna know (in another word, how much extra damage did I get)

 

[ZeeOSix]

There is abosulty no doubt about that, cleaner oil is always better... But how much better is what I really wanna know (in another word, how much extra damage did I get)

IMO, not enough to really worry about. Now if the oil filter was continually bypass some oil for 150,000 miles, then your engine might show the effect of that, but for a few thousand miles, you're not going to be able to detect or prove it did anything. A Blackstone UOA isn't going to show you or prove anything. It only measures wear particles around 5u and less, so if there is a bunch of wear particles larger than that you will never know from that UOA.

 

[ZeeOSix]

2. Blackstone oil anaslyis can only see 5 micron and below, but that is still effective testing in my case, since I only care about the relative engine wear comparing to average. I only need to know how much excessive engine wear the shop has caused me. There is some assumption made here (engine wear that is smaller than 5 micron contributes to the same percentable of total engine wear), but I think I have no reason to believe the assumption isn't mostly correct. (people can correct me).

You have nothing to compare this specific UOA to unless you have been doing UOAs on this car since it was brand new. One UOA with absolutely nothing to compare it to - unless the Fe and other metals were some crazy high value will mean nothing. If say the Fe level is 2 or 3 ppm higher than the average similar engine, you will never know why ... and the ppm level can jump all over a few +/- ppm on any engine. Plus, you only have a 2000 mile UOA, so that will make the ppm lower too. You need to look at ppm per 1000 miles to normalize it. But again, do you have many UOAs on this engine to show it's ppm/1000 mile history? If not, this UOA will tell you nothing unless the engine is about to blow-up.

 

[JohsonChou]

You have nothing to compare this specific UOA to unless you have been doing UOAs on this car since it was brand new. One UOA with absolutely nothing to compare it to - unless the Fe and other metals were some crazy high value will mean nothing. If say the Fe level is 2 or 3 ppm higher than the average similar engine, you will never know why ... and the ppm level can jump all over a few +/- ppm on any engine. Plus, you only have a 2000 mile UOA, so that will make the ppm lower too. You need to look at ppm per 1000 miles to normalize it. But again, do you have many UOAs on this engine to show it's ppm/1000 mile history? If not, this UOA will tell you nothing unless the engine is about to blow-up.

I agree with what you said. But I am not performing some scientific study though, I am just trying to seek action from the shop.

If the UOA show significant enough discrepancy between it and the national average, I can probably convince the shop to act. Like more testing (if high enough, to even have them open up the engine to check), some sort of guarrentee for the future or maybe freebie like free oil change. If I see crazy high results, I can then use it to seek a new engine or rebuild. It wouldn't matter if the unfiltered oil 100% caused it or not to. The shop wants to keep its reputation and their insurance would pay for it.

If UOA show normal result like national average, it proabbly tells me that there is proabbly no sigificant damage and I'll sleep better.

 

[ZeeOSix]

^^^ Yeah, I'll bet your UOA will look fine. Realize that even on engines that are basically destroying themselves, that a Blackstone tyoe of UOA may not even give a "big red flag" because the majority of damage debris is larger than 5 microns - this has been discussed many times here. Only people that do a UOA every oil change and have lots of historical UOA data on that engine will see possible slight "concerning" upticks. Member @TiGeo can link his findings example he found by keeping historic UOA data on his VW that had mechanical issues.

Did you dry wick the oil filter and look for closely for abnormal metal debtis? That will tell you more than a Blackstone UOA if something crazy is going on from wear.

Regardless of what your UOA shows (and please post it when you get it), I'd at least get a few free oil changes from that dealership, if you even feel good about them even working on your car at this point, lol.

 

[JohsonChou]

^^^ Yeah, I'll bet your UOA will look fine. Realize that even on engines that are basically destroying themselves, that a Blackstone tyoe of UOA may not even give a "big red flag" because the majority of damage debris is larger than 5 microns - this has been discussed many times here. Only people that do a UOA every oil change and have lots of historical UOA data on that engine will see possible slight "concerning" upticks. Member @TiGeo can link his findings example he found by keeping historic UOA data on his VW that had mechanical issues.

Did you dry wick the oil filter and look for closely for abnormal metal debtis? That will tell you more than a Blackstone UOA if something crazy is going on from wear.

Regardless of what your UOA shows (and please post it when you get it), I'd at least get a few free oil changes from that dealership, if you even feel good about them even working on your car at this point, lol.

The oil filter looks pristine. (well if oil is bypassing it... it gotta be looking pristine...). I still got the oil, I can run some through like a coffee filter and see what shows up.

 

[ZeeOSix]

The oil filter looks pristine. (well if oil is bypassing it... it gotta be looking pristine...). I still got the oil, I can run some through like a coffee filter and see what shows up.

As I mentioned before, there is no way all the oil was bypassing the filter, some of the flow was still being filtered.

 

[JohsonChou]

As I mentioned before, there is no way all the oil was bypassing the filter, some of the flow was still being filtered.

I mean it gotta be minimal amount right? Since it is like a good 2 inch shorter, unfiltered oil is gonna hit both side of the oil filter. Does't that wash off whatever it is trapping? The oil filter is bascially just soaking in a box? Is my understand incorrect?