Patman
Staff member
I don't think it quite works like that though. Keep in mind, for many years Honda has specified oil filters be changed on every other oil change (that's what it said in my 2006 Civic's owner's manual) So it can't be that bad.
Skipping oil filter change
- Thread starter Nuclear_42
- Start date
I don't think it quite works like that though. Keep in mind, for many years Honda has specified oil filters be changed on every other oil change (that's what it said in my 2006 Civic's owner's manual) So it can't be that bad.
No you are right…It ain’t that bad. For me though it’s a fresh new filter for fresh new oil. No exceptions on my vehicles. The oil filter is 6 inches away from the drain plug and drain pan is already in position. $8 ain’t going to break the bank.
Patman
Staff member
For almost all of my oil changes I have changed the filter too, but when I had my last Civic there were a couple of times where I ran the filter for two oil changes because I had only gone about 6000 miles or less in one year and wanted fresh oil in there but was running a Fram Ultra on it and knew that it still had lots of life left in it. If I was in that kind of scenario again where I was only putting 5 or 6k a year on a car I wouldn't have a problem running that filter for two intervals. Most of the higher quality filters can handle 10-12k with ease, and some studies even say that they filter better after they've been on the car for a while.
Think of it this way, a lot of people here wouldn't hesitate to run both their oil and their filter for 10-12k, so what's the difference if they now look at that situation but with just fresh oil at the halfway point of that same interval? See how that kind of puts it in perspective a little?
Lot of talk about particulate size and loading here but your issue, IMO, is EXTREME short tripping with a D.I engine in a cold to frigid climate. Also, you likely run E10 fuel.According to Subaru I fall under the severe conditions and should follow a 3k mile OCI vs the standard 6k. 3-4 mile round trip commute and very cold MN winters.
~100 sq in+/- of paper/glass fibre filter media will expand and disintegrate in these conditions, and possibly just across the Winter season. This type of filter construction should be changed Late Fall/ Early spring at the least.
I don't know what your AMSoil fitration media is, possibly a polymer microfibre construction, which could be more robust in a wet/ethanol environment than anything lower tier with pulp in it.
You are the one who will roll the dice; but at the very least I would - at least just once - remove and cut open the filter 3 months into this Winter service and take a peek. Report back. Adjust the schedule if necessary.
- Ken
Really I'd have no issue running that filer for 3 5000mi intervals - warranty not withstanding.
BOF would have 20 post on this thread already (RIP BOF).
BOF would have 20 post on this thread already (RIP BOF).
Oil filters typically lose efficiency as they load up with debris and the dP increases. That was even seen in Ascent's test data.
Some filters are worse at sloughing off captured debris than others. By definition of how the ISO efficiency is determined, a filter with a high ISO efficiency rating will have less sloughing potential than a lower efficiency filter. In other words, it's another reason to run a high efficiency rated filter for longer OCIs than a low efficiency filter.
If you look at a particle count on a typical UOA, you might have 1000 particles/ml in the 2-5 micron range, and 400 particles/ml in the 5-10 micron range. If I did the math right, that works out to ~0.02 ppm at 2-5 micron, and ~0.10 ppm at 5-10 micron, and only some of this particulate is wear metal. Compare this to a wear metal count from a spectroscopy test at 10+ ppm. It seems that there is almost no wear metal in the oil that is larger than 2 micron by the end of a typical UOA, when wear is normal. It's probably mostly sub-micron. This all assumes that the particle count is accurate enough that it is detecting a significant fraction of the particulate.
I don't believe there is a lower limit to the particle sizes that can be detected with spectroscopy. All particles are getting vaporized in the test anyway (if they're small enough).
My point is that equal masses of, say, 10 micron and 40 micron dust will result in similar wear rates. In this case, the 10 micron dust would have ~4^3 = 64 times as many particles at the same mass. To put it another way, 1 particle of 40 micron dust will cause as much wear as 64 particles of 10 micron dust. The overall mass of particulate is what is most important, with the particle size distribution only making a minor difference, at least within the 10-80 micron range (and assuming no filtration).
This figure below was from a test with equal masses of dust and no oil filtration. (The 0-80 micron dust is around 50% 0-10 micron dust, which isn't very damaging, so we can infer that 40-80 micron particles are probably quite damaging as well).
If we adjusted the y-axis in Figure 1 to show mass of particulate instead, it would basically go up exponentially with particle size, and a plot of the wear caused by each particle size would go up exponentially as well, if the oil is unfiltered. This is why I'm saying that a filter bypassing oil in these conditions is a very bad thing.
Filter once a year with only approx 6000 miles on it is more than adequate
I know your numbers are just examples, but the particles per mL are typically much higher than your example numbers if filtration is middle of the road and the OCI normal (not extended). The longer the OCI, the higher the overall PC will become. Couple of Blackstone PCs below. The PCs really don't show what the particle count is below 4 microns, yet a Blackstone UOA gives wear metals in ppm and can only see those particles if 5u or smaller. So might be an apples-to-oranges comparison. But the bottom line is that cleaner oil (a better PC) should result in less wear, all other factors being constant.
How are you calculating the ppm from particles/mL?
Not sure about that. Most wear vs particle size studies show that the particles 10u and smaller do more wear.
Last time this table was posted in another thread, there had to be some context explanation to understand it. If I recall, the theory when no oil filter was present was that the larger particles got "ground down" to smaller particles during the 0-30 minute portion of the test. Another thing in these studies, is that the 0-80 micron dust has a distribution of dust particle sizes, so it's hard to correlate the effect on wear when comparing it to specific smaller particle size ranges, like the 0-10 and 10-20 micron ranges. In the end, it's the particle size and it's relation to the oil film thickness between parts that determines the potential and the level of wear from particulate.This figure below was from a test with equal masses of dust and no oil filtration. (The 0-80 micron dust is around 50% 0-10 micron dust, which isn't very damaging, so we can infer that 40-80 micron particles are probably quite damaging as well).
If we adjusted the y-axis in Figure 1 to show mass of particulate instead, it would basically go up exponentially with particle size, and a plot of the wear caused by each particle size would go up exponentially as well, if the oil is unfiltered. This is why I'm saying that a filter bypassing oil in these conditions is a very bad thing.
Regardless if all these studies, the bottom line is that cleaner oil always results in less wear with all other factors being constant.
I took the data from the table below, the sample dated 02/16/09. I calculated the volume of the particles, assuming they're spherical and with an average diameter close to the middle of the measurement range, and divided by 1 ml. Didn't adjust for density, so it's ppm by volume. It won't be too accurate, but probably close enough for this type of comparison
I'm pretty sure that Cummins test was done with oil filtration. I tried to look up the paper that is referenced to find out, but couldn't find it. It's easy to imagine that the results from the table I posted would look pretty similar to the Cummins result if an oil filter were added.
Only engines like small lawnmowers don't have oil filters, so while it's an interesting study of what happens when there isn't any oil filter, it's not realistic to engines in autos, etc.
Here's the PDF download link with the Cummings study info from where Table C is from: DOWNLOAD LINK
I’ve never had much if any oil left in the filter unless just ran. Let it sit a couple hours and no oil comes out anyway. All brand of filters have been the same for me (factory, oem blue, wix)
9 here so far…
Hopefully 12 if they don’t move out of town by the end of next year. This will be a BITOG record mileage experiment.
Last edited:
Yes. For them 10-12k is fine. I get it. Not for my truck. GM 5.3 and lifter issues won’t get experimental oil change intervals. 5k with filter. If it fails then it just was destined to happen and wasn’t because I cheaped out…
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
My 5.3L’s will take 7 vs 8 quarts if a filter is left on during a change. But if I’m changing at 5K - that small amount of synthetic oil left won’t make any difference one way or another … (and I use long run filters) …
This is mostly a personal preference …
Honda manuals actually tell you to change oil filter every other oil change, so obviously its fine.
I change oil twice as often (about every 3-4K) vs manufacture recommendation, so I end up changing oil filter ever other time. It saves times and there is no need to change oil filter every 3k
I change oil twice as often (about every 3-4K) vs manufacture recommendation, so I end up changing oil filter ever other time. It saves times and there is no need to change oil filter every 3k
The O.P.'s short trip regime with direct injection and E10 fuel in frigid winter = recipe for disaster.
A 100% synthetic long strand polymer fibre media in a super premium filter could be the only engine saver here. A commodity pulp and glass media spin on would be dashed here.
Ink on paper - even such as printed on pages of the lofty O.M - doesn't have enough reasoning behind it.
Happy Holidays!
I use a small 6607 size extended life filter for my two Infinitis for two 4,500 to 5,000 mile intervals. The filter can't hold more than 4-5 ounces of oil so I don't worry about it.
