Where's the documented proof ?
- Thread starter Merkava_4
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: tommygunn
Originally Posted By: FetchFar
We enthusiasts want less grit in there now, so a couple extra bucks for a Fram TG makes sense.
That Fram TG however only does 6-10K, either. Even the Fram Ultra "high-tech" synthetic is only rated at 15K.
Meanwhile European cars use the standard paper filters, in some instances the design as with 15W40 dino oil twenty years ago, for 20K factory OCIs.
To give your an idea of what "European OCIs" mean for an engine in a version that didn't change mechanically over the years at all:
Mid 80ies: 6.25K with 10W40 or 15W40 dino
Early 90ies: 12.5K with 10W40 semi synthetic
Early 00s: 15K with 5W40 Group III synthetic. (At this point, the oil filter even got smaller: 76mm vs 66mm diameter)
Today: 21.75K with 5W40 Group IV PAO-based low-SAPS.
That may be what the EPA means.
I did not know today's Euro OCI is past 20k miles, wow! Another reason why I prefer the premium oil filters is that a new one out-of-the-box will filter well, where a cheap filter will take a few thousand miles to finally filter smaller particles as some gunk builds up, meaning you can just change that filter out at will (between oil changes) if you suspect dusty conditions are putting sub-50-micron dust thru your air filter into the oil system.
Originally Posted By: FetchFar
We enthusiasts want less grit in there now, so a couple extra bucks for a Fram TG makes sense.
That Fram TG however only does 6-10K, either. Even the Fram Ultra "high-tech" synthetic is only rated at 15K.
Meanwhile European cars use the standard paper filters, in some instances the design as with 15W40 dino oil twenty years ago, for 20K factory OCIs.
To give your an idea of what "European OCIs" mean for an engine in a version that didn't change mechanically over the years at all:
Mid 80ies: 6.25K with 10W40 or 15W40 dino
Early 90ies: 12.5K with 10W40 semi synthetic
Early 00s: 15K with 5W40 Group III synthetic. (At this point, the oil filter even got smaller: 76mm vs 66mm diameter)
Today: 21.75K with 5W40 Group IV PAO-based low-SAPS.
That may be what the EPA means.
I did not know today's Euro OCI is past 20k miles, wow! Another reason why I prefer the premium oil filters is that a new one out-of-the-box will filter well, where a cheap filter will take a few thousand miles to finally filter smaller particles as some gunk builds up, meaning you can just change that filter out at will (between oil changes) if you suspect dusty conditions are putting sub-50-micron dust thru your air filter into the oil system.
Last edited:
It's crazy how some people are trying to change the discussion into "low quality filtration won't really damage your engine"
Then issuing a challenge to prove them wrong.
Why would anyone WANT sub-par filtration ?
Why would anyone seek out sub-par filtration ?
Why would anyone defend sub-par filtration ?
Then issuing a challenge to prove them wrong.
Why would anyone WANT sub-par filtration ?
Why would anyone seek out sub-par filtration ?
Why would anyone defend sub-par filtration ?
Originally Posted By: CELICA_XX
It's crazy how some people are trying to change the discussion into "low quality filtration won't really damage your engine"
Then issuing a challenge to prove them wrong.
Why would anyone WANT sub-par filtration ?
Why would anyone seek out sub-par filtration ?
Why would anyone defend sub-par filtration ?
The "justification" I hear over and over is: "I favor flow over efficiency". But the fact is, even the 99% @ 20u filters flow way more than an oil pump can cram down an engine's oiling system. An engine can't tell that a filter might have a couple PSI more delta-p at high engine RPM. A slightly more restrictive filter might be barely perceptible but only when the pump is in pressure relief, which is basically never when the oil is hot on 99.99% of the cars on the road.
It's crazy how some people are trying to change the discussion into "low quality filtration won't really damage your engine"
Then issuing a challenge to prove them wrong.
Why would anyone WANT sub-par filtration ?
Why would anyone seek out sub-par filtration ?
Why would anyone defend sub-par filtration ?
The "justification" I hear over and over is: "I favor flow over efficiency". But the fact is, even the 99% @ 20u filters flow way more than an oil pump can cram down an engine's oiling system. An engine can't tell that a filter might have a couple PSI more delta-p at high engine RPM. A slightly more restrictive filter might be barely perceptible but only when the pump is in pressure relief, which is basically never when the oil is hot on 99.99% of the cars on the road.
Originally Posted By: FetchFar
Originally Posted By: tommygunn
Originally Posted By: FetchFar
We enthusiasts want less grit in there now, so a couple extra bucks for a Fram TG makes sense.
That Fram TG however only does 6-10K, either. Even the Fram Ultra "high-tech" synthetic is only rated at 15K.
Meanwhile European cars use the standard paper filters, in some instances the design as with 15W40 dino oil twenty years ago, for 20K factory OCIs.
To give your an idea of what "European OCIs" mean for an engine in a version that didn't change mechanically over the years at all:
Mid 80ies: 6.25K with 10W40 or 15W40 dino
Early 90ies: 12.5K with 10W40 semi synthetic
Early 00s: 15K with 5W40 Group III synthetic. (At this point, the oil filter even got smaller: 76mm vs 66mm diameter)
Today: 21.75K with 5W40 Group IV PAO-based low-SAPS.
That may be what the EPA means.
I did not know today's Euro OCI is past 20k miles, wow! Another reason why I prefer the premium oil filters is that a new one out-of-the-box will filter well, where a cheap filter will take a few thousand miles to finally filter smaller particles as some gunk builds up, meaning you can just change that filter out at will (between oil changes) if you suspect dusty conditions are putting sub-50-micron dust thru your air filter into the oil system.
My point is not really the 20K OCI but that the OCI of an engine that came out of the factory in 1985 was 6.25K on sludge-y dino oil, while over time it evolved to 21.5K under all conditions thanks to PAO synthetics and low-SAPS oil (the engine in question has bucket type flat tappets, btw, with the same shims on top since 1985, too) without any electronics that watch the quality of the oil or mechanical changes.
With all those electric shenanigans, OCIs are "up to" 30-35K on Euro cars anyways. Miles, that is, not kilometers.
Originally Posted By: tommygunn
Originally Posted By: FetchFar
We enthusiasts want less grit in there now, so a couple extra bucks for a Fram TG makes sense.
That Fram TG however only does 6-10K, either. Even the Fram Ultra "high-tech" synthetic is only rated at 15K.
Meanwhile European cars use the standard paper filters, in some instances the design as with 15W40 dino oil twenty years ago, for 20K factory OCIs.
To give your an idea of what "European OCIs" mean for an engine in a version that didn't change mechanically over the years at all:
Mid 80ies: 6.25K with 10W40 or 15W40 dino
Early 90ies: 12.5K with 10W40 semi synthetic
Early 00s: 15K with 5W40 Group III synthetic. (At this point, the oil filter even got smaller: 76mm vs 66mm diameter)
Today: 21.75K with 5W40 Group IV PAO-based low-SAPS.
That may be what the EPA means.
I did not know today's Euro OCI is past 20k miles, wow! Another reason why I prefer the premium oil filters is that a new one out-of-the-box will filter well, where a cheap filter will take a few thousand miles to finally filter smaller particles as some gunk builds up, meaning you can just change that filter out at will (between oil changes) if you suspect dusty conditions are putting sub-50-micron dust thru your air filter into the oil system.
My point is not really the 20K OCI but that the OCI of an engine that came out of the factory in 1985 was 6.25K on sludge-y dino oil, while over time it evolved to 21.5K under all conditions thanks to PAO synthetics and low-SAPS oil (the engine in question has bucket type flat tappets, btw, with the same shims on top since 1985, too) without any electronics that watch the quality of the oil or mechanical changes.
With all those electric shenanigans, OCIs are "up to" 30-35K on Euro cars anyways. Miles, that is, not kilometers.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Example of a Wix XP look-up many GM engines.
http://www.wixfilters.com/Lookup/PartDetails.aspx?Part=51042XP
Says right there in the list of specs:
Beta Ratio: B2=20
Which means 50% @ 20 microns.
Is that the same test that Fram put their Ultra thru ?
In order for it to be a fair comparison, the test needs to be exactly the same for both filters.
Example of a Wix XP look-up many GM engines.
http://www.wixfilters.com/Lookup/PartDetails.aspx?Part=51042XP
Says right there in the list of specs:
Beta Ratio: B2=20
Which means 50% @ 20 microns.
Is that the same test that Fram put their Ultra thru ?
In order for it to be a fair comparison, the test needs to be exactly the same for both filters.
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Example of a Wix XP look-up many GM engines.
http://www.wixfilters.com/Lookup/PartDetails.aspx?Part=51042XP
Says right there in the list of specs:
Beta Ratio: B2=20
Which means 50% @ 20 microns.
Is that the same test that Fram put their Ultra thru ?
In order for it to be a fair comparison, the test needs to be exactly the same for both filters.
As said earlier by a few in this thread, Wix does not divulge on their website what test spec they use to determine their beta ratios (ie, efficiencies).
As suggested, email or call them and ask what test spec they are tested to. Let us know if you get anywhere.
The ISO 4548-12 test spec that Fram and Purolator use is the one that is basically considered the standard today.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Example of a Wix XP look-up many GM engines.
http://www.wixfilters.com/Lookup/PartDetails.aspx?Part=51042XP
Says right there in the list of specs:
Beta Ratio: B2=20
Which means 50% @ 20 microns.
Is that the same test that Fram put their Ultra thru ?
In order for it to be a fair comparison, the test needs to be exactly the same for both filters.
As said earlier by a few in this thread, Wix does not divulge on their website what test spec they use to determine their beta ratios (ie, efficiencies).
As suggested, email or call them and ask what test spec they are tested to. Let us know if you get anywhere.
The ISO 4548-12 test spec that Fram and Purolator use is the one that is basically considered the standard today.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
As said earlier by a few in this thread, Wix does not divulge on their website what test spec they use to determine their beta ratios (ie, efficiencies).
As suggested, email or call them and ask what test spec they are tested to. Let us know if you get anywhere.
The ISO 4548-12 test spec that Fram and Purolator use is the one that is basically considered the standard today.
Quote:
Until recently, there has not been one universally accepted test method to measure or describe the media pore size or the size of particles a filter media can capture and hold. Depending on which test method was used, the same filter media could be rated with different micron ratings, thus leading to confusion regarding how well the filter's media actually performs.
PDF Link
As said earlier by a few in this thread, Wix does not divulge on their website what test spec they use to determine their beta ratios (ie, efficiencies).
As suggested, email or call them and ask what test spec they are tested to. Let us know if you get anywhere.
The ISO 4548-12 test spec that Fram and Purolator use is the one that is basically considered the standard today.
Quote:
Until recently, there has not been one universally accepted test method to measure or describe the media pore size or the size of particles a filter media can capture and hold. Depending on which test method was used, the same filter media could be rated with different micron ratings, thus leading to confusion regarding how well the filter's media actually performs.
PDF Link
^^^ You chopped off the quote from the Filter Manufacturing Council, Technical Service Bulletin 89-5 you linked to above.
"Until recently, there has not been one universally accepted test method to measure or describe the media pore size or the size of particles a filter media can capture and hold. Depending on which test method was used, the same filter media could be rated with different micron ratings, thus leading to confusion regarding how well the filter's media actually performs. Fortunately, there now exists a test procedure called multi-pass testing or Beta ratio testing (B) which is, a universally accepted test method that yields readily comparable test results.
Multi-pass testing has been recognized by SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) (SAE J1858), ISO (International Organization of Standardization) (ISO 4548-12, lube oil and ISO16889, hydraulic or fuel), ANSI (American National Standards Institute) and NFPA (National Fluid Power Association)."
They are saying the standard test is now a "multi-pass test", which there are more than one of. ISO 4548-12 seems to be the one most well known filter manufacturers use (ie, Fram, Purolator, etc).
So call Wix and ask them which test procedure they use! Ask them if they use a "Multi-Pass" test method, and if so, which one. That is the ONLY way you are going to find out.
"Until recently, there has not been one universally accepted test method to measure or describe the media pore size or the size of particles a filter media can capture and hold. Depending on which test method was used, the same filter media could be rated with different micron ratings, thus leading to confusion regarding how well the filter's media actually performs. Fortunately, there now exists a test procedure called multi-pass testing or Beta ratio testing (B) which is, a universally accepted test method that yields readily comparable test results.
Multi-pass testing has been recognized by SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) (SAE J1858), ISO (International Organization of Standardization) (ISO 4548-12, lube oil and ISO16889, hydraulic or fuel), ANSI (American National Standards Institute) and NFPA (National Fluid Power Association)."
They are saying the standard test is now a "multi-pass test", which there are more than one of. ISO 4548-12 seems to be the one most well known filter manufacturers use (ie, Fram, Purolator, etc).
So call Wix and ask them which test procedure they use! Ask them if they use a "Multi-Pass" test method, and if so, which one. That is the ONLY way you are going to find out.
Originally Posted By: FetchFar
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Just like when Fetchfar posted up the GM study, and then I totally debunked it.
You mean you unsuccessfully debunked it. You offered no valid arguments.
->>
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Just like when Fetchfar posted up the GM study, and then I totally debunked it.
You mean you unsuccessfully debunked it. You offered no valid arguments.
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Originally Posted By: FetchFar
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Just like when Fetchfar posted up the GM study, and then I totally debunked it.
You mean you unsuccessfully debunked it. You offered no valid arguments.
->>
Allow me to quote myself ...
If this is not detailed enough to show how the GM filter study is totally misunderstood by the average BITOGer, as well as how the "study" has NO WORTH in real world situations, then I ask you to show me just where you beleive I'm wrong here.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Allow me to "raise the ante" and support my side of the discussion ...
First of all, we should agree that there are two filters on the typical engine; an air filter and an oil filter. The air filter generally deals with silicate ingestion; the oil filter deals with soot generated from the engine, as well as anything ingested that would pass into the lube system, and wear particles themselves.
We need to understand how a "normal" engine ingests contamination via air filtration. I offer Jim Allen's excellent explanation here: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3229015/5
Depending upon how often you change air filters, you can significantly alter the ingestion rate. Just as with any filter, frequent changes actually REDUCE the efficiency. So I'm going to make some assumptions upon average folks and not anal-retentive BITOG over-achievers ...
Using Jim's data, I'll estimate that approximately .75 oz of dust ingested over perhaps 30k mile air filter change intervals. That is equivalent to about 21 grams of dust.
In regard to the GM filter study, I call into question not the validity of the study itself, as I understand the premise of its intent, but rather the application of the study to real world use of filters in everyday lives of millions of pieces of equipment. I'll go over my contentions one at a time:
1) Contamination loading:
In the GM study, they dumped 50 grams of fine AC dust into the sump every hour, for 8 hours. (Page 2, first paragraph). That is 400 grams of contamination over the 8 hours of testing. They did this to "accelerate" the wear attributed to differing filtration levels. For us to understand how much this relates to the "real world", we have to understand how much dust would enter an engine during normal use, and then figure an estimated mileage duration that would infer, presuming average air filter changes and loading. Using Jim's data, we can use the average of 21 grams of dust every 30k miles. Considering GM induced 400 grams of dust in the entire test that would be roughly equivalent to 19 air filter changes. Multiply that FCI quantity by the miles per change and you can see that the contamination loading was equivalent to 570k miles of typical road use dirt ingestion. Yes - you read that right; the sump in the GM study suffered Five-Hundred-Seventy Thousand miles of contamination loading based upon typical air filter changes. As I already stated, this is somewhat dependent upon your air filter change interval, etc. While we could debate this exposure duration, let us just agree it’s a LOT of contamination represented by a LOT of miles. Whether you think it’s 400k miles, 500k miles, or 600k miles is of no real consequence to me. Most folks NEVER own and operate a vehicle or other piece of equipment this long. This represents a HUGE amount of dust ingestion; more than a lifetime for most folks.
2) Oil sump changes:
In the GM study, they never changed oil for the duration of the test. While they did filter it, they never changed it, relative to each filter used. Each sump lasted 8 hours for each filter trial. Given that the sump endured an approximation of 570k miles of contamination ingestion, the OCI duration equivalent in terms of ingestion loading was also 570k miles. That does NOT mean the other contributors to contamination were equal; there is no reason to believe that soot loading was very high as only 8 hours were run per test. Soot loading is a factor of incomplete combustion byproducts; that is not an issue here because the engine simply didn’t run long relative to the real world OCI. In other words, the engine did not burn 570k miles worth of fuel; it only burned 8 hours of fuel, so the soot loading would have been very low relative to the ingestion of the fine dust. But the "age" of oil in terms of the variable manipulated (fine AC dust loading to affect wear) was prolifically long to say the least. A "typical" person would perhaps OCI every 5k miles, and would have seen 114 oil changes relative to the contaminant loading. To put that in perspective for 8 hours duration, they would have changed oil every 4.2 minutes to represent "normal" OCIs in terms of contamination. But they never changed oil at all. And so the sump loading of contamination was allowed to become extremely prominent to say the least. The overall presence of particulate was WAY more than a typical sump would ever see even in a worst case scenario. Why do we want to understand this? Because, while the filtration was manipulated ABOVE 15um, the net result was that a huge amount of small particulate stayed in the sump for the entire 8 hours! Any particle that was 5um, 7um on up to 10um was able to continually circulate repeatedly with no capture at all! Those particles (and there were certainly a LOT of them according to the data) just floated along indiscriminately and did damage while no filter was able to remove them. Therefore, because they didn’t change oil, they never got rid of the small particles (5-10um) that do a lot of damage. They dumped in 500k miles of dust, and then never addressed particles that are capable of damage below 10um. That 10um size is important and will be discussed further down; see the * … In short, because they never did an OCI for the equivalent of 500k+ miles of dust ingestion, the UOA wear data represents a LOT of metals due to smaller particulate never leaving the system; never at all.
3) Add-pack condition:
In the GM study, because they heavily dosed with dust, thereby creating artificial wear rates over one R-E-A-L-L-Y_L-O-N-G OCI, the additive package was greatly overwhelmed. The anti-agglomerates and detergents were so hopelessly over-run that I cannot really find a way to describe or define how it could be measured. Let it suffice to say there was no hope that the additives would have been able to handle the loading. Referring to the OCI duration in point #2 above, a 570k mile OCI with only oil filter changes isn’t representative of real world add-pack health. Admittedly, silica is not directly controlled by dispersants, but they can alter the ability of the add-pack to function when their concentration is so grossly high. I don’t know of any SAE study or ASTM test that can show us a definitive cut-off point or direct correlation, but I highly suspect the 570k miles of equivalent silica is “over the top” to say the least. I’ll note this as well; because the test was only run for 8 hours, we can exclude soot contribution to the loading of particulate; the engines simply did not run long enough to really produce a significant amount of soot. Eight hours is only one full day’s drive, after all. Overall, this topic is moot in terms of wear contribution. And so, the VAST majority of wear is only attributed to the equivalent of ingestion wear and not hydrocarbon byproducts.
4) Filter efficiency:
In the GM study, all filters were rated at 98% efficiency (a fairly good rate overall) at the desired particulate range as the starting point. They tested eight (8) filters total; four for a diesel engine and four for a gasoline engine. The four diesel filters were rated at 40um, 15um, 8.5um and 7um; all rated at 98% first pass. The gasoline engine filters were rated at 40um, 30um, 25um and 15um, again 98% first pass. They used the 40um filter as a “baseline” for performance. Now, we need to understand that today’s “typical” filter is nowhere nearly that bad in terms of performance. Many filters are available that can be 98% at 25um or maybe even 20 um, some are even 99% at 20um. Therefore, the “baseline” of the “improvement” in wear reduction really isn’t based upon a realistic starting point. We can easily get a decent filter that is 95-99% efficient at 20um from any manner of brands. The use of a 40um filter for a starting point may or may not have been reasonable back in 1988 when the study was posted, but it’s not anywhere reasonable today as most filters are much more efficient than that. So the claim by GM that filtration can reduce wear by “70%” is biased in that they started from such a poor state to begin with. That “70%” wear reduction rate was based upon contrasting the 40um filter to a 15um filter in the gas engine application. They showed a 70% reduction of wear going from the worst to best filter at 98% efficiency. But in today’s world, it would be easy to start at 20um as “baseline”. And frankly, you’d struggle to find a filter that would be so efficient at a significantly smaller size anyway in terms of full-flow performance; I’m not aware of a filter that is commercially widely available that would be 98% at 15um off the shelf.
* Also, they noted that while single pass filtration efficiencies can predict relative wear data shifts, multi-pass filtration can also narrow performance disparity when averaged over the life of the test. And I quote:
“Even though filter (A) was rated at 40 micron, it effectively removed particles down to 10 micron. To do this, recirculation of the oil through the filter was required.” In other words, use your filter and the efficiency increases! Just as Jim’s data shows in air filtration, that same concept applies to oil filtration. The longer they used the 40um filter, the better job it did, and to a point where at 10um, there was a convergence of filter efficiency between all filters tested!!! To quote the study:
Note that concentrations converged above 10 micron for all filters. (page 4, fourth paragraph).
In essence, if you use a 40um filter long enough, it will perform as if it were a 15um filter as the pores close down. And any particulate smaller than the typical pore size after multi-pass, will pass ANY filter media anyway. This is why I state that once a filter is appropriately defined in terms of efficiency and pore size, using a “better” filter really does not show any real-world tangible wear reduction. Here is why this happened, so read VERY CLOSELY and UNDERSTAND the cycle of the test protocol.
- They dump in 50 grams of dust (equivalent to 70k miles of ingestion all at once!), and this is done once every hour
- Wear escalates because the FIRST SEVERAL PASSES of the oil allows a lot of garbage to continue around in circulation and generate wear in the engine
- As the media loads up, REGARDLESS of the starting pore size rating, the filter essentially loads to a point where ALL filters tested see performance converge above 10um
Why is this important to understand? Because the filters with larger pore sizes allow a lot more stuff to circulate in the first few passes, causing a LOT of wear in the first few minutes of each hour’s “ingestion”. But after those first several passes, the filters will all settle to a reasonably similar pore size with good efficiency. The wear spikes at the front end of the contamination load in the test, and then it falls dramatically after a few minutes because the media of ALL filters becomes loaded to a point where 10um pores are about the only thing remaining! The filter was ONLY changed once the dP would approach bypass. Until then, the filter just continued to load up and all filters loaded equally well after the first few minutes.
This is why I state that using a “better” filter really does not reduce wear in a tangible manner for the average garage engine in a typical application. While the first pass efficiency may result in a tiny fractional difference, the multi-pass effect over 5k-15k miles is moot because all the filters essentially load up equally. And because we don’t “spike” dirt into the engine (the air filter stays in place and the soot production is a low constant), there will never be a cause for wear to escalate arbitrarily.
(NOTE: The ONLY time we typically see wear escalate is at the front end of an OCI, and that is because of the removal of the tribochemical barriers by the add-pack, as established and proven in the Ford/Conoco study 2007-01-4133. It has nothing to do with filtration in this regard.)
How would all this relate to the real world? Well – if you’re inclined to “spike” your engine with dirt by arbitrarily removing the air filter for a few weeks and driving through a dusty bean field all day long, then this would roughly be a reasonable equivalent. Your wear would escalate dramatically until your oil filter would capture what your missing air filter did not. And don’t forget to not change oil for while you’re at it!
Here’s what I do like about the GM study: they did show a reasonable correlation between wear data in UOA analysis and wear data as measure by % weight loss concentration. This is actually one part of the study I like and believe has merit, although it is only mentioned in passing. They did both methods, as well as relied upon former studies also linking wear data tracking methods to show that UOAs can be reasonably used to track relative wear conditions. They also noted that physical measurement methods are prone to errors; you cannot disassemble an engine multiple times during a test and expect repeatability as thing like bearings and such will be altered by the removal and reinstallation. However, changes in weight of components had a reasonable correlation to percent shift in UOA spectral analysis; I agree with this!
And so, I contend that the GM filter study was a lab test that did prove what it set out to prove. It showed a reasonable correlation of wear reduction to filtration pore size at a stated efficiency relative to the first few passes. But that entire test was heavily biased towards accelerated wear to a point where no “normal” equipment would ever be allowed to run. The test bordered on, in my opinion, absurd. I would liken such treatment to abuse or neglect. Some would contend that they did this to “accelerate” the wear to simulate 500k+ miles of use. OK – I might agree with that. But again, they did not also do the things in that simulated 500k miles which ALSO go along with wear control. They didn’t change oil at a reasonable frequency; they didn’t change oil at all! Therefore the wear they induced was ONLY applicable to someone who runs a 500k mile OCI, and only manages the oil filter to a point where the component is changed only when the dP across the media is at 10-20psi (a point at which most any normal filter would already be in constant bypass due to complete media blinding anyway) ….
Here is a quote I agree with, but only because they confine their statement well:
By comparing filter bench test performance with the engine wear data, it becomes apparent that a filter’s single pass efficiency correlates very well with its ability to control abrasive engine wear.” (page 5, paragraph 1)
Why do I agree? Because they state it related in SINGLE PASS scenarios. And this is proven true when you never change oil and also dump a slug of garage into the sump!
But if you change oil with normal frequency, and maintain a reasonable air filter situation, and you allow the oil filter to control contamination via MULTI-pass, you’ll NEVER see this kind of disparity between filters.
Do you see the difference between what they did in their “test” and what the real world does in the garage?
And so I disagree with anyone who says that study has merit in the real world. No one I know of, nor any maintenance program I’m aware of, uses such parameters to run their equipment.
And GM even acknowledged this on page 2, in the last paragraph …
Used oil analysis from engines in the field will not typically show such a clear correlation since wear metals generated between oil changes will be a much lower concentrations.
In other words, they know that because OCIs were negated AND contamination was grossly overdone in their test, simple routine maintenance will not ever result in such wear rates, therefore the filter disparity will never materialize. So GM went to great effort to correlate UOA wear data with weighed component wear data, and then clearly states that real world usage wear data will never show filter performance differences because wear is just never, ever that bad in normal circumstances.
In short, I agree that the test proved what it set out to prove. What I disagree with is that the study has any valid application to real world situations. And anyone who states such will have to prove to me just how they think 500k mile OCIs with single-pass base-rated at ol-skool 40um filters is applicable to today’s equipment management.
I welcome anyone’s interpretation that would otherwise counter mine for discussion, but again I ask that if you want to convince me I’m wrong, please bring PROOF and show how your position is relevant to REAL WORLD applications, because this study most certainly isn’t. Please be willing to discuss how and why you see merit where I do not. Don’t just revert to a position of “because they said so …” What that outwardly indicates to me is that one has not read, and/or does not understand, the basic principles and limitations of that GM filter study.
Originally Posted By: FetchFar
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Just like when Fetchfar posted up the GM study, and then I totally debunked it.
You mean you unsuccessfully debunked it. You offered no valid arguments.
Allow me to quote myself ...
If this is not detailed enough to show how the GM filter study is totally misunderstood by the average BITOGer, as well as how the "study" has NO WORTH in real world situations, then I ask you to show me just where you beleive I'm wrong here.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Allow me to "raise the ante" and support my side of the discussion ...
First of all, we should agree that there are two filters on the typical engine; an air filter and an oil filter. The air filter generally deals with silicate ingestion; the oil filter deals with soot generated from the engine, as well as anything ingested that would pass into the lube system, and wear particles themselves.
We need to understand how a "normal" engine ingests contamination via air filtration. I offer Jim Allen's excellent explanation here: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3229015/5
Depending upon how often you change air filters, you can significantly alter the ingestion rate. Just as with any filter, frequent changes actually REDUCE the efficiency. So I'm going to make some assumptions upon average folks and not anal-retentive BITOG over-achievers ...
Using Jim's data, I'll estimate that approximately .75 oz of dust ingested over perhaps 30k mile air filter change intervals. That is equivalent to about 21 grams of dust.
In regard to the GM filter study, I call into question not the validity of the study itself, as I understand the premise of its intent, but rather the application of the study to real world use of filters in everyday lives of millions of pieces of equipment. I'll go over my contentions one at a time:
1) Contamination loading:
In the GM study, they dumped 50 grams of fine AC dust into the sump every hour, for 8 hours. (Page 2, first paragraph). That is 400 grams of contamination over the 8 hours of testing. They did this to "accelerate" the wear attributed to differing filtration levels. For us to understand how much this relates to the "real world", we have to understand how much dust would enter an engine during normal use, and then figure an estimated mileage duration that would infer, presuming average air filter changes and loading. Using Jim's data, we can use the average of 21 grams of dust every 30k miles. Considering GM induced 400 grams of dust in the entire test that would be roughly equivalent to 19 air filter changes. Multiply that FCI quantity by the miles per change and you can see that the contamination loading was equivalent to 570k miles of typical road use dirt ingestion. Yes - you read that right; the sump in the GM study suffered Five-Hundred-Seventy Thousand miles of contamination loading based upon typical air filter changes. As I already stated, this is somewhat dependent upon your air filter change interval, etc. While we could debate this exposure duration, let us just agree it’s a LOT of contamination represented by a LOT of miles. Whether you think it’s 400k miles, 500k miles, or 600k miles is of no real consequence to me. Most folks NEVER own and operate a vehicle or other piece of equipment this long. This represents a HUGE amount of dust ingestion; more than a lifetime for most folks.
2) Oil sump changes:
In the GM study, they never changed oil for the duration of the test. While they did filter it, they never changed it, relative to each filter used. Each sump lasted 8 hours for each filter trial. Given that the sump endured an approximation of 570k miles of contamination ingestion, the OCI duration equivalent in terms of ingestion loading was also 570k miles. That does NOT mean the other contributors to contamination were equal; there is no reason to believe that soot loading was very high as only 8 hours were run per test. Soot loading is a factor of incomplete combustion byproducts; that is not an issue here because the engine simply didn’t run long relative to the real world OCI. In other words, the engine did not burn 570k miles worth of fuel; it only burned 8 hours of fuel, so the soot loading would have been very low relative to the ingestion of the fine dust. But the "age" of oil in terms of the variable manipulated (fine AC dust loading to affect wear) was prolifically long to say the least. A "typical" person would perhaps OCI every 5k miles, and would have seen 114 oil changes relative to the contaminant loading. To put that in perspective for 8 hours duration, they would have changed oil every 4.2 minutes to represent "normal" OCIs in terms of contamination. But they never changed oil at all. And so the sump loading of contamination was allowed to become extremely prominent to say the least. The overall presence of particulate was WAY more than a typical sump would ever see even in a worst case scenario. Why do we want to understand this? Because, while the filtration was manipulated ABOVE 15um, the net result was that a huge amount of small particulate stayed in the sump for the entire 8 hours! Any particle that was 5um, 7um on up to 10um was able to continually circulate repeatedly with no capture at all! Those particles (and there were certainly a LOT of them according to the data) just floated along indiscriminately and did damage while no filter was able to remove them. Therefore, because they didn’t change oil, they never got rid of the small particles (5-10um) that do a lot of damage. They dumped in 500k miles of dust, and then never addressed particles that are capable of damage below 10um. That 10um size is important and will be discussed further down; see the * … In short, because they never did an OCI for the equivalent of 500k+ miles of dust ingestion, the UOA wear data represents a LOT of metals due to smaller particulate never leaving the system; never at all.
3) Add-pack condition:
In the GM study, because they heavily dosed with dust, thereby creating artificial wear rates over one R-E-A-L-L-Y_L-O-N-G OCI, the additive package was greatly overwhelmed. The anti-agglomerates and detergents were so hopelessly over-run that I cannot really find a way to describe or define how it could be measured. Let it suffice to say there was no hope that the additives would have been able to handle the loading. Referring to the OCI duration in point #2 above, a 570k mile OCI with only oil filter changes isn’t representative of real world add-pack health. Admittedly, silica is not directly controlled by dispersants, but they can alter the ability of the add-pack to function when their concentration is so grossly high. I don’t know of any SAE study or ASTM test that can show us a definitive cut-off point or direct correlation, but I highly suspect the 570k miles of equivalent silica is “over the top” to say the least. I’ll note this as well; because the test was only run for 8 hours, we can exclude soot contribution to the loading of particulate; the engines simply did not run long enough to really produce a significant amount of soot. Eight hours is only one full day’s drive, after all. Overall, this topic is moot in terms of wear contribution. And so, the VAST majority of wear is only attributed to the equivalent of ingestion wear and not hydrocarbon byproducts.
4) Filter efficiency:
In the GM study, all filters were rated at 98% efficiency (a fairly good rate overall) at the desired particulate range as the starting point. They tested eight (8) filters total; four for a diesel engine and four for a gasoline engine. The four diesel filters were rated at 40um, 15um, 8.5um and 7um; all rated at 98% first pass. The gasoline engine filters were rated at 40um, 30um, 25um and 15um, again 98% first pass. They used the 40um filter as a “baseline” for performance. Now, we need to understand that today’s “typical” filter is nowhere nearly that bad in terms of performance. Many filters are available that can be 98% at 25um or maybe even 20 um, some are even 99% at 20um. Therefore, the “baseline” of the “improvement” in wear reduction really isn’t based upon a realistic starting point. We can easily get a decent filter that is 95-99% efficient at 20um from any manner of brands. The use of a 40um filter for a starting point may or may not have been reasonable back in 1988 when the study was posted, but it’s not anywhere reasonable today as most filters are much more efficient than that. So the claim by GM that filtration can reduce wear by “70%” is biased in that they started from such a poor state to begin with. That “70%” wear reduction rate was based upon contrasting the 40um filter to a 15um filter in the gas engine application. They showed a 70% reduction of wear going from the worst to best filter at 98% efficiency. But in today’s world, it would be easy to start at 20um as “baseline”. And frankly, you’d struggle to find a filter that would be so efficient at a significantly smaller size anyway in terms of full-flow performance; I’m not aware of a filter that is commercially widely available that would be 98% at 15um off the shelf.
* Also, they noted that while single pass filtration efficiencies can predict relative wear data shifts, multi-pass filtration can also narrow performance disparity when averaged over the life of the test. And I quote:
“Even though filter (A) was rated at 40 micron, it effectively removed particles down to 10 micron. To do this, recirculation of the oil through the filter was required.” In other words, use your filter and the efficiency increases! Just as Jim’s data shows in air filtration, that same concept applies to oil filtration. The longer they used the 40um filter, the better job it did, and to a point where at 10um, there was a convergence of filter efficiency between all filters tested!!! To quote the study:
Note that concentrations converged above 10 micron for all filters. (page 4, fourth paragraph).
In essence, if you use a 40um filter long enough, it will perform as if it were a 15um filter as the pores close down. And any particulate smaller than the typical pore size after multi-pass, will pass ANY filter media anyway. This is why I state that once a filter is appropriately defined in terms of efficiency and pore size, using a “better” filter really does not show any real-world tangible wear reduction. Here is why this happened, so read VERY CLOSELY and UNDERSTAND the cycle of the test protocol.
- They dump in 50 grams of dust (equivalent to 70k miles of ingestion all at once!), and this is done once every hour
- Wear escalates because the FIRST SEVERAL PASSES of the oil allows a lot of garbage to continue around in circulation and generate wear in the engine
- As the media loads up, REGARDLESS of the starting pore size rating, the filter essentially loads to a point where ALL filters tested see performance converge above 10um
Why is this important to understand? Because the filters with larger pore sizes allow a lot more stuff to circulate in the first few passes, causing a LOT of wear in the first few minutes of each hour’s “ingestion”. But after those first several passes, the filters will all settle to a reasonably similar pore size with good efficiency. The wear spikes at the front end of the contamination load in the test, and then it falls dramatically after a few minutes because the media of ALL filters becomes loaded to a point where 10um pores are about the only thing remaining! The filter was ONLY changed once the dP would approach bypass. Until then, the filter just continued to load up and all filters loaded equally well after the first few minutes.
This is why I state that using a “better” filter really does not reduce wear in a tangible manner for the average garage engine in a typical application. While the first pass efficiency may result in a tiny fractional difference, the multi-pass effect over 5k-15k miles is moot because all the filters essentially load up equally. And because we don’t “spike” dirt into the engine (the air filter stays in place and the soot production is a low constant), there will never be a cause for wear to escalate arbitrarily.
(NOTE: The ONLY time we typically see wear escalate is at the front end of an OCI, and that is because of the removal of the tribochemical barriers by the add-pack, as established and proven in the Ford/Conoco study 2007-01-4133. It has nothing to do with filtration in this regard.)
How would all this relate to the real world? Well – if you’re inclined to “spike” your engine with dirt by arbitrarily removing the air filter for a few weeks and driving through a dusty bean field all day long, then this would roughly be a reasonable equivalent. Your wear would escalate dramatically until your oil filter would capture what your missing air filter did not. And don’t forget to not change oil for while you’re at it!
Here’s what I do like about the GM study: they did show a reasonable correlation between wear data in UOA analysis and wear data as measure by % weight loss concentration. This is actually one part of the study I like and believe has merit, although it is only mentioned in passing. They did both methods, as well as relied upon former studies also linking wear data tracking methods to show that UOAs can be reasonably used to track relative wear conditions. They also noted that physical measurement methods are prone to errors; you cannot disassemble an engine multiple times during a test and expect repeatability as thing like bearings and such will be altered by the removal and reinstallation. However, changes in weight of components had a reasonable correlation to percent shift in UOA spectral analysis; I agree with this!
And so, I contend that the GM filter study was a lab test that did prove what it set out to prove. It showed a reasonable correlation of wear reduction to filtration pore size at a stated efficiency relative to the first few passes. But that entire test was heavily biased towards accelerated wear to a point where no “normal” equipment would ever be allowed to run. The test bordered on, in my opinion, absurd. I would liken such treatment to abuse or neglect. Some would contend that they did this to “accelerate” the wear to simulate 500k+ miles of use. OK – I might agree with that. But again, they did not also do the things in that simulated 500k miles which ALSO go along with wear control. They didn’t change oil at a reasonable frequency; they didn’t change oil at all! Therefore the wear they induced was ONLY applicable to someone who runs a 500k mile OCI, and only manages the oil filter to a point where the component is changed only when the dP across the media is at 10-20psi (a point at which most any normal filter would already be in constant bypass due to complete media blinding anyway) ….
Here is a quote I agree with, but only because they confine their statement well:
By comparing filter bench test performance with the engine wear data, it becomes apparent that a filter’s single pass efficiency correlates very well with its ability to control abrasive engine wear.” (page 5, paragraph 1)
Why do I agree? Because they state it related in SINGLE PASS scenarios. And this is proven true when you never change oil and also dump a slug of garage into the sump!
But if you change oil with normal frequency, and maintain a reasonable air filter situation, and you allow the oil filter to control contamination via MULTI-pass, you’ll NEVER see this kind of disparity between filters.
Do you see the difference between what they did in their “test” and what the real world does in the garage?
And so I disagree with anyone who says that study has merit in the real world. No one I know of, nor any maintenance program I’m aware of, uses such parameters to run their equipment.
And GM even acknowledged this on page 2, in the last paragraph …
Used oil analysis from engines in the field will not typically show such a clear correlation since wear metals generated between oil changes will be a much lower concentrations.
In other words, they know that because OCIs were negated AND contamination was grossly overdone in their test, simple routine maintenance will not ever result in such wear rates, therefore the filter disparity will never materialize. So GM went to great effort to correlate UOA wear data with weighed component wear data, and then clearly states that real world usage wear data will never show filter performance differences because wear is just never, ever that bad in normal circumstances.
In short, I agree that the test proved what it set out to prove. What I disagree with is that the study has any valid application to real world situations. And anyone who states such will have to prove to me just how they think 500k mile OCIs with single-pass base-rated at ol-skool 40um filters is applicable to today’s equipment management.
I welcome anyone’s interpretation that would otherwise counter mine for discussion, but again I ask that if you want to convince me I’m wrong, please bring PROOF and show how your position is relevant to REAL WORLD applications, because this study most certainly isn’t. Please be willing to discuss how and why you see merit where I do not. Don’t just revert to a position of “because they said so …” What that outwardly indicates to me is that one has not read, and/or does not understand, the basic principles and limitations of that GM filter study.
There the real question is revealed. Relevance.
Some are more capable of interpreting complex data than others. I for one will go with Dnewton3 on this as well, it simply seems to be so grossly exaggerated that it is almost over the top.
This is a battle over diminishing returns. You always reach that point in any system as you attempt to improve it...
Some are more capable of interpreting complex data than others. I for one will go with Dnewton3 on this as well, it simply seems to be so grossly exaggerated that it is almost over the top.
This is a battle over diminishing returns. You always reach that point in any system as you attempt to improve it...
For the record, my coffee to popcorn is simply showing an observation of the discussion of the much quoted and much discussed GM filter study. I've followed it so I'm aware, thus the emoticons. Not taking sides, have an open mind to it's true meaning and the GM study's test validity, which is the crux of the matter isn't it.
I will say I noted the Fram rep here recently quoted the GM study while promoting Fram's efficiency testing (20um and smaller) in general, and Ultra's in particular. Based on that, clearly the GM filter study is a 'go to' reference for higher filtration efficiency promotion. Does that make the test 'valid' to real world application? As I said in my first post here, I'll leave that discussion to others.
I will say I noted the Fram rep here recently quoted the GM study while promoting Fram's efficiency testing (20um and smaller) in general, and Ultra's in particular. Based on that, clearly the GM filter study is a 'go to' reference for higher filtration efficiency promotion. Does that make the test 'valid' to real world application? As I said in my first post here, I'll leave that discussion to others.
dnewton3
Staff member
I think most of us would agree that less contamination is a good thing.
What most everyone does not understand (in the general public and here as well) is that "less contamination" is not the same as "controlling contamination".
First and foremost, eliminating the sources of contamination is paramount, and actually done far better today than ever before. Lets look at the sources:
1) fuel
2) coolant
3) dirt
4) soot
Fuel dilution and soot are genearlly well controlled by such excellent fuel injection events that these are almost moot in a decent running engine. Coolant is typically low as long as you don't have a gasket leak. That leave one thing; silica - and that is a function of air filtration.
I completely agree that less contamination is a good thing, but at some point, the "control" is good enough to produce excellent wear traits, and paying for "more" control does not equate to "less wear" in any reasonable ROI.
What many folks don't pay attention to is that filters are only one part of contamination control. Typical full flow oil filters are pretty much chunk-catchers; they are generally only reasonably efficient at 15+um and allow smaller stuff to pass with great regularity. So those of you who argue about one filter being 99% efficient at 20um and another filter at 95% at 20um (etc etc) are just debating on how big a chunk will fly around every so often ...
The small stuff in 5-15um range is what is really more of wear issue, and no normal full flow filter can address this. Certainly bypass filtration can address this, BUT you cannot ingore the fact that BP filters ONLY sample 10% of the total flow; if a 12um particle enters the flow path, it would take on average 9 trips around the system before the 10th pass would allow a bypass filter an opportunity to catch it. Now, admittedly not all particles would see that ratio, as some would be less, but also some would be more! Don't ever pretend that bypass filtration is "perfect" because its extremly low sample-rate can never save an engine from immediate wear threats because it does not filter enough flow at any given opportunity to make a statisically significant advance. Bypass filters cannot catch what is not presented to them, and when their only sample 10% of total flow, that measns 90% is heading right to the engine and skipping the route to the bypass filter.
Oil, folks, is also a contributor to wear control. Or, more specifically, the add-pack in oil ... The anti-agglomerates and detergents are what help break down byproducts and such, as well as keep it small. The better hope for low wear here is the fact that if you can keep soot from growing (co-joining), then it will stay small enough to cause little harm.
Also proven in wear reduction is the tribo-chemical barrier build up from oxidation. That to plays a MAJOR part in wear control, as proven in the SAE study 2007-01-4133. You cannot discount this fact. And this study proves that wear GREATLY drops as the OCI increases. Don't take my word for it; buy it and read it for yourself! So even though the filter stays intact over 15k miles, and the lube stays in place over 15k miles, the wear rates drop to practically nil after a few thousands miles. Not only is this documented in the SAE article, but look over my UOA normalcy data in the lead page article.
I don't give a darn about how much you all want to debate the nuances of filtration. You're so mired into the muck of trivia you cannot seem to see the forest for the trees. If filtration were THAT important, then why is it that we don't see massive shifts in data solely upon filter changes? If filters were the main controlling entity in wear data, then why is it that we cannot manipulate the data solely with filter changes? I'll tell you all why, one last time ...
Filters, while important overall, are not the sole means on wear reduction; they are only one part of a multi-tier approach. And as such, the small changes in filter FCIs or effiency do not and cannot distinguish themselves in wear data.
Filtration must meet a minimum threshold to be effective; generally around 20um. The argument about how much "more" one needs past that point is just plain stupid, because there is NO data that shows filtration actaully has effect in REAL WORLD data past that minimum performance measurement.
As an experiement, try this for your next several O/FCIs and prove me wrong, if you can:
1) run all your OCIs as "normal" (between 5-10k miles) with any products you choose, use syns and FU filter for all I care
2) track your UOA wear data and establish your situation normality to mass macro data
3) now alter your plan; now change ONLY your filter selection to a different brand/grade of filter.
4) again compare/contrast your UOA data to normal macro data
If your theory of "better" filters is true, then you should be able to manipulate the wear data to a position outside of "normal"; you should be able to create a shift outside (for better or for worse) a single sigma node at the very least.
I dare you to try it.
I double dog dare ya.
I tripple dog dare you to prove your theory is true, when ALL the evidence points otherwise.
I fully get and understand that a tighter filter will help reduce the contamination load in the sump; I do agree.
What I am trying to get you all to understand is that today's contamination control is NOT a single-point experience, and that filters now play a secondary role as long as the minimum threshold is met. ANY filter that meets the OEM criteria is going to control the large stuff well enough to not effect wear, and NO filter will ever manage to alter wear from smaller particles. ONLY the add-pack and tribo-chemical barrier can do that. And the REALITY of TRUE DATA shows that wear rates will drop the longer you run the lube and filter, regardless of what products you select!
I offer these in support of my position:
http://papers.sae.org/2007-01-4133/ (buy and read this)
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis-how-to-decide-what-is-normal/ (this is free, but how many of you have really read it and understand what you're reading?)
I offer this as a total waste of time, but you all should buy and read it, and then read my post above to understand why is it NOT relevant to real world use:
http://papers.sae.org/881825/
Filters are NOT the main controlling entity in wear reduction. The total absence of a filter may cause a major shift in escalated wear, but the presence of any decent filter is more than enough to do it's portion of the total wear control package. And small changes in the nuance of efficiency mean absolutely zilch to the overall wear data rates.
I have shown real world data and explained it.
There is a sign hanging in my office that reads as such:
I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.
.
What most everyone does not understand (in the general public and here as well) is that "less contamination" is not the same as "controlling contamination".
First and foremost, eliminating the sources of contamination is paramount, and actually done far better today than ever before. Lets look at the sources:
1) fuel
2) coolant
3) dirt
4) soot
Fuel dilution and soot are genearlly well controlled by such excellent fuel injection events that these are almost moot in a decent running engine. Coolant is typically low as long as you don't have a gasket leak. That leave one thing; silica - and that is a function of air filtration.
I completely agree that less contamination is a good thing, but at some point, the "control" is good enough to produce excellent wear traits, and paying for "more" control does not equate to "less wear" in any reasonable ROI.
What many folks don't pay attention to is that filters are only one part of contamination control. Typical full flow oil filters are pretty much chunk-catchers; they are generally only reasonably efficient at 15+um and allow smaller stuff to pass with great regularity. So those of you who argue about one filter being 99% efficient at 20um and another filter at 95% at 20um (etc etc) are just debating on how big a chunk will fly around every so often ...
The small stuff in 5-15um range is what is really more of wear issue, and no normal full flow filter can address this. Certainly bypass filtration can address this, BUT you cannot ingore the fact that BP filters ONLY sample 10% of the total flow; if a 12um particle enters the flow path, it would take on average 9 trips around the system before the 10th pass would allow a bypass filter an opportunity to catch it. Now, admittedly not all particles would see that ratio, as some would be less, but also some would be more! Don't ever pretend that bypass filtration is "perfect" because its extremly low sample-rate can never save an engine from immediate wear threats because it does not filter enough flow at any given opportunity to make a statisically significant advance. Bypass filters cannot catch what is not presented to them, and when their only sample 10% of total flow, that measns 90% is heading right to the engine and skipping the route to the bypass filter.
Oil, folks, is also a contributor to wear control. Or, more specifically, the add-pack in oil ... The anti-agglomerates and detergents are what help break down byproducts and such, as well as keep it small. The better hope for low wear here is the fact that if you can keep soot from growing (co-joining), then it will stay small enough to cause little harm.
Also proven in wear reduction is the tribo-chemical barrier build up from oxidation. That to plays a MAJOR part in wear control, as proven in the SAE study 2007-01-4133. You cannot discount this fact. And this study proves that wear GREATLY drops as the OCI increases. Don't take my word for it; buy it and read it for yourself! So even though the filter stays intact over 15k miles, and the lube stays in place over 15k miles, the wear rates drop to practically nil after a few thousands miles. Not only is this documented in the SAE article, but look over my UOA normalcy data in the lead page article.
I don't give a darn about how much you all want to debate the nuances of filtration. You're so mired into the muck of trivia you cannot seem to see the forest for the trees. If filtration were THAT important, then why is it that we don't see massive shifts in data solely upon filter changes? If filters were the main controlling entity in wear data, then why is it that we cannot manipulate the data solely with filter changes? I'll tell you all why, one last time ...
Filters, while important overall, are not the sole means on wear reduction; they are only one part of a multi-tier approach. And as such, the small changes in filter FCIs or effiency do not and cannot distinguish themselves in wear data.
Filtration must meet a minimum threshold to be effective; generally around 20um. The argument about how much "more" one needs past that point is just plain stupid, because there is NO data that shows filtration actaully has effect in REAL WORLD data past that minimum performance measurement.
As an experiement, try this for your next several O/FCIs and prove me wrong, if you can:
1) run all your OCIs as "normal" (between 5-10k miles) with any products you choose, use syns and FU filter for all I care
2) track your UOA wear data and establish your situation normality to mass macro data
3) now alter your plan; now change ONLY your filter selection to a different brand/grade of filter.
4) again compare/contrast your UOA data to normal macro data
If your theory of "better" filters is true, then you should be able to manipulate the wear data to a position outside of "normal"; you should be able to create a shift outside (for better or for worse) a single sigma node at the very least.
I dare you to try it.
I double dog dare ya.
I tripple dog dare you to prove your theory is true, when ALL the evidence points otherwise.
I fully get and understand that a tighter filter will help reduce the contamination load in the sump; I do agree.
What I am trying to get you all to understand is that today's contamination control is NOT a single-point experience, and that filters now play a secondary role as long as the minimum threshold is met. ANY filter that meets the OEM criteria is going to control the large stuff well enough to not effect wear, and NO filter will ever manage to alter wear from smaller particles. ONLY the add-pack and tribo-chemical barrier can do that. And the REALITY of TRUE DATA shows that wear rates will drop the longer you run the lube and filter, regardless of what products you select!
I offer these in support of my position:
http://papers.sae.org/2007-01-4133/ (buy and read this)
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis-how-to-decide-what-is-normal/ (this is free, but how many of you have really read it and understand what you're reading?)
I offer this as a total waste of time, but you all should buy and read it, and then read my post above to understand why is it NOT relevant to real world use:
http://papers.sae.org/881825/
Filters are NOT the main controlling entity in wear reduction. The total absence of a filter may cause a major shift in escalated wear, but the presence of any decent filter is more than enough to do it's portion of the total wear control package. And small changes in the nuance of efficiency mean absolutely zilch to the overall wear data rates.
I have shown real world data and explained it.
There is a sign hanging in my office that reads as such:
I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.
.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
(1) I fully get and understand that a tighter filter will help reduce the contamination load in the sump; I do agree. What I am trying to get you all to understand is that today's contamination control is NOT a single-point experience, and that (2) filters now play a secondary role as long as the minimum threshold is met. ANY filter that meets the OEM criteria is going to control the large stuff well enough to not effect wear, (3) and NO filter will ever manage to alter wear from smaller particles. ONLY the add-pack and tribo-chemical barrier can do that. And the REALITY of TRUE DATA shows that wear rates will drop the longer you run the lube and filter, regardless of what products you select!
Filters are NOT the main controlling entity in wear reduction. The total absence of a filter may cause a major shift in escalated wear, (4) but the presence of any decent filter is more than enough to do it's portion of the total wear control package. And small changes in the nuance of efficiency mean absolutely zilch to the overall wear data rates.
In response to the 4 red highlights above:
(1) If contamination load is reduced, then the total number of wear particles are reduced, which should help reduce possible engine wear. Yes, a tighter filter isn't hurting anything, and could only help.
(2) So who has done testing to show and prove what the "minimum threshold" is?
(3) Bypass filters that filter down to 3u have been proven by many studies (mostly diesel related) to reduce engine wear significantly.
(4) What's the definition of a "decent filter" ... 95+ % @ 20u or 50% @ 20u, or ... ??
We could beat the efficiency vs wear horse forever, but bottom line is no matter what study is shown, regardless if it's "realistic to real world circumstances" or not, a more efficient oil filter always took more wear particles out of the oil and therefor resulted in less engine wear.
Therefore, I will use oil filters that are at least 95% @ 20u based on the simple logic that having less particles in the oil is better than having more.
Link: Filter Efficiency Example with Illustration Table
(1) I fully get and understand that a tighter filter will help reduce the contamination load in the sump; I do agree. What I am trying to get you all to understand is that today's contamination control is NOT a single-point experience, and that (2) filters now play a secondary role as long as the minimum threshold is met. ANY filter that meets the OEM criteria is going to control the large stuff well enough to not effect wear, (3) and NO filter will ever manage to alter wear from smaller particles. ONLY the add-pack and tribo-chemical barrier can do that. And the REALITY of TRUE DATA shows that wear rates will drop the longer you run the lube and filter, regardless of what products you select!
Filters are NOT the main controlling entity in wear reduction. The total absence of a filter may cause a major shift in escalated wear, (4) but the presence of any decent filter is more than enough to do it's portion of the total wear control package. And small changes in the nuance of efficiency mean absolutely zilch to the overall wear data rates.
In response to the 4 red highlights above:
(1) If contamination load is reduced, then the total number of wear particles are reduced, which should help reduce possible engine wear. Yes, a tighter filter isn't hurting anything, and could only help.
(2) So who has done testing to show and prove what the "minimum threshold" is?
(3) Bypass filters that filter down to 3u have been proven by many studies (mostly diesel related) to reduce engine wear significantly.
(4) What's the definition of a "decent filter" ... 95+ % @ 20u or 50% @ 20u, or ... ??
We could beat the efficiency vs wear horse forever, but bottom line is no matter what study is shown, regardless if it's "realistic to real world circumstances" or not, a more efficient oil filter always took more wear particles out of the oil and therefor resulted in less engine wear.
Therefore, I will use oil filters that are at least 95% @ 20u based on the simple logic that having less particles in the oil is better than having more.
Link: Filter Efficiency Example with Illustration Table
This is all great information. But, I think it all boils down to this....
Have you ever seen an engine that was well maintained with syn oil and any basic filters not outlast everything else on the vehicle?
Have you ever seen an engine that was well maintained with syn oil and any basic filters not outlast everything else on the vehicle?
Originally Posted By: Cooper
This is all great information. But, I think it all boils down to this....
Have you ever seen an engine that was well maintained with syn oil and any basic filters not outlast everything else on the vehicle?
I have seen many of a well maintained engine on the cheapest conventional oil with the cheapest oil filters the norm being the Fram OCOD and the engine outlast just about everything on the vehicle.
This is all great information. But, I think it all boils down to this....
Have you ever seen an engine that was well maintained with syn oil and any basic filters not outlast everything else on the vehicle?
I have seen many of a well maintained engine on the cheapest conventional oil with the cheapest oil filters the norm being the Fram OCOD and the engine outlast just about everything on the vehicle.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
(3) Bypass filters that filter down to 3u have been proven by many studies (mostly diesel related) to reduce engine wear significantly.
What was the average OCI in these diesel engine studies? I bet they were significantly longer than than even the most ambitious extended gasser OCIs we see here. For extremely extended OCIs, very, very tight filtration is pretty much necessary. Naturally, as I've said before, I'd prefer a more efficient filter. But, the point of diminishing returns is different for the guy running the 3,000 mile OCI in the old beater versus the guy running a big diesel long haul.
(3) Bypass filters that filter down to 3u have been proven by many studies (mostly diesel related) to reduce engine wear significantly.
What was the average OCI in these diesel engine studies? I bet they were significantly longer than than even the most ambitious extended gasser OCIs we see here. For extremely extended OCIs, very, very tight filtration is pretty much necessary. Naturally, as I've said before, I'd prefer a more efficient filter. But, the point of diminishing returns is different for the guy running the 3,000 mile OCI in the old beater versus the guy running a big diesel long haul.
ZeeOSix, you still gotta 1% chance of a 20 micron sized particle getting thru and destroying a bearing.
- Status
Similar threads
