Originally Posted By: Motorking
I give, you have beat me down.
Before I mount up the horse and charge off to yet-again slay the mythology of this nearly-worthless SAE study, I'd like to offer you an opportunity to detail and discuss just what points of that SAE study you and Fram feel are appliable to the real world. Please be specific and cite your claims relative to each point made, because that is exactly how I'll debunk it.
Worthless? Ok, you win, no debate from me.
Yes - I see the study as nearly worthless, in the context I clearly define and describe. It is not at all useful in any manner of normal application in the real world. The conditions it was produced under have ZERO implication in the real world and therefore the results have zero likelihood of manifestation in the real world. In short, to reaffirm my position, that GM filter study does NOTHING to prove that filtration efficiency has any bearing on wear in real world circumstances, for the multiple reasons I have shown.
To be VERY, VERY clear here, I am NOT saying filtration is worthless or not of value, but I am specifically stating that the GM filter study so many folks point to as some manner of "proof" is completely misunderstood by most, and does not represent any manner of reality, and therefore does NOT prove, by any measure, that more efficicent filters have the effect most believe. Once a finite efficiency standard is met, having "more" does not reduce wear; this quoted study does not show any correlation or causation in that regard.
MK: No debate from you? Why? You are free to express any position you choose as long as you follow the site rules. You may be right; I may be wrong. The only way we all get "better" info is from sharing and challenging and learning.
To all: debate is healthy. Some call this discussion, others argument, others conversation, etc. I really don't care what word you use. When it's done in full view, and it's done within site rules, there is no "bad" debate. Many times I take issue with what folks post here. That is because there is an EXTREME amount of mythology and rhetoric here. I challenge what I don't agree with; you are all free to do the same. Name calling is unaccpetable. But tasking folks to back-up and prove what they state is NOT a violation of the rules. There is no rule I'm aware of that requires us to agree, nor pat each other on the back in some love-fest. There are folks here that don't care for me, and others; it's just a reflection of the world at large. So be it. But this site should NOT be about personalities, but rather sharing info and discussing that info. Want to make a statement? Fine by me. But if I find flaw or error in your statment, I have every right as a member here to challenge your statements with my own.
MK believes the GM study has merit; I do not. MK has posted no defense of his position; I have clearly defined and described why I believe the study is of no use to the common man. Each of you may now decide which viewpoint has more weight. And if you disagree with my view, then by all means feel free to accurately attack my points with your own. But when you do, leave the mythology and supposition at the doorstep please.
BTW: everyone please use the quote function when you quote other members; this is not the first time we've had misleading words in a post because some quote and don't credit properly. I would be more than willing to help anyone understand how. Just because I don't agree with some of you, does not mean I don't want to help make this a better site, and be an asset to the members. If any member needs help with this, please PM me.
