DIFFERENT OILS AND NO FILTER ON ENGINE
- Thread starter BOBISTHEOILGUY
- Start date
- Status
Patman
Staff member
Bob, are you going to continue running this oil? And if so, will you try a 10k interval or higher like you did with the blend?
I'd go with that for the air filters as well. I don't know how I missed the Si #'s but i inserted them. they were 7 7 and 3 on the molybond. I did change the air filter at the time I put in the molybond, nothing else.
Patman, I am thinking about it, but I don't think it would be a valid test to demonstrate on as I put in some stuff that terry has been testing after having taken the 4,000 mile sample and i'm not sure how it may or maynot have effected it. I plan on pulling another sample and sending it in very shortly to see what effects it may have on it at this time.
Ted,
As for the fuel, I run the cheapest fuel around and purchase it from varying different stations. I sometimes, if I remember, put in some 131 in the fuel but not always.
MolaKule
Staff member
JSIR,
"Is there some feature about regular or conventional motor oil that perhaps is beneficial while in operation within an engine ?, some feature that we dont pay much attention too and which synthetic oil does not have ?. We keep reading how certain synthetic oils are superior because of their engineering, yet many times now we find really good results from regular conventional oil. I know the gap between conventional oil and synthetics is decreasing and all that stuff, but somehow I just think that conventional oil has some intrinsic feature that makes it perform relatively good compared to synthetic oils. There is no scientific proof to what I am saying, just a gut feeling I get after seeing analysis results. I have always felt that conventional oils have good features and synthetic oils have good features, and perhaps a good blend oil would be the "perfect" oil, the best of both worlds philosophy."
The base oil for the X-200 is a Group I oil that has a sulphur content higher than that for Groups II-III, and the additive package has been optimized for Group I oils for over 5 decades.
The higher sulphur content results in an oil with a higher natural lubricity.
The main difference among these two oils is the addition of PAO to the #700 to decrease volatility (increase oxidation stability), extend the operating range of the oil (lower pour point - better Borderline Pumpability), higher flash point, and to increase the VI of the oil. They appear to have the same treatment levels of ZDDP and moly.
"Is there some feature about regular or conventional motor oil that perhaps is beneficial while in operation within an engine ?, some feature that we dont pay much attention too and which synthetic oil does not have ?. We keep reading how certain synthetic oils are superior because of their engineering, yet many times now we find really good results from regular conventional oil. I know the gap between conventional oil and synthetics is decreasing and all that stuff, but somehow I just think that conventional oil has some intrinsic feature that makes it perform relatively good compared to synthetic oils. There is no scientific proof to what I am saying, just a gut feeling I get after seeing analysis results. I have always felt that conventional oils have good features and synthetic oils have good features, and perhaps a good blend oil would be the "perfect" oil, the best of both worlds philosophy."
The base oil for the X-200 is a Group I oil that has a sulphur content higher than that for Groups II-III, and the additive package has been optimized for Group I oils for over 5 decades.
The higher sulphur content results in an oil with a higher natural lubricity.
The main difference among these two oils is the addition of PAO to the #700 to decrease volatility (increase oxidation stability), extend the operating range of the oil (lower pour point - better Borderline Pumpability), higher flash point, and to increase the VI of the oil. They appear to have the same treatment levels of ZDDP and moly.
Bob,
Correct me if I am wrong, but I remember you saying you ran Auto-RX before the Moly-bond. You said it did nothing...but I think this analysis just proved that it did something(even if you could not feel it).
Additionally about the Fram, I don't think you proved much, except that on short intervals, the filter does not matter.(I agree) Frams have significantly less media area (not to mention the leaky valves and cardboard caps). Some are saying they are changing, so maybe you got a new one with better construction. But if it is the same design still, then I am willing to bet if you run the Fram for as long as you ran the M1, the wear metals will go through the roof once it plugs up because of little media area or the valves start leaking more or completely fail.
There is an analysis on the Maxima.org spreadsheet with a Fram filter that went over 3k miles and the wear metals are sky high.
I am starting to agree that the high efficiency filters are not necessary (I will be using oem on my car in future, now Supertech for RX treatment) but lots of media and good construction is important and I don't believe the Fram has that.
Another interesting thing was the lower Moly. I wonder if either the RX allowed it to plate to more areas, or the lower HTHS of the moly-bond cause more barrier add to be used?
Correct me if I am wrong, but I remember you saying you ran Auto-RX before the Moly-bond. You said it did nothing...but I think this analysis just proved that it did something(even if you could not feel it).
Additionally about the Fram, I don't think you proved much, except that on short intervals, the filter does not matter.(I agree) Frams have significantly less media area (not to mention the leaky valves and cardboard caps). Some are saying they are changing, so maybe you got a new one with better construction. But if it is the same design still, then I am willing to bet if you run the Fram for as long as you ran the M1, the wear metals will go through the roof once it plugs up because of little media area or the valves start leaking more or completely fail.
There is an analysis on the Maxima.org spreadsheet with a Fram filter that went over 3k miles and the wear metals are sky high.
I am starting to agree that the high efficiency filters are not necessary (I will be using oem on my car in future, now Supertech for RX treatment) but lots of media and good construction is important and I don't believe the Fram has that.
Another interesting thing was the lower Moly. I wonder if either the RX allowed it to plate to more areas, or the lower HTHS of the moly-bond cause more barrier add to be used?
Another thing I meant to comment on in his first analysis post, was the use of the Neutra for significantly longer than Schaeffers guidlines. Could that have something to with the thickening and the higher lead and copper?
I just don't think this is a complete apples to apples comparison. Certainly do not believe that that a conclusion of the Moly-bond is better or Fram is a good filter can be drawn from this.
Fram may be ok for short intervals and Molybond should at least be as good as the S7k for short intervals but that is all we know, IMO...
Patman
Staff member
The more I think about this, the more I believe that there is no way the Mobil 1 filter could get clogged up in only 4k, especially with such low wear metals. What would it be filling up with? It's not as if this engine is putting a lot of wear metals into the oil.
I'd still rather see you running a high quality oil filter like the K&N Bob. It'll allow for higher flow, plus it's made with the highest quality materials. We can't say that for the Frams, even if they appear to be getting better than they used to be, they still have a very long way to go in order to regain my confidence.
I'd still rather see you running a high quality oil filter like the K&N Bob. It'll allow for higher flow, plus it's made with the highest quality materials. We can't say that for the Frams, even if they appear to be getting better than they used to be, they still have a very long way to go in order to regain my confidence.
I understand your concerns patman. Here is my thoughts on this filter issue.
If you have two filters, phyiscal size simular if not exact to meet the car specs, both have same bypass pressure ratings, only real difference is the media. One has less, the other more, which is going to allow flow easier? of course the lower media. Now, here's one thing I think is interesting.. These filters have bypass somewhere between 8-12lbs of pressure or there abouts. What is the pressure of an oil system? anywhere between 20-60lbs. So, one the oil pressure rises in an engine, the filter would be a restritor if it wasn't for the bypass, so, IMO, the filter hits the bypass pressure point and is in bypass from there on and that the only oil being filtered is what ever can pass through the media. Well, if the media is higher or has more restriction, then oil, like many things is going to take the least path of resistance. Point is, m1 filters is so effeicient that it take pressure to pass through the media, the fram doesn't as it will allow better flow because it doesnt' resist as much and that would mean more oil would go through the media vers the oil in a m1 filter.
So, in a nutshell, more flow through a low filter media or no or little flow through a high filter media, which would be better?
These are just thoughts and not facts based on observations and not any true data other than this oil analysis.
As for wear #s in the blend vers the mineral? I think maybe the type of filter media may contribute to this, and to establish this theory, I would have to goto the m1 filter on the mineral oil and see if it doesnt' elevate again. That's another time.
If you have two filters, phyiscal size simular if not exact to meet the car specs, both have same bypass pressure ratings, only real difference is the media. One has less, the other more, which is going to allow flow easier? of course the lower media. Now, here's one thing I think is interesting.. These filters have bypass somewhere between 8-12lbs of pressure or there abouts. What is the pressure of an oil system? anywhere between 20-60lbs. So, one the oil pressure rises in an engine, the filter would be a restritor if it wasn't for the bypass, so, IMO, the filter hits the bypass pressure point and is in bypass from there on and that the only oil being filtered is what ever can pass through the media. Well, if the media is higher or has more restriction, then oil, like many things is going to take the least path of resistance. Point is, m1 filters is so effeicient that it take pressure to pass through the media, the fram doesn't as it will allow better flow because it doesnt' resist as much and that would mean more oil would go through the media vers the oil in a m1 filter.
So, in a nutshell, more flow through a low filter media or no or little flow through a high filter media, which would be better?
These are just thoughts and not facts based on observations and not any true data other than this oil analysis.
As for wear #s in the blend vers the mineral? I think maybe the type of filter media may contribute to this, and to establish this theory, I would have to goto the m1 filter on the mineral oil and see if it doesnt' elevate again. That's another time.
Bob,
You are confusing psia, ie: lbs/in2 "absolute", which is how oil pressure is measured, and psid, lbs/in2 "differential" pressure or the pressure drop across the filter, due to the restriction of the media. Once the engine is warmed up, there is typically only a few psi of pressure drop across the filter, so the by-pass valve rarely comes into play.
This issue of by-pass valve opening pressure only comes into play in several situations:
1) On cold starts - until the oil has reached normal operating temp.
2) If you run the filter way too long and it clogs
3) If you run the engine at very high rpms and generate very high oil pressure.
Keep in mind that all of your oil will have been 100% filtered prior to shutting down the engine. So the amount of abrasive wear that occurs while the engine is warming up and the filter is in partial by-pass mode is actually quite low....You would either have to draw in new silicon particles past the air filter or generate new metallic particles due to metal to metal contact, during the first several minutes of operation for this to be an issue.
TS
You are confusing psia, ie: lbs/in2 "absolute", which is how oil pressure is measured, and psid, lbs/in2 "differential" pressure or the pressure drop across the filter, due to the restriction of the media. Once the engine is warmed up, there is typically only a few psi of pressure drop across the filter, so the by-pass valve rarely comes into play.
This issue of by-pass valve opening pressure only comes into play in several situations:
1) On cold starts - until the oil has reached normal operating temp.
2) If you run the filter way too long and it clogs
3) If you run the engine at very high rpms and generate very high oil pressure.
Keep in mind that all of your oil will have been 100% filtered prior to shutting down the engine. So the amount of abrasive wear that occurs while the engine is warming up and the filter is in partial by-pass mode is actually quite low....You would either have to draw in new silicon particles past the air filter or generate new metallic particles due to metal to metal contact, during the first several minutes of operation for this to be an issue.
TS
TS, I think Bob's talking about maximum pressure/flow. Given most of the little canister filters only flow ~3gpm many engines can out-flow them and go into bypass. Depends on the engine and pump design but many of these things can move 5gpm at just a few K rpm before their pump's relief valves open. Warm or cold that'll open up a bypass valve. If the filter media is weak, and we generally think K&N is, then it may have a bonus in flow rate, and this could affect wear results. We'll see. I'm just beginning some real testing (flow,rpm,bypass/filterX) on this so should be able to provide data very soon. Today though I'm working on my mother's godforsaken Camry from the electrical netherworld and I'm getting my keyboard all greasy typing this.
David
David
Patman
Staff member
K&N's filtering media is weak? I thought they were one of the better ones? Now I'm confused.
Or did you simply mean that they don't filter down as fine as some of the others? I think K&Ns media is of very high quality, it's just not geared towards stopping the smallest of particles like the Mobil 1 or PureONE.
[ November 29, 2002, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: Patman ]
Argh, greasy wires/fingers/brain. Meant Fram. Now what kind of Freudianism is that?
Just found something very annoying about Camry's (91). For those of us who ride the brakes (Mother), the tail lamp failure module can overheat at the wiring which takes out the brake and backup lights, without any dash indication. The module itself gets very hot, but the harness actually melts requiring a new plug & rewiring of the module for larger connections. Lucky I didn't buy a replacement module. The little 2"x2" box with $4 of resistors, diodes & caps is $150. Haven't those Toyota enginerds encountered elderly driver technique before?
Sorry. Working under the dash in the street always gets me going.
David
Sorry. Working under the dash in the street always gets me going.
David
Patman
Staff member
I just reread this report again and I'm puzzled. How come there is more lead and copper in the 4k interval with the blend than there is in the 10k interval? I wonder if something strange is going on with this engine? Maybe it's time for a new test vehicle Bob, perhaps a Corvette?
Patman, that 4k mile stretch was mostly stop and go traffic and lots of start ups.
The 10k was mostly hiway driving and less start ups unlike the 4k. The 4k with the mineral oil and fram filter also was mostly start ups with local driving but difference here is the lower resistive oil filter unlike the m1 filter used on the blends 4k drain.
Won't be long and I should have another 3k on the same mineral oil and pull another sample to see how it will look with 7k on it.
BTW, I do all my oil samples using this type of pump..
None of these oil samples have ever had the filter changed during the runs so the same filter was used from start to finish with the same oil so NO Added oil was incorporated during any analysis, so ALL extended drains are soley on the merits of the oil without refreshing the additives in anyway.
Unfortunalty this next sample of the existing 4k drain on the mineral oil, after having sampled it at 4k, I did put one ounce of the LC product and 3 ounces of the 132 as to see how it will affect this oil but have not continued this every 1,000 so it may or may not show any effects. I now wish I had not done this so to show the merits this oil on it's own but what's done is done.
The 10k was mostly hiway driving and less start ups unlike the 4k. The 4k with the mineral oil and fram filter also was mostly start ups with local driving but difference here is the lower resistive oil filter unlike the m1 filter used on the blends 4k drain.
Won't be long and I should have another 3k on the same mineral oil and pull another sample to see how it will look with 7k on it.
BTW, I do all my oil samples using this type of pump..
None of these oil samples have ever had the filter changed during the runs so the same filter was used from start to finish with the same oil so NO Added oil was incorporated during any analysis, so ALL extended drains are soley on the merits of the oil without refreshing the additives in anyway.
Unfortunalty this next sample of the existing 4k drain on the mineral oil, after having sampled it at 4k, I did put one ounce of the LC product and 3 ounces of the 132 as to see how it will affect this oil but have not continued this every 1,000 so it may or may not show any effects. I now wish I had not done this so to show the merits this oil on it's own but what's done is done.
Here is the latest on my mineral molybond oil at 6845 miles(155miles short of 7,000) on current oil. Still running it on the same fram filter and oil. Very little oil was added at that time as the sample was pulled through the pump and didn't drop enough to warrent added oil.
Patman
Staff member
Call me a skeptic, but I think other factors must be at play here. Technically speaking these oils are the same just with different base oils, so it's technically impossible for the mineral to show better wear numbers than the blend. Explain to me otherwise.
better flow through a less restrictive oil filter for one.
Patman
Staff member
Yes! That's my thoughts exactly! So the blend and the mineral oil in theory should provide the same wear protection, although if you were in cooler climates the blend would be superior. Plus if you pushed this interval beyond 10k, the blend would show it's benefits too.
- Status
Similar threads
