Where's the documented proof ?

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
For me I'd like to see some kind of standards for oil and air filters.


The ISO 4548-12 seems to be the latest test standard that oil filters are tested to. Not sure about air filters, but I would think there are industry test standards for them too.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Is the XP lower restriction therefore providing better flow and subsequently less wear at cold start up?


With a positive displacement oil pump there pretty much isn't an oil filter that is going to be restrictive at start-up, unless the oil is thick as cold honey. That's the only way you could ever get an oil pump to go into pressure relief at start-up engine speeds. A filter that is a sieve will not provide any additional oil flow to the engine at start-up.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
OK but once again, lower efficiency filters don't do less filtering. They stop the same particles as high efficiency filters and in the same number. The only difference is when.

One gets the impression that over the lifetime of a filter the total number of particles in suspension could quite possibly be the same regardless of whether the filter is 50% or 95% efficient. A snapshot in time might show differences but maybe not, depending on the total number of particles.

Within reason a low efficiency filter will catch the same particles as a high efficiency one. It's not LESS filtering.


Of course a lower efficiency filter is doing less filtering. How can you say it's doing the same job as a much higher efficiency filter?

When a less efficient filter is used, at any given time there will always be more wear particles in the oil that is lubricating the engine bearings, etc as compared to a more efficient oil filter being used.

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Well, it's just statistics based on the probability of filtering a particle at a given size. I'm really not sure how a filter manufacturer can advertise 100% efficiency (unless the particle is of some very large size) since I would think that for small particles there is always a chance it will find some pathway through the media.


The ISO 4548-12 test is not "based on statistics", it's actual real-time particle counting measurements taken before and after the oil filter. I have not read the whole ISO test spec, but believe the efficiency is taken at the end of life of the oil filter when the delta-p is at some level.

 

[kschachn]

I didn't say it was doing the same job. As long as the efficiency for a given particle size is greater than 0%, it will catch the same particles. A lower efficiency filter will take more time to do so, however. How much more time depends on the number of passes.

Conversely, unless the efficiency is 100% then a filter may not catch a particle on one pass. Both filters may or may not catch a given particle.

The test isn't based on statistics but the rating is. With each pass through the filter you have a probability value that the particle will be trapped.

How long is too long to wait?

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: kschachn
OK but once again, lower efficiency filters don't do less filtering. They stop the same particles as high efficiency filters and in the same number. The only difference is when.

One gets the impression that over the lifetime of a filter the total number of particles in suspension could quite possibly be the same regardless of whether the filter is 50% or 95% efficient. A snapshot in time might show differences but maybe not, depending on the total number of particles.

Within reason a low efficiency filter will catch the same particles as a high efficiency one. It's not LESS filtering.


Of course a lower efficiency filter is doing less filtering. How can you say it's doing the same job as a much higher efficiency filter?

When a less efficient filter is used, at any given time there will always be more wear particles in the oil that is lubricating the engine bearings, etc as compared to a more efficient oil filter being used.

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Well, it's just statistics based on the probability of filtering a particle at a given size. I'm really not sure how a filter manufacturer can advertise 100% efficiency (unless the particle is of some very large size) since I would think that for small particles there is always a chance it will find some pathway through the media.


The ISO 4548-12 test is not "based on statistics", it's actual real-time particle counting measurements taken before and after the oil filter. I have not read the whole ISO test spec, but believe the efficiency is taken at the end of life of the oil filter when the delta-p is at some level.

 

[FetchFar]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Of course a lower efficiency filter is doing less filtering. How can you say it's doing the same job as a much higher efficiency filter?....When a less efficient filter is used, at any given time there will always be more wear particles in the oil that is lubricating the engine bearings, etc as compared to a more efficient oil filter being used.

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Well, it's just statistics based on the probability of filtering a particle at a given size.


I interpret what kschachn is saying is that, if a particle, say 3 microns sized, passes thru the filter once or twice, then (maybe) on the third pass it happens to get snagged on a couple of crossing tree-limb shaped cellulose fibers. Problem is, in practice that small particle has a very good chance of freeing itself in the turbulent oil stream flow and then flowing right thru again in a short time, even though it was once snagged for a while. Thats what the multi-pass ISO 4548-12 attempts to measure, the ability of the filter media to trap --- and hold --- particles of various sizes. .... Certainly, as in air filters, a build-up of gunk will make the filter better at trapping small particles, if the dirt doesn't just eventually break off soon and tumble thru the media fibers anyway.

To me its better just to spend the extra $5 or $10 bucks for a quality oil filter that works from the get-go to trap smaller stuff, and those filters almost always can hold more grams of dirt anyway for an extra margin if you happen to start getting in more dirt thru your air intake into the oil. (Some intake systems leak a little around the gasket, u never know, letting in more silicon etc. into the combustion chamber.)

I'll try to call up some of the fleet people who test their oil using the microgreenfilter.com 3 micron oil filter to see what their thoughts are.

 

[RobtE]

Originally Posted By: FetchFar
1. SAE Study http://papers.sae.org/881825/ also cited http://www.amsoil.com/techservicesbullet...gine%20wear.pdf


This study has basically nothing whatsoever to do with actual filtration in an automobile engine. Published in 1988, it described injecting more than a lifetime of dirt into an engine - 400 grams - at 8 hours while the engine was running on a dynamometer under load. 98% filtration at 40, 15, 8.5 and 7 um was tested and filters were changed when differential pressure indicated the filters were bypassing.

No real engine would ever ingest 50 grams of contamination and most car & light truck oil filters have a capacity of under 20 grams. Few are loaded to over 50% at the OCI/FCI and most don't even get there.

Amsoil jumped on this "study" because it was useful in pushing their oil filters.

Quote:
6. Accounts of fleet benefits from 3-micron-level oil filtering ( i.e, http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read...er-in-fleet-ops and http://fleetowner.com/equipment/news/california-city-fleet-oil-filters-0701 to cite just a couple.


Both of these articles were based on touts for the "microGreen Extended Performance oil filter" made by SOMS Technologies.

Microgreen filters

I don't know about "advanced polymeric materials that are highly resistant to heat and pressure", but this filter has not taken the world by storm.

If it pleases someone to install an expensive centrifugal filter, bypass filter with or without toilet paper media, and the SuperDooper MicroAbsorbent Stupendous oil filter as a hobby, more power to him or her.

However, if a filter meets OEM specs and you use quality oil and change it regularly, you can run a modern automobile until the rest of it is not worth keeping or you're just plain tired of looking at it and use the money you save on good steaks.

 

[FetchFar]

Originally Posted By: FetchFar

I'll try to call up some of the fleet people who test their oil using the microgreenfilter.com 3 micron oil filter to see what their thoughts are.


I just called the City of Oxnard (California, remember Rockford Files right?!), and Dan Berlenbach's use of MicroGreenFilters.com, which started 4 years ago, is still going strong, and they like it so much it has spread to all their city police cars recently. Positive, expanding experience for them, getting oil filtration down to 3 microns or so.

 

[FetchFar]

Originally Posted By: RobtE

Both of these articles were based on touts for the "microGreen Extended Performance oil filter" made by SOMS Technologies.

Microgreen filters

I don't know about "advanced polymeric materials that are highly resistant to heat and pressure", but this filter has not taken the world by storm.


Its a sintered teflon "cookie" they put in the end of a normal oil filter canister, thats all, for parallel-path filtration to get the particles out. You are right to be skeptical, as we don't know it works until fleets use it. Oxnard, CA fleet loves it and is expanding use of it. Other fleets are using it too. Its been a few years so they can best explain whether or not it saves them money, with the approach of it keeps oil quality high (lower particles) so less oil changes. Thats all. Nothing to get angry or upset about.

 

[FetchFar]

Still skeptical about whether getting particles out as small as 3 microns or so doesn't make the oil last longer?

"With the new oil filter, the Sheriff’s Office reduced its oil changes to just one annually, reducing fleet oil use by 70% and oil filters by 50%. .....Polk County Sheriff’s Office fleet manager Francis Hart chose to first test the filter on 25 vehicles for 30,000 miles and performed multiple oil analysis tests before expanding its use. Hart still has each vehicle’s oil analyzed at 30,000 miles to ensure the filters are still performing. .....
Polk County Sheriff’s Office has 1,400 pieces of equipment on active duty, including motorcycles, buses, vans, sedans, and specialty equipment. Patrol cars accumulate an average of 18,000-20,000 miles per year, while administrative vehicles add an average of 15,000 miles per year. Collectively, the Sheriff’s vehicles drive more than 1.4 million miles per month, according to the case study."

 

[FetchFar]

Originally Posted By: RobtE
No real engine would ever ingest 50 grams of contamination and most car & light truck oil filters have a capacity of under 20 grams. Few are loaded to over 50% at the OCI/FCI and most don't even get there.

Others have argued endlessly about the numbers in that SAE engineering study, yet the fact remains that trends were uncovered. The real proof is oil testing on a large number of fleet vehicles, maintenance records there, and let the truth of cost savings thru better filtration emerge. All arguments seem OK on the surface, yet lets get proof.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
I didn't say it was doing the same job. As long as the efficiency for a given particle size is greater than 0%, it will catch the same particles. A lower efficiency filter will take more time to do so, however. How much more time depends on the number of passes.

Conversely, unless the efficiency is 100% then a filter may not catch a particle on one pass. Both filters may or may not catch a given particle.


A lower efficiency filter may never catch some of the particles that a much higher efficiency filter will in the same use conditions and use interval, no matter how long the low efficiency filter is ran.

Originally Posted By: kschachn
The test isn't based on statistics but the rating is. With each pass through the filter you have a probability value that the particle will be trapped.

How long is too long to wait?


The ISO 4548-12 rating isn't based on statistics, it's based on what the upstream vs. downstream particle counts are measured at. It's based on a real-time measurement, not "statistics".

The longer you wait for a low efficiency filter to gain efficiency from pore loading, the longer there are suspended wear particles in the oil that are getting past the oil filter and going through the engine to cause possible wear.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: FetchFar
Originally Posted By: RobtE
No real engine would ever ingest 50 grams of contamination and most car & light truck oil filters have a capacity of under 20 grams. Few are loaded to over 50% at the OCI/FCI and most don't even get there.

Others have argued endlessly about the numbers in that SAE engineering study, yet the fact remains that trends were uncovered. The real proof is oil testing on a large number of fleet vehicles, maintenance records there, and let the truth of cost savings thru better filtration emerge. All arguments seem OK on the surface, yet lets get proof.


Every particle size vs. engine wear paper I've read says that the more debris you can filter out of the oil the better for keeping wear down on the internals of the engine.

That's why by-pass filtering at
http://www.pirtekusa.com/fwp/skyharbor/PFSfiltration/PDFs/sae710813.pdf

http://infohouse.p2ric.org/ref/31/30453.pdf

 

[FetchFar]

The Oxnard, CA fleet department called me again (another nice person) and he basically just adding that oil analysis of their re-refined 'green-type' oil (with MicroGreen filters changed every 6,000 miles or so) they were using out to 30,000 miles came back looking good, worsening around 22,000 miles on average, yet making it with enough viscosity and TBN. Yes, they used re-refined motor oil, not the good synthetics available. Personally I wouldn't do it without using a name-brand synthetic.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: FetchFar
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Where's the credible documented proof that any of this https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/images/markup_panel/default/bigger.gifmatters?
Where's the credible documented proof that using a "better" filter assures "better" protection to a degree that is discernable in wear data?


Here is the list of evidence (choose to believe or not) which makes one think a few extra bucks on a superior 4548-12 oil filter is worth it:

1. SAE Study http://papers.sae.org/881825/ also cited http://www.amsoil.com/techservicesbullet...gine%20wear.pdf
This Amsoil paper is based upon the GM filter study of 1988.
That filter study is GROSSLY misunderstood, and GROSSLY biased. It's been discussed here before. Anyone who puts faith in that SAE study knows nothing of filtration. Search the topic here and read my comments; too numerous to relate in this response. It's so non-applicable that even GM noted in the study that one would never see these kind of results in the real world; they acknowledge that their results are atypical because such disparity between filters cannot be seen in normal use. And therefore the regurgitation of GMs data in Amsoil's paper is just as worthless.

2. Observations of the engineering trend that more modern vehicles specify better filtering,... i.e, early engine designs ( Filtration is certainly "better" than in 1950, but it's peaked for many reasons. And not the least of which are that engines run far cleaner than ever before, and lubes control contamination far better than before. That you have to comment using examples from DECADES ago is how little you understand the topic in today's concept. My comments are based on the topic herein (the FU and Wix) and how they do nothing special for anyone who's running a normal OCI in today's world with today's products. Congrats on pointing out the obvious; we're not in 1925 or 1950. I would counter with this general observation; filters are getting smaller and being used longer by the OEMs. Why? Because the contaminatino loading is becoming ever less. The relevance of the filter is actually diminishing somewhat. IN NO WAY am I saying it's obsolete or useless, but I am noting that your example is actually working backwards now; filters have less of an impact than before.

3. Articles like http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/29114/dirt-holding-capacity and others similar, point to how reducing grit inside an engine or machine helps reduce wear.
I would certainly agree; reducing contamination helps. But there is a law of diminishing returns here ... No one "needs" super-duper filtration for a 5k mile OCI. Capcity is only an issue if you run your normal filter to a point where it would be in bypass. I have successfully run a Puro Classic out to 10k miles and a M/C FL400 out to 15k miles in long OCIs, with dino oil, and upon dissection of the filter, everything waas fine and there was zero evidence of any overloading of the media. If they have that kind of capacity, then just where do you think the FU would have an advantage? Conceptually, no product can ever have an advantage of capacity if the original is not "full". If your OCI produces a 6 quart dump, and you have a 10 quart pan, then buying a 15 quart pan does not make for a "better" OCI change when the first pan still has excess capacity. This is the great fallacy of "more" capacity. Having a filter that hold more dirt is ONLY helpful if you run some other filter past its limit, where "more" actually occurs! I have proven that normal products already have large excess capacity; why do you need "more" when the present already has "more than enough" for a typical OCI? I'ev done it; I can prove it. Conceptually, can you prove that "more" capacity is "better" when the original is never fully used anyway? I see no ability of you to counter this concept. But by all means, try ...

4. Seeing Free Abrasive Lapping, as a machining process, produce wear.
Again - what's this have to do with normal OCIs and normal filter use?

5. Accounts of 40,000 mile oil change intervals like http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3399277/Amsoil_0W-30_41K_OCI_w/bypass_ using a synthetic & better filtration.
I agree here; longer OCI are where high-end filters and oils pay off typically. If you have never read my statements as such, then you don't visit here often.

6. Accounts of fleet benefits from 3-micron-level oil filtering ( i.e, http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read...er-in-fleet-ops and http://fleetowner.com/equipment/news/california-city-fleet-oil-filters-0701 to cite just a couple.
Again - longer OCIs will benefit. Agreed. But that's not "normal" use now, is it? Fleet ops does not represent normal BITOG behavior at all ... And this little link you posted up says ZILCH to how this may or may not be able to reduce wear. This link touts the experiment of LONGER OCIs. Duh - I agree with this.

7. & Finally, I don't know of anyone who wants more particles running around inside their engines, certainly not these guys: http://longitudediscovery.com/TheGreatMobilHoax/index.htm

Conclusion: A few extra bucks is worth it, and no evidence suggests that less filtering is better. For example, MicroGard MGL57090 is $5, Fram ToughGuard TG8765 $10, not much diff in price, better ISO 4548-12 performance (80% vs. 99% @ 20m).



Conclusion:
You've put forth no real credible data that shows premium filtration makes a hoot worth of difference past decent normal products, in normal use. And that's what we're talking about here.

The Fram and perhaps the Wix would likely filter to any level for a longer duration, because they are made to hold more. But that is not "better" filtration; it's filtration for "longer" periods.

Show me WEAR DATA evidence that conclusively shows normal products cannot provide the same performance as premium product in normal use! Guess what - you cannot. And why? Because there is no data to support such a conclusion; I would know, because Jim Allen and I looked for many months and found zilch.

Again - my challenge to anyone here is to show me conclusive data from a credible study that shows normal products can be usurped by premium products all while in normal use. I completely agree that bypass filtration is a means to longer OCIs, and so are products like the FU and such, but those same products do NOTHING for wear reduction in normal use.

Look over the Duramax engine data in my "Normalcy" article, and see the UOAs posted here of my truck and another. That is good data to back up my claim. And I have yet to see data to the contrary.


Here's the main bug I have in my shorts ...
Folks here do a really poor job of defining what they talk about, and what it means to them. The word "better" is thrown about like it's candy at Halloween.
Don't confuse the word "Better" with the word "Longer".
I fully agree that premium filtration can produce excellent results for LONGER periods of exposure. But if the OCI is a set max, well within normal use, then there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO PROOF THAT I HAVE EVER FOUND TO EXHIBIT THAT PREMIUM FILTERS RESULT IN LESS WEAR IN NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES. PERIOD.

Once "good enough" is established by a filter, then having "more" does not produce "better" results.

So again, I ask for someone to put forth credible data that would counter my statements.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Again - my challenge to anyone here is to show me conclusive data from a credible study that shows normal products can be usurped by premium products all while in normal use. I completely agree that bypass filtration is a means to longer OCIs, and so are products like the FU and such, but those same products do NOTHING for wear reduction in normal use.


Many of the studies say that adding a bypass filter that filters down to 3 microns will dramatically reduce engine wear - I linked to a couple earlier in this thread. Studies also show that filtering out more particles below 25 microns will reduce engine wear. If one filter is 99% efficient at 20 microns, and another filter is 50% @ 20 microns, it just seems to make sense that the more efficient filter will keep more harmful particles from making it through the filter and into the engine's oiling system. Based on that logic alone, I personally choose to use filters with high efficiency ratings (ie, at least 95% @ 20 microns).


Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Look over the Duramax engine data in my "Normalcy" article, and see the UOAs posted here of my truck and another. That is good data to back up my claim. And I have yet to see data to the contrary.


I thought that a normal UOA doesn't really measure particles in the right micron range to acculturate correlate how well an oil filter is filtering debris in the 10+ micron size.

When you ask for a particle count with an UOA, what sized particles are they measuring for?

 

[FetchFar]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

The Fram and perhaps the Wix would likely filter to any level for a longer duration, because they are made to hold more. But that is not "better" filtration; it's filtration for "longer" periods.
"...to any level..."? Really? After performing to higher filtration efficiency from the start, from a new filter, from the first time you install it, you still claim its "any level"? Thats the core of you're problem, you won't acknowledge that multi-pass performance is better in the premium filters. And yes, we agree, they hold more, giving a reserve capacity in case its needed for short-duration oil changes, and capacity to go longer for long-duration oil changes.

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Show me WEAR DATA evidence that conclusively shows normal products cannot provide the same performance as premium product in normal use! Guess what - you cannot.
Your proof in oils is obvious, staring at you on bottles of oil: Notice how only premium products are good enough to qualify for dexos1, 4718M, HTO-06, MB 229.5, VW 502, etc.? All these higher wear-standard tests REQUIRE premium base oils --- you can't achieve the wear performance to pass those real test, along with resistance to deposits, using cheaper dino oils. They run the wear tests on real engines, and guess what, your proof you asked for. As for filters, you have NEVER provided any evidence that more abrasive particles in your oil reduces wear, therefore I'm going on the side of "fewer particles = less wear". Since air filters allow in varying amounts of silicon/dirt into combustion chambers, premium oil filters, with better filtration, gets out more particles, as proven with 4548-12 in general, and MicroGreen oil filter's analysis in their case.

 

[FetchFar]

I think where dnewton3 and I agree is that premium products (oil and filter) are beneficial for long oil change intervals.

Where we differ is that premium products (oil and filter) can also benefit the frequent oil changer. Since engine air filters allow in a lot of junk, you can't get away from the fact that a premium high-efficiency oil filter will clean a lot of it out. If you're lucky enough to avoid dust ingestion, and to varying degrees you can occasionally, depending on where you're driving, then a cheap low-filtration oil filter would be plenty for short oil change intervals. Remember that dust ingestion is on a per-mile basis, getting in as you drive from the very first mile of an fresh oil change, so if there is dust in your air, a good oil filter can help get it out.

In other words, I'd agree that if we drove in clean-rooms, then a premium oil filter may not be necessary.

Until someone shows me proof that particles between two metal surfaces can't produce wear, then I'd say get the particles out using premium oil filters.

 

[FetchFar]

Originally Posted By: fetchfar

2. Observations of the engineering trend that more modern vehicles specify better filtering,... i.e, early engine designs (div>

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Filtration is certainly "better" than in 1950, but it's peaked for many reasons. And not the least of which are that engines run far cleaner than ever before, and lubes control contamination far better than before. That you have to comment using examples from DECADES ago is how little you understand the topic in today's concept. My comments are based on the topic herein (the FU and Wix) and how they do nothing special for anyone who's running a normal OCI in today's world with today's products. Congrats on pointing out the obvious; we're not in 1925 or 1950. I would counter with this general observation; filters are getting smaller and being used longer by the OEMs. Why? Because the contaminatino loading is becoming ever less. The relevance of the filter is actually diminishing somewhat. IN NO WAY am I saying it's obsolete or useless, but I am noting that your example is actually working backwards now; filters have less of an impact than before.


You're wrong about the trend in oil filtration. The trend of cleaner oil with better quality synthetics is not done yet. The future is longer oil change intervals, using less natural resources, and the best way to do that is with more filtration and better oils combined, similar to the microgreen approach. The U.S. EPA (from a conversation at a sustainability conference I went to) is already considering longer oil change intervals to protect the environment long term, something forced on automakers in the years ahead if need be. Automakers will solve it thru more filtration and more oil performance.

 

[kschachn]

That is true that a low efficiency filter may not catch a given particle. Of course a high efficiency one may not either but you have a greater chance that it will. Also, the filters we are discussing (and the efficiencies) are nowhere near zero so that dramatically increases the likelihood of capture. It is not a linear relationship.

OK so it isn't statistics, it is a probability curve. Sorry, I only took one class on it (besides math classes) in college and it was called "Probability and Statistics" so I tend to lump them together. But any time a process does not operate at 100% efficiency and has multiple passes during the process, that becomes a probability curve.

I'm not trying to argue with you. But it still is true that any filter that removes a given particle size at any efficiency greater than 0 will likely catch that particle given enough time. That likelihood is the probability curve.

It just comes down to how long is too long? Remember, the particle will be in the oil for at least one pass regardless of the filter being used. So is two passes bad? Is three?

Also remember I agree with higher efficiency filters. It's just that apparently, Honda and Toyota do not. They are pretty obsessive about most things so I wonder why they aren't when it comes to oil filtration?

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
A lower efficiency filter may never catch some of the particles that a much higher efficiency filter will in the same use conditions and use interval, no matter how long the low efficiency filter is ran.

The ISO 4548-12 rating isn't based on statistics, it's based on what the upstream vs. downstream particle counts are measured at. It's based on a real-time measurement, not "statistics".

 

[FetchFar]

Originally Posted By: kschachn

It just comes down to how long is too long? Remember, the particle will be in the oil for at least one pass regardless of the filter being used. So is two passes bad? Is three?


With the bigger pores in the cheaper filter, a small particle, say 10 microns or less, can get snagged, and then it may free itself again in the flow a little later, and do this again and again over thousands of miles. With smaller pore sizes, the smaller particles can be held 'forever'.

You make good points. If larger pores are right next to small pores, then the particle joins the flow easily thru the large pore, even if it was snagged temporarily, and ISO 4548-12 shows that. A case in point: In premium commercial truck filters which use parallel or bypass flow, an effort is made to separate the flow between the small-pore area and large-pore areas.

I don't think you need to be a mechanical engineer like myself to intuitively picture this fluid flow, mass-momentum phenomenon. I'm sure dnewton3 will claim that Isaac Newton (the Newton in touch with reality) was wrong here.....