Where's the documented proof ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: kschachn
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?


I know Honda and Toyota are obsessed with quality. (I've known engineers here in Colorado, two worked for Honda's high-altitude testing lab/field-office, and one Toyota hired as a consultant for heat transfer analysis on the Prius.) .... I was explaining the oil-gelling problem Toyota had on poor oil filtration, although it probably had more to do with water condensing on cool spots on the inside of the engine, etc., not sure, maybe a combination of both.

Sounds like Toyota agrees with dnewton's "dump less oil, as not all gets recycled properly. Maybe with future forced incentives to use oil longer, we might see the wear rates for filtered oil become more significant within warranty periods. .... We enthusiasts want less grit in there now, so a couple extra bucks for a Fram TG makes sense.
 
^^^ In an "ideal" situation (for illustrative purposes), let's say that a 50% @ 20 micron filter traps 50% of all particles 20 micron and larger every time the oil passes through the filter. And likewise, that a 99% @ 20 micron filter traps 99% of all particles 20 micron and larger particles with every pass of the oil through the filter.

Here's an example showing how a million 20 micron particles in the oil would be filtered out/trapped by the two filters assuming the above conditions.

It would take the 50% efficient filter about 13 passes of the oil to get the same level of particles taken out by 2 passes through the 99% efficient filter.

As you can see from the illustration, the total sum of particles that got past the filter before they were all caught by the 50% efficient filter was 1,000,000. For the 99% efficient filter, only a sum total of 10,101 particles got past the filter. That means in this scenario, there were 99 times more particles (total of 989,899 more particles) that could have caused some wear damage when using the 50% efficient filter.

OilFilterParticleRemovalExample.jpg
 
Yet its worse than just a simple geometric progression (E**n) since the cheap oil filter can't hold the small particle for long, and the cycle repeats itself as its repeatedly freed into the oil flow. My assertion anyway.
 
The Japanese engines are wearing less to begin with so the filter doesn't matter as much. With our American engines they throw metal like crazy we need 99%+@20 microns.
 
In general it is better to stop/reduce dust in the air coming into the engine with high efficient air filter. Also, remember that air filter is more efficient after some miles with a thin cake of dust on the dirty side. Air filter is most efficient near the end of its life not the beginning.
 
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
In general it is better to stop/reduce dust in the air coming into the engine with high efficient air filter. Also, remember that air filter is more efficient after some miles with a thin cake of dust on the dirty side. Air filter is most efficient near the end of its life not the beginning.


They are about as big as they can fit in modern engine compartments. Still lets a lot thru in the 1/10 to 50 micron range into the piston ring pack. Can't stop that small stuff.
 
Originally Posted By: CELICA_XX
How are people ADVOCATING the use of a filter with inferior specs?

I don't get it.


There are two camps: One says a cellulose oil filter of 50-to-80% micron efficiency rating (iso 4548-12 o'course) @ 20 microns, typical specs for a cheap oil filter, is good enough. The other camp says engine wear goes down the more grit you filter out, so we favor 95-to-99% @ 20 microns (almost always means a glass or glass fiber cellulose blend media).

I like the better filters since they don't cost much more anyway and are likely to help with wear and dirt capacity if needed. To be fair, no car makers I know of specify anything other than plain old cellulose cheap filters, so its true they are good enough. .... With aftermarket parts, why not just get the best available, since its easy and cheap to do. I say get a microgreen oil filter and scrub it down to 3 microns even, if you use a typical spin-on canister oil filter instead of cartridges like my GM 3.6L and BMW both use.
 
Related to all this is Fram's business model. I know their entire cartridge oil filter line CH8765, TG8765, CH10075, XG10075 (that I use) are all 95%-99% @ 20 microns, with great dirt holding capacity as well. .... Why? Why not just make the CH (extra guard) line pure cellulose like what basic Toyota-branded oil filters are, at 50% @ 20 microns? I mean, they sell them at Walmart, a price conscious place with consumers who either don't care or don't know. I don't get it. ... They should make one for the "I-don't-care" crowd, and one for the "I-demand-better" crowd, instead of making them all that great. Cue: Motorking maybe?
 
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
The Japanese engines are wearing less to begin with so the filter doesn't matter as much. With our American engines they throw metal like crazy we need 99%+@20 microns.


They must use "magnalloy" (a special alloy) that has a force field around the eutectic atom structure that helps keep the metal-to-metal contact found in normal engines used in American cars.
grin.gif
 
Originally Posted By: CELICA_XX
How are people ADVOCATING the use of a filter with inferior specs?

I don't get it.


Where are these inferior specs for the WIX XP ? I'm not seeing it.

And do you think Fram would put the XP through their own secretive test ? NO.
 
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Originally Posted By: CELICA_XX
How are people ADVOCATING the use of a filter with inferior specs?

I don't get it.


Where are these inferior specs for the WIX XP ? I'm not seeing it.

And do you think Fram would put the XP through their own secretive test ? NO.


Contact WIX yourself and find out first hand.

http://www.wixfilters.com/ContactUS.aspx
Phone number: (704) 864-6748

I wouldn't be surprised that Fram tests many of their competitions oil filters to ensure their efficiency claims are accurate. Motorking has stated the efficiency of other brands of filters, and Amsoil has ran independent ISO 4548-12 test of other filter brands to compare. These major filter companies keep an eye on each other all the time.
 
No one has yet posted a CREDIBLE study that shows conclusively that "better" filtration makes any differnce in normal use.


Yes - I fully understand and agree that bypass filters and premium filters can make a difference in greatly extended OCIs. But that's not what we're talking about, so leave that off the table.

The ONLY study anyone linked, was Fetchfar, and he again latches onto that competely worthless GM study as if it were gold, when in fact it is rubbish and has ZERO implications for real world use. Here is a link to our last conversation about that very study between he and I:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3372302/9
Forth post down, I lay out clear and definitive rationale as to why that GM study is baloney and not applicable to the real world, and even GM admits it.

As for the rest of the "proof" put forth here, it mostly links to short, lame articles about opinions. Those are not "studies" folks. Never confuse regurgitated anecdotal stuff for a true well-controlled study which is applicable to real life.


My normaly article, with multiple studies embedded, shows that normal daily variation in wear data will far exceed anyone's ability to delcare something "better" in marco data. And since no one here has any micro data as of yet, then my statment about the absence of credible data is true.


After months of searching, Jim and I could not find a study that had reasonble credibility for real world applications that shows "better" filtration makes any differnce in a typical O/FCI plan. None, zilch, nada; not one.

If you've found that golden nugget that proves me wrong, then by all means post it up and let's discuss it in detail. Don't throw in a bunch of articles that only lather up the topic and walk away.

Just like when Fetchfar posted up the GM study, and then I totally debunked it.

Bring it on, one at a time.
 
Originally Posted By: RobtE
...

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 ...

"Touts" is right and with zero credibility imo. Those aren't studies, there's no test methodology listed for replication purposes to determine test validity and reliability. And, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see in both instances that the participants are being reimbursed or compensated in some way to use these filters and shill for them.

Bottom line, they are not proof of anything other than proof what shilling for a product will get you.

Otoh, the Amsoil test of some oem filters used repeatable test methodology, ie,. ISO 4548-12, which is the current industry efficiency testing standard. Therefore those results have both test validity and reliability. And while it showed the Amsoil oil filter to be more efficient than others, it uses true industry ISO test standard, so the results are credible and reliable.

I'll let others argue/discuss the merits of using higher efficiency oil filters. But I go by what Jim Allen has said here in the past, ie,. while there may be no proof that increased efficiency does much for engine longevity, all other things being equal or close (price, construction, fci, etc.), there's nothing to lose by going with the more efficient filter.
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
No one has yet posted a CREDIBLE study that shows conclusively that "better" filtration makes any differnce in normal use.

... You need to realize that simple observation points to the obvious effect of grit between two metal surfaces: The more grit, the greater the wear. Simple concept. ... Then, YOU name a study that says MORE particles cause LESS wear, it doesn't exist, and you're argument fails. ... Maybe you don't believe ISO 4548-12 does a good job of testing particle retention, I don't know where you're stuck here.
 
Originally Posted By: sayjac

I'll let others argue/discuss the merits of using higher efficiency oil filters. But I go by what Jim Allen has said here in the past, ie,. while there may be no proof that increased efficiency does much for engine longevity, all other things being equal or close (price, construction, fci, etc.), there's nothing to lose by going with the more efficient filter.

Its obvious less particles means less wear in an engine. For those who doubt the evidence, your approach is logical, just spend a couple more bucks for a better filter, trusting that ISO 4548-12 does, as a multipass test, adequately draw a picture for us of particle retention.
 
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Originally Posted By: CELICA_XX
How are people ADVOCATING the use of a filter with inferior specs?

I don't get it.


Where are these inferior specs for the WIX XP ? I'm not seeing it.

And do you think Fram would put the XP through their own secretive test ? NO.


The FTC should force all filter makers to publish 4548-12 test results, done with independent lab verification, similar to what is now done with SN, GF-5 testing. In the future, as auto makers begin to see they need to increase oil change intervals (conservation), we might see better specs.

Its always been a trend, since 1923, to get better filtration. It may have stagnated a bit in the last decade, yet extended drain intervals of the future will keep that trend going.
 
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.
 
Based on the "simple geometric progression" analysis of the difference in filtering performance between a 50% @ 20u vs. a 99% @ 20u filter, I think I'll stick with high efficiency filters.

Link: Filtering Example

If 1,000,000 particles 20u in size where in my oil sump, I'd like to think that keeping 989,899 of those 1,000,000 particles from going through the engine would be a good thing.

With a 50% efficient filter 1,000,000 of those 1,000,000 particles would eventually go through the engine before all were trapped in the filter.

With a 99% efficient filter, only 10,101 of those 1,000,000 particles would go through the engine. The other 989,899 would be trapped in the filter.

Which scenario would theoretically cause more engine wear? What's on your engine?
grin.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top