Fram Ultra would do the 5 years easy without rusting.
Wix 57202 filter: 9k miles 3 yrs
- Thread starter dnewton3
- Start date
- Status
Quite simple then if you don't like the QS downsizing of your specific application, don't use them.
That said, it doesn't change the fact that overall the QS filter line is generally considered a value priced and designed oil filter line using a nitrile adbv.
That said, it doesn't change the fact that overall the QS filter line is generally considered a value priced and designed oil filter line using a nitrile adbv.
So you share my confusion on why dnewton3 chose to copy my post on QS filters with his advisory against no-name, never-heard-of, obvious knock off filter brands, without supplying any list of other brands then?
I've cut several Napa Golds at 10k and all were perfect. No doubt in my mind 15 or 20k is doable.
I've been putting the QS3600 on my brother's old '87 Tercel, other than ADBV leakage, they've been lasting over a year easily. It is oversize for his application, but the QS3600 is definitely smaller than the standard sized PH3600 or XG3600 (which I use for 10K on my xB). I've cut every one of the QS filters I've used, they all have glued seams (ala MC filters), ZERO tears to date, including starts with dino 10W40 at subzero temps F.-if Menards carries a QS filter size I need for a beater, I wouldn't hesitate to run it. They will rust externally like the OP's Wix, though.
Good to know about the QS autopsies.
Too bad their parts selector is pooched for my application (truck). It's probably why Menard's doesn't stock the QS2. A standard, reduced, and oversize filter (housing) should all have the same gasket dimensions.
Too bad their parts selector is pooched for my application (truck). It's probably why Menard's doesn't stock the QS2. A standard, reduced, and oversize filter (housing) should all have the same gasket dimensions.
dnewton3
Staff member
I apologize for taking your post and making it into an overly sensitive topic.
However, this is my thread.
The NG filter clearly ran 3 years with no issue, and could probably go long. Some lesser made filter would be fine for shorter times, but may not last as long. Wix has a very heavy can and decently thick paint. Some other brands with thinner metal or thinner paint would degrade quicker. That does not mean they are junk; far from it. But they may not last as long in the time and salt that I have put them through.
I've run the QS filters from Mendards before, and I'd not fear to do it again. But they don't have one for my Dmax in stock. That is the application I run the extended OCIs on.
I don't see where a FU would really last any longer in an external exposure sense; they don't seem any more dense in metal or thicker in paint than the Wix/NG, in my handling of them. While the syn media may hold up a bit longer internally, the exterior exposure may be the limiting factor here in my application. That may not hold true for others with differing conditions.
The real reason I do these experiments is to show folks that even with lots of salt and time, decent filters can last WAY longer than the silly 3mo/6mo/12/mo mentality.
Everyone needs to run what they feel comfortable with; no excuses in that.
I'm just doing this to show that those who extend their O/FCI in well maintained equipment need not fear extensions. Both my UOA and my filter show this to be true.
However, this is my thread.
The NG filter clearly ran 3 years with no issue, and could probably go long. Some lesser made filter would be fine for shorter times, but may not last as long. Wix has a very heavy can and decently thick paint. Some other brands with thinner metal or thinner paint would degrade quicker. That does not mean they are junk; far from it. But they may not last as long in the time and salt that I have put them through.
I've run the QS filters from Mendards before, and I'd not fear to do it again. But they don't have one for my Dmax in stock. That is the application I run the extended OCIs on.
I don't see where a FU would really last any longer in an external exposure sense; they don't seem any more dense in metal or thicker in paint than the Wix/NG, in my handling of them. While the syn media may hold up a bit longer internally, the exterior exposure may be the limiting factor here in my application. That may not hold true for others with differing conditions.
The real reason I do these experiments is to show folks that even with lots of salt and time, decent filters can last WAY longer than the silly 3mo/6mo/12/mo mentality.
Everyone needs to run what they feel comfortable with; no excuses in that.
I'm just doing this to show that those who extend their O/FCI in well maintained equipment need not fear extensions. Both my UOA and my filter show this to be true.
Last edited:
I was demonstrating the difference between cost vs. value. Not everyone can perceive the difference. That's where a broad sweeping statement about wasting money breaks down.
I have read the rules and FAQ here on BITOG and have not yet found anything to back up your claim that this is your thread, although we can all see you started the thread.
How does one obtain ownership of a BITOG thread? I might want to do the same at some point.
I have read the rules and FAQ here on BITOG and have not yet found anything to back up your claim that this is your thread, although we can all see you started the thread.
How does one obtain ownership of a BITOG thread? I might want to do the same at some point.
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
I've cut several Napa Golds at 10k and all were perfect. No doubt in my mind 15 or 20k is doable.
Since joining here I've started cutting open filters. I've always run filters for 2/3 oil change intervals in a known clean engine because of what I read years ago about Honda's and their recommendation of running the filter for 2 intervals. I figured if hondas last nearly forever that way then my domestic engine should be fine.
So since I've started cutting open filters that's when I saw that even 2 oci wasn't loading up the media enough to warrant a change,so even the lowly orange can runs a 10000 mile interval fir me. I accumulate 10000 miles in a few months so the filter isn't old per sey.
My trucks/cars/engines as a whole run into mileages that most here would call high,so to me I figure I'm doing something right.
Common sense says that an oil filter gets more efficient as the media loads up,so in reality the longer the fci the more efficient gets.
So that smaller particulate never runs through the engine and is in fact cleaner than oil running through a brand new filter.
So the idea that changing the filter is cheap insurance is absurd. Throwing away a filter that is not only still serviceable but more efficient than new is a false sense of "cheap insurance".
Not everyone dies what I do and I couldn't care less. My cars and trucks easily crack 300000 on the odo and still run as good as the day I bought them.
If it ain't broke,and ends up keeping more of my hard earned money in my pocket then I think it's a great idea.
I've cut several Napa Golds at 10k and all were perfect. No doubt in my mind 15 or 20k is doable.
Since joining here I've started cutting open filters. I've always run filters for 2/3 oil change intervals in a known clean engine because of what I read years ago about Honda's and their recommendation of running the filter for 2 intervals. I figured if hondas last nearly forever that way then my domestic engine should be fine.
So since I've started cutting open filters that's when I saw that even 2 oci wasn't loading up the media enough to warrant a change,so even the lowly orange can runs a 10000 mile interval fir me. I accumulate 10000 miles in a few months so the filter isn't old per sey.
My trucks/cars/engines as a whole run into mileages that most here would call high,so to me I figure I'm doing something right.
Common sense says that an oil filter gets more efficient as the media loads up,so in reality the longer the fci the more efficient gets.
So that smaller particulate never runs through the engine and is in fact cleaner than oil running through a brand new filter.
So the idea that changing the filter is cheap insurance is absurd. Throwing away a filter that is not only still serviceable but more efficient than new is a false sense of "cheap insurance".
Not everyone dies what I do and I couldn't care less. My cars and trucks easily crack 300000 on the odo and still run as good as the day I bought them.
If it ain't broke,and ends up keeping more of my hard earned money in my pocket then I think it's a great idea.
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Common sense says that an oil filter gets more efficient as the media loads up,so in reality the longer the fci the more efficient gets.
This statement does not hold up for depth loaded media design.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_filter
It can be true of surface loaded media design, where the efficiency (i.e. porosity) becomes cake controlled instead of media controlled.
http://www.fdpp.com/depthsurface.htm
Common sense says that an oil filter gets more efficient as the media loads up,so in reality the longer the fci the more efficient gets.
This statement does not hold up for depth loaded media design.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_filter
It can be true of surface loaded media design, where the efficiency (i.e. porosity) becomes cake controlled instead of media controlled.
http://www.fdpp.com/depthsurface.htm
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I don't see where a FU would really last any longer in an external exposure sense; they don't seem any more dense in metal or thicker in paint than the Wix/NG, in my handling of them. While the syn media may hold up a bit longer internally, the exterior exposure may be the limiting factor here in my application. That may not hold true for others with differing conditions.
While compromise of external filter housing may be your particular limiting component, I challenge your statement about a FU may last a bit longer internally.
With 2 ply media, the outer media can be made relatively coarse with respect to the inner media; sometimes in such designs there are even 'holes' in the layers to help equalize flow for equalizing paths of resistance. These are sometimes referred to as 'bypass layers'.
Now that both media layers in the FU are advertised as synthetic (the box reads "Fully Synthetic"), both layers are very likely to be depth loaded media of differing porosities. Being fully synthetic vs the glass enhanced cellulose media of the filter you cut apart for this thread allows for much better tailoring of the media porosity.
The Xtendedguard with the cellulose outer layer media may have had a surface loaded media in the outer layer, but it may have been coarser than the cellulose media used in a single ply application. If it didn't, it would have been counterproductive as the second layer of synthetic depth loading media would have been severely underutilized.
And the wire backing is definitely more resistant to element collapse due to media particulate loading with resulting differential pressure than media with no backing support beyond having a center tube.
In short, the design of the internals of a Fram Ultra have a very high probability of lasting much longer with the same particle size distribution and loading rate as the internals of the filter you cut apart in this thread. I am confident empirical testing would bear this out.
Perhaps you could dip the filter housing in something to provide an additional layer of protection against gravel and salt. It need not be resistant to a filter wrench when filter removal comes due. Just thinking outside the box presented.
I don't see where a FU would really last any longer in an external exposure sense; they don't seem any more dense in metal or thicker in paint than the Wix/NG, in my handling of them. While the syn media may hold up a bit longer internally, the exterior exposure may be the limiting factor here in my application. That may not hold true for others with differing conditions.
While compromise of external filter housing may be your particular limiting component, I challenge your statement about a FU may last a bit longer internally.
With 2 ply media, the outer media can be made relatively coarse with respect to the inner media; sometimes in such designs there are even 'holes' in the layers to help equalize flow for equalizing paths of resistance. These are sometimes referred to as 'bypass layers'.
Now that both media layers in the FU are advertised as synthetic (the box reads "Fully Synthetic"), both layers are very likely to be depth loaded media of differing porosities. Being fully synthetic vs the glass enhanced cellulose media of the filter you cut apart for this thread allows for much better tailoring of the media porosity.
The Xtendedguard with the cellulose outer layer media may have had a surface loaded media in the outer layer, but it may have been coarser than the cellulose media used in a single ply application. If it didn't, it would have been counterproductive as the second layer of synthetic depth loading media would have been severely underutilized.
And the wire backing is definitely more resistant to element collapse due to media particulate loading with resulting differential pressure than media with no backing support beyond having a center tube.
In short, the design of the internals of a Fram Ultra have a very high probability of lasting much longer with the same particle size distribution and loading rate as the internals of the filter you cut apart in this thread. I am confident empirical testing would bear this out.
Perhaps you could dip the filter housing in something to provide an additional layer of protection against gravel and salt. It need not be resistant to a filter wrench when filter removal comes due. Just thinking outside the box presented.
here's a pretty good article that includes some discussion on depth vs. surface filtration in recirculated lubricating oil.
http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/29396/oil-filter-anatomy
I started working with depth vs. surface filtration, beta ratios, element reinforcement, etc. in 1990 with systems more complex, large, and costly than an automobile engine. Depth filtration (as well as these other concepts) is not a particularly new concept or innovation, it's only relatively new to PCMO filters.
http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/29396/oil-filter-anatomy
I started working with depth vs. surface filtration, beta ratios, element reinforcement, etc. in 1990 with systems more complex, large, and costly than an automobile engine. Depth filtration (as well as these other concepts) is not a particularly new concept or innovation, it's only relatively new to PCMO filters.
- Status
Similar threads
