I am not trying to avoid the questions. But maybe I'm not understanding them, or I'm focused on something you're not.
Let's back the train up a bit and start again ...
What is it that you wish me to answer?
Much of my contention with this topic (not you directly, but many in general) is that people will often cite these "studies" from the SAE but they have never read them, nor understand them. There is a HUGE amount of detail in the papers that is very revealing, and often changes people POV from their first impression. Allow me to make some simple examples;
The GM filter study; 881825
Most think it proves that BP filters are better in all situations; that is not true. In fact, that study never even addressed BP filters at all. It ran some very biased testing using FF filters of varying pore size. And, to accelerate the testing, they dumped HUGE amounts of contamination into the sump, but never changed oil ever! They did the equivilant of 570k miles of contamination in 8 hours, and never once changed oil. There are other objections I have to this study; they are documented elsewhere. Anyone who points to this study as applicable to the real world has no sense of reality themselves.
The Euro BP filter study; 2000-01-0234
This is also misinterpreted by many. Here is a list of the outstanding, glaring issues I have with this study:
- They base their "improvement" claim (85% reduced iron with BP filters) upon the fact that they OVER-RAN the NORMAL OCI by approximately 2.4x greater than OEM recommendations. Since when is it acceptable to use the alternative method as your base control point? Since when it is acceptable to over-run an OCI and try to compare results to anything else as if it represented proper maintenance? To fairly judge each system, you must manage the system to its design intent, and not grossly over-use one (pushing it far away from "normal" results) and then pretend the alternative is so much better because it has lower wear data. That is absurd.
- They had a mechanical event in one of the two test buses that caused the engine to lose 80% (eighty percent!) of its lube oil, and after fixing the problem, they simply topped up the oil level and continued the test. And, they never flushed the engine; they simply topped off the oil and continued on! What kind of stupid test are they running? They have a mechanical failure mode that causes 80% of the lube to escape, and there is significant potential that the loss of oil pressure actually caused some form of abrasive metal-to-metal issue to occur. But they just fix it, and fill it and continue on as if nothing happened? Did it not occur to them to at least flush the engine a few times with short OCIs, and then start the test over?????
It is entirely likely and probable that the high Fe count in the non-BP test portion was actually residual Fe left-over from the mechanical failure! And yet they base their "improvement" of BP Fe reduction against a value from a non-BP result that was compromised with a mechanical loss of oil pressure. What freakin' idiots! That's not the whole list of my objections to this study, but it's certainly a good start.
I think many of you are simply lost in the minutia of filtration and don't understand my overall statements.
I am speaking of a limited, conditional parameter application here:
if you were to compare/contrast the wear rate results of two independent systems, one of typical FF filtration and one with the addition of BP filtration, but you manage them to the best of their individual abilities, then under NORMAL field conditions and OCI durations, there is zero WEAR benefit to the BP system because it does NOT alter the wear rates.
Why is this important to understand? Because all these "tests" and "studies" from the SAE you all point towards are NOT managed in the manner I state. These studies all heavily manipulate inputs to show a disparity by making the FF system have to "keep up" with the BP sytsem in a world that the BP has an advantage, rather than letting each system individually manage the results to the best ability of the unique approach!
Let me give you an analogy; I'm famous for them.
Consider that you want to move 10 boxes that each weigh 100 pounds each, up a flight of stairs. You are going to "test" two people; one is a very large man and the other a healthy young male. The large man is VERY strong and is a body-builder. The other is not as strong, but a very quick athlete.
Now - if your "test" is to get the boxes up the stairs, then the "winner" should be whomever moves all 10 boxes to the top first. You can bias the results by biasing the test. In a pure sense, the test would be how quickly the men can get their total 1000 pound load up the stairs, each using his own greatest asset (strength vs. speed). The strong man might carry 2 or even 3 boxes at a time, but he's not very fast. The quick man will likely carry boxes each one at a time, but he'll have to make more trips. That is a "pure" test of ability to achieve the task; that being to get the 10 boxes up the stairs as best they can.
But what happens if you constrain one of them by limiting their asset? What if you "bias" the test by making the slower man only carry one box at a time, below his full capbility? Are you not hindering him by making him not apply his best method; that of more than one box at a time? Or, conversely, what if you made the weaker male have to carry two boxes at a time; would he not struggle and possible drop stuff, and that alters his speed?
This is EXACTLY how many of these so called filter studies are biased! They take one approach that is a benefit to one system, and then force that approach onto the other! That naturally hinders one of the alternatives into complications is was not designed to deal with!
Let's review my claim and then dissect it:
Quote:
There is no study data I know of that directly or indirectly shows WITH CREDIBLE CAUSATION AND RESULTANT EFFECTS IN REAL WORLD APPLICATIONS that BP effects engine longevity, past where OCI manipulation would also offer the same benefit.
All these studies you folks point to do not allow each system to use their unique approach for best results. Instead, these studies are grossly biased to one option, at the expense of potential performance for the alternatives.
There is no SAE study I am aware of that compares/contrasts the wear rates of the two choices (normal FF versus FF with BP), that allows EACH SYSTEM TO PERFORM IN THE MANNER IT WAS INTENDED, TARGETING THE LOWEST WEAR RATE ACHIEVABLE BY PROPERLY MANAGING THE SYSTEM TO ITS BEST EFFECT. That is my complaint here, and that is where you all fail to realize the folly of your limited vision. Is is completely unfair and just plain silly to make a "normal" system try to compete against a BP system by forcing the rules in favor of the BP system!
If longevity of equipment is your goal, then the single most important attribute to manage is wear rates. The lower the wear rates, the longer the equipment will last. To that end, each and every alternative you wish to evaluate should be managed to achieve the best result towards that goal. Normal FF systems should be allowed frequent OCIs; BP systems can afford longer OCIs. The goal is to manage the wear rates to the lowest possible state. If you hinder one of the choices, making it follow a program that it is not intended to be involved with, then you are skewing the results! The crux is this:
Each system should be allowed to achieve it's best result independent of the other choice's operation. And when you actually allow each filter method to perform to it's maximum potential, then the data from macro analysis shows that there is no tangible difference in "normal" applications!!!!
In short, there is no study that I am aware of that tests the goal of low wear rates, and let's each alternative use their unique characteristics to fulfill the best individual result! All the SAE studies bias one filter into the world of another. Essentially they manipulate the conditions such that one system will always fail, because it's out of its element, so to speak!
If the GOAL were to find the lowest wear rates, then you'd test both the FF and BP systems by managing them to their own best result, and then compare/contrast that result to the other. And that is what I do with macro data; I let each and every system speak to it's unique abilities, and then I compare/contrast those results. And when I do, I see zero benefit in terms of wear reduction (equipment longevity) of one over the other.
THINK ABOUT IT!!!!!
You see, if you allow each system to manage wear to the best individual approach, then wear rates are essentially equal; wear performance is assured in either approach. Therefore, the "best" approach is one of a fiscal nature; which approach is least expensive in the specific application?
And finally, I'll ask this:
If you want to debate me, then I ask that you do your OWN THINKING and not port the conversation over to someone that cannot or will not be present. I realize Fitch is a respected person in his field, but he's not here to answer questions. What I want to ask is that you personally purchase the SAE studies and read them fully, and then you and I can debate the merits and failures of each, because I have bought and read them, and I understand just where they are flawed. And then I take my own personal skill and apply that to UOA statistical analysis; hence my "normalcy" article.
.
