Blackstone says oil filter brand doesn't matter!!?

[danwat1234]

So, I had my UOA done (http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2260268) and I was curious about my 0.5% insolubles count.. Here is the email communication::


Would it be possible to reduce the insolubles value by switching to a
better oil filter? I was using the Purolator Pureone pl14459 oil filter
for this analysis. I don't know what filters are better than this one.
Do you think the insolubles level is causing any wear? At what value of
insoluble % does wear start to occur (generally speaking)?

Thanks

------------
,

Theoretically, switching to a better oil filter would reduce insolubles.
However, we don't normally see much difference between the various oil
filters that are on the market, so I couldn't tell you which one to try. If
you wanted to switch to another brand, it certainly won't hurt anything.
Fortunately, your level of insolubles isn't really a problem. We don't get
too concerned about them unless we see 0.6% and higher. Beyond that, it's
possilbe to get into an oil starvation issue where the filter is too
clogged to work. That's when we'd see the excess wear. Hope that answers
your question. Let me know if you have any others and have a great weekend.


Blackstone Labs
------------

Wow your saying that there is no real-life differences in the amount of insolubles not filtered out of the oil by the various brands of oil filters? The cheapest FRAM is just as good as a Purolator Pureone or an Amzoil eao ( http://www.amsoil.com/storefront/eao.aspx) ? My filter for instance is rated to filter 50% of particles down to 5 microns, I don't know if that is first pass, or on average after infinite passes or whatever or if absolute or relative but it makes me think that the filter should catch anything that your oil analysis would pick up in the insolubles count.. The cheapest FRAM filters are like 95% at 25 microns I think, and can't touch 5 microns particles.

Maybe my level of 0.5% is because the filter was full and was bypassing

Yea I won't worry about 0.5%, I'll stay below 5000OCI.
-----------
,

Either the Fram or the more expensive filters should work just fine. We don't see a whole lot of difference between them. See you in another 5,000 miles.


Blackstone Labs
---------------------

Interesting, eh?

 

[Shannow]

Really, I tend to agree with them.

In industrial applications, even the filters with the join stapled together don't seem to throw things wildly bad...unless they just plain collapse.

We still buy the good(ish) to good stuff.

 

[HappyLittlePony]

I suspect that they are probably right. I personally took a car out past 200,000 miles and I only ever used Fram or AC filters, and when that car went to the junkyard it wasn't from the engine being worn out. I also had an air-cooled VW that didn't even have a filter.

My take is that there's a minimum level of filtration your engine needs for a basic level of protection. This would be using a filter. Any adequate filter. After that, you can go up to a more effective filter, but any effect on your engine's ultimate longevity is probably going to be minor.

In other words, even cheap filters do a good enough job. A better filter does a better job, but probably not enough to matter for most people.

Of course, this doesn't get into the matter of filter construction. That's another subject.

 

[Chris Meutsch]

Originally Posted By: HappyLittlePony

Of course, this doesn't get into the matter of filter construction. That's another subject.


Yes indeedy. 3-5K on a cheapo filter should be fine but if you go 10K or more, spend more.

 

[Sayjac]

My first thought is, then Blackstone needs to stop offering/doing the particle counts that I've read about here recently. I'm sure they charge extra for it because it's not included in their standard UOA. Anytime someone requests it in the future they should say, it's an unnecessary test to perform, and eliminate it. Hmmmmm.

Another thought is on the conclusion based on the response that the cheapest Fram, the orange can, is "as good" as a P1 or Amsoil eao. lol While the orange can may be as good at basic filtration, it doesn't change the fact that it's still overpriced for it's fiber endcap construction, so the cheapest Fram ain't so cheap. Filter construction is not something that the Bst representative was adressing with their response.

Now if one wants use a Classic instead of P1 with 5k OCI's over the life of the engine likely won't make a big difference in an engine's longevity. The lack of need for ultra fine filtration is something that GA (rip) used to regularly make a point of saying. Still, when one can obtain a P1 or Classic, with better construction and better rated filtration than an orange can, for the same or less money, where's the downside?

And lastly, the response appears specifically related to said 5k OCI. It doesn't say anything about extended OCI's using a better constructed, better beta, and/or greater holding capacity filter like Amsoil, M1, K&N, RP and BoschD+. Even Fram recommends it's metal endcap XG for ~10k OCI's, not the orange can.

 

[spasm3]

I'm not sure they are going to step out and recommend one filter brand over another. The size of insolubles may be too small for any filter hence brand may not matter. Given that i still run pure one's or m1's filters.

 

[Pablo]

I agree, especially when measured using the B/S method.

Some filters last longer, some may have marginally better performance with smaller particles, but the comparison by insolubles and particle counts in samples pulled from sumps is not how to choose an OF.

 

[vintageant]

Interesting! This prompted me to look again at the Insolubles % in the UOAs on my two totally unfiltered antiques. 0.2 and 0.3, although to be fair the OCI was only 250 and 1,000 miles (2 year intervals).

 

[bullwinkle]

I would counter that in a DIESEL engine excessive insolubles are one of the most damaging things to an engine-causing stuck rings, bearing wear, even clogged drainback holes in extreme cases-so a filter with better filtration is worth it. Newer gas motors in good condition don't seem to generate a lot of crud under reasonable OCIs anyway.

 

[Bluestream]

The Brand oil oil filter does matter! But only here on BITOG

 

[ottotheclown]

I remember reading they said the same about syn vs dino. They felt it really did not matter that much re. wear. In fact they said dino was better in some cases.

 

[WMSmotorhead]

I select my oil filters with a basis on price and durability. It doesn't have to work SPECTACULAR with ultra micro filtering. But I want it to filter without colapse and serious restriction of flow. Hastings/Baldwin has been my routine choice, since I can get them for 3-5$ depending on car.. and I have seen no build construction issues. I'm confident that many "inferior designs" filter OK, But I'm looking at cost per dollar. The better made filter at 3$ is IMHO less likely to fail.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: spasm3
I'm not sure they are going to step out and recommend one filter brand over another. The size of insolubles may be too small for any filter hence brand may not matter. Given that i still run pure one's or m1's filters.


I'm not up on particle count tests ... but what is the size range they are measuring? From what you said above, it sounds like it's down much smaller than even the best filters can catch.

 

[spasm3]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: spasm3
I'm not sure they are going to step out and recommend one filter brand over another. The size of insolubles may be too small for any filter hence brand may not matter. Given that i still run pure one's or m1's filters.


I'm not up on particle count tests ... but what is the size range they are measuring? From what you said above, it sounds like it's down much smaller than even the best filters can catch.


I have no idea, i'm guessing they are smaller since no one can show and improvement with one filter or another. If they are in the 5 micron and smaller neighborhood, then no filter will really matter.

 

[dishdude]

If the insoluble is too small for the filter media, I'd say it's too small to do any damage. My concern with filter quality is not the media but the can construction. If the filter is letting unfiltered oil through, I'd say thats a problem. Additionally, if the end caps or can fails, all the collected junk will end up right back into the engine.

 

[webfors]

All things being equal in quality of construction; no defects, properly working bypass, well spaced/bonded/strong media, and good adbv, I agree.

 

[webfors]

Originally Posted By: webfors
All things being equal in quality of construction; no defects, properly working bypass, well spaced/bonded/strong media, and good adbv, I agree.


I should have added "within a reasonable OCI" to my list

 

[Jim Allen]

The insolubles percentage is a yardstick measurement. It can be made up of anything, including metal, carbon, oxidation byproducts (sludge) and soot in diesels, as well as other stuff. Blackstone's answer should not be interpreted as gospel that any old filter will do. It's just an observation but there are detailed tests on wear and filtration to be found at SAE.org, and other places.

My opinion is that better filtration is always a good thing but beyond a certain limit, it's hard to justify financially and practically. That's why the average engine has average filtration. The manufacturers know that if the service intervals are followed, the engine will generally outlast the owner (who most often trades it in before its worn out) and may outlast the chassis.

I have learned that better filtration is an oil life extender as much as anything, allowing one to run longer intervals more safely. Clean oil oxidizes more slowly but it's the buildup of contaminants that is the usual reason for oil changes and that's where better filtration can extend oil life most noticeably.

The question for me is; can any primary, full flow oil filter make THAT huge a difference in terms of oil life and, secondarily, engine life? Because you can only go so fine on the primary, full-flow filter, it takes bypass filtration to really clean up engine oil. You can find plenty of evidence on how a bypass setup, 1-10 um absolute filtration, can really keep oil clean so it can be safely run double and triple a normal interval. I suppose a major reduction in contaminants would extend engine life too but, unless you run lots of annual miles, there's not a payoff for most of us. We're dead of old age, tired of the vehicle or it's rotted away from around the engine before the engine is ready to retire from wear. I think this is why you see the really enhanced filtration on commericial rigs that run 60K+ per year. Makes sense to them because if they don't, the engine is worn out in four years.

 

[Challenger71]

I think a small, arbitrary (and inconsistent) oil sample is not a proper way to test for oil filter efficiency. The more correct procedure would be to physically test the filters themselves, taken apart, side by side testing the particle/debris within the filter element with before and after weight measurements. After this battery of tests is conducted and done repeatedly with the same process can you really see the evidence.

 

[goodtimes]

Quite a nice little business they have going. I never give much credence to their comments on the reports, too much back patting, buddy buddy, and salesmanship. They want you to buy more tests. Their tests are the end all to end all, they are perfect.
I don't have the money to spend on these tests to tell me I can save money not changing my oil. I don't mind spending $3 more on a premium filter media though.