Oil filter duration of use

[dnewton3]

OK - I'm going to link my UOA here. I realize this is the filter forum, and I intend to discuss filters, but rather than hover over a topic with conjecture and hypothesis, I thought it might be nice to have a real world example of data-driven discussion ...

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...;gonew=1#UNREAD

There are two OCIs of note in there:
run #1: from 220k miles to 230k miles on ST dino oil and Puro Classic filter (one 10k mile OCI and one UOA on one filter)
run #2: from 230k miles to 245k miles on ST dino oil and MC filter (separate 15k mile OCI with two UOAs on one filter)

Look at the insolubles: .4 even after 15k miles. 'Nuff said.
Look at the wear: still in statistical control after two back-to-back extende O/FCIs. Again - 'nuff said.

What is much more apparent is that air filtration probably affected my wear moreso than oil filtration. I have a Si leak I cannot seem to locate. When I changed the air filter at 230k miles, I either created a leak point, or the filter itself is suspect. I have yet to determine which is true.

You all can banter about how wonderful synthetic oil filter media is, and how premium oil filters are "better" than normal ones, but in the end, REAL WORLD DATA speaks louder than your rhetoric.

Clearly, base line filters from a decent brand name are well able to go 10-15k miles. I ran 10k miles on a Puro Classic and 15k miles on a MC filter. And both of those were on extend oil runs. One 10k mile oil/filter run and the second 15k mile oil/filter run.

- Most of you choose a filter based upon inputs; syn media this, end-cap that, leaf versus coil spring, etc. Blah, blah, blah ...
- I choose a filter based upon it's ability to affect outputs; how does it actually perform, and does the selection of different inputs actually show causation in output differential?

Those of you that think you "need" to change oil and fitlers frequently are fooling yourselves. Do it because you "want" to; that's fine by me. But you don't "need" to; data says otherwise.


I strongly encourage anyone that considers longer O/FCIs to validate their personal experience with UOAs and PCs, etc. But that is my point here ...
When I make a statement about filter longevity (be it time or mileage based) it's because I've tested the situations and make generalizations based upn facts and data, not conjecture and mythology.


If you disagree with me, that's fine. But don't YABUT me ("yeah, but ...) with silly marketing sales brochure hype or your buddies wife's sister-in-law third-hand story about how the OCOD caused her engine to explode. You want to counter my postion? BRING DATA! You think premium filtration makes a huge difference in "normal" OCIs? Then show me tangible proof, please. Because what I can PROVE is that house brand lubes and normal everyday filters are WAY more capable than nearly any BITOGer would ever give them credit for.

Bottom line: any decent filter will likely last 15k miles and easily out to three years.

 

[webfors]

Excellent data. Thank you sir.

Now cut those bad boys open and give us some pics. That will put the cherry on the cake!

 

[Phishin]

dnewton3,

I currently have a Purolator Synthetic filter on my Nissan Altima. It's nearing it's the end of it's second 8k mile OCI. I'm leaving it on for one more run to put 25k miles on it. I'll be dissecting it next year for analysis.

But yes, your analysis does show that longer OCI's are doable.

Some naysayers (and heck, I wouldn't mind seeing it either) would like to see the .pdf file/image of your Blackstone analysis. You got those available?

 

[95busa]

I agree with you Newton. I may uoa my current fill on my f150 when she gets around 5k. I pull a 5k trailer on the reg though, so long oci are out of my comfort zone. I run qsdefy 10w-30 and fl400....good stuff.

 

[Azeem]

I have 10 K miles on the Purolator classic and 8 K miles on K&N and both are still in service. It makes sense to go 15 k miles on a decent oil filter on non-turbo, non-DI engines with no history of sludge specially if one of the car manufacturers recommends as such.

Appreciate your pragmatic approach,Dave.

 

[fsdork]

I may be mistaken, but my understanding from reading posts by those who are in favor of changing filters more frequently, or using "higher quality" filters is that there is concern over potential failure of the media or bypass mechanism. IMO, your relatively limited data does not prove or disprove that possibility, as failures, if they are a threat, would only occur in a very small percentage of cases.

I don't think anyone with a slight bit of sense will argue that an OCOD is going to allow boulders to be circulating through one's engine, causing excessive wear.

 

[ABerns]

I'll +1 to dnewton. The only downside I've had from running oil filters for "long" periods of time is the ADBV getting hard in cheap Chinese filters.

I have an XG on my motorcycle right now. Planning on leaving it on for several years...

 

[Clevy]

Thanks Dave for real data that indicates,what I've been saying and doing all along,that even what we here consider a budget filter is still fine even when run for double the manufacturers suggestion.
Filtration gets better as the filter gets its pores filled and therefore traps smaller particulate.
I feel somewhat vindicated

Thanks for putting in the effort and posting actual real world data. I learn much from you. The forum is fortunate to have members like you that choose to dispel long believed myths and attempt to educate,with real data,instead of speculate.

Thanks Dnewton.

 

[Donald]

Have you tried an unlit propane torch to find air intake leaks?

Did you buy the vehicles new?

On a used Suburban I found a gasket missing between the spacer and TBI. They had a rebuilt engine installed and someone forgot this one gasket so it was a metal to metal sealing situation.

 

[webfors]

Pics!?

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: fsdork
I may be mistaken, but my understanding from reading posts by those who are in favor of changing filters more frequently, or using "higher quality" filters is that there is concern over potential failure of the media or bypass mechanism. IMO, your relatively limited data does not prove or disprove that possibility, as failures, if they are a threat, would only occur in a very small percentage of cases.

I don't think anyone with a slight bit of sense will argue that an OCOD is going to allow boulders to be circulating through one's engine, causing excessive wear.


The bypass mechanism in most filter brands is consistent across the board. The coil-spring relief valve on the OCOD is the same as the FU. Same goes for Puros I believe.

But don't focus on inputs; focus on results. The Puro classic I ran for 10k miles likey had the ADBV stiffen up, and certainly allowed some lifter rattle on start up. By the end of the 15k miles on the silicone ADBV on the FL400S, the same thing happened. There has alwasy been a bit of rattle on this engine.

And yet look at the wear! It's not effected by ADBVs that fail. ADBVs are much more of a nod towards quieting the customer's complaints about noise and really don't manifest into any significant improvement in wear control. While a nitrile ADBV may bother you, it does not bother the engine! Get the difference?

Same goes for media. Most any reputable brand will produce the vast majority of their product to the OEM spec intent. Every manufacturer of filters will also occasionally experience a product failure. But a lack of quality media is rarely to blame for wear issues. As long as a decent media is in place, making it more efficient really does not manifest into great disparity in wear numbers.


Again - I am excluding all the stupid-cheap, knock-off filters that are truly risks. I purposely am not including them in my comments.

What I am speaking to are the "normal" everyday filters we see at Walmart, AAP, AZ, OR and such. The are typically made well enough that they will provide the intended level of protection; they stop big stuff from floating around endlessly. Really small stuff is not of much consequence. Failed media is an extremely rare occurence. Failed ADBVs do not mean wear escalates.

You see, the reality is what stares at us. One of two things must be true ...
1) basic filters are built well enough to last 15k miles
2) basic filters cannot last 15k miles, but when they fail, the mode of failure does not effect wear
Get the point? Normal filters do the job well enough that other products really are not needed at all. Some major portion of the converstaion also has to go to the fact that wear is not only controlled by filters, but also the add-pack and the tribochemical barrier on surfaces (see SAE article 2007-01-4133). So as long as some reasonable minimum threshold of filration is made pragmatic, then the rest just falls into line. Using synthetic media and ultra-soft seals isn't really going to reduce wear. As long as the filter does not leak interally or externally, the rest is moot.

Now, if you greatly extend the OCI far past even where I've tread, then high-capacity filters (Pure One, FU, Mobil 1, etc) may very well show a performance advantage. We would only know if someone actually ventures out that far.

But what is abundantly clear is that anyone who thinks they "need" a premium filter for 5k miles is on a fools errand.

 

[FetchFar]

Originally Posted By: Clevy
Filtration gets better as the filter gets its pores filled and therefore traps smaller particulate.


I've often thought this too. Of course, we want this to happen with low pressure drop, and the only way to tell is a pressure sensor at the oil pump outlet to compare to normal engine pressure. (You know, put a fresh filter on, note pressure difference at some operating temperature, and then check it once in a while for high diff, say half the bypass valve setting). Somebody on this bobistheoilguy forum put an extra pressure sensor down there with a PureOne and saw little pressure diff changes over a lot of time/miles.

As a filter begins the clogging process, it does filter small particles, so if I run a double filter setup in a parallel path, I should only change one filter out at a time, so there is always one filter dirty and getting the fine stuff.

 

[Jim Allen]

I basically agree... which should be abundantly clear because I just did essentially the same thing as Dave myself.

That said, pushing a standard filter to 15K IS eroding the safety factor. For that reason, I suggest that if you want to go down this road, you should mark your own way rather than assuming mine or Dave's route is the best road for you and your rig (unless your situation closely matches ours). I strongly suggest verification with UOAs and some basic research on filters. Filters with a generous amount of media and a silicon ADBV are the best bets here, with the amount of media (high capacity) being the more important of the two. That gives you the capacity in reserve so that you don't start bypassing a lot near the end of the run. For most engines a slightly leaky ADBV isn't a big deal but better if it doesn't and silicon makes that less a possibility.

Evaluate your engine. Is it a known sludger and have you had trouble with that in the past? If you are using it in the worst possible short hop scenario where sludging is possible, tread carefully. If your inputs are high (which you can see via a UOA) get that house in order as much as possible... i.e. a poor air filtration system. Old school engines ( flat tappets, timing chains, ball& socket rockers, etc.) that are natural metal shedders should also tread carefully lest bump up against a capacity problem and either start bypassing a lot or plug completely. These are all things you can predict by circumstance and general traits and most often verify via UOA. If your engine naturally cranks out 50 ppm iron at the end of a 7.5K UOA and the insols are high, you may not be a candidate for a long FCI unless you are running a bypass.

A clean running modern engine with normal contamination inputs is a good candidate for a long FCI. You REALLY need to understand the differences here.

Seems to me 10K is pretty safe with any name brand filter that has a reasonable amount of media and an engine with low to moderate inputs. This is where the research, on your exact part number, comes into play. Look for autopsies here ON THAT PART NUMBER and if you have to, buy one and cut it yourself to see. Among the range of applications with in any line of filters, you see some applications that have less media. The orange Frams are one to watch. Some have a dearth of media and some are well endowed. You need to know which no matter the brand.

With my DP gauge setup, I saw that differential pressure didn't change much on the P1 I ran for 15K... but the caveat to that is for 10 of those 15K miles, there was a 3um bypass filter to carry some of the load.

I differ a little from Dave on the "premium" filter question. I'm willing to put a few extra bucks in for the increased efficiency "just because." It's an "edge" but one that might not always matter much. I also value the synthetic media (my personal definition of "premium" includes syn media) from the flow and capacity angle, both of which contribute to less chance of a bypass both initially and down the road. But all my choices are predicated on long OCIs. Not sure I would use one on a short OCI as a habit. No payback at all in that. Nor in an unjustified short OCI either.

Just remember "one size doesn't fit all" and if you are going to quote that, be sure to include this part: I'm talking about decisions based on an evaluation of the circumstances, not preferences or old wive's tales.

 

[FetchFar]

I like all the talk about data being better than anecdotal stories. However... real life is full of judgement calls where we don't have complete hard data or info. Respecting that well known fact of life, most people try to put on the best quality of oil filter, oil, etc. that is at least supported by good judgement and maybe a small amount of evidence. For example, most believe that dirt holding capacity is important, as we don't want high pressure drops to happen as the filter ages. So just buy the best-engineered oil filter you can get in your application and we're talking not much diff in price anyway.

 

[FetchFar]

Like Jim Allen said above for example, some people think a premium oil filter should not be used on a short OCI. Does that make sense? A new premium filter will filter out smaller particles than a new cheap filter, right? Presumably the oil is new too at the time, but small gritty particles are still getting in thru the air filter.

 

[FetchFar]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Look at the insolubles: .4 even after 15k miles. 'Nuff said.


Nope. You measured insolubles at the end of an OCI, not during. That number goes down as the filter clogs more and filters smaller particles as it ages. What were insolubles during the early and mid stages? And your Fe wear numbers were good, but not great. Few people that bother with this forum are happy with just-OK. It would be nice if your UOA could be compared with one using a premium oil filter,... yet no comparison from your posts, yet a lot of conclusions. The only thing you proved was that one can do "just fine" on paper-only filters, and we already knew that. I think we want better, thats all, not just good enough.

 

[Cardenio327]

dnewton3, your data pretty much reflects what I have observed on my customers' cars.

Like mentioned, when the filters are made by disreputable companies (those that wholesale for more or less $1.50), problems really start to crop up.

The cheaper a filter is constructed, the more probable failures are, but generally speaking just about anything that wholesales for more than $2 is good to go.

Remember, Honda usually recommends changing the filter every second oil change, and their OEM filters are nothing special to write home about.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

On our Subaru 2.5L, by the end of the 7500mi factory recommended OCI the engine has become very noisy at startup and run with excessive TC racket and grinding. Also the overall performance is not silky. I couldn't imagine leaving the oil in longer. Plus ~17grams of insol in the oil doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: FetchFar
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Look at the insolubles: .4 even after 15k miles. 'Nuff said.


Nope. You measured insolubles at the end of an OCI, not during. That number goes down as the filter clogs more and filters smaller particles as it ages. What were insolubles during the early and mid stages? And your Fe wear numbers were good, but not great. Few people that bother with this forum are happy with just-OK. It would be nice if your UOA could be compared with one using a premium oil filter,... yet no comparison from your posts, yet a lot of conclusions. The only thing you proved was that one can do "just fine" on paper-only filters, and we already knew that. I think we want better, thats all, not just good enough.



I disagree and I'll be specific as to why.

First of all, insols never go down in UOAs; they go up. Insols done as Blackstone does the testing is a visual reference to solids and coloration after dilution and centrifuging. See my article for how they process a UOA. Oil never starts with a high insol count and comes down; it starts low and goes up.

I have three UOAs that all have insols at .4; two at 10k and one at 15k. Most any UOA from Blackstone will have the insols at the .2 to .4 range, regardless of the type filter used or for how long. What is apparent to me is that the filter media type and capacity have very little effect on the insols. Even premium filters with full syn media have shows insols in this range, and with less mileage. There really ins't a lot of variance in insolubles unless you have a really heavy sludger engine.

My point is that if you have a clean running engine, a "better" efficiency really does not effect much because if there isn't much to catch in the first place, then the differential effect isn't going to be large.

If this van stays in our stable, I just might play the other end and run a syn/superfilter for comparison. But at this point, I'm not willing to put big money into a vehicle we may cast away soon.

 

[Jim Allen]

Originally Posted By: FetchFar
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Look at the insolubles: .4 even after 15k miles. 'Nuff said.


Nope. You measured insolubles at the end of an OCI, not during. That number goes down as the filter clogs more and filters smaller particles as it ages. What were insolubles during the early and mid stages? And your Fe wear numbers were good, but not great. Few people that bother with this forum are happy with just-OK. It would be nice if your UOA could be compared with one using a premium oil filter,... yet no comparison from your posts, yet a lot of conclusions. The only thing you proved was that one can do "just fine" on paper-only filters, and we already knew that. I think we want better, thats all, not just good enough.


Ask and ye shall recieve: Here : 15K UOA is my 15K UOA that used both a "premium" filter (P1) and 3um bypass filtration. Different engine, different oil, though still conventional, different usage. Many similarities. Compare mine and Dave's. Can you say mine is substantially better? I don't make that claim. My setup cost a WHOLE LOT more than Dave's and if you were to put a performance/dollar ratio to it, Dave won hands down.

My oil was certainly cleaner but that didn't result in a big drop in wear metals (both comparing Dave's and comparing this engine to itself in previous UOAs and universal averages). Cleaner oil last longer and I think I could have gone another 5+K miles where as Dave was pretty near the end of the line on several levels. Woulds an extra 5K miles have changed the performance /dollar ratio? Not by much, IMO.

You are missing a LOT of context here. Dave and I both have been studying UOAs. Dave is a statistical analyst by occupation and training and he did statistical analysis on literally thousands of UOAs, so he isn't pulling this stuff from his rectum.

Both Dave an I look at this from the cost effectiveness standpoint. Is that upgrade paying its way? Or not. From what I have see and observed, from the wear standpoint alone, there are few benefits in going from an average efficiency filter (~35-45 um absolute) to a high efficiency filter (~25-35 um absolute) that will pay for the difference in price in the long run. There are situations where they might but in most cases, the expensive oils and filters are woefully underutilized. In general, wear trends drop rapidly as efficiency decreases from what was the old norms (~50-60um absolute) but level off sharply at ~40 um. Wear is less with better filtration but the amount is much less and not statistically significant nor offering a ROI.

I've come to a similar conclusion with my bypass filtration experiments For most people, the payoff is not there.. for a whole host or reasons. It's "better" the the betterness doesn't pay any tangible benefits the way most people keep and use their cars.

Spending more money for little good reason is an individual person's choice and decision but advocating that to others should be done with the caveat, "because I WANT to, not because I NEED to."