Does it really matter what brand filter we use?

[ToyotaNSaturn]

After seeing several posts with photos of cut up media, I ran through the UOA section to see if I could find any trends with cheaper filters relating to higher wear. I couldn't find any trends. The data seemed to hinge on type of oil used and engine design.

From what I could tell, using a cheaper filter (Frams with cardboard end-caps excluded, these are just too cheap IMO) may be better since it will flow better. The only caveat I see is ADBV issues.

It's difficult to justify the $5-$12 per filter when the SuperTech's are just fine for 6-7K runs at a time at $2 each. While not everyone may like SuperTech, why spend the extra $$ when it seems to have no impact on engine or oil life?

 

[HOndaGuy]

Bc we are nuts about oil, and if it does make some sort of diff in engine life, we want to know about it. I know how you feel, I am in that same boat about filters. I just get bosch premiums bc they are one of the best all around oil filters you can buy besides wix/napa gold and supertech.

 

[geeeman]

Because of the screen on virtually every oil pick-up tube, I wonder if a filter is of any use at all...old Beetles never had a filter...

Does anyone make a filter replacement/bypass canister ...?

Just a thought...!

PS - Wasn't Bob doing some kind of no filter test before his illness...curious as to how that would turn out.

 

[cousincletus]

I have a cheap Fram on the new Durango right now (because it was free at Autozone when I bought five quarts of oil). I pretty much agree with you on this issue unless doing extended drains. The Fram ADBV doesn't matter in this application because the filter sets so the oil will drain back into it anyway. Haven't heard of any cardboard endcaps separating either. Will use this filter for 3-4,000 mile interval.

 

[SteveD2]

I drive 2 1991 Fords. A Mustang LX 5.0, and a F-150 2 WD 5.0, and change oil and filter every 2,000 mi. All I've ever used are Fram oil filters. Both were bought new. The truck has 90,000 mi. and the Mustang has 106,000 mi. I used to use Castrol, but have now switched to Havoline because I noticed dark deposits on the bottom of the white Castrol bottle after I dumped the contents into the engine. Havoline is almost clear in color. I don't know if that in itself means anything, but cleaner going in means cleaner coming out. Bill T.

 

[Spector]

To the best of my knowledge there has never been a real life test of two engines, same oil, same OCI, similar conditions but two different filters or no filter for that matter.

My own test where I went approx 12,000 miles with a filter at 6 000, next time a quart drain out/refill and no filter change and the third time no filter change or quart exchange and the UOA were similar, well actually each was slightly better as the engine was breaking in. So, now, no filter changes half way through for me.

It is extremely rare to see anything in a cut open filter with the naked eye and unless you are using RX or a cleaning agent it is doubtful a filter makes any diff in a modern engine using todays high quality oils.

My opinion obviously but my own tests sure indicate that they are useless appendages for catastrophic failure only.

We need to see real life tests not hype about the size of the micron captured, media used, ADBV, bypass valves etc.

 

[geeeman]

All the typical spin-on filter does is prolong immediate catastrophic failure into slightly delayed catastrophic failure...!

 

[Steve S]

The full flow filters remove the most damaging particles. When the mfgs. started using full fluw filters the life of the engines increased. If a particle count is done the difference in filters will show up.

 

[Oilmeup]

I just compared the STP oil filter and the Bosch. Everything appears the same. The xx stamp to the holes. AT $2.90 I ain't spending anymore money anylonger. I am ready for another vehicle anyway!!!

 

[427Z06]

This is the only "study" I've seen that showed any difference in oil filters using UOA:

http://jeepsunlimited.com/forums/sh...2f22e&threadid=352127&perpage=20&pagenumber=1

And God forbid the "super restrictive" Mobil 1 filter showed the best results. Kind of flys in the face of the "flow is everything" arguement.

Just as an Agnostic will still prey to God to cover his a**, I use "high efficiency" filters in the largest oversize I can fit on the particular vehicle to try to get the best of both worlds, flow and efficiency. I guess I jsut hate to believe that a K&N is your only first best option besides a bypass system.

Then again, before I knew what was inside the "orange cans", I had several vehicles go over 200K miles with them and 3K OCI...with compression tests showing they had plenty of life still left in them.

 

[Spector]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve S:
The full flow filters remove the most damaging particles. When the mfgs. started using full fluw filters the life of the engines increased. If a particle count is done the difference in filters will show up.

---

God, how many years ago was that and how many API certifications ago. Was that SA oil back then. Sure I agree, ppm may increase without a filter but will engine life? Guess a test in today's world is needed.

The study noted above does not appear to have anything to do with engine life, just the particles remaining in the oil and which filter did a better job. Flow versus filtration was not even an issue it seems. And, as the consultant states, not a statistically significant difference in any of those tested.

[ December 27, 2003, 08:06 PM: Message edited by: Spector ]

 

[Steve S]

The filters are there for a reason if they weren't necessary the mfgs. would eliminate them. If you take apart a motor an look at how it is inside the reason for a filter will be apparent, What is hard about understanding that the full flow filter stops the most damaging particals? It is not about oils it is about filteration a bypass allows all the wear products to run through the engine all the time. Eliminate the fullflow filter and the bearing life will greatly shorten.

 

[Robbie Alexander]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve S:
The filters are there for a reason if they weren't necessary the mfgs. would eliminate them. -*-*

---

Longer element lifetime is related to surface area, no? The greater the surface area, the greater the dirt holding capacity, right??? IF I was a betting man, I'd bet that there is some one here that has THIS data... Then why could you not figure out the price v. Surface area, come up with a minumum standard, and the choice is more clear???

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spector:

The study noted above does not appear to have anything to do with engine life, just the particles remaining in the oil and which filter did a better job. Flow versus filtration was not even an issue it seems. And, as the consultant states, not a statistically significant difference in any of those tested.

---

Obviously true. On the other hand, I never read the scientific studies where the statistical analysis clearly demonstrates the correlation between ppm's in an UOA and the amount of wear an engine is receiving. Can anyone point me to one of these?

 

[Ed]

Since all commonly used oil filters have bypass valves that open under high pressure conditions, the filter is essentially non existant during some percentage of engine "ON" time. Even the best filters do little more than block "big chunks" from circulating through the engine.
IMHO under normal driving conditions one filter is as good as the next regardless of price. Abnormal conditions such as extremely dusty or dirty conditions or racing place additional demands on the engine and the more expensive filter may provide a somewhat better safety margin.

Ed

 

[Spector]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 427Z06:
I never read the scientific studies where the statistical analysis clearly demonstrates the correlation between ppm's in an UOA and the amount of wear an engine is receiving. Can anyone point me to one of these?

---

Don't believe that one exists either especially in terms of longevity. Like smoking. Some people that smoke a pack a day live to 100 others die at 50 from lung cancer. Some engines have high wear metal numbers and go to 200,000 plus miles others, we never hear about. Every person, every engine is different.

So, what does this mean??? Probably means we have nothing better to do with out time right now!

 

[Pick]

It would be interesting if someone could devise a method of backflushing a used oil filter to remove the contaminants, and analyse the results. Project anyone?

 

[labman]

Filters are designed to remove particles without restricting flow. Thinking is that less particles, less wear as long as you maintain flow. I have been watching the blotter test thread. I may try it. Your 40 micron particles are about the same as the grit on 400 mesh sandpaper. With a little magnification, I should be able it get a qualitative measure. I can make notes, miles, weather, brand of filter, etc. on the white note cards mentioned on that thread. I don't see how I can come up with numbers, but can compare one oil change to the next. I have never done any UOA's, but a few might be worth it to understand what I am seeing. The particles left in the oil at the end of an OCI, should be a good measure of the job the oil and filter are doing.

 

[Steve S]

If a particle test is done the difference in how the oil filters do removing stuff out of the oil will be apparent. The el cheapo oil anaylsis only measurse stuff under 4 microns so results from uoa's won't usually show the filtering differences.

 

[Bamaro]

To answer the original question - not very much except in your wallet.