Feedback on idea please for filter/oil

[slp82]

So I was watching a popular YT channel where they tested these oil filters using the same methods manufacturers test, and the two highest rated filters were the Purolator boss, and Fram Endurance synthetic filters after testing dozens of different filters.

Anyways, from my own personal experience changing oil in fleet vehicles, it seems oil eventually starts to evaporate more quickly at 10,000+ miles. I know this because if the oil is changed more frequently in these vehicles, say every 8k miles, there is no noticable loss of oil. Now if it's pushed to 15k, even when using oil/filters like Mobile One extended performance which they rate for 15k miles, there is still a loss often if 1 1/2 quarts of oil. None of these vehicles smoke by the way, and none are over 130k miles. I'm not here to debate about this part.

My idea is, for example, the Fram Endurance filter says it's rated for 25,000 miles. What I'm wondering is if I was to run a high quality full synthetic oil, and change it every 8k miles, what do y'all think about simply changing the synthetic oil at 8k, but leaving the Fram Endurance (supposedly 25k mile filter) on there for the next 8k miles? So this would be basically using that one filter for 16k miles, but changing the oil only at 8k miles? Just curious of your thoughts.

 

[BrendanC]

So I was watching a popular YT channel where they tested these oil filters using the same methods manufacturers test, and the two highest rated filters were the Purolator boss, and Fram Endurance synthetic filters after testing dozens of different filters.

Anyways, from my own personal experience changing oil in fleet vehicles, it seems oil eventually starts to evaporate more quickly at 10,000+ miles. I know this because if the oil is changed more frequently in these vehicles, say every 8k miles, there is no noticable loss of oil. Now if it's pushed to 15k, even when using oil/filters like Mobile One extended performance which they rate for 15k miles, there is still a loss often if 1 1/2 quarts of oil. None of these vehicles smoke by the way, and none are over 130k miles. I'm not here to debate about this part.

My idea is, for example, the Fram Endurance filter says it's rated for 25,000 miles. What I'm wondering is if I was to run a high quality full synthetic oil, and change it every 8k miles, what do y'all think about simply changing the synthetic oil at 8k, but leaving the Fram Endurance (supposedly 25k mile filter) on there for the next 8k miles? So this would be basically using that one filter for 16k miles, but changing the oil only at 8k miles? Just curious of your thoughts.

run the endurance for 2x intervals. what oil are you planning on running?

 

[TheOilWizard]

16K miles over what period of time, and under what driving conditions? Examine the filter media after 8k miles to get a better idea if extending is a good idea.

 

[ecotourist]

Leaving an oil filter on for more than one change interval is not a new idea.

Honda recommends changing the oil filter on my 2007 Accord every second oil change. And I've been doing that since the car was new. I now have 190,000 Km on the engine and it still uses no measurable amount of oil.

 

[OilUzer]

I learned to change the oil filter every other time on bitog.
It has made it easier since I pump the oil out when I'm not changing the filter. However, I will NEVER extend the OCI even with one of my favorites M1 EP.
I also deal with only 4 cars and not 10 or 15+ so cost is not an issue!

 

[fantastic]

You should be able to use that for three oil changes (24k). However, I'd check them out at the (16k) oil change as a precautionary measure before going all in on three changes.

 

[Plawan]

So I was watching a popular YT channel where they tested these oil filters using the same methods manufacturers test, and the two highest rated filters were the Purolator boss, and Fram Endurance synthetic filters after testing dozens of different filters.

Anyways, from my own personal experience changing oil in fleet vehicles, it seems oil eventually starts to evaporate more quickly at 10,000+ miles. I know this because if the oil is changed more frequently in these vehicles, say every 8k miles, there is no noticable loss of oil. Now if it's pushed to 15k, even when using oil/filters like Mobile One extended performance which they rate for 15k miles, there is still a loss often if 1 1/2 quarts of oil. None of these vehicles smoke by the way, and none are over 130k miles. I'm not here to debate about this part.

My idea is, for example, the Fram Endurance filter says it's rated for 25,000 miles. What I'm wondering is if I was to run a high quality full synthetic oil, and change it every 8k miles, what do y'all think about simply changing the synthetic oil at 8k, but leaving the Fram Endurance (supposedly 25k mile filter) on there for the next 8k miles? So this would be basically using that one filter for 16k miles, but changing the oil only at 8k miles? Just curious of your thoughts.

I’ve done that often so my obvious answer is yes it’s not a problem at all.

 

[ZeeOSix]

So I was watching a popular YT channel where they tested these oil filters using the same methods manufacturers test, and the two highest rated filters were the Purolator boss, and Fram Endurance synthetic filters after testing dozens of different filters.

They are not using the same test method for efficiency as the filter makers use, that test specifically being ISO 4548-12. Don't believe everything you see in home made tests without some further verifications from official sources.

 

[slp82]

16K miles over what period of time, and under what driving conditions? Examine the filter media after 8k miles to get a better idea if extending is a good idea.

Over a year period. Just very easy driving, mainly about 55 mph on farm to market paved roads. Hit the occasional red light every 7 to 10 miles. I drive very easy, never more than 40% throttle. It's a 4 cyl Nissan 2.5L engine with a CVT transmission so RPMS rarely exceed 2,500. Cruising is usually closer to 1,800 maybe. I run Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic (not extended service). I don't tow, never have a load, rarely have a passenger. It's in Texas, so it's completely flat. I don't trust the oil past 8k, but the filter is supposedly rated for 25k. Not saying I would push it to its max, but it seems like a waste changing at 8k. So just curious if I could get 16k out of it by just changing the oil at 8k and leaving the filter to 16k (next oil change).

 

[slp82]

They are not using the same test method for efficiency as the filter makers use, that test specifically being ISO 4548-12. Don't believe everything you see in home made tests without some further verifications from official sources.

The test I saw they actually did use the exact oil, temperature, media to represent metal I guess, etc. They were a group of engineers, and had to order all the same stuff they used in the "official testing". I don't remember all what it was but they spent the first 5 minutes of the video explaining what is the official oil, media, etc and showing them talking to one of those managers at one of the facilities where they do oil and oil filter testing and everything they use to test it. They even tested it varying temperatures from extremely hot to well below freezing. I have an engineering background as well, so I was very impressed, but there are so many variables I just wanted to bounce the idea off some other people in this community. It's always wise to get 2nd, 3rd, and 4th opinions. Sometimes people think about something I don't.

 

[ZeeOSix]

The test I saw they actually did use the exact oil, temperature, media to represent metal I guess, etc. They were a group of engineers, and had to order all the same stuff they used in the "official testing". I don't remember all what it was but they spent the first 5 minutes of the video explaining what is the official oil, media, etc and showing them talking to one of those managers at one of the facilities where they do oil and oil filter testing and everything they use to test it. They even tested it varying temperatures from extremely hot to well below freezing. I have an engineering background as well, so I was very impressed, but there are so many variables I just wanted to bounce the idea off some other people in this community. It's always wise to get 2nd, 3rd, and 4th opinions. Sometimes people think about something I don't.

They did not use ISO 4548-12 test procedures. Sure they use the same test fluid and test dust, but not the same official test procedure, or multi thousand dollar upstream and down stream real time partical counters. They even say that in their video(s). They are trying to use a particle count to "rank" filter's efficiency. Yeah, it's a decent try, but there are a few of their "rankings" that do not match on how those same filters would rank based on there official ISO 4548-12 test results.

The flow vs dP testing is more believable - but the cold oil flow vs dP testing is only good for the first 2-3 GPM becsuse the filter's bypass valves are opening. Once the bypass opens, the flow vs dP data is then pretty meaningless. They mention that too.

The home testing efficiency rankings, not as much beliveability. That's why comparing an official long standing international test standard like ISO 4548-12 is really the only way to go when comparing filter efficiency.

 

[slp82]

They did not use ISO 4548-12 test procedures. Sure they use the same test fluid and test dust, but not the same official test procedure, or multi thousand dollar upstream and down stream real time partical counters. They even say that in their video(s). They are trying to use a particle count to "rank" filter's efficiency. Yeah, it's a decent try, but there are a few of their "rankings" that do not match on how those same filters would rank based on there official ISO 4548-12 test results.

The flow vs dP testing is more believable - but the cold oil flow vs dP testing is only good for the first 2-3 GPM becsuse the filter's bypass valves are opening. Once the bypass opens, the flow vs dP data is then pretty meaningless. They mention that too.

The home testing efficiency rankings, not as much beliveability. That's why comparing an official long standing international test standard like ISO 4548-12 is really the only way to go when comparing filter efficiency.

Ok, I get ya. So where is the tests that use that exact testing that compare the different brand filters, preferably a test not performed by the manufacturer themselves or paid for by them to a third party who is obviously going to be incentivized to report favorable results for their paying customer?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Ok, I get ya. So where is the tests that use that exact testing that compare the different brand filters, preferably a test not performed by the manufacturer themselves or paid for by them to a third party who is obviously going to be incentivized to report favorable results for their paying customer?

If you want to understand the ISO 4548-12 testing, you should read this thread linked below. I think the efficiency testing results are around page 19. If you want the whole story, read the entire thread.

As far as companies doing ISO 4548-12 efficiency testing, they would follow the official test procedure. Big name companies are not going to claim results that aren't true in this day and age of lawyers and lawsuits. The big filter makes will check each other's advertising claims for false advertising. The big filter makers usually have their own certified ISO 4548-12 test facility. If not, they will hire someone like Ascent or the Southwest Research Institute (or similar certified ISO lab ) to run the testing.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/t...essure-vs-flow-bubble-point-and-burst.334882/

 

[slp82]

If you want to understand the ISO 4548-12 testing, you should read this thread linked below. I think the efficiency testing results are around page 19. If you want the whole story, read the entire thread.

As far as companies doing ISO 4548-12 efficiency testing, they would follow the official test procedure. Big name companies are not going to claim results that aren't true in this day and age of lawyers and lawsuits. The big filter makes will check each other's advertising claims for false advertising. The big filter makers usually have their own certified ISO 4548-12 test facility. If not, they will hire someone like Ascent or the Southwest Research Institute (or similar certified ISO lab ) to run the testing.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/t...essure-vs-flow-bubble-point-and-burst.334882/

That's so funny you posted that. I literally did a Google search before you even posted that of the test procedure you quoted earlier, and found that post. I just finished reading all 29 pages. It's interesting. The results more or less came out to the same results they found in that other testing I watched though.

The bypass valve failures were disturbing. It's still crazy to think Fram is the leader.

I've been around cars for a LONG time, and I remember many decades ago when people used to bad mouth fram bad and they were considered junk. This was back when I believe they still had only one line of filter. There were not different series/levels. Regardless I am not brand loyal. Whoever makes the best product gets my business.

I wonder how the Fram Endurance stacks up now as I believe it's supposed to be their best filter. Guess we would need another round of testing. Did I read Andrews post later correctly that his pricing changed from $1,000 (setup), and $1,000 per filter, to $400 per filter? Does this mean the setup is still $1,000, just the cost per filter has changed to $400 each? It would interesting to know the exact costs.

Also he should consider creating a YouTube channel and monetizing it. Last time I checked, about 1 million views equals $5,000 in revenue. There are channels that do far less technical tests on oil filters that got multiple millions of views. He could easily net $10,000 off a good video.

He could make a series of videos honestly. It would be interesting to collect used different brands of oil filters and test them at the same number of miles to see what sort of efficiency they have at say 10,000 miles. See if the order changed of who is the best.

 

[slp82]

If you want to understand the ISO 4548-12 testing, you should read this thread linked below. I think the efficiency testing results are around page 19. If you want the whole story, read the entire thread.

As far as companies doing ISO 4548-12 efficiency testing, they would follow the official test procedure. Big name companies are not going to claim results that aren't true in this day and age of lawyers and lawsuits. The big filter makes will check each other's advertising claims for false advertising. The big filter makers usually have their own certified ISO 4548-12 test facility. If not, they will hire someone like Ascent or the Southwest Research Institute (or similar certified ISO lab ) to run the testing.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/t...essure-vs-flow-bubble-point-and-burst.334882/

Oh and I know this isn't the same thing as what we are talking about here, but in my experience, I have little faith in companies (even large ones) who will do shady practices simply because they think people won't catch into it. I used to work for one of the largest Chevrolet dealerships in the United States who is considered one of the highest ranked in the United States as well, and with management knowledge, observed the following to name only a few things:

1.) A ZR1 vette came in and needed very specific oil that we didn't have at the time, and so the lube techs were ordered to quietly put just regular non synthetic oil in it.

2.) A man who has an old Chevy Beretta but was the original owner, it has super low miles and was garage kept. He brought it in to have it serviced for his daughter going to college in the fall. The control arms had a lot of rust as it had been on the coast. He wanted NEW control arms and we couldn't get them as I was told by parts we didn't have the ability to get them anymore. I was told to simply remove his old ones and sand blast them, paint them, and reinstall them. I asked if he was going to be informed that we weren't replacing them and simply cleaning them up, they said "no, he will never know the difference". Just to be clear I refused to do this. It actually ended up in me having to leave as this was the final nail in the coffin.

3.) A family with a lot of pull/clout in the community bought multiple brand new vehicles from our dealership at the same time, including a Silverado 1500 LS ext cab short bed for their daughter attending college. She drove off the freeway at 75 mph and "cheese grated" the bottom of the truck on a concrete culvert. There was significant damage done to the underside of the truck. The truck having only like 2,000 miles on it, was worth too much for insurance to total it. The family wasn't comfortable with their daughter driving a truck that had tens of thousands worth of repairs. So they traded it in, and bought the same truck again.

This damaged truck (now repaired) came to me without me knowing the back story. They had sold it to a elderly man for a good deal as a "demo", but never disclosed the wreck. The customer walked into the shop (customers are not usually allowed in there) and walked up to me while I had his truck on the lift and said "something with this truck isn't right, and they just keep telling me they can't find anything and nothing is wrong". I saw gouges in the frame but it had been repainted so it wasn't immediately noticeable. Plus the miles (like 2,700 now) threw me off. Then I noticed lots of parts that still had the parts tags on them which doesn't come from the factory like that.

I told the customer I think this truck has been wrecked and almost everything under it has been replaced (control arms, sway bars, all steering and suspension components, exhaust, etc). He said that's impossible. I said someone screwed you. He then told me my dealership sold it to him. I was like "oh ****". The dealership manager and the shop manager came and grabbed me and were pissed I was talking to him. They wanted me to lie to him and tell him I made a mistake.

Again this was a VERY large, very well respected dealership. I just don't have faith in companies like that. My experience has shown me they will lie and manipulate if they think they can get away with it. I moved away from being a technician because I couldn't bring myself to be a part of that lying and manipulation. It goes against the way I was raised and my religious beliefs.

 

[ZeeOSix]

That's so funny you posted that. I literally did a Google search before you even posted that of the test procedure you quoted earlier, and found that post. I just finished reading all 29 pages. It's interesting. The results more or less came out to the same results they found in that other testing I watched though.

If you're talking about BR's ranking, the BOSS doesn't rank nearly as good in the Ascent testing. If it ranked like in Ascent's testing and also per the claimed ISO 4548-12 efficiency per Purolator/M+H, it wouldn't be ranking as high as BR shows. There are some other BR rankings that don't correlate well with the filter's ISO 4548-12 ranking. I therefore have to believe an ISO 4548-12 spec before a test result from a home made test setup. If there was a solid ranking correlation, then I'd have more confidence in their test methodology.

I wonder how the Fram Endurance stacks up now as I believe it's supposed to be their best filter. Guess we would need another round of testing.

The Royal Purple in Ascent's test should be real close to the Endurance. Fram says the Endurance is 99% @ 20u and greater.

It would be interesting to collect used different brands of oil filters and test them at the same number of miles to see what sort of efficiency they have at say 10,000 miles. See if the order changed of who is the best.

As shown with a few examples in the Ascent testing thread, all oil filters lose efficiency as they load up - some much more than others. By definition of the ISO 4548-12 efficiency (it's the average of the new to loaded efficiency), a filter with high ISO efficiency loses very little efficiency as it loads up and the dP increases across the media. The mrdia is better at capturing and retsining the captured debris. If it can't do that, it will slough off some of that captured debris as the dP increases. Both the Boss and the Wix XP lost a lot of efficiency as they loaded up, and that's why I said earlier that it wouldn't be a good filter to use for a long OCI or to use for an engine clean-up episode because of the way it loses efficiency with loading.

 

[slp82]

If you want to understand the ISO 4548-12 testing, you should read this thread linked below. I think the efficiency testing results are around page 19. If you want the whole story, read the entire thread.

As far as companies doing ISO 4548-12 efficiency testing, they would follow the official test procedure. Big name companies are not going to claim results that aren't true in this day and age of lawyers and lawsuits. The big filter makes will check each other's advertising claims for false advertising. The big filter makers usually have their own certified ISO 4548-12 test facility. If not, they will hire someone like Ascent or the Southwest Research Institute (or similar certified ISO lab ) to run the testing.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/t...essure-vs-flow-bubble-point-and-burst.334882/

So looking on Frams Website, the Tough Guard, Titanium, Ultra Synthetic, and the Endurance series all say 99% efficiency, and specifically say:

"FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency of TG8A, TG3387A and TG4967 or equivalent FRAM TG or XG models under ISO 4548-12 for particles greater than 20 microns."

So I'm guessing other than some fancy bells and whistles like the metal screen backing, and maybe the number of pleats or size of the filter or maybe rather the filters ability to hold more material, however they go about accomplishing that, really all those filters filter basically to the same level, correct?

 

[slp82]

If you're talking about BR's ranking, the BOSS doesn't rank nearly as good in the Ascent testing. If it ranked like in Ascent's testing and also per the claimed ISO 4548-12 efficiency per Purolator/M+H, it wouldn't be ranking as high as BR shows. There are some other BR rankings that don't correlate well with the filter's ISO 4548-12 ranking. I therefore have to believe an ISO 4548-12 spec before a test result from a home made test setup. If there was a solid ranking correlation, then I'd have more confidence in their test methodology.


The Royal Purple in Ascent's test should be real close to the Endurance. Fram says the Endurance is 99% @ 20u and greater.


As shown with a few examples in the Ascent testing thread, all oil filters lose efficiency as they load up - some much more than others. By definition of the ISO 4548-12 efficiency (it's the average of the new to loaded efficiency), a filter with high ISO efficiency loses very little efficiency as it loads up and the dP increases across the media. The mrdia is better at capturing and retsining the captured debris. If it can't do that, it will slough off some of that captured debris as the dP increases. Both the Boss and the Wix XP lost a lot of efficiency as they loaded up, and that's why I said earlier that it wouldn't be a good filter to use for a long OCI or to use for an engine clean-up episode because of the way it loses efficiency with loading.

Thank you for explaining this. That absolutely makes sense. I have never looked into the Royal Purple filter. I actually have a connection still with Royal Purple and can get their products at a significant discount directly from them.

 

[ZeeOSix]

So looking on Frams Website, the Tough Guard, Titanium, Ultra Synthetic, and the Endurance series all say 99% efficiency, and specifically say:

"FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency of TG8A, TG3387A and TG4967 or equivalent FRAM TG or XG models under ISO 4548-12 for particles greater than 20 microns."

So I'm guessing other than some fancy bells and whistles like the metal screen backing, and maybe the number of pleats or size of the filter or maybe rather the filters ability to hold more material, however they go about accomplishing that, really all those filters filter basically to the same level, correct?

Yes, the difference is mainly construction and the rated "up to xyz miles" use rating, which is a function of holding capacity.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Thank you for explaining this. That absolutely makes sense. I have never looked into the Royal Purple filter. I actually have a connection still with Royal Purple and can get their products at a significant discount directly from them.

If you can get Royal Purples for cheap it would be a decent way to go. The RP and Endurance basically have the same guts. Some have been cut open and shown here. Go to YT and search for the user Whip City Wrencher, then search his videos for Royal Purple and Endurance and you'll see.