Filter changes between oil changes

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: gathermewool
Is there any correlation between particulate ejection and wear, prior to cycling through and being RE-captured by the media? Again, what is the practical detriment to running an automotive filter to 10k. I can’t think of any.


IMO, the more times a particle goes round-and-round through the engine the more potential wear there can be. So if a filter is continually shedding debris and 'recapturing' after a few passes then the total number of particles flowing through the engine will be higher over the OCI than if the filter retained more of the debris.

Also, I would not run a low efficiency filter very long because from what I've correlated is that a lower efficiency filter will shed more particles than a higher efficiency filter as the delta-p increases. This stems from the way the ISO efficiency is calculated which is the average efficiency of the filter from new to nearly fully loaded. If the ISO efficiency is high at a low micron rating (ie. say 99% @ 20 microns) then that means the media wasn't shedding much debris due to delta-p increasing over the test duration. In the graph posted in my previous post, the ISO efficiency would be calculate at 75% @ 20 microns, which is the average between beginning and end of test.

As far as the accelerated ISO test ... yeah, it doesn't represent 'real world loading', but it does show an apples to apples comparison between filters tested the same way. If you or anyone can show me that a filter that tests very badly in the ISO test is magically the best filter in 'real world use' then I'd like to see the data/proof. Accelerated efficiency testing in the lab correlated to the best filter also being the best filter in real world use in the "Bus Study". Based on what I've seen, the ISO efficiency test gives a good comparison on how filters will perform in real world use with respect to each other.

 

[CR94]

Originally Posted By: gathermewool
... Also, a filter reaching a fully loaded condition in 70 min means the circulate is very contaminated, which isn’t consistent with actual engine oil filters. Right?
That aspect doesn't seem terribly unrealistic, when you consider it's an accelerated test, meant to represent what would happen if the filter is exposed to the same quantity of the same sizes of particles distributed over a much longer period in real use. How many miles of reasonable use of an engine in good shape corresponds to those 70 minutes, who knows? A lot more than 10k, no doubt.

 

[gathermewool]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: gathermewool
Is there any correlation between particulate ejection and wear, prior to cycling through and being RE-captured by the media? Again, what is the practical detriment to running an automotive filter to 10k. I can’t think of any.


IMO, the more times a particle goes round-and-round through the engine the more potential wear there can be. So if a filter is continually shedding debris and 'recapturing' after a few passes then the total number of particles flowing through the engine will be higher over the OCI than if the filter retained more of the debris.

Also, I would not run a low efficiency filter very long because from what I've correlated is that a lower efficiency filter will shed more particles than a higher efficiency filter as the delta-p increases. This stems from the way the ISO efficiency is calculated which is the average efficiency of the filter from new to nearly fully loaded. If the ISO efficiency is high at a low micron rating (ie. say 99% @ 20 microns) then that means the media wasn't shedding much debris due to delta-p increasing over the test duration. In the graph posted in my previous post, the ISO efficiency would be calculate at 75% @ 20 microns, which is the average between beginning and end of test.

As far as the accelerated ISO test ... yeah, it doesn't represent 'real world loading', but it does show an apples to apples comparison between filters tested the same way. If you or anyone can show me that a filter that tests very badly in the ISO test is magically the best filter in 'real world use' then I'd like to see the data/proof. Accelerated efficiency testing in the lab correlated to the best filter also being the best filter in real world use in the "Bus Study". Based on what I've seen, the ISO efficiency test gives a good comparison on how filters will perform in real world use with respect to each other.


Thank you for the information. My posts are purely academic in nature, and not meant to be contradictory or combative. Of course, it makes sense that the more times a particle runs the gauntlet, the more likely it is to cause an interaction, be it wear, buildup on any surface which could eventually result in restricted flow, or penetration and capture into bearing surfaces, which could eventually affect the surface characteristics. This is fairly straight forward when discussing particles in any lubrication system, in theory.

I’m interested in the practical application of this knowledge. As you know, knowing which oil and filter are the best doesn’t help much, if we don’t know basic information about the system, such as filter dP (new vs fully loaded), actual loading over time, and its real-world efficiency over time; by time, I mean time and mileage. Compounding the problem, is that we don’t all drive at 2k-3k RPM. Maybe a filter can be safely fully loaded, with negligible affect on efficiency…EXCEPT during high-RPM (i.e., high flow, high dP) conditions, in which all of that might be thrown out the window.

Also, I wasn’t discounting in any way the validity of the standard, nor the results. I wasn’t clear, but I meant to compare apples to apples, in that I am after the practical benefit of a reduced OFI, for those who deem one necessary, using the same filter in both cases. I typically use a Fram Ultra Guard. I’m not sure that we can determine this, without having the above data I listed. An accelerated test, in which the filters are loaded within ~ 70 hrs, does not help us understand how long we can safely run a filter in any given vehicle. For all I know, it could be true that my FU filter is good for 20k miles, and that heat and other stresses on the structure are the limiting factor, not contaminate loading.

My argument is that, for a well-maintained engine, 10k OCI & OFI is pretty conservative, using the spec’d synthetic oil and something like a Fram Ultra filter. I might be so bold as to posit that ANY name-brand filter of any efficiency will likely do an adequate job, and that the vehicle will be scrapped for a number of other reasons, unrelated to lubrication.

Hopefully that’s a little clearer. I’m not a lubrication engineer, so it’s often tough for me to convey exactly what I mean to say/ask, as concisely as possible.

Originally Posted By: CR94
Originally Posted By: gathermewool
... Also, a filter reaching a fully loaded condition in 70 min means the circulate is very contaminated, which isn’t consistent with actual engine oil filters. Right?
That aspect doesn't seem terribly unrealistic, when you consider it's an accelerated test, meant to represent what would happen if the filter is exposed to the same quantity of the same sizes of particles distributed over a much longer period in real use. How many miles of reasonable use of an engine in good shape corresponds to those 70 minutes, who knows? A lot more than 10k, no doubt.


I agree with ZeeOSix, that the specified test makes for a great apples-to-apples test while comparing one filter to another. However, I’m not so sure that’s its truly indicative of real-world loading. I would imagine that every engine sheds particles of different sizes at different rates, and that this changes over engine life, and based on the previous and current lubrication and filtration regiment.

Does the variability of loading at different particle sizes over time match up with the specified test? In other words, does the test circulate similar grams of differently-sized particles at the same time until the filter is loaded or does it circulate groups of differently-sized particles in succession, repeating until the filter is loaded. I’d guess the former. How close does this mirror actual engine wear particle shedding? Does it matter? Academically, of course it matters; practically-speaking, I haven’t a clue.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I think the takeaway here is that a filter shouldn't be ran longer than what the designer rates it for, and that would be in an engine in good shape.

The misconception that oil filters always get more efficient as they load up is only true right as they totally clog and the bypass valve is about to open (ie, the "hockey stick" efficiency curve by Purolator/Mann+Hummel). That's not the time you want the filter on the engine.

As mentioned earlier, knowing how the ISO efficiency test calculates the ovetall efficiency number, a filter with a higher efficiency should not "shed" captured debris as much as a lower efficiency filter as the delta-p increases from loading and/or flow fluctuations.

As far as more efficient filters reducing engine wear, from what I've researched the data says they do help reduce wear, and also filters that test better for efficiency in the lab also do better in real world use to keep the oil cleaner. Do a Google search for 'bus study' using site:bobistheoilguy.com for detailed discussions.

 

[bbhero]

Great discussion Zee0six and Gathermewool.

Gathermewool I hope that you are doing good. Always good to see you on here.

 

[Serge]

Fram Ultra every other oil change. Oil change interval - 10,000 miles. Filter interval 20,000 miles.

 

[gathermewool]

Originally Posted By: bbhero
Great discussion Zee0six and Gathermewool.

Gathermewool I hope that you are doing good. Always good to see you on here.


Up and down, with a lot more down recently, unfortunately. I’m working on it, though.

Thanks for the concern, brother. This place helps me disconnect and redirect my thoughts. So, I guess I really need to thank everyone here, too, even the nuts! Lol

 

[camrydriver111]

Another vote for don't waste your time and money.

 

[Rat407]

Change the oil and filter at recommended interval of 10k miles and the engine last 400,000 miles

Change the oil and filter at 5k intervals and the engine last 500,000 miles.


I guess it depends on how long you plan on keeping the vehicle.

 

[Malo83]

Originally Posted By: Rat407


Change the oil and filter at 5k intervals and the engine last 500,000 miles.


I guess it depends on how long you plan on keeping the vehicle.

X2,

 

[Patman]

Originally Posted By: Rat407
Change the oil and filter at recommended interval of 10k miles and the engine last 400,000 miles

Change the oil and filter at 5k intervals and the engine last 500,000 miles.




And what proof do you have that any of that is actually true?

 

[JohnnyJohnson]

Originally Posted By: Patman
Originally Posted By: Rat407
Change the oil and filter at recommended interval of 10k miles and the engine last 400,000 miles

Change the oil and filter at 5k intervals and the engine last 500,000 miles.




And what proof do you have that any of that is actually true?


What proof do you have that it actually won't?

 

[Patman]

I really don't need to prove that it won't, he's giving a specific number and it sounds to me like he's just pulling it out of the top of his head without anything to back it up. In fact I don't think anyone can prove one way or another as to how long an engine will last with a 5k interval compared to a 10k interval. It could be vastly different from one engine to the next, from one driving style to the next, from one climate to the next. So I think it's misleading to tell people one way or the other.

It reminds me of a few years ago when I had to convince a lot of people that 3k intervals with synthetic oil were a waste of their money. These guys swore up and down that their engine would last twice as long changing the oil every 3k vs someone changing the oil every 6k. But if the oil is still in good shape at 6k, you're not going to get longer engine life with 3k intervals IN THAT APPLICATION.

 

[Triple_Se7en]

Originally Posted By: Patman
. But if the oil is still in good shape at 6k, you're not going to get longer engine life with 3k intervals IN THAT APPLICATION.


They will get longer life with 3K OCIs, if oil dilution exists between 3K and 6K.

 

[Patman]

The key factor to what I said though, was that "if the oil was still in good shape at 6k", meaning no fuel dilution. The people that I was referring to were owners of high performance GM V8s of the 1990s and 2000s, which didn't have direct injection and didn't have problems with fuel dilution.