Latest BR Video Comparing 3 OEM Oil Filters & Bosch

[ZeeOSix]

I personally feel particle size and for the quantity of them in the oil is not as concerning as you would think. Most will be under suspension anyway

Particles in suspension doesn't remove particles from the oil and keep them from circulating through the engine. Only an oil filter can do that. There are lots of particles in the oil, just look at how many per mL in some of the UOAs posted on this chat board in the UOA forum. Multiply those numbers by the total amount of oil volume in the sump.

 

[kschachn]

Particles in suspension doesn't remove particles from the oil and keep them from circulating through the engine. Only an oil filter can do that. There are lots of particles in the oil, just look at how many per mL in some of the UOAs posted on this chat board in the UOA forum. Multiply those numbers by the total amount of oil volume in the sump.

Yeah the ones in suspension are the one causing wear. If they are sitting on the bottom of the pan or are trapped in the filter then they are by definition out of circulation.

Another attempt to substitute feelings and imagination for facts.

 

[JHZR2]

Yeah the ones in suspension are the one causing wear. If they are sitting on the bottom of the pan or are trapped in the filter then they are by definition out of circulation.

Another attempt to substitute feelings and imagination for facts.

The ones above a certain size. So what are the facts for which cause wear and which ride the hydrodynamic wedge?

 

[dnewton3]

I think the only rebuttal to this is that the modern manufacturing (not necessarily “clearances” but rather asperities, surface finish, etc. allows for thinner oils and less of a hydrodynamic wedge in moving parts, without excess wear. The downside to those conditions is that smaller particles can do more damage easier. This drives the criticality of filtration up, at least to the point that the particles can’t cause damage. Granted it seems that the low efficiency filters do good enough.

I think the discriminator here is what super fine. And do the relatively lower performance characteristics of the oe filters really matter?

Fair criticism ...

For clarification:
- If I had a choice between two filters (rated at 20um), one at 50% and one at 90%, most certainly I'd take the higher rating.
- If I had a choice between two filters (rated at 20um); one at 99% but questionable construction, but the other at 95% and excellent construction, I'd be more than willing to give up a 4% nominal shift in efficiency for the assurance of a better built filter. That small change in efficiency won't manifest into any wear traits we'd seen in a UOA, nor would it make any substantial, meaningful difference in the longevity of the engine.

This is my point about filtration ... once it's "good enough", making it "better" doesn't really give you a good ROI. I've seen evidence of people putting very high-end FF filters on their cars, then also adding a BP filter kit, and yet still changing their oils at 5k miles. There's no way in Hades that kind of over-zealous filtration commitment would return the investment. Especially given that for many folks, either rust or accidents will take a vehicle out of service long before the engine would wear out.

Because there are (literally) tens of thousand of Toyotas running around with multiples of hundreds of thousands of miles on them, and yet they run OE oils and filters (which Toyota oils and lubes are certainly nothing to get excited about), we can reasonably conclude from the massive amount of anecdotal evidence that super-duper filtration isn't necessary. Any "normal" filter which can do 80% or better at 20um will most certainly do a job "good enough" that the engine would be just fine for a long, long lifespan.

 

[kschachn]

The ones above a certain size. So what are the facts for which cause wear and which ride the hydrodynamic wedge?

The studies shown on here have been quite small particles. Much smaller than I thought. Somewhere is the data in some post. 10-20 microns (and up) if I recall correctly.

 

[ZeeOSix]

The ones above a certain size. So what are the facts for which cause wear and which ride the hydrodynamic wedge?

It's actually the particles below a certain size ... mostly those below 20u (approx 0.0001 inch). If the particle is too large to get into the MOFT, then it can't do harm like particles that can get into the MOFT. The MOFT can vary quite a bit depending on the components in an engine and the running conditions (like engine RPM and oil viscosity which effects the MOFT). The MOFT between journal bearings and rings can be very small for instance. If you do some research on engine wear vs particle size you'll find the info. Cummings did a pretty good study on it. The reason bypass filtration makes engines last much longer is because they are really effective at removing particles below 20u.

 

[camrydriver111]

They didn't use ISO methodology so Toyota might actually be a 95% efficiency filter.

This video is falsehoods.

 

[kschachn]

It's actually the particles below a certain size ... mostly those below 20u (approx 0.0001 inch). If the particle is too large to get into the MOFT, then it can't do harm like particles that can get into the MOFT. The MOFT can vary quite a bit depending on the components in an engine and the running conditions (like engine RPM and oil viscosity which effects the MOFT). The MOFT between journal bearings and rings can be very small for instance. If you do some research on engine wear vs particle size you'll find the info. Cummings did a pretty good study on it. The reason bypass filtration makes engines last much longer is because they are really effective at removing particles below 20u.

Yes bypass filtration is a good example.

 

[ZeeOSix]

They didn't use ISO methodology so Toyota might actually be a 95% efficiency filter.

This video is falsehoods.

In case you haven't ever seen this. I highly doubt the Toyota filters are any better now then they were when ISO 4548-12 tested. BTW, 50% @ 20u is going to be on the same efficiency vs particle size curve as the 99% @ 45u efficiency point.

 

[4WD]

In case you haven't ever seen this. I highly doubt the Toyota filters are any better now then they were when ISO 4548-12 tested.

View attachment 203616

Why post data that old - they are not on any shelf now, right ?

 

[RazorsEdge]

In case you haven't ever seen this. I highly doubt the Toyota filters are any better now then they were when ISO 4548-12 tested. BTW, 50% @ 20u is going to be on the same efficiency vs particle size curve as the 99% @ 45u efficiency point.

View attachment 203616

2011? Seriously

 

[ZeeOSix]

Why post data that old - they are not on any shelf now, right ?

Because there is no other data unless someone else has better, which I doubt. And like I said I doubt their efficiency has changed. Guess you could find out for around a $5K ISO test. And good luck trying to get Toyota or Denso to tell you that actual ISO efficiency.

 

[ZeeOSix]

2011? Seriously

You got better data? ... or $5K to burn on an ISO test, lol.

 

[4WD]

Because there is no other data unless someone else has better, which I doubt. And like I said I doubt their efficiency has changed. Guess you could find out for around a $5K ISO test. And good luck trying to get Toyota or Denso to tell you that actual ISO efficiency.

Yeah - I just don’t buy them - the Fram XG is still a decently made filter for our Lexus …

 

[ZeeOSix]

Yeah - I just don’t buy them - the Fram XG is still a decently made filter for our Lexus …

I used Toyota filters on my Tacoma for the first 5 or so oil changes , but then went to the PureOne before the tearing spree happened. Then went to OG Ultra when the Purolators were tearing like wild fire.

 

[4WD]

I used Toyota filters on my Tacoma for the first 5 or so oil changes , but then went to the PureOne before the tearing spree happened. Then went to OG Ultra when the Purolators were tearing like wild fire.

Yep - I cut a pile of them new - media came from Xerox …

 

[ZeeOSix]

BTW - If you trust the ranking results of the latest BR video, then the PC of the Toyota filter shows its efficiency is really lacking, just like that 2011 ISO test result data. The Motorcraft in the BR video did much better than the Toyota filter, just like it also did in the ISO testing. At least the ranking (which is all you can get out of BR videos) correlates with that old ISO test data. The AC Delco might be reflective of the PF48 in the ISO test, so all three ranked in the same order (AC Delco > Motorcraft > Toyota) . So this again shows that the Toyota filters probably have not improved in efficiency since the 2011 ISO data.

 

[Sayjac]

BTW - If you trust the ranking results of the latest BR video, then the PC of the Toyota filter shows its efficiency is really lacking, just like that 2011 ISO test result data. The Motorcraft in the BR video did much better than the Toyota filter, just like it also did in the ISO testing. At least the ranking (which is all you can get out of BR videos) correlates with that old ISO test data. The AC Delco might be reflective of the PF48 in the ISO test, so all three ranked in the same order (AC Delco > Motorcraft > Toyota) . So this again shows that the Toyota filters probably have not improved in efficiency since the 2011 ISO data...

Agreed. I criticized BR on his vid for not knowing about the bypass on the ACDelco. But, went on to say his rig particle test results on the Toyota OEM align with the Amsoil sponsored industry standard ISO test done and oft posted here. I'd add, ~12 years ago I spoke with a Fram engineer (first name Gary) about the Fram made Honda A02. While he didn't give a number, he said that the A02 efficiency significantly lower than equivalent 7317 Fram label filters. Years later, the Fram rep that used to frequent this sub forum, confirmed that information. That information also aligns with Amsoil industry standard ISO test of the A02. I too have no reason to believe anything has changed on efficiency results.

 

[Bellavita]

And yet many Toyota engines are known to last hundreds of thousands of miles. While not the only brand able to do so, they are certainly renowned for their longevity even with dealer or quick-lube service oils and filters.

I do 100% agree that having good filtration is important. But what I have said for years is that filtration is subject to the law of diminishing returns. Engines made with modern designs which run very clean, and which are made with modern manufacturing quality processes, don't need clinically clean oils; they don't need the ultra-super-duper "best" filter ever made by man.

Further, sump cleanliness is also a function of the OCI duration. Because most engines run very clean today (we see UOAs with low soot and insoluble counts as evidence of their clean combustion process), there's just not a lot of debris in large sizes and large quantities that result in high wear.

Most certainly, if you run an engine that is known to run dirty (poor combustion process) or you're going to run a really long OCI (well past 10k miles), then you'll want a higher quality filter.

But we cannot ignore the massive amount of anecdotal data (literally hundreds of thousands of vehicle examples) of Toyotas that run OE filters and lubes, and yet have very long-lived engines. The logical conclusion is that super-fine lube filtration is subject to the law of diminishing returns; the more you spend, the less it matters.

The key to understanding my comment is that there is a difference between how well a filter can clean the oil, versus how efficient does the engine really need the filter to be? Engine wear is a function of many things:
- lube filter efficiency and capacity
- OCI duration
- TCB
- Oil base and add pack
- air filtration efficiency and capacity
- starting and driving cycles
- etc
The lube filter only represents one of these important criteria. Significant improvements in filtration are not often rewarded with tangible improvements in engine wear. Once the filter is "good enough", making it "better" doesn't really pay off in a modern engine under "normal" OCIs.

A good well built filter of good efficiency is very important. But past that point, it doesn't matter much; you don't get much if any ROI.

Given the examples of poor quality we've seen recently (in many brands and models of filters), I care FAR more about quality of build than I do the efficiency. Unfortunately, it seems to be a crapshoot these days.

Good Morning dnewton3,
I really appreciated your clear, well written reply, especially the listing of the variables impacting engine wear that gave great perspective. Thank you.

 

[fantastic]

Agreed. I criticized BR on his vid for not knowing about the bypass on the ACDelco. But, went on to say his rig particle test results on the Toyota OEM align with the Amsoil sponsored industry standard ISO test done and oft posted here. I'd add, ~12 years ago I spoke with a Fram engineer (first name Gary) about the Fram made Honda A02. While he didn't give a number, he said that the A02 efficiency significantly lower than equivalent 7317 Fram label filters. Years later, the Fram rep that used to frequent this sub forum, confirmed that information. That information also aligns with Amsoil industry standard ISO test of the A02. I too have no reason to believe anything has changed on efficiency results.

Great info.