Oil filter discussion

4WD

Messages
13,503
Location
Texas
Quote: "He then switched over the Mobil Clean 5000 and Purolator Classic, and ran another 135k miles" BiL did +400k on his GM 5.3L w/ that oil + the MO-something (probably that) filter that the Mobil 1 quick lube put in every 5k ... 4L60e and driver's seat were in worse shape than the engine when he got a new GMC ...
 
Messages
300
Location
So Cal
So keeping aside how efficient the media is, most are good enough. The next question is how durable the filter is, the bypass setting and the ADBV if the filter can drain when engine off. Still the unknown thinking that I am not as smart as the engineers that designed the engine. We think we can do better, so we get the biggest filter we can find that will fit, cause bigger is better or more efficient media or 20,000 mile filter exc... OEM and aftermarket has two points of view and markets to each customer. That ADBV... The primary reason for it is to keep the oil in the filter can only on filters that are not dome down and not to back flush the filter media.
 
Last edited:
Messages
24,510
Location
PNW
Originally Posted by dnewton3
In the chart, they're comparing a filter that's 99% at 40um to one that is 99% at 20um. I don't know that any filter we'd commonly see is only 99% at 40um.
There are quite a few filters in the 99% @ 40u or 50% @ 20u filtering level. WIX XP, Purolator Boss, most Purolator cartridge filters, many OEMs, etc. Who knows what some of the off brand filters do as there is never any good efficiency data published.
Originally Posted by dnewton3
As you and I have consistently danced around, the fact that most "normal" filters are more than good enough to make stuff last a long, long time.
I'm not looking at "good enough" (very open and broad term) ... I'm looking at the relationship between a filter's efficiecy and how clean it keeps the oil, which is the job of the oil filter. If particle count data shows Filter A keeps the oil 10 times cleaner than Filter B then I'm going to use Filter A.
Originally Posted by dnewton3
REAL WORLD DATA shows that filter choices for normal applications are pretty much moot, as discussed before, because once the oil is "clean enough", making it "more super clean" does not return any substantial improvement. "Clean" is a relative state of mind. Doctors scrub their hands furiously with highly aggressive soaps before surgery. But that's not needed to simply make a sandwich at the kitchen counter. Your engine does not need super-duper ultra fine clinically clean purified lube to make an engine last a long time. Once it's "clean enough", that effect no longer is the predominant factor.
If I think the oil needs to be as clean as I can make it then it does. My vehicle, my money, my viewpoint, my decision. If someone doesn't want to use a higher filtering oil filter, then great ... go for it, it's their prerogative.
Originally Posted by dnewton3
The phrase "cleaner oil" means zilch because there is no study that shows how clean oil needs to be RELATIVE TO the predicted longevity of the equipment. You constantly state that "cleaner oil is better". But that has no context because you've shown no evidence of how clean an oil needs to be to deliver some predefined level of life-cycle expectation.
It doesn't matter ... fact is cleaner oil will always be better than dirtier oil. Every machine lubrication article written will say cleaner oil reduces wear (pretty obvious logic). That's all I care about. Nobody has done any extensive long term "engine health vs mileage" tests to compare now the engine's health will be if using say 50% @ 20u vs 99% @ 20u oil filters for 250.000 miles while keeping everything else constant. As I've said many times, engines can be pretty worn out (even beyond factor wear specs) and still seem to "run fine" while behind the wheel. But if that same engine was a bit less worn out it might even seem to run a bit better. It might use less oil, have more compression and get a better gas mileage vs one a bit more worn out because of running dirtier oil in it for 250,000 miles.
Originally Posted by dnewton3
The question should not be "how clean can I make the oil?" The question should be "how clean does the oil have to be before it's cleanliness exhibits a diminishing effect of ROI?"
I don't care about "ROI" when a whole delta of $3 per year is involved. Bottom line viewpoint is that cleaner oil is better than dirtier oil, and if it takes $3 more a year to ensure that, then it's going to be done that way ... it's a no-brainer.
Originally Posted by dnewton3
I have a LOT of real world data from normal OFCIs that clearly shows wear rates are NOT affected by typical filter choices. Filter choices are a nuance that sub-exist inside of normal wear trends, and they do not produce a statistically viable means to prove themselves of consequence in those normal applications.
What you need to be tracking is IOS particle count data vs engine wear with a very sensitive test method beyond a Blackstone type test.
 
Messages
24,510
Location
PNW
Originally Posted by dnewton3
Here is an example of what I'm talking about from my UOA files. This is the example used in my UOA basis study for "normalcy". The owner ran 5k mile OFCIs. He started out using Mobil 1 and PureOne filters, because by gosh they were the "best". He did that for the first 140k miles of the UOA cycles. He then switched over the Mobil Clean 5000 and Purolator Classic, and ran another 135k miles. https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis-how-to-decide-what-is-normal/ The chart below is the synopsis of the data from the "micro" study in my UOA article. As you can see from the data, there is ZERO ability to distinguish the two sets of data from one another. There is far, far more overlap in "normal" wear than there is able to be assigned to the filter. In fact, the deck was stacked because it was not only the premium filter, but also the premium PAO lube. And yet those two products together could not alter the "normal" wear of a 5k mile OFCI. [Linked Image]
You're comparing a 99% @ 20u (PureOne) vs a 97.5% @ 20u (Classic) filter. Of course you're not going to see much difference and the data will seem to be in the "noise level".
Originally Posted by dnewton3
This is one of my better examples, because it's statistically viable from a single source; it's micro data.
It's not a good example because those two filters are nearly identical in efficiency. You need data comparing a 99% @ 20u filter to a 50% @ 20u filter, or a 99% @ 20u vs 99% @ 40u like in the PC graph I posted. Plus the same oil needs to be used so multi variables aren't being changed.
Originally Posted by dnewton3
I fully realize that superior filters make oil cleaner. What you all seem to keep ignoring is that once oil is clean enough, making it cleaner does not get you any return on the investment. Engines don't need uber-clean oil to last well over 250k miles.
Doesn't matter ... I'm not in to "ROI" when $3 is at stake to ensure the oil is cleaner than not. I'm in to cleaner oil for a small price difference.
Originally Posted by dnewton3
Is cleaner oil harmful? No. Unless you count all the money you spend not getting anything back in return. Is cleaner oil helpful? Only to a point, and then it's moot.
For me the bottom line remains ... cleaner oil is better than dirtier oil, regardless if I see a "difference" or not. Keeping the oil cleaner than not is my goal (without going with bypass filtering), so I use high efficiency oil filters since they are available for a small increase in cost. As I've said may times, any filter that is 95% @ 20u or better is a go for me. 50% @ 20u or 99% @ 40u ... not so much.
 
Messages
24,510
Location
PNW
Originally Posted by Farnsworth
Opposing views are not fine on this site. There are those who control. Even Websters sees the influence on focus groups of certain personalities. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/opinionated So it is no longer a discussion but a rally.
Everyone has an opinion on a chat board ... and everyone also has the choice of believing or not believing someone's opinion and the supporting information. It's usually pretty easy to separate the wheat from the chaff. Some opinions are right and some are wrong, and that's why people have debates and discussions with supporting material. Nobody is forcing anyone to read or believe what they post.
 
Messages
1,241
Location
Glenshaw, PA
Thread starter
Well, now the juices are flowing... Dnewton3 - Thank you sir for your thorough explanations of the minute differences on the filters. You make a very good point that all things being what they are in the real world use of oils and filters, let the buyer spend what they deem "necessary" for the protection level that they desire.. ZeeOSix - Your opinion is how I felt before my disposable income became almost non-existent for this wonderful hobby of ours. I used to always seek out the best of the best in everything, from the filter to the oil. I use to use Amsoil and Royal Purple filters exclusively, with the Purolator BOSS and Fram Ultraguards tossed in for good measure. Right now, I have on a Baldwin B7243 with, um... Valvoline VR1 Synthetic 10w-30 in my crankcase. This is a happy medium for me at this time, as my most expensive oil change was on our Honda CR-V (RIP), when I had on an Amsoil filter and was using Maxima Ultra 5w30 (when it existed), and somewhere in the archives of the VOA's section, I have the composition of that oil listed. This stuff was WAY overkill for that engine, but it gave me piece of mind that I was doing the most for my engine. This board has continued to formulate new and different opinions on what I will use...and for that, and discussions like this one that I started, I will always appreciate. To that I say thank you...and of course, keep those opinions and those of expertise coming!!! smile
 

dnewton3

Staff member
Messages
8,459
Location
Indianapolis, IN
OK - more data for non-believers .... Toyota 3.4L v-6 Looking at them with Premium filters typically 95% or better (Ultra, TG, Boss, PureOne, etc) versus Toyota brand normal filters at 60% or so (very loose) filters. Compare/Contrast wear rates at 100k miles and 200k miles. Theory is that "better" filters would make engines last longer; that should be reflected in the wear rates being lower from UOAs correlated to premium filters. And yet reality says .... Nah - ain't true ... Wear rates were SLIGHTLY lower with the premium filter at 100k miles exposure, but at 200k miles, the disparity all but vanished. Maybe it just takes longer for engines to burnish in with premium filters in use? Regardless, the disparity is TINY and not consistently "better" from metal to metal. Look at the stdev; there is huge overlap. DAILY USE FACTORS AND TYPICAL NUANCES OF EACH INDIVIDUAL ENGINE HAVE FAR MORE AFFECT ON WEAR THAN DOES A MODERATE FILTER EFFICIENCY CHOICE. The data shows that filtration is not having a substantial effect. The conclusion I draw is that once oil is clean enough, making it cleaner does not substantially increase the longevity of the equipment. I cannot tell you what level of clean is necessary; I can only say whatever that value is, Toyota seems to have figured it out because tighter filtration is not making a tangible improvement in wear rates over the LONG term. As I have said before, it is more likely that the add-pack (controlling soot) and the TCB (controlling asperitive contact) in short-to-moderate OCIs that makes all the difference. If we wanted to know how important the filter is to the overall system in terms of engine wear, we'd need a control group with NO filter, to see the effect as a singular variable holding other inputs the same. To date, I've not seen any study ever attempted in that regard. All the SAE studies to date have either been run in grossly exaggerated conditions that completely ignore the topic of OCI, or they were run with really outdated equipment and lubes. None of these have any bearing on today's engines and lubes. If you are going to run really long OCIs, where contaminant loading might well usurp the host lube's capabilities if unassisted, then BP filters and premium filters would be paramount to success. But if you're running "normal" OCIs (typically set by the OEM) and using a decent fortified lube, the filter efficiency just isn't important past a certain point; clean enough is good enough. And "better" does not reveal itself in reality. The reality today is that engines are designed, made and operated well enough that lube filters matter, but only to a certain point. In fact, it's been that way for well more than a decade now. Some engines just continue to soldier on simply because they are well designed and are almost immune to wear, and the reality of catastrophic events are more likely to take them out of service than a wear-induced death. Ford 4.6L mod motors. Toyota 3.4L engines. GM 3.8L v-6. Etc ... some of these run seemingly forever and never get anything but routine oil/filter changes with jobber type products. How many CrownVics are out there still today with 300k, 400k, 500k miles on them running in taxi service? Do you think they are getting Mobil 1 and Fram Ultra filters???? My son's 4.6L Grand Marquis was running great at 126k miles, until a jerk fleeing police crashed into him and totaled it. My wife's 2005 Grand Marquis was running superb at 255k miles until it also was struck and "totaled" (we bought it back for my son). The UOAs from my 4.6L fleet (3 Grand Marquis) show that normal oils and filter are likely to make the engine outlast the car either from crashes, rust degradation, etc. Anyone who wants to buy the "best" is welcome to do so; spend your money in a manner you see fit. Here's the Toyota 3.4L filter data .... As you can see, premium filters really don't alter wear much and the longer the engine wears, the less effect there is. Maybe it just takes 150k miles to "break in" a 3.4L Toyota grin2 .

Toy 3.4L filters.JPG
 
Last edited:
Messages
8,435
Location
Virginia
^^^^^^^^ Interesting line of thinking. I'd bet the Toyota and Nissan OEM manufactured air filters are quite high filtration air filters. Like 99.5+% per ISO 5011. I bet Toyota and Nissan place a higher premium on air filter efficiency then the oil filter efficiency.
 
Messages
24,510
Location
PNW
Originally Posted by dnewton3
Looking at them with Premium filters typically 95% or better (Ultra, TG, Boss, PureOne, etc) versus Toyota brand normal filters at 60% or so (very loose) filters.
FYI ... the Boss is not 95% or better at 20u. It's 99% @ 40u. What were the "premium filters" and their efficiency used in your data?
Originally Posted by dnewton3
Anyone who wants to buy the "best" is welcome to do so; spend your money in a manner you see fit.
Exactly ... I'll continue to use 95% @ 20u or better oil filters for the previous reasons Ive mentioned ... cheers Real world particle count data shows oil stays cleaner with more efficient oil filters, so that's all I need to know - regardless if I can tell a difference in engine wear from behind the wheel or not. Saying there is no difference in the total engine wear at 250,000+ miles is a nebulous conclusion based on it "still runs good". There was a test report done by the SwRI on testing 0W-16 vs 5W-30 oil (with the same additive package) in the same engine under various controlled test conditions, and they clearly proved that more overall engine wear resulted from using the 0W-16 ... yet many people in the PCMO forum swear that can't be true because the "junkyards are not full" of blown up engines using 0W-16. In order to conclude oil filters and motor oil result in less engine wear you need some pretty sophisticated and controlled test methods. Will it make a difference to most ... probably not, but from my viewpoint if I think/know it will result in less wear, and it's not much more cost to use better products then I'm going to do it. I'm still waiting for that SAE paper or similar official study that shows there is no wear benefit to keeping oil cleaner than not. grin2
 
Messages
1,241
Location
Glenshaw, PA
Thread starter
Briefly looking at that thread...interesting concept, but as he stated, 10 years old now, and filters have changed a bit, which was the whole point of starting this thread. I can't say much to time frames of posting...I haven't been posting on here until recently either grin2
 
Messages
24,510
Location
PNW
Originally Posted by Dad2leia
Briefly looking at that thread...interesting concept, but as he stated, 10 years old now, and filters have changed a bit, which was the whole point of starting this thread. I can't say much to time frames of posting...I haven't been posting on here until recently either grin2
Well, what's not changed since oil filters were first made, is that higher filter efficiency means cleaner oil as seen in particle count data.
 
Messages
1,241
Location
Glenshaw, PA
Thread starter
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Dad2leia
Briefly looking at that thread...interesting concept, but as he stated, 10 years old now, and filters have changed a bit, which was the whole point of starting this thread. I can't say much to time frames of posting...I haven't been posting on here until recently either grin2
Well, what's not changed since oil filters were first made, is that higher filter efficiency means cleaner oil as seen in particle count data.
Agreed...but the whole reason I started this thread was to find out about the happy medium. I too can appreciate wanting the cleanest possible oil circulating around my pistons, but for someone that really doesn't rack up the mileage anymore, wants very good (not spared no expense) protection and filtration, is why I was asking about the particular filters that I mentioned. After countless times of reading, cross referencing, and viewing videos (good joking fodder there..), for me, I no longer can justify spending top dollar on everything car anymore, particularly when the more research you do, the more you find out that, just like most everything else, price goes up exponentially for every tenth of a percent of additional protection you get. I know...more flaming to come...
 
Messages
300
Location
So Cal
Biggest benefit to a car is oil change. I am getting a new Miata and going to get a oil drain valve. And as another site said I was anal when I suggested this was to buy a jug of Supertech Synthetic. While the oil drains out and new filter goes on I will stick the Supertech in and start and idle it till warmed up, then drain the Supertech back in the jug with the drain valve and fill with my regular Mazda recommended oil. Save the Supertech oil for next oil change. All done while up on the jack stands. As far as filters go I think there is more to a filter than just efficiency. (although that is a good thing) While under warranty I will use the Mazda OEM filters.
 
Last edited:
Messages
24,510
Location
PNW
Originally Posted by Dad2leia
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Dad2leia
Briefly looking at that thread...interesting concept, but as he stated, 10 years old now, and filters have changed a bit, which was the whole point of starting this thread. I can't say much to time frames of posting...I haven't been posting on here until recently either grin2
Well, what's not changed since oil filters were first made, is that higher filter efficiency means cleaner oil as seen in particle count data.
Agreed...but the whole reason I started this thread was to find out about the happy medium. I too can appreciate wanting the cleanest possible oil circulating around my pistons, but for someone that really doesn't rack up the mileage anymore, wants very good (not spared no expense) protection and filtration, is why I was asking about the particular filters that I mentioned. After countless times of reading, cross referencing, and viewing videos (good joking fodder there..), for me, I no longer can justify spending top dollar on everything car anymore, particularly when the more research you do, the more you find out that, just like most everything else, price goes up exponentially for every tenth of a percent of additional protection you get. I know...more flaming to come...
If you want a "happy medium", then buy a brand name filter that is 95% @ 20u or better. Lots of filters fit that bill. If you're not driving a lot, you could also buy a high efficiency full synthetic filter and leave it on for 2 or 3 oil changes if you only say put 1000~2000 miles a year on the vehicle. Some guys here have done that too. If you bought a $10 filter and used it for 3 OCIs then it's only costing you $3.33 per OCI. It all comes down to do you want to save a few bucks a year or do you want very good filtration?
 
Top