Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Thanks. These are the results one would expect to see.
From what I can see, although I don't have all the information, so you can clarify here as necessary, it differs from what I'm exploring in two respects.
Firstly, the differences in filter ratings in the SAE test are significant vs me looking at Amsoil vs M1 with a view to switching from Fram Ultra to Toughguard.
Secondly, I'm talking about the time taken until the ISO ratings lead to better cleanliness code and how that differs between a high capacity full synthetic filter and a lower capacity cellulose blend filter. Did the bus study provide any particle counts at different mileages? Not suggesting that a hugely lower efficiency filter is going to better but that a similarly efficient filter may be better sooner if it has less capacity.
First of all, I do appreciate what you're trying to do here. If nothing else, it makes people think and it also focuses on the importance of how tests are ran and/or how data is collected to come to some kind of conclusion.
There are people on this board that will tear someone to pieces if there is one hole in the process. If you ever read that long thread about Rat's testing (using a "rig" he put together himself) on ranking the effectiveness of motor oils on engine wear, some people will believe the gist of his results, and some people will tear it to shreds ... even claiming that it's all invalid because of the number of significant figures he used in his testing and results.
Anyway, if you look at the Bus Study graph data I posted above, you can obviously see a noticeable difference in oil particle cleanliness when comparing a very efficient filter to a very inefficient filter. When you start comparing filters that are very close in efficiency to each other, then the difference in results will be somewhat in the "noise" level, and there probably won't be a very clear correlation, or even any correlation.
I think that's what you're doing with comparing various ISO cleanliness code results between different high efficiency filters that rate very close to each other and were all ran on different engines using different oil and ran under different driving conditions. When the control of those factors is super loose, then so are the correlations, or no correlation can be concluded at all. But it is interesting to discuss for sure.
I still always fall back on using ISO 4548-12 as my comparison standard to rating oil filter efficiency. From what I've seen (ie, Bus Study) if a filter tested more efficient in the lab then it's also most likely going to be the more efficient filter in real use if all other variables are held constant.
Thanks. These are the results one would expect to see.
From what I can see, although I don't have all the information, so you can clarify here as necessary, it differs from what I'm exploring in two respects.
Firstly, the differences in filter ratings in the SAE test are significant vs me looking at Amsoil vs M1 with a view to switching from Fram Ultra to Toughguard.
Secondly, I'm talking about the time taken until the ISO ratings lead to better cleanliness code and how that differs between a high capacity full synthetic filter and a lower capacity cellulose blend filter. Did the bus study provide any particle counts at different mileages? Not suggesting that a hugely lower efficiency filter is going to better but that a similarly efficient filter may be better sooner if it has less capacity.
First of all, I do appreciate what you're trying to do here. If nothing else, it makes people think and it also focuses on the importance of how tests are ran and/or how data is collected to come to some kind of conclusion.
There are people on this board that will tear someone to pieces if there is one hole in the process. If you ever read that long thread about Rat's testing (using a "rig" he put together himself) on ranking the effectiveness of motor oils on engine wear, some people will believe the gist of his results, and some people will tear it to shreds ... even claiming that it's all invalid because of the number of significant figures he used in his testing and results.
Anyway, if you look at the Bus Study graph data I posted above, you can obviously see a noticeable difference in oil particle cleanliness when comparing a very efficient filter to a very inefficient filter. When you start comparing filters that are very close in efficiency to each other, then the difference in results will be somewhat in the "noise" level, and there probably won't be a very clear correlation, or even any correlation.
I think that's what you're doing with comparing various ISO cleanliness code results between different high efficiency filters that rate very close to each other and were all ran on different engines using different oil and ran under different driving conditions. When the control of those factors is super loose, then so are the correlations, or no correlation can be concluded at all. But it is interesting to discuss for sure.
I still always fall back on using ISO 4548-12 as my comparison standard to rating oil filter efficiency. From what I've seen (ie, Bus Study) if a filter tested more efficient in the lab then it's also most likely going to be the more efficient filter in real use if all other variables are held constant.
