Don't misunderstand me, I like the EAO filter line but to justify the expense it's got to be run at least 10-15K miles for me.
Why fret over high-end filters anyway?
- Thread starter Mokanic
- Start date
- Status
I can think of a few reasons:
1. A high end, high efficiency filter traps more particles, especially small ones, faster. Net result is insolubles and other gunk spends less time circulating before getting trapped by the filter. This is a good thing in and of itself.
2. A higher end filter allows more flexibility in your OCI. There's a built in confidence factor that means regardless of what you had in mind initially, you can push the OCI longer and not have to second guess whether the filter will make it.
3. Tying into the above, you can opt to just change the oil and leave the filter. I know this is blasphemy to suggest doing an OC and not putting on a new filter at the same time, but at one time so was anything longer than a 3mo/3k OCI. Newer data suggests that, to a point, filter efficiency increases over time; meanwhile, oil life continues in a (non-linear) downward trend as tbn depletes and the additive package gets worn. The oil life may be gone, while the filter is only just broke in.
The new thinking is that you don't have to match one to the other and change them at the same time. They are two independent variables in the same equation and its perfectly fine to assign different values to each as long as the math adds up.
So yes, tossing a M1 filter after 5k is a waste. But you don't have to throw out the bath tub with the bath water, or replace the filter just because you elect to use an oil and run it for 5k.
My M1 filter was put on part way through my previous OC, so its still in use and doing its job on this second oil change. If there's still lots of life in it, it'll see a 3rd cycle of oil through it, and if it does, it'll be changed part way through that OCI - to another M1 EP filter.
This is backed up by findings from the Neptune study on the effects of OCI intervals, top up oil on OCIs, and the effect of changing just the filter during an OCI; and other studies showing that - to a point - filter efficiency increases over time.
-Spyder
1. A high end, high efficiency filter traps more particles, especially small ones, faster. Net result is insolubles and other gunk spends less time circulating before getting trapped by the filter. This is a good thing in and of itself.
2. A higher end filter allows more flexibility in your OCI. There's a built in confidence factor that means regardless of what you had in mind initially, you can push the OCI longer and not have to second guess whether the filter will make it.
3. Tying into the above, you can opt to just change the oil and leave the filter. I know this is blasphemy to suggest doing an OC and not putting on a new filter at the same time, but at one time so was anything longer than a 3mo/3k OCI. Newer data suggests that, to a point, filter efficiency increases over time; meanwhile, oil life continues in a (non-linear) downward trend as tbn depletes and the additive package gets worn. The oil life may be gone, while the filter is only just broke in.
The new thinking is that you don't have to match one to the other and change them at the same time. They are two independent variables in the same equation and its perfectly fine to assign different values to each as long as the math adds up.
So yes, tossing a M1 filter after 5k is a waste. But you don't have to throw out the bath tub with the bath water, or replace the filter just because you elect to use an oil and run it for 5k.
My M1 filter was put on part way through my previous OC, so its still in use and doing its job on this second oil change. If there's still lots of life in it, it'll see a 3rd cycle of oil through it, and if it does, it'll be changed part way through that OCI - to another M1 EP filter.
This is backed up by findings from the Neptune study on the effects of OCI intervals, top up oil on OCIs, and the effect of changing just the filter during an OCI; and other studies showing that - to a point - filter efficiency increases over time.
-Spyder
Originally Posted By: spasm3
Originally Posted By: Mokanic
Originally Posted By: spasm3
I think you would be better to run a better filter and a cheap oil that a cheap filter and good to premium oil. Filter quality has a lot to do with what will pass over your bearings, bearings are soft!!
There is evidence that suggests the efficiency of the high-end filters is no better than the low-cost cellulose filters in short intervals. In other words,to see the benifits of the full-synthetic fiber filter you have to run it longer. It's kinda like bringing a .330WSM to a squirrel hunt. to run one 5k.
Are we talking micron capturing ability of the filter or capacity? length of oci has less to do with the particle size the filter can prevent from sending to the bearings. In other words it does not matter how short your oci is if bigger particles get through the filter to begin with.
I agree with these statements, and ask myself these questions. Why would I want to allow bigger stuff through the filter for the benefit of using an extended drain filter for a longer OCI? Then wait until the extended drain filter starts to catch dirt for it to become more efficient? I realize all filters become more efficient as they trap dirt, but from what I've read here, extended drain filters allow more junk to pass through as they start to load up.
In my case better filtration is what I'm after not how long I can run a filter. I'll take the filter that traps smaller stuff and change it more often. There are some cases popping up of ruined engines using extended drain filters, [high end as some call them]. It is now realized that certain concessions have to be made with certain extended drain filters in ceratain applications. I'd rather not find out after the fact that the extended drain filter wasn't up to the task. JMO
Originally Posted By: Mokanic
Originally Posted By: spasm3
I think you would be better to run a better filter and a cheap oil that a cheap filter and good to premium oil. Filter quality has a lot to do with what will pass over your bearings, bearings are soft!!
There is evidence that suggests the efficiency of the high-end filters is no better than the low-cost cellulose filters in short intervals. In other words,to see the benifits of the full-synthetic fiber filter you have to run it longer. It's kinda like bringing a .330WSM to a squirrel hunt. to run one 5k.
Are we talking micron capturing ability of the filter or capacity? length of oci has less to do with the particle size the filter can prevent from sending to the bearings. In other words it does not matter how short your oci is if bigger particles get through the filter to begin with.
I agree with these statements, and ask myself these questions. Why would I want to allow bigger stuff through the filter for the benefit of using an extended drain filter for a longer OCI? Then wait until the extended drain filter starts to catch dirt for it to become more efficient? I realize all filters become more efficient as they trap dirt, but from what I've read here, extended drain filters allow more junk to pass through as they start to load up.
In my case better filtration is what I'm after not how long I can run a filter. I'll take the filter that traps smaller stuff and change it more often. There are some cases popping up of ruined engines using extended drain filters, [high end as some call them]. It is now realized that certain concessions have to be made with certain extended drain filters in ceratain applications. I'd rather not find out after the fact that the extended drain filter wasn't up to the task. JMO
Quote:
Don't misunderstand me, I like the EAO filter line but to justify the expense it's got to be run at least 10-15K miles for me.
A more reasonable statement than the original post. Yes, to get your money's worth from high end extended OCI filters, you need to get miles. I'd think to get it from the Amsoil one would need to get closer to 20-25k in one year. The others on your list with the exception of the Napa Gold would be closer to 12-15k in one year. The Napa Gold I wouldn't put in that category. So yes, to get max benefit from high end extended oci filters, one needs to get miles.
That's why I've been happy with the P1 and Classic for the OCI's I run. And, I'd include the Napa Gold in the shorter OCI category.
As for the Havoline from Fred's, (last time I checked made by Puro), likely ok for 3k oci. That said, I'd spend an extra $.50 and go with a Classic and an easy 5k oci. With current rebate < $3.00.
Don't misunderstand me, I like the EAO filter line but to justify the expense it's got to be run at least 10-15K miles for me.
A more reasonable statement than the original post. Yes, to get your money's worth from high end extended OCI filters, you need to get miles. I'd think to get it from the Amsoil one would need to get closer to 20-25k in one year. The others on your list with the exception of the Napa Gold would be closer to 12-15k in one year. The Napa Gold I wouldn't put in that category. So yes, to get max benefit from high end extended oci filters, one needs to get miles.
That's why I've been happy with the P1 and Classic for the OCI's I run. And, I'd include the Napa Gold in the shorter OCI category.
As for the Havoline from Fred's, (last time I checked made by Puro), likely ok for 3k oci. That said, I'd spend an extra $.50 and go with a Classic and an easy 5k oci. With current rebate < $3.00.
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Quote:
Don't misunderstand me, I like the EAO filter line but to justify the expense it's got to be run at least 10-15K miles for me.
A more reasonable statement than the original post. Yes, to get your money's worth from high end extended OCI filters, you need to get miles. I'd think to get it from the Amsoil one would need to get closer to 20-25k in one year. The others on your list with the exception of the Napa Gold would be closer to 12-15k in one year. The Napa Gold I wouldn't put in that category. So yes, to get max benefit from high end extended oci filters, one needs to get miles.
That's why I've been happy with the P1 and Classic for the OCI's I run. And, I'd include the Napa Gold in the shorter OCI category.
As for the Havoline from Fred's, (last time I checked made by Puro), likely ok for 3k oci. That said, I'd spend an extra $.50 and go with a Classic and an easy 5k oci. With current rebate < $3.00.
I put NAPA Gold in there because some of them are already full-synthetic media; there's just not been a big advetizing campaign.
Quote:
Don't misunderstand me, I like the EAO filter line but to justify the expense it's got to be run at least 10-15K miles for me.
A more reasonable statement than the original post. Yes, to get your money's worth from high end extended OCI filters, you need to get miles. I'd think to get it from the Amsoil one would need to get closer to 20-25k in one year. The others on your list with the exception of the Napa Gold would be closer to 12-15k in one year. The Napa Gold I wouldn't put in that category. So yes, to get max benefit from high end extended oci filters, one needs to get miles.
That's why I've been happy with the P1 and Classic for the OCI's I run. And, I'd include the Napa Gold in the shorter OCI category.
As for the Havoline from Fred's, (last time I checked made by Puro), likely ok for 3k oci. That said, I'd spend an extra $.50 and go with a Classic and an easy 5k oci. With current rebate < $3.00.
I put NAPA Gold in there because some of them are already full-synthetic media; there's just not been a big advetizing campaign.
Wix and NAPA Gold are the very same exact filter, its a Wix painted to look like a NAPA gold. So if NAPA Gold is on the list, so should Wix. Drop the first number in the Wix part number and you have the NAPA Gold filter part number.
I buy and use the best filter I can find for my particular application. I don't consider the cost to be a factor, I just want whats best.
I buy and use the best filter I can find for my particular application. I don't consider the cost to be a factor, I just want whats best.
To each their own, but the term "glass enhanced" (Wix/Napa Gold) wouldn't necessarily put them in the same category as the others listed, including holding their capacity. So I'll agree to disagree here.
I just want the best filter that is tested to not ruin my engine. It seems not so simple as I first thought. People are showing results with pictures of big problems. One thing is not usually mentioned is pressure. Imagine being a 30 micron carbon particle. The 60psi oil pressure is going to try real hard to force you through that nasty media stuff. The filter media can have static properties and pictures of smaller holes all day long, but it is under pressure that counts.
On another issue I recently bought a motorcraft 910s for daughters camry v6,the mc recommended #, and noticed some white paint overspray on the baseplate.I thought it was dust at first. So Purolator still is having painting issues. I'll take it back, but that is a waste of time.
On another issue I recently bought a motorcraft 910s for daughters camry v6,the mc recommended #, and noticed some white paint overspray on the baseplate.I thought it was dust at first. So Purolator still is having painting issues. I'll take it back, but that is a waste of time.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
Quote:
Imagine being a 30 micron carbon particle. The 60psi oil pressure is going to try real hard to force you through that nasty media stuff.
Imagine wanting to scream through the media only to slam up against 58lbs of pressure on the other side of it. What a let down.
Imagine being a 30 micron carbon particle. The 60psi oil pressure is going to try real hard to force you through that nasty media stuff.
Imagine wanting to scream through the media only to slam up against 58lbs of pressure on the other side of it. What a let down.
Quote:
Imagine wanting to scream through the media only to slam up against 58lbs of pressure on the other side of it. What a let down.
Best comeback here in a long time! Still laughing...
Imagine wanting to scream through the media only to slam up against 58lbs of pressure on the other side of it. What a let down.
Best comeback here in a long time! Still laughing...
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
Imagine being a 30 micron carbon particle. The 60psi oil pressure is going to try real hard to force you through that nasty media stuff.
Imagine wanting to scream through the media only to slam up against 58lbs of pressure on the other side of it. What a let down.
+1,+2,and even +3, as they so smartly say on forum speak. It is so mean to make mr. carbon particle unhappy, he tried so hard. No good psi's fault, the whole thing.
Quote:
Imagine being a 30 micron carbon particle. The 60psi oil pressure is going to try real hard to force you through that nasty media stuff.
Imagine wanting to scream through the media only to slam up against 58lbs of pressure on the other side of it. What a let down.
+1,+2,and even +3, as they so smartly say on forum speak. It is so mean to make mr. carbon particle unhappy, he tried so hard. No good psi's fault, the whole thing.
i do because i have a subaru and subaru gets their filters from honeywell(fram)
I'm perfectly willing to pay $6 for a pure one filter, because I'm not buying synthetic oil and putting a garbage filter on the car.
Originally Posted By: Mokanic
It's obvious that for only a few exceptions here most posters are still only running an average of probably 5k oil changes even with synthetics capable of much longer intervals. Why waste the money on a M1,Amsoil EAO,Bosch Distance Plus,or a NAPA Gold? Just my opinion but it seems a Havoline filter from Fred's for $3 would suit such a short interval.
And most of the million mile vehicles we read articles about seem to be running Jiffy lube bulk oil and their house filters.
It's obvious that for only a few exceptions here most posters are still only running an average of probably 5k oil changes even with synthetics capable of much longer intervals. Why waste the money on a M1,Amsoil EAO,Bosch Distance Plus,or a NAPA Gold? Just my opinion but it seems a Havoline filter from Fred's for $3 would suit such a short interval.
And most of the million mile vehicles we read articles about seem to be running Jiffy lube bulk oil and their house filters.
More seriously, for the two posting after Gary Allen, if are you LOLing at me, it is very immature. That isn't what this is about. That happens earlier in life like in Jr. High. If I made fun of every point any of you, including GA, made wrongly, I could write a book on it that would outsell the GA sayings book by a wide margin. Enjoy your lives here it is very good use of time.
Maybe this is why many come to visit the site, but many are afraid to join in the discussions. It isn't worth it.
Maybe this is why many come to visit the site, but many are afraid to join in the discussions. It isn't worth it.
His response struck me as only trying to inject a little humor into his counterpoint. It didn't strike me as having malicious intent or being meant to ridicule. The couple responses after didn't add much to the discussion and I simply read on.
I wouldn't take offense to any of it. I don't think any of the posters intended any.
-Spyder
I wouldn't take offense to any of it. I don't think any of the posters intended any.
-Spyder
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
No offense intended ..none. While there are times I butt heads with a list of usual co-suspects, I'd hardly be well served if there was a purposely punitive tact to my posting here, at least when it comes to the technical aspects that are the core reason for being here. I've certainly got no ill will towards you.
Please don't interpret my finding a target for humor as you being the target.
That hopefully retired from the discussion, what I think you were really describing was velocity. That's certainly an issue of merit in filter efficiency and "pulsing" is one of the many tests that the filter man performs in the R&D/QA process.
Please don't interpret my finding a target for humor as you being the target.
That hopefully retired from the discussion, what I think you were really describing was velocity. That's certainly an issue of merit in filter efficiency and "pulsing" is one of the many tests that the filter man performs in the R&D/QA process.
Not laughing at anyone, just the humorous nature of the response. And, it was not only funny but a good explanation of the situation. Sorry if it offended anyone.
- Status
Similar threads
