Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Zee - you and I are on the same page typically; I agree with you. I would not use a 50% 20um filter (Wix XP) when there are other "better" choices out there, for less money. That I agree with whole-heartedly.
I think most of today's filters are "good enough" (80%, 95%, 99% at 20um) that anyone can walk into any storefront and get a decent filter. I do agree that 99% is better than 80%, but the shift in that efficiency is just so small in terms of pragmatic effect, it's not worth me worrying over. Not one person here has data that proves it otherwise. There's not one SAE study I'm aware of that specifically shows a delineation in this manner. All oil filter studies are either really old (not useful today) or GROSSLY manipulated into unrealistic parameters to draw out the effects.
The reality is that advancements in engine design, air filtration, and lube control now outweigh the concern of oil filtration, past "good enough". No one here is ever going to get "better" wear simply because they chose a FU or TG over a MC or a Wix in a "normal" OCI. Just not going to happen in the conditions we BITOGer operate under.
It's not like a large particle in circulation will only begat other large particles; that's not how it works. It's a scheme of parlayed echoes. A particle that does damage will create a sizeable range of additional particles. Silica or soot which are large enough to do damage will make lot's of stuff in the size spectrum. A UOA will not find ALL the evidence, but it will find the portion visible to the spectral analysis. Hence, if the UOA does not see the lower size portion of wear, it's likely that the larger stuff isn't happening with any regularity either.
This is why I say we can't have it both ways. We can't state the bus study proves wear tracks with particulate loading, but then ignore the fact that the study ALSO shows the particulate loading directly echos in the spectral Fe data. We cannot fairly decide to just ride half the equation, and then try to leap off the merry-go-round! If we accept that less particles means less wear due to finer filtration, then we must also accept that no shift in wear means that filters made no difference, when all other inputs where held constant! Using a good air filter, using a good lube, pretty much mute the effect of 80% vs 99% oil filter choices.
So the UOAs of today's vehicles are showing us that wear just isn't affected by oil filter choice, as long as you're using a "good enough" filter. Using a "better" filter isn't creating the echo in wear data.
Thanks for both explanations, they make a lot of sense!