Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I agree that oil and filters are cheap relative to a new engine.
However ...
This is a quest for knowledge, based upon real world data and not conjecture and suppostion. Many of you are more than welcome to stick to ol'skool mentality about "cheap insurance". But what you call cheap, I call waste. There is ZERO evidence to show that I did anything to risk my investment, and all the PROOF shows that both the oil and the filter weathered 15k miles with aplomb. Data and facts just seem to keep getting in the way of good ol' mythology and rhetoric.
Most folks said my first 10k mile UOA was a fluke, because it was so good. "Try doing it again ..." So I did. And after another long 15k mile OCI, the wear is well in control. And if I could find that Si leak, it would be even better still.
As for the filter, folks thought 10k miles on the Classic was too far, but the data showed otherwise. Here, the 15k miles on a FL400S shows the filter did it's job well. Wear metals were in check, insolubles were very moderate, oil was neither too think or too thin, etc.
Just because you don't like what you see inside a filter, does not mean it's unacceptable from a manner of true performance. This is no differnt that folks who look at oil on a dipstick and promtly pronounce the oil shot because it's "too dark".
When you disect a filter, you should be looking at things that the physical presence can afford; did the media hold up well, are the components still in place, is the ADBV still pliable, etc, etc. However, if you want to know how a filter actually filters, you cannot look inside the can. You need to look at UOA and PC data. Don't confuse the two methods of knowledge quest. I cut the filter open to see how the filter held up (quite admirably if you ask me), not how the oil did; that's what UOAs are for.
As always (and for about the 100th time), this is not a process to be taken lightly or undertaken blindly. You have to know the family history of the equipment. You need to understand how UOA data can and cannot be used. You need to purchase and read and understand SAE studies. You need access to heaps of UOA data. You need to enjoy being a wrench-turning gearhead. I shall never, ever suggest people just blindly extend an OCI out to 15-20k miles with no tools in the chest for tracking; that's just plain foolish.
But it's no more foolish that using syns and super-duper filters for 7k miles, calling it "cheap insurance" when any manner of "normal" products would likely take you 2x that distance. And then when you ingore your own UOA data which tells you so, it only serves to double down on the waste.
Running a syn/super-filter for normal OCIs isn't cheap insurance; it's gawd-awful-stupid-expensive-insurance. If you want cheap insurance, then run a normal oil and filter for a normal OEM OCI. There is so much buffer already built into "normal" products that hyper-great products are just plain undeeded and a total waste of money. I have proven that typical oils and filters are capable of going way past where most of you ever fear to tread. I've gone further on dino than most would dare on syn. I've run a typical filter 2x longer than many of you would dare on a PureOne or such.
The only difference here is I was challenged to put my money where my mouth is, and I did. I have proved what I claimed.
You've got no idea as to what the internals of that motor looks like,period.Until you tear that motor down,and show me and others what the internals look like(bearings,cylinder walls,carbon build-up,etc)doing this type of run on an oil such as this for the entire life of the vehicle is too much of a gamble for how much engines cost these days.
I agree that oil and filters are cheap relative to a new engine.
However ...
This is a quest for knowledge, based upon real world data and not conjecture and suppostion. Many of you are more than welcome to stick to ol'skool mentality about "cheap insurance". But what you call cheap, I call waste. There is ZERO evidence to show that I did anything to risk my investment, and all the PROOF shows that both the oil and the filter weathered 15k miles with aplomb. Data and facts just seem to keep getting in the way of good ol' mythology and rhetoric.
Most folks said my first 10k mile UOA was a fluke, because it was so good. "Try doing it again ..." So I did. And after another long 15k mile OCI, the wear is well in control. And if I could find that Si leak, it would be even better still.
As for the filter, folks thought 10k miles on the Classic was too far, but the data showed otherwise. Here, the 15k miles on a FL400S shows the filter did it's job well. Wear metals were in check, insolubles were very moderate, oil was neither too think or too thin, etc.
Just because you don't like what you see inside a filter, does not mean it's unacceptable from a manner of true performance. This is no differnt that folks who look at oil on a dipstick and promtly pronounce the oil shot because it's "too dark".
When you disect a filter, you should be looking at things that the physical presence can afford; did the media hold up well, are the components still in place, is the ADBV still pliable, etc, etc. However, if you want to know how a filter actually filters, you cannot look inside the can. You need to look at UOA and PC data. Don't confuse the two methods of knowledge quest. I cut the filter open to see how the filter held up (quite admirably if you ask me), not how the oil did; that's what UOAs are for.
As always (and for about the 100th time), this is not a process to be taken lightly or undertaken blindly. You have to know the family history of the equipment. You need to understand how UOA data can and cannot be used. You need to purchase and read and understand SAE studies. You need access to heaps of UOA data. You need to enjoy being a wrench-turning gearhead. I shall never, ever suggest people just blindly extend an OCI out to 15-20k miles with no tools in the chest for tracking; that's just plain foolish.
But it's no more foolish that using syns and super-duper filters for 7k miles, calling it "cheap insurance" when any manner of "normal" products would likely take you 2x that distance. And then when you ingore your own UOA data which tells you so, it only serves to double down on the waste.
Running a syn/super-filter for normal OCIs isn't cheap insurance; it's gawd-awful-stupid-expensive-insurance. If you want cheap insurance, then run a normal oil and filter for a normal OEM OCI. There is so much buffer already built into "normal" products that hyper-great products are just plain undeeded and a total waste of money. I have proven that typical oils and filters are capable of going way past where most of you ever fear to tread. I've gone further on dino than most would dare on syn. I've run a typical filter 2x longer than many of you would dare on a PureOne or such.
The only difference here is I was challenged to put my money where my mouth is, and I did. I have proved what I claimed.
You've got no idea as to what the internals of that motor looks like,period.Until you tear that motor down,and show me and others what the internals look like(bearings,cylinder walls,carbon build-up,etc)doing this type of run on an oil such as this for the entire life of the vehicle is too much of a gamble for how much engines cost these days.
