Cut Open: Super Tech 3614, 1,550 miles

[Oro_O]

Cut open below is a new Super Tech 3614 I ran on our 2002 Lexus ES300 for 1,550 miles. The fill was Pennzoil Platinum 10w-30, and some ATF and Kerosene flush at the end.

Miles on filter: 1,550
Miles on Oil: 7,150
Miles on engine: 256,300 (Toyota 1mz-fe)
Fill: Pennz. Platinum 10w-30, and some ATF and K-1 to flush at end of run.
Refill: M1 10w-30 HM and CarQuest Premium Blue (Wix)

Skip on down to the pics if you don't need petty detail, which follows here:

The reason for the short filter interval was that I had a Motorcraft FL-400S on it prior, intending to use it the full 7,500 OCI, 256,300 miles total on engine. It would leak down after more than a day sitting idle. Since this is a rare occurrence, I did not rush to change it. When it got worse, I put this filter on to finish out the OCI. The dissection of the FL-400s that couldn't hold oil is here. There are some links in the thread to others who are currently having the same drain-back problem with MC filters:

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4078766/Motorcraft_FL-400s_that_leaked

The filter may have a red tinge to it because I ran 1/2 qt of ATF in it the last 50 miles. it's usually used that amount in the OCI so I make up the difference with ATF for the 50 miles before I drain it for a little extra cleaning. After that, and this is not normal practice, I also drained a quart of the fill out and added a quart of K-1 kerosene and idled it 20 minutes before draining. Results of this were, on this particular car, negligible because this is a clean engine, easy on oil, and has been on synthetics a while, and I have been adding a small amount of ATF before the change for several years.

It's sturdily built as all Wix filters seem to be. The media was a bit "hairier" than I've seen on any other filter, but to no ill effect I can imagine. And importantly, the base and ADBV did not leak down overnight!

Lots of room to stretch out between the pleats; a man could get comfortable:


Seam was solid; I poked at it so spread it a bit:





Pliable, effective ADBV (base points down on this engine):

 

[nwjones18]

I cannot fathom needing/wanting to run a quart of kerosene or top off with ATF on any car, but if it works for you have at it. Filter looks solid. Thanks for the cut and post.

 

[crazyoildude]

i would never run atf in a motor either although kerosene was popular years ago i understand. With me it was always MMO

Did that super tech have louvers?

 

[oilmutt]

Thanks for sharring,did you ever think of using baake fluid as a cleaner?

 

[Oro_O]

Originally Posted By: crazyoildude
i would never run atf in a motor either although kerosene was popular years ago i understand. With me it was always MMO

Did that super tech have louvers?


ATF/MMO about the same effect in the sump. The ATF is cheaper so I put it once in a while for the different addpac and dispersants. This practice is ages-old, too - many older mechanics have done it since the 50s.

If you look clearly, it has circular punches in the center tube. Other than the cheap-ish media, it was quite a sturdy unit.

 

[gathermewool]

Originally Posted By: Or
Originally Posted By: crazyoildude
i would never run atf in a motor either although kerosene was popular years ago i understand. With me it was always MMO

Did that super tech have louvers?


ATF/MMO about the same effect in the sump. The ATF is cheaper so I put it once in a while for the different addpac and dispersants. This practice is ages-old, too - many older mechanics have done it since the 50s.

If you look clearly, it has circular punches in the center tube. Other than the cheap-ish media, it was quite a sturdy unit.


This ain't the 50s. ATF and other useless additions to a lubricating oil sump are simply a waste with no benefit. Do what makes you happy - I'm not posting to bash you - but anyone else reading this thread should know that very few people on this forum will condone any type of flush for normal use, and will oppose the addition of ATF for any purpose due to it having less benefit than an equivalent quantity of regular old motor oil.

 

[Dyusik]

Filter looks good. Thanks for the c&p.
I read on here a bit ago that the atf ep add pack(sulfur I think ) will counter act the aw formulations of motor oil. Not only the oil is additive depleted (cancelled ) but also thinned. I'd just use a thinner oil grade...

 

[Sayjac]

Value tier filter at ~$2.85, that in mind looks respectable to me. As did the virgin ST3614 posted recently.

As for cleaning procedure, not one I'd personally choose, but to each their own.

Lastly, regarding the louver query, even my ancient Toshiba laptop still with Windows XP, can clearly see the tube type in pic #3.

Might lead one to wonder if pwd or pwi is involved.

Thanks for pics.

 

[Oro_O]

Originally Posted By: gathermewool


This ain't the 50s. ATF and other useless additions to a lubricating oil sump are simply a waste with no benefit. Do what makes you happy - I'm not posting to bash you - but anyone else reading this thread should know that very few people on this forum will condone any type of flush for normal use, and will oppose the addition of ATF for any purpose due to it having less benefit than an equivalent quantity of regular old motor oil.


The problem is, the empirical evidence doesn't back your statement.

The vehicle is closing in on 300,000 miles and runs like new, and uses virtually no oil between changes - 1/2 qt. in 7.5k. It has worked on many cars for many years, mine and others. I'd love to see learn why 60 years of evidence suddenly is invalidated because a parroting of some information on internet forums is against it. If it doesn't work, I'd LOVE to see someone demonstrate that with real evidence.

Basically, you are using a fresh and slightly different additive package in a lighter carrier oil for better penetrating ability for a brief period. That it works where others fail is not surprising. The forums have MANY more "how do I fix my sticking lifters/clogged oil screen/etc." threads than they do "my engine is too clean and wore out" threads.

 

[FutureDoc]

Originally Posted By: Or


The problem is, the empirical evidence doesn't back your statement.

The vehicle is closing in on 300,000 miles and runs like new, and uses virtually no oil between changes - 1/2 qt. in 7.5k. It has worked on many cars for many years, mine and others. I'd love to see learn why 60 years of evidence suddenly is invalidated because a parroting of some information on internet forums is against it. If it doesn't work, I'd LOVE to see someone demonstrate that with real evidence.

Basically, you are using a fresh and slightly different additive package in a lighter carrier oil for better penetrating ability for a brief period. That it works where others fail is not surprising. The forums have MANY more "how do I fix my sticking lifters/clogged oil screen/etc." threads than they do "my engine is too clean and wore out" threads.


Nope. Research does not work that way. You can not prove a null. You can reject it or fail to reject but that does not prove a null. So, saying there is no benefit is in line with noting the lack of solvents/dispersants in ATF compared to modern oil and the lack of benefits and riskes of kerosene. Thus, gathermewool does not have to prove "no benefit" with his comment, the burden falls to the person making a claim that there is a benefit. Now, if he was saying "harm" then maybe you can ask for evidence.

So, your claims lacks empirical evidence as well. That is why folks say no benefit. So please post your empirical evidence where you are able to say with some confidence(heck, we can keep it to a p of .95) that the method is beneficial over using a modern oil/technique.

 

[gathermewool]

Originally Posted By: Or
Originally Posted By: gathermewool


This ain't the 50s. ATF and other useless additions to a lubricating oil sump are simply a waste with no benefit. Do what makes you happy - I'm not posting to bash you - but anyone else reading this thread should know that very few people on this forum will condone any type of flush for normal use, and will oppose the addition of ATF for any purpose due to it having less benefit than an equivalent quantity of regular old motor oil.


The problem is, the empirical evidence doesn't back your statement.

The vehicle is closing in on 300,000 miles and runs like new, and uses virtually no oil between changes - 1/2 qt. in 7.5k. It has worked on many cars for many years, mine and others. I'd love to see learn why 60 years of evidence suddenly is invalidated because a parroting of some information on internet forums is against it. If it doesn't work, I'd LOVE to see someone demonstrate that with real evidence.

Basically, you are using a fresh and slightly different additive package in a lighter carrier oil for better penetrating ability for a brief period. That it works where others fail is not surprising. The forums have MANY more "how do I fix my sticking lifters/clogged oil screen/etc." threads than they do "my engine is too clean and wore out" threads.


Empirical, in this context, means nothing more than hearsay. What additives in ATF are doing more for your engine than any motor oil?

The vast majority of people I know have used motor oil and nothing else and driven a combined million+ miles. There's your empirical evidence.

Those who didn't check their oil or change at any appropriate interval (or ever) had issues, though they were very rare. I only know one person who seized her engine, and when asked she THOUGHT she might have had her oil changed once in the 45k+ miles she'd owned the car.

The few who decided to add motor honey or some other useless additive to fix a problem that didn't exist...also no problems.