dnewton3 ... how about some links to references/SAE papers that say keeping the engine oil cleaner by removing more wear particles doesn't make any difference in the amount of engine wear over the long run. Are there papers out there that prove using a less efficient oil filter doesn't cause any more engine wear than using a high efficiency oil filter with the same OCI? - especially long OCIs like we see on today's vehicles. I haven't seen any, so if you or anyone else reading this thread can find such a paper I'd like to see it.
Wear vs. oil-filter efficiency: SAE/Amsoil paper
- Thread starter Gokhan
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
And, let's not forget that my 15,000 UOAs also show no correlation in selection of various filters in normal OCIs to wear control either. The filter efficiency delta (ranging from 80% to 99% at 20um) doesn't make enough difference that you can distinguish them in analysis.
It's been discussed before that normal UOAs don't have the ability to accurately determine how much effect the oil filter has. I thought there was some kind of special particle counting test up and beyond a normal UOA that would need to be done in order to see that effect. And just really how accurate is the typical UOA on "wear particle" counts?
Wasn't there someone who actually ran an OCI without an oil filter at all to see what effect that had on the UOA? Thought there was, but if not it would be interesting to see.
And, let's not forget that my 15,000 UOAs also show no correlation in selection of various filters in normal OCIs to wear control either. The filter efficiency delta (ranging from 80% to 99% at 20um) doesn't make enough difference that you can distinguish them in analysis.
It's been discussed before that normal UOAs don't have the ability to accurately determine how much effect the oil filter has. I thought there was some kind of special particle counting test up and beyond a normal UOA that would need to be done in order to see that effect. And just really how accurate is the typical UOA on "wear particle" counts?
Wasn't there someone who actually ran an OCI without an oil filter at all to see what effect that had on the UOA? Thought there was, but if not it would be interesting to see.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
It's been discussed before that normal UOAs don't have the ability to accurately determine how much effect the oil filter has. I thought there was some kind of special particle counting test up and beyond a normal UOA that would need to be done in order to see that effect. And just really how accurate is the typical UOA on "wear particle" counts?
As far as particle counts go, I admit to not understanding what that actually shows about an oil filter except perhaps a lower bound for capture. We've had this discussion lots of times, and we both know that a low filtering efficiency (at least above zero) doesn't mean that the filter won't capture a particular particle, it means that the filter will take more passes to do so. It's a probability not an absolute (which is the case for all efficiencies). The problem I have is that the particle count only shows the final state of the oil at OCI which represents a myriad of passes and opportunities for capture of whatever particles might have been in the oil throughout the interval. How does an analysis at the end of the OCI illustrate anything about the relative differences between a high efficiency and a lower efficiency filter? Unless you have an absolute boatload of particles in the oil that just happen to not yet be captured by the filter at the time of sampling (which isn't likely), then what exactly does this type of particle count actually demonstrate?
It's been discussed before that normal UOAs don't have the ability to accurately determine how much effect the oil filter has. I thought there was some kind of special particle counting test up and beyond a normal UOA that would need to be done in order to see that effect. And just really how accurate is the typical UOA on "wear particle" counts?
As far as particle counts go, I admit to not understanding what that actually shows about an oil filter except perhaps a lower bound for capture. We've had this discussion lots of times, and we both know that a low filtering efficiency (at least above zero) doesn't mean that the filter won't capture a particular particle, it means that the filter will take more passes to do so. It's a probability not an absolute (which is the case for all efficiencies). The problem I have is that the particle count only shows the final state of the oil at OCI which represents a myriad of passes and opportunities for capture of whatever particles might have been in the oil throughout the interval. How does an analysis at the end of the OCI illustrate anything about the relative differences between a high efficiency and a lower efficiency filter? Unless you have an absolute boatload of particles in the oil that just happen to not yet be captured by the filter at the time of sampling (which isn't likely), then what exactly does this type of particle count actually demonstrate?
^^^ Yep, you would need a real time particle counter (like they used in ISO 4548-12 testing) mounted on the engine while driving the car around to measure real time particle counts. Doubt anyone has ever done that, as I'd think it would be a pretty elaborate and costly test setup.
So the only value to a particle count as part of a UOA would be to signal the tearing or failure/bypass of the filtering media?
I still want to know just how many "particles" are generated in an engine per some unit of time. I realize it is dependent on a lot of factors (one would guess mainly the quality of air filtration) but it would be interesting to know. Of course there again not all particles are the same, a tiny bit of fiber from the filter or my shirt while performing an oil change is one thing, but a bit of silica or granite could be another. All would be "particles" for counting though, so maybe just knowing how many there are isn't too useful.
I still want to know just how many "particles" are generated in an engine per some unit of time. I realize it is dependent on a lot of factors (one would guess mainly the quality of air filtration) but it would be interesting to know. Of course there again not all particles are the same, a tiny bit of fiber from the filter or my shirt while performing an oil change is one thing, but a bit of silica or granite could be another. All would be "particles" for counting though, so maybe just knowing how many there are isn't too useful.
Can't help you on generation of particles over the life of an OCI, but Dr Dave did some really good work on how they track during the life of an oil filter...
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4053638/Re:_2013_Sportster_1200_5000_m#Post4053638
Originally Posted By: DrDave
I went back to my UOA reports with particle count. These are for a Toyota Tacoma with the 2.4L.
>4u
11,383 miles 102
7507 miles 435
7453 miles 4500
6966 miles 113,507
>6u
11,383 miles 55
7507 miles 237
7453 miles 2451
6966 miles 13,710
These are cumulative miles without changing the filter. It appears that the filter really starts to look good at about 15k miles. The top numbers are the most recent particle count. I wish I knew how to post the actual report.
Dave
I'd like to post some of Stinky Peterson's VOA which can show brand new oil with horrific particle counts straight out of the bottle...Photobucket changes mean I've got to do it differently...later.
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4053638/Re:_2013_Sportster_1200_5000_m#Post4053638
Originally Posted By: DrDave
I went back to my UOA reports with particle count. These are for a Toyota Tacoma with the 2.4L.
>4u
11,383 miles 102
7507 miles 435
7453 miles 4500
6966 miles 113,507
>6u
11,383 miles 55
7507 miles 237
7453 miles 2451
6966 miles 13,710
These are cumulative miles without changing the filter. It appears that the filter really starts to look good at about 15k miles. The top numbers are the most recent particle count. I wish I knew how to post the actual report.
Dave
I'd like to post some of Stinky Peterson's VOA which can show brand new oil with horrific particle counts straight out of the bottle...Photobucket changes mean I've got to do it differently...later.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Can't help you on generation of particles over the life of an OCI, but Dr Dave did some really good work on how they track during the life of an oil filter...
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4053638/Re:_2013_Sportster_1200_5000_m#Post4053638
Originally Posted By: DrDave
I went back to my UOA reports with particle count. These are for a Toyota Tacoma with the 2.4L.
>4u
11,383 miles 102
7507 miles 435
7453 miles 4500
6966 miles 113,507
>6u
11,383 miles 55
7507 miles 237
7453 miles 2451
6966 miles 13,710
These are cumulative miles without changing the filter. It appears that the filter really starts to look good at about 15k miles. The top numbers are the most recent particle count. I wish I knew how to post the actual report.
Dave
I'd like to post some of Stinky Peterson's VOA which can show brand new oil with horrific particle counts straight out of the bottle...Photobucket changes mean I've got to do it differently...later.
I see DrDave said in that thread that the filter was an Amsoil Ea15k51, which is pretty high efficiency to start with. Would like to see the same test with a 50% @ 20 micron rated oil filter.
Can't help you on generation of particles over the life of an OCI, but Dr Dave did some really good work on how they track during the life of an oil filter...
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4053638/Re:_2013_Sportster_1200_5000_m#Post4053638
Originally Posted By: DrDave
I went back to my UOA reports with particle count. These are for a Toyota Tacoma with the 2.4L.
>4u
11,383 miles 102
7507 miles 435
7453 miles 4500
6966 miles 113,507
>6u
11,383 miles 55
7507 miles 237
7453 miles 2451
6966 miles 13,710
These are cumulative miles without changing the filter. It appears that the filter really starts to look good at about 15k miles. The top numbers are the most recent particle count. I wish I knew how to post the actual report.
Dave
I'd like to post some of Stinky Peterson's VOA which can show brand new oil with horrific particle counts straight out of the bottle...Photobucket changes mean I've got to do it differently...later.
I see DrDave said in that thread that the filter was an Amsoil Ea15k51, which is pretty high efficiency to start with. Would like to see the same test with a 50% @ 20 micron rated oil filter.
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
dnewton3 ... how about some links to references/SAE papers that say keeping the engine oil cleaner by removing more wear particles doesn't make any difference in the amount of engine wear over the long run. Are there papers out there that prove using a less efficient oil filter doesn't cause any more engine wear than using a high efficiency oil filter with the same OCI? - especially long OCIs like we see on today's vehicles. I haven't seen any, so if you or anyone else reading this thread can find such a paper I'd like to see it.
There is no study I'm aware, which is my point; there's no SAE lab study to prove or disprove it.
Filter studies that use ALTs typically only focus on manipulating one variable. I actually applaud that. But they often do so by eliminating other VERY IMPORTANT contributors to wear control. OCIs offer both flushing of contamination as well as add-pack replenishment. It's OK to use the filter as the variable, but the OCIs should be planned into the ALT in a manner which replicates the same exposure expected in the real world. If not (such as the case here), it's not going to tell you anything meaningful for daily ops. To accelrate wear to make the test consumable in the alloted time frame, they had to cast out one of the very important wear controls; that of the OCI.
I've said many times before; there is no study I know of that correlates filtration efficiency effects in NORMAL OCIs.
dnewton3 ... how about some links to references/SAE papers that say keeping the engine oil cleaner by removing more wear particles doesn't make any difference in the amount of engine wear over the long run. Are there papers out there that prove using a less efficient oil filter doesn't cause any more engine wear than using a high efficiency oil filter with the same OCI? - especially long OCIs like we see on today's vehicles. I haven't seen any, so if you or anyone else reading this thread can find such a paper I'd like to see it.
There is no study I'm aware, which is my point; there's no SAE lab study to prove or disprove it.
Filter studies that use ALTs typically only focus on manipulating one variable. I actually applaud that. But they often do so by eliminating other VERY IMPORTANT contributors to wear control. OCIs offer both flushing of contamination as well as add-pack replenishment. It's OK to use the filter as the variable, but the OCIs should be planned into the ALT in a manner which replicates the same exposure expected in the real world. If not (such as the case here), it's not going to tell you anything meaningful for daily ops. To accelrate wear to make the test consumable in the alloted time frame, they had to cast out one of the very important wear controls; that of the OCI.
I've said many times before; there is no study I know of that correlates filtration efficiency effects in NORMAL OCIs.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
I'd like to post some of Stinky Peterson's VOA which can show brand new oil with horrific particle counts straight out of the bottle...Photobucket changes mean I've got to do it differently...later.
I've seen you mention that before. But doesn't it matter what the particles are? I might go out to cut my grass and notice that it also has a horrific particle count, but if they are cottonwood seeds as opposed to rocks, I'll be less concerned about one than the other.
I realize that for raw particle counts it doesn't matter (as in the example you posted), but as for whether I'm kept awake at night about new oil it would made a difference.
I'd like to post some of Stinky Peterson's VOA which can show brand new oil with horrific particle counts straight out of the bottle...Photobucket changes mean I've got to do it differently...later.
I've seen you mention that before. But doesn't it matter what the particles are? I might go out to cut my grass and notice that it also has a horrific particle count, but if they are cottonwood seeds as opposed to rocks, I'll be less concerned about one than the other.
I realize that for raw particle counts it doesn't matter (as in the example you posted), but as for whether I'm kept awake at night about new oil it would made a difference.
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
And, let's not forget that my 15,000 UOAs also show no correlation in selection of various filters in normal OCIs to wear control either. The filter efficiency delta (ranging from 80% to 99% at 20um) doesn't make enough difference that you can distinguish them in analysis.
It's been discussed before that normal UOAs don't have the ability to accurately determine how much effect the oil filter has. I thought there was some kind of special particle counting test up and beyond a normal UOA that would need to be done in order to see that effect. And just really how accurate is the typical UOA on "wear particle" counts?
Wasn't there someone who actually ran an OCI without an oil filter at all to see what effect that had on the UOA? Thought there was, but if not it would be interesting to see.
It's true that UOAs don't have the ability to see all wear; hopefully folks realize that. But it's also true that a PC cannot distinguish between all the different manner of particles in terms of composition; it can see size, but not origin. It would not know if at 10um particle was soot, AL, or Fe or ??? So while PCs help understand the quantity and size, they say nothing about "wear". A PC that saw 25 particles of 7um, would not know if they were 20 particles of soot and 5 of Fe, or 20 particles of Fe and 5 of soot. PCs can tell us how much stuff is in the lube stream, but they cannot tell us WHAT is in the stream.
Wear metals in a UOA are not all telling, but thet represent some reasonable ratio of wear that can be inferred. If you have a LOT of Fe and Al in a UOA (all 5um or lower by the nature of the test) then it's very likely you've got a LOT of wear particles that are also larger than 5um of Fe and AL. But the converse is also very likely. If you have very few ppm of wear metals, it's likely that wear particles of ALl sizes are very few. Would we believe that somehow and engine is ONLY going to shed large quantities of big, fat stuff, and never any small stuff? That's absurd! So yes, I agree a UOA won't show us all wear; not above 5um. But it will show us a snapshot of wear in a range, and we can make a logical conclusion as to the overall effect of total wear. Few ppm = low wear in all ranges. Lots of ppm = lots of wear everywhere. I admit I don't know of any study to show this, but it seems quite logical to me. Does it not to others?
It would break down like this; there can only be four possible conditions of UOA data and overall wear:
consider the delineation of a 5um break-point; what a UOA can or cannot see. Overall wear would be ALl wear particles of any size.
1) low UOA ppm and low overall wear; very easy to believe and likely to exist
2) high UOA ppm and high overall wear; very easy to believe and likely to exist
3) low UOA ppm and high overall wear; not very plausible and would be difficult to comprehend how this could exist
4) high UOA ppm and low overall wear; not very plausible and would be difficult to comprehend how this could exist
I know of no study or SAE paper that proves (or even discusses) the presence of wear above 5um, with an accompanying total absence of any wear data below that threshold.
UOAs will NOT catch the impending onset of a major catastrophe; they won't tell you if a con-rod is about to shatter, or a piston wrist pin will crack apart at 8k rpm in a drag car.
UOAs will tell you of chronic onset of problems. Even big metal particles that come from being plowed out by a soot particle, might likely become smaller over time as it not only abrades stuff, but also gets beat up and abraded itself. That's the dichotomy of wear; soot will get bigger after the add-pack is overwhelmed, but wear metals don't co-join (agglomerate). Wear metals will essentially not only do some damage if large enough, but also get damaged themselves. Shed off a 10um particle of Fe, and it's not likely to be caught by a typical FF filter; certainly not the first several passes. But while it's causing damage, it's also getting beaten into a smaller particle, and quite likely, some portion of it will end up small eneough to be seen in a UOA.
So the relationships I suggest are valid are examples 1 and 2 above. Example conditions 3 and 4 are VERY UNLIKELY to exist.
So while some folks would eschew UOAs as not useful for determining wear, I say that they are certainly helpful in understanding a likely ratio of wear. I cannot tell you how many ppm of Fe (below 5um) would equal X ppm of Fe at 10, 15, 20um. But I do believe that some ratio exists. And the ABSENCE of wear ppm in a UOA is VERY LIKELY to be an indication that there's little wear of any size. Otherwise we'd have to believe that wear is discriminate, and can somehow hide itself above 5um all the time. Just pure bunk.
The GM filter study used component mass analsysis to determine wear. They did not use UOAs. But that does not stop them from stating that normal field OCIs will not show filter performance differentials. GM knew at the time that because they omitted OCIs, they cannot claim any correlation would exist in real life.
My data simply comes to the same conclusion using a totally separate methodology. Filters have shown no ability to create a discernable controlling effect on wear in normal OCI applications. When I say this, I don't mean to say that filters are worthless; please do not misunderstand me. What I am saying is that a 90% eff filter at 20um and a 98% eff filter at 20um cannot be distinguished in terms of wear.
Here is the distinction that is CRITICAL to understand:
- Some folks are going to claim that UOAs are unable to see the difference in wear-rates due to efficiency differences. But, that makes a HUGE assumption that a difference actually exists! It PRESUMES that there is an effect.
- Says who? Does it not occur to anyone that the reason there's not statistically distinct wear-data trends between filters is because IT SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE???
Don't jump to an illogical conclusion of presumed presence. That's a bad mistake to make.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
And, let's not forget that my 15,000 UOAs also show no correlation in selection of various filters in normal OCIs to wear control either. The filter efficiency delta (ranging from 80% to 99% at 20um) doesn't make enough difference that you can distinguish them in analysis.
It's been discussed before that normal UOAs don't have the ability to accurately determine how much effect the oil filter has. I thought there was some kind of special particle counting test up and beyond a normal UOA that would need to be done in order to see that effect. And just really how accurate is the typical UOA on "wear particle" counts?
Wasn't there someone who actually ran an OCI without an oil filter at all to see what effect that had on the UOA? Thought there was, but if not it would be interesting to see.
It's true that UOAs don't have the ability to see all wear; hopefully folks realize that. But it's also true that a PC cannot distinguish between all the different manner of particles in terms of composition; it can see size, but not origin. It would not know if at 10um particle was soot, AL, or Fe or ??? So while PCs help understand the quantity and size, they say nothing about "wear". A PC that saw 25 particles of 7um, would not know if they were 20 particles of soot and 5 of Fe, or 20 particles of Fe and 5 of soot. PCs can tell us how much stuff is in the lube stream, but they cannot tell us WHAT is in the stream.
Wear metals in a UOA are not all telling, but thet represent some reasonable ratio of wear that can be inferred. If you have a LOT of Fe and Al in a UOA (all 5um or lower by the nature of the test) then it's very likely you've got a LOT of wear particles that are also larger than 5um of Fe and AL. But the converse is also very likely. If you have very few ppm of wear metals, it's likely that wear particles of ALl sizes are very few. Would we believe that somehow and engine is ONLY going to shed large quantities of big, fat stuff, and never any small stuff? That's absurd! So yes, I agree a UOA won't show us all wear; not above 5um. But it will show us a snapshot of wear in a range, and we can make a logical conclusion as to the overall effect of total wear. Few ppm = low wear in all ranges. Lots of ppm = lots of wear everywhere. I admit I don't know of any study to show this, but it seems quite logical to me. Does it not to others?
It would break down like this; there can only be four possible conditions of UOA data and overall wear:
consider the delineation of a 5um break-point; what a UOA can or cannot see. Overall wear would be ALl wear particles of any size.
1) low UOA ppm and low overall wear; very easy to believe and likely to exist
2) high UOA ppm and high overall wear; very easy to believe and likely to exist
3) low UOA ppm and high overall wear; not very plausible and would be difficult to comprehend how this could exist
4) high UOA ppm and low overall wear; not very plausible and would be difficult to comprehend how this could exist
I know of no study or SAE paper that proves (or even discusses) the presence of wear above 5um, with an accompanying total absence of any wear data below that threshold.
UOAs will NOT catch the impending onset of a major catastrophe; they won't tell you if a con-rod is about to shatter, or a piston wrist pin will crack apart at 8k rpm in a drag car.
UOAs will tell you of chronic onset of problems. Even big metal particles that come from being plowed out by a soot particle, might likely become smaller over time as it not only abrades stuff, but also gets beat up and abraded itself. That's the dichotomy of wear; soot will get bigger after the add-pack is overwhelmed, but wear metals don't co-join (agglomerate). Wear metals will essentially not only do some damage if large enough, but also get damaged themselves. Shed off a 10um particle of Fe, and it's not likely to be caught by a typical FF filter; certainly not the first several passes. But while it's causing damage, it's also getting beaten into a smaller particle, and quite likely, some portion of it will end up small eneough to be seen in a UOA.
So the relationships I suggest are valid are examples 1 and 2 above. Example conditions 3 and 4 are VERY UNLIKELY to exist.
So while some folks would eschew UOAs as not useful for determining wear, I say that they are certainly helpful in understanding a likely ratio of wear. I cannot tell you how many ppm of Fe (below 5um) would equal X ppm of Fe at 10, 15, 20um. But I do believe that some ratio exists. And the ABSENCE of wear ppm in a UOA is VERY LIKELY to be an indication that there's little wear of any size. Otherwise we'd have to believe that wear is discriminate, and can somehow hide itself above 5um all the time. Just pure bunk.
The GM filter study used component mass analsysis to determine wear. They did not use UOAs. But that does not stop them from stating that normal field OCIs will not show filter performance differentials. GM knew at the time that because they omitted OCIs, they cannot claim any correlation would exist in real life.
My data simply comes to the same conclusion using a totally separate methodology. Filters have shown no ability to create a discernable controlling effect on wear in normal OCI applications. When I say this, I don't mean to say that filters are worthless; please do not misunderstand me. What I am saying is that a 90% eff filter at 20um and a 98% eff filter at 20um cannot be distinguished in terms of wear.
Here is the distinction that is CRITICAL to understand:
- Some folks are going to claim that UOAs are unable to see the difference in wear-rates due to efficiency differences. But, that makes a HUGE assumption that a difference actually exists! It PRESUMES that there is an effect.
- Says who? Does it not occur to anyone that the reason there's not statistically distinct wear-data trends between filters is because IT SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE???
Don't jump to an illogical conclusion of presumed presence. That's a bad mistake to make.
Last edited:
dnewton3
Staff member
Here's a philosophical comment I'll make about our human condition at BITOG ...
Some folks believe that UOAs can shed (pardon the pun) light about wear totals and wear rates. This is camp "B" (believers). Folks here that practice real understanding of condemnation limits and wear trends get this approach.
Some folks do not believe UOAs can do this. These folks are in camp "N" (non-believers). Typically they will look at the oil and OCI based on lube conditions; FP, vis, acid flip, fuel dilution, etc.
So, if you are in camp N (the non-believers), what happens if you get a UOA that has high metals, but is still fine otherwise? What is your approach then? Do you ignore the metals, because you believe that UOAs are a poor wear indicator tool? You'd just plunder along because the vis is in grade, the FP high, the soot low, etc? I suspect that if the wear metals are high, DESPITE the good condition of the lube, you're going to OCI and have a concern. If you had 50ppm of Fe and 38ppm of AL in only 8k miles, are you going to ignore this and just keep on humming along? I seriously doubt it! Or maybe you have 35ppm of Cu and 17ppm of Pb, in only 6k miles? And you're not going to think there's a problem with a bearing? You're just going to keep the OCI going despite the indications?
So, why the hypocrisy? If you are willing to OCI and consider potential problems based on high wear metals, they why cannot you accept that low metals means everything is OK?
Anyone who believes UOAs are not good tools as insight to wear is free to think what they might, but I suspect they are closet hypocrites that would OCI at the drop of a hat should the wear metals tell them to do so. They trust UOAs to tell them if something is wrong, but not right. That is total hypocrisy.
Some folks believe that UOAs can shed (pardon the pun) light about wear totals and wear rates. This is camp "B" (believers). Folks here that practice real understanding of condemnation limits and wear trends get this approach.
Some folks do not believe UOAs can do this. These folks are in camp "N" (non-believers). Typically they will look at the oil and OCI based on lube conditions; FP, vis, acid flip, fuel dilution, etc.
So, if you are in camp N (the non-believers), what happens if you get a UOA that has high metals, but is still fine otherwise? What is your approach then? Do you ignore the metals, because you believe that UOAs are a poor wear indicator tool? You'd just plunder along because the vis is in grade, the FP high, the soot low, etc? I suspect that if the wear metals are high, DESPITE the good condition of the lube, you're going to OCI and have a concern. If you had 50ppm of Fe and 38ppm of AL in only 8k miles, are you going to ignore this and just keep on humming along? I seriously doubt it! Or maybe you have 35ppm of Cu and 17ppm of Pb, in only 6k miles? And you're not going to think there's a problem with a bearing? You're just going to keep the OCI going despite the indications?
So, why the hypocrisy? If you are willing to OCI and consider potential problems based on high wear metals, they why cannot you accept that low metals means everything is OK?
Anyone who believes UOAs are not good tools as insight to wear is free to think what they might, but I suspect they are closet hypocrites that would OCI at the drop of a hat should the wear metals tell them to do so. They trust UOAs to tell them if something is wrong, but not right. That is total hypocrisy.
You missed the third group I'm in - guess it's "H" for Heretics who neither run UOA's nor review the UOA's of others, yet still think directionally higher filter effici3ncy reduces erosion corrosion type potential wear.
But the UOAs in the valvetrain wear test that you keep quoting were utterly appalling regardless of which camp you live in.
If you beleive in UOA to condemn oil, they should have been ditched. If you believe in UOA as a wear indicator, then the extended drains clearly didn't do well.
Can't have it both ways...You are pretty good at categorising people, so what would you call a person who ignores one set of data in an SAE paper (the attrocious UOAs), hangs their hat on the other data posted in that study (establishment of tribofilms on virgin metal), and pushes UAOs as the ultimate answer to all questions ???
If you beleive in UOA to condemn oil, they should have been ditched. If you believe in UOA as a wear indicator, then the extended drains clearly didn't do well.
Can't have it both ways...You are pretty good at categorising people, so what would you call a person who ignores one set of data in an SAE paper (the attrocious UOAs), hangs their hat on the other data posted in that study (establishment of tribofilms on virgin metal), and pushes UAOs as the ultimate answer to all questions ???
Last edited:
There have been a few other SAE papers on "filter efficiency vs engine wear" testing done after the GM study.
Click on the "View" area on the RH margin of the page for partial view of the SAE papers.
http://papers.sae.org/952555/
"Results show that a strong correlation exists between engine wear and the filtration efficiency of solid contaminant in the engine lube. It is clearly demonstrated that higher efficiency filtration results in cleaner lube oil and thus less engine wear."
http://papers.sae.org/902238/
"Corresponding decreases in engine wear metals accompanied reductions in particle concentrations. Results from previous laboratory studies are supported; engine wear is reduced through the use of filters with higher efficiencies at smaller particle sizes."
Of course, the infamous "GM study": http://papers.sae.org/881825/
Click on the "View" area on the RH margin of the page for partial view of the SAE papers.
http://papers.sae.org/952555/
"Results show that a strong correlation exists between engine wear and the filtration efficiency of solid contaminant in the engine lube. It is clearly demonstrated that higher efficiency filtration results in cleaner lube oil and thus less engine wear."
http://papers.sae.org/902238/
"Corresponding decreases in engine wear metals accompanied reductions in particle concentrations. Results from previous laboratory studies are supported; engine wear is reduced through the use of filters with higher efficiencies at smaller particle sizes."
Of course, the infamous "GM study": http://papers.sae.org/881825/
You've nearly convinced me that I should get rid of the OEM filters on my shelf and go buy Fram Ultras. I mean that. But with the miles on my vehicles it kinda seems like starting a retirement fund at age 80.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
There have been a few other SAE papers on "filter efficiency vs engine wear" testing done after the GM study.
Click on the "View" area on the RH margin of the page for partial view of the SAE papers.
http://papers.sae.org/952555/
"Results show that a strong correlation exists between engine wear and the filtration efficiency of solid contaminant in the engine lube. It is clearly demonstrated that higher efficiency filtration results in cleaner lube oil and thus less engine wear."
http://papers.sae.org/902238/
"Corresponding decreases in engine wear metals accompanied reductions in particle concentrations. Results from previous laboratory studies are supported; engine wear is reduced through the use of filters with higher efficiencies at smaller particle sizes."
Of course, the infamous "GM study": http://papers.sae.org/881825/
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
There have been a few other SAE papers on "filter efficiency vs engine wear" testing done after the GM study.
Click on the "View" area on the RH margin of the page for partial view of the SAE papers.
http://papers.sae.org/952555/
"Results show that a strong correlation exists between engine wear and the filtration efficiency of solid contaminant in the engine lube. It is clearly demonstrated that higher efficiency filtration results in cleaner lube oil and thus less engine wear."
http://papers.sae.org/902238/
"Corresponding decreases in engine wear metals accompanied reductions in particle concentrations. Results from previous laboratory studies are supported; engine wear is reduced through the use of filters with higher efficiencies at smaller particle sizes."
Of course, the infamous "GM study": http://papers.sae.org/881825/
Interesting finds ZeeOSix: papers from 1990 & 1995 if I'm reading the info right. I've never been a member of SAE it would be interesting to get even read-only access to what's published in these.
- Status
Similar threads
