Wix XP efficiency

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Bottom line is cleaner oil result in less engine wear.


Well that's an easy way of side stepping the question isn't it. Prove using the Fram ultra against another filter will produce less engine wear using the same oil. Prove the Fram actually make the oil cleaner, if it allows particles smaller than 20 microns then I would suggest it doesn't, just dirty oil with smaller particles. Will the FU, XP, Gold, OCOD, etc filter carbon black out? No it wont, so wheres the clean oil?

Which gets back to the question where do these particles come from? Years ago when PCV systems used a small fiber screen (not really a filter) in the air filter housing on top of the carb pre filter no less then that was an open avenue for particle ingress and a more efficient oil filter may have been of some benefit, those systems are not common today.

Another point you fail to address is the simple fact that for a filter to do its job the particle regardless of size has to get from the sump to the filter, that is undeniable.
It has to go through the oil pump first and that is an area for wear that can have significant consequences as commonly found in old Buick engines. The pump would wear and the engine experienced reduced oil pressure over an extended period of time until it was low the oil pressure sender would trip.

The fact is this reduction in pressure and flow contributed to engine wear a lot more than a few particles. If you had a mechanical gauge and were aware swapping the front aluminum cover which included the pump housing and pump before that you could save the engine.
Forget the test using controlled test with specific sized particles introduced into oil, that is just bogus.

The simple premise that better filtration will result in cleaner oil and thus reduced engine is a false assessment. The example I just provided proves it and anyone that has ever owned an old Buick and had the issue of a worn pump will confirm it as it was well known.
 
Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Bottom line is cleaner oil result in less engine wear.

Well that's an easy way of side stepping the question isn't it.

Can you disprove that? If so, please let's see the data to say dirty oil results in less wear or gives no change in wear vs cleaner oil. Many studies have been done to show the dirtier the oil, the more engine wear.

Originally Posted By: Trav
Prove using the Fram ultra against another filter will produce less engine wear using the same oil. Prove the Fram actually make the oil cleaner, if it allows particles smaller than 20 microns then I would suggest it doesn't, just dirty oil with smaller particles. Will the FU, XP, Gold, OCOD, etc filter carbon black out? No it wont, so wheres the clean oil?

It probably wouldn't be very hard to get ISO particle count data for a whole spectrum of oil filters used on the same engine with the same oil for the same OCI. That data will tell you if more efficient filters have cleaner resulting oil at the end of the OCI. Again, simple stuff ... cleaner oil means less debris to cause engine wear.

Originally Posted By: Trav
Which gets back to the question where do these particles come from? Years ago when PCV systems used a small fiber screen (not really a filter) in the air filter housing on top of the carb pre filter no less then that was an open avenue for particle ingress and a more efficient oil filter may have been of some benefit, those systems are not common today.

Anyone who understands the working of an IC engine should know where these particles come from. In a normal ISO cleanliness test, there are essentially 2+ million particles ranging in size between 3u to 20u in 5 quarts of oil.

Originally Posted By: Trav
Another point you fail to address is the simple fact that for a filter to do its job the particle regardless of size has to get from the sump to the filter, that is undeniable.
It has to go through the oil pump first and that is an area for wear that can have significant consequences as commonly found in old Buick engines. The pump would wear and the engine experienced reduced oil pressure over an extended period of time until it was low the oil pressure sender would trip.

Well, to me that pretty much shows that dirtier oil causes more wear than clean oil since the oil pump is the victim of the most unfiltered oil in the sump.

Originally Posted By: Trav
The fact is this reduction in pressure and flow contributed to engine wear a lot more than a few particles. If you had a mechanical gauge and were aware swapping the front aluminum cover which included the pump housing and pump before that you could save the engine.

You're now talking about an oil flow problem that results in major engine damage. Not really related to the oil filter being uses unless one could argue that using bad filters slowly caused the pump to degrade from wear, and that cascaded into related oiling issues.

Originally Posted By: Trav
Forget the test using controlled test with specific sized particles introduced into oil, that is just bogus.

How do you think it's bogus? What else is there to compare and rank filter efficiency? Gut feelings?

Originally Posted By: Trav
The simple premise that better filtration will result in cleaner oil and thus reduced engine is a false assessment.

I disagree based on studies saying otherwise. Who can with a straight face claim that cleaner oil doesn't help reduce engine wear - it's a very simple concept to grasp. Again, please post up valid reference information backing up this claim.

Originally Posted By: Trav
The example I just provided proves it and anyone that has ever owned an old Buick and had the issue of a worn pump will confirm it as it was well known.

The Buick oil pump example you gave shows that the oil pump wore out prematurely from wear that was caused by dirty oil in the sump going through it before the oil was filtered. In fact, oil pumps seem to wear out the most in an engine's oiling system faster than all the parts down stream of the oil filter. Better filtration might have also help kept the pump wear down.

And BTW for the record, there are all kinds of high efficiency oil filters on the market ... just to clarify for the TFH guys who think all this talk about high efficiency oil filters is about one specific oil filter by some kind of "company rep".
wink.gif
 
What part of "a particle has to go from the sump to the filer through the oil pump first" don't you understand? Particles can do damage to the pump long before it ever gets to the filter.
You it seems are the one who has little comprehension of how a IC operates. You cant prove anything and you know it and I know it.

Try answering the questions instead of this dribble.

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

Well, to me that pretty much shows that dirtier oil causes more wear than clean oil since the oil pump is the victim of the most unfiltered oil in the sump.
It probably wouldn't be very hard to get ISO particle count data for a whole spectrum of oil filters used on the same engine

Is there such a study? Post it, if not why are you making statements again that you cant back up.

I asked you..
Originally Posted By: trav
Which gets back to the question where do these particles come from?


What kind of an answer is this?
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Anyone who understands the working of an IC engine should know where these particles come from

You tell me as I asked you to do.

The rest of you post is the same old tripe. Like this..

Quote:

Well, to me that pretty much shows that dirtier oil causes more wear than clean oil since the oil pump is the victim of the most unfiltered oil in the sump.

Particle ingress has to start somewhere and its pre oil filter so of course it will cause wear to any parts pre filter. Particles large enough to damage the pump will be filtered out by any standard automotive filter (prove otherwise) not just a high efficiency filter.

You talk a good game with your papers and studies but when push comes to shove you seem clueless. Baffling em with B.S. isn't cutting it chief.
 
Originally Posted By: Trav
What part of "a particle has to go from the sump to the filer through the oil pump first" don't you understand? Particles can do damage to the pump long before it ever gets to the filter.
You it seems are the one who has little comprehension of how a IC operates. You cant prove anything and you know it and I know it.

What are you talking about? Go back and read my stuff again. I basically said that any unfiltered dirty oil in the sump was wearing out the oil pump because it gets the dirtiest oil in the system. Doesn't that basically sound like your statement above of: "Particles can do damage to the pump long before it ever gets to the filter". Come on ... please keep up.

Simple stuff here ... oil in the sump (regardless of where the debris comes from) is dirtier going through the oil pump then after it goes through the oil filter and on to the engine's internals. Oil pump gets the most dirty oil in the system, all the parts downstream of the filter get the cleaner oil after filtration. You obviously don't understand a basic oiling system used in IC engines.

Originally Posted By: Trav
Try answering the questions instead of this dribble.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Well, to me that pretty much shows that dirtier oil causes more wear than clean oil since the oil pump is the victim of the most unfiltered oil in the sump.
It probably wouldn't be very hard to get ISO particle count data for a whole spectrum of oil filters used on the same engine

Is there such a study? Post it, if not why are you making statements again that you cant back up.

Go read some of your SAE papers again. Here's some info I have that shows that better filtration results in less engine wear. You keep saying that's not true, but I haven't seen even one link backing up your claim.

From SAE Paper 902238. Comparison of different efficiency oil filters effect on oil cleanness and Fe engine wear. Study it closely.








Originally Posted By: Trav
I asked you..
Originally Posted By: trav
Which gets back to the question where do these particles come from?


What kind of an answer is this?
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Anyone who understands the working of an IC engine should know where these particles come from

You tell me as I asked you to do.

It's the right response. You claim to be an engine expert ... so tell me where you think all these particles come from. Fact is, no matter where they come from they are there.


Originally Posted By: Trav
The rest of you post is the same old tripe. Like this..
Quote:
Well, to me that pretty much shows that dirtier oil causes more wear than clean oil since the oil pump is the victim of the most unfiltered oil in the sump.

Particle ingress has to start somewhere and its pre oil filter so of course it will cause wear to any parts pre filter. Particles large enough to damage the pump will be filtered out by any standard automotive filter (prove otherwise) not just a high efficiency filter.

Your part in red is what I've said all along - go read it again. So why do oil pumps wear out more than any other component in an engine if the oil is supposedly clean enough from filtration? They are really under no more load than some of the other components in the engine. I agree here, but I'll just say that a higher efficiency oil filter will filter out more particles, resulting in cleaner oil getting to the engine parts.

Originally Posted By: Trav
You talk a good game with your papers and studies but when push comes to shove you seem clueless. Baffling em with B.S. isn't cutting it chief.

I'd say you're more clueless ... and have zero technical data references to back up anything you say. People who feel "baffled" don't understand the technical details of the discussion.
 
Show me a comparison of x filter vs Y filter and the amount of engine wear associated with each on identical engines under the same conditions with no additional particle matter added just the wear from the engine itself. That's all I am asking for, do you have one or not?
Please save the song and dance with this paper and that paper.
 
Originally Posted By: Trav
Show me a comparison of x filter vs Y filter and the amount of engine wear associated with each on identical engines under the same conditions with no additional particle matter added just the wear from the engine itself. That's all I am asking for, do you have one or not?
Please save the song and dance with this paper and that paper.


Go read that SAE Paper 902238 that those graphs I posted above are from. That was data as a result of testing in the field during normal use of the vehicles, not "additional particle matter added" in a laboratory.

Where's your paper backing up your claims? I haven't seen one thing from you on that.
 
Hold on. Why don't you respond to this also...

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I don't get any better filtering (in a tangible sense) in terms of efficiency or capacity. What little difference that may exist is so paltry small that we'll NEVER see the difference in wear control. There are other things that control engine wear more so than the oil filter nowadays.


What are you afraid of?
I want to see actual engine tear downs with parts measured. Show the difference in the measurements and show the particle streaking.
I have been a mechanic for over 40 years and seen diesels with over a million km on them that are still running fine and outlasting the bodies with any filter handed out by the parts store.
That is just as relevant as any paper.
 
Originally Posted By: Trav
Hold on. Why don't you respond to this also...

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I don't get any better filtering (in a tangible sense) in terms of efficiency or capacity. What little difference that may exist is so paltry small that we'll NEVER see the difference in wear control. There are other things that control engine wear more so than the oil filter nowadays.


What are you afraid of?

I guess you've missed all the debating (and very long and detailed at times) between me and dnewton3 on this subject in many thread in this forum. The bottom line is he and myself pretty much agree. dnewton3 believes the SAE bus study has validity. What you're missing here is that cleaner oil results in less engine wear ... even if you can't prove it to yourself.

Originally Posted By: Trav
I want to see actual engine tear downs with parts measured. Show the difference in the measurements and show the particle streaking.
I have been a mechanic for over 40 years and seen diesels with over a million km on them that are still running fine and outlasting the bodies with any filter handed out by the parts store.
That is just as relevant as any paper.


Yeah, and I bet those diesel engine are using pretty high efficiency oil filters, and probably even have a bypass filtering system on them. Big rigs that run that many miles are not using filters that are 50% at 20 microns. Go look at all the big filters by Donaldson and Fleetguard used in the trucking industry and see what kind of efficiency they have.
 
Who said anything about big rigs? These were MB W123 bodies with engines ranging from 2.0 - 3.0 litres. Most of the filters used in this particular group were inexpensive bulk cellulose and used no bypass filters.
From dnewtons post it sure doesn't appear he agrees with you about filter efficiency and engine wear but that's for him to answer if he wants to.

Your contention that a higher efficiency full flow filter makes any significant difference does not bear out in real world conditions. A bypass filter that filters down to a very low micron level may well be another story especially when it is installed on a diesel.
 
Originally Posted By: Trav
From dnewtons post it sure doesn't appear he agrees with you about filter efficiency and engine wear but that's for him to answer if he wants to.

Your contention that a higher efficiency full flow filter makes any significant difference does not bear out in real world conditions. A bypass filter that filters down to a very low micron level may well be another story especially when it is installed on a diesel.


Did I say there would be a "significant" difference in wear in a normal passenger car type of vehicle? - read it again. I said there is less wear with cleaner oil just as does every study on the subject concludes. I never said or eluded to that an engine won't go 300K or more miles using low efficiency filters - but it certainly could be worn a bit more if low efficiency filters were used. This is how people start reading between the lines and making stuff up about that I'm saying, then all of a sudden I'm a "company rep" on some brainwashing expedition to use a certain oil filter. This place is nuts sometimes.

My point is that if you could accurately measure the wear difference that you would find some difference in wear. If it's enough to "make a difference" to how an engine runs or how the parts measure out compared to the FSM may never be realized if the wear is still low. Without a sophisticated test protocol you'll never know the difference by tearing down an engine and comparing dimensions to a FSM spec range.

And yes, there is a reason some engines (like in big rigs) use a super high efficiency bypass filtering system. It's to keep the oil as clean as possible to help reduce engine wear due to the long OCIs in those type of applications.

Fact is, I like high efficiency oil filters and air filters, and any frankly "filter" including coffee or tea filters .... that's their job, to filter.
 
What we all need to realize is that, to my knowledge, there is no current, relevant SAE study regarding filtration.

Most all of our information for discussion comes from decades old data (the GM filter study; the bus study). Those two in particular are often referenced as the gold standards, but one is an ALT that GROSSLY DISTORTS REALITY, and the other was done on 2-stroke DD engines that were notorious for soot generation and sub-standard air filtration.

My point in all this is that there's no relevant data that directly proves the points we discuss.

The only way we'd know with absolute certainty is that some company would have to run a large study with different filters, and see what pans out. For example, Fram could run a small fleet split into two groups; a control and a subject group. Perhaps run a fleet with EGs (95%) and another with TGs or FUs (99%). They'd have to run enough to get a true statistical data set that is large enough to be credible (minimum 30 samples for each group). The could do both UOAs (tracking wear over the life-cycle of perhaps 150k miles, with UOAs every 5k miles), and then at the end of the life-cycle, then do a TD analysis. That would take a LONG time, a HUGE amount of cash, and a commitment that would likely span past anyone's interest period. And for what? Would they sell any more filters? Most likely not. If not Fram, it could be Wix with the XP, Wix, and jobber filters. Or Purolator with the Classic (formerly white, now red), the PureOne and Boss.

My point is that I believe UOAs will show us wear trends, but ONLY when the metals are present. There is reasonable, sane explanation that would suggest that wear ONLY happens above 5um (above where spectral analysis would see it). Wear happens at ALL particle sizes, and so while UOAs will not not see all wear, they will indeed see a visible portion of wear, likely proportional to the overall trend. And so if your filter selection does not cause a discernible effect in UOA visible wear, it's also probably not causing any tangible difference in wear not seen by the UOA also. It if flat foolish to believe that the difference between 80% and 99% eff filters is ONLY going to manifest above 5um in particle wear. Therefore the UOAs should be able to see the difference, IF AND ONLY IF, the quantity of abrasive particles is substantial enough to generate a resulting echo in wear particles.

But that does not happen; hence filter differences really don't matter as much as some of you would like to think. That means that OTHER things are controlling wear; such as the air filter and lube add-pack and TCB.

It certainly cannot hurt to use a 99% FF filter. But it does not "help" as much as you'd think. Other items in the wear-control system are far more effective at controlling daily wear.
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3



But that does not happen; hence filter differences really don't matter as much as some of you would like to think. That means that OTHER things are controlling wear; such as the air filter and lube add-pack and TCB.

It certainly cannot hurt to use a 99% FF filter. But it does not "help" as much as you'd think. Other items in the wear-control system are far more effective at controlling daily wear.



dnewton3, I am really enjoying your posts. What you talk about really makes sense to me in the grand scheme of things. With that being said, and with your talk on how important ones air filter is, I would assume changing one out annually isn't a bad idea?

I just changed mine out on my truck yesterday as I believe the one I had in there was likely last changed out 2+ years ago? I got it on sale, and for $20 bucks, I thought it was a good idea.

What's your thoughts on this, is changing it out annually overkill, or are there too many variables to conclude that?
 
Thank you dnewton. That is a fair explanation. I really have nothing against FU I use them often as well as Wix/NAPA silver and gold, MANN, Mahle, etc and no engine has suffered a shortened life span that would make any difference whatsoever eg a million Km (600K miles) and still running well enough but the body is 38 years old and totally finished.

Most of the failures I see today on modern engines that are regular daily drivers are not bottom end related but cooling system, timing belt/chain/tensioner, sensor and gasket failures.
I will make this final point before ending my post in this thread.
IMHO maintaining the entire vehicle, replacing wear items before failure, maintaining the trans and other fluids, not driving with a check engine light on (yes there is something wrong if its on), rustproofing the body if you live in the salt belt, etc will get the owner a lot further than worrying about what the "best" oil filter is.
 
Trav
Good points. Regular maintenance is key. I’ve been doing most of my own maintenance for 42 years. My dad was a mechanic and he gave me good guidance. I have settled on a simple mileage number for all maintenance. I find that 5,000 miles is the common denominator. It makes things easy to keep up with. 5,000 miles for oil, 15,000 for air filters. Check the brakes every 5,000 miles when I rotate the tires. Antifreeze at 25,000 miles using only distilled water at 50/50%. You see the pattern?
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
What we all need to realize is that, to my knowledge, there is no current, relevant SAE study regarding filtration.

Most all of our information for discussion comes from decades old data (the GM filter study; the bus study). Those two in particular are often referenced as the gold standards, but one is an ALT that GROSSLY DISTORTS REALITY, and the other was done on 2-stroke DD engines that were notorious for soot generation and sub-standard air filtration.

My point in all this is that there's no relevant data that directly proves the points we discuss.

In all our discussions about the SAE Bus Study you regarded that one as having pretty good validity, as I do. IMO, it doesn't really matter if those engines were 2-stroke DD engines or not. Fact is, their study showed a clear correlation between oil filter efficiency and Fe levels/engine wear.

What this all boils down to is that there certainly is an effect on engine wear with better filtration, but on well maintained vehicles you're not going to see an engine "blow-up" or "totally wear out" beyond FSM specs before the car rusts away or other issues cause it's total demise. I've never eluded otherwise, only have always said higher efficiency oil filters will help keep engine wear down compared to a much less efficient filter, just as the bus study showed.

Personally I use high efficiency oil filters because I don't care about saving $3 on an oil filter (easier to save way more on other purchases in life), and because having an efficient oil filter to complete the "anti-wear triangle" (oil, air filter & oil filter) is worth doing. And I really don't care if someone uses a low efficiency oil filter, it's their car and money. But I do care that some people (not you dnewton) will argue and say that cleaner oil doesn't mean less engine wear just because they think they've proven otherwise on their own accord with no official data of any sort to back-up their misconceived claim.
 
Well at least in our two Countries (this conversation) we can have civil discourse about oil filter efficiency and engine wear. But, in the end we each have our individual life experience and education. I respect both Trav and ZeroSix, and others' opinions. I still like the build of the Wix XP.





Respectfully,

Pajero!
 
Is there a lab we can send a Wix XP to for efficiency testing? Maybe we can all make donations, if we could decide on which filter and lab. If it's even possible. I know Blackstone doesn't because I asked them. I admit I'm not familiar with filter testing, so someone chime in, please. Just a thought. I've often wondered about the XP.




Respectfully,

Pajero!
 
Originally Posted By: Pajero
Is there a lab we can send a Wix XP to for efficiency testing? Maybe we can all make donations, if we could decide on which filter and lab. If it's even possible.


Yes, the Southwest Research Institute (aka SWRI).

I talked about this a long time ago (6+ years ago). It costs ~$1500 per filter - LINK
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Pajero
Is there a lab we can send a Wix XP to for efficiency testing? Maybe we can all make donations, if we could decide on which filter and lab. If it's even possible.


Yes, the Southwest Research Institute (aka SWRI).

I talked about this a long time ago (6+ years ago). It costs ~$1500 per filter - LINK


Ouch!

Price aside, could that info, based on their findings, not cause some lawsuits once shared, especially if the results came back negative or less than stellar?
21.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top