Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Yeah, everyone knows that dirty oil doesn't cause any more engine wear than clean oil.
You like to dance around the facts, first and foremost a FU will not prevent clean oil for getting dirty, by your own admission the most damaging size particles are still passing through it. Where is the clean oil? Only a bypass filter can come close to that and not being a full flow filter cannot be run as the primary so in comparison the FU leaves you with dirty oil.
"Dirty oil" is relative in case you didn't know - that's why the ISO cleanliness code was invented. And actually (per my own admissions), a high efficiency filter will keep more of the most damaging particles out of the oil. Yes, a 99% @ 20u FF filter leaves you with more particles than using a FF plus a bypass filter, just like a low efficiency FF filter leaves you with more particles than a high efficiency FF filter.
And who even mentioned the FU? Do a word search of this thread and someone (not me) mentioned the Ultra once, and then you did in this post. You, like many others here, see the words "high efficiency" and automatically think "Ultra" and then your blood pressure goes up. FYI, there are plenty of other high efficiency oil filters on the market ... do you hate on all oil filters because they are efficient? Seems like a focused mindset going on.
Originally Posted By: Trav
You condemn my measurements and tools as inaccurate but you neglect to address one thing, the fact that regardless of how it was measured what filter was used etc there was no streaking, scoring or embedded particles of the soft tri metal bearing overlay which means no particle big enough to cause damage either got past the filter or was ever present. That is irrefutable, I challenge you to dispute that fact.
dnewton (and a few others) also condemned your measurements, because it proved nothing in terms of determining the level of wear. Go back and find that thread. Don't know why you can't grasp the simple concept that you need a starting baseline in order to determine a delta from that baseline. No particles big enough to score or give obvious visual signs of wear ... but as said before, you can have wear that doesn't show big old scores, etc on the surface - about any filter can catch all those relatively gigantic particles that cause that type of wear. You are too narrowly focused on what you think wear can actually be.
Originally Posted By: Trav
There is nothing wrong with the FU but other filter will protect just as well for less money. You can reference all the test and song and dance routines you want but you cant dispute the fact that an engine went a million miles with what is considered (because of this efficiency mantra you repeat on this board daily like a broken record) an inefficient filter and is still in good condition.
How do you know that engine wouldn't have been in even better condition if high efficiency oil filters were used it's whole life without a controlled test to prove it one way or the other? That's my point ... people tout how inefficient filters are just as good as high efficient filters, but they have zero data to back it up. At least I've shown valid test data that pretty clearly shows that better filtration results in cleaner oil. Remember the old "Pure-Oil-Later" mantra Purolators name is based on ... maybe they should be sued because there's no way any oil filter could keep oil "pure".
For the record, I've never said that using a less efficient oil filter will result in a blown-up or totally worn out engine - if you (or anyone else) thinks I have then go find where and link it up. Again, people only read between the lines to what they want to hear. I've said many times that more efficient oil filters result in cleaner oil, which results in less engine wear - the level of wear is relative, but less wear is less wear.
Every engine wear study done comes to that same conclusion. I challenge you to show official test data that says a filter at 50% @ 20u gives cleaner oil than one at 99% @ 20u. And I'm talking about a test that takes out all the other variables that contribute to engine longevity. Show me a test (like the SAE Bus Study) that proves inefficient oil filters gives the same level of oil cleanliness as an efficient oil filter. If you've actually read the Bus Study you'd already know what I'm saying.
Originally Posted By: Trav
What is most aggravating is your smoke and mirror routine when faced with facts that you don't like, instead of admitting you may be barking up the wrong tree you throw a few more mirror out there and generate a bit more smoke to satisfy the fan base.
What facts? That a Toyota went 1M miles, or some engine was torn down and didn't have big scores on the moving parts and was still within FSM specs (even though those wear spec ranges are typically very large, allowing for a lot of wear).
And what "fan base" are you talking about? Seems this forum has become a battle between the guys who believe in efficient oil filters and those who believe chicken wire will do the same thing to prevent wear. There are plenty of guys here who think there is some value in using efficient filters. If you have such hatred for high efficiency oil filtering, you better go hang out in the bypass oil filter forum and bad mouth all those guys for going a magnitude higher in filtering than some guy using a 99% @ 20u FF oil filter.
Seems your viewpoint is pretty much increasing with a hate factor of anyone who believes in high efficient filters.
