Napa platinum no good?

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
As long as efficiency used as a catch all word is referenced to the multi test, of course it compares the filters the same way, it's fine. Not my point at all. There is no test for real world conditions in the lab, but you keep asking over and over for one regardless. The multi test is good and does show something about highly loaded filters in 4 hours. Probably because it is impossible to do, or costs too much, with the tiny amounts of particles in real life use. I stand by my idea.


I keep asking someone to show a lab test that simulates real word filter efficiency because there isn't one. That means that the ISO efficiency test (which has been around since 1999) is what everyone has to go by because there isn't anything better. And what I've tried to show with the bus study data is that filters that were tested with accelerated efficiency testing in the lab also directly correlated to how clean they kept the oil in real world use - it's a pretty clear correlation, look at the graphs again. This is how you put pieces of the puzzle together instead of waiting for someone to spoon feed you. It's not that difficult.

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
"Some dude" probably still reads here, nice. It was a test between two oil filters and Blackstone lab found the results. The member didn't make a chart himself and make a claim like Amsoil. The Ultra lost, allowed more particles to be in the oil. Another member, not another "dude", found not so good ISO cleanliness numbers. That's two members, not one.


It was one test on the motorcycle filter ... so again, one data point, not two. Testing a different filter by a different guy on a different engine and comparing isn't really a direct test. If different filters were put on the same engine, and everyone involved with the particle count testing were involved with all samples, then I might believe it a bit more.

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
The motorcycle test you refer to was one member having his oil tested with one filter. There was no comparison between two filters. The claim the Ultra makes oil better than new oil based on that is laughable.


Yes, again one data point ... so why is your one 'data point' valid and that one is "laughable". Take off the one-way glasses.

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Another member once tried to say his Ultra on a motorcycle was better than a Frantz. Problem is the Frantz took used oil from a diesel engine and cleaned it while the motorcyclist simply had his new oil tested after use, which was a another laughable comparison.


I'm sure a Frantz would have higher filtering ability than most spin-ons. But it wasn't really an apples-to-apples test, both filters were not ran on the same engine.

 

[Sayjac]

Originally Posted By: dbeau
Boy, what a debate!

I'll run the Platinum for 20K and let ya'll know if anything explodes

Sounds like a plan. Well/regularly maintained engine, should be fine. Oil used, more important. Quality synthetic of your choice. Explosion? Nah.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Engines won't "explode" even if no filter was used. It's not about "exploding" engines, but rather about keeping oil as clean as possible and the corresponding engine wear levels. I'd certainly change oil before 20K though.

Keep in mind that the longer you run an OCI, the more debris will be introduced over time to increase the cumulative amount, and the more filtration you should have in order to keep the oil as clean as possible.

 

[Trav]

In the past 6 months I have used Wix, Napa Gold and silver, Mann (German made), Mahle, Fram Ultra, Toyota, Honda, Jaguar, MB, VW OE,
Supertech, Motorcraft and a few others. Does that look like I only use high efficiency filters? I use anything on sale.
The filters efficiency plays no role whatsoever in my decision, its gone in 3-5K anyway.

You will never convince me it matters a lick which one I use, every engine I ever owned went to the junkyard running (decent running too) except for a few blow ups that had nothing to do with the oil filter.
My old Toyota GTI was 26 years old when my son sold it (running), I had it 19 years and 400K using good oils and any oil filter the parts store handed out and I ran that thing hard and put it away wet.

Well so much for that eh.

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
As long as efficiency used as a catch all word is referenced to the multi test, of course it compares the filters the same way, it's fine. Not my point at all. There is no test for real world conditions in the lab, but you keep asking over and over for one regardless. The multi test is good and does show something about highly loaded filters in 4 hours. Probably because it is impossible to do, or costs too much, with the tiny amounts of particles in real life use. I stand by my idea.


I keep asking someone to show a lab test that simulates real word filter efficiency because there isn't one. That means that the ISO efficiency test (which has been around since 1999) is what everyone has to go by because there isn't anything better. And what I've tried to show with the bus study data is that filters that were tested with accelerated efficiency testing in the lab also directly correlated to how clean they kept the oil in real world use - it's a pretty clear correlation, look at the graphs again. This is how you put pieces of the puzzle together instead of waiting for someone to spoon feed you. It's not that difficult.

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
"Some dude" probably still reads here, nice. It was a test between two oil filters and Blackstone lab found the results. The member didn't make a chart himself and make a claim like Amsoil. The Ultra lost, allowed more particles to be in the oil. Another member, not another "dude", found not so good ISO cleanliness numbers. That's two members, not one.


It was one test on the motorcycle filter ... so again, one data point, not two. Testing a different filter by a different guy on a different engine and comparing isn't really a direct test. If different filters were put on the same engine, and everyone involved with the particle count testing were involved with all samples, then I might believe it a bit more.

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
The motorcycle test you refer to was one member having his oil tested with one filter. There was no comparison between two filters. The claim the Ultra makes oil better than new oil based on that is laughable.


Yes, again one data point ... so why is your one 'data point' valid and that one is "laughable". Take off the one-way glasses.

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Another member once tried to say his Ultra on a motorcycle was better than a Frantz. Problem is the Frantz took used oil from a diesel engine and cleaned it while the motorcyclist simply had his new oil tested after use, which was a another laughable comparison.


I'm sure a Frantz would have higher filtering ability than most spin-ons. But it wasn't really an apples-to-apples test, both filters were not ran on the same engine.


The two motorcycle tests mean nothing. The one didn't compare two filters, the other was plain nothing. The car test compared two oil filters side by side. That's why we see the Ultra lost. The Frantz was used to clean used diesel engine oil, the motorcycle Ultra new oil. Claiming an Ultra is cleaning oil better than new oil is very laughable.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Trav
In the past 6 months I have used Wix, Napa Gold and silver, Mann (German made), Mahle, Fram Ultra, Toyota, Honda, Jaguar, MB, VW OE,
Supertech, Motorcraft and a few others. Does that look like I only use high efficiency filters? I use anything on sale.


A lot of those filters are in the 95%+ at 20u range - what I would say fall into the high efficiency category for spin-ons. So you are using high efficiency filters quite a bit.

Originally Posted By: Trav
The filters efficiency plays no role whatsoever in my decision, its gone in 3-5K anyway.


That's great, but anecdotal proves nothing scientific. Those short OCIs help. Don't chastize others for choosing high efficiency filters because they know the oil will be kept cleaner. Especially when every engine wear test ever done shows that cleaner oil results in less wear. It's ludicrous when that simple logic isn't understood, especially when those refuting have zero study data or facts to prove otherwise except anecdotal strawman arguments.

Originally Posted By: Trav
You will never convince me it matters a lick which one I use, every engine I ever owned went to the junkyard running (decent running too) except for a few blow ups that had nothing to do with the oil filter.
My old Toyota GTI was 26 years old when my son sold it (running), I had it 19 years and 400K using good oils and any oil filter the parts store handed out and I ran that thing hard and put it away wet.

Well so much for that eh.


That's great, but don't strawman that it doesn't matter just because your engines keep running forever. Engines can still run ptetty good with quite a bit of wear. When someone starts seeing obvious signs of bad running due to wear, then that engine is really worn by that time. What you didn't prove is how much less wear there might have been by using more efficiency filters all the time.

 

[Kruse]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

That's great, but don't strawman that it doesn't matter just because your engines keep running forever. Engines can still run ptetty good with quite a bit of wear. When someone starts seeing obvious signs of bad running due to wear, then that engine is really worn by that time. What you didn't prove is how much less wear there might have been by using more efficiency filters all the time.


Hmmmm...
You've posted 36 times SO FAR on this single thread because somebody didn't use a Fram Ultra and you're trying to convince everybody here that his engine will blow up because of it.
You don't get out much, do you?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Claiming an Ultra is cleaning oil better than new oil is very laughable.


No more laughable then your examples - yet you think yours are more valid for some reason.

It was an official particle count test of both the used oil with 5K miles on it out of the bike (which the transmission and wet clutch share the engine oil - think about that) and a particle count by the same lab on the same virgin oil out of the bottle. I've even linked that thread for you before. So I guess those "laughable" data points negate each other. ;grin2:

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Kruse
Hmmmm...
You've posted 36 times SO FAR on this single thread because somebody didn't use a Fram Ultra and you're trying to convince everybody here that his engine will blow up because of it.
You don't get out much, do you?


Ohoh, a troll has emerged. Did you count Trev's or goodtime's post?

And exactly where did I say the Ultra was the only high efficency oil filter, and where did I say if you don't use an Ultra (or any other high efficiency oil filter) that your engine will blow up?

Contribute something useful to the thread instead of trolling and getting into a personal attacking attitude.

 

[Kruse]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

Contribute something useful to the thread instead of trolling and getting into a personal attacking attitude.


And you might follow that advice also.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Kruse
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

Contribute something useful to the thread instead of trolling and getting into a personal attacking attitude.


And you might follow that advice also.


Just what do you think isn't a valid contrbution? Do you have links to offical test studies with measured data that says cleaner oil doesn't result in less engine wear? Can you prove that's not a true correlation?

Get technical, NOT personal !

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Claiming an Ultra is cleaning oil better than new oil is very laughable.


No more laughable then your examples - yet you think yours are more valid for some reason.

Some of the new oil particle counts were far from stellar, as I recall.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Patman
It's not fair to use Toyotas as an example by the way, because they build engines that are so durable (and people generally drive them pretty gently) that it almost doesn't matter what you do. Other engines may not fare so well if driven hard and using OEM filters.

This is where I've gotten a little disappointed when AC went to ecores and we see Motorcrafts tearing (Purolator issues). OEM filter sales shouldn't be driven by them drumming up fear about non-OEM parts and warranty. OEM filter sales should be enhanced by us being satisfied in the superiority of the product.

At one time, in my personal vehicles, I used a lot of Motorcraft and AC Delco filters. I had every confidence in build quality. Now, we shouldn't have to be biting our tongues while purchasing the things.

 

[gregk24]

Originally Posted By: Triple_Se7en
Originally Posted By: Motorking
Just asking, why would any of you run an XP instead of Ultra? Ultra always costs less at 8.99 retail, is 99%@20 microns, and has 20k capacity. Pressure drop when new is less than 2psi. Flow from a typical Ultra is more than 10gpm and our LS based race car only flows 5.7gpm at 7500rpm.
XP- They wont release efficiency at 20 microns because it's dismal. They cost more. WIX makes no claims as to how many miles it will go to full capacity. They are in fact redesigning it now because well, nobody is buying them. Honestly do not care what you use just curious as to why?


What vehicle sees 7500rpm in gear? Even 3+-grand may land us in jail for reckless driving. C'mon over to the real world Motorking.

Every time I stopped at a red light using a Fram Ultra, my idle would be stuttering and my headlights would dim at night-time. My GM would hammer at cold startup using the Ultra, even at 80 degree temps.

Take your Ultra and enjoy it. I've put my remaining new one in the recycle garbage bin.


Sorry but the Ultra wasn't the reason your GM was hammering at cold start up.

 

[Triple_Se7en]

Originally Posted By: gregk24
Originally Posted By: Triple_Se7en
Originally Posted By: Motorking
Just asking, why would any of you run an XP instead of Ultra? Ultra always costs less at 8.99 retail, is 99%@20 microns, and has 20k capacity. Pressure drop when new is less than 2psi. Flow from a typical Ultra is more than 10gpm and our LS based race car only flows 5.7gpm at 7500rpm.
XP- They wont release efficiency at 20 microns because it's dismal. They cost more. WIX makes no claims as to how many miles it will go to full capacity. They are in fact redesigning it now because well, nobody is buying them. Honestly do not care what you use just curious as to why?


What vehicle sees 7500rpm in gear? Even 3+-grand may land us in jail for reckless driving. C'mon over to the real world Motorking.

Every time I stopped at a red light using a Fram Ultra, my idle would be stuttering and my headlights would dim at night-time. My GM would hammer at cold startup using the Ultra, even at 80 degree temps.

Take your Ultra and enjoy it. I've put my remaining new one in the recycle garbage bin.


Sorry but the Ultra wasn't the reason your GM was hammering at cold start up.


omg!
Sorry that you are wrong!...
Re-read the part of my comments earlier where the problem resolved itself the moment I dispensed of it.

 

[Trav]

You keep calling it a strawman argument and now editing someone elses paper because it doesn't fit your narrative, just what are you playing at?
What is it you don't understand? the particles in diesels are much different and damaging than those found in a gasoline engine, they need a higher efficiency filter to survive. An engine running on NG or propane needs very little filter and much fewer oil changes than a gasoline engine given the air induction system is tight.

Cat even offers different efficiency oil filters based on operating and loading conditions. Why do they bother if the highest efficiency is always better?

Originally Posted By: CAT
Cat fluid filters are designed with optimized capacity
and rating for Cat equipment. Cat offers fluids filters
of three efficiency levels:
1.
Standard Efficiency
2.
Advanced High Efficiency
3.
Ultra High Efficiency



Just answer this one question. Why do engine using all different makes of oil filters show UOA results just as good or better as the Ultra?

Oh wait, I have the answer. If those engines with the Ultra had any other filter the UOA results would be much worse and the ones with the other filters would be much better.

 

[Patman]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Do you really believe that GM would use an inferior filter on their premium flagship engines?


Yes, I do. We've seen the pics of the PF64 cut open that had torn pleating. I don't want that filter anywhere near my Corvette....

 

[Patman]

Originally Posted By: Trav


Just answer this one question. Why do engine using all different makes of oil filters show UOA results just as good or better as the Ultra?



You're assuming that the wear shown in the UOAs is 100% accurate and it's not. I think it's pretty commmon knowledge on here that you can't take the wear numbers in the UOAs as gospel. An engine can be wearing out significantly and still show low numbers on the UOAs, because a UOA isn't measuring engine wear anywhere near as accurately as engine teardowns. That's why people can't use UOAs to compare one oil to another.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Trav
You keep calling it a strawman argument and now editing someone elses paper because it doesn't fit your narrative, just what are you playing at?


Strawman arguments are not addressing and proving the issue directly, but rather trying to defend one's point of view with weak indirect arguments and examples of what they think is proof. Example would be concluding that cleaner oil with high efficiency filters doesn't reduce engine wear because VW bugs lasted fine with no filter or a few Toyota engines lasted 300K miles and still "run like new". The real proof would be data from a controlled test or study that shows higher efficiency filters don't keep oil cleaner, or don't make any difference in engine wear. Essentially a study that disproves the bus study.

I'm "editing someone else's paper"? You're going to have to explain that one. I'm just saying what the conclusion of the study was. Go back and read the synopsis I posted earlier. Higher efficiency filters kept the oil cleaner which resulted in less engine wear. Is that really a surprise? Can anyone prove with actual test data and not strawman examples that's really not true?

Originally Posted By: Trav
What is it you don't understand? the particles in diesels are much different and damaging than those found in a gasoline engine, they need a higher efficiency filter to survive. An engine running on NG or propane needs very little filter and much fewer oil changes than a gasoline engine given the air induction system is tight.


The focus of the argument is not about the "level of need", it's about the simple fact that better filtration means cleaner oil.

Any piece of debris in the oil is potentially damaging regardless of what engine that debris is in. You're now saying it's fine to let particles go round and round in a gasoline engine because they "aren't as damaging" ... but still damaging.

Originally Posted By: Trav
Just answer this one question. Why do engine using all different makes of oil filters show UOA results just as good or better as the Ultra?

Oh wait, I have the answer. If those engines with the Ultra had any other filter the UOA results would be much worse and the ones with the other filters would be much better.

First off, the dicussion is not about the Ultra, it's about high efficiency oil filters in general. There are other high efficiency filters on the market.

To compare filtering performance, an ISO particle count gives better indication than a basic UOA with the insensitive "insolubles" parameter. Yes, the level of engine wear in a well maintained gasoline engine will probably be lower than in a dirty diesel engine, but it doesn't mean that keeping the oil a bit cleaner with better filtration isn't actually doing anything good in a gasoline engine.

I think it's really time to stop going in circles and time to "agree to disagree" like you said you did 6 pages ago. People reading this stuff can make their own conclusions.

 

[Trav]

Fine by me.