Recent Topics
How drunk do you have to be to do this?
by dishdude - 02/17/20 11:09 PM
At least they show you
by Jake777 - 02/17/20 10:04 PM
Ryan Newman update
by P10crew - 02/17/20 09:17 PM
Thoughts on 2015+ Kia Sedona?
by 92saturnsl2 - 02/17/20 09:16 PM
Quiet riding tire
by wolf_06 - 02/17/20 08:27 PM
Where did the Ryan Newman thread go??
by P10crew - 02/17/20 08:02 PM
2013 FX4 repair.
by marine65 - 02/17/20 07:36 PM
New gaming build shutting down on Metro 2033
by Cujet - 02/17/20 07:09 PM
Snapon
by P10crew - 02/17/20 06:51 PM
Conventional or Synthetic
by charmer37 - 02/17/20 06:49 PM
Jeep Wrangler 3.0L Diesel
by HighbrowHillbill - 02/17/20 06:36 PM
94 B4000 overheat Eureka
by HyundaiAbuser - 02/17/20 05:48 PM
PP Euro 5w40 SN Plus formulation VOA
by BurntMusic - 02/17/20 04:35 PM
Bicycle Shops
by CourierDriver - 02/17/20 04:26 PM
EBC Brakes
by hatt - 02/17/20 04:17 PM
Dream Car
by MrQuackers - 02/17/20 04:06 PM
What are people using now for outdoor antennas?
by BAJA_05 - 02/17/20 02:49 PM
3.0L TDI
by Shorthorn - 02/17/20 02:48 PM
Mountain Bike Whee/Tire Sizes!
by jcartwright99 - 02/17/20 02:21 PM
Newest Members
Tgarst, Predator35001819, Markapuu, jds59, JimMorrison
70728 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
30 registered members (ArrestMeRedZ, bbhero, AnthemBassMan, Black_Thunder, bachman, alanwayne1908, 4 invisible), 895 guests, and 20 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums67
Topics301,597
Posts5,198,770
Members70,728
Most Online4,538
Jan 20th, 2020
Donate to BITOG
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4
Re: Oil filter discussion [Re: ZeeOSix] #5061263 04/01/19 07:20 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,241
D
Dad2leia Offline OP
OP Offline
D
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,241
Very, very true ZeeOSix!!! thumbsup


Yeah, whatever..at least for now.
Re: Oil filter discussion [Re: Dad2leia] #5061508 04/02/19 05:21 AM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 8,405
dnewton3 Offline
Global Moderator
Offline
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 8,405
In the chart, they're comparing a filter that's 99% at 40um to one that is 99% at 20um. I don't know that any filter we'd commonly see is only 99% at 40um.
As you and I have consistently danced around, the fact that most "normal" filters are more than good enough to make stuff last a long, long time.

It's kind of hard to ignore the fact that some of the looser OEM filters (Toyota and Honda) end up on engines that typically last well past 200k miles .....
I've personally run UOA data experiments on my 4.6L engines, contrasting TGs to FL-820s and not seen any real, true, disparity of wear control.
I've looked at tens of thousands of UOAs, and a large number of which I can directly correlate to UOAs posted here, so that filters are a part of the known equation, and yet I cannot prove that filter choices make a difference. What I can prove is that filter choices do NOT make a difference, in normal applications.

REAL WORLD DATA shows that filter choices for normal applications are pretty much moot, as discussed before, because once the oil is "clean enough", making it "more super clean" does not return any substantial improvement.

"Clean" is a relative state of mind. Doctors scrub their hands furiously with highly aggressive soaps before surgery. But that's not needed to simply make a sandwich at the kitchen counter.
Your engine does not need super-duper ultra fine clinically clean purified lube to make an engine last a long time. Once it's "clean enough", that effect no longer is the predominant factor.

- NO SAE STUDY TO DATE HAS DELINEATED WEAR CONTROL EFFECT OF FILTRATION AS THE ONLY VARIABLE IN NORMAL OFCI APPLICATIONS.
- ALL SAE STUDIES TO DATE HAVE BEEN ALTS AND/OR ARE BASED ON GROSSLY OUTDATED ENGINES AND FILTER DISPARITY, AS WELL AS HORRIDLY EXAGGERATED CONDITIONS NO ONE SUFFERS FROM.
- UNTIL WE HAVE A MODERN STUDY, USING ONLY FILTRATION AS THE VARIABLE, AS APPLIED IN OEM MANUAL OFCI CONDITIONS, EVERYONE'S OPINION IS BASED ON USELESS INTEL.

The phrase "cleaner oil" means zilch because there is no study that shows how clean oil needs to be RELATIVE TO the predicted longevity of the equipment.
You constantly state that "cleaner oil is better". But that has no context because you've shown no evidence of how clean an oil needs to be to deliver some predefined level of life-cycle expectation.

The question should not be "how clean can I make the oil?"
The question should be "how clean does the oil have to be before it's cleanliness exhibits a diminishing effect of ROI?"

I have a LOT of real world data from normal OFCIs that clearly shows wear rates are NOT affected by typical filter choices. Filter choices are a nuance that sub-exist inside of normal wear trends, and they do not produce a statistically viable means to prove themselves of consequence in those normal applications.

Last edited by dnewton3; 04/02/19 09:09 AM.

The act of preventative maintenance, in and of itself, is FAR MORE important than brand/grade/base choices among lubes and filters.
- under maintaining something is akin to abuse/neglect; that can kill equipment by shortening the lifespan
- over maintaining something has never been proven to be anything but a waste of time and money
Re: Oil filter discussion [Re: Patman] #5061522 04/02/19 05:42 AM
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 11,789
wemay Offline
Offline
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 11,789
Originally Posted by Patman
Originally Posted by blupupher

I agree with you to a point Patman, we are on this board for a reason.
But in the real world, regular changes with whatever oil and filter spec's for the vehicle will probably keep the engine from ever having any oil related issue.

But again, that is not why we are here. We do not want the "good" option, we are wanting the better/best (or even bestest smile ) option.
Plus many are here running with other than normal engine specs or driving conditions.




That's my problem with his posts, it's all he seems to respond to most questions. Even if what he says is partially true, it's not in the spirit of this board. What if every single oil and filter topic on here was immediately greeted with that kind of response? It's useless. Yes, we like to split hairs here and picking the best oil and best filter (as we perceive it) might not make a difference, but that simply should not be the answer to every question posted on here.


Your reasons for this board maybe. But respectfully, others may see Bitog differently. Opposing views are fine.


2019 VW Passat Wolfsburg TSI
VW High Performance Genuine Engine Oil 0W-20
OEM


2013 Hyundai Santa Fe Sport 2.0T
Shell Rotella Gas Truck 5W-30
OEM
Re: Oil filter discussion [Re: Dad2leia] #5061527 04/02/19 05:53 AM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 8,405
dnewton3 Offline
Global Moderator
Offline
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 8,405
Here is an example of what I'm talking about from my UOA files.
This is the example used in my UOA basis study for "normalcy".
The owner ran 5k mile OFCIs. He started out using Mobil 1 and PureOne filters, because by gosh they were the "best". He did that for the first 140k miles of the UOA cycles.
He then switched over the Mobil Clean 5000 and Purolator Classic, and ran another 135k miles.
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis-how-to-decide-what-is-normal/
The chart below is the synopsis of the data from the "micro" study in my UOA article.

As you can see from the data, there is ZERO ability to distinguish the two sets of data from one another. There is far, far more overlap in "normal" wear than there is able to be assigned to the filter. In fact, the deck was stacked because it was not only the premium filter, but also the premium PAO lube. And yet those two products together could not alter the "normal" wear of a 5k mile OFCI.

Now, as I've said repeatedly, if the OFCI were to be greatly lengthened, it would be logical at some point to believe that the premium products would likely show a disparity in performance contrasted to the lessor items. But from all the data in my UOA basis study (more than 15,000 UOAs now), there is CLEAR evidence that wear-rates drop all the way out to 15k miles; that is were my data stops. So normal people, whom follow the OLM or IOLM, are likely to never be able to see any benefit from super duper lubes and uber efficient filters, because the NORMAL VARIATION OF DAILY USE FAR EXCEEDS THE MINIMAL NUANCE THAT THE LUBE AND FILTER CAN AFFECT.

This is one of my better examples, because it's statistically viable from a single source; it's micro data. But macro data tells the same story. In normal OFCIs, the filter you use does not produce any discernible effect on wear rates because the normal daily variation is larger than what the filter can affect. I realize it is hard to accept, but that does not make it any less true.

I fully realize that superior filters make oil cleaner. What you all seem to keep ignoring is that once oil is clean enough, making it cleaner does not get you any return on the investment. Engines don't need uber-clean oil to last well over 250k miles. This Vulcan engine was at 285k miles, and I personally saw the valve covers off a few times; there was no cleanliness difference. No wear differences. Nothing from using the Mobil 1 and PureOne made the costs payback; it was all wasted money. 140k miles of M1 and P1 made the engine not one bit cleaner and not one bit better wearing than the MC5k and a classic white can (aka tearolator).

What this data proves is that both the oil and filter were NOT the controlling entity of wear. If inputs change, and the outputs do not change, then the conclusion is that the inputs did not have effect.
Theory: finer filtration and syn lubes make for less wear via cleaner oil
Reality: finer filtration and syn lubes did not alter wear in any meaningful manner
Conclusion: finer filtration and syn lubes are not the wear-control major contributing factor; other things are more important (TCB; lack of contaminant loading; soot control of the additive package; oil film wedge; etc).

Again - this is real life data of 275k accumulated miles of 5k mile OFCIs from one vehicle that was consistently operated its entire life. This is as real as it gets. This is as well controlled as it gets in real life. The tighter filter may have kept the oil cleaner, but that cleaner oil didn't make one difference in wear control. Once it's "clean enough", making it "cleaner" does nothing. Facts don't lie.

Is cleaner oil harmful? No. Unless you count all the money you spend not getting anything back in return.
Is cleaner oil helpful? Only to a point, and then it's moot.

Vulcan UOAs example.JPG
Last edited by dnewton3; 04/02/19 09:26 AM.

The act of preventative maintenance, in and of itself, is FAR MORE important than brand/grade/base choices among lubes and filters.
- under maintaining something is akin to abuse/neglect; that can kill equipment by shortening the lifespan
- over maintaining something has never been proven to be anything but a waste of time and money
Re: Oil filter discussion [Re: Linctex] #5061583 04/02/19 06:42 AM
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 11,547
4WD Offline
Offline
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 11,547
Yes they are built stout - but M1 filters also have a strong and well spaced blended media - they have not filled this site with torn pleats ...

I have used plenty FU's ... and think they are great - but the world moves on mostly without them ...

Re: Oil filter discussion [Re: dnewton3] #5061594 04/02/19 06:50 AM
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 11,547
4WD Offline
Offline
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 11,547
Quote:
"He then switched over the Mobil Clean 5000 and Purolator Classic, and ran another 135k miles"

BiL did +400k on his GM 5.3L w/ that oil + the MO-something (probably that) filter that the Mobil 1 quick lube put in every 5k ...

4L60e and driver's seat were in worse shape than the engine when he got a new GMC ...

Re: Oil filter discussion [Re: Dad2leia] #5061648 04/02/19 07:36 AM
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 247
B
Bill_W Offline
Offline
B
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 247
So keeping aside how efficient the media is, most are good enough. The next question is how durable the filter is, the bypass setting and the ADBV if the filter can drain when engine off. Still the unknown thinking that I am not as smart as the engineers that designed the engine. We think we can do better, so we get the biggest filter we can find that will fit, cause bigger is better or more efficient media or 20,000 mile filter exc... OEM and aftermarket has two points of view and markets to each customer.

That ADBV... The primary reason for it is to keep the oil in the filter can only on filters that are not dome down and not to back flush the filter media.

Last edited by Bill_W; 04/02/19 07:43 AM.

Slick
Re: Oil filter discussion [Re: Dad2leia] #5061713 04/02/19 08:30 AM
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 749
F
Farnsworth Offline
Offline
F
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 749
Opposing views are not fine on this site. There are those who control. Even Websters sees the influence on focus groups of certain personalities.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/opinionated

So it is no longer a discussion but a rally.

Re: Oil filter discussion [Re: Dad2leia] #5062113 04/02/19 01:14 PM
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,519
Yah-Tah-Hey Offline
Offline
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,519
I like DENSO oil filters. We had our fiftieth anniversary two year ago. It was Nippon Denso then and were only available at the dealer

Re: Oil filter discussion [Re: dnewton3] #5062178 04/02/19 02:15 PM
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 22,567
Z
ZeeOSix Offline
Offline
Z
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 22,567
Originally Posted by dnewton3
In the chart, they're comparing a filter that's 99% at 40um to one that is 99% at 20um. I don't know that any filter we'd commonly see is only 99% at 40um.


There are quite a few filters in the 99% @ 40u or 50% @ 20u filtering level. WIX XP, Purolator Boss, most Purolator cartridge filters, many OEMs, etc. Who knows what some of the off brand filters do as there is never any good efficiency data published.

Originally Posted by dnewton3
As you and I have consistently danced around, the fact that most "normal" filters are more than good enough to make stuff last a long, long time.


I'm not looking at "good enough" (very open and broad term) ... I'm looking at the relationship between a filter's efficiecy and how clean it keeps the oil, which is the job of the oil filter. If particle count data shows Filter A keeps the oil 10 times cleaner than Filter B then I'm going to use Filter A.

Originally Posted by dnewton3
REAL WORLD DATA shows that filter choices for normal applications are pretty much moot, as discussed before, because once the oil is "clean enough", making it "more super clean" does not return any substantial improvement.

"Clean" is a relative state of mind. Doctors scrub their hands furiously with highly aggressive soaps before surgery. But that's not needed to simply make a sandwich at the kitchen counter.
Your engine does not need super-duper ultra fine clinically clean purified lube to make an engine last a long time. Once it's "clean enough", that effect no longer is the predominant factor.


If I think the oil needs to be as clean as I can make it then it does. My vehicle, my money, my viewpoint, my decision. If someone doesn't want to use a higher filtering oil filter, then great ... go for it, it's their prerogative.

Originally Posted by dnewton3
The phrase "cleaner oil" means zilch because there is no study that shows how clean oil needs to be RELATIVE TO the predicted longevity of the equipment.
You constantly state that "cleaner oil is better". But that has no context because you've shown no evidence of how clean an oil needs to be to deliver some predefined level of life-cycle expectation.


It doesn't matter ... fact is cleaner oil will always be better than dirtier oil. Every machine lubrication article written will say cleaner oil reduces wear (pretty obvious logic). That's all I care about. Nobody has done any extensive long term "engine health vs mileage" tests to compare now the engine's health will be if using say 50% @ 20u vs 99% @ 20u oil filters for 250.000 miles while keeping everything else constant. As I've said many times, engines can be pretty worn out (even beyond factor wear specs) and still seem to "run fine" while behind the wheel. But if that same engine was a bit less worn out it might even seem to run a bit better. It might use less oil, have more compression and get a better gas mileage vs one a bit more worn out because of running dirtier oil in it for 250,000 miles.

Originally Posted by dnewton3
The question should not be "how clean can I make the oil?"
The question should be "how clean does the oil have to be before it's cleanliness exhibits a diminishing effect of ROI?"


I don't care about "ROI" when a whole delta of $3 per year is involved. Bottom line viewpoint is that cleaner oil is better than dirtier oil, and if it takes $3 more a year to ensure that, then it's going to be done that way ... it's a no-brainer.

Originally Posted by dnewton3
I have a LOT of real world data from normal OFCIs that clearly shows wear rates are NOT affected by typical filter choices. Filter choices are a nuance that sub-exist inside of normal wear trends, and they do not produce a statistically viable means to prove themselves of consequence in those normal applications.


What you need to be tracking is IOS particle count data vs engine wear with a very sensitive test method beyond a Blackstone type test.



Re: Oil filter discussion [Re: dnewton3] #5062201 04/02/19 02:40 PM
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 22,567
Z
ZeeOSix Offline
Offline
Z
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 22,567
Originally Posted by dnewton3
Here is an example of what I'm talking about from my UOA files.
This is the example used in my UOA basis study for "normalcy".
The owner ran 5k mile OFCIs. He started out using Mobil 1 and PureOne filters, because by gosh they were the "best". He did that for the first 140k miles of the UOA cycles.
He then switched over the Mobil Clean 5000 and Purolator Classic, and ran another 135k miles.
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis-how-to-decide-what-is-normal/
The chart below is the synopsis of the data from the "micro" study in my UOA article.

As you can see from the data, there is ZERO ability to distinguish the two sets of data from one another. There is far, far more overlap in "normal" wear than there is able to be assigned to the filter. In fact, the deck was stacked because it was not only the premium filter, but also the premium PAO lube. And yet those two products together could not alter the "normal" wear of a 5k mile OFCI.

[Linked Image]


You're comparing a 99% @ 20u (PureOne) vs a 97.5% @ 20u (Classic) filter. Of course you're not going to see much difference and the data will seem to be in the "noise level".

Originally Posted by dnewton3
This is one of my better examples, because it's statistically viable from a single source; it's micro data.


It's not a good example because those two filters are nearly identical in efficiency. You need data comparing a 99% @ 20u filter to a 50% @ 20u filter, or a 99% @ 20u vs 99% @ 40u like in the PC graph I posted. Plus the same oil needs to be used so multi variables aren't being changed.

Originally Posted by dnewton3
I fully realize that superior filters make oil cleaner. What you all seem to keep ignoring is that once oil is clean enough, making it cleaner does not get you any return on the investment. Engines don't need uber-clean oil to last well over 250k miles.


Doesn't matter ... I'm not in to "ROI" when $3 is at stake to ensure the oil is cleaner than not. I'm in to cleaner oil for a small price difference.

Originally Posted by dnewton3
Is cleaner oil harmful? No. Unless you count all the money you spend not getting anything back in return.
Is cleaner oil helpful? Only to a point, and then it's moot.


For me the bottom line remains ... cleaner oil is better than dirtier oil, regardless if I see a "difference" or not. Keeping the oil cleaner than not is my goal (without going with bypass filtering), so I use high efficiency oil filters since they are available for a small increase in cost. As I've said may times, any filter that is 95% @ 20u or better is a go for me. 50% @ 20u or 99% @ 40u ... not so much.

Re: Oil filter discussion [Re: Farnsworth] #5062209 04/02/19 02:47 PM
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 22,567
Z
ZeeOSix Offline
Offline
Z
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 22,567
Originally Posted by Farnsworth
Opposing views are not fine on this site. There are those who control. Even Websters sees the influence on focus groups of certain personalities.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/opinionated

So it is no longer a discussion but a rally.


Everyone has an opinion on a chat board ... and everyone also has the choice of believing or not believing someone's opinion and the supporting information. It's usually pretty easy to separate the wheat from the chaff. Some opinions are right and some are wrong, and that's why people have debates and discussions with supporting material. Nobody is forcing anyone to read or believe what they post.

Re: Oil filter discussion [Re: Dad2leia] #5062463 04/02/19 07:27 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,241
D
Dad2leia Offline OP
OP Offline
D
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,241
Well, now the juices are flowing...

Dnewton3 - Thank you sir for your thorough explanations of the minute differences on the filters. You make a very good point that all things being what they are in the real world use of oils and filters, let the buyer spend what they deem "necessary" for the protection level that they desire..

ZeeOSix - Your opinion is how I felt before my disposable income became almost non-existent for this wonderful hobby of ours. I used to always seek out the best of the best in everything, from the filter to the oil. I use to use Amsoil and Royal Purple filters exclusively, with the Purolator BOSS and Fram Ultraguards tossed in for good measure.

Right now, I have on a Baldwin B7243 with, um... Valvoline VR1 Synthetic 10w-30 in my crankcase. This is a happy medium for me at this time, as my most expensive oil change was on our Honda CR-V (RIP), when I had on an Amsoil filter and was using Maxima Ultra 5w30 (when it existed), and somewhere in the archives of the VOA's section, I have the composition of that oil listed. This stuff was WAY overkill for that engine, but it gave me piece of mind that I was doing the most for my engine.

This board has continued to formulate new and different opinions on what I will use...and for that, and discussions like this one that I started, I will always appreciate. To that I say thank you...and of course, keep those opinions and those of expertise coming!!! smile


Yeah, whatever..at least for now.
Re: Oil filter discussion [Re: Dad2leia] #5062768 04/03/19 06:39 AM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 8,405
dnewton3 Offline
Global Moderator
Offline
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 8,405
OK - more data for non-believers ....
Toyota 3.4L v-6
Looking at them with Premium filters typically 95% or better (Ultra, TG, Boss, PureOne, etc) versus Toyota brand normal filters at 60% or so (very loose) filters.
Compare/Contrast wear rates at 100k miles and 200k miles.
Theory is that "better" filters would make engines last longer; that should be reflected in the wear rates being lower from UOAs correlated to premium filters.
And yet reality says .... Nah - ain't true ...
Wear rates were SLIGHTLY lower with the premium filter at 100k miles exposure, but at 200k miles, the disparity all but vanished. Maybe it just takes longer for engines to burnish in with premium filters in use?
Regardless, the disparity is TINY and not consistently "better" from metal to metal.
Look at the stdev; there is huge overlap. DAILY USE FACTORS AND TYPICAL NUANCES OF EACH INDIVIDUAL ENGINE HAVE FAR MORE AFFECT ON WEAR THAN DOES A MODERATE FILTER EFFICIENCY CHOICE.

The data shows that filtration is not having a substantial effect. The conclusion I draw is that once oil is clean enough, making it cleaner does not substantially increase the longevity of the equipment.
I cannot tell you what level of clean is necessary; I can only say whatever that value is, Toyota seems to have figured it out because tighter filtration is not making a tangible improvement in wear rates over the LONG term. As I have said before, it is more likely that the add-pack (controlling soot) and the TCB (controlling asperitive contact) in short-to-moderate OCIs that makes all the difference.

If we wanted to know how important the filter is to the overall system in terms of engine wear, we'd need a control group with NO filter, to see the effect as a singular variable holding other inputs the same. To date, I've not seen any study ever attempted in that regard. All the SAE studies to date have either been run in grossly exaggerated conditions that completely ignore the topic of OCI, or they were run with really outdated equipment and lubes. None of these have any bearing on today's engines and lubes.

If you are going to run really long OCIs, where contaminant loading might well usurp the host lube's capabilities if unassisted, then BP filters and premium filters would be paramount to success. But if you're running "normal" OCIs (typically set by the OEM) and using a decent fortified lube, the filter efficiency just isn't important past a certain point; clean enough is good enough. And "better" does not reveal itself in reality.

The reality today is that engines are designed, made and operated well enough that lube filters matter, but only to a certain point. In fact, it's been that way for well more than a decade now. Some engines just continue to soldier on simply because they are well designed and are almost immune to wear, and the reality of catastrophic events are more likely to take them out of service than a wear-induced death. Ford 4.6L mod motors. Toyota 3.4L engines. GM 3.8L v-6. Etc ... some of these run seemingly forever and never get anything but routine oil/filter changes with jobber type products. How many CrownVics are out there still today with 300k, 400k, 500k miles on them running in taxi service? Do you think they are getting Mobil 1 and Fram Ultra filters????

My son's 4.6L Grand Marquis was running great at 126k miles, until a jerk fleeing police crashed into him and totaled it. My wife's 2005 Grand Marquis was running superb at 255k miles until it also was struck and "totaled" (we bought it back for my son). The UOAs from my 4.6L fleet (3 Grand Marquis) show that normal oils and filter are likely to make the engine outlast the car either from crashes, rust degradation, etc.

Anyone who wants to buy the "best" is welcome to do so; spend your money in a manner you see fit.


Here's the Toyota 3.4L filter data .... As you can see, premium filters really don't alter wear much and the longer the engine wears, the less effect there is.
Maybe it just takes 150k miles to "break in" a 3.4L Toyota grin2

.

Toy 3.4L filters.JPG
Last edited by dnewton3; 04/03/19 06:45 AM.

The act of preventative maintenance, in and of itself, is FAR MORE important than brand/grade/base choices among lubes and filters.
- under maintaining something is akin to abuse/neglect; that can kill equipment by shortening the lifespan
- over maintaining something has never been proven to be anything but a waste of time and money
Re: Oil filter discussion [Re: Dad2leia] #5062832 04/03/19 07:59 AM
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 247
B
Bill_W Offline
Offline
B
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 247
Maybe the filter to focus on for efficiency is the air filter.

Nice article on wear particle testing.

https://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/29657/wear-particle-analysis


Slick
Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4
Previous Thread
Index
Next Thread

BOB IS THE OIL GUY® Powered by UBB.threads™