Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by dnewton3
I have seen no proof whatsoever, nor has anyone here ever shown any evidence, that super-duper lubes and filters are the exclusive means to long equipment life.


Granted, super high efficiency oil bypass filters are primary used in heavy duty diesel engine applications where OCIs are super long, and there have been lots of studies done showing that cleaner oil resulted in less engine wear. I think this was posted by someone here at some point but worth showing again.


Good morning, Zee. Curious where that data is from? What study? Was it a HALT? Can you link the study or the source please? I would like to review it.
 
Originally Posted by Patman

True, but even if they charged $15 or $20 (as opposed to the $10 for the Ultra) they could still be popular.

As far as bypass filtration goes, I think the complexity of it scares a lot of people away. Having a simple spin on filter that is super efficient would be more user friendly.

I am not so sure it would work at 15 to 20 bucks Patman. But I am with you. I am required to use premium gasoline and a $3.50 per gallon I would pay $20 for a 10 micron filter in a heartbeat.
 
Logic would indicate that if long-haul trucks benefit from better filtration than all engines would gain some reduction in wear. I don't think that is in dispute. The argument that many of us are making is that the gain is not worth the cost, or any cost, since our engines are already lasting beyond the useful life of the rest of the vehicle. There might be some odd use cases where the gain could be worth paying for extra efficiency. Someone who maybe drives regularly 8-10 hours a day at highway speeds many days of the year, racking up 100,000 miles a year like a trucker. You might want to gain every bit of engine longevity and every bit of oil longevity between OCIs.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by dnewton3


My Point? You don't need super duper syn lubes or extra premium filters to make an engine last a long time. There is more than one means to an end.

Because contamination is low early in an OCI, then you don't need premium products; "normal" oils and filters will keep the engine clean enough to last a LONG time. If you choose to extend your OCIs as a fiscal savings tool, then syns and BP filtration are important to keep the sump clean for really long OCIs.

I have seen no proof whatsoever, nor has anyone here ever shown any evidence, that super-duper lubes and filters are the exclusive means to long equipment life. The VAST MAJORITY of data shows that wear rates trend down, even out to 15k miles of the OFCI, regardless of what products are used. This is true of every darn engine series I've studied. And there is ZERO correlation that allows us to conclude that low wear is the exclusive result of premium products. Even "normal" oils and filters exhibit this phenomenon. Because both normal products AND premium products both experience the downward trend of wear out to 15k miles, it's clear that neither is the controlling factor of wear. What has been proven to be a controlling factor is the TCB in normal OFCIs.

I have not seen any proof that is credible (in today's applications for normal OFCIs) that proves we need "more" filtration or "better" oils. Your car is FAR, FAR more likely to be totaled in a wreck, or rusted to oblivious, or traded out from sheer boredom, long before the engine dies, as long as you practice a sensible OFCI program with normal products.


So, the reason there's not a mass market filter that's "more" efficient is because it's not needed. It might be wanted, but it's not needed.


Maybe not, but using higher quality synthetic oils and the best filters is something that I PERSONALLY want to do, I still stand by the belief that better oils and better filters cannot hurt, so why not do everything you possible can to give your engine the best chance at living a long life? I treat every car I own as if I'm going to keep it forever, and even when I don't keep them forever, at least the engine is still running as good as new in every way for the entire time I have the car, instead of that engine getting tired and not running it's best as it ages.
 
Originally Posted by dnewton3


I have seen no proof whatsoever, nor has anyone here ever shown any evidence, that super-duper lubes and filters are the exclusive means to long equipment life.



Also, let's put this another way. Everyone's driving habits, climate and different engines will react differently. What worked in the past to get to that higher mileage with the cheaper oils and filters might not work today with higher compression direct injected engines (many of them with forced induction too, adding even more stress). If I'm wrong my only problem is that I've spent too much money on oil and filters. If you're wrong, you'll end up spending way more money rebuilding an engine sooner than otherwise necessary. That's a gamble I'm not willing to take.
 
Originally Posted by dnewton3
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by dnewton3
I have seen no proof whatsoever, nor has anyone here ever shown any evidence, that super-duper lubes and filters are the exclusive means to long equipment life.


Granted, super high efficiency oil bypass filters are primary used in heavy duty diesel engine applications where OCIs are super long, and there have been lots of studies done showing that cleaner oil resulted in less engine wear. I think this was posted by someone here at some point but worth showing again.


Good morning, Zee. Curious where that data is from? What study? Was it a HALT? Can you link the study or the source please? I would like to review it.


That was posted in another thread quite a while ago, not sure which one. I'll dig around on my computer and see if I can find the source of the data.
 
dnewton - I found the source. See the attached PDF file (the internet link is no longer alive). I saved the PDF back when that thread was going on back in 2017. Member Ducked summarized the info in Section 4.1 of the paper by the Pall Corporation. Of course it's a diesel engine focused paper, but IMO gives good general info on engine wear vs oil cleanliness.

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...62/re-particle-size-question#Post4597662
 

Attachments

  • 0 bytes · Views: 10
Originally Posted by Patman
Maybe not, but using higher quality synthetic oils and the best filters is something that I PERSONALLY want to do, I still stand by the belief that better oils and better filters cannot hurt, so why not do everything you possible can to give your engine the best chance at living a long life? I treat every car I own as if I'm going to keep it forever, and even when I don't keep them forever, at least the engine is still running as good as new in every way for the entire time I have the car, instead of that engine getting tired and not running it's best as it ages.


First of all, unless you're going to do something immoral, unethical, or illegal, you'll never get an argument from me about what you "want" to do. You should do what you "want", as will I, and most any other person.

But data tells us that you approach is not needed. That is the difference between wants and needs. Do it if you want, but real world data and facts show us that premium products are not an exclusive means to the end; that of long equipment life.

"Better" products won't hurt your engine; no one ever said that. What they do is hurt your wallet. Why pay for "extra" stuff that has shown no benefit in the actual application?

You want to spend money on premium products. There's no proof that the money spent on premium products in normal applications gives a decent ROI.
I want to save money. There exists tons of data that shows normal products protect equipment every bit as well as more expensive products, when used in everyday applications.
Neither of us is wrong to do what we want here.
 
Quote
There's no proof that the money spent on premium products in normal applications gives a decent ROI.

From what we read on BITOG people advocating non-premium products often aren't really saving money. For example, using standard dino oil and changing the filter every 5000 miles does not save you any money over using synthetic oil and a better filter while only changing the oil every 10,000 miles, assuming that synthetics and better filters are about twice the price. If you count your time as worth something you get the same results for 50% of the labor cost. Plus there is a savings on trips to the store or delivery charges, clean up materials, rubber gloves, crush washers, etc. etc. It gets worse if you are doing OCIs of 3000 miles. I haven't seen any definitive proof that the synthetic regime described is any worse for normal engines in normal use. On the other hand, you could argue that ordinary oil and filters could probably be used for double-length OCIs with no harm, and then you would be seeing a significant savings.
 
Originally Posted by dnewton3


But data tells us that you approach is not needed. That is the difference between wants and needs. Do it if you want, but real world data and facts show us that premium products are not an exclusive means to the end; that of long equipment life.

"Better" products won't hurt your engine; no one ever said that. What they do is hurt your wallet. Why pay for "extra" stuff that has shown no benefit in the actual application?

You want to spend money on premium products. There's no proof that the money spent on premium products in normal applications gives a decent ROI.
I want to save money. There exists tons of data that shows normal products protect equipment every bit as well as more expensive products, when used in everyday applications.
Neither of us is wrong to do what we want here.


But is any of this data for modern engines with direct injection? (which is becoming very common on a lot of engines these days, not just high performance ones) I think a lot of older engine designs were very forgiving when using lesser quality oils. But with direct injection and it's tendency to build up carbon on the back of intake valves (amongst other challenges like fuel dilution) I think choosing a premium oil can in fact make a big difference in it's life span. For instance, the oil I choose to run in my Corvette has a very low SA % of 0.6, and is reported to have a very low NOACK of under 6%. I think those two things alone will make a big difference in intake valve deposits (and overall engine cleanliness too) compared to if I just chose the cheapest available dexos1 rated oil (like Amazon Basics or Supertech for instance, and I doubt either of those choices will have the low SA and NOACK of M1 ESP Formula)
 
^^^ Patman - yes, DI engines seem to raise the bar and therefore not all products may give the same end results over time.
 
Originally Posted by AuthorEditor
From what we read on BITOG people advocating non-premium products often aren't really saving money. For example, using standard dino oil and changing the filter every 5000 miles does not save you any money over using synthetic oil and a better filter while only changing the oil every 10,000 miles, assuming that synthetics and better filters are about twice the price.

That's absolutely true. However, not everyone who switches to a filter and oil about twice the price will choose to double their OCI. Dnewton3's point over the years has been that lubricants and filters are generally very underutilized.
 
Originally Posted by Garak
Originally Posted by AuthorEditor
From what we read on BITOG people advocating non-premium products often aren't really saving money. For example, using standard dino oil and changing the filter every 5000 miles does not save you any money over using synthetic oil and a better filter while only changing the oil every 10,000 miles, assuming that synthetics and better filters are about twice the price.

That's absolutely true. However, not everyone who switches to a filter and oil about twice the price will choose to double their OCI. Dnewton3's point over the years has been that lubricants and filters are generally very underutilized.

My Ford Ranger was hard on oil and would shear down conventional or synthetic blend oils in less than 3000 miles. I found the synthetic oils to be more robust and don't readily shear down. I could easily run 6000 miles with a budget filter and the synthetic oil. If I wanted to extend I would want to back it up with a series of UOAs and a better filter.

Both true statements by Garak and AuthorEditor.
 
Fram Ultra and some others have two or even three layers, in an attempt to keep the finest layer from clogging too soon with larger debris. Fact remains a filter is a screen in the path of the oil flow to the bearings, there has to be porosity somewhere in the filter. It's a decades old idea to make a two in one filter, one fine, one coarser element. It probably costs too much and the general public doesn't care or won't spend any extra money for it.

I would like to see how they make filter media, from raw material to finished product. It has to have the right Frazier number for porosity and be very consistently made.

Trasko, jointly developed with Subaru i the 80's, makes a very fine element replacing a standard full flow and has a screen filter for bypass. I haven't quite accepted how they say it works on the flow path, or I would have bought one years ago. I may still buy one just for hobby excuse purchase. Subaru being part of the development gives it some engineering credibility.

http://trasko-usa.com
 
Originally Posted by WellOiled
My Ford Ranger was hard on oil and would shear down conventional or synthetic blend oils in less than 3000 miles. I found the synthetic oils to be more robust and don't readily shear down. I could easily run 6000 miles with a budget filter and the synthetic oil. If I wanted to extend I would want to back it up with a series of UOAs and a better filter.

That is true. I still think back to some of those early dexos1 days with something being essentially a Lumina, non-demanding, and people wanting to use a dexos1 for a 3000 mile interval when they were using ordinary conventional before.
wink.gif
You were using the product for a reason and got basically double the mileage for your price, which is a fair tradeoff. Double the miles, double the price, and cut the downtime!
 
someone should make custom oil filters, made to all OEM specifications just more efficient say absolute at 10 microns or so.
 
Originally Posted by AuthorEditor
Quote
There's no proof that the money spent on premium products in normal applications gives a decent ROI.

From what we read on BITOG people advocating non-premium products often aren't really saving money. For example, using standard dino oil and changing the filter every 5000 miles does not save you any money over using synthetic oil and a better filter while only changing the oil every 10,000 miles, assuming that synthetics and better filters are about twice the price. If you count your time as worth something you get the same results for 50% of the labor cost. Plus there is a savings on trips to the store or delivery charges, clean up materials, rubber gloves, crush washers, etc. etc. It gets worse if you are doing OCIs of 3000 miles. I haven't seen any definitive proof that the synthetic regime described is any worse for normal engines in normal use. On the other hand, you could argue that ordinary oil and filters could probably be used for double-length OCIs with no harm, and then you would be seeing a significant savings.

The presumption here is that syns and premium filters can go 2x futher ...
But further than what?

This is where most any typical person does not recognize/understand the bias in their own "experiment". By your logic, if the premium products were costing 2x more money, and got used for 2x more duration, then the ROIs would be equal. That is true. But that is predicated on SELF-IMPOSED, UNVERIFIED LIMITS.

My data base (over 15,000 UOAs) shows that pretty much all oils/filters can easily go 15k miles in most all applications, and have the wear rates still trend DOWN. There is no disparity in the macro data results; this is true of both normal products and premium products. The performance outputs are the same, but the premium products cost more. Hence, they exhibit a lower ROI.

My point is that the self imposed limits of 5k miles for normal products and 10k miles for premium products in your example are proof that self-imposed limits skew the data and obscure the truth. Those arbitrary limits do not reflect the actual performance in the real world; they only illuminate bias that limits the real ability of all products. It is proven that even conventional oils and normal filters exhibit wear trending down out to 15k miles. It is entirely possible that premium products would do that further; perhaps 25k miles or more? The point is that when self-imposed OFCIs take place, you're not testing the products; you're testing your bias!

If one sets arbitrary OFCI limits, typically 15k miles or less, then any convention products are going to exhibit a better ROI (defined as more return for less investment). If one were to run the OFCIs out to where the wear rates began to escalate slightly, indicating that the protection factor was now maxed out, and then measure the duration of use against the cost, THEN you'd know which is "better" for the true performance ROI factor. But since pretty much no one here has the stones to run OFCIs out to 20k miles, 25k miles, 30k miles on their standard filtering system (no BP system present), then you'll just have to accept the fact that we have no real understanding of how far ANY product can really go. So we're stuck with the self-imposed limits, which generate bias in the ROI.

What I know for a fact, what I can prove beyond any credible doubt, is that wear rates in nearly all engines continues to drop, out to 15k miles, regardless if you use normal or premium products. So if the output is the same (wear rates go down), and the inputs are different (cost of the OFCI), then the better ROI is the one that gives the same result for less expense. Hence, normal products are a smarter purchase.
 
Last edited:
Quote
The presumption here is that syns and premium filters can go 2x futher ...

I agree with what you say above, but what I am saying is that most BITOG posters who proclaim allegiance to conventional products say something like they don't feel the need for premium products because they change the oil and filter more often. Apparently a lot of other people don't have your confidence in extending OCIs using conventional products. So, my basic argument remains true: the ROI is actually better if you double your OCI and use premium products. A lot of people here don't even extend their OCI out to the mfg. recommended intervals! Just doing that, with whatever products you prefer, would save many people money.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top