Originally Posted by dnewton3
thanks Zee!
I have a few comments, and then I'm off for a three day weekend.
- this data is interesting, but not really of sufficient quantity to prove anything. These are a few UOAs paired with a couple PCs. There not nearly enough data to do Anova and find trustworthy standard deviations. While intriguing, it's by no means convincing.
- however ... it may illuminate that both you and I are right. The Boss filter being so much more "open" does allow more particulate in the lube stream, and therefore more wear; that supports your assertions. But the MASSIVE disparity in the two efficiencies just proves my point; there is a minimum threshold of "good enough", and apparently the Boss isn't.
If you look at what I stated, I was speaking to efficiency differences between 50% and 99% ALL at 20um. The example data you show is not at those limits; it uses contrast of two hugely different filters. It is quite possible that 20um, 25um, or 30um might be the "threshold" where "good enough" is established; I don't know because I done have any data exhibiting the differences using that as the criteria.
I do understand that you'll probably assume that 99% at 40um might be roughly equal to 50% at 20um; I'm not convinced of that. You are using the variable of um rating and holding the efficiency as the control. I am stating to use the um size as the control and the efficiency as the variable. Those are two very different ways to measure things.
I've read you state many times that using a tighter filter cannot be a bad thing; with that I cannot argue; it certainly does not hurt to use the highest performing filter you can afford. But I'm not convinced there's a great return for that investment.
My data shows "normal" filters don't really matter in wear control in a "normal" OFCI. The Donaldson study does also state that lube filters are not the greatest controlling factor in wear control. (The first being ambient dust presence; the second being air filtration).
Have a great weekend Zee!
Yes, I do believe that most filters rated at 99% @ 40um will come in close to 50% @ 20um.
You and I both know that WIX use to show on their website that the beta ratio of their XP was 50% @ 20um. And I even called WIX Tech Line and got the same 50% @ 20um answer. Then WIX removed the beta ratio all together from their website.
Now WIX claims the XP is 99% @ 35um (see link below) ... which is pretty close to 40um. So it's not a stretch to say a filter rated at 99% @ 40um is most likely going to come close to 50% @ 20um. I think most of us here know why WIX went with the "99%" rating format - looks better to consumers to see "99%" instead of "50%"..
See the "Detailed Description" section:
https://www.oreillyauto.com/detail/...ilter/57356xp/4847784?q=wix+xp&pos=0
You can email WIX and ask them, and what you'll get back is an email from WIX with the same text as what's shown on the O'Reilly Auto website link above.
The bottom line is we all know that the Ultra has a higher ISO 4548-12 efficiency rating than the Boss. The PC data also shows that. Like I said before a data base of controlled ISO efficiency rating vs PC and wear data needs to be developed. I've done a small sample of that from UOA reports here on BITOG, but much more data needs to be collected. I know this is one data point, but it also coincides with the Bus Study where they clearly showed that more efficient oil filters resulted in cleaner oil and less wear. I think that it can never be disputed or proved wrong that cleaner oil results in less wear.
Yes, I understand your viewpoint of "any filter is good enough" to make your engine last and run fine until the car goes to the junk yard. But from a more purist viewpoint for those who want to keep their cars a very long time (I do) and want to ensure the engine wear is reduced as much as possible, then using high efficiency filters (one of many factors involved) surely isn't going to hurt as you reflect in the blue text in your post.
Enjoy your 3 day weekend Dave.