Home

Oil filter discussion

Posted By: Dad2leia

Oil filter discussion - 04/01/19 12:53 AM

Well, it has been quite a long time for me posting on this board, as I have been mostly reading about the latest and greatest things, combos, and such...so in that vein, and without further ado...I pose these questions:

1) After going nuts trying to keep all of them straight...who exactly owns who anymore, and have any of them actually gotten worse than normal (manufacturer's that is)

2) Is Baldwin still a pretty decent manufactured filter? My batch of B7243's say that they are made in the US. Am asking this in reference to possibly buying my next case of the Mann W811/80 variety, as since there change, they look quite comparable for about the same price.

And 3) Other than Royal Purple, Purolator BOSS, or Fram Ultra Guard, is there another one that stands out as an overachiever for the price.

Yes, let the flaming/discussion/slap sticking begin.
Posted By: CT8

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/01/19 01:01 AM

Unless the oil filter fails Your engine will last and last no matter which filter you choose.
Posted By: Donald

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/01/19 03:31 AM

Originally Posted by CT8
Unless the oil filter fails Your engine will last and last no matter which filter you choose.


Unless you are pushing it past 7500 miles, any filter will do.

I think a silicone ADBV is a good idea. So if I could choose from a bunch of filter for the same price, the ones with a silicone ADBV would be my choice.

We will see what the April NAPA sale brings as far as NAPA filters on sale.

The majority of car owners are getting their oil changed at the dealer with (I assume) an OEM flter or a JiffyLufe or indy mechanic and both probably use a "good" (in the good, better, best rating) filter.

A small percentage change their own oil and use what they sell at Walmart.
Posted By: PPWarrior

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/01/19 03:33 AM

I think Mobil 1 filters are really good.

I think Wix filters are overpriced.
Posted By: 4WD

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/01/19 04:23 AM

Originally Posted by Donald
Originally Posted by CT8
Unless the oil filter fails Your engine will last and last no matter which filter you choose.


Unless you are pushing it past 7500 miles, any filter will do.

I think a silicone ADBV is a good idea. So if I could choose from a bunch of filter for the same price, the ones with a silicone ADBV would be my choice.

We will see what the April NAPA sale brings as far as NAPA filters on sale.

The majority of car owners are getting their oil changed at the dealer with (I assume) an OEM flter or a JiffyLufe or indy mechanic and both probably use a "good" (in the good, better, best rating) filter.

A small percentage change their own oil and use what they sell at Walmart.


I tend to combine two of your thoughts since I run around 7k mile OCI's and change oil and filter. (very easy on my truck/SUV).
The vertical mount filters on my GM's are not as dependent on the ADBV and the nitrile in the AC Delco filters hold up and clearly work. As I was slowly building confidence in these (once I knew my older XG10575 stash had the low pressure PRV) ... I did early changes on the PF63E (5k)... each and every time it took a full quart to change the filter (0w30 to help the 0w20 with dilution) ... and that small filter does not hold much ... so the high side of the U-tube is being held by the ADBV
(it dumps a fair amount when the filter comes off seat)
Posted By: Linctex

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/01/19 06:50 AM

Originally Posted by PPWarrior
I think Mobil 1 filters are really good.
I think Wix filters are overpriced.


Mobil 1 filters are *nothing* special at all.

You can't tell the element from any other cheaper oil filter by looks alone: it looks like any plain pleated paper thing.

Fram Ultra, Puro Boss, Amsoil, Donaldson Synteq, and Royal Purple are OBVIOUSLY synthetic by their construction.
Posted By: BlueOvalFitter

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/01/19 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by Linctex
Originally Posted by PPWarrior
I think Mobil 1 filters are really good.
I think Wix filters are overpriced.


Mobil 1 filters are *nothing* special at all.

You can't tell the element from any other cheaper oil filter by looks alone: it looks like any plain pleated paper thing.

Fram Ultra, Puro Boss, Amsoil, Donaldson Synteq, and Royal Purple are OBVIOUSLY synthetic by their construction.



They do have one thing going for them; they're very heavy!
Posted By: Patman

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/01/19 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by CT8
Unless the oil filter fails Your engine will last and last no matter which filter you choose.



horse

You keep repeating this tired mantra over and over again and it's not helping this board. The OP had specific questions, if you feel that any oil and any oil filter is good enough, maybe you need to find another place to post. This board doesn't need your canned responses.
Posted By: Bill_W

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/01/19 02:46 PM

Without any data, which is not available to consumers, it is a discussion like Chevys or Fords. But nothing good will come out of all these name brands consolidating and moving operations South of the border. Just a bystander until my warranty expires but thinking about Amsoil or Donaldson has good quality.

Purflux has been the OEM filter for supercar manufacturers and has a unique way of getting more filter material in a filter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpt_xi8iQqk
Posted By: blupupher

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/01/19 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by Patman
Originally Posted by CT8
Unless the oil filter fails Your engine will last and last no matter which filter you choose.


horse

You keep repeating this tired mantra over and over again and it's not helping this board. The OP had specific questions, if you feel that any oil and any oil filter is good enough, maybe you need to find another place to post. This board doesn't need your canned responses.

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.

To the OP, Baldwin still seems to be a solid filter. Nothing spectacular about their regular filters, just built well and never seen any issues with them.
As Lintex said, aside from your 3 mentioned, Amsoil has a great filter (identical to the Royal Purple, just a different color ADV) and Donaldson Synteq (Have only seen one cut open here that I can remember offhand).
You also have the Wix XP, but not sure how good the filtering numbers are for all that one. But it is a wire backed synthetic media. Also Fleetguard Stratapore are a Synthetic/wire backed filter, but a limited selection for those.
Posted By: StevieC

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/01/19 03:18 PM

Coming from Amsoil EA filters I've now switched to Fram Ultra. They seem to offer the same/better filtration ability at 1/2 the cost for me. Working well so far as I continue to push my OCI's further.
Posted By: Patman

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/01/19 04:16 PM

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.
Posted By: dnewton3

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/01/19 04:59 PM

There is a big distinction between what is theoretically "best" and what is proven as "best". VERY FEW people here have the data, time and training to discern the differences. Your money can buy more "more", but that does not assure you'll get "more".

As with 99% of all the other threads on this site, we see a general lackadaisical effort to define what "good" and "best" mean, as applied against what standards for the conversation.

I, for one, repeatedly state that most any decent product (even many house brands) do well enough that you'll never distinguish the performance differences, and that it's far more likely that boredom with your ride or an accident will take your vehicle out of your garage far sooner than the topic of brand "X" oil or brand "Y" filter.

We have a slew of folks here that can give us canned answers as to what they believe is "best", but I challenge any of them to PROVE how and why those products are "best" in a manner that actually distinguishes the products in real world use.

That some folks tire of the repeated reminder of how superior products don't always return any investment is no more or less irritating than the ad-nauseaum message that more is always better ...



Posted By: Dad2leia

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/01/19 05:51 PM



To the OP, Baldwin still seems to be a solid filter. Nothing spectacular about their regular filters, just built well and never seen any issues with them.
As Lintex said, aside from your 3 mentioned, Amsoil has a great filter (identical to the Royal Purple, just a different color ADV) and Donaldson Synteq (Have only seen one cut open here that I can remember offhand).
You also have the Wix XP, but not sure how good the filtering numbers are for all that one. But it is a wire backed synthetic media. Also Fleetguard Stratapore are a Synthetic/wire backed filter, but a limited selection for those.

[/quote]

That was my feelings on them as well, which given the construction, and the fact that my mileage has been WAY down due to my closde proximity to my workplace, I barely see 5K miles before my down to twice a year OCI. I brought up the Mann, because watching some video on them dated this year, they seem to fall into the same ball park construction and price point wise.

Another poster mentioned Purflux..I would love to get my hands on these, but not at $10 per filter AND $10-15 shipping, since I can't seem to locate anywhere on this side of the pond that deals with them directly.

As past posts and long time members can attest too, I use to use the very best (also read most expensive,usually) oils and filters, and faithfully do 3K/3 month interval..I have since changed my ways, and do them twice a year, getting roughly between 4K and 6K miles, depending on if I actually get to go on a trip over the summer season!!
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/01/19 10:16 PM

Originally Posted by dnewton3
There is a big distinction between what is theoretically "best" and what is proven as "best". VERY FEW people here have the data, time and training to discern the differences. Your money can buy more "more", but that does not assure you'll get "more".

As with 99% of all the other threads on this site, we see a general lackadaisical effort to define what "good" and "best" mean, as applied against what standards for the conversation.

I, for one, repeatedly state that most any decent product (even many house brands) do well enough that you'll never distinguish the performance differences, and that it's far more likely that boredom with your ride or an accident will take your vehicle out of your garage far sooner than the topic of brand "X" oil or brand "Y" filter.

We have a slew of folks here that can give us canned answers as to what they believe is "best", but I challenge any of them to PROVE how and why those products are "best" in a manner that actually distinguishes the products in real world use.

That some folks tire of the repeated reminder of how superior products don't always return any investment is no more or less irritating than the ad-nauseaum message that more is always better ...


Which one is best at keeping the used oil's particle count down by 5 to 10 times less? Real data from UOAs with an ISO particle count. Still waiting for the official test reports that say dirtier oil is just as good or better than cleaner oil for your engine. grin2



Attached picture ISO PC vs Filter Efficiency.JPG
Posted By: Dad2leia

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/02/19 01:20 AM

Very, very true ZeeOSix!!! thumbsup
Posted By: dnewton3

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/02/19 11:21 AM

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.
Posted By: wemay

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/02/19 11:42 AM

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.
Posted By: dnewton3

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/02/19 11:53 AM

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.


Attached picture Vulcan UOAs example.JPG
Posted By: 4WD

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/02/19 12:42 PM

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 ...
Posted By: 4WD

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/02/19 12:50 PM

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 ...
Posted By: Bill_W

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/02/19 01:36 PM

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.
Posted By: Farnsworth

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/02/19 02:30 PM

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.
Posted By: Yah-Tah-Hey

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/02/19 07:14 PM

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
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/02/19 08:15 PM

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.


Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/02/19 08:40 PM

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.
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/02/19 08:47 PM

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.
Posted By: Dad2leia

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/03/19 01:27 AM

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
Posted By: dnewton3

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/03/19 12:39 PM

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

.


Attached picture Toy 3.4L filters.JPG
Posted By: Bill_W

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/03/19 01:59 PM

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
Posted By: bbhero

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/03/19 07:09 PM

^^^^^^^^

Interesting line of thinking. I'd bet the Toyota and Nissan OEM manufactured air filters are quite high filtration air filters. Like 99.5+% per ISO 5011. I bet Toyota and Nissan place a higher premium on air filter efficiency then the oil filter efficiency.
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/03/19 09:29 PM

Originally Posted by Bill_W
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


That article has nothing to say about the correlation between oil filter efficiency, oil cleanliness and engine wear. It only discusses the methods of analyzing contamination level and the particulate composition in oil.
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/03/19 09:55 PM

Originally Posted by dnewton3
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.


FYI ... the Boss is not 95% or better at 20u. It's 99% @ 40u. What were the "premium filters" and their efficiency used in your data?

Originally Posted by dnewton3
Anyone who wants to buy the "best" is welcome to do so; spend your money in a manner you see fit.


Exactly ... I'll continue to use 95% @ 20u or better oil filters for the previous reasons Ive mentioned ... cheers

Real world particle count data shows oil stays cleaner with more efficient oil filters, so that's all I need to know - regardless if I can tell a difference in engine wear from behind the wheel or not. Saying there is no difference in the total engine wear at 250,000+ miles is a nebulous conclusion based on it "still runs good". There was a test report done by the SwRI on testing 0W-16 vs 5W-30 oil (with the same additive package) in the same engine under various controlled test conditions, and they clearly proved that more overall engine wear resulted from using the 0W-16 ... yet many people in the PCMO forum swear that can't be true because the "junkyards are not full" of blown up engines using 0W-16. In order to conclude oil filters and motor oil result in less engine wear you need some pretty sophisticated and controlled test methods. Will it make a difference to most ... probably not, but from my viewpoint if I think/know it will result in less wear, and it's not much more cost to use better products then I'm going to do it.

I'm still waiting for that SAE paper or similar official study that shows there is no wear benefit to keeping oil cleaner than not. grin2
Posted By: Bill_W

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/03/19 11:36 PM

Interesting read on oil filters...

https://filtrationcomparisons.weebly.com/do-oil-filters-even-matter.html

10 years old, well done though.
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/04/19 12:49 AM

Originally Posted by Bill_W
Interesting read on oil filters...

https://filtrationcomparisons.weebly.com/do-oil-filters-even-matter.html

10 years old, well done though.


BITOG member "river_rat" (hasn't posted since Sep 2012) is who did that website, and the data he obtained is all detailed in this thread of his.

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...n-comparisons-from-the-bench#Post1616368
Posted By: Dad2leia

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/04/19 01:35 AM

Briefly looking at that thread...interesting concept, but as he stated, 10 years old now, and filters have changed a bit, which was the whole point of starting this thread.

I can't say much to time frames of posting...I haven't been posting on here until recently either grin2
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/04/19 02:10 AM

Originally Posted by Dad2leia
Briefly looking at that thread...interesting concept, but as he stated, 10 years old now, and filters have changed a bit, which was the whole point of starting this thread.

I can't say much to time frames of posting...I haven't been posting on here until recently either grin2


Well, what's not changed since oil filters were first made, is that higher filter efficiency means cleaner oil as seen in particle count data.
Posted By: Dad2leia

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/04/19 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Dad2leia
Briefly looking at that thread...interesting concept, but as he stated, 10 years old now, and filters have changed a bit, which was the whole point of starting this thread.

I can't say much to time frames of posting...I haven't been posting on here until recently either grin2


Well, what's not changed since oil filters were first made, is that higher filter efficiency means cleaner oil as seen in particle count data.


Agreed...but the whole reason I started this thread was to find out about the happy medium. I too can appreciate wanting the cleanest possible oil circulating around my pistons, but for someone that really doesn't rack up the mileage anymore, wants very good (not spared no expense) protection and filtration, is why I was asking about the particular filters that I mentioned.

After countless times of reading, cross referencing, and viewing videos (good joking fodder there..), for me, I no longer can justify spending top dollar on everything car anymore, particularly when the more research you do, the more you find out that, just like most everything else, price goes up exponentially for every tenth of a percent of additional protection you get.

I know...more flaming to come...
Posted By: Bill_W

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/04/19 08:21 PM

Biggest benefit to a car is oil change. I am getting a new Miata and going to get a oil drain valve. And as another site said I was anal when I suggested this was to buy a jug of Supertech Synthetic. While the oil drains out and new filter goes on I will stick the Supertech in and start and idle it till warmed up, then drain the Supertech back in the jug with the drain valve and fill with my regular Mazda recommended oil. Save the Supertech oil for next oil change. All done while up on the jack stands. As far as filters go I think there is more to a filter than just efficiency. (although that is a good thing) While under warranty I will use the Mazda OEM filters.
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/04/19 10:03 PM

Originally Posted by Dad2leia
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Dad2leia
Briefly looking at that thread...interesting concept, but as he stated, 10 years old now, and filters have changed a bit, which was the whole point of starting this thread.

I can't say much to time frames of posting...I haven't been posting on here until recently either grin2


Well, what's not changed since oil filters were first made, is that higher filter efficiency means cleaner oil as seen in particle count data.


Agreed...but the whole reason I started this thread was to find out about the happy medium. I too can appreciate wanting the cleanest possible oil circulating around my pistons, but for someone that really doesn't rack up the mileage anymore, wants very good (not spared no expense) protection and filtration, is why I was asking about the particular filters that I mentioned.

After countless times of reading, cross referencing, and viewing videos (good joking fodder there..), for me, I no longer can justify spending top dollar on everything car anymore, particularly when the more research you do, the more you find out that, just like most everything else, price goes up exponentially for every tenth of a percent of additional protection you get.

I know...more flaming to come...


If you want a "happy medium", then buy a brand name filter that is 95% @ 20u or better. Lots of filters fit that bill. If you're not driving a lot, you could also buy a high efficiency full synthetic filter and leave it on for 2 or 3 oil changes if you only say put 1000~2000 miles a year on the vehicle. Some guys here have done that too. If you bought a $10 filter and used it for 3 OCIs then it's only costing you $3.33 per OCI.

It all comes down to do you want to save a few bucks a year or do you want very good filtration?
Posted By: Dad2leia

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/05/19 01:50 AM

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Dad2leia
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Dad2leia
Briefly looking at that thread...interesting concept, but as he stated, 10 years old now, and filters have changed a bit, which was the whole point of starting this thread.

I can't say much to time frames of posting...I haven't been posting on here until recently either grin2


Well, what's not changed since oil filters were first made, is that higher filter efficiency means cleaner oil as seen in particle count data.


Agreed...but the whole reason I started this thread was to find out about the happy medium. I too can appreciate wanting the cleanest possible oil circulating around my pistons, but for someone that really doesn't rack up the mileage anymore, wants very good (not spared no expense) protection and filtration, is why I was asking about the particular filters that I mentioned.

After countless times of reading, cross referencing, and viewing videos (good joking fodder there..), for me, I no longer can justify spending top dollar on everything car anymore, particularly when the more research you do, the more you find out that, just like most everything else, price goes up exponentially for every tenth of a percent of additional protection you get.

I know...more flaming to come...


If you want a "happy medium", then buy a brand name filter that is 95% @ 20u or better. Lots of filters fit that bill. If you're not driving a lot, you could also buy a high efficiency full synthetic filter and leave it on for 2 or 3 oil changes if you only say put 1000~2000 miles a year on the vehicle. Some guys here have done that too. If you bought a $10 filter and used it for 3 OCIs then it's only costing you $3.33 per OCI.

It all comes down to do you want to save a few bucks a year or do you want very good filtration?



So in your case ZeeOSix, given your specific parameters, which filter or filters do you use? I am truly curious.
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/05/19 02:49 AM

^^^ Like I said before, my lower point cut-off is 95% @ 20u. I've used Amsoil, AC Delco Ultraguard, regular WIX/NAPA Gold, Purolators (Classic and PureOne ... before the tearing problem) and of course the Ultra. I stopped using Toyota OEM filters on my Tacoma after seeing how inefficient they were at filtering. Many people here who where into PureOne filters (me included) for their high efficiency jumped over the the Ultra when the Purolator media tearing problem popped up 4~5 years ago. I won't use a filter that I don't know the ISO 4548-121 xx% @ yy micron efficiency rating.
Posted By: daman

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/05/19 01:35 PM

Baldwin are quality well made filters but there filtering specs are nothing to wright home about.
Posted By: Dad2leia

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/05/19 11:36 PM

Originally Posted by daman
Baldwin are quality well made filters but there filtering specs are nothing to wright home about.


I will confess, I bought them for the build quality, plus I got a decent price on buying the case of 12. Case is almost gone which is why my query with this topic.
Posted By: Dad2leia

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/07/19 01:35 AM

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
^^^ Like I said before, my lower point cut-off is 95% @ 20u. I've used Amsoil, AC Delco Ultraguard, regular WIX/NAPA Gold, Purolators (Classic and PureOne ... before the tearing problem) and of course the Ultra. I stopped using Toyota OEM filters on my Tacoma after seeing how inefficient they were at filtering. Many people here who where into PureOne filters (me included) for their high efficiency jumped over the the Ultra when the Purolator media tearing problem popped up 4~5 years ago. I won't use a filter that I don't know the ISO 4548-121 xx% @ yy micron efficiency rating.


Ok, so you listed what you have used, which particular one has the best efficiency rating based on your standards?
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/07/19 03:13 AM

Originally Posted by Dad2leia
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
^^^ Like I said before, my lower point cut-off is 95% @ 20u. I've used Amsoil, AC Delco Ultraguard, regular WIX/NAPA Gold, Purolators (Classic and PureOne ... before the tearing problem) and of course the Ultra. I stopped using Toyota OEM filters on my Tacoma after seeing how inefficient they were at filtering. Many people here who where into PureOne filters (me included) for their high efficiency jumped over the the Ultra when the Purolator media tearing problem popped up 4~5 years ago. I won't use a filter that I don't know the ISO 4548-121 xx% @ yy micron efficiency rating.


Ok, so you listed what you have used, which particular one has the best efficiency rating based on your standards?


The PureOne (now just called "One") and the Ultra are basically the same efficiency. But I won't use Purolators anymore because of quality issues. If you want high efficiency, high holding capacity and low delta-p across the filter, then just go with the Ultra.
Posted By: JohnnyJohnson

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/07/19 03:56 AM

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Dad2leia
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
^^^ Like I said before, my lower point cut-off is 95% @ 20u. I've used Amsoil, AC Delco Ultraguard, regular WIX/NAPA Gold, Purolators (Classic and PureOne ... before the tearing problem) and of course the Ultra. I stopped using Toyota OEM filters on my Tacoma after seeing how inefficient they were at filtering. Many people here who where into PureOne filters (me included) for their high efficiency jumped over the the Ultra when the Purolator media tearing problem popped up 4~5 years ago. I won't use a filter that I don't know the ISO 4548-121 xx% @ yy micron efficiency rating.


Ok, so you listed what you have used, which particular one has the best efficiency rating based on your standards?


The PureOne (now just called "One") and the Ultra are basically the same efficiency. But I won't use Purolators anymore because of quality issues. If you want high efficiency, high holding capacity and low delta-p across the filter, then just go with the Ultra.


I have already used the new Purolator One (blue can) worked just fine. No cuts, no tears, no errors. Used it on a 5K OCI on my Corolla. Got five of them on Amazon for $5.95 ea. The Ultra currently runs $3 each more than that.
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/07/19 04:02 AM

^^^ Even if they were free I'd still have to consider using them or not. $3 extra a year isn't gonna put me into debt ... just one less cheap cheeseburger a year. smile

Did you do a C&P on that Puro One? ... I don't recall.
Posted By: Dad2leia

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/07/19 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Dad2leia
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
^^^ Like I said before, my lower point cut-off is 95% @ 20u. I've used Amsoil, AC Delco Ultraguard, regular WIX/NAPA Gold, Purolators (Classic and PureOne ... before the tearing problem) and of course the Ultra. I stopped using Toyota OEM filters on my Tacoma after seeing how inefficient they were at filtering. Many people here who where into PureOne filters (me included) for their high efficiency jumped over the the Ultra when the Purolator media tearing problem popped up 4~5 years ago. I won't use a filter that I don't know the ISO 4548-121 xx% @ yy micron efficiency rating.


Ok, so you listed what you have used, which particular one has the best efficiency rating based on your standards?


The PureOne (now just called "One") and the Ultra are basically the same efficiency. But I won't use Purolators anymore because of quality issues. If you want high efficiency, high holding capacity and low delta-p across the filter, then just go with the Ultra.


Zee, is the tearing issue still really an issue with Purolator at this point? I seem to recall that posts started showing up around here about 2 years ago on the matter. One would think (Yeah, I know, brave term) that they would have addressed this point and that what is being produced today would be better in quality.
Posted By: Bill_W

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/07/19 04:59 PM

Back 10 years ago the Purolator PureOne was really good. Times have changed.
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/07/19 06:44 PM

Originally Posted by Dad2leia
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Dad2leia
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
^^^ Like I said before, my lower point cut-off is 95% @ 20u. I've used Amsoil, AC Delco Ultraguard, regular WIX/NAPA Gold, Purolators (Classic and PureOne ... before the tearing problem) and of course the Ultra. I stopped using Toyota OEM filters on my Tacoma after seeing how inefficient they were at filtering. Many people here who where into PureOne filters (me included) for their high efficiency jumped over the the Ultra when the Purolator media tearing problem popped up 4~5 years ago. I won't use a filter that I don't know the ISO 4548-121 xx% @ yy micron efficiency rating.


Ok, so you listed what you have used, which particular one has the best efficiency rating based on your standards?


The PureOne (now just called "One") and the Ultra are basically the same efficiency. But I won't use Purolators anymore because of quality issues. If you want high efficiency, high holding capacity and low delta-p across the filter, then just go with the Ultra.


Zee, is the tearing issue still really an issue with Purolator at this point? I seem to recall that posts started showing up around here about 2 years ago on the matter. One would think (Yeah, I know, brave term) that they would have addressed this point and that what is being produced today would be better in quality.


Hard to say because not many here use them and perform a cut & post like back in the days when torn media was running amuck.

I'm not going to find out first hand. Maybe guys who use them regularly these days can post all their Purolator C&Ps to bring back some confidence.
Posted By: Dad2leia

Re: Oil filter discussion - 04/07/19 06:45 PM

^^^ thumbsup
© 2020 Bob Is The Oil Guy