Home

Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter?

Posted By: Patman

Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/16/19 04:36 PM

I'm curious as to why no manufacturers out there have made an oil filter than is even more efficient than what we currently have, let's just say something that's 99% efficient down to 10 or 15 microns instead of the current best which seems to be around 99% at 20 microns. Surely the technology must exist.
Posted By: Quattro Pete

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/16/19 04:40 PM

Is more filtration really needed? Do engines fail because existing filters don't filter enough? Will more efficient filters restrict flow too much?

Posted By: dwendt44

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/16/19 04:40 PM

The cost would be through the roof. Plus the larger media would require a larger
'can' to meet oil flow requirements. Many engines don't have room for a giant filter can.


My 2¢
Posted By: CT8

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/16/19 04:42 PM

What is the need ?
Posted By: hallstevenson

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/16/19 04:43 PM

Because it's truly not necessary ? What's the difference between 10 microns and 20 microns ? And I'm only asking these two questions: 1) At what level will the filter trap additives ? 2) Will flow be (too) restricted ?

Cost will be a factor too. It might cost substantially more while there's no need for it.
Posted By: JohnnyJohnson

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/16/19 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by CT8
What is the need ?



Maybe this.

Attached picture Miles to first overhaul.jpg
Posted By: brages

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/16/19 05:05 PM

The "toilet paper" bypass filters claim to remove extremely small particles at a low flow rate... https://www.frantzfilters.com/
Posted By: MolaKule

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/16/19 05:08 PM

I thought that was what By-pass filters were made for.

There is a trade-off between particle filtering capabilities and cost. smile
Posted By: Patman

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/16/19 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by Quattro Pete
Will more efficient filters restrict flow too much?

Considering how well the Fram Ultra flows in it's current form, couldn't they just tweak that media a little bit in order to filter even better, while not compromising flow by much?

Originally Posted by CT8
What is the need ?

I'm mainly just curious as to why they don't exist, from a technical standpoint. But I'm also wondering why someone wouldn't do this and market the heck out of it in order to grab a bigger slice of the DYI oil change market. Performance enthusiasts would snap them up, even though most of them probably won't see the long term benefits of finer filtration.

I've always believed that the more efficient the better, even if it's overkill for most people since they trade their cars in long before the engine wears out.
Posted By: Patman

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/16/19 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by MolaKule
I thought that was what By-pass filters were made for.

There is a trade-off between particle filtering capabilities and cost. smile


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.
Posted By: BMWTurboDzl

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/16/19 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by dwendt44
The cost would be through the roof. Plus the larger media would require a larger
'can' to meet oil flow requirements. Many engines don't have room for a giant filter can.

My 2¢

This. There's simply no room and it's not needed. Insufficient filtration is no longer a failure point.
Posted By: Patman

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/16/19 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
This. There's simply no room and it's not needed. Insufficient filtration is no longer a failure point.

But maybe we need to think of it in terms of not the failure point, but keeping the engine running perfectly for the entire time you own the car. If finer filtration means the engine stays "as good as new" for a longer period, isn't that worth it? In other words, maybe that engine with 100k on it now doesn't burn any oil, instead of using a quart every 5k if it was slightly worn. Maybe it's making 98% of it's original horsepower instead of being down to 90%. Maybe it still gets the same MPG as new, instead of it dropping by a few %.
Posted By: Virtus_Probi

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/16/19 05:57 PM

Wasn't this the idea behind the Microgreen filters?
Integrated bypass to filter out the tiny particles while maintaining full flow in one modestly sized package?
I guess the question is if they actually did what they said...I know there was some controversy about the end product possibly being a total [censored] of the original intent and the idea man behind it supposedly being forced out of the company.
Posted By: 4WD

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/16/19 06:22 PM

Whatever happened to those … any users still here ?
Posted By: PandaBear

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/16/19 06:44 PM

1st: oil filter is not the limiting factor of vehicle life, the current cheap oil filter is good enough before other things kill the car (rust, transmission, head gasket, turbo, accident, exterior, fashion, etc)

2nd: we already have toilet paper bypass filter, most people decided it is not worth the trouble and cost.

3rd: you still need to change the oil and add additives, so why bother. You also have to add oil to deal with burning, etc.

The OEM can make the filter 2x or 3x as big, but they still get changed when it is not filled up, so they shrink it to make it cheaper to make, cheaper to ship, cheaper to stock, and cheaper to dispose.
Posted By: JLTD

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/16/19 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by dwendt44
The cost would be through the roof. Plus the larger media would require a larger
'can' to meet oil flow requirements. Many engines don't have room for a giant filter can.


My 2¢


Agreed....we're at the point of diminishing returns, it's too costly to get better filtration in a single unit.


That said, there ARE better filtration systems out there, but to get it you've got to get into a bypass setup.
Posted By: MNgopher

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/16/19 07:25 PM

Easy answer: Because there isn't an economic case for someone to make money doing so. If there were, someone would already be doing it.

Sure, maybe there is a media that would increase filtering dramatically without changing the package requirements to meet flow rates, bpyass pressures, etc... But if it costs a boatload more, are people willing to spend enough money on it for the manufacturer to break even? Make money?

Or, if the package has to be redesigned due to needing more filter media that doesn't fit in the original package size, who's going to spend the design dollars on it? Recoup the cost and testing to see if the redesigned package actually fits in all of its usual applications?

Whether it is a benefit to the end user doesn't matter if the manufacturer can't price it at a price point to make money and actually have people buy it.

And that's where the bypass stuff finds its niche - it fits multiple applications, making a one size fits all program much more cost effective for those who want it...
Posted By: geeman789

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/16/19 07:47 PM

Originally Posted by Patman
Originally Posted by Quattro Pete
Will more efficient filters restrict flow too much?


Considering how well the Fram Ultra flows in it's current form, couldn't they just tweak that media a little bit in order to filter even better, while not compromising flow by much?



How WELL do Fram Ultra's flow ? Good enough seems to be the standard answer, as Fram makes no claims about flow in the Ultra line.

They DO, however, advertise flow in their RACING filter line up ... from Fram's website

" ... Low-restriction racing media designed for high oil flow. The media features 94% efficiency @20 microns for excellent engine protection. "

And, where flow is optimized, filtration is compromised. Not sure there is any way around that.
Posted By: JMJNet

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/16/19 07:47 PM


Originally Posted by Patman
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
This. There's simply no room and it's not needed. Insufficient filtration is no longer a failure point.

But maybe we need to think of it in terms of not the failure point, but keeping the engine running perfectly for the entire time you own the car. If finer filtration means the engine stays "as good as new" for a longer period, isn't that worth it? In other words, maybe that engine with 100k on it now doesn't burn any oil, instead of using a quart every 5k if it was slightly worn. Maybe it's making 98% of it's original horsepower instead of being down to 90%. Maybe it still gets the same MPG as new, instead of it dropping by a few %.


A lot of "MAYBE"? It is called the point of diminishing return.
In an engineering design, we usually talk about relative instead of absolute.

Yes, people MAYBE (again) will buy a $20 filter but the segment of population that is educated enough on this topic is probably too small for them to make profit.
While, you can probably see that the Orange Can is selling like hot cake.

Originally Posted by PandaBear
1st: oil filter is not the limiting factor of vehicle life, the current cheap oil filter is good enough before other things kill the car (rust, transmission, head gasket, turbo, accident, exterior, fashion, etc)

2nd: we already have toilet paper bypass filter, most people decided it is not worth the trouble and cost.

3rd: you still need to change the oil and add additives, so why bother. You also have to add oil to deal with burning, etc.

The OEM can make the filter 2x or 3x as big, but they still get changed when it is not filled up, so they shrink it to make it cheaper to make, cheaper to ship, cheaper to stock, and cheaper to dispose.


I agree with this.
Posted By: CT8

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/16/19 08:04 PM

With proper maintenance and a wee bit of luck engines out last the first and second owners of the vehicles. What are we going to gain? Patman did you wear out your last vette? I have never worn out a vehicles engine bought new..
Posted By: 4WD

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/16/19 08:10 PM

It’s not even the limit on each OCI ... if I have a $60k vehicle with DI ... and it started out with 0w20 ... I’m not waiting until fuel diluted oil takes it’s toll
Posted By: Virtus_Probi

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/16/19 08:55 PM

Well, I look at the special "STI" oil filters from Tokyo Roki and wonder about the cost/benefit analysis.
I think the only distinguishing features of those filters were;
1. They were pretty in pink, and
2. They weighed a lot.
AFAIK, they did not advertise any special filtering capabilities.
I first saw them for about $50 a few years back, but think I saw some on "clearance" for ~$30 a while ago.
They are pretty!
(image upload failed...?)

Posted By: bullwinkle

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/16/19 09:32 PM

They are made for diesel applications (centrifuge units, & Stratapore Venturi integral bypass types), but for a modern, EFI, maintained gasoline application-they could likely make it to 200K+ all day long on any old generic made in China PG or equivalent. Where is the DEMAND from the automotive public for a big $ bypass system when the great majority just runs whatever hunk of junk that Jiffy Lube puts on it? And gets rid of the vehicle before it makes a difference?
Posted By: spasm3

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/16/19 10:17 PM

They probably easily could. But the average consumer is not going to buy them. They want the cheaper oil change. The dealers won't want them, they only need to get through warranty.

Only some of us here would run it. I'm sure the marketing brains at the major companies already know this.
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/16/19 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by geeman789
Originally Posted by Patman
Originally Posted by Quattro Pete
Will more efficient filters restrict flow too much?


Considering how well the Fram Ultra flows in it's current form, couldn't they just tweak that media a little bit in order to filter even better, while not compromising flow by much?



How WELL do Fram Ultra's flow ? Good enough seems to be the standard answer, as Fram makes no claims about flow in the Ultra line.

They DO, however, advertise flow in their RACING filter line up ... from Fram's website

" ... Low-restriction racing media designed for high oil flow. The media features 94% efficiency @20 microns for excellent engine protection. "

And, where flow is optimized, filtration is compromised. Not sure there is any way around that.


You must have missed this recent thread:
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/5104536/1
Posted By: JohnnyJohnson

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/16/19 10:39 PM

Originally Posted by geeman789
Originally Posted by Patman
Originally Posted by Quattro Pete
Will more efficient filters restrict flow too much?


Considering how well the Fram Ultra flows in it's current form, couldn't they just tweak that media a little bit in order to filter even better, while not compromising flow by much?



How WELL do Fram Ultra's flow ? Good enough seems to be the standard answer, as Fram makes no claims about flow in the Ultra line.

They DO, however, advertise flow in their RACING filter line up ... from Fram's website

" ... Low-restriction racing media designed for high oil flow. The media features 94% efficiency @20 microns for excellent engine protection. "

And, where flow is optimized, filtration is compromised. Not sure there is any way around that.






Gee its that bad you must be able to document 1000's of engines using the Ultra's that have burned up please also post pictures .
Posted By: Pinoak

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/16/19 10:44 PM

Call Purolator and ask what the pure ones rated at 20um. If the agent on the phone knows what he's talking about [censored] tell you 99.9%
We also had the mg which is all kinds of Superior if you can still get any for your paticular use.
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/16/19 10:51 PM

Originally Posted by Pinoak
Call Purolator and ask what the pure ones rated at 20um.


https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4090512/#Post4090512
Posted By: Warstud

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/16/19 10:59 PM

I don't think you would want it to be 100% efficient then it would be to restrictive and the motor may not get the proper amount of lubrication.
Posted By: Marco620

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/17/19 01:36 AM

I did the Injen Dryflow Nano filter with a old drycharger and a pantyhose wrap and am content with where it stands. Also running the Fram Ultra 7317 for over 20k miles and the oil analysis and Dr.Adam cutting them open for me shows that what I am doing is working. Find a good filter like the AEM dryflow panel and use a synthetic media oil filter and you are in good shape. Guess you could add on a filter mag too but with magnetic drain plugs either on cars or aftermarket its about all that can be done.
Posted By: JohnnyJohnson

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/17/19 02:48 AM

Originally Posted by Warstud
I don't think you would want it to be 100% efficient then it would be to restrictive and the motor may not get the proper amount of lubrication.



No what I want is a 99.5% efficient at 10 microns and I'll use it as a bypass filter and it isn't going to stop any flow.
Posted By: jongies3

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/17/19 03:28 AM

I think semi truck filters have lower micron filters but I don't know. I'm a trucker but don't get into the oil change side of it as there's paid mechanics that deal with that. But I believe one of them mentioned having 8 or 10 micron oil filters. Maybe that's why a highway diesel can last a million miles and passenger car engines can't? Who knows.
Posted By: geeman789

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/17/19 03:39 AM

Originally Posted by JohnnyJohnson
Originally Posted by geeman789
Originally Posted by Patman
Originally Posted by Quattro Pete
Will more efficient filters restrict flow too much?


Considering how well the Fram Ultra flows in it's current form, couldn't they just tweak that media a little bit in order to filter even better, while not compromising flow by much?



How WELL do Fram Ultra's flow ? Good enough seems to be the standard answer, as Fram makes no claims about flow in the Ultra line.

They DO, however, advertise flow in their RACING filter line up ... from Fram's website

" ... Low-restriction racing media designed for high oil flow. The media features 94% efficiency @20 microns for excellent engine protection. "

And, where flow is optimized, filtration is compromised. Not sure there is any way around that.






Gee its that bad you must be able to document 1000's of engines using the Ultra's that have burned up please also post pictures .



Gee, it's too bad you missed the GOOD ENOUGH part in the above quote ... my point was simply that Fram promotes FILTRATION ( and longevity ) in the Ultra line, and seems to promote FLOW ( plus robust construction with decent filtration ) in the Racing line.
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/17/19 04:37 AM

Originally Posted by geeman789
... my point was simply that Fram promotes FILTRATION ( and longevity ) in the Ultra line, and seems to promote FLOW ( plus robust construction with decent filtration ) in the Racing line.


The flow vs delta-p shows to be about the same between the Ultra and the racing filter. You can have both high efficiency and flow with low delta-p.

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/5104536/1
Posted By: SubieRubyRoo

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/17/19 07:53 AM

Originally Posted by 4WD
Whatever happened to those … any users still here ?


Yep, I had a bunch of them for my Fusion and several for my Honda and Subies. I used one of the 3/4-16s and three of the 20mm ones. There were no real changes in UOA, but the oil did stay clearer longer and did not go dark on paper towels until just before the OCI was going to be up anyways.

I only have one 20mm filter left; I sold all the 3/4-16s to another board member and all my sizes are out of stock on Amazon. I hope the board member does some UOAs with PCs or at least C&Ps them when used. I’d still buy them at $10 each.
Posted By: krismoriah72

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/17/19 12:30 PM

wasnt there a theory awhile back that oil filters become more efficient with time and use up until they are loaded?
Posted By: geeman789

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/17/19 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by geeman789
... my point was simply that Fram promotes FILTRATION ( and longevity ) in the Ultra line, and seems to promote FLOW ( plus robust construction with decent filtration ) in the Racing line.


The flow vs delta-p shows to be about the same between the Ultra and the racing filter. You can have both high efficiency and flow with low delta-p.

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/5104536/1


Do you believe the posted numbers ? Those manufacturer provided figures seem just a little too consistent ... maybe the 3 gpm flow rate is too low to see any meaningful differences in flow restriction.
Posted By: AuthorEditor

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/17/19 06:12 PM

From a practical standpoint today's typical car and small-truck engines seem to easily last up to and beyond 200,000 miles with nothing but Cheapy lube oil changes and no-name filters. At that point, much of the rest of the mechanical bits and pieces have either been replaced or will need to be, meaning it is more costly than just buying another vehicle. In the Northeast, the body and frame will be rotted out and need replacing too. It is always possible to build in greater longevity, but it just isn't practical from a cost/benefit standpoint. Personally, I've never junked a car because the engine was failing, and I've never had a major engine failure.
Posted By: JohnnyJohnson

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/17/19 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by AuthorEditor
From a practical standpoint today's typical car and small-truck engines seem to easily last up to and beyond 200,000 miles with nothing but Cheapy lube oil changes and no-name filters. At that point, much of the rest of the mechanical bits and pieces have either been replaced or will need to be, meaning it is more costly than just buying another vehicle. In the Northeast, the body and frame will be rotted out and need replacing too. It is always possible to build in greater longevity, but it just isn't practical from a cost/benefit standpoint. Personally, I've never junked a car because the engine was failing, and I've never had a major engine failure.


Really how much more is the more efficient filter going to cost 50 cents or fifty dollars? My bet is under 50 cents. For a buck I'd switch to any filter that was documented as giving 100,000 more miles.
Posted By: Pinoak

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/17/19 08:39 PM

Originally Posted by JohnnyJohnson
Originally Posted by AuthorEditor
From a practical standpoint today's typical car and small-truck engines seem to easily last up to and beyond 200,000 miles with nothing but Cheapy lube oil changes and no-name filters. At that point, much of the rest of the mechanical bits and pieces have either been replaced or will need to be, meaning it is more costly than just buying another vehicle. In the Northeast, the body and frame will be rotted out and need replacing too. It is always possible to build in greater longevity, but it just isn't practical from a cost/benefit standpoint. Personally, I've never junked a car because the engine was failing, and I've never had a major engine failure.


Really how much more is the more efficient filter going to cost 50 cents or fifty dollars? My bet is under 50 cents. For a buck I'd switch to any filter that was documented as giving 100,000 more miles.

Is there a documented study showing any particular filter can "give 100,000 more miles?
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/17/19 09:39 PM

Originally Posted by geeman789
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by geeman789
... my point was simply that Fram promotes FILTRATION ( and longevity ) in the Ultra line, and seems to promote FLOW ( plus robust construction with decent filtration ) in the Racing line.


The flow vs delta-p shows to be about the same between the Ultra and the racing filter. You can have both high efficiency and flow with low delta-p.

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/5104536/1


Do you believe the posted numbers ? Those manufacturer provided figures seem just a little too consistent ... maybe the 3 gpm flow rate is too low to see any meaningful differences in flow restriction.


Read the rest of that thread. Delta-p vs flow curves will have a similar shape as flow increases (at constant oil viscosity), so having a data point at 3 GPM pretty much tells most of the story on how the filter delta-p will look at higher flow rates.
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/17/19 09:44 PM

Originally Posted by krismoriah72
wasnt there a theory awhile back that oil filters become more efficient with time and use up until they are loaded?


Not always - they typically become less efficient as they load up. My theory is filters that have a low ISO efficiency rating have media that tends to slough off captured particles as they load up, as the graph below shows. In this example, the ISO 4548-12 efficiency rating would be 75% @ 20 microns. Bases on how ISO 4548-12 calculates overall efficiency (average of the start to end efficiency), a filter that rates very high can not by definition be dropping much if any efficiency as it loads up.

Attached picture Oil Filter Efficiency vs Loading Time.JPG
Posted By: nthach

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/17/19 09:51 PM

I think on passenger cars, larger sumps and decently good filtration will pay more dividends than simply better filtration. I like the Mercedes fleece filter + large(8-9qts on the V8s) sump idea. Maybe if the OEMs put utility patents on their oil filters it might happen.

Trucks and buses already have hybrid(full-flow and bypass in one) filtration and centrifuges to clean their oil. The typical consumer - us included will do anything to be cheap or avoid the dealership. The latter is pretty fascinating on how it works but it will be a liability on a passenger car.
Posted By: DGXR

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/17/19 10:19 PM

Originally Posted by MNgopher
Easy answer: Because there isn't an economic case for someone to make money doing so. If there were, someone would already be doing it.

Sure, maybe there is a media that would increase filtering dramatically without changing the package requirements to meet flow rates, bpyass pressures, etc... But if it costs a boatload more, are people willing to spend enough money on it for the manufacturer to break even? Make money?

Or, if the package has to be redesigned due to needing more filter media that doesn't fit in the original package size, who's going to spend the design dollars on it? Recoup the cost and testing to see if the redesigned package actually fits in all of its usual applications?

Whether it is a benefit to the end user doesn't matter if the manufacturer can't price it at a price point to make money and actually have people buy it.

And that's where the bypass stuff finds its niche - it fits multiple applications, making a one size fits all program much more cost effective for those who want it...

IMO this is about the best answer we are going to get on this topic.

Originally Posted by jongies3
I think semi truck filters have lower micron filters but I don't know. I'm a trucker but don't get into the oil change side of it as there's paid mechanics that deal with that. But I believe one of them mentioned having 8 or 10 micron oil filters. Maybe that's why a highway diesel can last a million miles and passenger car engines can't? Who knows.

Diesel tractor engines go millions of miles for several reasons:
1) diesel fuel is actually a light oil so the whole top end and cylinders are super-lubricated
2) diesel tractors are run for dozens of hours on end so everything gets nice and toasty, where engines (and lubricants) like to live
3) diesel tractors are driven 10-20 times more miles per year than the average passenger car, so the miles rack up fast before rust or other problems have a chance to set in
4) diesel rigs are usually very well maintained by the owner (no truck=no income)
5) probably many more reasons I can't think of right now
Posted By: kfy81

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/18/19 01:00 AM

Hello,

1st post to the site. I wanna say I read somewhere that modern oils are so "good" with dispersants and whatnot, that vehicles could theoretically revert back to not needing oil filters. The oil is essentially the filter along with all it's other jobs (of course we all still want our oil filtets)... Also aren't the most damaging particles in the oiling system in that 20 micron range?
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/18/19 01:29 AM

When you look at a particle count of used oil, even with a good oil filter on a clean healthy engine, there are 50,000 to 100,000 particles 4 microns and larger in every mL of oil. I'm sure it would many times more than that if no oil filter was ran.
Posted By: tig1

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/18/19 02:28 AM

Originally Posted by Quattro Pete
Is more filtration really needed? Do engines fail because existing filters don't filter enough? Will more efficient filters restrict flow too much?




No. Engines typically fail due to maintenance abuse or simply running the engine beyond it's intended performance level.
Posted By: rrounds

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/18/19 06:01 AM

Late to this post(on vacation) Donaldson makes filters(full flow) that filter down to [email protected] and [email protected] micron. I adapted my S2000 to take one. Did this because I wanted to, nothing more. The Honda filter for the S2000 is a rock catcher, lucky to hit 85%@40 microns.

Rod
Posted By: krismoriah72

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/18/19 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by DGXR
Originally Posted by MNgopher
Easy answer: Because there isn't an economic case for someone to make money doing so. If there were, someone would already be doing it.

Sure, maybe there is a media that would increase filtering dramatically without changing the package requirements to meet flow rates, bpyass pressures, etc... But if it costs a boatload more, are people willing to spend enough money on it for the manufacturer to break even? Make money?

Or, if the package has to be redesigned due to needing more filter media that doesn't fit in the original package size, who's going to spend the design dollars on it? Recoup the cost and testing to see if the redesigned package actually fits in all of its usual applications?

Whether it is a benefit to the end user doesn't matter if the manufacturer can't price it at a price point to make money and actually have people buy it.

And that's where the bypass stuff finds its niche - it fits multiple applications, making a one size fits all program much more cost effective for those who want it...

IMO this is about the best answer we are going to get on this topic.

Originally Posted by jongies3
I think semi truck filters have lower micron filters but I don't know. I'm a trucker but don't get into the oil change side of it as there's paid mechanics that deal with that. But I believe one of them mentioned having 8 or 10 micron oil filters. Maybe that's why a highway diesel can last a million miles and passenger car engines can't? Who knows.

Diesel tractor engines go millions of miles for several reasons:
1) diesel fuel is actually a light oil so the whole top end and cylinders are super-lubricated
2) diesel tractors are run for dozens of hours on end so everything gets nice and toasty, where engines (and lubricants) like to live
3) diesel tractors are driven 10-20 times more miles per year than the average passenger car, so the miles rack up fast before rust or other problems have a chance to set in
4) diesel rigs are usually very well maintained by the owner (no truck=no income)
5) probably many more reasons I can't think of right now



6) Oil Coolers
7) Oil capacity 15 Gallons
8) Develop most power at 1200 RPM

Fleetguard LF14000NN for the Cummins ISX15 is 98.7%@ 4 microns
Posted By: alarmguy

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/18/19 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by Patman
I'm curious as to why no manufacturers out there have made an oil filter than is even more efficient than what we currently have, let's just say something that's 99% efficient down to 10 or 15 microns instead of the current best which seems to be around 99% at 20 microns. Surely the technology must exist.


Because you do not need more protection or the expense of it. As it is, with normal scheduled maintenance an engine will far outlast the vehicle its in.
Its not the oil or filters that determine the life of the engine, its the engine design that determines its life, oil and filters do not change that fact.
Posted By: SubieRubyRoo

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/19/19 06:20 AM

So Zee, the chart you posted means I need to change my Fram Ultra every hour of engine operation if I don’t want the 20 micron efficiency to drop somewhere into the low 80%- high 70% efficiency range?
Posted By: OnTheRocks

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/19/19 06:36 AM

Quite the conundrum. What does that do to flow rate? Isn't that just about the same argument with air filters? The better the filtration, the lower the flow rate?
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/19/19 08:22 AM

Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
So Zee, the chart you posted means I need to change my Fram Ultra every hour of engine operation if I don’t want the 20 micron efficiency to drop somewhere into the low 80%- high 70% efficiency range?


Go back and read what I said about the ISO 4548-12 efficiency rating calculation, and how a high efficiency filter couldn't have a drop in efficiency like shown on that graph in order to achieve a 99% @ 20μ ISO efficiency.
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/19/19 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by OnTheRocks
Quite the conundrum. What does that do to flow rate? Isn't that just about the same argument with air filters? The better the filtration, the lower the flow rate?


Engines use positive displacement oil pumps. Engine oiling systems are not analogies to your house water system, which is a contant pressure source.

When a filter loads up, the flow stays the same from the PD pump, and the delta-p across the filter just goes up a few PSI.

Flow can still be very good on high efficiency filters, it all depends on the media design and media area.

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/5104536/1
Posted By: Garak

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/20/19 04:04 AM

Originally Posted by MolaKule
I thought that was what By-pass filters were made for.

There is a trade-off between particle filtering capabilities and cost. smile

I would agree with that. My biggest concern these days is ensuring I don't get something with closed louvers or media prone to tearing and have some reasonable construction quality, without spending a fortune.
Posted By: dnewton3

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/20/19 11:26 AM

Just why would we need filters to be any tighter than 99% at 20um? The need for filtration has to be taken in context of not only the ultimate mileage goal, but also the OCI.

Here's a million mile Chevy; he ran normal oil and filters every 4k miles or so. Not one premium filter and no syn lubes. Just 4k mile OFCIs. (Oddly, he touts the money he saved with the K&N air filter, but didn't use BP filtration ....)
https://www.knfilters.com/million/default.htm

Here's one of my favorites; a million mile Ford.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...3259FEA528923CC055153259FE&FORM=VIRE
Actually, this truck had over THREE MILLION MILES.
I was curious about this truck, so I called that service center in Palm City, FL and got the story directly from the service manager. This truck was serviced almost exclusviely with Havoline dino 10w-40 and jobber filters it's whole life, with OFCIs anywhere between 7-10k miles. Here's the actual story of the truck:
- went it's first 100k miles and the 5.4L died; they sourced a used 5.4L from a junkyard because they guy has to be on the road non-stop (no time for a rebuild of the original engine)
- the first 5.4L replacement motor went around 1 million miles! then it died, so they sourced another 5.4L from a salvage yard
- the second 5.4L replacement motor went more than 1 million miles! then it also died; sourced a third used motor with low miles
- the third 5.4L used motor went more than a million miles, and the truck was totaled in a wreck
- the guy bought a used Ford SD diesel and was still running dogs when I last heard of him, several years ago
Summary; first engine died at 100k miles; next three engines all last 1M miles! All on the same service schedule and dino oils and normal filters.

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.
Posted By: Farnsworth

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/20/19 02:16 PM

http://www.wixfilters.com/Speciality/Racing.aspx?1

Wix has a few interesting lines about resin content in filters and efficiency in the racing filter description. Frazier air flow, never heard of it discussed here.
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/20/19 08:03 PM

Just another way to measure flow resistance, but it's not a standard for oil filters. WIX likes to make up many of their own specs. No way to put that into flow vs delta-p with oil flowing through the filter.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Frazier+airflow+test
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/20/19 08:26 PM

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.

Attached picture Particle Size vs Engine Wear-2.JPG
Posted By: Farnsworth

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/20/19 11:07 PM

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Just another way to measure flow resistance, but it's not a standard for oil filters. WIX likes to make up many of their own specs. No way to put that into flow vs delta-p with oil flowing through the filter.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Frazier+airflow+test


It is used for manufacturing oil filter media, judging porosity, and they can't use flowing oil for that. I have wondered about media manufacturing, and using resin as a binder, how they do that. To have consistent efficiency numbers the manufacturing has to be consistent, the resin consistent. Quality is important and why I never have trusted odd ball brands just to save a dollar. I think, not going to spend time reading all the ... on Frazier number. My dad had a Frazier car which burned up as we escaped from it. Too bad you probably say.

http://www.frazierinstrument.com/products/fap/fap-faq.html#Air Permeability - Frazier Number
Posted By: dnewton3

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/21/19 11:04 AM

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.
Posted By: Al

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/21/19 11:13 AM

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.
Posted By: AuthorEditor

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/21/19 11:13 AM

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.
Posted By: sdowney717

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/21/19 11:50 AM

Not wanting to read every comment, they have made a better filter.
They are venturi duel element. Having a 'bypass' type element combined with a full flow in the same can. All the oil goes to the engine oil gallery, the diversion takes place inside the filter.
LF9028 and BD7317 fit my Dodge Cummins diesel.

https://www.cumminsfiltration.com/s...i%20Combo%20Lube%20Filter%20Brochure.pdf

https://www.cumminsfiltration.com/venturi
Posted By: Patman

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/21/19 12:20 PM

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.
Posted By: Patman

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/21/19 03:31 PM

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.
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/21/19 06:17 PM

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.
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/21/19 07:01 PM

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

Attached File
Posted By: dnewton3

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/23/19 11:46 AM

Thanks Zee - I'll try to read it this weekend. Swamped at work this week.
Posted By: dnewton3

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/23/19 11:54 AM

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.
Posted By: AuthorEditor

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/23/19 02:29 PM

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.
Posted By: Patman

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/23/19 07:09 PM

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)
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/23/19 07:30 PM

^^^ Patman - yes, DI engines seem to raise the bar and therefore not all products may give the same end results over time.
Posted By: Garak

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/24/19 02:42 AM

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.
Posted By: WellOiled

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/25/19 04:45 PM

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.
Posted By: Farnsworth

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/25/19 05:25 PM

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
Posted By: Garak

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/25/19 09:53 PM

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 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!
Posted By: harry j

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/30/19 12:18 AM

someone should make custom oil filters, made to all OEM specifications just more efficient say absolute at 10 microns or so.
Posted By: dnewton3

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/30/19 10:45 AM

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.

Posted By: AuthorEditor

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/30/19 10:54 AM

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.
Posted By: dnewton3

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/30/19 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by harry j
someone should make custom oil filters, made to all OEM specifications just more efficient say absolute at 10 microns or so.

They do; they're called bypass filters.
And they do a great job of removing small stuff.
And if you run really long OFCIs and have a fairly large sump (cost of UOAs is far less than cost of OFCI), they can pay back a good ROI and are a smart decision.
And if you run normal OFCIs, they are total waste of money, because they will never pay back the investment.

And despite all the hype, BP systems (in and of themselves) do NOT extend the lifespan of equipment as an exclusive characteristic; normal OFCIs with normal products will flush out what BP systems filter out. Two roads to the same destination; that of a sump "clean enough" to make the equipment last a long time.
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/30/19 08:01 PM

I'd be a bit nervous running conventional motor oil out to 15K miles, as I don't think conventional oils resist breakdown with varnish and sludging, etc as well as fully synthetic oils. Probably around 7500 on conventional oil would be the max I'd run it. I'd rather have a minuscule more wear than a varnished/sludged up motor. I want a motor that looks brand new inside when it has 100K+ miles on it.
Posted By: AuthorEditor

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/30/19 08:26 PM

Quote
I don't think conventional oils resist breakdown with varnish and sludging, etc as well as fully synthetic oils.

There's a lot more than just wear rates to consider when comparing conventional and synthetic lubes.
Posted By: harry j

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/31/19 09:53 AM

Bypass filters can be very effective and if I remember correctly can filter down at 2 microns. I am talking about a full flow filter without the added complexity of

a bypass setup, you know, I want something between a bypass setup and a normal filter. When Amsoil EAO oil filters first came out, they were rated at

15 microns at 98.7% or absolute as they called it. Given that nanofiber oil filters will outflow a cellulose one, can't the efficiency be better?
Posted By: dnewton3

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/31/19 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by AuthorEditor
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
I don't think conventional oils resist breakdown with varnish and sludging, etc as well as fully synthetic oils.

There's a lot more than just wear rates to consider when comparing conventional and synthetic lubes.

I certainly agree. One should not extend out the OCIs without understand all the risks. Varnish is actually harmless. Sludge is a different matter, though.

In my two MGMs (4.6L Ford engines), I've run over 150k combined miles of "extended" OCIs. Typically 10k miles, but some longer. The under-valve-cover conditions have always looked fine, even after the long OCIs. In our departed 1995 Villager, I ran 10k and 15k mile OCIs; again no sludge under the valve covers. What my experiments show is that in those engines, there was no risk. I have since sold those two cars to my son; he continues the 10k mile OCIs.

However, there are engines that do not tolerate longer OCIs, because of engine design issues. For example, the Saturn SL2 engines have rings with no drain-back gaps; they tend to sludge the oil at the ring lands and cause stuck rings. Some of the Toyota 4-cyl engines ran very hot in the heads, and so they'd sludge up a conventional oil fairly quickly. Here, even following the OEM schedule didn't stop the issue from happening, so it's not like shorter OCIs solve all problems, any more than longer OCIs always will cause problems. Many engines can tolerate longer OCIs; some cannot, simply because of inherent design issues.

Additionally, the ability to control soot/insolubles is not only about the engine design, but the lube fortification, also. While it is true that PAO syns do resist oxidation better than typical dino oils, those same PAO lubes also do not hold additives in suspension well, and so group II or II+ lube is blended in, so that it holds the additives in suspension. Conventional oil base stocks (II, II+, III) hold additives in suspension very well. And so the anti-agglomerates and detergents can be quite robust in a dino lube product. Those, too, help keep engines clean. As the API service categories are indexed, the requirements to control soot/insolubles increases in both gas and diesel lubes. Lubes today are far more capable than lubes from years ago.

You have to know what engine you have (what strengths and weaknesses it has by design), what lube benefits and concerns exist, as well as the understanding of how to use multiple tools (UOAs, PCs, visual observations, etc) all in concert, to have a successful program. I have NEVER advocated for blind extensions of OCIs without using the tools at hand. But you have to know what those tools are and are not capable of, and then practice the right approach. The reality is that most all engines have wear rates drop out to 15k miles; that is beyond debate. After that, you have to make educated decisions based upon the type engine you have, it's known pedigree, and be willing to put effort into assuring equipment health with using all the available tools.

In my garage, I practice longer OCIs. But I don't do it blindly, and I don't tell others to do it either. What I tell them is if the UOAs is showing good wear rates, and the engine family is not known to have sludge issues, then it's OK to extend the OCI and experiment.

I recently sold my 1966 289ci 2-v Mustang. Before I did, I cleaned up the engine and replaced the valve cover gaskets, which had never been off in the 76k miles since new (we got it used as second owners). I was horrified to see the huge amount of sludge under the valve covers. The first 60k miles under the first owner were unknown to us; I have no idea what OCI they did. But lubes back in the 1960s and 1970s and even early 1980s simply were not fortified well. Hence, even "normal" engines running "normal" OCIs were prone to sludge.

There was a time when 3k miles was the normal OCI recommendation from many sources. Then it became 5k miles. Then 7.5k miles. Now, cars/trucks with IOLMs are showing 10k miles to be common. Even the OEMs are realizing that there's little risk to longer OCIs, as long as the engine design supports it. My 2006 Dmax IOLM would indicate 9-11k miles for an OCI. My brand new Taurus' 3.5L engines both indicate 10k miles + via the IOLM. Data shows that those engines are very easy on oil, hence extended OCIs are not a big risk.

Most engines in the last two decades have been designed well. Most all lubes in the last several API iterations have been fortified very well. Engines run very "clean" today. The risk of sludge is very remote despite all the fear mongering.

If someone is unwilling/unable to practice a full spectrum maintenance program, where UOAs, PCs and under-cover inspections take place, and don't understand the nature of their specific engine, well then I cannot be held accountable for their inept approach if they choose to only follow part of my advice, and not all of it.

But my comments as to wear rates is 100% solid; nearly all engines show lower wear as the OCI matures, at least out to 15k miles, where my data streams typically end.


Posted By: Al

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/31/19 02:05 PM

It boggles my small brain that folks that post on BITOG and who are better educated than joesixpack. ....find it difficult to spend a few more bucks to get a 20 micron filter vs a 40 one. Considering at $3 a gallon for gas we spend that every 20 to 40 miles. And the filter can go 10,000+ miles. Can someone explain that to me??
Posted By: SirTanon

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 05/31/19 10:13 PM

Originally Posted by Al
It boggles my small brain that folks that post on BITOG and who are better educated than joesixpack. ....find it difficult to spend a few more bucks to get a 20 micron filter vs a 40 one. Considering at $3 a gallon for gas we spend that every 20 to 40 miles. And the filter can go 10,000+ miles. Can someone explain that to me??


I can think of a few reasons:

1 - They're tightwads / frugal / penny pinchers
2 - The fact that they have to spend increasingly more on fuel means they're looking for any way possible to offset those costs by saving a few bucks on filters, wipers, etc..
3 - They're trying to find that magic/sweet spot - a cheap filter that can perform way above its 'pay grade'. With so many filters out there, who knows if there's one that will surprise you

.. I'm sure there are other reasons
Posted By: rrounds

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 06/01/19 12:02 AM

They do, you just have to adapt them if they can physically fit the space. That is what I did to my Suzuki motorcycle and Honda S2000.
Here is what I run on my S2000, just changed the threads with a thread adapter(had one made)
https://shop.donaldson.com/store/en-us/product/P502503/62828

This filter fits the Honda S2000 with room to spare.

Rod
Posted By: Sayjac

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 06/01/19 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by AuthorEditor
From a practical standpoint today's typical car and small-truck engines seem to easily last up to and beyond 200,000 miles with nothing but Cheapy lube oil changes and no-name filters. At that point, much of the rest of the mechanical bits and pieces have either been replaced or will need to be, meaning it is more costly than just buying another vehicle. In the Northeast, the body and frame will be rotted out and need replacing too. It is always possible to build in greater longevity, but it just isn't practical from a cost/benefit standpoint. Personally, I've never junked a car because the engine was failing, and I've never had a major engine failure.
Liked this answer when I first read it, and from a practical and experiential point of view, pretty much covers my thoughts. Basically there's no need, practically speaking what's currently available gets the job done quite nicely. Further, many anecdotes posted this board members using the Asian oem filters which data points show far from most efficient, with anecdotal engine miles in multiple hundreds of thousands. Personally, have a Civic that's similar. It's seen all kinds of filters, never an FU. Other mechanical/body parts and pieces break long before engine, decisions must be made whether cost benefit of those repairs worth it as opposed to buying a new vehicle. Engine still going strong though with just regular oil and filter changes.

As an aside, unlike AE though I have lost an engine (< 100k mi.) in a vehicle long before what should have been it's useful life. Had nothing to with topic filters or oil, rather a manufacturer's defect. Nissan precats puking scoring cylinder walls, rendering the engine an oil consuming sieve. So ime, even a manufacturers defect more likely to shorten useful engine life than the filter used. My .02


Posted By: Al

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 06/01/19 02:10 PM

Well, even though..yes..an engine lasts 200K with a cheap filter but....Most engines burn oil as they get over 100K miles bc wear on piston rings. I am thinking that the better oil filter will minimumize that. Don't really know.??? But buying the Ultra for the price of a gallon of gas more for me is a no-brainer.
Posted By: Patman

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 06/02/19 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by Al
Well, even though..yes..an engine lasts 200K with a cheap filter but....Most engines burn oil as they get over 100K miles bc wear on piston rings. I am thinking that the better oil filter will minimumize that. Don't really know.??? But buying the Ultra for the price of a gallon of gas more for me is a no-brainer.


I'm with you on this one Al, as I've said before, even if engines can get to the higher mileage with the cheaper filters, it is my belief that with the better filters those engines will be in better shape at that higher mileage. So that means they'll burn less oil, be cleaner inside, and still get the same MPG and horsepower as that engine did when new. A lot of people neglect to mention that their buddy's 400k engine running on cheap oil/filters, is not in the best of health at that point in time.
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 06/02/19 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by Patman
Originally Posted by Al
Well, even though..yes..an engine lasts 200K with a cheap filter but....Most engines burn oil as they get over 100K miles bc wear on piston rings. I am thinking that the better oil filter will minimumize that. Don't really know.??? But buying the Ultra for the price of a gallon of gas more for me is a no-brainer.


I'm with you on this one Al, as I've said before, even if engines can get to the higher mileage with the cheaper filters, it is my belief that with the better filters those engines will be in better shape at that higher mileage. So that means they'll burn less oil, be cleaner inside, and still get the same MPG and horsepower as that engine did when new. A lot of people neglect to mention that their buddy's 400k engine running on cheap oil/filters, is not in the best of health at that point in time.


Stop posting common sense ... grin2
Posted By: harry j

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 06/03/19 11:26 PM

Originally Posted by Al
Well, even though..yes..an engine lasts 200K with a cheap filter but....Most engines burn oil as they get over 100K miles bc wear on piston rings. I am thinking that the better oil filter will minimumize that. Don't really know.??? But buying the Ultra for the price of a gallon of gas more for me is a no-brainer.



I totally agree AI, I have 545,000 miles on my 1993 Civic. It runs like new and hardly uses a quart of Amsoil 0W-30 oil during the 10,000 mile OCI.

The oil filter is an Amsoil EAO36 that unfortunately is no longer made. According to Amsoil, it is absolutely efficient at 15 microns.
Posted By: AuthorEditor

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 06/04/19 12:19 AM

Here in the great Northeast that Civic would have been rotted away at 200K due to the salt so you would have a beautiful engine in a worthless car that couldn't pass inspection. At least that has been my experience. The only car I ever got above 200K was because I was commuting about 30,000 miles a year and got the miles in before the car rotted.
Posted By: dave1251

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 06/04/19 03:03 AM

Originally Posted by SirTanon
Originally Posted by Al
It boggles my small brain that folks that post on BITOG and who are better educated than joesixpack. ....find it difficult to spend a few more bucks to get a 20 micron filter vs a 40 one. Considering at $3 a gallon for gas we spend that every 20 to 40 miles. And the filter can go 10,000+ miles. Can someone explain that to me??


I can think of a few reasons:

1 - They're tightwads / frugal / penny pinchers
2 - The fact that they have to spend increasingly more on fuel means they're looking for any way possible to offset those costs by saving a few bucks on filters, wipers, etc..
3 - They're trying to find that magic/sweet spot - a cheap filter that can perform way above its 'pay grade'. With so many filters out there, who knows if there's one that will surprise you

.. I'm sure there are other reasons



I got one for you it does not matter because no one has or will prove a 20 micron vs 40 micron filter extends engine life. For a few BITOG members just can't figure this out.
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 06/04/19 03:10 AM

^^^ Someone has never read any studies that correlate engine wear to the oil cleanliness level.
Posted By: dave1251

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 06/04/19 03:11 AM

Originally Posted by Patman
Originally Posted by Al
Well, even though..yes..an engine lasts 200K with a cheap filter but....Most engines burn oil as they get over 100K miles bc wear on piston rings. I am thinking that the better oil filter will minimumize that. Don't really know.??? But buying the Ultra for the price of a gallon of gas more for me is a no-brainer.


I'm with you on this one Al, as I've said before, even if engines can get to the higher mileage with the cheaper filters, it is my belief that with the better filters those engines will be in better shape at that higher mileage. So that means they'll burn less oil, be cleaner inside, and still get the same MPG and horsepower as that engine did when new. A lot of people neglect to mention that their buddy's 400k engine running on cheap oil/filters, is not in the best of health at that point in time.



Not the case in my experience. Over a hundred pickups in the fleet and each one has a service expected life of 130-50K miles and maybe 4 out of 150 pickups will develop consumption issues such as over a quart in a 350-400 hour OCI which is a around 5K miles in a hot dusty desert. The oil filters currently are Wix made but the contract always goes to the lowest bidder including fluids and all parts. Most oil filters and motor oils are better then what owners need and OCI's are conservative. Why is this fact hard to accept?
Posted By: dave1251

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 06/04/19 03:15 AM

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
^^^ Someone has never read any studies that correlate engine wear to the oil cleanliness level.

Someone should learn in the real world 40 microns of wear in 200K miles means when the engine is torn down, parts measured, and examined this equals the engine is still within "new" tolerances. Studies are great when the entire context is disclosed.
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 06/04/19 04:04 AM

Originally Posted by dave1251
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
^^^ Someone has never read any studies that correlate engine wear to the oil cleanliness level.

Someone should learn in the real world 40 microns of wear in 200K miles means when the engine is torn down, parts measured, and examined this equals the engine is still within "new" tolerances. Studies are great when the entire context is disclosed.


I've been waiting for years for someone to post even one link to a formal scientific study that shows cleaner oil doesn't result in any less wear. That's the point, not if an engine "didn't blow up", "is still running good" or "still within specs" after 200K miles if less efficient oil filters were used.

Granted, if people are doing short OCIs the filter efficiency isn't as important because the sump is dumped of wear particulate relative early that a less efficient filter can't capture. But with longer OCIs a high efficiency filter is going to keep the oil cleaner over the longer OCI duration. Think of the wear factor as the average oil cleanliness level times the OCI mileage. Oil that is twice as dirty with a 5K OCI is basically equivalent to oil half as dirty with a 10K OCI. From the PC data seen in a few studies and in typical UOA PCs, a filter rated at 99% @ 20μ showed oil to be 4 to 5 times cleaner in particulate than a filter rated at 99% @ 40μ (which is probably close to 50% @ 20μ)

You said above you used Wix filters in the truck feet, but if they are the regular Wix filter they are pretty high efficiency (95% @ 20μ). So you're maybe a user of relatively high efficiency oil filters and might not even grasp or acknowledge it. Maybe you should start using 99% @ 40μ or 50% @ 20μ filters with 10K OCIs and see how the fleet does in that case.
Posted By: PandaBear

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 06/05/19 01:34 AM

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
^^^ Someone has never read any studies that correlate engine wear to the oil cleanliness level.


In real world, it is the transmission slipping or the head gasket leak that does the car in, engine oil cleanliness or tolerance does not matter.
Posted By: Al

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 06/05/19 02:01 AM

Originally Posted by dave1251

I got one for you it does not matter because no one has or will prove a 20 micron vs 40 micron filter extends engine life. For a few BITOG members just can't figure this out.

ummmm...NO:
https://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/30697/choose-oil-filter
Posted By: dave1251

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 06/05/19 02:21 AM

Originally Posted by Al
Originally Posted by dave1251

I got one for you it does not matter because no one has or will prove a 20 micron vs 40 micron filter extends engine life. For a few BITOG members just can't figure this out.

ummmm...NO:
https://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/30697/choose-oil-filter



Once again real world is key no one has presented if and how much longer higher efficiency filters extend engine life. One possible explanation is because even in severe service the oil and filter are change before the useful life is pushed and just as likely the vehicle is retired because of other issues before the engine is worn.
Posted By: Farnsworth

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 06/05/19 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by Al
[quote=dave1251]
I got one for you it does not matter because no one has or will prove a 20 micron vs 40 micron filter extends engine life. For a few BITOG members just can't figure this out.

ummmm...NO:
https://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/30697/choose-oil-filter

Cast iron, used in cylinder walls, breaks down, crushes, silica and alumina (sapphire) quickly with little effect on the cast iron. Cast iron laps are used with abrasives to grind materials, they wear very slowly even in direct contact with thick abrasive slurry.

In the picture of cellulose versus synthetic fibers everyone focuses on the holes, but not on the large thicknesses of fiber in cellulose that entrap fine particles on or in the fibers. Those fiber sections are absent in synthetic. Synthetic fibers trap nothing on or in the fiber itself. Only the holes filter in synthetic fibers.If a filter is changed often enough the many holes aren't so important.
Posted By: Al

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 06/06/19 12:40 AM

Originally Posted by dave1251

Once again real world is key no one has presented if and how much longer higher efficiency filters extend engine life. One possible explanation is because even in severe service the oil and filter are change before the useful life is pushed and just as likely the vehicle is retired because of other issues before the engine is worn.

Suit yourself its not possible to control parameters in the real world like it it is with a controlled test. Use whatever you want I could care less. I'm 73 years old I don't have time to argue.
Posted By: Patman

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 06/06/19 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by dave1251


Once again real world is key no one has presented if and how much longer higher efficiency filters extend engine life. One possible explanation is because even in severe service the oil and filter are change before the useful life is pushed and just as likely the vehicle is retired because of other issues before the engine is worn.



I still feel like it's worth the extra couple of bucks to get a more efficient filter, it certainly won't shorten the engine's life, so the benefits outweigh the negatives in the long run. Besides, it's not like you have to spend a fortune to use an efficient filter. The Wix/NAPA Gold costs roughly the same as a lot of less efficient filters do.

Also, why do so many people on here need absolute proof before using something? You can't just trust the fact that a more efficient filter is a good thing to have?
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 06/06/19 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by Patman
Originally Posted by dave1251
Once again real world is key no one has presented if and how much longer higher efficiency filters extend engine life. One possible explanation is because even in severe service the oil and filter are change before the useful life is pushed and just as likely the vehicle is retired because of other issues before the engine is worn.

I still feel like it's worth the extra couple of bucks to get a more efficient filter, it certainly won't shorten the engine's life, so the benefits outweigh the negatives in the long run. Besides, it's not like you have to spend a fortune to use an efficient filter. The Wix/NAPA Gold costs roughly the same as a lot of less efficient filters do.

Also, why do so many people on here need absolute proof before using something? You can't just trust the fact that a more efficient filter is a good thing to have?


Because it's a basic lack of logic. People that use low efficiency filters have zero proof that they didn't cause any more wear than using a high efficiency filter ... expect for their standard statement of "my engine didn't blow-up and it was still running good at 200K miles". That's hard core science right there - lol. BTW, I'd consider a full flow filter that's 95% @ 20u or better to be in the "high efficiency" category, so there are a lot of filters on the market these days that meet that these days.
Posted By: DoubleWasp

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 06/06/19 07:04 PM

Originally Posted by dave1251
Originally Posted by SirTanon
Originally Posted by Al
It boggles my small brain that folks that post on BITOG and who are better educated than joesixpack. ....find it difficult to spend a few more bucks to get a 20 micron filter vs a 40 one. Considering at $3 a gallon for gas we spend that every 20 to 40 miles. And the filter can go 10,000+ miles. Can someone explain that to me??


I can think of a few reasons:

1 - They're tightwads / frugal / penny pinchers
2 - The fact that they have to spend increasingly more on fuel means they're looking for any way possible to offset those costs by saving a few bucks on filters, wipers, etc..
3 - They're trying to find that magic/sweet spot - a cheap filter that can perform way above its 'pay grade'. With so many filters out there, who knows if there's one that will surprise you

.. I'm sure there are other reasons



I got one for you it does not matter because no one has or will prove a 20 micron vs 40 micron filter extends engine life. For a few BITOG members just can't figure this out.


Cummins and Fleetguard have done extensive studies proving that better filtering efficiency results in a better and longer life for their engines.

This is not true of all engines. I don't deny that. A lot of record breakers made it on jobber or dealer filters, but I consider it to be simply hedging my bets.

For extended OCIs, keeping the oil as clean as possible for as long as possible is just the program.

My one engine made it's first 1/4 million miles on $13/gallon Delvac and $4 Pennzoil filters. So your position is a very valid one. There's a 1.2 million mile ISB 5.9 that made it on cheap oil and filters.......towing boats its whole life.
Posted By: bbhero

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 06/06/19 07:31 PM

Really good post here ^^^^^^^^
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 06/06/19 08:13 PM

Originally Posted by DoubleWasp
For extended OCIs, keeping the oil as clean as possible for as long as possible is just the program.


Yes, the longer you run an OCI the better filtration will keep the overall average particulate level down. Think of the sump oil as a slurry of "grinding solution" that goes through the engine 1000s of times over an OCI (roughly ~5,000 to 6,000 gallons flowed through the average engine every 1,000 miles). Oil cleanliness level times the OCI mileage is the number you want to reduce. That's why big commercial trucks typically use 2u bypass filtering systems, because they run the oil for 25K to 50K miles depending on the sump capacity.

You could run no oil filter, but change the oil every 1000 miles or less and probably keep the wear level from particulate in the oil down as well or better than a 10-12K OCI with an inefficient oil filter.
Posted By: DoubleWasp

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 06/07/19 12:36 AM

Extended OCIs with high efficiency filters have saved my business lots of money. That's the objective gain I have gotten.
Posted By: David1

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 06/07/19 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by Farnsworth
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




Have you read or looked into the MICRO GREEN oil filters?
Posted By: AuthorEditor

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 06/07/19 10:20 AM

Any company that wants to make itself appear legit needs to stop using all caps for phrases on a website featuring borders of red and yellow, and a design straight from a high school computer class in 1996. I'm serious--the design screams scam! http://trasko-usa.com/index.html
Posted By: Linctex

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 06/07/19 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by AuthorEditor
Any company that wants to make itself appear legit needs to stop using all caps for phrases on a website featuring borders of red and yellow, and a design straight from a high school computer class in 1996. I'm serious--the design screams scam! http://trasko-usa.com/index.html


" IT IS LIKE HAVING A SMALL OIL REFINERY UNDER YOU HOOD! "

Gee... where have I heard that before?
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
(Frantz)
Posted By: JohnnyJohnson

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 06/07/19 07:42 PM

Originally Posted by AuthorEditor
Any company that wants to make itself appear legit needs to stop using all caps for phrases on a website featuring borders of red and yellow, and a design straight from a high school computer class in 1996. I'm serious--the design screams scam! http://trasko-usa.com/index.html


LOL WELL I'M HARD OF READING LIKE SOME OTHERS ON BITOG AND I LIKE CAPS! You don't like CAPS skip to the next post!
Posted By: WellOiled

Re: Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter? - 06/07/19 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by AuthorEditor
Any company that wants to make itself appear legit needs to stop using all caps for phrases on a website featuring borders of red and yellow, and a design straight from a high school computer class in 1996. I'm serious--the design screams scam! http://trasko-usa.com/index.html

+1 on "the design screams scam!" Sales by hyperbole. If they have a good product, they don't have to do it. wink
© 2019 Bob Is The Oil Guy