2014 Indian Chieftain - Chevron Delo
- Thread starter Spur
- Start date
- Status
If the oil filters run clean, then you aren't running clean oil through a dirty filter.
ofcourse if you have a year or so and 5,000 to 7,000 miles or more , or running max oil intervals , better to replace both.
But I understand , some can not fathom not changing both under any condition.
ofcourse if you have a year or so and 5,000 to 7,000 miles or more , or running max oil intervals , better to replace both.
But I understand , some can not fathom not changing both under any condition.
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: benjy
why anyone would run clean oil thru a dirty filter is beyond me! sure its filtering a little better with all the contaminants in it but for how long, + on a HD with already poor oil pressure!!
Because most of the time, oil filters are really only there to catch (size relative) chunks of stuff ... And so they are rarely ever even remotely close to being a risk in holding capacity.
Most of the smaller stuff that causes wear (5-15um particulate) will pass right through a normal filter anyway, regardless of the filter's age. Why toss out a perfectly good filter, engaging a new filter? Both are going to still pass the same stuff through the media. There is at least some hope that a lightly loaded filter (defined as: FCI = 2x OCI) will at least catch more of the larger stuff, due to pores being closed down. And there is at least some proof of this in the infamous GM filter study, which concluded that REGARDLESS of the size of the filter pores at initial start, the typical loading of particulate closed down all pores in all filter selections to about 10um. IOW, no matter how good/bad your filter may be at the start, or how big it's pores are, they all do about the same job as they blind off. So why put on a "new" filter, causing that relationship to be delayed?
Examples:
a) a filter that is very "open" may start out passing particulate at 25um, and after 15k miles it is now closed down so that it passes only 10um (all judged at the same efficiency rating for the pass/catch ratio).
b) a filter that is very "tight" may start out passing particulate at 15um, and after 10k miles it is now closed down so that it passes only 10um (again, judged at the same pass/catch ratio)
IOW - a "better" tighter filter ultimately won't be any better in performance in terms of total performance, but it will get there sooner. Anytime you start with tighter pores, you get to your finite end of ultimate beta sooner. Using a "better" filter (say a TG or FU), really won't gain you much, if anything, over your "used for a second OCI" filter. While I cannot assure you that the values in my example are 100% spot on, it is the concept you need to glean here. So why "restart" that less desirable pass/catch ratio by putting on a new filter every time? You're never going to catch smaller particulate (below 10um) with a FF filter anyway. But if you can catch the larger stuff with more frequency(increasing your efficiency), then why toss out a perfectly good filter that is actually advanced in the capture curve???
Also, it's been reiterated in some threads here that most any oil filter will pass WAY MORE oil than the engine needs. For example, the old thread about the PureOne filter and the Corvette; where the filter can pass about 2x the oil that the can could ever pump, even at WOT. So, what makes you think the HD engine "needs" more oil than that which a typical filter can pass? Don't just regurgitate some internet rhetoric or your own biased fears; show us DATA (conclusive proof) that the HD engine will starve for oil using a normal FF filter. Show us a decent study, or data logging (such as what Jim Allen has done) that would lead us to believe that a typical filter will choke down oil flow, even if the filter is used for two OCIs.
The only time, and I mean the ONLY TIME, a filter used for longer OCIs is going to be a true risk is one of these were to occur:
1) the engine is incredibly poor running, and the contamination loading (soot and dust intake) is so horrid that a "normal" filter will be usurped in a "normal" OCI; so badly running that you'd notice the degradation in daily performance and economy on a horrid scale
2) the oil filter has been truly neglected, for many multiple OCIs to a point where it's going into bypass essentially all the time (this would be WAY, WAY past any BITOG applied factor). This isn't a case of going 2x the OCI; truly no one changed oil/filter for tens of thousands of miles either out of ignorance or arrogance.
Where's the proof that 2x FCIs are safe? Well, companies that make equipment well respected for longevity (Toyota, Honda, Mitsubishi, Yanmar) often will tout such FCIs for their equipment in normal applications.
Changing your filter with every OCI isn't going to be "bad" for the engine. But it's no more helpful than overly frequent OCIs. Changing oil and/or filters often won't really harm your engine at all, but the practice WILL harm your wallet.
why anyone would run clean oil thru a dirty filter is beyond me! sure its filtering a little better with all the contaminants in it but for how long, + on a HD with already poor oil pressure!!
Because most of the time, oil filters are really only there to catch (size relative) chunks of stuff ... And so they are rarely ever even remotely close to being a risk in holding capacity.
Most of the smaller stuff that causes wear (5-15um particulate) will pass right through a normal filter anyway, regardless of the filter's age. Why toss out a perfectly good filter, engaging a new filter? Both are going to still pass the same stuff through the media. There is at least some hope that a lightly loaded filter (defined as: FCI = 2x OCI) will at least catch more of the larger stuff, due to pores being closed down. And there is at least some proof of this in the infamous GM filter study, which concluded that REGARDLESS of the size of the filter pores at initial start, the typical loading of particulate closed down all pores in all filter selections to about 10um. IOW, no matter how good/bad your filter may be at the start, or how big it's pores are, they all do about the same job as they blind off. So why put on a "new" filter, causing that relationship to be delayed?
Examples:
a) a filter that is very "open" may start out passing particulate at 25um, and after 15k miles it is now closed down so that it passes only 10um (all judged at the same efficiency rating for the pass/catch ratio).
b) a filter that is very "tight" may start out passing particulate at 15um, and after 10k miles it is now closed down so that it passes only 10um (again, judged at the same pass/catch ratio)
IOW - a "better" tighter filter ultimately won't be any better in performance in terms of total performance, but it will get there sooner. Anytime you start with tighter pores, you get to your finite end of ultimate beta sooner. Using a "better" filter (say a TG or FU), really won't gain you much, if anything, over your "used for a second OCI" filter. While I cannot assure you that the values in my example are 100% spot on, it is the concept you need to glean here. So why "restart" that less desirable pass/catch ratio by putting on a new filter every time? You're never going to catch smaller particulate (below 10um) with a FF filter anyway. But if you can catch the larger stuff with more frequency(increasing your efficiency), then why toss out a perfectly good filter that is actually advanced in the capture curve???
Also, it's been reiterated in some threads here that most any oil filter will pass WAY MORE oil than the engine needs. For example, the old thread about the PureOne filter and the Corvette; where the filter can pass about 2x the oil that the can could ever pump, even at WOT. So, what makes you think the HD engine "needs" more oil than that which a typical filter can pass? Don't just regurgitate some internet rhetoric or your own biased fears; show us DATA (conclusive proof) that the HD engine will starve for oil using a normal FF filter. Show us a decent study, or data logging (such as what Jim Allen has done) that would lead us to believe that a typical filter will choke down oil flow, even if the filter is used for two OCIs.
The only time, and I mean the ONLY TIME, a filter used for longer OCIs is going to be a true risk is one of these were to occur:
1) the engine is incredibly poor running, and the contamination loading (soot and dust intake) is so horrid that a "normal" filter will be usurped in a "normal" OCI; so badly running that you'd notice the degradation in daily performance and economy on a horrid scale
2) the oil filter has been truly neglected, for many multiple OCIs to a point where it's going into bypass essentially all the time (this would be WAY, WAY past any BITOG applied factor). This isn't a case of going 2x the OCI; truly no one changed oil/filter for tens of thousands of miles either out of ignorance or arrogance.
Where's the proof that 2x FCIs are safe? Well, companies that make equipment well respected for longevity (Toyota, Honda, Mitsubishi, Yanmar) often will tout such FCIs for their equipment in normal applications.
Changing your filter with every OCI isn't going to be "bad" for the engine. But it's no more helpful than overly frequent OCIs. Changing oil and/or filters often won't really harm your engine at all, but the practice WILL harm your wallet.
- Status
Similar threads
