A little bit of knowledge goes a long way in the wrong direction

dnewton3

Staff member
Messages
8,642
Location
Indianapolis, IN
This: https://karenstransport.com/faq And this: https://karenstransport.com/about-us Yet more proof that some folks are able to screw over other folks, even if unintentionally. Case in point; the above. Read over the website; it goes into great detail as to why the CAT oil filters are the best; and it's obvious they presume them to be applicable to all conditions and applications. The CAT 1R-1807 filter is a good filter, but it does NOT have an internal BP relief valve in it. That's fine as long as your engine has a BP relief valve in the block. Not only does this filter not have a BP valve in it, but neither do any of the xref equivalents from most makers (Wix 57791; Baldwin B7700; Fram PH49A, etc). That's all fine and good. However, the Ford 6.7L diesel and the GM Duramax diesel have lube circuit designs that use filters with BP valves internal in them because they do NOT have BP relief valves in their engines. (Wix 57151; Wix 57202; other brands similar). This Karens Transport company is now producing adapters that allow the use of the CAT oil filter in place of the OEM designed filter (and aftermarket equivalents), but do not mimic the necessary BP feature to protect the media and the engine. If you review the website, you'd get the impression this person has done it all and knows it all. But it's my opinion that these products to adapt the CAT filter to several applications is downright irresponsible and likely will result in long term damage to the engines. Further, there are statements on their website that are just flat uninformed. For example, the presumption that normal OEM filters will soon end up in bypass due to particulate loading. All data proves that this is NOT normal, and even reasonably extended OFCIs don't end up with the filters in BP. Also, as Jim Allen's data has shown us, filters used in the correct application with the correct vis lubes do not go into bypass much at all. And then there's the references to the infamous GM filter study, which is an absurd journey into the world of HALTs, and has zero applicability to our vehicles in our garages. Caveat Emptor, folks !!!
 
Messages
28,192
Location
PNW
That Machine Design article that he referenced in the 2nd link is pretty comprehensive - I haven't seen that article before. https://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/30697/choose-oil-filter He's just looking for a high efficiency, high build quality filter and he decided on the CAT filters. We know there are other high efficiency oil filters on the market if high efficiency is what someone's looking for. Although, he mentions that he uses CAT filters that don't have a bypass valve. Not sure I'd be doing that.
 

dnewton3

Staff member
Thread starter
Messages
8,642
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Here's how this goes sideways really quickly ... https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4958706/duramax-lml-sample#Post4958706 Here's a new member that is adding Lucas oil stabilizer to a 40 grade, and now has this CAT oil filter on his Dmax. He's now got a super-thick oil (unknown how viscus this lube is at, say, 35 degF at cold start) that he's trying to push through a filter that has no bypass relief to protect the media. The CAT filter is an answer to an unreasonable question. Where's the evidence that the OEM spec'd filters don't do a good job? Have we seen any data that normal OEM filters don't have the required capacity for typical use? In fact, have we not seen that even moderately extended OCIs with typical off-the-shelf filters still have great wear data? This is just the typical "I need a larger filter" mentality on steroids. This is what someone uses when bigger than big is not big enough ... What do you think is going to happen when someone ends up with a damaged engine because either the engine was starved for oil after start-up, or the media on that CAT blows out? The OEM sure won't cover it once they find out about the improper oil filter application. CAT won't cover an application that filter's not spec'd for. I just tire of the complete and utter misunderstanding of the GM filter study, and it's in-applicability to our daily driving, and yet everyone bows down to that study like it's the Filter Bible. Nothing could be further from the truth; it is, without any doubt in my mind, the most often quoted and horribly misunderstood SAE study commonly referenced.
 
Last edited:
Messages
28,192
Location
PNW
Originally Posted by dnewton3
I just tire of the complete and utter misunderstanding of the GM filter study, and it's in-applicability to our daily driving, and yet everyone bows down to that study like it's the Filter Bible. Nothing could be further from the truth; it is, without any doubt in my mind, the most often quoted and horribly misunderstood SAE study commonly referenced.
The GM filter study might have flaws, but other studies have also shown that better oil filtration results in less wear particulate in the oil, and that results in less engine wear. I don't think it hurts anything except a few more dollars in cost to use high efficiency oil filters.
 
Messages
10,015
Location
Waco, TX
I doubt a filter that large will completely impede lube flow.... if driven very conservatively until the oil warms up. I'll bet that big CAT filter can flow well over 20 GPM with warm oil, and should be "just ok adequate" at very low rpm's with cold oil. Isn't the oil pressure sensor after the filter? - - - - That would be the first good indicator.
 
Messages
28,192
Location
PNW
Originally Posted by Linctex
Isn't the oil pressure sensor after the filter? - - - - That would be the first good indicator.
An oil sensor after the filter doesn't give any info on what the flow resistance is of the filter. A sensor before the filter would, because the filter would then be included in the oiling system's flow resistance with respect to what the sensor measures.
 
Messages
10,015
Location
Waco, TX
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
An oil sensor after the filter doesn't give any info on what the flow resistance is of the filter.
True, but - - - You would STILL at least know you were getting oil where it needed to be getting to.
 
Messages
14,673
Location
The Old North State
Admittedly didn't read everything, but enough to know that imo this would be an example of confirmation bias. Started out wanting to choose the Cat filter because of it's physical appearance and likely name recognition, then was going to do whatever it took to choose/use the Cat filter. Once again there's the silly inlet hole comparison. I would bet that the filters with the smaller inlet holes still have at least (likely more than) the equivalent total area to the filter mounting stud inner diameter area. In other words, all the area that's necessary or useful. And who knows what else is going on behind the scenes, selling the "bypass adapters" provides some profit motive. Sadly, there may be a few poor suckers that go for the "bypass adapters" to use the Cat filter.
 
Messages
10,968
Location
Cincinnati, OH, USA
4% at 4 microns, and 99% at 21-I'm trying to figure out exactly what problems this CAT filter mod is addressing? Those numbers really aren't any better than most synthetic media filters, such as Fram Ultra, FG Stratapore (or even Venturi or Nano), RP, or Donaldson Blue. Why risk blowing out a filter just to have the CAT name on it?
 
Messages
527
Location
MD
Originally Posted by bullwinkle
4% at 4 microns, and 99% at 21-I'm trying to figure out exactly what problems this CAT filter mod is addressing? Those numbers really aren't any better than most synthetic media filters, such as Fram Ultra, FG Stratapore (or even Venturi or Nano), RP, or Donaldson Blue. Why risk blowing out a filter just to have the CAT name on it?
Yep. Or the wix for the 6.7. Donaldson doesn't have a blue for the 6.7, but the white Donaldson also has essentially the same efficiency as the cat too.
 

dnewton3

Staff member
Thread starter
Messages
8,642
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Originally Posted by claluja
Originally Posted by bullwinkle
4% at 4 microns, and 99% at 21-I'm trying to figure out exactly what problems this CAT filter mod is addressing? Those numbers really aren't any better than most synthetic media filters, such as Fram Ultra, FG Stratapore (or even Venturi or Nano), RP, or Donaldson Blue. Why risk blowing out a filter just to have the CAT name on it?
Yep. Or the wix for the 6.7. Donaldson doesn't have a blue for the 6.7, but the white Donaldson also has essentially the same efficiency as the cat too.
The Wix 57151 for the Ford 6.7L is beta thus: 2/20/75 = 3/12/17. That's a really, really good filter. And I'm sure it has well more than enough capacity for the intended OCIs. And it has the proper bypass relief in it. The CAT filter is an answer to a question that should not have ever been asked! This is just typical brand-name bias; just because a CAT filter is a good choice on some equipment, does not mean it translates well to all other applications under the sun. What is the CAT mod addressing? An ill-informed person's "want" to make money.
 

dnewton3

Staff member
Thread starter
Messages
8,642
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by dnewton3
I just tire of the complete and utter misunderstanding of the GM filter study, and it's in-applicability to our daily driving, and yet everyone bows down to that study like it's the Filter Bible. Nothing could be further from the truth; it is, without any doubt in my mind, the most often quoted and horribly misunderstood SAE study commonly referenced.
The GM filter study might have flaws, but other studies have also shown that better oil filtration results in less wear particulate in the oil, and that results in less engine wear. I don't think it hurts anything except a few more dollars in cost to use high efficiency oil filters.
I never said the GM filter study had flaws; I state that it has zero relevance to nearly any of us, because the conditions of that HALT do not exist in the real world, and even GM admitted that the performance disparity seen in the results would never materialize in real life. Further, quite a ways back, you and I had the discussion around several filter studies. I generally agree that HE filters are not a bad thing, and the small up-price paid isn't insurmountable for most. But we also agreed that the "bus study" showed correlation between PC counts and UOA data. Hence, there is a link between PCs and wear. But, if we accept that as true (and I'm OK that we do), then we cannot ignore the fact that the use of HE filters in "normal" OCI applications proves that the wear goes generally unaffected by the use of HE filters. There's no study that you or I have ever read that shows a performance difference between "good" typical filters and "great" HE filters RELATIVE TO THE USE OF THOSE PRODUCTS IN NORMAL OCIs. The bus study showed good correlation between PC results from HE filters, and the drop in UOA wear metals. But that was on old 2-stroke DD engines; known to heavily dose the lube with soot. Also, that study took place several years ago, when lubes were not as developed as they are today. The reality is that the reasonably clean running gas and diesel engines of today don't pollute the lube like engines of yesteryear, and lubes are far better at controlling insolubles. Even that study is not really relevant to us today. That is, unless you're running a old DD-2 stroke with old CF lubes. Sure - we have EGR now that those engines didn't have back then. But still, that is not nearly as big a deal as one first thinks. Many folks just don't understand how small soot is; it starts out sub-micron in size. In fact, it is measured in nm (NANO meters; 1x10 -9). Soot has to grow on an order of 2 magnitudes just to get interesting to an engine. A 40nm particle would have to grow 100 times larger just to reach 4um. The reality is that OCIs flush out most all contamination before it becomes a major issue. And filters that are "good enough" take care of anything large on the first pass. Good quality lubes today keep soot small enough that it's essentially harmless in a normal OCI. If this were untrue, then we'd see UOA data to indicate wear escalation. Again - if we accept that there is correlation between PCs and UOA metals, then we cannot ignore the fact that the ABSENCE of wear trend shifts means the particles are truly insignificant. Can't have to both ways here. I'm not saying that there's not particulate in sumps; I'm saying the particulate is not large enough or in a quantity great enough that it matters. If it did matter, we'd see UOA data to confirm this. Tens of thousands of UOAs show that wear continues to drop out to 15k miles in nearly any application I've studies; there data is there for all to see. If you want me to believe that the use of a high-capacity, high-efficiency filter is a necessity, then PROVE to me with real world data from normal use that there is a distinct shift in wear data. To this date, there is not one study that shows any correlation in this regard, and without correlation, there can be no causation. I, too, like using HE filters, but high-efficiency has a pragmatic limit for me. I typically use Wix or TG filters; that's more than good enough at a fair price. I sure as heck don't need this giant CAT 1R-1807 albatross hanging under my frame to make my engine last a long time. That CAT filter is grossly oversized for the applications this guy is peddling his wares for; there isn't a Dmax or PSD that needs this thing hung around it's neck. That CAT filter isn't offering any tangible benefit of wear reduction in a normal OCI, and in fact, it may well be a true risk in that is has no BP feature.
 
Messages
28,192
Location
PNW
Originally Posted by bullwinkle
4% at 4 microns, and 99% at 21-I'm trying to figure out exactly what problems this CAT filter mod is addressing? Those numbers really aren't any better than most synthetic media filters, such as Fram Ultra, FG Stratapore (or even Venturi or Nano), RP, or Donaldson Blue. Why risk blowing out a filter just to have the CAT name on it?
Motorking has mentioned before that the Ultra was 80 @ 5 microns ... so much better on the lower end than the CAT filter at 4% @ 4 microns. And it's typically the particles below 20 microns that do a lot of the wear.
 
Messages
28,192
Location
PNW
Originally Posted by dnewton3
I, too, like using HE filters, but high-efficiency has a pragmatic limit for me. I typically use Wix or TG filters; that's more than good enough at a fair price.
Regardless if any of the "filter efficiency vs engine wear" studies are relevant or not to a maintained daily driver, the fact still remains that cleaner oil will result in less engine wear. There is no study on earth that shows that cleaner oil results in more engine wear. Those WIX and TG filters are 95% @ 20u and 99% @ 20u respectively ... that's pretty good efficiency compared to 50% @ 20u. I would use them too since my own personal efficiency "cut-off" for my use is 95% @ 20u.
 
Messages
9,602
Location
Virginia
^^^^^ I think you both are right Zee0six... I agree with dn3 too... The bus study is no where near real world working conditions. . Yet it holds truth to higher efficiency meaning less wear. . And dn3 is right that there is a balance to that to where it can be said at a certain level all will be good price wise and performance wise... No how bout them there air filters??? LOL Prevention beats a pound of cure.
 
Last edited:

dnewton3

Staff member
Thread starter
Messages
8,642
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Originally Posted by bbhero
No how bout them there air filters??? LOL Prevention beats a pound of cure.
Abrasive particles get into a sump one of three ways: 1- inhaled (silica via air intake track) 2- created (soot is born from incomplete hydrocarbon combustion processes) 3- ingested (silica accidentally induced via parts replacement; ala intake manifold comes off, heads come off, or just dirt carelessly getting into the oil fill hole, etc) Air filters are VERY important, because the first line of defense is the better line of defense. Using a decent filter, and not changing it too early, are key to keeping silica out. Oil additives (the lube maker's add-pack, not your home-brew aftermarket remedy) and oil filters work in concert to control soot and silica once they are in the bloodstream. If the air filter is doing a good job on silica, then the oil filter is dealing with a few metals and the occasional big soot particle. The oil itself is controlling small soot and keeping it that way! Keeping a clean work environment and tools will reduce this risk (think of this in terms of a surgeon scrubbing up and using clean instruments. You hope this does not happen at all, but if you have to go under the knife, then the old saying pays off here .... Cleanliness is next to your favorite deity. Oil filters are actually a secondary line of defense. The air filter should be keeping Si out. The oil additive package should be keeping soot sub-micron in size. That leaves just the occasional large errant particle for the oil filter to catch. This is why the topic of HE filters (and admittedly the term HE isn't well defined by us in this conversation) is generally moot. Just because something is "better" at catching particulate with more efficiency, does not mean that capability automatically induces the condition of heavy contamination into the sump. An oil filter cannot make an engine run dirty, nor will an oil filter make an engine inhale more stuff. An oil filter is there merely to catch the occasional large chunks (10um and larger). Whether an oil filter is 95% or 99% at 20um really is of no consequence; the distinction between those choices will never be tangible enough in real world use to be able to exhibit a disparity in wear control. I would agree that there likely would be a wear control disparity between a 50% and 99% filter choice, but honestly I'm not sure how large of a disparity there would be, because if the air filer and lube package are doing there jobs, there's precious little left for the oil filter to deal with. Most any decent filter out there today is at least 80% at 20um. Many choices are 90% plus. Several are 95%. At some point, the refinement becomes lost in the minutia. Honestly, if we're not discussing AT LEAST a delta efficiency of 30%, then it's not worth having the conversation. I've seen absolutely no data from real world conditions in modern applications relative to what the majority of we BITOGers have that shows conclusively this topic matters. (My 99% TG really isn't going to reduce wear in a meaningful manner over a 80% filter). Will a 99% filter reduce the particulate loading more so than a 95% filter? I would agree and say yes. Will that disparity reveal itself in wear control that we can see? Nope - no way in Hades. The minor shift in wear control would be measured in 100ths of a percentage point. Whereas the typical normal variation of daily real-world use far exceeds that noise coming from the filter efficiency. It is completely normal for an engine to have a reasonably steady wear trend, but that trend will not be a solid, flat line. There is always "normal" variation in wear. We see this in UOAs and my study data proves this beyond any rational objection. It is totally "normal" to see Fe, Al and such move up/down in ppm counts over a long series of UOAs. You can then average those results out to be measured in tenths of a ppm. But, the wear control induced by two filter choices may only induce effects of hundredths of a ppm. That's an order of magnitude different (smaller). And to accurately measure any variable, you need the demonstrated ability to measure at least one magnitude smaller than the level you'd report; hence we'd have to be able to measure wear control to the thousandth of a ppm, and prove it with a gauge R&R. There is not one example or SAE study I have ever seen that even remotely implicates such accuracy. Arguing about if a 99% filter is "better" than a 95% filter in normal daily use is like arguing about the volume of your music in your ear-buds as you stand in the 3rd row back in a 1985 Metallica concert. You ain't going to hear your Sony Walkman over the blaring sounds coming from on stage. And, this is what the bus study is trying to tell us several decades later. If we accept that PC loading variation will result in UOA metal count changes (and I agree that it's true), then we cannot ignore the fact that today, UOA data tells us that normal daily variation is much larger than the effect a "HE" filter imparts to wear control. We currently have no means to control normal wear to a level low enough that the difference between 85% and 99% filtration can ever be discerned. The reason this topic is moot is two-fold: 1) the daily variation is louder than the effects of minor filtration efficiency differences 2) the air filter and oil add-pack are far more important at controlling wear than is the disparity in filtration efficiency choices Any oil filter that is 80% or better is more than good enough for the task. Any filter that is "better" than that cannot be claimed as proven to be of any consequence in real world use. Most simply put, air filters and oil additives control wear so well that oil filters have far less effect than they did decades ago. What little remains for them to do can be done with reasonable efficiency (80%), and high efficiency (95%+) is not discernible in the measurement methods we currently have available in real world use. We can prove that HE filters make a difference in PC loading, but we cannot prove that the delta actually manifests into significant wear control. No study exists that addresses the current state of where we're at. We've controlled wear so well with air filters and lubes that oil filter choices have essentially no delta in effect. The only risk we'd have to address is that of the wear control methods becoming ineffective. But simple maintenance address these concerns. At some point, an air filter would blind off to a point where it would affect the running engine; just change it before that happens. At some point, the add-pack would become overwhelmed and let soot get too big; just change the oil before that happens. At some point, an oil filter would be blinded off and let big chunks into the engine; just change it out as well. The filter studies that most folks rely on to have these discussions (or, market their products such as BP filter makers and guys like this CAT filter pusher) fall into two camps; a) grossly absurd conditions that do not reflect reality in any manner and therefore the conclusions therein are not helpful b) outdated conditions that were relevant at the time, but are no longer so because other controls have usurped the object of conversation The GM filter study is UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY INAPPLICABLE TO US and even GM directly and fully admits the results will never be seen in normal applications. The bus filter study shows us that IF WE BELIEVE THAT THERE IS CORRELATION BETWEEN PC LOADING AND UOA WEAR DATA, THEN THE ABSENCE OF THAT RESULTANT EFFECT CANNOT BE IGNORED. The conclusion to draw is that other control methods have outpaced the oil filter efficiency topic.
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,168
Location
USA
How about people who miss the dipstick hole, put the stick into dirt around the hole, then put the stick in without recleaning it? I read here oil pumps are almost full flow all the time. Which means even with no bypass valve on the oil filter, if the element can take it, the same amount oil is flowing. So don't use filter too long with these adapters. Merry Christmas.
 
Messages
2,063
Location
Jupiter, Fl
Surely, these engines have an oil pressure bypass regulator that dumps excess pressure back into the pan before it gets to the filter? If so, worst case, they will be limiting oil flow to the critical engine parts when cold and possibly extreme rpm conditions. If they didn't, they could do significant damage to everything from the pump drive to the oiling circuits, even with the filter bypass in place. Lots of bad ideas can work for many thousands of miles, that doesn't mean damage isn't being done. Not knowing the company that produces these (and the LN) adapters, if they've done their research, maybe it is safe, even if it is limiting flow. If they are used in a situation where the truck is at operating temp for 12 hours a day, they very well could work fine. Clean oil is great, but the truth is, oiling systems can tolerate tiny particulate matter. It's not ideal, but the few particles suspended in oil that has already run through the filter thousands of times is probably better than low flow under those conditions. I am all for clean oil, but I would prefer to have proper flow, and I hope that the sand that got dropped in gets caught by the pickup screen, it is likely to damage the oil pump itself on its first pass through. Many shadetree (and professional) mechanics don't realize how important it is to keep even tiny amounts of sand from falling into the oil. This is something you learn when working on transmissions. One piece of terry towel fiber or a piece of grit can ruin a transmission rebuild.
 
Messages
28,192
Location
PNW
Just as the real world Bus Study showed that higher efficiency oil filters gave a lower Particle Count in the UOAs, I too show this with UOA data right out of the forums of BITOG. I wanted to prove it to myself that it was happening on real world vehicles, and the data from BITOG UOAs below shows the same filter efficiency vs particle count trend as the Bus Study. I don't care what anyone says, the fact will always remain that cleaner oil (ie, a better particulate count) is always going to be better than dirtier oil. How could engine wear not be more with oil having 10+ times more particulate in it. That's the difference between a 99% @ 20u and a 99% @ 40u filter in terms of particle counts. Every article on machinery wear will tell you that a better ISO Cleanliness Code will result in less wear. Bus Study Data [Linked Image] [Linked Image] BITOG UOA PC Data [Linked Image]
 
Top