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

Messages
28,192
Location
PNW
Originally Posted by CBR.worm
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.
All positive displacement oil pumps will have a pressure relief valve. But by the time the pump hit's pressure relief, the filter will be getting way more delta-p across the media than it would if the filter had a proper bypass valve. The delta-p across a bypass-less filter would be worse if the engine was revved pretty high with cold oil. It would certainly pose a risk to center tube implosion/crushing and/or media damage/tearing. Running with no filter bypass valve can become a risky situation.
Originally Posted by CBR.worm
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 ...
Full synthetic, high efficiency filters can flow way more than any stock street engine could put out, and still have only around 3~4 PSI of delta-p across them with hot oil. The engine will get the same flow rate vs engine RPM regardless of what oil filter is mounted as long as the pump doesn't hit pressure relief. The pump is most likely to hit pressure relief if the oil is cold and the engine is revved pretty high ... that's why engines should always be driven mellow until the oil warms up, regardless of what oil filter is being used.
 
Messages
14,673
Location
The Old North State
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by CBR.worm
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.
All positive displacement oil pumps will have a pressure relief valve. But by the time the pump hit's pressure relief, the filter will be getting way more delta-p across the media than it would if the filter had a proper bypass valve. The delta-p across a bypass-less filter would be worse if the engine was revved pretty high with cold oil. It would certainly pose a risk to center tube implosion/crushing and/or media damage/tearing. Running with no filter bypass valve can become a risky situation.
Glad to see this explanation posted. Seen it posited a couple times recently on this sub forum that because there is an oil pump relief valve, using a filter with no bypass where one is spec'd, no biggie. Clearly not the case. If one owns a vehicle specing a filter with integral bypass, better use a filter that has one. Also why the recent incorrect RA supplied Mann anecdote with no filter bypass could have resulted in a much worse outcome. As for the selling of an auxiliary bypass to be able to use the Cat filter, imo as silly as the inlet hole comparison. Difference, the former could have detrimental ie., very costly results.
 

dnewton3

Staff member
Thread starter
Messages
8,642
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
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. BITOG UOA PC Data [Linked Image]
Zee - I agree that higher efficiency filters will result in less particulate in the sump; never have denied that. What I dispute is that it has as much significance today as you claim. Your BITOG data shows no corresponding UOA data; you show only half of the data needed to convince me that it matters. Whereas the bus study showed a correlation between PC data and UOA wear metals, your BITOG data only shows PC data and it's not matched up to anything. (note: the UOA data from the bus study is not shown in your quoted post, but is present in the actual study.) The bus study data was able to show correlation between PC data and UOA wear metals because the conditions of the test were able to generate a large variance of results; the sooty old DD 2-stroke motors coupled with much older API lubes, plied against a wide disparity in filter choices resulted in soot loading that actually showed an effect in wear. However, your data shows nothing of the kind, mainly because it's not paired up with any UOA data. To be able to show us that it matters in today's conditions, you'll have to be able to prove that you can "control" (true statistical, discernible, effectual manipulation) of the wear trends via filter efficiency changes. As I have repeatedly said, there is no CURRENT, RELIABLE, CREDIBLE data that proves there is any significant correlation between minor filter efficiency choices and wear data results. You are right in that "Every article on machinery wear will tell you that a better ISO Cleanliness Code will result in less wear." Problem is, there is not study data to back up those article claims with relevant data from today's products we have. You continue to resort to looking at inputs. What I don't see is that you can control results; your data shows no correlation. And to prove causation, you must have correlation. To be able to prove you have real control over wear using filter efficiency as the highest contributing factor, you'd have to do the following: - first,equip your study with enough of the "same" product inputs that you can hold down outside product variation and use filter efficiency as the manipulated input - run a base-line series of 30 UOAs with 30 PCs on the same engine to establish an average wear rate and define the standard deviation - run a trial series of 30 UOAs with 30 PCs on the same engine to establish an average wear rate and define the standard deviation - If, at the end of 60 UOA and 60 PCs, you can show that you have control over both the inputs (PCs) and outputs (UOA data), proving that the tighter efficiency resulted in lower wear averages with tighter standard deviation, then you can claim victory (IOW, did you show that having control over the inputs result in control over the outputs???) I seriously doubt you, or anyone here on BITOG has the time/money to do the endeavor. In fact, it's so massive a task that even large corporations don't do it; they result to HALTs. Problem is that HALTs rarely ever show a direct correlation to real life. HALTs are great at showing relative differentials, but they are often way too obscure with massive exaggeration to be considered a representation of real life, and it is difficult (if not impossible) to link the tests to reality in a manner that can be tangibly quantified. Even the bus study did not prove control of wear. It did, however, show correlation between the inputs and outputs. But correlation is not the same thing as causation. A few PCs and a few UOAs do not in any manner establish causation. Nearly any entity that I can think of relies on these much older SAE studies to prove that "better" filtration results in less wear. But those studies quoted are rooted in grossly exaggerated conditions (GM study) or outdated conditions (bus study) that do NOT relate to our equipment and lubes today. Again - between the air filters and the lubes, silica and soot are controlled so well that a FF filter has little to do. A FF filter is certainly important; I would not want to run an engine without one. But the nuances of an 80% filter versus a 99% filter have not been shown to matter in WEAR DATA in conditions typical of what we see today in our garages. Your charts show that tighter filters result in less particulate in the sump. I cannot deny that. But you fail to show any correlation in your current-condition data, and you are a far, far cry from showing true control of a variable and it's resultant output. However, once again our BITOG brains have gone off course, and settled on the age-old debate about the effects of efficiency. My thread, though, was a warning to people who purchase products that are carelessly marketed to the uninformed, by the ignorant (or arrogant). There is not one shred of information in that website I brought for discussion that proves the CAT filter is a good choice over the OEM type filters for the PSD or Dmax. - the CAT does not exhibit a boost in efficiency; the OEM filters for the PSD and Dmax are quite good and I see no indication that the CAT filter is any more efficient than the OEM types - the CAT may certainly have more capacity due to a massive size differential, but that increase in holding capacity is moot because even the OEM type filters have plenty of excess capacity - the CAT may have more robust construction, but that again has not shown to be a benefit because there is no proof that the OEM type filters are failing from poor design or manufacture - the CAT filter most certainly does exhibit a risk in that it's lack of BP relief could become a problem with thicker lubes in cold conditions And all the blabbering of that site owner does nothing to convince me he/she has a true understanding of what filtration is about; it's nothing but marketing hype based on old, irrelevant data and biased with the "more is always better" mentality. .
 
Last edited:
Messages
28,192
Location
PNW
Originally Posted by dnewton3
Your charts show that tighter filters result in less particulate in the sump. I cannot deny that. But you fail to show any correlation in your current-condition data, and you are a far, far cry from showing true control of a variable and it's resultant output.
All I care about is that the oil is kept as clean as possible by an oil filter. The Bus Study data, and the UOA PC data I gleaned off BITOG both show that a higher efficiency oil filter results in cleaner oil. I don't really have to prove to myself if that results in less engine wear. I'm sure there is some impact there, and regardless of how small the difference is in wear, I'll take it. grin2
 
Messages
6,765
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
The hilarious part is the mention of a system for Cummins engines. I just love the insinuation that CAT knows something that Cummins Filtration/Fleetguard does not. Why would I do their dumb remote system when the LF9028 screws right into place of the factory filter? How about the DBL7349? That CAT filter doesn't hold a candle to the DBL in terms of efficiency, and the DBL7349 screws directly in place of the factory filter. So what is one getting with this silly kit? Sad part is, the Cummins would agree with a non-bypass filter. ISB has no bypass in filter. But it does have one in the engine, assuring that the Bull argument against a bypass goes straight out of the window. This is a sad attempt to take advantage of all of the folks who have been converting to CAT fuel filters. CAT fuel filters are exceptional and worthy of being swapped in. CAT oil filters? Not so much.
 
Messages
5,233
Location
South Carolina
Half baked story here, someone please show the proof of superior wear numbers using oil filters that are better then OEM standards. There are none. IN fact, high efficiency oil filters may lead to increased wear do to restricting oil flow.
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,168
Location
USA
They saw a market knowing bigger is considered better these days, and capitalized on it. It won't harm anything if the filter isn't clogged. If a 12 psi bypass is a rare event, a 75 psi relief valve event is nonexistent. The idea is to sell something to people who are willing to waste their money, like so many things.
 
Messages
3,199
Location
Western S.C.
Originally Posted by alarmguy
... IN fact, high efficiency oil filters may lead to increased wear do to restricting oil flow.
Not likely with oil appropriate for the temperature, unless you have another problem causing excessive contamination that clogs the filter, or you fail to change the filter for an unusually long time.
 
Messages
28,192
Location
PNW
Originally Posted by CR94
Originally Posted by alarmguy
... IN fact, high efficiency oil filters may lead to increased wear do to restricting oil flow.
Not likely with oil appropriate for the temperature, unless you have another problem causing excessive contamination that clogs the filter, or you fail to change the filter for an unusually long time.
Yeah, thinking that high efficiency filters cause restricted oil flow is a never ending fallacy.
 
Messages
28,192
Location
PNW
Originally Posted by Farnsworth
They saw a market knowing bigger is considered better these days, and capitalized on it. It won't harm anything if the filter isn't clogged. If a 12 psi bypass is a rare event, a 75 psi relief valve event is nonexistent.
The oil pump pressure relief operation is independent of filter bypass valve operation (if there is a filter bypass). It's pretty easy to put an oil pump into pressure relief if the engine is revved up pretty good with cold thick oil in the sump. At the time the pump goes into pressure relief is also when the maximum delta-p across the filter media happens. If the filter has a bypass valve it will most likely open before the pump hits pressure relief, thereby protecting the filter from damage. If there is no filter bypass then things get risky, and if the filter is unable to take the high delta-p then it's going to get damaged.
 
Messages
28,192
Location
PNW
Originally Posted by alarmguy
Half baked story here, someone please show the proof of superior wear numbers using oil filters that are better then OEM standards. There are none. IN fact, high efficiency oil filters may lead to increased wear do to restricting oil flow.
There are quite a few SAE papers addressing the effects of wear on engines vs the oil filter efficiency. None of the studies show that engine wear doesn't change regardless of what the oil filter efficiency is. Post up some of those links if you can find them. grin2 "Results show that a strong correlation exists between engine wear and the filtration efficiency of solid contaminant in the engine lube. It is clearly demonstrated that higher efficiency filtration results in cleaner lube oil and thus less engine wear." https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/952555/
 
Messages
5,233
Location
South Carolina
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by alarmguy
Half baked story here, someone please show the proof of superior wear numbers using oil filters that are better then OEM standards. There are none. IN fact, high efficiency oil filters may lead to increased wear do to restricting oil flow.
There are quite a few SAE papers addressing the effects of wear on engines vs the oil filter efficiency. None of the studies show that engine wear doesn't change regardless of what the oil filter efficiency is. Post up some of those links if you can find them. grin2 "Results show that a strong correlation exists between engine wear and the filtration efficiency of solid contaminant in the engine lube. It is clearly demonstrated that higher efficiency filtration results in cleaner lube oil and thus less engine wear." https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/952555/
oops, my mistake ( I do make a mistake now and then, however rare :o) I didnt realize/pay attention to the fact I was in a diesel oil engine thread on oil filters. if you start a thread on gasoline vehicle filters would be glad to jump in. As far as your link though, empty words as there are no specifics such as micron size ect and if lets say, no fact if GM filters are not doing what they should. Ok, Im out of here/out of my league, never owned a diesel anything.
 

dnewton3

Staff member
Thread starter
Messages
8,642
Location
Indianapolis, IN
In this example, the CAT filter seems to offer no increase in efficiency; certainly not any better than the WIX 57151 for the PSD in this case. Hence, the "upgrade" really isn't. Also, whereas I agree GENERALLY that a HE filter with no BP feature in it won't necessarily be a horrid thing, you have to keep this in context of the example right here from our beloved site that I showed; this is how I came across this application in the first place. The OP (a new member here) is running this CAT filter (which has no BP in the filter and a Dmax engine with no BP in the block), is ALSO running 15w-40 with Lucas oil stabilizer; hence a thick (nearly syrup like) lube now exists upon cold start up. THAT is a cause for concern due to the lack of the BP feature in the CAT filter; it is quite possible that the dP has the potential to either rupture the media, or starve the engine at start-up. His multiple UOAs are showing a very sharp increase in Al, IN A DMAX! That's just unheard of. It is highly likely the the combination of the "wrong" filter along with the Lucas is causing excess piston wear. I posted this as a cautionary tale as to why not to trust marketing from aftermarket sources blindly. I'm not saying all aftermarket products are bad; that's not my point. My focus here is on the website that is pushing the CAT filter as if it's the end-all-be-all answer for all applications; clearly it's not. Further, "thicker" isn't always better; not by a long shot. The 6.7L PSD generally puts forth decent UOAs in terms of wear. The Dmax (every generation) puts forth great UOAs, as long as it's left alone and not adulterated by outside influence (such as the CAT and Lucas). They don't need "more" of anything; they don't need "better" filtration and they don't need "better" oil. They need to be left alone to do their jobs. There are times when "more" isn't really a big risk; using a MC FL400 filter in place of a MC FL910; or a FL1A in place of the FL400. As long as size fits, that "upgrade" isn't a horrid event. While I have seen no proof that the minor increase in size or efficiency makes those choices worthwhile, they don't present a major risk past the concern of warranty denial. But this CAT filter in place of the proper PSD and Dmax filters; this is a big risk. The CAT holding capacity increase would only be worthwhile if you were going to run GREATLY extended FCIs, because there's no proof that normal OFCIs have any risk in the capacity of normal filters. There's no proof that the efficiency is increased; in fact it's likely that the CAT is only "as good" and maybe not even as good as the OEM and other rational options. There's no evidence that the robust construction of the CAT is any true advantage either; just how many PSD and Dmax filters have we seen with their innards blownout ??? None that I know of after almost two decades of Dmax engines and now 8 years of the 6.7L PSD. The main push of this thread was to make folks aware that they should closely scrutinize the aftermarket "solutions" to problems that don't even exist. The capacity, efficiency and construction of the OEM (and proper aftermarket) filters is well more than good enough, even when pushed past OEM OCIs. "More is always better" generally is based on hype and rhetoric, and rarely proven to actually be true. And in one specific BITOG example, it's not only not "better", but actually far, far worse.
 
Messages
28,192
Location
PNW
Originally Posted by alarmguy
As far as your link though, empty words as there are no specifics such as micron size ect and if lets say, no fact if GM filters are not doing what they should.
That's just the summary synopsis of the study. You'd have to read the whole SAE paper for details. The bottom line of any study I've seen, regardless if it's a diesel, gasoline or hydraulic application is that cleaner oil always results in less wear. That fact will never changed. How much wear difference is always the big question. IMO, any decrease in wear (regardless of how small) is still a plus.
 
Messages
28,192
Location
PNW
Originally Posted by dnewton3
In this example, the CAT filter seems to offer no increase in efficiency; certainly not any better than the WIX 57151 for the PSD in this case. Hence, the "upgrade" really isn't.
Yep, if the goal is better efficiency then this mod isn't really achieving that. Just buy a high efficiency filter specified for that engine. Or install a goid bypass filtering system.
 

dnewton3

Staff member
Thread starter
Messages
8,642
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by dnewton3
In this example, the CAT filter seems to offer no increase in efficiency; certainly not any better than the WIX 57151 for the PSD in this case. Hence, the "upgrade" really isn't.
Yep, if the goal is better efficiency then this mod isn't really achieving that. Just buy a high efficiency filter specified for that engine. Or install a goid bypass filtering system.
The guy already stated an intent to install a BP filter; that, IMO, would only serve to mask the issue and not resolve it. Further, I guess we'd have to define what you, or I, mean by a HE filter; what is "high efficiency" anyway? After all, as I've repeatedly said, the proper WIX 57151 (not the XP) for this application is beta 2/20/75 = 3/12/17 for the 6.7L Ford. If that's not good, I don't know what is. I dare say that's even better than an FU. For a Dmax, it's still pretty good at 2/20=6/20. (A whitewashed spec from Wix). I typically use TG or Wix/NG. Whatever I happen across when I need one. The prices are reasonably close, fair, and the filters are either at a WallyWorld or an O'R's autoparts near me. I don't consider these "high efficiency"; that's a term I reserve for bypass filtration. But technically just about any filter can be HE (beta 75) if the particles are 100um and larger grin2
 
Last edited:
Messages
28,192
Location
PNW
Originally Posted by dnewton3
Further, I guess we'd have to define what you, or I, mean by a HE filter; what is "high efficiency" anyway? After all, as I've repeatedly said, the proper WIX 57151 (not the XP) for this application is beta 2/20/75 = 3/12/17 for the 6.7L Ford. If that's not good, I don't know what is. I dare say that's even better than an FU. For a Dmax, it's still pretty good at 2/20=6/20. (A whitewashed spec from Wix). I typically use TG or Wix/NG. Whatever I happen across when I need one. The prices are reasonably close, fair, and the filters are either at a WallyWorld or an O'R's autoparts near me. I don't consider these "high efficiency"; that's a term I reserve for bypass filtration. But technically just about any filter can be HE (beta 75) if the particles are 100um and larger grin2
I'd say a HE spin-on is anything in the 98% @ 20 microns or better. He said that CAT filter was 4% @ 4 microns, which isn't nearly as good as the FU of 80% @ 5 microns. Maybe he left a digit off the % number (?). Filtering out the particles below 20u is important too. Bypass filtering systems are in a league of their own ... apples to oranges efficiency ratings. There can be HE spin-ons and there can be HE bypass systems.
 
Messages
5,233
Location
South Carolina
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by alarmguy
As far as your link though, empty words as there are no specifics such as micron size ect and if lets say, no fact if GM filters are not doing what they should.
That's just the summary synopsis of the study. You'd have to read the whole SAE paper for details. The bottom line of any study I've seen, regardless if it's a diesel, gasoline or hydraulic application is that cleaner oil always results in less wear. That fact will never changed. How much wear difference is always the big question. IMO, any decrease in wear (regardless of how small) is still a plus.
I dont agree and see no supporting facts of after market oil filters resulting in less engine wear in gasoline engines or diesel engines. I trust the manufacturer knows best since they design the engine and not aftermarket products.
 
Last edited:
Messages
28,192
Location
PNW
Originally Posted by alarmguy
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by alarmguy
As far as your link though, empty words as there are no specifics such as micron size ect and if lets say, no fact if GM filters are not doing what they should.
That's just the summary synopsis of the study. You'd have to read the whole SAE paper for details. The bottom line of any study I've seen, regardless if it's a diesel, gasoline or hydraulic application is that cleaner oil always results in less wear. That fact will never changed. How much wear difference is always the big question. IMO, any decrease in wear (regardless of how small) is still a plus.
I dont agree and see no supporting facts of after market oil filters resulting in less engine wear in gasoline engines or diesel engines. I trust the manufacturer knows best since they design the engine and not aftermarket products.
You don't believe any SAE study on the subject? So where's all rhe technical papers that all say HE filters don't keep oil cleaner, and don't help reduce engine wear? Just because an engine made it to 300K miles doesn't mean it had no wear.
 
Top