Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
I'd say a HE spin-on is anything in the 98% @ 20 microns or better.
I suppose, that in mind, is where you and I diverge. I can accept your definition. I mean, we have to set a hard limit somewhere. I just wanted to understand where you draw the line. it's as good as any, I suppose. I just don't seen it being relevant in the topic of daily use and wear rates. You'll never be able to prove, using real world data, that a 98% (or better) filter is going to tangibly reduce wear over an OCI (or even the lifespan of a vehicle) versus the alternative of running a 95% filter.
There is NO SAE study that addresses such minor differences in filtration, using ONLY that efficiency delta as the variable. The main SAE studies you and I always end up discussing use either HALT conditions that grossly skew the results, or were run decades ago on old, dirty DD 2-stroke engines. Further, both those studies utilized filter choices that had WIDE disparity in filter performance. For example, the GM filter study's claim that there can be an 8x increase in engine life was based on the fact that they were contrasting a 40um filter to a 7um filter! Let's get real for a moment; there's not such a disparity in our "off the shelf" choices today. What you and I discuss is the delta between 95% and 99% all at 20um. That is a FAR cry from what the GM filter study looked at. The GM filter study contrasted filters that were absolute at 40um, 25um, 15um and 7um, if I recall correctly (don't have the study in front of me at the moment). The bus study was similar (again; running on memory here and cannot quote the exact pore ratings). But the thing to glean is that these studies used HUGE disparity in filtration efficiency to get their point across. The improvements they show were large because the filter disparities were also freakishly large. And, as already mentioned dozens of times, the GM filter study used particulate loading so unworldly unrealistic that there is NO SANE MANNER TO EXPECT THAT THE RESULTS IN THEIR STUDY TRANSLATE TO THE REAL WORLD, AND THEY FLAT OUT PRINTED THAT IN THEIR SUMMARY!
- I agree that a 99% filter will capture some small portion more than a 95% filter; the proof is in the rating itself. PCs can echo this differential. On average, the tighter filter will catch 4% more.
- I completely disagree that such a small distinction really matters in the real world because good air filtration, high-quality lubes and moderate OCIs all make such lube filter choices moot. The tiny, fractional difference in actual wear control will be swallowed up and unseen due to normal variation of daily use wear rates.
Further, a topic we've not discussed in detail, is just what comprises that particulate loading seen in a PC report. The most detrimental items are going to be soot and silica. Some metals are hard (Fe, Cr and the like) but some are softer (Al, Cu, Pb as examples). My point regarding metals is that softer metals don't begat harder ones. Bits of Al or Pb floating around are not going to induce more Fe wear. But in a larger scope, we need to look at what shows up in a PC analysis. PCs pick up all insolubles. There are many insolubles that are not "hard", but rather semi-soft (or semi-hard, depending upon your point of view). No all things that show up in a PC are going to be "hard" items that actually induce wear. Semi-solids also show up in PCs. My point is that just because you can see a disparity in particle counts (contrasting a 95% filter to a 99% filter), does not mean that all those particles actually induce harm. There are oxidative remnants and other things that do not induce wear, as they are semi-solids and not so hard as to abrade. There are soft metals that don't really induce other wear particles. My point being that a 4% delta in filter efficiency does not mean it stops 4% more wear! That delta means it stops 4% more stuff, but that 4% more stuff is not 100% wear inducing. Only some indeterminate fraction of that 4% actually can cause harm.
Additionally, we cannot avoid the topic of the TCB; a completely different topic studies in multiple SAE studies. That, too, has a significant contribution to wear control.
I don't disagree that a HE filter (using your definition) is going to reduce particulate loading versus say a Fram EG or Wix/NG at 95%; there will certainly be some small improvement in sump cleanliness. But I do take a position of disagreement in that really matters. There is no SAE study that specifically uses a "normal" approach for the whole system wear-control application (proper air filtration, normal OCI duration, modern lubes, today's clean running engines be they diesel or gas), and then ply ONLY filter efficiency in a fair, typical choice (say 95% to 99%) as the controlled variable. It has not been done in real life, nor has it even been done in a HALT.
The differential of true wear control you infer is that akin to arguing about the minor differences in tiddly-wink marbles, when the other end of the scale is weighted with boulders. These things make the SAE filter studies presently available moot:
- OCI duration affecting the additive package
- OCI duration affecting the TCB
- current spec lubes having more robust additive packages
- air intake systems controlling contaminant ingestion
- modern combustion controls (fuel injection, cylinder and head design, cycle timing events, etc) resulting in reasonably clean combustion and low byproducts
- sealed crankcase systems
All these things FAR outweigh the nuances of your definition what a HE filter is.
And not one SAE study fairly and reasonably takes into account what OEM vehicle makers actually spec in the owner's manual, relative to the aforementioned criteria above.
Let me make an analogy here ... If this were a conversation about driving 16d nails into some wood, and Stanley did a "study" ...
The study would be akin to contrasting a 4 oz brad nail hammer, a 16 oz framing hammer, and a 4 pound maul. And then we'd throw in some insane side topics like nailing into knots, and driving at a rate of 1 nail per second. And we'd be driving that nail into a piece of 100 year old age-hardened 4" thick oak. The study of efficiency of use of the hammer would be grossly distorted by the conditions applied to the "test", and the disparity of the selected variable (hammer size). But, if we selected NORMAL choices, and applied them in a sensible time frame, what would be the results then? If we decided to see if there was a performance delta in the choices of a 14oz, 15oz, 16oz hammer all used to drive those 16d fasteners into a piece of SYP, could we find a real efficiency delta using ONLY hammer weight as the variable? Or would other things like wood density variation, nail strength variation and such cloud the topic to a point where those 1oz deltas between the three hammers now be obscured?
Both the GM filter study and the bus filter study used conditions that do NOT represent real world conditions today. There are other topics, as mentioned above, that have far more control over wear rates than does the topic of a 4% or 5% delta in filter efficiency, especially when that delta does not imply a direct relationship to ONLY wear inducing particulate.
I agree with you, Zee, in that tighter filtration is a good thing. But there is a pragmatic limit where the ad nausea limit has been breached. I disagree with you because there's no study to show that what you define as HE, versus something only slightly less efficient, actually matters when used in the conditions that show up in our garage.
The reason there was an effect of 8x life expectancy increase in the GM filter study is because of these test conditions:
1) contamination equivalent of 570k miles (five-hundred-seventy thousand miles of silica) was dumped into the sump over a period of 8 hours
2) oil was NEVER changed for that 570k miles of contamination, meaning not only was the particle loading absurd, but the add-pack was never refreshed
3) the filter choices ranged from absolute at 40um to 7um; a disparity that FAR exceeds the typical choices on the shelf we face at the parts counter
4) the filters were only changed when the dP across the media was 20psi; a value that would have most of today's filters in perpetual bypass
5) they discovered that ALL filters, regardless of starting pore size, ended up blinding down to around 10um (so anything smaller than 10um was CONTINUALLY in the sump for 8 hours = 570k miles)
The reason there were significant wear differences in the bus study is because of the following conditions:
1) ol'skool dirty running 2-stroke diesel engines that contaminate sumps with vast amounts of soot loading
2) much older lubes that did not have robust add-packs able to deal with that soot loading
3) the filter choices again had a very wide disparity of pore size; nothing akin to the small nuances we'd normally select from at AAP, Napa, WallyWorld or such
If these tests represent the conditions you run your equipment in, then the results of those studies matter to you.
The results of those studies are completely and utterly useless to me, because those conditions do not exist in my garage.
You have zero ability to convince me that your definition of HE filters matters over the options of slightly less efficient choices, and the studies you point to as evidence are laughable in every way as they do not represent the reality in which our engines operate.
My challenge to you is to either uncover a study that is relevant and represents real world conditions we face, with filter choices we normally select from, or ...
Develop and run your own study, where you can show that you have true statistical control over the desired variable (filter efficiency) which can be discerned above and beyond the other forms of variation, again in normal, every day typical use. (The conditions of which would be necessary to exhibit proof I laid out several posts back).
I'd say a HE spin-on is anything in the 98% @ 20 microns or better.
I suppose, that in mind, is where you and I diverge. I can accept your definition. I mean, we have to set a hard limit somewhere. I just wanted to understand where you draw the line. it's as good as any, I suppose. I just don't seen it being relevant in the topic of daily use and wear rates. You'll never be able to prove, using real world data, that a 98% (or better) filter is going to tangibly reduce wear over an OCI (or even the lifespan of a vehicle) versus the alternative of running a 95% filter.
There is NO SAE study that addresses such minor differences in filtration, using ONLY that efficiency delta as the variable. The main SAE studies you and I always end up discussing use either HALT conditions that grossly skew the results, or were run decades ago on old, dirty DD 2-stroke engines. Further, both those studies utilized filter choices that had WIDE disparity in filter performance. For example, the GM filter study's claim that there can be an 8x increase in engine life was based on the fact that they were contrasting a 40um filter to a 7um filter! Let's get real for a moment; there's not such a disparity in our "off the shelf" choices today. What you and I discuss is the delta between 95% and 99% all at 20um. That is a FAR cry from what the GM filter study looked at. The GM filter study contrasted filters that were absolute at 40um, 25um, 15um and 7um, if I recall correctly (don't have the study in front of me at the moment). The bus study was similar (again; running on memory here and cannot quote the exact pore ratings). But the thing to glean is that these studies used HUGE disparity in filtration efficiency to get their point across. The improvements they show were large because the filter disparities were also freakishly large. And, as already mentioned dozens of times, the GM filter study used particulate loading so unworldly unrealistic that there is NO SANE MANNER TO EXPECT THAT THE RESULTS IN THEIR STUDY TRANSLATE TO THE REAL WORLD, AND THEY FLAT OUT PRINTED THAT IN THEIR SUMMARY!
- I agree that a 99% filter will capture some small portion more than a 95% filter; the proof is in the rating itself. PCs can echo this differential. On average, the tighter filter will catch 4% more.
- I completely disagree that such a small distinction really matters in the real world because good air filtration, high-quality lubes and moderate OCIs all make such lube filter choices moot. The tiny, fractional difference in actual wear control will be swallowed up and unseen due to normal variation of daily use wear rates.
Further, a topic we've not discussed in detail, is just what comprises that particulate loading seen in a PC report. The most detrimental items are going to be soot and silica. Some metals are hard (Fe, Cr and the like) but some are softer (Al, Cu, Pb as examples). My point regarding metals is that softer metals don't begat harder ones. Bits of Al or Pb floating around are not going to induce more Fe wear. But in a larger scope, we need to look at what shows up in a PC analysis. PCs pick up all insolubles. There are many insolubles that are not "hard", but rather semi-soft (or semi-hard, depending upon your point of view). No all things that show up in a PC are going to be "hard" items that actually induce wear. Semi-solids also show up in PCs. My point is that just because you can see a disparity in particle counts (contrasting a 95% filter to a 99% filter), does not mean that all those particles actually induce harm. There are oxidative remnants and other things that do not induce wear, as they are semi-solids and not so hard as to abrade. There are soft metals that don't really induce other wear particles. My point being that a 4% delta in filter efficiency does not mean it stops 4% more wear! That delta means it stops 4% more stuff, but that 4% more stuff is not 100% wear inducing. Only some indeterminate fraction of that 4% actually can cause harm.
Additionally, we cannot avoid the topic of the TCB; a completely different topic studies in multiple SAE studies. That, too, has a significant contribution to wear control.
I don't disagree that a HE filter (using your definition) is going to reduce particulate loading versus say a Fram EG or Wix/NG at 95%; there will certainly be some small improvement in sump cleanliness. But I do take a position of disagreement in that really matters. There is no SAE study that specifically uses a "normal" approach for the whole system wear-control application (proper air filtration, normal OCI duration, modern lubes, today's clean running engines be they diesel or gas), and then ply ONLY filter efficiency in a fair, typical choice (say 95% to 99%) as the controlled variable. It has not been done in real life, nor has it even been done in a HALT.
The differential of true wear control you infer is that akin to arguing about the minor differences in tiddly-wink marbles, when the other end of the scale is weighted with boulders. These things make the SAE filter studies presently available moot:
- OCI duration affecting the additive package
- OCI duration affecting the TCB
- current spec lubes having more robust additive packages
- air intake systems controlling contaminant ingestion
- modern combustion controls (fuel injection, cylinder and head design, cycle timing events, etc) resulting in reasonably clean combustion and low byproducts
- sealed crankcase systems
All these things FAR outweigh the nuances of your definition what a HE filter is.
And not one SAE study fairly and reasonably takes into account what OEM vehicle makers actually spec in the owner's manual, relative to the aforementioned criteria above.
Let me make an analogy here ... If this were a conversation about driving 16d nails into some wood, and Stanley did a "study" ...
The study would be akin to contrasting a 4 oz brad nail hammer, a 16 oz framing hammer, and a 4 pound maul. And then we'd throw in some insane side topics like nailing into knots, and driving at a rate of 1 nail per second. And we'd be driving that nail into a piece of 100 year old age-hardened 4" thick oak. The study of efficiency of use of the hammer would be grossly distorted by the conditions applied to the "test", and the disparity of the selected variable (hammer size). But, if we selected NORMAL choices, and applied them in a sensible time frame, what would be the results then? If we decided to see if there was a performance delta in the choices of a 14oz, 15oz, 16oz hammer all used to drive those 16d fasteners into a piece of SYP, could we find a real efficiency delta using ONLY hammer weight as the variable? Or would other things like wood density variation, nail strength variation and such cloud the topic to a point where those 1oz deltas between the three hammers now be obscured?
Both the GM filter study and the bus filter study used conditions that do NOT represent real world conditions today. There are other topics, as mentioned above, that have far more control over wear rates than does the topic of a 4% or 5% delta in filter efficiency, especially when that delta does not imply a direct relationship to ONLY wear inducing particulate.
I agree with you, Zee, in that tighter filtration is a good thing. But there is a pragmatic limit where the ad nausea limit has been breached. I disagree with you because there's no study to show that what you define as HE, versus something only slightly less efficient, actually matters when used in the conditions that show up in our garage.
The reason there was an effect of 8x life expectancy increase in the GM filter study is because of these test conditions:
1) contamination equivalent of 570k miles (five-hundred-seventy thousand miles of silica) was dumped into the sump over a period of 8 hours
2) oil was NEVER changed for that 570k miles of contamination, meaning not only was the particle loading absurd, but the add-pack was never refreshed
3) the filter choices ranged from absolute at 40um to 7um; a disparity that FAR exceeds the typical choices on the shelf we face at the parts counter
4) the filters were only changed when the dP across the media was 20psi; a value that would have most of today's filters in perpetual bypass
5) they discovered that ALL filters, regardless of starting pore size, ended up blinding down to around 10um (so anything smaller than 10um was CONTINUALLY in the sump for 8 hours = 570k miles)
The reason there were significant wear differences in the bus study is because of the following conditions:
1) ol'skool dirty running 2-stroke diesel engines that contaminate sumps with vast amounts of soot loading
2) much older lubes that did not have robust add-packs able to deal with that soot loading
3) the filter choices again had a very wide disparity of pore size; nothing akin to the small nuances we'd normally select from at AAP, Napa, WallyWorld or such
If these tests represent the conditions you run your equipment in, then the results of those studies matter to you.
The results of those studies are completely and utterly useless to me, because those conditions do not exist in my garage.
You have zero ability to convince me that your definition of HE filters matters over the options of slightly less efficient choices, and the studies you point to as evidence are laughable in every way as they do not represent the reality in which our engines operate.
My challenge to you is to either uncover a study that is relevant and represents real world conditions we face, with filter choices we normally select from, or ...
Develop and run your own study, where you can show that you have true statistical control over the desired variable (filter efficiency) which can be discerned above and beyond the other forms of variation, again in normal, every day typical use. (The conditions of which would be necessary to exhibit proof I laid out several posts back).
Last edited: