Originally Posted By: EyesofThunder
1. Less pressure drop across the larger element, less time in be in bypass. We all need to ponder the bypass, it is something that will go into bypass and not stay, but will be constantly trying to get back into filter mode. I would like to mod a filter to somehow measure the amount of time it is in bypass in relation to oil viscosity and temp and pressures demanded by the oil pump. Trying to figure out a way.... If anyone has ideas let me know!
2. More oil capacity. My car OEM filter is TINY (1/4-1/3rd quart tops). Simply Lexus wanted 1 filter across all car lines. Bean counters dictate parts like that. Ask GM, it is one of the major quality downfalls of GM, the bean counters. Sell a million of something, save a $1 on each part, you just saved the company $1M, or should I say, when the cars are sold, the company will profit $1M more than they did if they didn't do it.
Can I prove it makes a difference in life of the engine? I don't have empirical evidence, but look at the vehicles that go long intervals on oil changes (MD and HD trucks, any diesels, most any performance vehicle). The trend in higher performance anything is larger sump capacity. It is my #1 goal to give longer life of the vehicle. OEM's all increase oil capacity on higher end vehicles. They often increase it on trucks. It isn't a bad thing ever.
But a larger filter (from a Wix 51348 to a Wix 51459) and more oil capacity (in my case 1 full quart is a 20% increase in sump capacity) is always a good thing except for cost, any oil analysis lab will agree. Filter costs are often almost identical. So the additional cost is 1 more quart of oil. The oil runs cooler, more capacity will increase life of the oil. If this is not the case then everyone, including HD trucks and such will have 2 quart capacity sumps to save $$.
And yes, I drive a lot of miles a year around 2500 miles a month, consistently for the last 3.5 years. Commuting only....
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Ooooohhhhh - I want a "better" filter. I want a "bigger" filter.
For what practical purose?
Show me even just ONE proven data set that conclusively exhibits a rational application for the real world in this regard.
I dare you.
I double dog dare you.
I triple dog dare you.
The topic of filter bypass events has already been data-logged by member Jim Allen. The bypass event is actually quite rare. In his F150, using 10w-30 oil and a FL820S, the filter would only "burp" the bypass for a second or so, and that was ONLY at cold starts and upon a heavy throttle blip to WOT! It never happened ever when up to full temp; it never happened at all even when cold if you keep the needle off the pin for rpm. BP events are actually quite rare. Not that they never happen, but they don't happen often. He used very good equipment; his post is here from about two years ago with all the data.
Oil capacity is moot in your example. Your Lexus won't benefit to any measurable manner in terms of temp reduction or wear reduction. As with most any modern engine, it's liquid cooled; the oil does not control overall temps. The sump temp isn't going to be affected by the size of the filter can. While I agree that many HD OTR type rigs benefit from long OCIs, you have no ability to change your sump size by any meaningful manner. If any sump in any normal car was so greatly affected by volume to the degree in imply, then running "low" by a quart would make something overheat, would it not? The coolant keeps the entire engine at a desired temp, not the size of the filter can. That's just ridiculous. Yes - a MUCH larger sump capacity would possibly make a difference. But unless you plan on having a remote dry-sump reservoir mounted in the trunk, with a cooling fan, you're urinating into the breeze, because adding perhaps .1 or .2 quart in filter volume isn't squat to the system total.
Your goal is to get longer vehicle life? OK - good.
Please define exactly the expected duration of the typical lifecycle in terms of miles for you make/model/engine. It's not like a Lexus is known to be dead on the roadside at 80k miles. Being a Toyota based product, most of them EASILY will crest 250k miles. I, personally, have several vehicles over 150k miles, all run on the "normal" filters with "normal" oils.
There are only two things that will unexpectedly take a vehicle engine out of service:
1) a lingering manufacturing defect
2) maintenance neglect
You cannot affect #1, other than to select a unit that is historically not trouble-prone.
As for #2, as long as you do routine, reasonable maintenance, you'll be fine.
watch this:
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=mill...CF7803B665BC1FE
that video is actually quite old. I recently called and spoke to the service center that was in that video. The manager told me this about that truck:
The orignal engine died around 100k miles. (Enter topic 1; a defect). They did not have time to rebuild it, so they got an engine from a wrecked truck. That second 5.4L engine ran over a million miles (enter topic 2). That truck was wrecked not long ago with more than 3,000,000 (three million) miles on it. The second motor was eventually replaced with another 5.4L engine that also went over a million miles. All service was done by that one service care center. The oil they used in the 5.4L engine was Kendall 10w-40. Did the oil (thicker than required) make the engine last so long? Probably not. At least not any more than the same 10w-40 killed the first engine in 100k miles. The reality is that they did good routine maintenance; no special products were required.
There are plenty of stories of ultra-high-mile vehicles out there. And most all of them don't use synthetics nor bypass filtration. They don't "upsize" their filters or try some arbitrary manner of out-thinking the OEM products. They just follow a routine schedule and drive the wheels off.
I am NOT stating that BP filters or syns are a waste. I am stating that folks don't understand what it takes to maintain a vehicle for longevity. Premium products do NOT make the vehicle engine last longer; those premium products make the lube last longer in service. You can greatly extend OCIs by using such products.
Therefore, if your quest it to make a fiscal decision, then you'll have to calculate how much further you think your "new" filter selection can take an OCI.
And to prove it, you're going to have to establish and define criteria that can be shown to deliver a measurable difference. You're going to have to do a LOT of UOA tracking to be able to first establish a base-line for your current lube/filter, because unless you know where you start from, how would you ever know how much "improvement" you may or may not achieve?
The reality is that there are NO SAE studies done in this manner to prove a FILTER in a real world application makes any difference whatsoever, when it is past a known acceptable threshold for the OEM spec'd performance level. And you are not likely to able to prove any discernible difference in your garage experiments. In all the times I've challenged anyone to display real world proof, or SAE studies, that confirm their theory, exactly ZERO PEOPLE have been able to do so. None, zip, nada, zilch.
Your engine does not "need" a bigger filter to last a VERY long time; well past when you'll either wreck it or become bored of it.
If you "want" to do this, then that is exactly what you should do if it makes you sleep well at night. But don't guess your way through! Why not actually contribute to BITOG in a meaningful manner? First establish your base-lines, then run controlled experimentation and report results.
When Jim Allen wanted to really know about filter bypass opening events, he gauged up and ran well controlled testing. He ran multiple scenarios and data-logged all meaningful measurables.
When I wanted to prove that longer OCIs were safe and cost-effective, I did three things:
1) found an SAE study that directly supported my theory (SAE# 2007-01-4133)
2) ran a LARGE macro-data study with over 10,000 UOAs (proof in the lead page of this website)
3) ran personal experiments that were easy to measure and compare/contrast to other criteria from other sources; those results echoed both the SAE study data and the UOA study data
I hereby (in a friendly manner, with jest in my tone) challenge you by throwing down the gauntlet! Do something UNIQUE here; don't theorize, actually do!
You believe that a slightly larger filter will positively effect the lifecycle of you engine? Do these things:
1) establish baseline with current products; use statistical analysis
2) define the manner to measure change (wear-rates and temps?)
3) employ a credible manner to measure those criteria
Once you do those, let all the data talk AFTER you collect it. The only way you can prove that your theory is true is to do one of a few things:
a) prove that the larger filter can alter the wear rate lower than a "normal" filter would do, over the same OCI duration
b) prove that the larger filter can alter the sump temps lower than a "normal" filter would do, for any given OAT
BTW - that second point will actually work against you when it's cold outside; longer warm up times!
It is my stance that you will not see any statistically significant difference by using a larger filter as you suggest.
But by all means, prove me wrong!
