I have 4 month old Honda filter I got, made in Japan.
Any reason not to use Ultra for 5k
- Thread starter Bettez88
- Start date
I have 4 month old Honda filter I got, made in Japan.
Reads like you may have an -003 suffix Honda filter made by Mahle Tennex. They are made in Japan. Seems they have become a rare piece now.
As for Honda OM 'recommendation' of filter change every other oci, very true. That said, every Honda dealer I've ever been to changes the filter with the oil as SOP. I'm sure one could ask for the filter to stay in place, generally speaking suspect weird looks would ensue. No hate for leaving filter in place two ocis as OM/A,B MM recommended, just noting dealer practice.
As for having a Fram made Honda OEM filter with Honeywell on it, been 10+ years since Honeywell sold off the Fram division. It wouldn't be new stock. That said, many online Honda parts sales places still mention Honeywell name in description.
SammyChevelleTypeS3
$50 site donor 2023
the air filter is another very important filter that needs periodic checks and changes.... Engineers installed an air filter for a reason.
I just run all Fram filters on my cars since I can get them all at Walmart. I believe even the extra guard can run the entire olm on any of my family’s Hondas since they’ve all used synthetic since new, so that’s what they’ll get from this moment on. I just changed the oil and filter on my corolla yesterday since we got snow today. Pulled the ultra cartridge out and it was pretty dirty. Just went with an extra guard this time.
Not what Machinery Lubrication says. I'd think they know something about lubrication, oil cleanliness and engine wear. Also, there are many SAE studies that show that cleaner oil due to better filtration results in less engine wear. I'm still waiting for someone to give links to studies that show that dirtier oil doesn't cause any more wear than cleaner oil. Been waiting for a few years now ...
SammyChevelleTypeS3
$50 site donor 2023
Not what Machinery Lubrication says. I'd think they know something about lubrication, oil cleanliness and engine wear. Also, there are many SAE studies that show that cleaner oil due to better filtration results in less engine wear. I'm still waiting for someone to give links to studies that show that dirtier oil doesn't cause any more wear than cleaner oil. Been waiting for a few years now ...
You know I was so lucky, gifted to work with all kind of really excellent mechanics and engineers who I saw come up with many changes to equipment and things for better safety, cost efficinecy and some cases less work too that saved money. I guess that is why I am always looking at ways to improve things even though my work days are over. For instance with my Hondas and the small high rev engines I always was playing with the idea of adding an oil cooler and even relocating the (under the cars) oil filters to u top. Alas.... its all just thoughts and dreams now and I live thru following what you guys and other (still working) folks are up to from time to time. Retired + bored. Disability has shut down all my hobbies. Hunting / fishing / jogging / working on cars / repairing things. About the only things I was still doing (now got a bad wing - rotator cuff surgery needed. ugh!) small plumbing and electrical in the house. But at least I got a son who is 80 miles and way and a nephew 7 miles away who always are around if I need them. I am paying some folks to repair and replace my wood fence today that I would have done myself not too long ago.just use the filter two or three times lol
dnewton3
Staff member
Just a clarification; Machinery Lubrication is a publication of culmination of works by industry analysts and experts who contribute to the cause, so to speak. ML does not do any work; it merely publishes articles (via Noria). I would know; I have one article published in ML and another in planned.Not what Machinery Lubrication says. I'd think they know something about lubrication, oil cleanliness and engine wear. Also, there are many SAE studies that show that cleaner oil due to better filtration results in less engine wear. I'm still waiting for someone to give links to studies that show that dirtier oil doesn't cause any more wear than cleaner oil. Been waiting for a few years now ...
I, too, have been waiting for years for truly trustworthy studies ...
- I'm waiting for a study that does not use HALTs which produce implied ill-conceived conclusions.
- I'm waiting for a study that applies REAL WORLD conditions and compares/contrasts the effects of these types filters we discuss in daily use.
- I'm waiting for a study that understands and includes the effects of the TCB and OCI duration as co-contributors to the effects of filtration, because NO ONE, NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON, operates their vehicles with filtration as the sole wear control actor.
I agree that more (finer) filtration has a positive effect in keeping a sump clean.
I disagree, as we've discussed before that:
- more is always required to reach the desired effect of equipment lifecycle
- filtration is the only way to reach that goal (as opposed to OCIs flushing out the contamination, and TCBs protective layers)
The SAE studies (most certainly, the infamous GM study from 1988) are highly biased and don't represent the reality of how we care for vehicles. Been discussed many times; no sense rehashing it.
Yes, the key words are "works by industry analysts and experts" ... which is a far cry from BITOG members always saying oil filter efficiency doesn't matter at all with nothing to back up the claim.
We've been down this road before with the real world bus study where it was clearly shown that better oil filtration results in cleaner oil, which in turn results in less engine wear. I posted the graphs out of the study in a few previous threads discussing engine wear as a function of oil cleanliness.
We have both agreed in the past that the difference between a 99% @ 20u filter vs a 50% @ 20u micron (or 99% @ 40u) filter will give enough difference in sump cleanliness to make a difference. If you were comparing a 99% @ 20u filter to a 95 to 98% @ 20u filter, then difference would be "hair splitting".
Yes, but there are other studies done on real world vehicles, like mentioned above.
This graph was out of an engine wear vs oil filter efficiency test done by Cummings. The two red horizontal lines show the 98.7% @ 20u and the 98.7% @ 40u filtration - typically the range of efficiency seen in oil filters for passenger cars. There is a difference in relative engine component life based on the cleanliness of the sump. It's just simple logic that cleaner oil will result in less engine wear - the less abrasive particles in the oil, the lower the wear will be if all other factors are held constant.
dnewton3
Staff member
The "bus study" is from decades ago done on 2-stroke diesel engines; using old fuel with high sulphur and oils that are not nearly as well formulated as today. While the filter info may have been germane to the conversation back then, it's moot now because other things (oils, modern fuel injection, 4-cycle engine combustion) have usurped the filter topic.
The one filter study I find some decent merit in, which controlled things much better and looked at real use and not lab studies, is the Fleet Filter article. And the conclusion there is that the air filter is as much, if not more. important to controlling typical wear moreso than a typical oil filter.
The GM filter study is an abomination; so much wrong with that, it can't be called "real world" with any clear conscious.
Most of these filter studies are not a good representation of real life because they are all older, and they ignore the improvements in combustion cleanliness from modern fuel injection, the advancements in lube qualities and add packs, and the effects of the TCB. Looking at ONLY a filter study and declaring an overall victory is like looking at the stats of one player and ignoring the rest of the ball team. The end score of a basketball game tell us who won, but the stats aren't just about points; blocked shots, rebounds, turnovers, fouls ... they all contribute to the game. You can't say a team won a game simply because one player scored 18 points - other players scored, and other inputs matter as well. Please, oh for goodness sake, please quit looking at only ONE input to a total equation and saying that it's the sole source of victory or failure.
Filters make a significant difference when:
- the OCIs are really long
- the engines run dirty
- the lubes are weak or compromised from age/use
If one or more of those conditions are not met, then the filter has FAR, FAR less effect than the "efficiency" rating on the side of the marketing box.
I don't understand why we all (Bitog as a whole) can't get past this topic. Newbies don't understand; I get that. But those of us who've been here for a long while should be helping to insturct folks on the realities of life.
I agree that finer filtration will never hurt, and is likely to make for a cleaner sump.
I disagree with the concept that finer filtration (especially that of only a few % difference) will always matter in terms of wear, because that statement completely ignores the topics of OCI duration and TCB, which also significantly help control wear.
When discussions like this come about ... Will an Ultra be "needed" over a TG or EG for a 5k mile OCI in a modern, well running engine ,,, the emphatic answer should be NO! It's not "needed". Wants are fine - I have nothing wrong with that. But wants and needs are two totally different topics. As you said, and I agree, when we're talking about a 99% filter and 95% filter, both applied at OCIs less than the capacity limits for both, it's a foolish (and I dare say irresponsible) thing to tell folks it matters at all.
Some of those filter studies you refer to, especially those that include PC data, clearly show very good correlation between PC counts and UOA wear data. That allows us to reasonably conclude that UOA wear data reflects the cleanliness of a sump. And so, if the UOA wear data shows no statistical difference between filter A and filter B, then the accurate conclusion is that there was no effect from filter A or B that matters. You cannot have your cake and eat it too! You can't claim that PC studies on filters show how much bettter finer filtration is in terms of particulate reduction, but then willingly ignore the other information; that UOA wear data directly reflects the PC reduction of filtration. And so, when UOA data shows no difference in wear, well, that's your answer right there! The finer efficiency of one filter over another doesn't make a difference if the UOA wear data doesn't reveal any. It is completely hypocritical to espouse the effects of filters in terms of PC data, but then ignore the UOA results with correlate with that same data.
My disagreements with you, Zee, overall are that you only want to focus on part of the story; you are right in claiming that finer filtration will result in a cleaner sump. But you stop way short of telling the whole story. You ignore the topics of OCI duration and TCB, and even air filtration as contributors to wear control. And REAL LIFE has all these things in play, not just filtration. The wear in a modern engine is controlled by all of those things working in concert. And, lube filtration, once it gets "clean enough", really does not play into the equation until long OCI or really dirty engines are discussed. You keep pointing to some studies as if they are the complete answer, and they are not so by any means; they are a study of PART of the equation, but not the whole of the formula.
The OP wanted to know if there's any reason not to use XGs for 5k mile OCIs. Yes, the responsible and accurate answer is that it's a waste of money.
- The efficiency of the TG is akin to equal, and the EG isn't far behind, and for a 5k mile OCI the efficiency differences are moot
- The capaicty of the EG, TG, and XG are all far over what that 5k mile OCI will consume
If the OP "wants" to waste money, then we have no reason to stop him.
If the OP "needs" an accurate answer, that answer is "Don't do it; you're wasting money".
The one filter study I find some decent merit in, which controlled things much better and looked at real use and not lab studies, is the Fleet Filter article. And the conclusion there is that the air filter is as much, if not more. important to controlling typical wear moreso than a typical oil filter.
The GM filter study is an abomination; so much wrong with that, it can't be called "real world" with any clear conscious.
Most of these filter studies are not a good representation of real life because they are all older, and they ignore the improvements in combustion cleanliness from modern fuel injection, the advancements in lube qualities and add packs, and the effects of the TCB. Looking at ONLY a filter study and declaring an overall victory is like looking at the stats of one player and ignoring the rest of the ball team. The end score of a basketball game tell us who won, but the stats aren't just about points; blocked shots, rebounds, turnovers, fouls ... they all contribute to the game. You can't say a team won a game simply because one player scored 18 points - other players scored, and other inputs matter as well. Please, oh for goodness sake, please quit looking at only ONE input to a total equation and saying that it's the sole source of victory or failure.
Filters make a significant difference when:
- the OCIs are really long
- the engines run dirty
- the lubes are weak or compromised from age/use
If one or more of those conditions are not met, then the filter has FAR, FAR less effect than the "efficiency" rating on the side of the marketing box.
I don't understand why we all (Bitog as a whole) can't get past this topic. Newbies don't understand; I get that. But those of us who've been here for a long while should be helping to insturct folks on the realities of life.
I agree that finer filtration will never hurt, and is likely to make for a cleaner sump.
I disagree with the concept that finer filtration (especially that of only a few % difference) will always matter in terms of wear, because that statement completely ignores the topics of OCI duration and TCB, which also significantly help control wear.
When discussions like this come about ... Will an Ultra be "needed" over a TG or EG for a 5k mile OCI in a modern, well running engine ,,, the emphatic answer should be NO! It's not "needed". Wants are fine - I have nothing wrong with that. But wants and needs are two totally different topics. As you said, and I agree, when we're talking about a 99% filter and 95% filter, both applied at OCIs less than the capacity limits for both, it's a foolish (and I dare say irresponsible) thing to tell folks it matters at all.
Some of those filter studies you refer to, especially those that include PC data, clearly show very good correlation between PC counts and UOA wear data. That allows us to reasonably conclude that UOA wear data reflects the cleanliness of a sump. And so, if the UOA wear data shows no statistical difference between filter A and filter B, then the accurate conclusion is that there was no effect from filter A or B that matters. You cannot have your cake and eat it too! You can't claim that PC studies on filters show how much bettter finer filtration is in terms of particulate reduction, but then willingly ignore the other information; that UOA wear data directly reflects the PC reduction of filtration. And so, when UOA data shows no difference in wear, well, that's your answer right there! The finer efficiency of one filter over another doesn't make a difference if the UOA wear data doesn't reveal any. It is completely hypocritical to espouse the effects of filters in terms of PC data, but then ignore the UOA results with correlate with that same data.
My disagreements with you, Zee, overall are that you only want to focus on part of the story; you are right in claiming that finer filtration will result in a cleaner sump. But you stop way short of telling the whole story. You ignore the topics of OCI duration and TCB, and even air filtration as contributors to wear control. And REAL LIFE has all these things in play, not just filtration. The wear in a modern engine is controlled by all of those things working in concert. And, lube filtration, once it gets "clean enough", really does not play into the equation until long OCI or really dirty engines are discussed. You keep pointing to some studies as if they are the complete answer, and they are not so by any means; they are a study of PART of the equation, but not the whole of the formula.
The OP wanted to know if there's any reason not to use XGs for 5k mile OCIs. Yes, the responsible and accurate answer is that it's a waste of money.
- The efficiency of the TG is akin to equal, and the EG isn't far behind, and for a 5k mile OCI the efficiency differences are moot
- The capaicty of the EG, TG, and XG are all far over what that 5k mile OCI will consume
If the OP "wants" to waste money, then we have no reason to stop him.
If the OP "needs" an accurate answer, that answer is "Don't do it; you're wasting money".
Oil cleanliness levels vs oil filtration is the focus. Doesn't really matter how it's produced. The Bus Study was conducted in a real world setting with a oil filter loading rate way lower than any "highly accelerated life tests" (HALTs) used in a laboratory setting. The loading rate may be at a higher rate than on a gas engine in a passenger car, but the fact still remains that less particulate in the oil resulted in less engine wear.
Of course the air filter is important, nobody is disputing that it is not. But lets say the air filter being used wasn't that efficient, or it was leaking dirt past the seal or element and allowing dirt into the engine - and that could be going on for many thousands of miles since air filters aren't changed nearly as often as the oil and filter. What's the "back-up" plan for that? And who knows if the air filter is actually doing the job it's expected to do? The oil filter is the "back-up" filtering device in that case. The air filter can't back-up the oil filter, but the oil filter can certainly back-up the air filter. So if a high efficiency oil filter is used, it will be the best back-up device to mitigate any issues with the air filtration system allowing dirt into the engine. What's wrong with that plan?
Of course, I think we've all discounted this test enough.
Like said earlier, regardless of the source of oil contamination, any contamination in the oil can only be caught and retained by the oil filter. That's the filter's whole job, to help keep the oil as clean as possible. Nothing else in the system removes wear particles from the oil. The fact that cleaner oil is always better than dirtier oil will never change. And the only way to achieve that - with all other factors held constant - is to run the oil through a more efficient filter.
I haven't, and nobody else here that I can recall, ever claimed that the oil filter is the sole "player" in keeping engine wear down. We get plenty of people who keep claiming (without any real proof) that oil filter efficiency and oil cleanliness doesn't matter. I'm still waiting for an official study or two that proves that claim.
Of course, and I've eluded to that thinking in many threads discussing this subject matter. If you changed oil every 1000 miles or less you might not even need an oil filter, if the engine was well broken in and you had a very efficient air filter of course.
I don't understand why some BITOG members keep claiming oil filters don't matter. One reality that will never change is that cleaner oil will always be better than dirtier oil, regardless of how that is achieved.
Yes, see above. There is nothing wrong with filtering oil better and making it as clean as possible. Buy one less Big Mac a year and put it towards a better oil filter and anyone can achieve that goal, lol.
I haven't (nor anyone else that I can recall) has made any such claim that a few percent difference in filter efficiency will make a difference. However, based on some studies I will say that the difference between a 99% @ 20u and a 99% @ 40u (or 50% @ 20u) can make a difference, especially as the OCI becomes longer. The dirtier the oil and the longer it's circulated through the oiling system is directly related to the rate of engine wear due to abrasive particulate. Lower either factor, and the wear rate will also be lowered. I've said many times, that any filter that is 95% @20u or better is IMO a good target to shoot for in terms of filter efficiency.
Even the Fram EG is 95% @ 20u ... so that meets what I would personally be looking for (95% @ 20u or better) in filter efficiency. I'd have no problem running a Fram EG for 5K miles.
The Bus Study did show good correlation between oil filter efficiency, oil PC and UAO wear levels. I don't recall what kind of UOA they used, but perhaps it was a better method then what Blackstone and other commercial UOA houses use. Some of these studies used irradiated parts so they could detect the wear metals rates from those specific parts. IMO, that would be a more accurate to measure wear vs a standard UOA.
You must not have seen some of my other posts in other threads on the subject of engine wear. I've always said that the best way to keep engine wear down is to treat it as a "trifecta" consisting of the OCI, oil filter and air filter. All 3 play a role, and IMO ignoring one or more out of the 3 isn't maintaining the engine as well as it could be. Would you use a low efficiency air filter or oil filter, but use the most expensive oil on the shelf? Or would you use a no-name oil from 7-11 and then use the most efficient air and oil filters? And I've said many times in these discussions that the longer the OCI the more important the oil filter efficiency becomes. Always use the example that if you changed the oil every 1000 miles or less (on a well broken in engine) that you might not even need an oil filter.
I never addressed the OP, only responded to the broken record lately on BITOG that "oil filters don't matter". Based on all the information I've seen, they do matter, even if it isn't by much, I will always take cleaner oil over dirtier oil, and use high efficiency oil filters as a back-up to the air filter. Until the laws of the land says I can't spend my money how I want to, or they make high efficiency filters illegal, then I'll always be using filters that are at least 95% @ 20u.
What about with a Hyundai / Kia GDI engine producing a lot of soot ? Are you changing your oil filter out at 5K miles or doing 2X oil changes for 10K miles before changing out the oil filter ... Again , talking about a Hyundai / Kia GDI soot producing engine in this case .
dnewton3
Staff member
The topic of soot is grossly misunderstood.
Modern engines, even GDI, produce soot far smaller than any filter would normally catch. Soot starts out around 40nm in size (nano-meters; 100x smaller than a micro-meter). Soot particles can be regular or irregular shaped, but we can generalize them with length and width, and they often given a "skeleton" size rating. With GDI, they tend to be more shperical in base structure ... Anyway, a typical soot particle, starting around 40nm, would have to grow 100x larger just to get to 4um, and even at 4um, it's far too small for the typical FF filter to catch. Soot never starts out large; it doesn't work that way. Soot starts out incredibly small and then grows by joining other soot particles. If we can interupt that process, we can nulify soot's effect.
As a generalization, any hard/abrasive particle would need to be 5um or larger to be of major concern to a typical engine. That's not a 100% hard-n-fast number, but most folks would understand and agree that SAE studies have shown that the majority of engine wear comes from particles in the 5-15um size. Anything smaller than 5um is generally small enough to pass with little risk to the clearances.
Part of the job of the modern lube is to keep soot from amalgamating (co-joining). As long as soot particles don't get "large" they really don't do much harm. The anti-agglomerates/dispersants in the oil additive package help keep the soot from amalgamating. As the OCIs mature, the additives will become more and more taxed with the ever-increasing soot load. At some point (and it's much further than you'd want to believe), the soot will eventually overcome the add-pack and the particles will then starting co-joining with greater frequency. This isn't going to happen in 5k or even 10k miles. Depending on the oil, it would take well past 15k miles.
Why do I say this? Because UOAs can show us that using BP filtration makes no difference in wear metal control when the OCIs are short-to-moderate in duration. I've seen so many examples of this reality. People believe that a BP filter will make their already short OCIs even better, but that's not the case. ANY filter is only as good as the particulate load presented to it. Even if a filter is "absolute" at 4um, if the soot isn't yet that large, it's not going to catch much. Never confuse efficiency with effectiveness. No filter is effective at removing stuff that isn't present.
The key to understanding all this is that you should not confuse the quantity of soot with the size of soot. There can be a lot of soot in your oil, but as long as the oil add-pack is working well and not overwhelmed, the risks are minimal because the soot is too small to do much damage.
Here is one article, but there are many more, so search several and do some reading:
www.sciencedirect.com
Modern engines, even GDI, produce soot far smaller than any filter would normally catch. Soot starts out around 40nm in size (nano-meters; 100x smaller than a micro-meter). Soot particles can be regular or irregular shaped, but we can generalize them with length and width, and they often given a "skeleton" size rating. With GDI, they tend to be more shperical in base structure ... Anyway, a typical soot particle, starting around 40nm, would have to grow 100x larger just to get to 4um, and even at 4um, it's far too small for the typical FF filter to catch. Soot never starts out large; it doesn't work that way. Soot starts out incredibly small and then grows by joining other soot particles. If we can interupt that process, we can nulify soot's effect.
As a generalization, any hard/abrasive particle would need to be 5um or larger to be of major concern to a typical engine. That's not a 100% hard-n-fast number, but most folks would understand and agree that SAE studies have shown that the majority of engine wear comes from particles in the 5-15um size. Anything smaller than 5um is generally small enough to pass with little risk to the clearances.
Part of the job of the modern lube is to keep soot from amalgamating (co-joining). As long as soot particles don't get "large" they really don't do much harm. The anti-agglomerates/dispersants in the oil additive package help keep the soot from amalgamating. As the OCIs mature, the additives will become more and more taxed with the ever-increasing soot load. At some point (and it's much further than you'd want to believe), the soot will eventually overcome the add-pack and the particles will then starting co-joining with greater frequency. This isn't going to happen in 5k or even 10k miles. Depending on the oil, it would take well past 15k miles.
Why do I say this? Because UOAs can show us that using BP filtration makes no difference in wear metal control when the OCIs are short-to-moderate in duration. I've seen so many examples of this reality. People believe that a BP filter will make their already short OCIs even better, but that's not the case. ANY filter is only as good as the particulate load presented to it. Even if a filter is "absolute" at 4um, if the soot isn't yet that large, it's not going to catch much. Never confuse efficiency with effectiveness. No filter is effective at removing stuff that isn't present.
The key to understanding all this is that you should not confuse the quantity of soot with the size of soot. There can be a lot of soot in your oil, but as long as the oil add-pack is working well and not overwhelmed, the risks are minimal because the soot is too small to do much damage.
Here is one article, but there are many more, so search several and do some reading:
Characterisation of soot in oil from a gasoline direct injection engine using Transmission Electron Microscopy
In this work, an investigation of soot-in-oil samples drawn from the oil sump of a gasoline direct injection (GDI) engine was carried out. Soot partic…
www.sciencedirect.com
Last edited:
"Soot" is sub-micronic..... it passes freely through nearly EVERY type of filter media (except some certain extreme depth filter media).
In this situation, oil filter efficiency make ZERO difference......
since NONE of the oil filters readily available to the public are capable of capturing ANY measurable amount of "soot".
The only way to get rid of soot is to change the oil.
Filter efficiency generally has no effect on soot % in the oil.
I typically change the oil filter on my Kia 2.4 GDI every 20,000 miles.
Perfectly worded....
and *EXACTLY* why so many people think spending money on a premium filter is helping their cause - - -
when it doesn't make any real (or measurable) difference at all.
How do you know it doesn't make any real difference? It has been measured in testing, and in some sophisticated test setups with irradiated engine parts. Just because a car still "runs good" at 250K miles doesn't mean it couldn't be more worn than if better oil and filters were used over it's lifetime. Still waiting for the study that says cleaner oil with all other factors held constant doesn't ever result in less wear.
That's subjective.
I'd like to put the shoe on the other foot....
-- prove that the better filter is an actual, *quantifiable* "better investment".
Not just "because it's only $5 more, I can justify it".
I'm all about the "feel good" aspect,
But when you look at the data from a *purely objective* standpoint, there's little reason to justify it.
