Any reason not to use Ultra for 5k

[ZeeOSix]

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".

For starters, we all know and probably agree that everyone's definition of a "better investment" is also subjective. That's probably the main driver why people buy and use the products they do in all aspects of their life.

As far as mechanical wear, there are scientific tests and facts that prove that higher efficiency oil filters results in cleaner oil, which then results in less wear. There are absolutely no studies that proves that dirtier oil caused less or the same level of wear if all other factors are held constant - none. I'm still waiting for someone to post up those test study results that prove it. I go by facts, not feelings.

Someone saying that "an oil filter efficiency doesn't matter" is pretty much basing it on "feelings" because cars don't blow-up before 250K miles rolls around, or it doesn't matter because the car will rust out or get T-boned and totaled before the engine wears out. All of that is just basically straw man arguments. That's kind of like saying smoking won't hurt your health or impact your life because if you happen to make it to 85 years old and can still walk around while smoking your whole life, it doesn't matter anyway because we all end up in the "junk yard". I don't operate that way, but along the lines to strive for the best path forward thinking/knowing the path I choose might result in a better long range outcome. I feel the same way about maintaining my vehicles.

Many people blurt out in these threads that "The air filter is the most important filter, and the oil filter doesn't matter". Yes, I agree that comparatively the air filter is more important, but it doesn't mean that the oil filter can't also help in mitigating less engine wear - it's all about mitigation. The air and oil filters are a team working together, not stand alone ways to mitigate wear. What if the air filter really isn't that efficient, or what if there happens to be a tear in the media or a leak on the seal and more dirt gets into the motor than you believe? The oil filter can be though of as the "back-up" filter to the air filter. If something does get by the air filter and into the oil, then guess what ... the oil filter is there to catch it. And obviously, the air filter can do absolutely nothing about any contamination in the oil, regardless of where that contamination came from - and not all of it comes in from the air intake path. What's wrong with having a high efficiency oil filter to play that role to ensure the oil stays as clean as possible? All it will cost you is one less Big Mac ... another good reason to go "hog wild" on an oil filter. And besides, a better oil filter might do more for the engine than a Big Mac does for the body.

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.

What data? ... that cars are still "running good" with lots of miles on them? That's hardly scientific. I want to see scientific data that says cleaner oil does not result in less wear in any machine device that has an oil film between moving parts. Where are those test results?

 

[dnewton3]

Well, Zee, I do agree that "mitigation" is the concept here.
I am one of those folks who do say that filter efficiency is sort of moot.* And that's not based on my feelings.

That asterisk (*) is important to my point. I think the oil filter is incredibly important, but only up to a point and only if certain conditions are present.
In terms of the oil filter efficiency in a modern, clean running engine, we do agree that it's essentially impossible to distinguish between a 99% and a 95% filter, if the capacity is sufficient for the OCI duration. That's because the "mitigation" isn't really coming from the filter in shorter OCIs. In much longer OCIs, I've seen evidence that filtration is very important. But in shorter OCIs there's basically very little contamination present, and so the capture rate differential between two filters really won't reveal itself.

Is it "wrong" to use a high quality, highly efficient, high capacity oil filter? No.
But it's not always the "right" answer for every OCI, because why pay for something that you're not getting a tangible benefit from?
Theory is great, but facts trump theory if the theory and data are at odds.
Short-to-moderate OCIs don't reveal the eff delta between filters simply because there's not enough junk in the system yet to manifest into a wear metal difference. Simply put, there's no correlation between efficiency and wear in what we'd mostly call a "normal" OCI.
And without correlation, there can be no causation.

You are correct in saying that the oil filter studies do prove that cleaner oil results in less wear.
But you're ignoring some other "facts" (not feelings) from those studies such as:
- the GM filter study flat out admits that the wear differential they produced in the lab test would never materialize in the real world because the OCIs would basically negate the differentials between filters
- the bus study showed very good correlation between filtration and UOA wear data; meaning that UOA wear metal data is a reliable source to judge filtration. The correlation is abundantly, incredibly clear in that UOA data will tell you if the filter matters or not.

The reason you're not likely to ever see a filter study that proves the point is because it's pointless for the industry to do so. To prove the point, it would take hundreds of thousands of miles of controlled use, over truly normal OCIs using truly normal environmental applications. No company is that patient; hence the reason they use HALTs. Unfortunately, for those of us who crave real world results, HALTs have to induce unrealistic conditions into the system to get data in weeks and not years. But ....

Every one of us is doing the test for you! When you read the UOAs here, the inference is already in the macro data. Micro data takes way too long and way too much money. But macro data comes in by the bucket load. The reality is that the overall normal variation in wear from everyday use FAR, FAR outpaces the infitessimal differences induced by good quality filters.

You are correct to say that highly efficient filters are better than lowly poor quality ones. But when the filters are within 10% eff of each other, it's also like trying to measure the effect of a mouse peeing in the swimming pool; you're not going to tangibly experience a difference.


And so, in the spirit of this thread, sticking to the topic of using an Ultra for 5k miles, it may not be "wrong" to do so, but it sure ain't "right" to throw money away when a lessor cost filter will produce the same TANGIBLE effect. You're arugments for always using the best filter are ignoring the realities of life. Not everyone is going to run 20k mile OCIs. Not every cares about a car they aren't going to own three years from now. Not everyone "needs" to feel that "only the best will do for my baby."
Let's go back to the OPs question:
Q: Any reason to not use an Ultra for 5k ... Seems a tad overkill but it is their top tier filter. Why not spend $11for great filtering specs? (Cartridge)
A: Yes - it's a waste of money that will not produce any REAL effect in terms of wear control, under the stated conditions. An EG is able to produce the same effect as the XG, for about 1/2 the cost (or maybe less, depending upon filter model).


The following items "mitigate" wear:
- air filter eff and capacity
- oil filter eff and capacity
- TCB establishment and maturation
- oil additives
- oil base stock and quality
- OCI duration
All these things have varying effectiveness based on their interaction. You cannot fairly say that only one item is always the most important. The importance of any one item is a factor of how that one interacts with the variation of the others.

What is proven in the background of many of the existing studies is that the oil filter isn't the primary wear control agent at all times.

And so, yes, I am one of those that "feels" oil filtration is not always the most critical component of wear control. It's VERY important up to a point, but under many "normal" conditions past that point, other things are actually more important. The forward facting facts of many oil filter studies lead one to a conclusion that isn't always applicable. The background facts of many of those same studies allows a much more realistic conclusion to be made. Oil filters, while imporant, do not operate in a vacuum and don't always produce the real world effects they would in a lab.

 

[Kjmack]

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.

Hope the surgery gets you back active again !! My late father had a new knee put in at 80 years old . He was glad he had it done .

 

[ZeeOSix]

Well, Zee, I do agree that "mitigation" is the concept here.
I am one of those folks who do say that filter efficiency is sort of moot.* And that's not based on my feelings.

Like I said, how are you going to get the best level of mitigation if you ignore one of the mitigation factors? ... like the oil filter. I said it's not the most important factor (have never said that in any thread), but it IS a factor. Anyone who believes in striving for more mitigation would most likely conclude that a more efficient oil filter will help achieve that goal vs a less efficient oil filter.

That asterisk (*) is important to my point. I think the oil filter is incredibly important, but only up to a point and only if certain conditions are present.
In terms of the oil filter efficiency in a modern, clean running engine, we do agree that it's essentially impossible to distinguish between a 99% and a 95% filter, if the capacity is sufficient for the OCI duration. That's because the "mitigation" isn't really coming from the filter in shorter OCIs. In much longer OCIs, I've seen evidence that filtration is very important. But in shorter OCIs there's basically very little contamination present, and so the capture rate differential between two filters really won't reveal itself.

See, you agree it's important ... I didn't even use the word "incredibly". In pretty much ever one of these oil filter efficiency discussions I've talked about all the qualifiers on when a more efficient filter would me an advantage. How does anyone really know what the "up to a point" point really is? Why not just cover the unknowns by using a known higher efficiency filter?

Yes, we agree that trying to distinguish between a 95% and 99% @ 20 filters isn't going to be worth arguing about, but I've never claimed there would be a difference at that level worth arguing. But I will, and still do say that the difference between a 99%+ @20u and a 50% @ 20u (or a 99% @ 40u) is worth considering because the difference in oil cleanliness can be seen, especially in the micron ranges below 20u which is the particle sizes that contribute to most wear.

The thing is in these discussions, someone says that "an oil filter does matter, and can keep oil cleaner which results in less wear" and then people jump on that thinking the statement is claiming that the oil filter is the most important thing on the vehicle. Never said it was, but have said it's also a factor in keeping oil clean. Once a piece of debris is in the sump, regardless of how it gets there, the oil filter is the only component that can remove it ... unless you want to dump the sump.

Is it "wrong" to use a high quality, highly efficient, high capacity oil filter? No.
But it's not always the "right" answer for every OCI, because why pay for something that you're not getting a tangible benefit from?
Theory is great, but facts trump theory if the theory and data are at odds.
Short-to-moderate OCIs don't reveal the eff delta between filters simply because there's not enough junk in the system yet to manifest into a wear metal difference. Simply put, there's no correlation between efficiency and wear in what we'd mostly call a "normal" OCI.
And without correlation, there can be no causation.

Now you're focusing on the "ROI", which starts to cloud the use of efficient filters vs not. Like I've said many times, the longer the OCI the more importance a higher efficiency oil filter becomes. Some people will try to achieve more ROI based on mainly the cost of the filter, and some people will just use the better more efficient filter to cover all the unknowns going on in the sump because they know the performance specs of the filter. If the ROI factor becomes a buying factor, and someone wants both ROI and good performance, then they should be running something like a Fram orange can because most are $3.88 at Walmart, rated upto 10K miles and are 95% @20u ... that's pretty hard to beat. I'd rater spend $3.88 for a filter I know the performance of vs some off-brand filter off of RockAuto, or some filter where the manufacture doesn't give any efficiency ISO 4548-12 specs, or filters that are far from 95% @ 20u or better, which is what I consider good efficiency.

You are correct in saying that the oil filter studies do prove that cleaner oil results in less wear.
But you're ignoring some other "facts" (not feelings) from those studies such as:
- the GM filter study flat out admits that the wear differential they produced in the lab test would never materialize in the real world because the OCIs would basically negate the differentials between filters
- the bus study showed very good correlation between filtration and UOA wear data; meaning that UOA wear metal data is a reliable source to judge filtration. The correlation is abundantly, incredibly clear in that UOA data will tell you if the filter matters or not. The reason you're not likely to ever see a filter study that proves the point is because it's pointless for the industry to do so. To prove the point, it would take hundreds of thousands of miles of controlled use, over truly normal OCIs using truly normal environmental applications. No company is that patient; hence the reason they use HALTs. Unfortunately, for those of us who crave real world results, HALTs have to induce unrealistic conditions into the system to get data in weeks and not years. But ....

Every one of us is doing the test for you! When you read the UOAs here, the inference is already in the macro data. Micro data takes way too long and way too much money. But macro data comes in by the bucket load. The reality is that the overall normal variation in wear from everyday use FAR, FAR outpaces the infitessimal differences induced by good quality filters.

Yes, the studies show the correlation that better filtration results in cleaner oil and less wear. For me, that's all I need to know. Like said above, why not just go with something known to perform very well and use it instead of second guessing everything going on inside the engine? It's only going to cost a few bucks more to go that way. That's how I go, but everyone can do whatever they want with their vehicles. I'm not into trying to save a couple of bucks to try and use something that is at a lower lever of performance.

Not so sure the UOA's seen on BITOG and the UOAs done in some of these wear studies are at the same accuracy levels. Lots of talk that a Blackstone UOA is somewhat useless for trying to determine a correlation between wear metals and oil PC data. It can be seen even in BITOG UAOs that oil filters with a higher efficiency results in lower PC counts, meaning cleaner oil. All I need to know is that higher efficiency oil filters will result in cleaner oil, regardless of the wear metals seen on a UOA. My goal is cleaner oil without spending a ton for it.

You are correct to say that highly efficient filters are better than lowly poor quality ones. But when the filters are within 10% eff of each other, it's also like trying to measure the effect of a mouse peeing in the swimming pool; you're not going to tangibly experience a difference.

Again, not arguing about filters that are only 10% difference in efficiency.

And so, in the spirit of this thread, sticking to the topic of using an Ultra for 5k miles, it may not be "wrong" to do so, but it sure ain't "right" to throw money away when a lessor cost filter will produce the same TANGIBLE effect. You're arugments for always using the best filter are ignoring the realities of life. Not everyone is going to run 20k mile OCIs. Not every cares about a car they aren't going to own three years from now. Not everyone "needs" to feel that "only the best will do for my baby."

I don't say to always use a high efficiency filter regardless of the circumstances, and obviously when ROI becomes a factor then that starts diverging away from the basic fact that better filtration results in cleaner oil - because it may become a trade-off equation. For me, better efficiency is the bigger factor than ROI, since it doesn't cost much more if that's the desire. I like more mitigation vs not, so I'll pay a little more for that. The conclusion in every one of these discussions is that cleaner oil is never going to hurt anything except to deprive someone of maybe an extra Big Mac.

Let's go back to the OPs question:
Q: Any reason to not use an Ultra for 5k ... Seems a tad overkill but it is their top tier filter. Why not spend $11for great filtering specs? (Cartridge)
A: Yes - it's a waste of money that will not produce any REAL effect in terms of wear control, under the stated conditions. An EG is able to produce the same effect as the XG, for about 1/2 the cost (or maybe less, depending upon filter model).

The OP might like a higher efficiency oil filter instead of a Big Mac ... his decision - treat his vehicle or treat himself ... or maybe both.

The following items "mitigate" wear:
- air filter eff and capacity
- oil filter eff and capacity
- TCB establishment and maturation
- oil additives
- oil base stock and quality
- OCI duration
All these things have varying effectiveness based on their interaction. You cannot fairly say that only one item is always the most important. The importance of any one item is a factor of how that one interacts with the variation of the others.

I have never said any ONE thing is the most important, never have in any of these discussions. It's a system, and I don't believe in ignoring any of the factors in a system when it involves maintaining my vehicles to make it last and stay in the best condition possible. I keep my stuff for 15+ years, and treat it like it will be kept forever ... because maybe it will be, espeicially the way prices of vehicles are going. The only thing I say is that the oil filter is more important than some people make it sound. They can believe what they want, it's their machine. If they did some research on their own about engine wear they might see it differently.

What is proven in the background of many of the existing studies is that the oil filter isn't the primary wear control agent at all times.

I don't think anyone has ever claimed it was. See above.

And so, yes, I am one of those that "feels" oil filtration is not always the most critical component of wear control. It's VERY important up to a point, but under many "normal" conditions past that point, other things are actually more important. The forward facting facts of many oil filter studies lead one to a conclusion that isn't always applicable. The background facts of many of those same studies allows a much more realistic conclusion to be made. Oil filters, while imporant, do not operate in a vacuum and don't always produce the real world effects they would in a lab.

Already been covered above. Bottom line for me is that higher efficiency filters result in cleaner oil ... that's all I care about in the whole scheme of oil filtration, regardless of ROI or anything else - that's just what I do for the reasons mentioned. Nothing can be scientifically shown that cleaner oil is a bad thing.

 

[4WD]

Like I said, how are you going to get the best level of mitigation if you ignore one of the mitigation factors? ... like the oil filter. I said it's not the most important factor (have never said that in any thread), but it IS a factor. Anyone who believes in striving for more mitigation would most likely conclude that a more efficient oil filter will help achieve that goal vs a less efficient oil filter.


See, you agree it's important ... I didn't even use the word "incredibly". In pretty much ever one of these oil filter efficiency discussions I've talked about all the qualifiers on when a more efficient filter would me an advantage. How does anyone really know what the "up to a point" point really is? Why not just cover the unknowns by using a known higher efficiency filter?

Yes, we agree that trying to distinguish between a 95% and 99% @ 20 filters isn't going to be worth arguing about, but I've never claimed there would be a difference at that level worth arguing. But I will, and still do say that the difference between a 99%+ @20u and a 50% @ 20u (or a 99% @ 40u) is worth considering because the difference in oil cleanliness can be seen, especially in the micron ranges below 20u which is the particle sizes that contribute to most wear.

The thing is in these discussions, someone says that "an oil filter does matter, and can keep oil cleaner which results in less wear" and then people jump on that thinking the statement is claiming that the oil filter is the most important thing on the vehicle. Never said it was, but have said it's also a factor in keeping oil clean. Once a piece of debris is in the sump, regardless of how it gets there, the oil filter is the only component that can remove it ... unless you want to dump the sump.


Now you're focusing on the "ROI", which starts to cloud the use of efficient filters vs not. Like I've said many times, the longer the OCI the more importance a higher efficiency oil filter becomes. Some people will try to achieve more ROI based on mainly the cost of the filter, and some people will just use the better more efficient filter to cover all the unknowns going on in the sump because they know the performance specs of the filter. If the ROI factor becomes a buying factor, and someone wants both ROI and good performance, then they should be running something like a Fram orange can because most are $3.88 at Walmart, rated upto 10K miles and are 95% @20u ... that's pretty hard to beat. I'd rater spend $3.88 for a filter I know the performance of vs some off-brand filter off of RockAuto, or some filter where the manufacture doesn't give any efficiency ISO 4548-12 specs, or filters that are far from 95% @ 20u or better, which is what I consider good efficiency.


Yes, the studies show the correlation that better filtration results in cleaner oil and less wear. For me, that's all I need to know. Like said above, why not just go with something known to perform very well and use it instead of second guessing everything going on inside the engine? It's only going to cost a few bucks more to go that way. That's how I go, but everyone can do whatever they want with their vehicles. I'm not into trying to save a couple of bucks to try and use something that is at a lower lever of performance.

Not so sure the UOA's seen on BITOG and the UOAs done in some of these wear studies are at the same accuracy levels. Lots of talk that a Blackstone UOA is somewhat useless for trying to determine a correlation between wear metals and oil PC data. It can be seen even in BITOG UAOs that oil filters with a higher efficiency results in lower PC counts, meaning cleaner oil. All I need to know is that higher efficiency oil filters will result in cleaner oil, regardless of the wear metals seen on a UOA. My goal is cleaner oil without spending a ton for it.


Again, not arguing about filters that are only 10% difference in efficiency.


I don't say to always use a high efficiency filter regardless of the circumstances, and obviously when ROI becomes a factor then that starts diverging away from the basic fact that better filtration results in cleaner oil - because it may become a trade-off equation. For me, better efficiency is the bigger factor than ROI, since it doesn't cost much more if that's the desire. I like more mitigation vs not, so I'll pay a little more for that. The conclusion in every one of these discussions is that cleaner oil is never going to hurt anything except to deprive someone of maybe an extra Big Mac.


The OP might like a higher efficiency oil filter instead of a Big Mac ... his decision - treat his vehicle or treat himself ... or maybe both.


I have never said any ONE thing is the most important, never have in any of these discussions. It's a system, and I don't believe in ignoring any of the factors in a system when it involves maintaining my vehicles to make it last and stay in the best condition possible. I keep my stuff for 15+ years, and treat it like it will be kept forever ... because maybe it will be, espeicially the way prices of vehicles are going. The only thing I say is that the oil filter is more important than some people make it sound. They can believe what they want, it's their machine. If they did some research on their own about engine wear they might see it differently.


I don't think anyone has ever claimed it was. See above.


Already been covered above. Bottom line for me is that higher efficiency filters result in cleaner oil ... that's all I care about in the whole scheme of oil filtration, regardless of ROI or anything else - that's just what I do for the reasons mentioned. Nothing can be scientifically shown that cleaner oil is a bad thing.

Do you have a bypass filtration system on anything you own ?

 

[Linctex]

.....but I've never claimed there would be a difference at that level worth arguing. But I will, and still do say that the difference between a 99%+ @20u and a 50% @ 20u (or a 99% @ 40u) is worth considering because the difference in oil cleanliness can be seen, especially in the micron ranges below 20u which is the particle sizes that contribute to most wear"

The ONLY way the difference in cleanliness can be seen,
is if there is "particulate matter present" that fits that criteria.
I have a suspicion that you *feel* there is an abundance of material that needs to be filtered out during the course of an oil change.....
I would not agree with that.


I used to really put a lot of weight in particle counts......
now I am not so sure.

Just because a particle is present - - doesn't mean it is actually "abrasive"....
.......or the type of particle that "can cause wear".

I think that's where you keep getting hung up -
the "need to filter something out" that either isn't there - or isn't a threat.

I change the oil in my '13 Kia 2.4 GDI somewhere between 5K and 10K depending on the type of conditions I have been driving, and also depending on "how black" the oil is.
I don't use any premium filters - and I usually run the filters to 20,000+ miles.
I generally just drain and refill.
I don't have any reason to believe the oil is (at any time) a "soup of abrasives" flowing around and wearing away at the engine internally.

My F150 has 271,000 miles, and I pretty much never "change" the oil. I swap out 5 qts and add 5 new quarts once a year.
However, this truck has TWIN full-flow Fram XG filters (In parallel) , as well as TWIN bypass filters (in series).
Yes, the oil is dark - but I doubt there's a *serious* amount of particulate matter suspended in it.

Neither of these vehicles consumes one drop of oil between changes.

All in all - - "cleaner oil causes less wear", yes I get that.
However - - - I generally feel that oil seldom gets "dirty enough" in the first place to make a premium filter worthwhile.

The best use af a premium filter is to put it on and leave it on for 20,000, 30,000 - or even more miles.
The twin Fram XG's in parallel on my F150 have been on for 3 years and over 60,000 miles.

 

[dnewton3]

Zee -
I assume you've read this article, but I'd ask you to go back and read the part specific to the Ford 3.0L v6 Vulcan engine; it's a micro study.

Used Oil Analysis: How to decide what is normal - Bob is the Oil Guy

Reviewing UOA Data Used oil analyses (UOAs) are tools. And like most tools, they can either be properly used or misused, depending upon the application, the user, the surrounding conditions, etc.= There are already many good articles and publications in existence that tell us how to interpret...

bobistheoilguy.com

Specifically, that engine was run for about half of those samples on Mobil 1 and a Purolator Pure One filter (at the time, it was a respected filter). Then for the second half of the samples it had Mobil Clean 5000 and a normal Purolator filter ("white can" as it was known back in the day). That's a total of 235k miles of very well controlled, very typical driving, "normal" real world data.

When that wear data is broken into the two groups of delineation, there's no statistically significant difference in wear trends. The differences that exist (a tenth or two) was actually far smaller than the standard deviation, meaning you cannot distinguish the filter from the normal daily wear. Even though the deck was stacked in favor of the "premium" approach (both a premium syn lube and a premium filter used at the same time), that combination could not induce any "better" wear results in a 5k mile OCI over the lessor choices.

Despite the much better efficiency of the Pure One, both it and the syn lube together couldn't make a difference in the wear. Remember what I said; without correlation there can be no causation ... The data shows absolutely no correlation in wear relative to the filters used, so the ONLY logical conclusion to come to here is that the filter choice didn't matter, one filter relative to the other. The controlled variables (filter and oil) did NOT create the real world tangible results that the lab theory would lead one to believe is true, based on the aforementioned filter studies like the GM study, the bus study, etc.

Filtration is very important, but ONLY to a point which the sump becomes "clean enough". Once past that level of "clean enough", making it "cleaner" actually DOES NOT RETURN ANY TANGIBLE RESULTS IN TERMS OF WEAR CONTROL. So the conclusion to come to is that the oil filter lifts the load to a specific point, but it cannot lift it past that point, and other things are more important; the effect of filtration only reaches so far in a "normal" OCI.

That same article also proves, beyond any credible doubt, that the wear rates of just about any engine series actually continue to drop out towards 15k miles of oil use. Having the raw data and being able to tie those data points to specific UOAs (many posted here on BITOG) allowed me to tie info together; I am able to understand that the "trend" of low wear continues out much futher than most BITOGers would want to admit, or even believe is possible. My point is that after that article was written, over a decade has passed and I now have enough macro data to conclude my points are valid and proven. The effect does not stop at 5k miles; it's pretty darn true at 15k as well. One does NOT need the "best" filter to effect good wear rates in a normal OCI. One only needs a "good enough" filter. If the filter is a minimum ot 85% efficiency at B=20, and has enough capacity for the intended OCI, that's "good enough". Any efficiency above that is not able to make things tangibly better in a normal OCI. If one intends to run 20k mile OCIs or longer, then a higher-capacity filter is needed. And pretty much without exception, those filter choices are going to get into syn-media or syn-blended-media filters, and that often offers greater efficiency, so efficiency often goes along for the ride with greater capacity.

I agree that there's no published SAE study proving my claims, and I explained why; there's no point to any of the major OEMs doing so because they won't benefit from the very expensive effort. But there is very good, credible data that exists to prove my point, even though it's not be logged in an SAE study.

Your point about ROI is salient, but also circles back on itself ...
If cost is no object, then why not get the "best"?
Well, what if the "best" truly is proven to be no different than "good enough" in actual use (not theory, not lab tests, but real world application)?
Why pay for performance you are ASSURED to NOT get a benefit from?
So you circle back to the fact that ROI actually is imporant, if one can step out from behind one's bias.

Unless I'm mistaken, it's your opinion that there's no proof of my claims, but I disagree:
- the GM filter study flat out stated that filter efficiency does not materials in wear differences in "normal" OCIs
- the bus study clearly proves that particulate loading is echoed precisely in UOA wear data, and so we can easily conclude that if wear data does not show correlation in filter selection, the filter choices for those conditions are moot
- the Normalcy article clearly shows a micro-data example of how filter selection did NOT make any difference in normal daily use
So two SAE studies allow us to conclude that my points are accurate, and the article data you can actually see for yourself. Three different, independent trials lead us to the same conclusion; filtration doesn't matter once the sump is "clean enough". Filtration has to get us to that "clean enough" state, but once there, it hands off the task to many of the other control mechanisms (aforementioned in earlier post).
* Some amount of filtration is incredibly important.
* Excess filtration is proven to not be effective.

I know that we agree in principle; that for many applications, the "best" isn't warranted. I think where we disagree is when that difference of choices comes into play; when is the "best" actually beneficial in a real world sense? I believe it to be much futher out than most would want to admit because credible data shows that once a sump is clean enough, making it cleaner doesn't do anything "real" in normal daily use.

One does not have to use great products; only good ones. Doing so will get you to a point where wear rates continue to drop out to 15k miles; 25,000+ UOAs don't lie. The data is incontraverable for those who can see the forrest for the trees.

 

[Davejam]

I agree that there's no published SAE study proving my claims, and I explained why; there's no point to any of the major OEMs doing so because they won't benefit from the very expensive effort. But there is very good, credible data that exists to prove my point, even though it's not be logged in an SAE study.

I think there are SAE studies focused on diesel engines, where 1 million miles could be the goal. And extending OCI is big $.
In passenger cars there is little motivation. Because OEM is off the hook at 30k, 60k, or 100k at worst. And buyers are oblivious to OCI recommendations at purchase.

Regarding the study referenced. It would be important to know what the different efficiencies of the Purolator filters were at the time.
Because 99% @ 25micron versus 99% at 30microns might not make much of a difference because the difference at 5-15microns is negligible.
But the higher efficiency filters that are referenced recently - Fram, RP, Amsoil are doing a very good job now at 5-15microns.
This is an important footnote to that study that should be added.

Anyone have a link to the GM study? Or full title.

 

[ZeeOSix]

The ONLY way the difference in cleanliness can be seen,
is if there is "particulate matter present" that fits that criteria.
I have a suspicion that you *feel* there is an abundance of material that needs to be filtered out during the course of an oil change.....
I would not agree with that.


I used to really put a lot of weight in particle counts......
now I am not so sure.

Just because a particle is present - - doesn't mean it is actually "abrasive"....
.......or the type of particle that "can cause wear".

I think that's where you keep getting hung up -
the "need to filter something out" that either isn't there - or isn't a threat.

I change the oil in my '13 Kia 2.4 GDI somewhere between 5K and 10K depending on the type of conditions I have been driving, and also depending on "how black" the oil is.
I don't use any premium filters - and I usually run the filters to 20,000+ miles.
I generally just drain and refill.
I don't have any reason to believe the oil is (at any time) a "soup of abrasives" flowing around and wearing away at the engine internally.

My F150 has 271,000 miles, and I pretty much never "change" the oil. I swap out 5 qts and add 5 new quarts once a year.
However, this truck has TWIN full-flow Fram XG filters (In parallel) , as well as TWIN bypass filters (in series).
Yes, the oil is dark - but I doubt there's a *serious* amount of particulate matter suspended in it.

Neither of these vehicles consumes one drop of oil between changes.

All in all - - "cleaner oil causes less wear", yes I get that.
However - - - I generally feel that oil seldom gets "dirty enough" in the first place to make a premium filter worthwhile.

The best use af a premium filter is to put it on and leave it on for 20,000, 30,000 - or even more miles.
The twin Fram XG's in parallel on my F150 have been on for 3 years and over 60,000 miles.

I find it pretty funny that you have this super oil filtering system on your truck when you come across earlier like oil filtration doesn't really matter - ie, posts #78 and #80.

Why are you using such a super efficient filtering system if you aren't concerned about oil cleanliness or particle counts?

 

[ZeeOSix]

I think there are SAE studies focused on diesel engines, where 1 million miles could be the goal. And extending OCI is big $.
In passenger cars there is little motivation. Because OEM is off the hook at 30k, 60k, or 100k at worst. And buyers are oblivious to OCI recommendations at purchase.

Regarding the study referenced. It would be important to know what the different efficiencies of the Purolator filters were at the time.
Because 99% @ 25micron versus 99% at 30microns might not make much of a difference because the difference at 5-15microns is negligible.
But the higher efficiency filters that are referenced recently - Fram, RP, Amsoil are doing a very good job now at 5-15microns.
This is an important footnote to that study that should be added.

Anyone have a link to the GM study? Or full title.

Good points ... dnewton and I agree that using filters that are that close to efficiency isn't going to prove anything. In all these filter efficiency threads, I make it clear that I'm talking about the extremes of available spin-on filters, ie, 99%+ @ 20u vs 50% @ 20u. I will never use a filter that is rated near 50% @ 20, or one rated at 99% @ 40u (or worse) when there are more efficient filters available for the same cost or a little bit more.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Zee -
I assume you've read this article, but I'd ask you to go back and read the part specific to the Ford 3.0L v6 Vulcan engine; it's a micro study.

Used Oil Analysis: How to decide what is normal - Bob is the Oil Guy

Reviewing UOA Data Used oil analyses (UOAs) are tools. And like most tools, they can either be properly used or misused, depending upon the application, the user, the surrounding conditions, etc.= There are already many good articles and publications in existence that tell us how to interpret...

bobistheoilguy.com

Specifically, that engine was run for about half of those samples on Mobil 1 and a Purolator Pure One filter (at the time, it was a respected filter). Then for the second half of the samples it had Mobil Clean 5000 and a normal Purolator filter ("white can" as it was known back in the day). That's a total of 235k miles of very well controlled, very typical driving, "normal" real world data.

When that wear data is broken into the two groups of delineation, there's no statistically significant difference in wear trends. The differences that exist (a tenth or two) was actually far smaller than the standard deviation, meaning you cannot distinguish the filter from the normal daily wear. Even though the deck was stacked in favor of the "premium" approach (both a premium syn lube and a premium filter used at the same time), that combination could not induce any "better" wear results in a 5k mile OCI over the lessor choices.

Despite the much better efficiency of the Pure One, both it and the syn lube together couldn't make a difference in the wear. Remember what I said; without correlation there can be no causation ... The data shows absolutely no correlation in wear relative to the filters used, so the ONLY logical conclusion to come to here is that the filter choice didn't matter, one filter relative to the other. The controlled variables (filter and oil) did NOT create the real world tangible results that the lab theory would lead one to believe is true, based on the aforementioned filter studies like the GM study, the bus study, etc.

That test should be done with a 99%+ @ 20u and 50% @ 20u filter. Plus, in that test the oil was also changed at the same time as the filter brand, which isn't a good way to control a test. How do you know that non-synthetic oil didn't have a better HTHS and/or better AF/AW additives that helped actually reduce wear?

Filtration is very important, but ONLY to a point which the sump becomes "clean enough". Once past that level of "clean enough", making it "cleaner" actually DOES NOT RETURN ANY TANGIBLE RESULTS IN TERMS OF WEAR CONTROL. So the conclusion to come to is that the oil filter lifts the load to a specific point, but it cannot lift it past that point, and other things are more important; the effect of filtration only reaches so far in a "normal" OCI.

For me, "clean enough" means cleaner than not. Using a 99%+ @ 20u vs a 50% @ 20u filter will result in a cleaner sump. The PC of the sump will be lower with the more efficient filter - with all other facts constant of course. Cleaner oil is better than dirtier oil, and cleaner oil means less wear ... regardless of how much that difference is. The amount of difference doesn't matter to me as long as I know the sump is cleaner ... a simple bottom line to achieve with better filtration. What's always so strange in these discussions is that for some reason people that want cleaner oil by using higher efficiency filters have to somehow "justify" it, whereas people who think oil filtration doesn't matter just justify that by saying their car will rust out or be get totaled out before the engine dies.

That same article also proves, beyond any credible doubt, that the wear rates of just about any engine series actually continue to drop out towards 15k miles of oil use. Having the raw data and being able to tie those data points to specific UOAs (many posted here on BITOG) allowed me to tie info together; I am able to understand that the "trend" of low wear continues out much futher than most BITOGers would want to admit, or even believe is possible. My point is that after that article was written, over a decade has passed and I now have enough macro data to conclude my points are valid and proven. The effect does not stop at 5k miles; it's pretty darn true at 15k as well. One does NOT need the "best" filter to effect good wear rates in a normal OCI. One only needs a "good enough" filter. If the filter is a minimum ot 85% efficiency at B=20, and has enough capacity for the intended OCI, that's "good enough". Any efficiency above that is not able to make things tangibly better in a normal OCI. If one intends to run 20k mile OCIs or longer, then a higher-capacity filter is needed. And pretty much without exception, those filter choices are going to get into syn-media or syn-blended-media filters, and that often offers greater efficiency, so efficiency often goes along for the ride with greater capacity.

I agree that there's no published SAE study proving my claims, and I explained why; there's no point to any of the major OEMs doing so because they won't benefit from the very expensive effort. But there is very good, credible data that exists to prove my point, even though it's not be logged in an SAE study.

I would have liked to see the PC data along side every one of those UOAs, since we know that the oil cleanliness correlates to wear. You couldn't really correlate the wear data to filter efficiency without knowing the PC of the oil to tie them better together.

Re: bold part. And to throw in another wrinkle into the discussion, how much of that wear at mileage out beyond 5K to 15K and beyond is due to the AF/AW tribofilm factor. That has been another topic of discussion in the past. The test that needs to be done is to run the same exact oil for the same mileage in the same driving conditions (on a fully broken in engine), but use the two extremes of available efficient oil filters (99%+ @ 20u vs a 50% @ 50u). UOA data with PC data on every OCI. Same lab, same testing procedures that are know to me accurate. Maybe even send samples to two different labs for cross check of accuracy. And BTW, the "% Insolubles" in the UOA does not correlate in any way to PC data on the same UOA - I've shown that in the past using UOA data posted here.

Your point about ROI is salient, but also circles back on itself ...
If cost is no object, then why not get the "best"?
Well, what if the "best" truly is proven to be no different than "good enough" in actual use (not theory, not lab tests, but real world application)?
Why pay for performance you are ASSURED to NOT get a benefit from?
So you circle back to the fact that ROI actually is imporant, if one can step out from behind one's bias.

ROI might be important to some people, but not to me (for reasons already stated) when I can get a very good high efficiency filter for a small difference in price. Like said before, if someone want's both decent efficiency and good ROI then use a Fram EG or similar that's 95% @ 20 and cost $4-$5. Or if someone is doing short OCIs (like 3K-5K), they could use something like the Ultra and leave it on for 3 OCI, then the cost per OCI would only be ~$3 for the filter. Can't get much better ROI than that.

Unless I'm mistaken, it's your opinion that there's no proof of my claims, but I disagree:
- the GM filter study flat out stated that filter efficiency does not materials in wear differences in "normal" OCIs
- the bus study clearly proves that particulate loading is echoed precisely in UOA wear data, and so we can easily conclude that if wear data does not show correlation in filter selection, the filter choices for those conditions are moot
- the Normalcy article clearly shows a micro-data example of how filter selection did NOT make any difference in normal daily use
So two SAE studies allow us to conclude that my points are accurate, and the article data you can actually see for yourself. Three different, independent trials lead us to the same conclusion; filtration doesn't matter once the sump is "clean enough". Filtration has to get us to that "clean enough" state, but once there, it hands off the task to many of the other control mechanisms (aforementioned in earlier post).
* Some amount of filtration is incredibly important.
* Excess filtration is proven to not be effective.

I'm not saying your claims are false. I'm saying and going with the basic premise that cleaner oil is always better than not. And that a higher efficiency oil filter will result in cleaner oil, all other factors held constant. It's pretty basic logic. I'm just going to use a higher efficiency filter vs not because there are zero negative factors in doing so. I'm not going to spend all kinds of money on UOAs, PCs, etc to try and figure out how to save a couple of bucks on an oil filter. I'll take that money and use it to buy the higher efficiency oil filters ... that could be considered better "ROI" on my spending.

I know that we agree in principle; that for many applications, the "best" isn't warranted. I think where we disagree is when that difference of choices comes into play; when is the "best" actually beneficial in a real world sense? I believe it to be much futher out than most would want to admit because credible data shows that once a sump is clean enough, making it cleaner doesn't do anything "real" in normal daily use.

One does not have to use great products; only good ones. Doing so will get you to a point where wear rates continue to drop out to 15k miles; 25,000+ UOAs don't lie. The data is incontraverable for those who can see the forrest for the trees.

Only each person can decided what's "best" for them, since it's their vehicle and money. Until there is only one filter in the world to chose from (a white can with just the words "OIL FILTER" on it), then each person will have to decide what the "best" is - and that goes for everything that people spend money on, not just oil and filters. I know what's "best" for me, and what matters to me is to know that cleaner oil is better than not (proven in many studies), and one way to achieve that goal is to use a higher efficiency oil filter which result in cleaner oil. It really boils down to that simple logic ... I don't need any "proof" that I'm wasting $5 a year, because I don't really care about Big Macs.

 

[dnewton3]

Anyone have a link to the GM study? Or full title.

SAE 881825

Correlating Lube Oil Filtration Efficiencies with Engine Wear

The level of filtration in an engine can have a significant impact on wear rates due to abrasive particles. Tests were conducted to establish a relationship between the level of filtration and abrasive engine wear. Although the tests were run in a laboratory environment, wear was reduced by as much

www.sae.org

It did tests on both diesel and gas engines.

It is, to put it mildly, a HALT which absurdly induces wear in completley unrealistic conditions. I see little value in this study, but at least they did admit that normal engine use would never reflect these results; the implication being that no one in their right mind would ever run 570k mile (five-hundred-seventy thousand) miles without changing oil ...

I cringe when people tout this study as "proof" of finer filtration because most often, they never paid for the study and digested the entire paper; they only read the free abstract and think they understand.

 

[Linctex]

Why are you using such a super efficient filtering system if you aren't concerned about oil cleanliness or particle counts?

Because I like to learn....
and experiment....
and learn some more.

That is why.

the whole reason this forum exists in the first place is because most all of the members here like to learn
and experiment.
and learn some more.

.

 

[dnewton3]

That test should be done with a 99%+ @ 20u and 50% @ 20u filter. Plus, in that test the oil was also changed at the same time as the filter brand, which isn't a good way to control a test. How do you know that non-synthetic oil didn't have a better HTHS and/or better AF/AW additives that helped actually reduce wear?

Well, it was done by an acquaintance of mine, and those were the products he chose. I'd also have to say you and I would likely agree; nobody wants a 50%@20um filter (Wix XP?). MOST of the decent filters are going to be 85% or better in today's terms.

For me, "clean enough" means cleaner than not. Using a 99%+ @ 20u vs a 50% @ 20u filter will result in a cleaner sump. The PC of the sump will be lower with the more efficient filter - with all other facts constant of course. Cleaner oil is better than dirtier oil, and cleaner oil means less wear ... regardless of how much that difference is. The amount of difference doesn't matter to me as long as I know the sump is cleaner ... a simple bottom line to achieve with better filtration. What's always so strange in these discussions is that for some reason people that want cleaner oil by using higher efficiency filters have to somehow "justify" it, whereas people who think oil filtration doesn't matter just justify that by saying their car will rust out or be get totaled out before the engine dies.

I think what's missing here is the concept of % "clean" versus % of "damaging particles present".
After an OCI, there's not a lot of particulate matter (some, but most gets flushed out). A reasonably clean start means the oil filter has very little to catch at first. The soot is WAY too small, and will be as long as the add-pack is fortified well, and so it's not really an issue. The larger particles (5-15um) are present but not in large quantities. And as others have mentioned, though PCs will give size delineation for particles, it does not give composition. Softer, malleable oxidation byproducts and other insolubles will show up in a PC, but have no potential to actually do damage despite their size. Neither of us would really be able to know for sure how much of the particulate loading is damaging v. non-damaging. But I'm convined that not all particulate is harmful.

I would have liked to see the PC data along side every one of those UOAs, since we know that the oil cleanliness correlates to wear. You couldn't really correlate the wear data to filter efficiency without knowing the PC of the oil to tie them better together.

I would have also, but again, it wasn't my vehicle and the guy was already paying a lot of money for UOAs, and PCs just weren't in his line of sight at the time. But, we most certainly know there's correlation to PC loading in UOA wear data; the very bus study you so adamantly point towards showed this with no uncertainty whatsoever. If the wear-rate data is low, then the PC loading is low; that's undeniable. If would be inconcievable to have high PC loading across the board, and yet have low wear data; that's illogical and contradicts the bus study facts.
Your continual assertions are that finer filtration = less particle load = less wear.
But you stop short of what the study said; you left the concept incomplete ... it should read thusly:
finer filtration = less particle load = less wear AS CONFIRMED BY UOA DATA
But, when the UOA data shows no wear data differences large enough to be statistically significant between filters A and B, then the only logical conclusion is that neither filter did a "better" job than the other. This is where I've often said you cannot have your cake and eat it too. You cannot fairly claim the bus study proves finer filters are important (as confirmed by UOA data), but then ignore the fact that if no difference exists in wear data, there must be no difference in filtration effect.

Re: bold part. And to throw in another wrinkle into the discussion, how much of that wear at mileage out beyond 5K to 15K and beyond is due to the AF/AW tribofilm factor. That has been another topic of discussion in the past. The test that needs to be done is to run the same exact oil for the same mileage in the same driving conditions (on a fully broken in engine), but use the two extremes of available efficient oil filters (99%+ @ 20u vs a 50% @ 50u). UOA data with PC data on every OCI. Same lab, same testing procedures that are know to me accurate. Maybe even send samples to two different labs for cross check of accuracy. And BTW, the "% Insolubles" in the UOA does not correlate in any way to PC data on the same UOA - I've shown that in the past using UOA data posted here.

RE the TCB, I'd have to say it's a LARGE part of the equation. First of all, unless I misunderstand you, I think you're mistaking the additives for the TCB. The AW/AF additives are not what the TCB is made of. The TCB is actually a series of layers of oil oxidation, not additives in the oil. Though most would not want to believe this fact, some amount of oil oxidation is actually a very good, very desirable thing. That's what the TCB consists of. (Ford/Conoco study; SAE 2007-01-4133 )

The Effect of Oil Drain Interval on Valvetrain Friction and Wear

Engine oils are subjected to a series of industry standard engine dynamometer tests to measure their wear protection capability, sludge and varnish formation tendencies, and fuel efficiency among several other performance attributes before they are approved for use in customer engines. However, thes

www.sae.org

Ths study showed that as the TCB matures, the wear rates drop. And this is backed up by scads of thousands of UOAs in my database. The SAE study proved that the TCB gets thicker as it matures with the OCI duration. AF/AW additives don't get "better" as they age; they degrade over time. So you cannot fairly say that the AF/AW additives which degrade (decrease) over time are having a positive (increasing) effect; that's illogical. Further, they also proved there was no correlation between vis shift and valvetrain friction in that same study. Again my fav phrase comes into play; without correlation there can be no causation. So if the AF/AW and vis shift show no correlation, but the TCB does show correlation, then the causation lays in the TCB. And they then measured the actual film thicknesses at different points in the OCIs to confirm the causation relative to the wear rates.

ROI might be important to some people, but not to me (for reasons already stated) when I can get a very good high efficiency filter for a small difference in price. Like said before, if someone want's both decent efficiency and good ROI then use a Fram EG or similar that's 95% @ 20 and cost $4-$5. Or if someone is doing short OCIs (like 3K-5K), they could use something like the Ultra and leave it on for 3 OCI, then the cost per OCI would only be ~$3 for the filter. Can't get much better ROI than that.

I guess I don't understand where the logic would be in running an XG for three consequtive OCIs; why "save" money on a filter when you're dumping oil every 3k miles?????? That's kind of counter-intuitive, isn't it? Even an EG is good for 10k miles now; why not run the OCI and the EG both out to 9k miles? We know it's likely the wear rates will drop as the OCI matures, and we know that the wear rates will not correlate with a more expensive filter. That's a false sense of "savings" in using an XG for three 3k mile OCIs.

I'm not saying your claims are false. I'm saying and going with the basic premise that cleaner oil is always better than not. And that a higher efficiency oil filter will result in cleaner oil, all other factors held constant. It's pretty basic logic.

I agree with that premise. But again I think you're falling short of the entire equation.
Cleaner oil is better than dirty oil; that I agree with.
But "cleaner than clean enough oil" isn't a good logical investment; it's not proven to have any true effect in real world OCIs.
There are lots of examples where some portion of something is good, but overkill doesn't get you much at all in return.
- Washing your hands with warm water and soap is good enough to make a sandwich and hold it in your hands as you eat; you don't need to clinically scrub away the epidermal layer as if you're heading into surgery just to make lunch.
- whereas one could make the argument that a .308Win is "better" than a .30-30, they are both overkill if you're hunting squirrels; what's wrong with the .22lr?
- one does not easily justify the purcahse of a $1200 set of UHP summer only tires, just so grandma can drive her Camry to church on Sunday
There are times when spending extra money may be very comforting, but that doesn't make it logical.

I'm just going to use a higher efficiency filter vs not because there are zero negative factors in doing so. I'm not going to spend all kinds of money on UOAs, PCs, etc to try and figure out how to save a couple of bucks on an oil filter. I'll take that money and use it to buy the higher efficiency oil filters ... that could be considered better "ROI" on my spending.

In your world, there's no "negative factors", but to someone who isn't OK with wasting money, it does matter. And there's Good News! You don't have to spend any money on UOAs or PCs; all you have to do is believe the study data (all of it; not selectively pick out that parts that stop short of telling the entire story). Or not ...

Only each person can decided what's "best" for them, since it's their vehicle and money. Until there is only one filter in the world to chose from (a white can with just the words "OIL FILTER" on it), then each person will have to decide what the "best" is - and that goes for everything that people spend money on, not just oil and filters. I know what's "best" for me, and what matters to me is to know that cleaner oil is better than not (proven in many studies), and one way to achieve that goal is to use a higher efficiency oil filter which result in cleaner oil. It really boils down to that simple logic ... I don't need any "proof" that I'm wasting $5 a year, because I don't really care about Big Macs.

What you do in your garage is your business; we all agree with that.


I'm done. I am willing to bow out. I've repeatedly made my points and backed them up with the citations.

 

[OVERKILL]

Well, it was done by an acquaintance of mine, and those were the products he chose. I'd also have to say you and I would likely agree; nobody wants a 50%@20um filter (Wix XP?). MOST of the decent filters are going to be 85% or better in today's terms.


I think what's missing here is the concept of % "clean" versus % of "damaging particles present".
After an OCI, there's not a lot of particulate matter (some, but most gets flushed out). A reasonably clean start means the oil filter has very little to catch at first. The soot is WAY too small, and will be as long as the add-pack is fortified well, and so it's not really an issue. The larger particles (5-15um) are present but not in large quantities. And as others have mentioned, though PCs will give size delineation for particles, it does not give composition. Softer, malleable oxidation byproducts and other insolubles will show up in a PC, but have no potential to actually do damage despite their size. Neither of us would really be able to know for sure how much of the particulate loading is damaging v. non-damaging. But I'm convined that not all particulate is harmful.



I would have also, but again, it wasn't my vehicle and the guy was already paying a lot of money for UOAs, and PCs just weren't in his line of sight at the time. But, we most certainly know there's correlation to PC loading in UOA wear data; the very bus study you so adamantly point towards showed this with no uncertainty whatsoever. If the wear-rate data is low, then the PC loading is low; that's undeniable. If would be inconcievable to have high PC loading across the board, and yet have low wear data; that's illogical and contradicts the bus study facts.
Your continual assertions are that finer filtration = less particle load = less wear.
But you stop short of what the study said; you left the concept incomplete ... it should read thusly:
finer filtration = less particle load = less wear AS CONFIRMED BY UOA DATA
But, when the UOA data shows no wear data differences large enough to be statistically significant between filters A and B, then the only logical conclusion is that neither filter did a "better" job than the other. This is where I've often said you cannot have your cake and eat it too. You cannot fairly claim the bus study proves finer filters are important (as confirmed by UOA data), but then ignore the fact that if no difference exists in wear data, there must be no difference in filtration effect.



RE the TCB, I'd have to say it's a LARGE part of the equation. First of all, unless I misunderstand you, I think you're mistaking the additives for the TCB. The AW/AF additives are not what the TCB is made of. The TCB is actually a series of layers of oil oxidation, not additives in the oil. Though most would not want to believe this fact, some amount of oil oxidation is actually a very good, very desirable thing. That's what the TCB consists of. (Ford/Conoco study; SAE 2007-01-4133 )

The Effect of Oil Drain Interval on Valvetrain Friction and Wear

Engine oils are subjected to a series of industry standard engine dynamometer tests to measure their wear protection capability, sludge and varnish formation tendencies, and fuel efficiency among several other performance attributes before they are approved for use in customer engines. However, thes

www.sae.org

Ths study showed that as the TCB matures, the wear rates drop. And this is backed up by scads of thousands of UOAs in my database. The SAE study proved that the TCB gets thicker as it matures with the OCI duration. AF/AW additives don't get "better" as they age; they degrade over time. So you cannot fairly say that the AF/AW additives which degrade (decrease) over time are having a positive (increasing) effect; that's illogical. Further, they also proved there was no correlation between vis shift and valvetrain friction in that same study. Again my fav phrase comes into play; without correlation there can be no causation. So if the AF/AW and vis shift show no correlation, but the TCB does show correlation, then the causation lays in the TCB. And they then measured the actual film thicknesses at different points in the OCIs to confirm the causation relative to the wear rates.


I guess I don't understand where the logic would be in running an XG for three consequtive OCIs; why "save" money on a filter when you're dumping oil every 3k miles?????? That's kind of counter-intuitive, isn't it? Even an EG is good for 10k miles now; why not run the OCI and the EG both out to 9k miles? We know it's likely the wear rates will drop as the OCI matures, and we know that the wear rates will not correlate with a more expensive filter. That's a false sense of "savings" in using an XG for three 3k mile OCIs.


I agree with that premise. But again I think you're falling short of the entire equation.
Cleaner oil is better than dirty oil; that I agree with.
But "cleaner than clean enough oil" isn't a good logical investment; it's not proven to have any true effect in real world OCIs.
There are lots of examples where some portion of something is good, but overkill doesn't get you much at all in return.
- Washing your hands with warm water and soap is good enough to make a sandwich and hold it in your hands as you eat; you don't need to clinically scrub away the epidermal layer as if you're heading into surgery just to make lunch.
- whereas one could make the argument that a .308Win is "better" than a .30-30, they are both overkill if you're hunting squirrels; what's wrong with the .22lr?
- one does not easily justify the purcahse of a $1200 set of UHP summer only tires, just so grandma can drive her Camry to church on Sunday
There are times when spending extra money may be very comforting, but that doesn't make it logical.


In your world, there's no "negative factors", but to someone who isn't OK with wasting money, it does matter. And there's Good News! You don't have to spend any money on UOAs or PCs; all you have to do is believe the study data (all of it; not selectively pick out that parts that stop short of telling the entire story). Or not ...



What you do in your garage is your business; we all agree with that.


I'm done. I am willing to bow out. I've repeatedly made my points and backed them up with the citations.

I think there's a thread in the European oil section that needs your attention

 

[ZeeOSix]

Because I like to learn....
and experiment....
and learn some more.

That is why.

the whole reason this forum exists in the first place is because most all of the members here like to learn
and experiment.
and learn some more.

.

Maybe start running your truck with much less efficient spin-on oil filters and no bypass filters and see it you find anything new.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Well, it was done by an acquaintance of mine, and those were the products he chose. I'd also have to say you and I would likely agree; nobody wants a 50%@20um filter (Wix XP?). MOST of the decent filters are going to be 85% or better in today's terms.

I've set the low limit at 95% @ 20u for me ... so we're close on what we consider an "efficient" oil filter is.

I think what's missing here is the concept of % "clean" versus % of "damaging particles present".
After an OCI, there's not a lot of particulate matter (some, but most gets flushed out). A reasonably clean start means the oil filter has very little to catch at first. The soot is WAY too small, and will be as long as the add-pack is fortified well, and so it's not really an issue. The larger particles (5-15um) are present but not in large quantities. And as others have mentioned, though PCs will give size delineation for particles, it does not give composition. Softer, malleable oxidation byproducts and other insolubles will show up in a PC, but have no potential to actually do damage despite their size. Neither of us would really be able to know for sure how much of the particulate loading is damaging v. non-damaging. But I'm convined that not all particulate is harmful.

I don't have a sensor in my oil (or a super UOA showing the % of "good" vs "bad" particles if that's even possible) to tell me what particles are damaging and which ones are not. The easiest way to mitigate them is to filter them out better with a more efficient oil filter. Basic logic.

I would have also, but again, it wasn't my vehicle and the guy was already paying a lot of money for UOAs, and PCs just weren't in his line of sight at the time. But, we most certainly know there's correlation to PC loading in UOA wear data; the very bus study you so adamantly point towards showed this with no uncertainty whatsoever. If the wear-rate data is low, then the PC loading is low; that's undeniable. If would be inconcievable to have high PC loading across the board, and yet have low wear data; that's illogical and contradicts the bus study facts.
Your continual assertions are that finer filtration = less particle load = less wear.
But you stop short of what the study said; you left the concept incomplete ... it should read thusly:
finer filtration = less particle load = less wear AS CONFIRMED BY UOA DATA
But, when the UOA data shows no wear data differences large enough to be statistically significant between filters A and B, then the only logical conclusion is that neither filter did a "better" job than the other. This is where I've often said you cannot have your cake and eat it too. You cannot fairly claim the bus study proves finer filters are important (as confirmed by UOA data), but then ignore the fact that if no difference exists in wear data, there must be no difference in filtration effect.

I don't think anyone has actually done a controlled enough test on an everyday passenger car to see if there is a real difference or not. Until then, I'll continue to use high efficiency oil filters just because that covers all bases in terms of keeping the oil cleaner and the wear down without trying to guess how dirty I can let the oil run without causing undue wear. I don't care if the wear is so small that I could never tell the difference without doing a $1M controlled study. Basic fact remains that cleaner oil is better than not. Guess that's what those guys at Pure-Oil-Later (Purolator) thought way back too.

RE the TCB, I'd have to say it's a LARGE part of the equation. First of all, unless I misunderstand you, I think you're mistaking the additives for the TCB. The AW/AF additives are not what the TCB is made of. The TCB is actually a series of layers of oil oxidation, not additives in the oil. Though most would not want to believe this fact, some amount of oil oxidation is actually a very good, very desirable thing. That's what the TCB consists of. (Ford/Conoco study; SAE 2007-01-4133 )

The Effect of Oil Drain Interval on Valvetrain Friction and Wear

Engine oils are subjected to a series of industry standard engine dynamometer tests to measure their wear protection capability, sludge and varnish formation tendencies, and fuel efficiency among several other performance attributes before they are approved for use in customer engines. However, thes

www.sae.org

Ths study showed that as the TCB matures, the wear rates drop. And this is backed up by scads of thousands of UOAs in my database. The SAE study proved that the TCB gets thicker as it matures with the OCI duration. AF/AW additives don't get "better" as they age; they degrade over time. So you cannot fairly say that the AF/AW additives which degrade (decrease) over time are having a positive (increasing) effect; that's illogical. Further, they also proved there was no correlation between vis shift and valvetrain friction in that same study. Again my fav phrase comes into play; without correlation there can be no causation. So if the AF/AW and vis shift show no correlation, but the TCB does show correlation, then the causation lays in the TCB. And they then measured the actual film thicknesses at different points in the OCIs to confirm the causation relative to the wear rates.

I was saying the AF/AW formulation could have had an effect on the tribofilm that forms on the parts as the OCI extends out. I didn't mean that the AF/AW additives "get better", but rather the tribofilm built-up on the parts gets better. So if Oil A and Oil B were both ran for say 15K miles in the same engine under the same conditions, one of them may build up a better tribofilm and therefore show less wear over the OCI.

I guess I don't understand where the logic would be in running an XG for three consequtive OCIs; why "save" money on a filter when you're dumping oil every 3k miles?????? That's kind of counter-intuitive, isn't it? Even an EG is good for 10k miles now; why not run the OCI and the EG both out to 9k miles? We know it's likely the wear rates will drop as the OCI matures, and we know that the wear rates will not correlate with a more expensive filter. That's a false sense of "savings" in using an XG for three 3k mile OCIs.

Yes, it's counter intuitive wrt to "ROI" ... but some people may dump oil every 3-5K miles "just because it's their vehicle" and that's what they want to do. So I was just saying if you want to try and strive for some filter specific ROI, then someone might consider running something like an Ultra or three 3-5K OCIs. That would still be less than it's up to rating of 20K miles. With all factors held constant except the oil filter cost, using an Ultra for 3 OCIs would save some money on the oil filter. One EG costs more than 1/3 an Ultra. I someone was hell bent at changing oil every 3-5K, then that would be a way to save a little cash on the filter. Still better ROI, and slightly better oil filtration at the same time. And less mess and hassle, and less old oil filters in the land fill.

But I agree that using a good full synthetic and a good high efficiency oil filter for say 10K OCIs would be a better ROI, and even better if they used the 20K rated oil filter for two 10K OCIs. Many ways to skin the ROI cat ... but only one way to have better filtration, and that's to use a higher efficiency oil filter.

I agree with that premise. But again I think you're falling short of the entire equation.
Cleaner oil is better than dirty oil; that I agree with.
But "cleaner than clean enough oil" isn't a good logical investment; it's not proven to have any true effect in real world OCIs.
There are lots of examples where some portion of something is good, but overkill doesn't get you much at all in return.
- Washing your hands with warm water and soap is good enough to make a sandwich and hold it in your hands as you eat; you don't need to clinically scrub away the epidermal layer as if you're heading into surgery just to make lunch.
- whereas one could make the argument that a .308Win is "better" than a .30-30, they are both overkill if you're hunting squirrels; what's wrong with the .22lr?
- one does not easily justify the purcahse of a $1200 set of UHP summer only tires, just so grandma can drive her Camry to church on Sunday
There are times when spending extra money may be very comforting, but that doesn't make it logical.

Exactly how "cleaner than clean enough" could be defined by whoever is making the decision to use the filter they do. One way to take any guess work out is to just use a filter on the high end of the efficiency spectrum. No brainer ... cover all the unknowns with the decision to go higher efficiency.

In your world, there's no "negative factors", but to someone who isn't OK with wasting money, it does matter. And there's Good News! You don't have to spend any money on UOAs or PCs; all you have to do is believe the study data (all of it; not selectively pick out that parts that stop short of telling the entire story). Or not ...

Well, after looking at all the study data, I've concluded to just use high efficiency oil filters. There's probably really no way to absolutely determine where the filter efficiency cut-off exists (too many factors), but there's plenty of studies that show the basic premise that cleaner oil results in less wear. - that's good enough for me to give up a Big Mac once a year. I've decided 95% @ 20u is the lower limit for me, but someone might think 50% @ 20u or 99% @ 40u is "good enough", which is all good since it's their vehicle, and it might be half rusted out only 5 years into it's life due to where they live, or they don't really care about the vehicle much and just want to get from point A to point B for the least cost possible. Lots of factors, and that's why these discussions go in circles most of the time, lol. But the fact that cleaner oil is better than dirtier oil will never change, regardless of how that's achieved.

What you do in your garage is your business; we all agree with that.

I'm done. I am willing to bow out. I've repeatedly made my points and backed them up with the citations.

I think we basically agree on most points, but it does go in circles at times, which is fine ... always good discussions. People can make up their own minds looking at the data and reading all the inputs. For me, I just spend the extra $5 a year and take out all the filtration unknowns ... can't get any more simple than that IMO. It does get old trying to "justify" having cleaner oil in the sump, which is kind of a strange thing on a chat board like BITOG. What's even more puzzling is someone claiming oil filtration doesn't really matter when they have some super crazy oil filtration system on their vehicle.

 

[BlueOvalFitter]

Wait ... Be more specific; are we talking run-of-the-mill McDs, or a gourmet 1/2 lb of black angus infused with blue-cheese and roasted onions?
Maybe if I strech the FCI to 3x and use a jobber filter ... Hmmmm ... Mmmmm!

3 times? I feel faint when I hear/read people using an oil filter more than once for an OCI!

 

[Dave Hess]

I’m doing 30K on a Fram Ultra on a Honda Accord.

Drain & refill every 6K miles, probably 90% highway miles.

Will cut open and post in about 5 months.

 

[Krieg]

I’m doing 30K on a Fram Ultra on a Honda Accord.

Drain & refill every 6K miles, probably 90% highway miles.

Will cut open and post in about 5 months.

The new or old style Fram Ultra? I look forward to those pics...