dnewton3
Staff member
I have said this for years ...
Filtering is very important, until it's not. Meaning once it's good enough, being better doesn't really matter nearly as much.
The goal should be to have a reasonably clean sump. However, the oil does not need to be clinically clean. If you have a filter which is 95% or better at 20um, that's more than good enough to make any improvements intangible. You can use a 99% filter, but there's no conclusive data from real world testing that indicates the gain in filter efficiency makes a real difference in wear control in one's garage.
Sure; I understand that lab studies have shown cleaner oil is better for the engine. I doubt anyone here has any disagreement with that. But what studies exist to determine a breakpoint for the ROI? Someone please point to a study which indicates, with conclusive statistically viable data, that filtration efficiency has a breakpoint for equipment lifecycle.
The daily variation of life, resulting in expected variation in"normal" wear, far exceeds the control a 99% filter can inflect into the equipment lifecycle. Do not forget that the lube filter is only one parameter of equipment lubrication wear control. Also consider these:
- OCI duration
- lubricant selection
- environment
- operational conditions
- air filtration (in the case of ICE applications)
We've seen countless examples of Honda and Toyota engines running 200k, 300k and more, all using OE fluids and filters. And let's be honest, those brands don't exactly set the highest bar when it comes to oils and filter efficiency.
Does filtration matter? Absolutely yes.
Does having the "best" filtration matter? Absolutely not.
In today's filter market, I actually would place a premium on construction and build quality over efficiency. The examples of poor quality have been astonishingly horrible from many brands of late. I'd take a well made 90% filter over a poorly made 99% filter every day of the week.
Filtering is very important, until it's not. Meaning once it's good enough, being better doesn't really matter nearly as much.
The goal should be to have a reasonably clean sump. However, the oil does not need to be clinically clean. If you have a filter which is 95% or better at 20um, that's more than good enough to make any improvements intangible. You can use a 99% filter, but there's no conclusive data from real world testing that indicates the gain in filter efficiency makes a real difference in wear control in one's garage.
Sure; I understand that lab studies have shown cleaner oil is better for the engine. I doubt anyone here has any disagreement with that. But what studies exist to determine a breakpoint for the ROI? Someone please point to a study which indicates, with conclusive statistically viable data, that filtration efficiency has a breakpoint for equipment lifecycle.
The daily variation of life, resulting in expected variation in"normal" wear, far exceeds the control a 99% filter can inflect into the equipment lifecycle. Do not forget that the lube filter is only one parameter of equipment lubrication wear control. Also consider these:
- OCI duration
- lubricant selection
- environment
- operational conditions
- air filtration (in the case of ICE applications)
We've seen countless examples of Honda and Toyota engines running 200k, 300k and more, all using OE fluids and filters. And let's be honest, those brands don't exactly set the highest bar when it comes to oils and filter efficiency.
Does filtration matter? Absolutely yes.
Does having the "best" filtration matter? Absolutely not.
In today's filter market, I actually would place a premium on construction and build quality over efficiency. The examples of poor quality have been astonishingly horrible from many brands of late. I'd take a well made 90% filter over a poorly made 99% filter every day of the week.
Last edited:
