Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: RF Overlord
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
That make sense?
100%.
Let me try another approach for those who still don't "believe": If you have a fixed number of bugs flying around outside your house, and the 10 sq ft screen in your only window catches them all, then installing a 50 sq ft screen isn't going to catch any MORE bugs.
OK, that's a crude analogy, but DN3 is correct in his assessment. Bigger is only better if the original filter was incorrectly spec'd in the first place, or if you change the operational parameters.
If you want to use a bigger filter because it makes you feel warm and fuzzy, there's nothing wrong with that; just don't think you are
improving anything.
You are slightly improving a couple of things by using a larger oil filter due to the larger flow area.
1) Increases the holding capacity (holds more "bugs"). Helps insure the filter doesn't load up and cause undue restriction over a long OCI.
2) Lowers the delta-P across the media (as flow area increases, PSID goes down). Helps to keep the filter from going in to bypass as easily.
3) Adds a little more oil capacity to the engine's oiling system.
Do any of these "make or break" the longevity of the engine? Who knows, but it could if for instance it keeps the filter from bypassing as much and helps keep unfiltered oil out of the system.
Bigger doesn't hurt. Bigger is added headroom. Bigger is feel good.
I think generally we're all in agreement.
I will pound out this one point one more time, though. There is a difference between POTENTIAL performance opportunities and the reality of operational conditions being fully pushed to the point of ROI.
Increasing filter contaminant holding capacity isn't a bad thing, but it is not going to manifest into "better" wear protection by any means. It can help lengthen the OCI, but that is ONLY applicable if one actually intend to do so. Most "normal" filters can go 2x the typical OCI; a super-duper high capacity syn media filter could go WAY further than that. But the ability to "hold" more contaminants does not means it will do so automatically. It can only eat up what you feed it; shorter O/FCIs simply don't load a filter to anywhere near the capacity, so adding "more" capacity does not glean an advantage. The ONLY time an advantage can exist, is when some alternative has been usurped. This is a topic of what the term "better" means ... increasing filter holding capacity does not mean the filter is any more efficient, but it does mean it will be efficient for a longer period of time, but ONLY if one uses long enough. "Better" here does not infer increased performance; it indicates longer performance. That is only a benefit if you operate past the former filters loaded life-cycle.
Delta P across the media is never an issue unless you regularly find your filter being blinded off. Jim's testing shows filters rarely ever go into bypass, and when they seldom do, it's only under extreme circumstances (cold sump, very high revs). If the dP across your "normal" filter is 4 psi, (with a bypass setting of 8 psi), then dropping even 50% resistance using a "better" filter really does not mean anything. It might result in a tiny, micro-fractional increase in fuel economy with less pumping loss, but contrasted to the engine lube circuit resistance, it's a fool's errand to claim this as a "benefit".
Adding oil capacity could be a benefit, or a detriment. If one greatly extends the OCI, where the added capacity means some portion of longer OCI gain, then I'd agree. However, if one sticks to a conservative OCI, then adding more oil in the filter simply means more oil is dumped before it's fully utilized; hence - it would serve to increase waste.
Any product under the burning orb in the sky can be either over or under utilized. Calling something "cheap insurance" does not make it any less of a waste. Up-sizing has no realized benefit unless you push that particular circumstance beyond some threshold where a lesser alternative would be compromised.
This is a nit-picking difference between what is possible, versus what is realized.