Cheap filters Good UOAs???

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Yary
I've been doing a lot reading on BITOG on oil filters and all the discussions regarding flow and filteration and media materials and.....
So I decided to to some search in the used oil analysis section on filters. To my surprise the cheap filters showed the best used oil analysis.


Can we see the data? Can we see how you reached this conclusion?

What was the mean & std deviation of a "cheap" filter?
What was the mean & std deviation of an "expensive" filter?

Frankly if you tell me to just go look at used oil analysis I will say:

a) I'm not the one making the claim.
b) I've been looking at used oil analysis for 8+ years and honestly there is no discernible correlation or causal relationship with the OTC filters.
 
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: Yary
I've been doing a lot reading on BITOG on oil filters and all the discussions regarding flow and filteration and media materials and.....
So I decided to to some search in the used oil analysis section on filters. To my surprise the cheap filters showed the best used oil analysis.


Can we see the data? Can we see how you reached this conclusion?

What was the mean & std deviation of a "cheap" filter?
What was the mean & std deviation of an "expensive" filter?

Frankly if you tell me to just go look at used oil analysis I will say:

a) I'm not the one making the claim.
b) I've been looking at used oil analysis for 8+ years and honestly there is no discernible correlation or causal relationship with the OTC filters.

I am not here to claim anything. I'm just here trying to learn something from this school.
I did a search under Fram in the used oil analysis section and all used oil analysis (that I could find) had low counts on wear. Same with SuperTech.
May be the cheap filters are less restrictive? therefore less in the bypass? therefore less dirty oil in the engine?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Yary
I am not here to claim anything.


I'm sorry but this is what I read:
Originally Posted By: Yary
To my surprise the cheap filters showed the best used oil analysis.


In the world of lubricants and filtering, this is a HUGE claim. At best it need some supporting evidence. I'm not trying to be an arshole - a little critical thinking helps a lot. Is there any evidence that the price paid for a filter is related in ANY way to the total wear metals in a used oil analysis?

Originally Posted By: Yary
I'm just here trying to learn something from this school.
I did a search under Fram in the used oil analysis section and all used oil analysis (that I could find) had low counts on wear. Same with SuperTech.


Claiming to have searched and read, is not enough to make quite that bold of a claim. To say "showed the best used oil analysis" maybe you could put some qualifiers...."it's looks like maybe a trend" is even a claim that needs more evidence.

Originally Posted By: Yary
May be the cheap filters are less restrictive? therefore less in the bypass? therefore less dirty oil in the engine?
See - even you are using false thinking to throw questions out and draw worse conclusions. How about cause and effect with rational data backed decisions?
 
Ok, if I'm doing some false thinking, would you please correct the parts that you think are false?
Did you do a search in the used oil analysis section under Fram or SuperTech?

Have you opened a Honda oem filter lately? That is as cheap as a filter could be built these days. But yet the Hondas (with oem filters) show very good wears on the used oil analysis.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Yary
Ok, if I'm doing some false thinking, would you please correct the parts that you think are false?
Did you do a search in the used oil analysis section under Fram or SuperTech?

Have you opened a Honda oem filter lately? That is as cheap as a filter could be built these days. But yet the Hondas (with oem filters) show very good wears on the used oil analysis.


I thought I did - I'm telling you that you simply cannot come to any conclusion just by searching the used oil analysis section, without further analysis.

As a matter of fact I have opened Honda OEM filters - both the Filtech and the Allied Fram. Actually there are "cheaper" filters, but that's neither here nor there. Hondas show very good wear with ANY brand oil filter. If you think you are on to something, please simply tabulate the data. A sample of 20 of each filter category in the same engine in the same conditions, with similar oil would be a start - at least it would tell us if it's worth further study.

Again - people pop in here from time to time and make these kind of statements. They can't be allowed to stand unless they have statistical merit. Mind you - I'm not saying your hypothesis is wrong or right, it just needs to be proven and then some conclusions may be drawn.
 
I am not talking about the Honda oem filters made by Filtech (those were good filters and no longer available)or fram. The new oems are made by Honeywell. Open one of those and you'll see what I mean by cheap.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Yary
The new oems are made by Honeywell. Open one of those and you'll see what I mean by cheap.


Honeywell = Fram
 
Originally Posted By: Dyoel182
Originally Posted By: Yary
The new oems are made by Honeywell. Open one of those and you'll see what I mean by cheap.


Honeywell = Fram


You beat me to it

Quote:
FRAM has been the symbol of quality in filters since 1934. Honeywell today markets a variety of quality automotive products under the FRAM brand name, including Extra Guard® oil filters, Extra Life III Air Filters and the new FRAM® X2™ Extended Guard oil filter.


http://www.honeywell.com/en/carcare/index.jsp
 
Quote:
But yet the Hondas (with oem filters) show very good wears on the used oil analysis.


Hondas get good wear numbers anyway. For filtration to effect wear markers, it has got to be very fine and may not be indicated in used oil analysis ..it may or may not.

If you did PC with various filters you would see the difference in unfiltered mass. If you used ferrography, in conjunction with some other testing methods, you could determine mass loses without tear downs and THEN compare filtration benefits.

If you want to add a new dimension to a used oil analysis, contact Terry Dyson about having an oil sample "digested". I'm unsure of the cost (it probably doubles the normal Dyson used oil analysis), but it will show you how TOTAL metals compare to readable metals in most used oil analysis. There you will still be left with speculation. You'll readily be able to see the reduction in mass of suspended metals, but may not be able to determine if any wear reduction has taken place since you still won't know if indicators are primary or secondary (caused by other particles either in disintegration or collision with surfaces).

It will give you a better view on filtration
21.gif
 
Thanks Gary,
What are the factors that would put the filter in a bypass mode?
Which one of the following filters would you rather use?
a filter with less filtering ability that is less in a bypass mode?
or a filter with good filtering ability but more in the bypass mode?
 
Guess that depends on your definition of premature. Is it failure before 200,000 miles, 300,000 miles or 50,000 miles.

never been a study to prove how much longer an engine will survive ( and define survival, dies, minimal oil consumption, 1 quart per 500 miles etc) and at what micron filtration level that must occur to extend engine life (define engine life) beyond some point. In theory I agree, in everyday use the theory is pretty much useless and has never been shown to be practical over the average useful life of an auto engine in use by 99% of the population base whether they use no filter or an Amosil EaO.
 
Originally Posted By: Yary
Thanks Gary,
What are the factors that would put the filter in a bypass mode?
Which one of the following filters would you rather use?
a filter with less filtering ability that is less in a bypass mode?
or a filter with good filtering ability but more in the bypass mode?


Read my post in this thread: #1061871 - 01/10/08 05:35 PM
 
All I know is this. On my truck I have used Fram, Supetech, STP, Bosch, and Wix filters. As far as design I like to Wix the most. The Supertech, STP, and Bosch which is what I have on currently are pretty much the same filter. The fram which I liked the least but it was only a buck. The Champion and Fram filters seemed the least restrictive. But if the Wix was the same price not 7 bucks I would use it.
 
I'm an engineer, and everything I've learned says that good filtration should be a huge contributor to engine life . . . but . . .

From new, I used mostly Castrol synthetic oil and expensive AC Ultragard Gold filters on my '99 Chevy Malibu. It didn't burn oil when it was new. At 70k it burns a quart of oil every 500 miles. I can't find any mechanical issues that would contribute to this, so it must just be wear or a bad engine design.

My Nissan got the Speedy-Lube type oil change treatment with bulk oil and cheap installer grade filters until I bought it at 90k, and Supertech filters and whatever-is-on-sale conventional oil after that . . . even a few changes with mixtures of odd leftover quarts of different brands and viscosities. It was a beater so I didn't care. At 150k it runs as quietly as new and doesn't burn a drop.

No explanation, just observation of a small sample of vehicles. Nothing is guaranteed.
 
It's the 4 cylinder "Twin-Cam" derived from the old Quad4 . . . not a stellar engine and it has a really odd crankcase venting system. My daughter has the car now, and I always know what to get her for special occasions . . . motor oil.
 
Sounds like your talking about the 2.2 Ecotec engine.
You don't state what year it is but there is a service bulletin regarding this engine and oil consumption. It deals with inspecting the PCV orifice in the intake manifold and the valve cover internal baffle which can shift and block PCV operation.
 
Nope, it's the 2.4 Twin-Cam . . . a de-tuned Quad4. It doesn't really have a valve cover. It has two separate camshaft housings on the head. What looks like a valve cover is a plate that holds four separate ignition coils on the spark plugs. It doesn't have a PCV valve either. It has some sort of engine-mounted oil separation box that has a fairly big hose connected to the the air intake housing. It doesn't really pull a vacuum to vent the crankcase at all . . . the blowby just kind of wafts through the separator and into the intake, and hopefully the oil mist gets separated out somehow.

It's a wierd design in general. For example, you have to pull the exhaust manifold to change the thermostat, and the water pump shaft actually sticks into the engine and is driven by the timing chain. It puts out a decent amount of horsepower and good fuel economy though.

I do have a 2.2 ecotec in a 2007 Malibu. I like it!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

I
Toyota/Lexus OE Oil Filters
2 3
Replies
40
Views
2K
User_19876
D
Valvoline VO-106 C&P
Replies
13
Views
673
sw99
garageman402
  • Locked
LSJr Take on Oil Filter Efficiency Improving with Loading
5 6 7
Replies
134
Views
5K
Astro14
G
No love for Baldwin filters? Should I be looking for an alternative?
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
6K
macarose
69GTX
Would you change Fram Ultra filter after 18 months and 3500 miles?
Replies
18
Views
1K
ziggy
Back
Top Bottom