CleanSump
Site Donor 2026
Like OG Coke and the Colonel's 11 secret herbs and spices.If someone had a chili recipe that won every contest in the land, they wouldn't be giving it up to anyone either.
Data Deep Dive - Valvoline Restore and Protect + Motor Oil Additives
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
Efficiency is the gold standard however the oil filter companies don't share that data so the customer is left with marketing confusion instead. Show us the actual ISO tests for each model so we can make an informed decision on which filters to use.
Good vid. Thanks
But here is the irony. In the US, oil filter manufacturers have long competed through their marketing claims about efficiency. The two companies that made filters that were the most consistent in actually meeting marketing claims without sleight of words (ie they did not claim 99.x% without a micron rating), ended up being the poorest quality ie Purolator and then Fram. All the good years of having filters that worked as designed more than offset by those same filters bypassing for years.
Meanwhile, the manufacturers with arguably the highest engineering standards ie Japanese and German, focused on making quality filters with 99% efficiency at lower micron ratings. Interestingly, I seem to recall 99% at 38 microns in some German filter specs so it is interesting that Chip himself focused on particles greater than 38 microns. It's as if he knows something from being in the industry?
Maybe quality and not efficiency is the gold standard. Multiple 99.x% at 20 micron filters turned out to be bypassing and therefore worse than a 99% at 38 micron filter that did not bypass.
But perhaps more importantly, the wear ppm per 1K for the PC4 buckets is different but not radically different given the leap in particles per ml counted. Somewhere between 2.3 & 2.4 ppm per 1k for particle count of <20 per ml vs between 2.6 & 2.75 ppm per 1k for particle count between 20 and 700 per ml.
Over a 10k mile oil change, that would be, best case 23ppm wear metals vs worst case 27.5ppm wear metals. Insignificant (if we can actually rely on used oil analysis to tell us the full story about wear anyway which I understand is the more recent viewpoint here)
When they looked at fuel and oil additives as a wear factor, they said that the difference between 24ppm and 26ppm per 10k was statistically the same.
Lastly, the German & Japanese are very particular about their air filter material both in integrity, life and initial efficiency. Out of all the input factor vs wear metals rate they looked at, it was the external silicon contamination that showed the biggest impact on wear metals with the ability to go from 1.6ppm per 1k to ~3.5ppm. No other factor caused a doubling of wear. Lake is saying clearly in the video that it is the most important thing.
Last edited:
Obviously the air filter is the most important filter, and a good air filter will also help keep the oil cleaner too, due to less debris in the ring blow-by. But the oil filter is the only filter left in the system to keep the oil cleaner over the OCI from debris from all sources. Chip's data showed about a 15% reduction in wear due to better oil filtration.
I have to question how he's coming up with some of this data since there could be many other wear factors involved. Only way to get an accurate impact of oil filtration would be to keep all variables that cause wear constant except the level of oil filtration, and I doubt a bunch of customer used oil analysis is giving that kind of factor separation unless he tried to match up used oil analysis on the same engines with similar mileage running the same oil viscosity and OCI length. It would to have to be at least at that level of comparison to see the impact of oil cleanliness on wear.
I have to question how he's coming up with some of this data since there could be many other wear factors involved. Only way to get an accurate impact of oil filtration would be to keep all variables that cause wear constant except the level of oil filtration, and I doubt a bunch of customer used oil analysis is giving that kind of factor separation unless he tried to match up used oil analysis on the same engines with similar mileage running the same oil viscosity and OCI length. It would to have to be at least at that level of comparison to see the impact of oil cleanliness on wear.
Last edited:
I would like to see it too but I would guess the reason Chip is not showing it is because he didn't find a correlation between particles below 38 microns and the wear metal ppm per 1k, so there was nothing to show.
The guy obviously knows statistical techniques, has all UOA data including the particle count data, and has done extensive analysis on it. His video stream was to show us his findings after doing the analysis on what affects wear rates. Total car mileage, check. Fuel dilution, check. Viscosity, check. Oil Additive vs Fuel Additive vs No Additive, check. External contamination, check.
Particle count check >38 microns shows some correlation so that's what he shows. <38 microns, shows no correlation therefore nothing to show, and no chart. That's the most likely explanation given how thorough and knowledgeable Chip is. I am somewhere between a 90% to 95% confidence level with that explanation and am now going to check my air filters.
The guy obviously knows statistical techniques, has all UOA data including the particle count data, and has done extensive analysis on it. His video stream was to show us his findings after doing the analysis on what affects wear rates. Total car mileage, check. Fuel dilution, check. Viscosity, check. Oil Additive vs Fuel Additive vs No Additive, check. External contamination, check.
Particle count check >38 microns shows some correlation so that's what he shows. <38 microns, shows no correlation therefore nothing to show, and no chart. That's the most likely explanation given how thorough and knowledgeable Chip is. I am somewhere between a 90% to 95% confidence level with that explanation and am now going to check my air filters.
CleanSump
Site Donor 2026
Might be an interesting project with AI. But to get meaningful data, you can only change one thing at a time. How is wear going to be measured? Can't do that without before and after measurement of parts.
For particle counts to have any meaning there are too many variables in used oil analysis from many different vehicles driven different ways under different conditions with different oils. I won't even get into differences in engine materials, design, etc etc etc. PF does a better job of controlling tests.
Does whole milk lubricate better than soda pop in our Briggs lawnmower engine? Let's find out!
I used Bosch oil and carquest air filters which were changed annually on my oldest car which now sets @121k and mainly used maxlife 0-20 synthetic. All of this was bought on clearance so it’s not as if I was a loyalist by any means. This car still doesn’t use a drop of oil, regardless of hammering down through the Appalachians or a 13 hr drive to the east coast. I can’t argue with the end result but have also never did a used oil analysis. Of course, religious 5k oil changes probably did more than the oil itself.
Then Mobil 1 needs to step up their game to either develop oils that match Valvoline Restore and Protect right down to hard carbon and varnish removal or develop an oil that prevents varnish and hard carbon deposits from ever forming in the first place.
Mobil 1 has always been among the best OTC oils on the market that resist deposit formation and varnish from forming.
Great news to have a 5W40 version.
As Valvoline refuses to release an ACEA version of RP.
I don't think one gets a pass over the other. Purolator had very high efficiency filters that were shown on their Specification sheets (actual ISO tested data for each filter the others didn't give out). There was a Purolator One 99%@17 microns as an example. Most of the Boss line were not high efficiency filters. How do we know that? We got to see the data for each filter.
You're talking about the marketing which is lacking from both of those companies. Sleight of marketing with their avg of three particular model numbers to get their claim. Unknown what any other filters were that weren't the three models listed in the asterisk. You got a model number not in the asterisk? Who knows what efficiency it is as we didn't get to see specification sheets for any. Purolator was terrible in their 99% claim, but wasn't wrong, that left out the micron size. Purposeful lack of information from both gives no excuse to one or the other. We need more transparency from all big brands of oil filters as I'm sure you'll agree.
Agreed, Consistent QC should be the gold standard, as a given, for most filters but we see that isn't always the case even from the big players that did excellent for years. Apparently all that takes is switching of hands & money woes. Lucky for us most of the parts chains have seen they can get quality oil filters for less than the previous sources (Vietnam vs North Carolina).
Thanks for those comments. Everything you've said comes back to the importance of making a filter last many miles before bypassing due to a loaded filter. Lower efficiency filters, with high mileage claims, can be more affordable so this is an advantage for most of us to obtain. 10k mile oil filter isn't hard to come by these days & is expected with longer OEM intervals. That way most cars are at least getting a longer intervals with affordability.
However, we know that premium filters can be made with depth media that can hold a lot of carbonaceous material & be efficient but then the cost rises. There are trade offs to some extent. I think these new Asian filters are going to be a solid choice for the foreseeable future. Like I mentioned in the other thread, SuperTech will need to seek a rebrand partner & we can only hope it's high QC Asian filters like the others have started rebranding. Strikes a good balance between cost & efficiency. I do want to root for some channels like brandranks to improve their testing as they might reach the scale of proper ISO filter testing to give us keyboard experts some insight when the filter companies are not. Obviously, we can't measure the ISO rating if that's not shared with us so QC is the next best thing we can focus on. We all should be able to get a filter that is neat & manages the task well.
But to your point about Silicon, it just goes to show us that we need high efficiency oil filters with proper data to back it up that we can choose to use even at higher costs. Efficiency being very important.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
That was only after First Brands screwed things up for FRAM though. And it's the Germans that own Purolator. For many, MANY years, the XG was the benchmark for oil filters and was extremely well constructed.
Well I'd consider secret brew = proprietary
There should also be a similar (or even more clear) correlation of wear vs oil cleanliness when looking at particulate smaller than 38u in a used oil analysis particle count because many wear studies say that it's particles 20u and smaller that cause the most wear. If a filter is letting way more 38+ micron particles through, then it's also letting even more particles less than 38u (and 20u) through. His chart showing the wear for the high 38u levels will show massive levels of 14u and 21u particles in the ISO 4406 data.
Last edited:
4wd
$50 site donor 2026
Now that Fast Eddie is done with sears - he can move into oil filters next …
Does anyone know if the main Euro (MB, VW, BMW) approvals require chemistry disclosure like Dexos? IMO there's a big market for Valvoline Restore and Protect Euro blends.
I feel the same way around here sometimes reading some folks' bloviated discertations
Maybe I will start control c/v into Copilot for an AI summary hahaWhat kind of lower wear rates are you expecting to see from the used oil analysis that had particle counts between 0 and 5 >38 micron?
I just checked the particle counts from Brand Ranks and they had the following for 21-38 microns and 38+ microns:
Amsoil: 6.9 / 0.1
Ultra Synthetic: 34 / 3.4
Fram Endurance: 17.9 / 2.3
Motorcraft: 451 / 45
Toyota: 2774 / 525
All of these are in widespread use on bitog. The first 3 are the ultimate filtration filters. Do the used oil analysis on bitog using those filters show a meaningful lower wear rate?
Do the used oil analysis on bitog using Motorcraft and Toyota filters show problematic wear rates? Sure, the particle counts are higher, but are the wear rates meaningfully higher?
I am framing it in these terms because that is what the analysis from Chip is looking at which is the subject of this discussion (except only with the >38 micron particles).
- The bucket with 0-5 particles bigger than 38 microns represent the Amsoil, Ultra Synthetic, Fram Endurance filters and are the ones that give 23ppm wear metals per 10k miles
- The buckets above that represent Motorcraft (20-50 particles) at best and Toyota (100-700 particles) at worst and give 27ppm wear metals per 10k miles
I'm not saying showing more data will equate to lower rates of wear. What I'm saying is that it may show a more clear picture of the oil cleanliness vs wear rates. Those smaller particles are also included in an ISO 4406 particle count, so why not also look at those to see what picture they show. Maybe he did look at the whole spectrum, and the 38u and above gave the same outcome ... who knows without seeing the numbers.
Depends on someone's meaning of "meaningful". Chad's data showed a 15% to 20% decrease in wear with more efficient oil filtration. I'd say the spectrum ranged from OG Ultra level of 99+% @20u or better to Boss level of 99% >46u ... or maybe potentially worse for some OEM filters. For me, that's enough of a difference worth using a high vs low efficiency oil filter. You and others may have their own definition of "meaningful", but I only care what my definition is.
Same answer as above. Keep in mind that the longer the OCI the more beneficial a higher efficiency filter will be to keep the overall cleanliness of the sump better over the OCI. Wear from particuate in the oil is proportiional to the cleaniness of the sump and how many times the sump has been pumped through the engine. In the long run, that could make a difference. If anyone doesn't think so I don't really care ... it's not my machine, lol.
Well 15% is 15%. Apparently nobody looking at used oil analysis did the math [(2.7 - 2.3)/2.3 x 100 = 14.8% reduction]. If Chip and LSJr use UOA ppms/1000 mile data to come up with this kind of analysis then other can too.
Of course, their UOA data would have to be controlled enough to make it worth believing.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Yeah, this doesn't sound like controlled testing, it sounds like we are bench racing used oil analysis, which isn't solid science.
Similar threads
