Lol I don't measure the weight of ash left from the hydrogen furnace destruction of the media. My bad. They all filtered the oil. Is that better?
True. By that measure an empty can with no filtering media would work fine."Worked fine" doesn't really mean much of anything when it comes to oil filters. If it didn't show any signs of failure after its use (with a cut open for inspection), then it "worked fine", but tells you nothing about how it actually performed at keeping the oil clean - its main purpose.
A piece of cheese cloth or a fine screen can filter too. Maybe just go back to just a piece of screen for an oil filter like the VW bug days in the 60s.Lol I don't measure the weight of ash left from the hydrogen furnace destruction of the media. My bad. They all filtered the oil. Is that better?
That would be greatly appreciatedSince both of the posters above want to bloviate about empirical vs anecdotal rather than answering the op's question of "Considering if I'm doing 4-5K intervals, would there be any real-world difference?" Maybe its time to prune this thread. Or time for people to answer the op's question and show why any of the filters he asked about would be of any different outcomes in use.
Go search the web and SAE studies and similar about engine wear vs oil cleanliness. It's been discussed for years in the Oil Filter forum. Cleaner oil is always better than dirtier oil, so one way to ensure that is to use a high efficiency oil filter. I'm still waiting for a study that proves otherwise. Buy one less Big Mac a year and put it towards a good 99% @ 20μ oil filter.Since both of the posters above want to bloviate about empirical vs anecdotal rather than answering the op's question of "Considering if I'm doing 4-5K intervals, would there be any real-world difference?" Maybe its time to prune this thread. Or time for people to answer the op's question and show why any of the filters he asked about would be of any different outcomes in use.
When it comes to filters I go for high efficiency, high holding capacity and low delta-p (ie, a good flower). Why assume a lesser filter is keeping the oil clean enough to mitigate any wear that a better filter could better ensure - that's my logic for my stuff anyway.I'm glad we were able to agree. You said "The products the OP wants to use will work fine for 5K and beyond." I said "All of those filters I've used, they all seemed to work fine, I'd see no difference from my perspective."
One might come to that erroneous conclusion if you didn't know how the media type affected it.Logic would dictate that the most efficient filters, ie: a 99%/25 micron vs a 99%/30 micron, would be the most flow restrictive. In real practice I doubt there would be any meaningful difference. After surveying the local options and availability, I've decided to go with the Mobil1 0W-20 EP and stay with the M110A filters as the price/availability situation favors that combination. I may try some Royal Purple filters at some point if feasible. It's unfortunate that in my immediate area, say within a 25-30 mile radius, that the availability of some products, like PPP and Edge EP is so limited. The outlets like NAPA, Federated, etc, don't seem to have consumer-friendly pricing as their primary mission seems to be as jobbers for dealers and independent repair shops. Locally, Advance seems to have more aggressive consumer prices and decent availability. Lately, both Advance and AZ are really promoting STP & Fram branded oils and filters. Those of us who prefer the Mobil1, Pennsoil or Castrol products have to shop carefully and watch the sales.
Logic would dictate that the most efficient filters, ie: a 99%/25 micron vs a 99%/30 micron, would be the most flow restrictive.
There are so many variables, type of media, thicknesses, actual filter area, volume of canister, spin-on vs replaceable element, the actual viscosity of different weight oils, temperature and undoubtedly more. Other than testing a specific filter using a specific engine at normal operating temperature with a specific oil. Even then there's more variables, age of oil, actual pressure and it's usage, new vs after 5000 miles. Is there a somewhat standardized method of testing filters for flow & restriction? Other than having a basic understanding of physics, how do you make a comparison and come to a conclusion that's valid?One might come to that erroneous conclusion if you didn't know how the media type affected it.
ISO 4548 (has 12 different sections), has been used for over 20 years in the filter industry all over the world (it's an International standard) to measure oil filter performance and quality - more than "somewhat" a standard I'd say. ISO 4548-12 is specifically for filter efficiency testing.There are so many variables, type of media, thicknesses, actual filter area, volume of canister, spin-on vs replaceable element, the actual viscosity of different weight oils, temperature and undoubtedly more. Other than testing a specific filter using a specific engine at normal operating temperature with a specific oil. Even then there's more variables, age of oil, actual pressure and it's usage, new vs after 5000 miles. Is there a somewhat standardized method of testing filters for flow & restriction? Other than having a basic understanding of physics, how do you make a comparison and come to a conclusion that's valid?
Interesting, given the ISO 4548, that you usually don't see any real hard data on consumer oil filters. So price "should" be the indicator using the "buy once, cry once" formula, logically a $15-25 filter should offer better protection than a $3 one. Generally, the price, type of media, construction, rating, % of efficiency is the only thing we have to make comparisons, other than manufacturer advertisements & claims, endless YouTube video comparisons testing with improvised setups. You're correct, some, not all, want the best available, that's one of the values of this forum, it's still hard separating fact, fiction, rumor, opinion and reputation. Sometimes adequate, better & best get blurred, but generally good and cheap don't come in the same box. Retired from a long career in Biomedical Engineering where we have specific tests for most everything including the instruments we test with. I do appreciate the guidance and suggestions here, some based on experience, some actual testing. Sometimes it's difficult choosing from the top of the pyramid as well, this forum is truly helpful.ISO 4548 (has 12 different sections), has been used for over 20 years in the filter industry all over the world (it's an International standard) to measure oil filter performance and quality - more than "somewhat" a standard I'd say. ISO 4548-12 is specifically for filter efficiency testing.
Regardless of all the variables, IMO a filter that is higher in efficiency, has more holding capacity and less delta-p per flow is better IMO than one that isn't. People are always trying to find the "best" oil and air filters ... so why not also with oil filters - it's one of the pieces that make up the trifecta of keeping an engine in good health. Sure, some people don't care about the using the "best" products, but only go for "good enough" that usually (but not always) cost less than the higher priced products that can be shown to be somewhat better.
Only some manufacturers report the results. If filtering efficiency is important to your purchasing decision then I would definitely suggest you purchase a brand that takes the time to report the results. Price would not be directly correlated to efficiency.Interesting, given the ISO 4548, that you usually don't see any real hard data on consumer oil filters. So price "should" be the indicator using the "buy once, cry once" formula, logically a $15-25 filter should offer better protection than a $3 one. Generally, the price, type of media, construction, rating, % of efficiency is the only thing we have to make comparisons, other than manufacturer advertisements & claims, endless YouTube video comparisons testing with improvised setups. You're correct, some, not all, want the best available, that's one of the values of this forum, it's still hard separating fact, fiction, rumor, opinion and reputation. Sometimes adequate, better & best get blurred, but generally good and cheap don't come in the same box. Retired from a long career in Biomedical Engineering where we have specific tests for most everything including the instruments we test with. I do appreciate the guidance and suggestions here, some based on experience, some actual testing. Sometimes it's difficult choosing from the top of the pyramid as well, this forum is truly helpful.
*Wife's new Kia Solstice 2.0L Nu engine can take 5W20 , 5W30 or 10W30 oil weights (ditto for my '17 Sonata 2.4L although it won't see 5W20 ever again in that engine) ... I have decided to use 5W30 synthetic in the new Solstice so I only have to buy one grade of oil between my '17 Sonata 2.4L and the new Solstice 2.0L Nu .Our 2.0T's oil gets changed every 3K and no more than 6 months on 5/10w30. Other than that, it gets M1HM 10w30 (higher HT/HS than regular 10w30) or 5W-40. The 2.0Nu came with 5w20 from the factory and i have used both 20 and 30.
Think you are correct. I've run both 0w-20 EP and AFE in my 2.4 Camry. My Camry is smoother, initially, with the AFE, but. the AFE seems to thin more quickly than the EP. I just extracted my AFE at about 2700 miles of many short, hot, drives. Let us know if you "feel" any difference with the EP vs. the AFE.So, what I've gleaned from all this is the Mobil1 0W-20 EP & M110A I put in my wife's CRV should give better results than the AFE I've been using in regards to resistance to dropping out of grade and resisting the effects of dilution. The M110A is ok, but the Purolator Boss might be a bit better. As far as my CRV, at 13k, I should consider trying the Castrol Edge 0W-20 EP and Boss or Royal Purple filters. Either oil should work, but the Castrol is more consistent in it's formulation. With the 1.3% dilution I've experienced, probably 4k changes would be prudent as well as a UOA for both to confirm improvement. I think the AFE is off the table for future use in the CRV, even though it did well in my Civics, just doesn't seem to have the base stock fortitude for Honda's 1.5t in the CRV. I've used nothing but the M110A filters for years, but now there may be a better choice.
Thanks for the information and advice. I'll try to post back after the next UOA.
Had a long discussion with my new Honda mechanic (changed dealers) about T-GDI engines like my CRV, his thoughts as well as the service manager, was to go to 5W-20, run it 5k and do a UOA, so that's the plan. I've got about 4K on the current 0W-20 Mobil1 EP so I'm due in about 1,000 miles, I may succumb to curiosity and do a UOA anyway, but they indicated that going to 5W-20 would have no effect on warranty, but should reduce thinning by fuel dilution, to be aware that 5W would flow a tad slower when really cold, but not enough to make any real-world difference as I usually give the engine a minute or two after starting. They also thought that the Honda 02 filters would be perfectly fine with 5k intervals. Since Mobil has cheapened the M110A filter may give the Honda a try as well.If I had a fuel diluting T-GDI engine (I actually have a fuel diluting GDI engine), I would run Castrol EDGE EP 5W-30. I am actually running that in the 2018 Hyundai Santa Fe Sport. It's a very well-formulated oil that will stand up to fuel dilution by maintaining its viscosity. It won't maintain that sky-high flashpoint of 245C (ASTM 93 nonetheless) forever, but it will far well through your OCI. You can beat yourself up all day over the various versions of 0W-20. None of them do well when fuel is mixed in.