Hey Kschachn search for "whats better 0w20 or 5w30"
Ecoboost 3.5 Oil filter every other oil change
- Thread starter l322spouse
- Start date
Triple_Se7en
$50 Site Donor 2024
When in doubt, blend both the 0w20 and 5w30. Just stick to the same brand name and approx same Approvals.
I'm about to do a 5w30 blend with HPL No VII and Premium Plus in September.
I'm about to do a 5w30 blend with HPL No VII and Premium Plus in September.
OP specifically asked about using a Fram Endurance and changing the oil filter every other time and the safety of that proposition. You came back with stuff about a $50k vehicle & $70 tanks of gas, and: “then try to penny pinch $2/oil change? So strange to me.”
It sure looks like you meant not changing the filter was saving only $2/oil change. Where the FL-500s and Fram Ultra you’re now talking about came from, nobody knew you were talking about those, because that wasn’t anything about what the OP had asked.
And why anybody would buy a Motorcraft filter these days with all the issues the board has seen lately is beyond me. I’ll leave the “new” Fram Ultra alone since we’ve already had a dozen threads on that as well.
I substituted the ultra for the endurance, but the motorcraft was specifically mentioned...and that engine uses an FL500s.
Here's the breakdown because it seems hard for you to understand:
Frame Endurance at Walmart $12.97
FL500s (the correct "motor craft" filter for that engine) from Rockauto: $5.62 each = 2 for $11.24 total
So I was incorrect. It is actually costing him $1.73 MORE to change the filter every 2 changes.
Does this make sense now?
And what exactly is wrong with an FL500s? Here's a recent cut one:
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/motorcraft-fl500s-c-p.383420/
Last edited:
I pulled the trans pan and swapped the filter on my Tundra when I got it. Nowadays the service is a snap through the filler tube.
On Hondas and Acuras I pull and clean the drain plug about every 3rd service and always suck out the fluid 1st. I find the 1st service gets the most plug magnet debris, subsequent services are pretty clean.
It's funny because I used to be the biggest naysayer; you have to swap the filter and extractors are for big whoosies.
I think I read somewhere Mercedes went to top side services on some vehicles; that was enough for me.
Other uses are PS and brake master reservoirs.
Fast, easy and not messy. What's not to like?
Using RA prices vs retail to help validate your argument. We see what you're doing here.
Regardless, as mentioned in this thread there are other benefits including ease of maintenance and minimizing waste. If the new filter can easily run 2X oil changes (at 5k intervals), makes oil changes easier, AND saves money, why not?
- Joined
- May 24, 2023
- Messages
- 22
His original statement was correct. based on Walmart prices. it would save about $2 per oil change
It’s the Motorcrafts in general. Plus, what’s RockAuto’s shipping? Certainly not free? WM price $8.44 so we’re leveling field vs. the FE. Price is back on Endurance’s side, and that’s still using less than half its rated life.
As for why to avoid FL-500S: proven history of tears (see below); can’t find any filtration efficiency specs whatsoever; it’s been superseded by FL-2121; and oh yeah, a proven history of failure.
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/motorcraft-fl500s.302180/post-4974262
As I showed the economics in another thread, my 15.9k OCI in a 3.5 EB using HPL No VII Euro 5w30 came out to $94.xx, or about $5.92 per 1k miles for top tier oil and filtration. FWIW, even though this is a really long run for a 3.5EB on BITOG, I don’t consider this to be an extreme distance. I may shoot for 20k+ on my current fill of 0w30 SuperCar depending on how the 15k UOA says the oil is doing.
The filter had actually been run for 7500 miles prior to this with HPL PCMO, so the filter cost is $12.97+tax / 23.4k miles, or $0.55 per thousand miles. Quick sidebar, that FL-500s, since you would have used 5 filters to match my use case, would be ($8.44 x 5)/5, or $8.44 per 1k miles. Is paying 1500%+ more for questionable filtration a good idea in your book?
Back to the oil side. I went ahead and rounded up to a 5.3k OCI to make the math simpler. Since you’re going cheap but frequent, let’s use QSFS 5w30 @ $22.97. Times 3. Plus the $25.32 in FL-500S filters. Which brings us to $94.32 in total cost, for an average cost of $5.93/1k miles. Plus 3x the time/labor & waste as I had; nobody’s time is free so I’ll let you assign a value there.
Trying to wrap this up, my main point is the people who say “use cheap oil and filters and change it more often because it’s cheaper and more effective” obviously haven’t looked at proven use cases of the top-tier offerings that show, with data, even when compared to an “entry level” oil and filter, the top-tier stuff is at worst equal in parts cost and far superior in time, labor, and waste.
@Astro14 - 10k+ in S600
Me - almost 16k in F150 3.5EB
@DirectRejection - 30k in a Toyota (IIRC)
@wwillson - 34k+ in a Dodge Charger
Those are just the ones off the top of my head. Search the UOAs to your heart’s content on these vehicle families vs these examples, and you’ll find even though the number of wear metal ppms are (obviously) higher, these example UOAs are statistically similar (and sometimes lower!) when compared to the general populations wear rates per 1k miles. It’s not always just marketing fluff at work.
In no way am in no way saying those that do long OCI are wrong - they just have a different objective than some of us that do short OCI.
UOA measures the oil. It is not measuring the wear material in the oil. The best filters on the market pull some reasonable percentage of particles above 10um out, but there are lots of studies in industry that show particles down to a micron cause a fair bit of wear and there also more prevalent. So the only way to get those out is change the oil or go with some sort of bypass filter. Changing the oil is easier.
If I am going to do a 5K OCI to primarily get the smaller particles out - I don't see there being a drastic difference in performance from using an expensive wire backed filter. Thats just my opinion.
I have actually very recently thought about using a much better filter for 2 OCI. For me however it wouldn't be either about performance or cost, just ease. But my filters are easy to change. If I ever get a car that is hard to get the oil filter I probably will go that route.
UOA measures the oil. It is not measuring the wear material in the oil. The best filters on the market pull some reasonable percentage of particles above 10um out, but there are lots of studies in industry that show particles down to a micron cause a fair bit of wear and there also more prevalent. So the only way to get those out is change the oil or go with some sort of bypass filter. Changing the oil is easier.
If I am going to do a 5K OCI to primarily get the smaller particles out - I don't see there being a drastic difference in performance from using an expensive wire backed filter. Thats just my opinion.
I have actually very recently thought about using a much better filter for 2 OCI. For me however it wouldn't be either about performance or cost, just ease. But my filters are easy to change. If I ever get a car that is hard to get the oil filter I probably will go that route.
Fair enough on your idea, so let me flesh out an idea to see if we could prove/disprove your theory here. It would obviously be cost-prohibitive unless one had access to a particle count machine. It may not be perfect, but here’s the spitball idea:
Run “inexpensive” oil & filter 5k OCI/FCI. Collect initial sample and every 2.5k for particle count test. Repeat for 30k miles (6 OCIs, but 18 PCs). Chart & calculate total area under curve to establish average particle size and count over time.
Run “top-tier” oil & filter 15k OCI/FCI. Collect initial sample & sample every 2.5k for PC. Repeat for 30k miles (2 OCI, 18 PCs). Chart & calc AUC.
Compare averages. Obviously not enough samples or trials to establish statistical significance but pretty close. You’d likely also have to account somehow for the 2nd test as the additional normal wear may likely slightly skew the PCs as the engine accumulates mileage.
There’s smarter people here (@ZeeOSix is a filtration fanatic) who may be able to help make this idea one that not only makes sense but also able to actually determine statistically which route is “better”.
Maybe. There are so many variables here that anything is a spit ball. Even a particle count tells you something for that particular engine, and not any - even the same engine design owned by someone else could be different. Even if you got the distribution, you have to figure out the wear profile - ie how many 5um particles does it take to cause as much wear as a 10um for example?
Somehow dumping them out feels better than trying to count them.
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2022
- Messages
- 832
Yeah, who wants 4-5 oz. of crappy used oil in a 7qt. capacity sump. I mean c'mon Tom.
Vehicle makers really don't specify a filter performance requirement ... they just say when to change the oil filter in the maintenance schedule. All big name aftermarket oil filters makers will say their filters "meet OEM recommended intervals" in the maintenance schedule. In Honda's case, that could mean two relatively long OCIs (based on the OLM) if on the schedule for changing the filter every other OCI.
What kind of engines and how old were some of those engines ... and how well maintained? All kinds of factors could impact the "km / 1 gr" rate. That graph seems to say that the majority of engines they looked at were producing 1 gram of debris in the range of every 4K to 6K km (2,482 to 4,968 miles).How many miles a filter takes to clog can vary a lot from one vehicle to the next. This is from a study that looked at oil filter clogging in small displacement car engines:
On average, these cars would clog a filter that has a 5 gram holding capacity in around 30,000 km, but 10% of the cars would clog the filter in under 10,000 km. Using a filter for multiple OCIs is a matter of risk. Sometimes they'll clog even within 1 OCI.
What holding capacity are you using in that case ? Fram doesn't advertise any grams of holding capacity. But it being rated for up to 25K miles the holding capacity needs to be pretty high - higher than the Ultra in the same sized filter model.
Ascent got 13.1 grams of holding capacity for the Ultra XG10575 he tested at the time. If you used 5K km (3,105 miles) per gram generated, it would be a 40,675 mile filter. If you used 2,000 miles per gram generated (near the highest instance in graph above), it would be a 26K miles filter, which gives it some headroom over the up to 20K mile rating. Fram rates the Ultra at 20K miles, so that would be around it capturing debris at the rate of 1,500 miles (2400 km) per gram generated.
Is it a good idea to run a filter right up to it's max holding capacity without knowing what health of the engine is in ... probably not. But on an engine that makes less than a gram of debris every 1,500 miles it seems there would be some extra headroom to run it to the "up to" mileage rating. Of course it depends on the specific engine it's being used on - something that most people couldn't get a good reading on. I like headroom, so if I was using a filter rated for an "up to" 25K miles, I'd run it no more than 20K miles (80% of it's max use rating), even on what I'd call a "clean engine".
I was referring to the automaker's specification or selection of the OEM filters. Aftermarket filters don't necessarily try to meet the same specs.
I used the results of the Brand Ranks tests. They use essentially the same test method as ISO 4548 for holding capacity and it seems to be pretty accurate. The holding capacity of the Purolator BOSS for instance matches the spec sheet at 8 grams. It's lower than the 12.5 grams measured by Ascent, but that was a much larger filter.
The holding capacities in the BR tests ranged from 4.4 g to 13.2 g and averaged 6.8 g. The FRAM Endurance came in at 4.4 g, the same as the Extraguard, and the Ultra was 6.6 g. The Motorcraft came in near the average at 7.0 g.
There was also a very strong correlation between filter efficiency and holding capacity. The most efficient filters were all in in the 4.4 to 6.6 g range, while the least efficient filters (Toyota and Baldwin) came in at 13.2 g. The original Ultra with full synthetic media tested by Ascent had both high holding capacity and high efficiency, but it seems to be an outlier.
FRAM's mileage ratings are maximums that only apply when the auto manufacturer recommends going that long on an OEM filter. If the automaker recommends a 6k mile OCI, FRAM also recommends a 6k OCI for that application. They don't claim that their filters can go longer than OEM filters or have higher holding capacities. Their mileage ratings don't seem to be based on holding capacity. The Endurance has the same holding capacity as the Extraguard but is rated for up to 2.4 times the mileage.
They were 1.2L to 3.0L engines from a random sampling of cars on the road, largely in Europe. The figure I posted is an average of all vehicles, but larger displacement and turbocharged engines, and filters from dusty countries had more dirt loading.
I have never seen any automaker's OM or factory service manual specify any kind of oil filter "specification", except for Ford referencing USCAR-36 which specifies minimum performance specs, which most don't know without researching it. Thing is, only Motorcraft filters will put "meets USCAR-36" on some of their oil filter boxes. Big name aftermarket filter makes pretty much state they meet OEM specs - whatever those are ... the filters makers may use USCAR-36 as a benchmark to meet or exceed.
It's really hard for me to believe a Fram EG and the Endurance have the same holding capacity, and the Ultra held more than the FE ... solely based on how Fram ranks them in terms of "up to" mileage use. I would think Fram would use the same sized/model filter in each filter line when determining the holding capacity/miles rating of their filters. So you'd expect the holding capacity to rank in order from low to high to be EG > TG > XG/FS > FE. The only thing I have any confidence in the BR testing is the "dP vs flow" tests. Efficiency and holding capacity has too many mis-match ranks with the ISO 4548-12 data on the same filters.
If BR is just adding test dust until they hit the +8 PSI dP over the clean filter baseline and using that as the "holding capacity" of the filter, then that's not an accurate indication of what the filter actually captured. How do they measure in grams just the debris that was actually captured by the filter? On an inefficient filter, a lot of what goes in the filter will come back out, and then what doesn't get caught needs to also be measured to account for the total added to the test oil.
And yes, a less efficient filter would theoretically need more captured debris in the media to "choke it off" enough to get the dP to increase to the same test cut-off point. That's part of the inefficient filter's "debris sloughing", and shows that it would be a bad idea to run an inefficient oil filter for long OCIs. Those inefficient filters slough a lot of debris as they load up that the dP increases.
Of course not, no oil filter manufacturer is going to say use it longer than the automakers's recommendation - Mobil says the same basic thing for thier "20K mile" rated Extended Performance" oil filter. Same goes with motor oil and about anything else used on vehicles. The aftermarket product maker will always cover themselves for liabllity of their product if it's used beyond the controlling recommendations, like a vehicle OM or service manual.
You're statement is based on just BR's testing ... which I think does not correlate in some instances with official ISO 4548-12 test information. Like said above, when some YT test shows that the EG and FE have the same low holding capacity, it throws up a big red flag for me. No way Fram is going to show the FE with the up to 25K miles and the EG with the up to 10K miles when they both supossedly have the same holding capacity. It's amazing how YT videos seem to over-ride actuall offical test data when they don't match. YT data over-rided ISO 4548 data ... a new world it seems.
There would be a lot of variables in all those vehicles in many aspects, so the only thing it shows is a broad brush indication of how random vehicle real world use conditions can load up filters in terms of driven distance to generate 1 gram of captured debris in the oil filter. Depending on the differences in efficiency of the oil filters, the actual rate of debris generation inside the engine could be a bit different than the amout of debris actually captured in the fitlers. I've heard a "worse case" number of 1000 miles/1 gram thrown out before, but that is even more extreme than that graph shows.
When an automaker contracts another company to make their OEM filters, they'll give them a specification. My point was that they'll either have a filter made to spec, or pick on off the shelf, that's suitable for the engine and the recommended OCI.
They don't measure how much dust remains uncaptured, but as far as I'm aware, this isn't done in the ISO test either.
You'd expect that to be the case, but I trust test data more than vague mileage ratings. Holding capacity isn't the only important factor to filter life either. Durability is also a factor.
What ISO test data are you referring to? I haven't seen any for any for the current FRAM filters. If I had access to that data I'd use it instead.It's amazing how YT videos seem to over-ride actuall offical test data when they don't match. YT data over-rided ISO 4548 data ... a new world it seems.
The BR tests correlate well to the Ascent data for the BOSS, and the capacity of the Mobil 1 is similar to the spec sheets from M+H. The Mobil 1 and Bosch filter tests are also similar to the PurolatorOne spec sheets. None of BR's holding capacity results seem really out of place compared to the ISO test data I've seen. The fact that the Endurance had the same holding capacity as the identical Amsoil filter indicates their tests are also repeatable.
I agree that their efficiency test isn't good, but the holding capacity test seems pretty solid.
I'd say a "worst case" of 1000 miles/gram is pretty consistent with the study. Around 6% of engines in the study would be worse than that, and keep in mind these are small engines. They showed some other data for around 100 vehicles of the same model, and the highest rate of dirt loading was 350 miles per gram.
Sure, the automaker will give whoever makes their OEM filters some minimum performance specs to meet - maybe it's USCAR-36, or maybe it's their own generated performance specs (?).
What I was referring to is that the automaker doesn't specify anything to the customer through the OM or service manual about required filter specs/performance in case they wanted to use something beside an OEM filter. Ford is the only one (might be others) that reference the USCAR-36 spec on the OM and/or on the filter box that the filter meets that spec.
ISO 4548-12 determines the non-retained mass of the total test dust used to determine what mass was actually captured by the oil filter. That's the only way to know how much of the total test dust mass was retained, and how much wasn't retained by the fitter.
That "up to X miles" rating is based on the holding capacity and the worse case expected debris per miles factor. Like I pointed out above in post 55:
"Ascent got 13.1 grams of holding capacity for the Ultra XG10575 he tested at the time. If you used 5K km (3,105 miles) per gram generated, it would be a 40,675 mile filter. If you used 2,000 miles per gram generated (near the highest instance in graph above), it would be a 26K miles filter, which gives it some headroom over the up to 20K mile rating. Fram rates the Ultra at 20K miles, so that would be around it capturing debris at the rate of 1,500 miles (2400 km) per gram generated."
So if the Ultra is rated at 20K miles, then it seems Fram is using around the 1,500 miles / 1 gram debris generation rate.
ISO 4548-12 efficiency data - not holding capacity data as I mentioned that earlier - but they instead rate the holding capacity indirectly though their up to mileage rating. Fram certainly does show ISO efficiency on their filter model lines, as I'm sure you know. BRs "ranking" of their efficiency tests doesn't mirror how those filters would rank based on their official ISO 4548-12 efficiency from the filter makers.
When they show the Endurance and Extra Guard having the same holding capacity, and the Boss being near the top of the efficiency ranking, I lost credibility in the accuracy of their ranking tests. There are some other non-correlations going on too. Like said, only thing I have some confidence in is the "dP vs flow" data. Otherwise, I will always go by the official ISO 4548-12 for efficiency specs.
When the Endurance (25K miles rated) and Extra Guard (10K miles rated) have the same low holding capacity, I'd say it's not pretty solid test data.
Yes, the 1000 miles/gram seems to be pretty close to the 1500 miles/gram calculated based on the Fram example I showed earlier. I'd think the same sized Endurance would have a little more holding capacity than the same model Ultra, which gives the Endurance that extra 5K miles use rating.
If most engines used in real world environments are putting that much debris into the oil, you'd think more people would see the value of a higher efficiency oil filter than not.
Last edited:
If that's the case, you'd expect the BR results to be overestimates of the holding capacities. It would affect the inefficient filters more than the efficient ones.
After many passes through the filter, the uncaptured dust should mostly be <5 micron, which makes up 30% of ISO Fine test dust, so the effect of uncounted particles could be significant, but I don't expect it would have a huge effect. Even the least efficient filters should capture most of the dust.
You're making the assumption that the mileage ratings are based on holding capacity, and not other reasons, like marketing or filter durability. I don't think that's a safe assumption.
FRAM provided the holding capacity for an Ultra XG7317 to a user in this thread. It was 6.7 g, which is fairly average for filters of this size. The Ultra XG3614 in the BR test was the same at 6.6 g, and that filter has slightly less media area. I'll request the holding capacity specs for the PH7317 and FE7317 from FRAM to see how they compare.
Some of the OEM Honda or Subaru filters that are the equivalent to the XG7317 will have a higher holding capacity than 6.7 g. Using the Ultra instead of OEM in these applications, even with the recommended 6k or 10k OCI, would increase the risk of filter clogging by at least somewhat. On a 20k mile OCI, the risk of clogging could be a lot higher, and this is probably why FRAM doesn't recommend using the their filters for longer than a standard OCI.
One thing I've noticed from UOA particle counts is that the Endurance seems to be far more efficient than the Ultra for smaller particle sizes. From what I understand, a filter's dP increase is more affected by the small particles it captures than the larger ones.
This could be why the Endurance had a much lower holding capacity than the Ultra in the BR test. There would be a difference in the amount of uncounted particulate in the oil, which would explain some of the difference, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Endurance actually has a lower holding capacity than the Ultra due to its much higher efficiency for small particles. This could also be why the OG Ultra had such a high holding capacity for a filter with such high efficiency at 20+ micron.
For some context, the particle counts I've seen for the OG Ultra average to ISO 23/19/12 over 4 samples. I've only seen one particle count for the new Ultra, at 23/18/13. The first ISO code at 23 is as high as I've seen for any oil filter on a healthy engine, and the second ISO number is higher than average as well. This is comparing them to a sample size of around 50 particle counts done with various filters.
The particle counts I've seen for the Endurance/Amsoil filters average to ISO 16/15/12 over 12 samples, with the worst being 17/16/14. That's a huge difference in the particle counts for 4+ micron and 6+ micron particles, despite both filters being around the same at 14+ micron.
