Ecoboost 3.5 Oil filter every other oil change

[ZeeOSix]

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.

The fact that BR shows the FE and EG having the same holding capacity for similar sized filters raises a big red flag that something isn't right with the test method. There is no way they should have the same low holding capacity of 4.4 grams if the same basic sized filters.

On a side note, in any filter line it could be determined what the holding capacity of the media is per area, and then that could be used to scale the holding capacity to the size (total media area) different sized filters in the same line using the same media.

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.

The efficiency difference between oil filters should become more apparent as the particle size decreases. An inefficient filter is going to let 5u and smaller particles through much more than a high efficiency filter. This is easily seen in an ISO 4548-12 test where real-time upsteam and down steam particle counts are going on.

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.

The mileage rating may be based on a few other minor aspects, but the main factor is going to be the holding capacity - what else would it be based on. No oil filter engineer going to rate a filter for up to 25K miles unless it's able to handle the expected debris loading if used for 25K miles. Sure, other things like a silicone ADBV and backed media that's able to go that long is also part of the equation of the "up to X miles" rating.

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.

Yes, it would be best to compare the holding capacity between different filter lines in the same model/size of filter. Let us know what you get.

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.

How do you know that Honda and Subaru OEM filter in the 7317 size will have higher holding capacity than 6.7 grams? Did you get tech info from them? Doubt they'd give anything like that out - can't even get any kind of efficiency numbers directly from the OEMs.

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.

We know that no oil filter manufacture will recommend using their filters for longer than the vehicle manufacturer's recommendation in the OM or serviced manual. So the conclusion that they don't recommend going longer isn't really based on the capability of the filter not being able to go longer.

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.

BR uses the same ISO test dust that's used in an ISO 4548-12 test I believe. So if the Endurance is speced to have a higher holdng capacity than the Ultra (in the same filter model/size), then that should also hold true in BR's test if the test method is good.

The Ultra that BR tested wasn't the OG Ultra, it was the new style Ultra. So if the Endurance came out with less holding capacity and was about the same size of filter, then that's another questionable result.

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.

All interesting data to ponder, and it could be basically true what you're seeing that the Endurance is better down low than the current Ultra. But the best way to take all the unknowns out of the equation would be to see ISO 4548-12 test data down to 5u. When Ascent did his ISO testing, it would have been nice to see the data down to 5u.

 

[twX]

We know that no oil filter manufacture will recommend using their filters for longer than the vehicle manufacturer's recommendation in the OM or serviced manual. So the conclusion that they don't recommend going longer isn't really based on the capability of the filter not being able to go longer.

The same FRAM filter will be recommended for dozens of different applications. Of course the FRAM filters will have a lower holding capacity than the OEM filters in some of those applications, especially considering that their holding capacities are not very high. I mean, we have an example right in the BR tests, with each of the two OEM filters tested having higher holding capacities than every one of the FRAM filters, and also higher than the filters from most other brands as well.

I don't have testing data specific to Honda/Subaru OEM filter, but consider that the Subaru 3.6L uses an OEM filter with a media area of 1300 cm^2, while all four of the FRAM filters models for this application have less than half that amount of media. If we estimate the holding capacity based on media area, using several other other cellulose filters BR tested as a baseline, it ranges from 13.8 to 15.8 grams. Meanwhile the small PH9688 filter FRAM recommends would have a capacity of around 4 grams.

We know that no oil filter manufacture will recommend using their filters for longer than the vehicle manufacturer's recommendation in the OM or serviced manual. So the conclusion that they don't recommend going longer isn't really based on the capability of the filter not being able to go longer.

My point is that you can't assume a filter has a higher holding capacity than OEM based on its mileage rating, since its mileage rating is exactly the same as the OEM filter, which is 1 OCI.

The Ultra that BR tested wasn't the OG Ultra, it was the new style Ultra. So if the Endurance came out with less holding capacity and was about the same size of filter, then that's another questionable result.

The Ultra has more media area than the Endurance, yet still has more restriction, and has pretty high restriction in general. FRAM would be forced to use more media area on the Ultra filters simply to keep the dP reasonable. This will result in a higher holding capacity, perhaps higher than FRAM deems necessary. If FRAM reduced the media area of the Ultra by a third in order to achieve the same 4.4 g capacity as the Extraguard and Endurance, its dP would be extremely high (~17.5 psi at 10 GPM).

 

[ZeeOSix]

The same FRAM filter will be recommended for dozens of different applications. Of course the FRAM filters will have a lower holding capacity than the OEM filters in some of those applications, especially considering that their holding capacities are not very high. I mean, we have an example right in the BR tests, with each of the two OEM filters tested having higher holding capacities than every one of the FRAM filters, and also higher than the filters from most other brands as well.

I don't have testing data specific to Honda/Subaru OEM filter, but consider that the Subaru 3.6L uses an OEM filter with a media area of 1300 cm^2, while all four of the FRAM filters models for this application have less than half that amount of media. If we estimate the holding capacity based on media area, using several other other cellulose filters BR tested as a baseline, it ranges from 13.8 to 15.8 grams. Meanwhile the small PH9688 filter FRAM recommends would have a capacity of around 4 grams.

If you don't have official holding capacity numbers for the Honda/Subaru OEM filters directly from Honda and Subaru tech dept/engineers, then you're still assuming that BR's holding capacity testing is totally accurate. I'm not really convinced at this point. Would need more official ISO holding capacity number for the specific filters that BR tested to see if they match well or not. The ones that do could be coincidental.

I contacted Fram and asked for the holding capacity on a specific filter model of the 10575 in the FE, XG, TG and PH lines. See what they say. Ascent got 13.6 gram holding capacity on the OG Ultra XG10575. Using a debris capture rate of 1500 miles/gram (in the worse case region based on your previous filter loading study), that puts it at an up to 20K mile filter. There's no way Fram is going to keep the current Ultra at up to 20K miles if the holding capacity on the current Ultra is actually 1/3 or even 1/2 of the OG Ultra holding capacity.

My point is that you can't assume a filter has a higher holding capacity than OEM based on its mileage rating, since its mileage rating is exactly the same as the OEM filter, which is 1 OCI.

I never implied that a filter with any kind of mileage use rating means it's got more holding capacity than any OEM filter. Mileage use ratings vary depending on the filter models as you know. Again, no manufacturer (even if their filter was good for 30K miles) is going to recommend to use their filter for longer than the vehicle manufacturer's use recommendation. The only way to know how the holding capacity ranks between different filters is with official ISO 4548-12 test data that does measure the holding capacity.

The Ultra has more media area than the Endurance, yet still has more restriction, and has pretty high restriction in general. FRAM would be forced to use more media area on the Ultra filters simply to keep the dP reasonable. This will result in a higher holding capacity, perhaps higher than FRAM deems necessary. If FRAM reduced the media area of the Ultra by a third in order to achieve the same 4.4 g capacity as the Extraguard and Endurance, its dP would be extremely high (~17.5 psi at 10 GPM).

As you know, the type of media also has a lot to do with its dP vs flow and the holding capacity. We saw that with the OG Ultra media. It was very deep/thick dual-layer media, and didn't have a lot of media area compared to other filters of that size. That deep media allowed good flow and high holding capacity.

 

[wpod]

Filter may be fine, but for me I'd not want to mix nice fresh oil with a filter full of oil that is partially depleted and/or fuel diluted.

The amount of oil in the filter won't make a difference but I change the filter just because.

 

[4WD]

View attachment 231980
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?
View attachment 231983
View attachment 231984
And what exactly is wrong with an FL500s? Here's a recent cut one:

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/motorcraft-fl500s-c-p.383420/

I don’t like to waste an FE on a 5k run either - so will use an ACD with EC30 or VRP. Would rather inspect that type of media for evidence of engine cleaning - go back to the FE for two OCI’s …

 

[dnewton3]

... UOA measures the oil. It is not measuring the wear material in the oil.

WHAT? How in the world do you justify that statement? What do you think the Fe, Al, Pb, Cu, Cr, etc are in a UOA?
I don't even know where to begin with the absurdity of that statement ...

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.

Please submit a list of these studies that prove a 1um or 2um particle makes for a "fair bit of wear", and it would be helpful if you'd provide a link to those resources.

So the only way to get those out is change the oil or go with some sort of bypass filter.

There are two ways to get particulate out of a sump; I agree with you here.
- filter it out
- flush it out
Two roads to the same destination.
But I disagree that a bypass filter is a necessity to have a sump clean enough to ensure long equipment life. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence in the hundreds of thousands of decent running, high-mileage vehicles that never see anything but "normal" oils and filters.

 

[SC Maintenance]

WHAT? How in the world do you justify that statement? What do you think the Fe, Al, Pb, Cu, Cr, etc are in a UOA?
I don't even know where to begin with the absurdity of that statement ...

Spectroscopy is a really poor way to measure metals and inductive or magnetic analysis only counts ferrous. I don't believe a $30 UOA is giving you much in regard to particles and metal wear, otherwise why would industrial companies spends thousands for this data analysis? The analysis is likely better on the chemical composition analysis side, but thats my assumption as well.

"Because of the limited effectiveness of emission spectroscopy under these circumstances, many oil analysis users have turned to particle counting to fill in the missing data at larger particle size ranges."

https://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/431/particle-counter-ppm

Please submit a list of these studies that prove a 1um or 2um particle makes for a "fair bit of wear", and it would be helpful if you'd provide a link to those resources.

As I mentioned these are industrial studies, many are behind a firewall. I have seen this information presented at industrial conferences several times. The best industry rag that is free is machinery lubrication - so the website from the above article is a good place to start for free information. There are others if you search around. If you want to argue that its not applicable because industrial machines apply a much larger lbf per area, that would be fair, but my belief is the technical concepts apply to some degree at least.

But I disagree that a bypass filter is a necessity to have a sump clean enough to ensure long equipment life.

I went way out of my way to not offend anyone with my first statement: Someone asked for opinions and I shared mine. If we all had the same opinion life would be very boring.

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.

Sorry you took offense. I was in no way trying to infer other options were not reasonable.

 

[kschachn]

Yes an ICP is a particularly poor analytic machine for particles. But normal long-term wear isn’t typically particles, at least not those that are too large to be vaporized or are filtered out to prevent machine damage. Most typical wear is essentially in solution and can be measured. It’s the more catastrophic wear pieces that are not measured by a spectrograph. You can compensate to some extent by performing an acid digestion on the sample prior to analysis.

Bottom line though, you still measure wear by other methods.

 

[dnewton3]

ICP analysis tells us composition, but not size.
PCs tell us size, but not composition.
The two are not interchangeable.

A typical UOA can most certainly tell us about the presence of wear metals in lubricants, coolants, etc.

What needs to be understood is that a typical ICP analysis can only see a portion of the total wear metals, because of the limitations of the technology; anything larger than 5um generally doesn't respond in a plasma stream. But stuff smaller than 5um, and even sub-micro, responds just fine. So the UOA tells us about a portion of the wear, and the inference we take is that it's a representation of the overall total. More importantly, if the UOA ppm counts are low, it's likely the overall particulate loading is low in terms of wear metals. (Note: that does not apply to soot and other insolubles like oxidation byproducts).

The infamous GM filter study (SAE 88-1825) and the Ford/Conoco wear study (2007-01-4133) both show a good correlation between wear data in a UOA and other methods of measurement such as critical component weight analysis and electron bombardment. Further, there are other SAE studies that indicate there is good correlation between particulate loading and UOA wear data.


UOAs are not a one-size-fits-all answer to understand the full effects of wear in equipment; that's true. But they are a reasonably accurate, low-cost means of getting an idea of the overall wear trends, etc. They are FAR LESS intrusive than tearing down an engine in terms of time and money, and the gauge R&R is FAR better with ICP than any true mechanical tear-down would ever hope to achieve.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Yes an ICP is a particularly poor analytic machine for particles. But normal long-term wear isn’t typically particles, at least not those that are too large to be vaporized or are filtered out to prevent machine damage. Most typical wear is essentially in solution and can be measured. It’s the more catastrophic wear pieces that are not measured by a spectrograph. You can compensate to some extent by performing an acid digestion on the sample prior to analysis.

Bottom line though, you still measure wear by other methods.

To add ... the typical ICP Spectroscopy for UOAs like Blackstone uses can only see wear particles in the 5-7 microns and below range. There have been cases where there was much more than normal wear going on, and it caused a slight uptick in the ICP measurement range (like Fe going from 5 ppm to 7-8 ppm), but nothing like a big red flag going up. Visual inspection of the filter revieled a lot of large particle wear evidence going on.

Routine UOA data needs to be taken (and expressed as ppm/mile or ppm/hours) to see very slight trends going on with the narrow particle size range detection of ICP Spectroscopy. This graph shows how narrow the ICP measurement range is, and how insensitive it can be even with much more than just normal wear going on. I keep refereing to this as: "Looking at the world through a straw".

The red line is drawn through the 7 micron wear particle size. Nothing above that can be seen by ICP Spectroscopy.

Some more overall info on UOA methods from Machinery Lubrication.
https://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/600/microscopic-debris-analysis

 

[Bill7]

Being retired Navy, the importance of filtration was beat into us until there was nothing left of the horse. Not just in engines, but in hydraulic systems, etc.

If you're changing the oil every 5K, spend the extra couple of bucks on the filter too.

@tcp71 nails it above.

I totally agree that using efficient filtration is very important as it prevents those harmful particles that could end up in the oil to get in between the moving parts and cause wear. Filter efficiency is very important, and also preventing the filter from filling up and going into bypass would be my primary concerns.

 

[dlundblad]

Every other or every 3 changes is fine IMO. The oil should be changed around 3 to 5k anyways.

The filter is such a pain in the butt to change and messy too.

 

[oil pan 4]

Have you been cutting open your old air filters?
On my lawn mower I run grossly over sized fe3600 filters. After 2 years they still look kinda new when I cut them open.
The "correct" oil filter is a micro nubby little filter that costs between $11 and $20 and has a few postage stamps worth of media in them. A fram synthetic endurance is $13 and is a full size car oil filter, plenty of filter media even for a pickup truck. I'll run it till it rusts.
In my wife's car I run a 50% oversized refrigeration unit diesel engine oil filter. After a short 3,500 to 4,500 mile winter change due to fuel dilution the filter still looks kind of white when I cut it open. It could definitely go for another oci.

 

[oil pan 4]

Change the oil filter every time?
I present the bitog record for number of hours of on a cut open filter, 1,344hrs.
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/posts/6981512/
The 1,344 oil filter was a multi person screwup I do not recommend exceeding OEM oci and filter change interval without testing and observation. Test the oil like with an oil lab to check for fuel dilution and observations such checking for iron on a drain plug magnet or cutting open the filter to check for metal bits, sludge crumbs , ect. Oils and filters have likely improved over what the OEM had/used back in the day, plus you might run an oversized filter.

To add ... the typical ICP Spectroscopy for UOAs like Blackstone uses can only see wear particles in the 5-7 microns and below range. There have been cases where there was much more than normal wear going on, and it caused a slight uptick in the ICP measurement range (like Fe going from 5 ppm to 7-8 ppm), but nothing like a big red flag going up. Visual inspection of the filter revieled a lot of large particle wear evidence going on.

Routine UOA data needs to be taken (and expressed as ppm/mile or ppm/hours) to see very slight trends going on with the narrow particle size range detection of ICP Spectroscopy. This graph shows how narrow the ICP measurement range is, and how insensitive it can be even with much more than just normal wear going on. I keep refereing to this as: "Looking at the world through a straw".

The red line is drawn through the 7 micron wear particle size. Nothing above that can be seen by ICP Spectroscopy.

View attachment 233959

Some more overall info on UOA methods from Machinery Lubrication.
https://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/600/microscopic-debris-analysis

Fascinating.

 

[RalphPWood]

I remember a few years back people were keeping their purolator pureone oil filters on for more than 1 oil change only to find out later that some had a hole or a tear. Changing the filter every time won't eliminate that issue, but minimizes a bad filter to a single OCI. Probably not an issue with synthetic filters.

I would err on the side of caution with long oil changes, fuel dilution, and timing chain wear.

I have a 06 Pontiac Torrent that doesnt need a full flow filter. It is always clean. What little cleaning the oil needs is done by the Australian Jackmaster Classic bypass filter. I have a 86 Chevy 4 cylinder thats the same except It has a Motor Guard with the full flow filter removed. I put a Frantz oil cleaner on a early 60s chevy 292 big 6 using the Frantz adapter that eliminated the full flow filter. It pulled a Mustang dragster. The owner liked to check the top of the paper in the Frantz for abrasives.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I have a 06 Pontiac Torrent that doesnt need a full flow filter. It is always clean. What little cleaning the oil needs is done by the Australian Jackmaster Classic bypass filter. I have a 86 Chevy 4 cylinder thats the same except It has a Motor Guard with the full flow filter removed. I put a Frantz oil cleaner on a early 60s chevy 292 big 6 using the Frantz adapter that eliminated the full flow filter. It pulled a Mustang dragster. The owner liked to check the top of the paper in the Frantz for abrasives.

Have you done regular UOA with a PC to verify how clean the oil is remaining? Or you just looking at the color of the oil and concluding everything is good?

 

[RalphPWood]

Have you done regular UOA with a PC to verify how clean the oil is remaining? Or you just looking at the color of the oil and concluding everything is good?

Thats pretty much it. I look at it put a little in the palm and rub it around to check for the right viscosity. And slickness. I was talking about my 84 Subaru with over 250.000 miles with no oil drains using a Frantz and a Frantz adapter that eliminates the full flow filter and Mobil 1 15 50.a Caterpillar lab manager saw my posts and sent me a sample kit. He said the oil looks good for that many miles but suggested I change the Frantz every 6.000 miles instead of every 12.000 miles. I was driving about 12.000 miles a year. Changing the Frantz every 4 July. He found some caromalization. Started doing 6.000. Gave it to a kid at work. At over 300.000 he went to Iraq. Never saw it again.