Originally Posted By: Joenpb
I also don't think asking for proof on a claim is something outrageous, that's why I used the word "may" since I don't have absolute proof, but I did provide circumstantial logic for my decision on choosing Napa Gold.
I'll predicate my exceptions in that we're not going to include abusive neglect of an engine and filter; the filter should not be blinded off from full particulate loading forcing the filter into permanent bypass. That is not the fault of any filter; that's a lack of routine maintenance. I'll move on from here.
Let me recap the data we do have from here:
We have testing from Jim Allen; he clearly demonstrated that BP events are RARE, and about the only way he could induce them was to do the following:
-use a lube thicker than the OEM recommendation (used 10w-30 instead of 5w-20)
-cold start (oil and engine were not warmed up)
-purposeful high rpm (he stepped on the throttle to greatly increase the pressure from the pump
All these were simultaneous, and even when it did happen, that event of the bypass opening on his F150 5.4L engine was for a period of time of VERY short duration; typically a second or less. So unless you are in the habit of using too thick oil, and starting your engine at WOT, the BP feature in the filter is practically moot because it never opens, and even when it does, it's for a very short time.
Therefore, using your "circumstantial logic", I'll expand it out some more ...
One of two of the following statements MUST be true; it cannot be otherwise:
1) the BP rarely opens
2) the BP opens frequently
Jim's data shows condition 1 to be true. Therefore the "benefit" of the location is moot; it rarely if ever comes into play, and you'd have to prove that this RARE event had enough time to actually cause a discernible effect in wear by allowing unfiltered oil to the engine.
However, even if you don't want to believe that condition 1 is true, then you have to concede that condition 2 is true; it would open frequently. If this is true, and for your theory to be correct in that the location of the BP valve actually makes a difference, we'd expect to see lots of data to show that the event of bypass in the filter actually manifested into some sort of wear escalation relative to the BP location in the filter. If the events are frequent, and using your theory that it actually matters, then we should expect to see tangible data that conclusively proves wear is affected. Right? And yet we don't.
Either way, to be able to show some short of credible usefulness to the BP location, there should be data that would indicate the position of the valve makes a difference. UOA data clearly shows no such disparity. And anecdotal evidence of a bazillion vehicles using both type systems successfully also cannot be ignored.
So again, you are welcome to believe what you wish, but I see NOT ONE SHRED of PROOF that it makes a difference.
It is a matter of two roads leading to the same destination. Both systems are rarely employed, and when they do, it matters not as to their location, in terms of real world wear affecting the equipment.
I do understand your theory, but your theory is limited in that it does not utilize the expectation of the outcome. For your theory to be believable, we should see some sort of disparity of performance in wear control outside "normal" variance. But we don't. So your theory, while solid on the surface, has no real foundation to stand upon.
And I hope I'm not coming off as rude, because I too was of your opinion many years ago. And I had a bias against the "cardboard" end caps. And a bias against conventional lubes. But after (literally) tens of thousands of UOAs collected in my database, and seeing hundreds upon hundreds of filter PCs, I've come to the conclusion that once a system is "good enough" to provide safe operation, any nuance or changes in that system are just a pittance of noise.
The reality is that it either rarely happens, and therefore makes no difference due to a super low occurrence rate, or it happens all the time, and the lack of disparity in wear results shows the effect is meaningless. Does not matter which you believe to be true; they both end up at the same conclusion - it does not matter to a reasonably maintained machine.
I will concede that if you did NOT FCI at the appropriate time (to avoid full media loading), and the media was rife with so much particulate that the opening of the BP valve in the filter actually did displace contamination from the media back into the flow stream, then it would conceivably make a difference. But again, how is that the fault of the filter design? It's not! It's human negligence. And I don't blame things for causation found elsewhere. And again, why do we not see this proof? Because most all machines are reasonably maintained. And I can assure you no BITOGGER EVER, EVER left his filter on the engine so long as to blind off the media. Therefore the location of the BP valve is of no consequence to a BITOGGER; he'll never let the filter get into that condition where it might actually make a difference.
