- Joined
- Jan 7, 2024
- Messages
- 45
Unless someone comes up with actual wear data between the Toyota filters and other filters, I will continue to believe that Toyota filters in no way cause more engine wear.
I would use them with confidence. The quality of construction is most important IMO. I used Wix filters for years until I started having issues with them leaking after the brand takeover.Unless someone comes up with actual wear data between the Toyota filters and other filters, I will continue to believe that Toyota filters in no way cause more engine wear.
If they read the BITOG Oil Filter forum more, they'd know that some GM engines use a filter bypass valve built into the engine filter mount, and therefore filters for those engines don't have a bypass valve.Watched the video last night. I find it funny they calling themselves engineers without full understanding of various oil filter designs. Their AC Delco commentary is just straight out embarrassing.
I picked up on that too. I read some of the funny comments on that video, and others too ... some people making comments are way off in the weeds on their understanding of oil filters, lol. Good for some chuckles I guess.Also lol on them calling the Toyota bypass valve rubber, its actually some kind of fiberglass reinforced plastic knowing that I have cut open a hand full of them.
Obviously, that's a true statement. However, it applies to the ACDelco PF53 in the BR "test"vid, that one does have a bypass, it's in the form of a combo valve (baseplate not shown). Even though not shown, I'm quite confident that is the design, just not recognized by BR. But can be seen in other PF53 ecore dissections here and elsewhere.If they read the BITOG Oil Filter forum more, they'd know that some GM engines use a filter bypass valve built into the engine filter mount, and therefore filters for those engines don't have a bypass valve......
As mentioned in another thread ( HERE ) about the BR testing, I mentioned this:High capacity, high efficiency, low cost -- pick two. It appears that the Toyota OEM oil filters favor capacity and low cost over efficiency?
Ah yes, good catch on that Sayjac.Obviously, that's a true statement. However, it applies to the ACDelco PF53 in the BR "test"vid, that one does have a bypass, it's in the form of a combo valve (baseplate not shown). Even though not shown, I'm quite confident that is the design, just not recognized by BR. But can be seen in other PF53 ecore dissections here and elsewhere.
I see. It would be interesting to hear from Toyota why they targeted this filter performance.
Analysis paralysis can be fun sometimes.I enjoyed the video and give credit for their work. I have a Toyota and will continue to use their filters. I think people here overthink everything. I personally feel particle size and for the quantity of them in the oil is not as concerning as you would think. Most will be under suspension anyway. I'll take the flow and filtration capacity over the particle size. What's a couple hundred millionths anyway?
I will state again, Unless someone comes up with actual wear data between the Toyota filters and other filters, I will continue to believe that Toyota filters in no way cause more engine wear.Analysis paralysis can be fun sometimes.
Dirtier oil (all other factors constant), means there is some more wear going on -every wear study condcudes that. As mentioned many times, the OCI mileage is a big factor on the oil filter's impact on the over-all oil cleanliness. Only two ways to keep the oil clean - filter it, or change it. The shorter the OCI, the less the filter efficiency matters. I wouldn't want to run a 50% @ 20u filter over 5K miles vs a 95% @ 20u or better filter.I will state again, Unless someone comes up with actual wear data between the Toyota filters and other filters, I will continue to believe that Toyota filters in no way cause more engine wear.
Dirty oil? What's dirty oil? The last time I did an oil analysis I had no indication of dirt and oil still looked light brown. At my 5k oil change I had below average wear metals for a new engine. Just because larger particles may be present doesn't mean they cause wear.Dirtier oil (all other factors constant), means there is some more wear going on -every wear study condcudes that. As mentioned many times, the OCI mileage is a big factor on the oil filter's impact on the over-all oil cleanliness. Only two ways to keep the oil clean - filter it, or change it. The shorter the OCI, the less the filter efficiency matters. I wouldn't want to run a 50% @ 20u filter over 5K miles vs a 95% @ 20u or better filter.
Look at ISO particle counts. A standard UOA doesn't really measure how contaminated the oil is without a particle count. And the "% Insolubles" is worthless. If you try to correlate "% Insolubles" to an ISO PC, there is no correlation at all. I'd trust a PC way before "% Insolubles". You have to add a PC as a separate test to the UOA. You can't see 20u particle with your eyes (hardly even 40-50u particles with 20/20 vision), and you can't tell how clean it is particulate wise by the color, lol. And as shown in wear studies, it's the particles that are around 20u and smaller that do most of the wear - it's not the larger particles like you say.Dirty oil? What's dirty oil? The last time I did an oil analysis I had no indication of dirt and oil still looked light brown. At my 5k oil change I had below average wear metals for a new engine. Just because larger particles may be present doesn't mean they cause wear.
Too much emphasis is put on particle size.
I did and again I haven't seen a test where a particular oil filter caused more wear than another.Look at ISO particle counts. A standard UOA doesn't really measure how contaminated the oil is without a particle count. And the "% Insolubles" is worthless. If you try to correlate "% Insolubles" to an ISO PC, there is no correlation at all. I'd trust a PC way before "% Insolubles". You have to add a PC as a separate test to the UOA. You can't see 20u particle with your eyes (hardly even 40-50u particles with 20/20 vision), and you can't tell how clean it is particulate wise by the color, lol. And as shown in wear studies, it's the particles that are around 20u and smaller that do most of the wear - it's not the larger particles like you say.
The wear metals measured in a standard UOA like Blackstone uses only measures particles around 5u and smaller. That really tells you nothing, especially with a UOA of only 5K miles on the oil. It's like looking through a straw at the world, and a UOA like that is very insensitive to changes going on in the motor. Plus, you'd have to do UOAs from the day the engine was new and track them all to even get an idea if something is starting to going wrong because of wear. Too much emphasis is put on standard UOA and using them to measure wear on a short OCI. Go do some reading on engine wear vs oil cleanliness ... there are many studies on the subject matter.
In the Cummings wear study, they show with in-field testing how the wear increased when a less efficient oil filter was used. Again, the bottom line is a more efficient oil filter will keep the oil cleaner which will result in less wear with all other factors held constant. There is no study on earth that will conclude otherwise.I did and again I haven't seen a test where a particular oil filter caused more wear than another.