LSJr Interviews Containing Oil Filter Efficiency

[Sayjac]

Compelling? lol

Engines tend to produce the most break in material early in their life.

Break-in tends to taper off until it stabilizes at some unknown time thousands of miles (or hundreds of hours) later.

How about an alternative explanation: dumping the oil several times in short succession as the engine is breaking in results in lower particle counts because…wait for it…the particles are now in the drain pan, and were replaced by new, clean oil.

I like Lake. He seems to be a nice guy, and occasionally has good info in his videos. But, I’m still standing by waiting for any real evidence to his claim that oil filters get more efficient as they load up.

In that most recent video, fwiw exactly my thoughts on it. Imo, in this one LSjr used confirmation bias to support his oil filter reuse efficiency increase claim. As noted, he completely ignored rounds of new oil added to the sump combined with break in "taper off" variable and went strictly to the filter particle count to support his claim. So, unlike his video claim, I don't believe he proved it with this one.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I don't think Lake wants to visit Donaldson and find out that oil filters actually lose efficiency as they load up with debris.

 

[edhackett]

In that most recent video, fwiw exactly my thoughts on it. Imo, in this one LSjr used confirmation bias to support his oil filter reuse efficiency increase claim. As noted, he completely ignored rounds of new oil added to the sump combined with break in "taper off" variable and went strictly to the filter particle count to support his claim. So, unlike his video claim, I don't believe he proved it with this one.

He did not provide data that showed that particle counts are lower not changing the filter than if the filter had been changed at every OCI. He has nothing to base any claims on. A sample size of one representing half of the experiment is speculation, not science.

Ed

 

[kschachn]

He did not provide data that showed that particle counts are lower not changing the filter than if the filter had been changed at every OCI. He has nothing to base any claims on. A sample size of one representing half of the experiment is speculation, not science.

Ed

Spot on.

 

[Sayjac]

He did not provide data that showed that particle counts are lower not changing the filter than if the filter had been changed at every OCI.....

Correct, 'in addition to' attributing the particle count reductions solely to the reuse of the filter and not mentioning/including the oil changes and break in variables, he also failed to provide a control. So, for a guy that likes to tout science, he missed badly on this one, imo.

 

[doverlabs]

He did not provide data that showed that particle counts are lower not changing the filter than if the filter had been changed at every OCI. He has nothing to base any claims on. A sample size of one representing half of the experiment is speculation, not science.

Ed

I’d ignore the sample size. In this case, the largest predictor of wear is break-in and he has regularly cited this confounding factor in lab results. I was flabbergasted when he mentioned break in effect, then made the conclusion.

I was literally jaw dropped.

 

[kschachn]

I’d ignore the sample size. In this case, the largest predictor of wear is break-in and he has regularly cited this confounding factor in lab results. I was flabbergasted when he mentioned break in effect, then made the conclusion.

I was literally jaw dropped.

Like lots of other posters.

 

[Sayjac]

I’d ignore the sample size. In this case, the largest predictor of wear is break-in and he has regularly cited this confounding factor in lab results. I was flabbergasted when he mentioned break in effect, then made the conclusion.

I was literally jaw dropped.

My reaction to it was similar. Clearly he was attempting to fit his preconceived conclusion about filter reuse and efficiency, to the 'data' he had on hand. I also found his rationalization about his glove use practice, being kind, amusing. There is a great comment (imo) to LSjr in the yt comments about it regarding "following the science". Made me smile.

As reference, generally speaking like and find his content informative. This one, not so much.