Originally Posted By: SubieRubyRoo
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Need something better than a UOA 'insolubles' number ... really need an ISO 4406 Code particle count test.
You clipped the rest of my quote out. I didn't say the Platinum was better than an FU, and I did acknowledge its shortcomings (especially price). But I haven't done any particle count comparisons between FU and Platinum, and I haven't seen any data on the board either comparing the two. So at this point it's a moot argument. I actually also recommended the FU to the OP and also use them myself...
My main point was, Beta ratios and overall filter performance in things like turbines and critical hydraulic components are very valid and will get no argument from me. For car engines however, I haven't seen any compelling test data or fantastic internet reports of failed engines from using a lower Beta ratio filter. On the contrary, the 99% (non-BITOGgers) buy the cheapest possible oil and filter or whatever Jiffy Lube supplies, and there is likely no statistical difference in total lifetime mileage traveled between a BITOG engine and the unwashed masses. Where engines have failed, it's always because of a mechanical breakage, abuse, or other failure, not because the filter let another thousand 30u particles through. I still think OP is better off using XG over Mopar strictly from a durability and filter media material standpoint.
Peace
My response wasn't about which filter is 'better' ... but rather that people look at the 'insolubles' number on a UOA and think that's telling them how good the filter was working. My comment was saying you really need an ISO 4406 particle count test to see a more clear story on filtering efficiency performance, especially when comparing different filters on the same engine in similar use conditions.
But yeah, you only had an 'insolubles' number for just one filter, and if it was any other filter it would probably have a very similar insolubles number, so it's hard to distinguish their performance with that test. The ISO particle count tells way more. I've posted the graphs from the 'bus study' a few times in other threads discussing this, and it shows that a more efficient oil filter results in cleaner oil and less engine wear - that's the main reason people go another level and add a super high efficiency bypass filter system. It's pretty simple logic that better filters clean oil better, and cleaner oil means less wear particles and less engine wear. Will a less efficient oil filter still get you 250+K miles on your engine - yeah, if you change the oil on an appropriate regulate basis.
Most oil filter forum readers know that using a less efficient oil filter isn't going to 'blow-up' an engine ... but it could certainly cause more engine wear over the lifetime of the engine, and cause the engine to start showing it's age sooner (less compression, more oil use, looser rod & crank bearing, etc). And it's pretty hard to determine how worn and engine is by just driving a vehicle, unless the engine is on it's last leg - and most people don't keep a vehicle that long to see that happen anyway.
