Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
However, third party claims (AAP, AZ, etc) of filter efficiency mean zero to me.
I'll assume that the third party guys get their filter specs from the filter manufacturers.
Yes - I'd agree that's where they get it. But they often regurgitate it incorrectly. Take an OEM mistake (ala Wix), multiply it by third party idiots, and you get this kind of idiocy:
Dextron at AAP.
"Dex
tron"? Really? They can't even get the name right.
And so I'm supposed to believe a filter spec from an auto parts house, when it seems so dubious it's nearly incredulous?
Uh - No!
If the Motorcraft filter truly is only 80% at 20um, then I'm going to decry it the end-all-be-all of data and say we should just quit worrying about any of it! Why? Because if they REALLY are only 80% at 20um, and yet we all get really good (even stellar) UOAs, then that would be indeed total and complete proof that filters mean nothing in terms of controlling engine wear.
Think about it before you post! If the MC filter is truly that bad, and yet we all still get great UOAs using those filters, then it proves that filters are nearly meaningless!
However, I firmly suspect (as do most of you) that the 80%/20um claim is either a marketing fudge factor allowing much room for wiggling, or it's just a flat out mistake that was never corrected.
I don't believe that the MC filter is "only" 80% at 20um; I'm sure it's way better than that. How much better? I don't actually care. I've never seen any proof that a decently made filter from a reputable firm makes a hoot's worth of difference one way or another.
MC filters are very well made, and if you find them at a good cost from a decent source, they can be very cost effective. But those traits are not exclusive to that brand; there are many good filters out there, and many can be found at a decent price.
If we want to truly KNOW, we're going to have to pay to play; we're going to have to put our money where our mouth is. Otherwise, we're just as bad as anyone else out there guessing our way through it.
But if we don't want to pay for filter testings, we have an alternative ...
I always return to the real reason a filter even exists; it's to clean the sump fluid so as to extend performance lifecycle. And the only practical way we have to track the fluid performance is a UOA. And UOAs simply don't show any tangible differences between filtration efficiencies, as long as they are at a pragmatic level deemed reasonable by the equipment OEM.
