must see oil filter comparo!

Joined
Aug 6, 2004
Messages
2,635
Location
Chicago
Lots of data, wrong conclusion. Should have done a particle count not a count of elements that no full flow filter could remove.
 
Joined
Nov 17, 2002
Messages
3,023
Location
USA-Michigan
There are many forums on the internet and these are often the result of seemingly knowledgeable persons offering so called "expert information" to those that aren't.
 
Joined
Dec 21, 2003
Messages
12,385
Location
Northern CA
Quote:
Lots of data, wrong conclusion. Should have done a particle count not a count of elements that no full flow filter could remove.
To bad he didn't hang out here for a few months before he did his tests. It looks like he had some outstanding resources at his disposal and did a reasonably good job with his own test methodology.....Except for measuring the wrong things. The only conclusion I can make from his data is that a Motor Guard filter does a pretty decent job of removing UOA sized particles from oil. What size range are the particles that a ppm type UOA without a particle count reports?
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
300
Location
Out there somewhere
Quote:
There are many forums on the internet and these are often the result of seemingly knowledgeable persons offering so called "expert information" to those that aren't.
Unlike this one right?
 
Joined
Jul 10, 2003
Messages
9,461
Location
Not Seattle, but close.
Quote:
A PureONE with dirtier oil after a 500 mile run, the worst of the bunch.
If you're going to believe that one, let me know, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
 

damanwitdaplan

Thread starter
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Messages
107
Location
DC
But isnt an elemet count still valid? i mean if that goes down then the particle count must be going down too...how else would u explain why the oil guard bypass filter counts were so low if this werent true? If the concern is about particle size, my argument is that these are all major brand filters so u must assume that the media used is decent and filters down to a reasonable level size-wise. the question is whether the filter as a whole is doing its job as the manufacturer claims. these test results are also in agreement with the general consensus i read here that mobil 1 filters have an edge over the other ones mentioned.
 
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Messages
613
Location
SW Michigan, near Fennville
This site, for the most part is 100% opinion. If I were a judge presiding a case with "these" witnesses (ME included) I'd throw out the testimony as heresay evidence. Ekpolk an active Marine and lawyer has the best information and most of it is not about oil but about what's right or not right.
 
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
307
Location
Phoenix, AZ
I didn't see a post by EKPolk on the Jeep BBS or one by you either.... Surely, you can't be talking about BITOG. Surely, NOT.
 
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
1,460
Location
Texas
He wasted his time and effort..imho. I scanned how he did his test. He kept used oil to replenish every time he changed the filters he wanted to test after 500 miles on each filter. Now how stupid is putting used-- 3,000 mile contaminated oil-- back into the crankcase. Where there is no control over contaminant added? He assumes that the contaminant level is consistent from his previous oil change. It isn't. Each filter was tested 500 miles after he had already gone 3,000 miles between changes. So he kept the used oil in. Oil depletes. As it depletes it's abilities to hold in suspension contaminant is reduced. which effects the PPM's of any test. Running a filter 500 miles will have little effect on removing contaminant out of the oil. Which is why he found little differences in the filters. The one filter that did well was his by-pass. Well Duh! A bypass has inherent abilities to remove contaminant a Full-Flow doesn't at better efficiencies. With 500 miles on each filter where the regular oil change interval is 3,000 miles. That is 16.6% of the filter life to the 3,000 mile change interval. Accepting that there is differences in the media between all the filters tested--at 16.6% life those differences are still small. It takes further mileage as the filter loads it becomes more effective. So better media shows it's qualities further into it's life. Not so much at 1/6th. Which is why he wasted his time. Imho of course.
 

damanwitdaplan

Thread starter
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Messages
107
Location
DC
i thought about the dirty oil thing too Filter Guy, and it is a logical argument. but if u look at the counts in the oil going thru each filter, u'd expect the mobil 1's oil to be the dirtiest cuz it was tested near the end, right? Wrong. turns out the counts are all similar for all the filters. and that's something u can't ignore regarding validity of results. can't explain it but one theory is that he didnt leave the oil in there long enough between testing intervals for an appreciable change in counts to oocur. also, he had 4 different labs do the same testing and if he could duplicate the reults 4 times... this imo of course...
 
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
1,460
Location
Texas
He has the same oil though for the entire test. And he expects a filter to "clean" the oil to some sort of significant benefit in 500 miles. Not likely. That is the flawed part of the test. Let's look at lab tests on any of these brands. Fresh pure uncontaminated fluid. Particle count test to confirm no contaminant. Then contaminant is added at timed intervals. Particle counts upstream and then down stream to determine the effectiveness of the filter media. At the end of the test there is also a capacity in grams retained by the media. Notice any difference in his test? Fully contaminated oil. Where is the benchmark of the oil before the test to determine a particle count? How much added contaminant is generated over 500 miles? Unknown because of the wear within the engine. Due to variable stresses on the motor when he drives it, the motor will have different amounts of wear. Not to mention he was topping up with used oil ( and no particle counts on that). Did he shake the used oil to make sure any contaminant in the used oil that may have settled was dispersed? Doubt it. But , unless I missed something, he had no clue how much "extra" contaminant he was adding. So each filter could have seen different amounts of added contaminant to the oil from topping up over and above different wear rates from how he drove each 500 mile stint. Did any of the labs determine how much, by grams, each filter in his test retained? What if the filter with the worst PPM in the oil sample retained the most contaminant? It was doing it's job better than the others was it not by retaining more of the contaminant? The fact that the oil analysis said the PPM's were higher only showed he was getting more wear or had topped up with dirtier ( more comtaminanted) oil----based soley on a 500 mile stint. He has 1/2 of the equation (at best). A particle count. He has no clue how effective the media was because he doesn't know--what it removed-- by way of grams of contaminant taken out of the fluid. If the lab would have weighed a clean element cut out of a new filter. Then dried the used element and then weighed it--that would have been hand-grenade close to determining how much the filter removed. ( bearing in mind individual pleat counts and variances in amount of plastisol dispensed into the endcaps). Each lab could have also done a restriction test on the element to see if there were any differences. However, the labs he chose only did --oil analysis--- as far as what I read. None of them had the capability to test the filter. Either that or he never expressed that he sent the "filter" to the labs to be tested. He only sent used oil to different labs to verify his particle counts. Now---still believe his results?
 
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
2,837
Location
MO
Invalid test. Not one mention of the prettiness of the filter's exterior.
 
Joined
Dec 5, 2005
Messages
2,724
Location
Herndon, Virginia
Jeez, Pablo..
Quote:
Well at least on this forum the "expert opinion" needs some strength to it - or it will be shredded like my undershorts after a bean and broccoli meal.
Ya think?
 

jaj

Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
1,060
Location
Vancouver, Canada
This guy's got 3000 PPM of Iron in his UOA, and we're debating about the quality of the filter? On this board more than 10 PPM Iron gets alarm bells ringing. I think this is a nonsense test to try to sell OilGuard filters. Cheers JJ
 

damanwitdaplan

Thread starter
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Messages
107
Location
DC
ok ok...i feel like i've been KO'd and down for the count... so which filters do u use and why? also i read that the motorcraft filters are really repackaged pure one filters. is that still true? they would be a bargain if that were the case...
 
Joined
Dec 13, 2002
Messages
436
Location
PHX
From the website....
Quote:
I will have more information to share on the OilGuard bypass filter later. If you would like to learn more about OilGuard Bypass Filters here is a link to their site.
Wow, how nice of him to have a link to that Oil Guard company........
 
Top