Napa platinum no good?

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: SnowmanCO
Originally Posted By: Motorking
Ultra always costs less at 8.99 retail, ...

"Always costs less at 8.99 retail" is NOT accurate, unless you are looking at only the retail price of Napa Platinums available at Napa.


Think he's talking about retail prices. Ultras (and about any brand filter) can be bought for less than retail too if you know where to look.

 

[Trav]

I did make a mistake (if I walked on water they would say I cant swim), I should have said catch all the 15 and sub 15 micron particles not all the 15 micron particles.
If the FU catches 80 particles out of 100 that still allows 20 possible very damaging particles free to do their thing which is tear your bearings to bits. Right or wrong, that's what you say motorking claims, IMO that still blows.
Only 20 bullets got past the bulletproof vest out a 100, WOW that's great thing.

No disconnect about bypass filters, don't get me wrong I think they are great and if I had a diesel I would be running one.
what my point is when some horrifically damaging particles are introduced deliberately into the engine with a Scotch-Brite wheel extensive damage can occur regardless of the type of filtration, sure the bypass can filter them but it has to get them first and by the time that happens they have done the damage since they went through the full flow multiple times.

The rest of it I stand behind. I hope others chime in with their thoughts, if I have something wrong I have no problem admitting it.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Trav
I did make a mistake (if I walked on water they would say I cant swim), I should have said catch all the 15 and sub 15 micron particles not all the 15 micron particles. If the FU catches 80 particles out of 100 that still allows 20 possible very damaging particles free to do their thing which is tear your bearings to bits. Right or wrong, that's what you say motorking claims, IMO that still blows.


Still doesn't mean that less wear particles in the oil means less wear - any increase in oil cleanliness is a good thing, regardless of how that's achieved. It's such simple logic that less particles in the oil means less wear that it almost seems obtuse to even try and argue that's not true.

Know what really blows even more ... a low efficiency filter letting even MORE of those wear particles through every time the oil makes a round through the engine compared to a high efficiency filter.

Originally Posted By: Trav
No disconnect about bypass filters, don't get me wrong I think they are great and if I had a diesel I would be running one.
what my point is when some horrifically damaging particles are introduced deliberately into the engine with a Scotch-Brite wheel extensive damage can occur regardless of the type of filtration, sure the bypass can filter them but it has to get them first and by the time that happens they have done the damage since they went through the full flow multiple times.


Thing is, a high efficiency filter would catch most of those deliberately introduced Scotch-Brit particles on the first pass through the filter compared to a low efficiency filter - again, a good thing. Of course the oil pump might not like it much.

 

[Trav]

The way the bypass is plumbed into the system it will not catch them until every particle went through the filter but yes it will catch them first pass but they will have gone around the system a few times first.
Too many so called mechanics are all to fond of these wheels for cleaning gaskets without realizing how damaging these particles are.
Of course the fewer particles roaming around is better for engine wear, I am not crazy. What I am saying is in modern engines the particles that may have been present years ago in far larger quantities is not the case with today's engine.
The higher efficiency is IMO overkill and will not provide any measurable longer engine life over another filter that may be considered less efficient like the platinum or the XP.

In an older engine with leaky or missing gaskets under the air cleaner, PCV and crankcase leaks all over the place, poorly fitting non gasket fill caps and non sealed dipstick tubes, then yes I can agree with what you are saying.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I don't think high efficiency filters are overkill - and I don't mind spending a few more bucks for a high end filter once a year to ensure cleaner oil on vehicles I'll keep 20 years. I like high performance products, and always will.

Even if there were only 100 particles in the oil instead of multi-millions, I'd still run a high efficiency filter. It's just the way I roll knowing that cleaner oil is better than not, regardless of how clean or dirty running an engine is.

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I don't think high efficiency filters are overkill - and I don't mind spending a few more bucks for a high end filter once a year to ensure cleaner oil on vehicles I'll keep 20 years. I like high performance products, and always will.

Even if there were only 100 particles in the oil instead of multi-millions, I'd still run a high efficiency filter. It's just the way I roll knowing that cleaner oil is better than not, regardless of how clean or dirty running an engine is.


I roll the same way there chief.

I don't mind paying more for cleaner oil. That's why I talk about Frantz a lot. Efficiency has to be qualified as to how it's measured, it's a general word. Efficiency using a Frantz, or efficiency by particle tests from the oil pan, an accelerated particle load test, or what.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I go by ISO 4548-12 efficiency tests which definately qualifies the efficiency to a well defined test procedure. Knowing how the ISO test is done and from other research, I know that it's valid enough to compare how filters should comparatively perform in real use to each other - the bus study clearly showed that. I know you don't get that, but go with whatever turns ya on. I wouldn't use any filter that doesn't have an ISO efficiency rating - no surprise I'm sure.

 

[Trav]

So you are saying if a more efficient filter protects a pre 1990 6-71 or 6v92 in a city bus diesel engine better that somehow correlates to better protection and longer engine life for a modern gasoline engine?
I know where the particles are coming from in the diesel but where exactly are they coming from in a modern gasoline engine?
Why are there so many stellar UOA's from engines that just use an OE filter eg Toyota's inefficient filters and go hundreds of thousands of miles and often to the junk yard with perfectly good engines in them? Fair question.

I have read the bus study and its almost totally irrelevant to today's gasoline engines yet you keep insisting on using it a some sort of Biblical reference. There is a reason a 6-71 needs a filter this size and it isn't so much wear metals as it is large amounts of coagulated carbon from burning diesel oil.



And a reason a modern 3.5 ltr gasoline engine can use one this size for 15k+ with no issues. I realize size has nothing to do with efficiency but it does have to do with loading capacity so the manufacturer feels a filter this size is more than adequate to warranty the engine with and it is.



There is no proof one way or the other using this filter over that one will result in longer engine life or less wear in a modern gasoline engine.
There is certainly nothing wrong with the Ultra but there is no valid reason to use it over another filter, an OE Toyota filer for example will protect the engine just as well over the OCI listed or is Toyota selling oil filters they know will shorten the engines lifespan deliberately?

This is why the bus study is irrelevant and why the fact they were diesels does make a difference.

Quote:
The implications of diesel soot particles on wear of the engine have been investigated by various researchers. Gautam et al. [15] found that the wear of lubricated engine components is proportional to the soot concentration in the lubricating oil. Studies by Sato et al. [16] and Green et al. [14] confirmed this observation and discovered further that the effect is more significant for thinner films, e.g. in the valve train. As such, the camshaft undergoes wear in the form of surface degradation and reduction in cam diameter, resulting in increases in friction and impeded cylinder gas exchange due to reduced valve amplitudes respectively. Consequently, the engine efficiency is reduced.


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0008622318306122

 

[Patman]

Originally Posted By: Trav


There is no proof one way or the other using this filter over that one will result in longer engine life or less wear in a modern gasoline engine.
There is certainly nothing wrong with the Ultra but there is no valid reason to use it over another filter, an OE Toyota filer for example will protect the engine just as well over the OCI listed or is Toyota selling oil filters they know will shorten the engines lifespan deliberately?





The Ultra costs roughly the same as less efficient filters so, it's not like it commands a huge premium, so I will continue to take a leap of faith that it is going to give my engines longer life. If I'm wrong I certainly won't hurt anything, but if I follow your advice and just went with OEM for all of my cars, there is that chance that I'm shortening their effective life in the long run and by the time I find out it's already too late.

It's not fair to use Toyotas as an example by the way, because they build engines that are so durable (and people generally drive them pretty gently) that it almost doesn't matter what you do. Other engines may not fare so well if driven hard and using OEM filters.

 

[Trav]

What, really? Damage done by high RPM in high stress engines usually comes from some sort of other lube failure eg starvation in track events or shearing of the oil film not particles getting past the filter.
The Toyota example is 100% valid. Do you really believe that GM would use an inferior filter on their premium flagship engines? Sorry but that's really drinking the Kool Aid.

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I go by ISO 4548-12 efficiency tests which definately qualifies the efficiency to a well defined test procedure. Knowing how the ISO test is done and from other research, I know that it's valid enough to compare how filters should comparatively perform in real use to each other - the bus study clearly showed that. I know you don't get that, but go with whatever turns ya on. I wouldn't use any filter that doesn't have an ISO efficiency rating - no surprise I'm sure.


This isn't about what you think someone gets or doesn't get. Maybe someone does get it. Maybe you don't. Or vice versa, does not matter who gets. Stick to the subject.

Measure out 1 gram of test dirt. That isn't a big amount on the scale, it's tiny. Imagine that amount is generated every thousand miles or 40 hours as a true real world approximation of engine use. How many efficiency tests do we have data for that show what happens to the 1 gram filtered 40 hours? None. So saying one filter is more efficient than another is only about the particular test done, not something else. Particle count tests have shown the Ultra did not win or give high ISO cleanliness numbers. So there is more going on than the marketing on the box IMO.

 

[dbeau]

Boy, what a debate!

I'll run the Platinum for 20K and let ya'll know if anything explodes

 

[Trav]

Nothing is going to explode, the engine will be fine.

 

[Triple_Se7en]

Originally Posted By: Trav
What, really? Damage done by high RPM in high stress engines usually comes from some sort of other lube failure eg starvation in track events or shearing of the oil film not particles getting past the filter.
The Toyota example is 100% valid. Do you really believe that GM would use an inferior filter on their premium flagship engines? Sorry but that's really drinking the Kool Aid.


It's not about GM using inferior filters. But it is all about GM having engines made from all over the world, thus filters need to be different too, dependent on application.

 

[SnowmanCO]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: SnowmanCO
Originally Posted By: Motorking
Ultra always costs less at 8.99 retail, ...

"Always costs less at 8.99 retail" is NOT accurate, unless you are looking at only the retail price of Napa Platinums available at Napa.


Think he's talking about retail prices. Ultras (and about any brand filter) can be bought for less than retail too if you know where to look.


Rock Auto is a retailer! How is that now "retail". In Most cases that I have found on Rock Auto, the Wix XP for any given model is less expensive than the Fram ultra, just as the traditional Wix is usually a little cheaper than the Fram Extra Guard. Take the case of my F150 (which has a very common filter). The Wix XP (57502XP) is $6.69 and the Fram Ultra XG10575 is $7.81. Wix 57502 is $4.56, and Fram PH10575 is $4.69.

I know nothing about which filter manufacturers have the greatest market share, but based on what I see at most auto parts and brick and mortar retailers in my area, Fram clearly has the biggest selection. It seems like they have a greater supply chain to serve that market. Take Walmart for example - you typically have every type of Fram filter out there, then a handful of different super tech's, Motorcrafts, etc. That said, I have NEVER seen a quick lube or service department use Fram filters in my experience. So they have historically seemed to be targeting brick and mortar retailers. More stock and selection at those types of retailers will equal lower prices.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Trav - you continue to hang on to the strawman arguement that the bus study doesn't correlate to a "modern gasoline engine" to argue your misconception that modern engines are so clean that they don't need high efficiency oil filtration.

I've explained at least 3 times now that the bus study was NOT to "correlate" it directly to gasoline engines, and I've never claimed it ever did.

But what I am saying is that it does show higher efficiency oil filters kept the oil cleaner, which resulted in less engine wear - doesn't matter if it's on a dirty diesel or a clean gasoline engine - cleaner oil always means less relative wear. I thought you already agreed with this simple basic logic. Are you now saying you don't believe that logic? If not, show proof that dirtier oil doesn't make any difference in engine wear.

For someone who said they would 'agree to disagree', you sure are trying to convince me otherwise, which you or anyone else won't ever do unless you or someone else can link up some solid engine wear studies showing that the level of oil cleanliness has no correlation to engine wear. If you search around, you will also find similar studies like the bus study. Not one study I've ever found has said oil cleanliness doesn't effect engine wear.

I really don't care if someone wants to use inefficient filters or not because they don't think it matters, it's their vehicle. And BTW, from what I recall you usually seem to use filters that are on the higher side of the efficiency scale (95%+ @ 20u) ... so why aren't you using some 50% @ 20u filters?

I think high efficiency filters do make a difference based on what I've researched, and the simple and irrefutable fact that cleaner oil means less relative wear regardless of how clean or dirty the engine is. You believe they don't make any difference based on no real solid study info, just straw.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Trav
This is why the bus study is irrelevant and why the fact they were diesels does make a difference.

Quote:
The implications of diesel soot wear particles on wear of the engine have been investigated by various researchers. Gautam et al. [15] It was found that the wear of lubricated engine components is proportional to the soot wear particle concentration in the lubricating oil.


Fixed it for ya. The bus study is relevant to show the basic fact that cleaner oil results in less engine wear. It also showed that oil remained cleaner with filters that lab tested to have higher efficiency. Anyone who doesn't understand that doesn't understand filtration or the correlation between dirty oil and engine wear. Doesn't matter what the engine is, or how clean or dirty the engine is. Cleaner oil means less relative engine wear compared to dirtier oil - that basic fact is always true.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: SnowmanCO
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Think he's talking about retail prices. Ultras (and about any brand filter) can be bought for less than retail too if you know where to look.

Rock Auto is a retailer! How is that now "retail".


I think he was referring to the suggested "retail" price set by Fram. Of course anyone who sells stuff is a "retailer". And like I said, most of those places may have prices set below the manufacturer's suggested retail price. Some might even have prices set above that - I see that now and then.

Originally Posted By: SnowmanCO
That said, I have NEVER seen a quick lube or service department use Fram filters in my experience. So they have historically seemed to be targeting brick and mortar retailers. More stock and selection at those types of retailers will equal lower prices.


That's because the quick lube places would rather buy super cheap made in China filters so they can make more profits on their sales. Most people that use quick lube places have no idea what an oil filter really is, or how they differ.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I go by ISO 4548-12 efficiency tests which definately qualifies the efficiency to a well defined test procedure. Knowing how the ISO test is done and from other research, I know that it's valid enough to compare how filters should comparatively perform in real use to each other - the bus study clearly showed that. I know you don't get that, but go with whatever turns ya on. I wouldn't use any filter that doesn't have an ISO efficiency rating - no surprise I'm sure.

This isn't about what you think someone gets or doesn't get. Maybe someone does get it. Maybe you don't. Or vice versa, does not matter who gets. Stick to the subject.

Measure out 1 gram of test dirt. That isn't a big amount on the scale, it's tiny. Imagine that amount is generated every thousand miles or 40 hours as a true real world approximation of engine use. How many efficiency tests do we have data for that show what happens to the 1 gram filtered 40 hours? None. So saying one filter is more efficient than another is only about the particular test done, not something else. Particle count tests have shown the Ultra did not win or give high ISO cleanliness numbers. So there is more going on than the marketing on the box IMO.


Show me something better than ISO 4548-12 to compare filter efficiency. And one dude's posted particle count data on BITOG doesn't prove anything ... it's one data point that could have been skewed for a variety of reason. I can also reference a particle count posted on this board that showed the oil with 5K miles on it coming out of the sump of a wet clutch shared motorcycle engine had less particles in it than the bottled virgin oil that was put into the engine.

Like said many times, the ISO test is NOT meant to totally represent real world debris loading - it's meant to compare filter efficiency on an 'apples-to-apples' basis using a standardized test procedure. But again, as the bus study showed, the accelerated efficiency lab tests that ranked the filter's efficiency also correlated to which filter kept the oil cleaner in real world use. This is not a very hard concept to grasp. So yeah, some people don't get that, and probably never will.

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I go by ISO 4548-12 efficiency tests which definately qualifies the efficiency to a well defined test procedure. Knowing how the ISO test is done and from other research, I know that it's valid enough to compare how filters should comparatively perform in real use to each other - the bus study clearly showed that. I know you don't get that, but go with whatever turns ya on. I wouldn't use any filter that doesn't have an ISO efficiency rating - no surprise I'm sure.

This isn't about what you think someone gets or doesn't get. Maybe someone does get it. Maybe you don't. Or vice versa, does not matter who gets. Stick to the subject.

Measure out 1 gram of test dirt. That isn't a big amount on the scale, it's tiny. Imagine that amount is generated every thousand miles or 40 hours as a true real world approximation of engine use. How many efficiency tests do we have data for that show what happens to the 1 gram filtered 40 hours? None. So saying one filter is more efficient than another is only about the particular test done, not something else. Particle count tests have shown the Ultra did not win or give high ISO cleanliness numbers. So there is more going on than the marketing on the box IMO.


Show me something better than ISO 4548-12 to compare filter efficiency. And one dude's posted particle count data on BITOG doesn't prove anything ... it's one data point that could have been skewed for a variety of reason. I can also reference a particle count posted on this board that showed the oil with 5K miles on it coming out of the sump of a wet clutch shared motorcycle engine had less particles in it than the bottled virgin oil that was put into the engine.

Like said many times, the ISO test is NOT meant to totally represent real world debris loading - it's meant to compare filter efficiency on an 'apples-to-apples' basis using a standardized test procedure. But again, as the bus study showed, the accelerated efficiency lab tests that ranked the filter's efficiency also correlated to which filter kept the oil cleaner in real world use. This is not a very hard concept to grasp. So yeah, some people don't get that, and probably never will.


As long as efficiency used as a catch all word is referenced to the multi test, of course it compares the filters the same way, it's fine. Not my point at all. There is no test for real world conditions in the lab, but you keep asking over and over for one regardless. The multi test is good and does show something about highly loaded filters in 4 hours. Probably because it is impossible to do, or costs too much, with the tiny amounts of particles in real life use. I stand by my idea.

"Some dude" probably still reads here, nice. It was a test between two oil filters and Blackstone lab found the results. The member didn't make a chart himself and make a claim like Amsoil. The Ultra lost, allowed more particles to be in the oil. Another member, not another "dude", found not so good ISO cleanliness numbers. That's two members, not one.

The motorcycle test you refer to was one member having his oil tested with one filter. There was no comparison between two filters. The claim the Ultra makes oil better than new oil based on that is laughable.

Another member once tried to say his Ultra on a motorcycle was better than a Frantz. Problem is the Frantz took used oil from a diesel engine and cleaned it while the motorcyclist simply had his new oil tested after use, which was a another laughable comparison.