Napa platinum no good?

[JohnnyJohnson]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Yeah, agree to disagree is great. Read the Bus Study. And I'm all ears when someone here can post links to a valid committee approved study showing that inefficient filters make no difference in oil cleanliness and engine wear.

Me too until then its all 99% + filters at 20 microns and I'm not looking back until someone posts that white paper. After all you guys are so sure how hard can it be to find reliable proof to back your position?

 

[goodtimes]

Post the link to the bus study, want to read it. Efficiency is a word. The multi pass four hour test of efficiency is a better description of what's advertised on boxes. Now in real life the filter needs 200 or more hours to fill, not 4. 200 hours of filtering will show it's efficiency number. Please post results of 200 plus hour multi pass efficiency tests. Oops, they don't exist. So therefore and in conclusion 4 hours testing equals 200 plus. No way Jose.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Paste this into Google:
bus study site:bobistheoilguy.com

The info has been posted many times over the last couple years in this forum, and you have been in those threads. You maintain the thought of a disconnect between filter lab efficiency tests and real world results. Well, the Bus Study shows the correlation.

As I've posted many times, the study shows that filters that rated high in efficiency in the lab also kept the oil cleaner in real world use. What logic and proof says it wouldn't be that way?

Now someone post up a valid study that shows that filter efficiency has no effect on oil cleanliness and engine wear.

 

[newtoncd8]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Yeah, agree to disagree is great. Read the Bus Study. And I'm all ears when someone here can post links to a valid committee approved study showing that inefficient filters make no difference in oil cleanliness and engine wear.

I posted this picture in another section of the site and this is not a study by any means, but over the course of 232,700 miles, I have (mostly) used the Toyota OEM (90915-YZZD1) in our 2004 RX330 with Pennzoil synthetic (or a blend) @ 5,000 mile intervals. At around 205,000 miles, I started using the Fram Ultra until a knocking noise at startup at around 220,000 miles caused me concern and I went back to Toyota. I believe the Toyota filter is rated for ~50% @ 20 microns. The picture below was taken at 231,500 miles.

 

[ZeeOSix]

^^^ That photo of a clean engine valve train has nothing to do with filter efficiency, but instead what kind of oil was used (and how it cleans), and how often oil changes were done. Wear particles are too small to see with a naked eye unless you have better than 20/20 vision.

It looks clean, what oil have you been using besides the Pennzoil?

 

[4WD]

How many hours from the time the engine was turned off to when picture was snapped … seems to still have synthetic oil on the parts …

 

[newtoncd8]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
^^^ That photo of a clean engine valve train has nothing to do with filter efficiency, but instead what kind of oil was used (and how it cleans), and how often oil changes were done. Wear particles are too small to see with a naked eye unless you have better than 20/20 vision.

It looks clean, what oil have you been using besides the Pennzoil?



Purchased new and started with Mobil 1, but didn't like the iron numbers and switched to Pennzoil early in the vehicles life along with 4 oz of Tufoil. I believe it was about an hour or two after pulling the valve cover, but it had sat the night before.

 

[Trav]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Yeah, agree to disagree is great. Read the Bus Study. And I'm all ears when someone here can post links to a valid committee approved study showing that inefficient filters make no difference in oil cleanliness and engine wear.

Isn't that the study dNewton had issues with? Instead of posing all this again just read the other thread.

Quote:
What we all need to realize is that, to my knowledge, there is no current, relevant SAE study regarding filtration.

Most all of our information for discussion comes from decades old data (the GM filter study; the bus study). Those two in particular are often referenced as the gold standards, but one is an ALT that GROSSLY DISTORTS REALITY, and the other was done on 2-stroke DD engines that were notorious for soot generation and sub-standard air filtration.

My point in all this is that there's no relevant data that directly proves the points we discuss.

The only way we'd know with absolute certainty is that some company would have to run a large study with different filters, and see what pans out. For example, Fram could run a small fleet split into two groups; a control and a subject group. Perhaps run a fleet with EGs (95%) and another with TGs or FUs (99%). They'd have to run enough to get a true statistical data set that is large enough to be credible (minimum 30 samples for each group). The could do both UOAs (tracking wear over the life-cycle of perhaps 150k miles, with UOAs every 5k miles), and then at the end of the life-cycle, then do a TD analysis. That would take a LONG time, a HUGE amount of cash, and a commitment that would likely span past anyone's interest period. And for what? Would they sell any more filters? Most likely not. If not Fram, it could be Wix with the XP, Wix, and jobber filters. Or Purolator with the Classic (formerly white, now red), the PureOne and Boss.

My point is that I believe UOAs will show us wear trends, but ONLY when the metals are present. There is reasonable, sane explanation that would suggest that wear ONLY happens above 5um (above where spectral analysis would see it). Wear happens at ALL particle sizes, and so while UOAs will not not see all wear, they will indeed see a visible portion of wear, likely proportional to the overall trend. And so if your filter selection does not cause a discernible effect in UOA visible wear, it's also probably not causing any tangible difference in wear not seen by the UOA also. It if flat foolish to believe that the difference between 80% and 99% eff filters is ONLY going to manifest above 5um in particle wear. Therefore the UOAs should be able to see the difference, IF AND ONLY IF, the quantity of abrasive particles is substantial enough to generate a resulting echo in wear particles.

But that does not happen; hence filter differences really don't matter as much as some of you would like to think. That means that OTHER things are controlling wear; such as the air filter and lube add-pack and TCB.

It certainly cannot hurt to use a 99% FF filter. But it does not "help" as much as you'd think. Other items in the wear-control system are far more effective at controlling daily wear.
_________________________
The act of preventative maintenance, in and of itself, is FAR MORE important than brand/grade/base choices among lubes and filters.
- under maintaining something is akin to abuse/neglect; that can kill equipment by shortening the lifespan
- over maintaining something has never been proven to be anything but a waste of time and money


https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4647800/Wix_XP_efficiency

 

[ZeeOSix]

If you read everything dnewton has posted in multiple threads, he eventually says the bus study has some validity. Doesn't matter if the bus study was on diesel engines - it was a real world test in the field, not an accelerated lab test like the GM study. Only part that was accelerated in the bus study was the lab tests on the filters to rate their efficiency.

The test data shows that oil filters that tested to be more efficient in the lab kept the oil cleaner in real world use, and resulted in less engine wear. Therefore, also proving that the lab test for efficiency does correlate to how clean the oil stays in the field. It's not rocket science.

Still waiting for someone to post a study that shows filter efficiency doesn't matter, and that engines dont wear more with dirtier oil.

 

[JohnnyJohnson]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
^^^ That photo of a clean engine valve train has nothing to do with filter efficiency, but instead what kind of oil was used (and how it cleans), and how often oil changes were done. Wear particles are too small to see with a naked eye unless you have better than 20/20 vision.

It looks clean, what oil have you been using besides the Pennzoil?


LOL clean doesn't also mean no wear or less wear. Its simply a warm fuzzy!

 

[Triple_Se7en]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Triple_Se7en
No nonsense!
Replaced with a $1.67 Premium Guard and both my startup rattle and standing idle-stutter stopped. I'm not here to bash Fram at-all. I am a fan of both the TG and new EG.
2004 Chevrolet Colorado 3.5 five cylinder.


Did you cut open that Ultra to inspect the guts? Maybe it was that missing cylinder.

hahahaha
I'll look under the floorboard first!

 

[Trav]

Do your own research instead of posting some old almost worthless study on diesel engines that produce lots of soot and carbon, yes it does matter if they were diesels.
If that's all you have and it seems to be because you tout that all the time you have next to nothing either.

Produce something with modern gasoline engines that show less engine wear with one filter vs any other filter in real world operation and I don't mean advertising, just asking for the same thing you are, so far all we have is your opinion.

 

[goodtimes]

The four hour SAE multipass filter test is a wonderful test, but it isn't 200 hours like in real life. They don't have the money or equipment to do a 200 hour test. There is no data or means to produce data for a 200 hour test, but that doesn't then mean 4 hours of filtration equals 200. The whole concept of bypass filtration to have cleaner oil is based on slow filtering, not fast. We do have strong referenced data showing the Fram Ultra was inferior to common filters during a real life oil change interval. I think slower filtering sections of filters like are in cellulose fibers can result in cleaner oil. As for Toyota filters we have only a made up chart, no data, no validation, from 2011, on one small type of Toyota filter and one sample, which is like no data at all.

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: newtoncd8
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Yeah, agree to disagree is great. Read the Bus Study. And I'm all ears when someone here can post links to a valid committee approved study showing that inefficient filters make no difference in oil cleanliness and engine wear.

I posted this picture in another section of the site and this is not a study by any means, but over the course of 232,700 miles, I have (mostly) used the Toyota OEM (90915-YZZD1) in our 2004 RX330 with Pennzoil synthetic (or a blend) @ 5,000 mile intervals. At around 205,000 miles, I started using the Fram Ultra until a knocking noise at startup at around 220,000 miles caused me concern and I went back to Toyota. I believe the Toyota filter is rated for ~50% @ 20 microns. The picture below was taken at 231,500 miles.




Those engines are called sludge monsters when people neglect them. Good example of more blasting away internet mythology. We had a Camry v6 which had the same basic engine. I did the valve cover gaskets myself, clean inside. I had the same start up issue as you did with an aged oil filter from RA. The filter angles down so in a higher mileage engine apparently the center tube drains out through the bearings. I had no trouble with the Ultra when the engine was newer, but went back to OE and it never had another issue with cold start up rattle. I don't see why the Ultra would have an issue unless defective adbv or something. The Toyota filter is not rated at 50% by any actual data, more internet mythology. The Amsoil chart, which is not data, was 51% not 50, but some folks want to round it down further. Apparently it's a great filter as Lexus installs it on 100K cars.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Do your own research instead of posting some old almost worthless study on diesel engines that produce lots of soot and carbon, yes it does matter if they were diesels.
If that's all you have and it seems to be because you tout that all the time you have next to nothing either.

Produce something with modern gasoline engines that show less engine wear with one filter vs any other filter in real world operation and I don't mean advertising, just asking for the same thing you are, so far all we have is your opinion.


It's more than you or anyone else has come up with to prove filter efficiency doesn't matter with respect to oil cleanliness and engine wear.

Explain how it matters that those were diesel engines. Fact is, them being diesel engines is a good thing because it allows enough oil contamination in a decent amount of time to see the true effect of what a more efficient oil filter can do.

And I thought you were done with this discussion and 'agreed to disagree' ... guess not, and if not then it's up to you to prove that more efficient oil filters make no difference in keeping oil cleaner and engine wear down since that is your position. Go do 'your research' and link it up.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
The four hour SAE multipass filter test is a wonderful test, but it isn't 200 hours like in real life. They don't have the money or equipment to do a 200 hour test. There is no data or means to produce data for a 200 hour test, but that doesn't then mean 4 hours of filtration equals 200. The whole concept of bypass filtration to have cleaner oil is based on slow filtering, not fast. We do have strong referenced data showing the Fram Ultra was inferior to common filters during a real life oil change interval. I think slower filtering sections of filters like are in cellulose fibers can result in cleaner oil. As for Toyota filters we have only a made up chart, no data, no validation, from 2011, on one small type of Toyota filter and one sample, which is like no data at all.


One sample point, just like your one 'strong reference' point you always come back to.

The bus study was a real life long drawn out field test which lasted over long term OCIs. Can't get any more real life than that.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
The Amsoil chart, which is not data, was 51% not 50, but some folks want to round it down further. Apparently it's a great filter as Lexus installs it on 100K cars.


I guess that extra 1% really makes it so much better, lol. Just because Amsoil showed the end result of the ISO efficiency test doesn't mean it's not valid data.

 

[Trav]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix


And I thought you were done with this discussion and 'agreed to disagree' ... guess not,


It was you that couldn't let it go chief not me. All this stuff you keep posting has been posted and answered more than once in other threads, there is no point in rehashing it all again.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
And I thought you were done with this discussion and 'agreed to disagree' ... guess not,

It was you that couldn't let it go chief not me. All this stuff you keep posting has been posted and answered more than once in other threads, there is no point in rehashing it all again.


You keep coming back trying to challenge that oil filter efficiency doesn't effect oil cleanliness and engine wear - and get nowhere because you have zero proof - so you're the one not letting go. I show real world controlled test data and you show nothing to support your claim. So it might be in your best interest to either find proof of your claim or simply forget about this subject and do what you said you were going to do ... 'agree to disagree' and move on. And it will always be repeated as long as people continually claim that oil filter efficiency doesn't matter and they never show any valid proof of their claim.

I'm still waiting for anyone here to find valid test study proof (as in SAE paper of similar) that oil filter efficiency doesn't effect oil cleanliness and engine wear. Come one, if the study proof was out there it can be found.

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
The four hour SAE multipass filter test is a wonderful test, but it isn't 200 hours like in real life. They don't have the money or equipment to do a 200 hour test. There is no data or means to produce data for a 200 hour test, but that doesn't then mean 4 hours of filtration equals 200. The whole concept of bypass filtration to have cleaner oil is based on slow filtering, not fast. We do have strong referenced data showing the Fram Ultra was inferior to common filters during a real life oil change interval. I think slower filtering sections of filters like are in cellulose fibers can result in cleaner oil. As for Toyota filters we have only a made up chart, no data, no validation, from 2011, on one small type of Toyota filter and one sample, which is like no data at all.


One sample point, just like your one 'strong reference' point you always come back to.

The bus study was a real life long drawn out field test which lasted over long term OCIs. Can't get any more real life than that.


Sorry chief someone saying something is so without references is not data from the source. The Blackstone Labs report is data from the source. There was another particle report too. You always use this where's the data question so ought to know it applies to you too. There is a way to question what I said with facts but you still haven't come up with it. I see no link to a diesel engine bus study. Chief is stubborn to comply with requests, like the King.