Napa platinum no good?

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
I see no link to a diesel engine bus study.

I gave the way to find all the talk about the bus study that's gone on here - you were even commenting in most of those threads, but apparently lost memory of the discussions. I've shown the main graphs from the study showing that filters tested in the lab correlate to how well they keep the oil clean in actual use in the real world. Filters that tested the most efficient in the lab kept the oil the cleanest ... so surprise there Einstein.

The bus study was done to show that more efficient oil filters reduced engine wear - read the last sentence carefully in the synopsis below. I don't know what else the non-believing 'flat earthers' want for proof, yet they just keep on babbling nonsense that it's not true and never show proof to support the claims.

Go search for SAE Paper 902238 ... and buy the paper to read it yourself. The synopsis pretty much tells the story, but if you don't believe it then prove otherwise. You continually come up with some cockamamie claim, but never have any real valid data to back it up.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Sorry chief someone saying something is so without references is not data from the source.


Trev already uses 'chief' ... better come up with something on your own.

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Sorry chief someone saying something is so without references is not data from the source.


Trev already uses 'chief' ... better come up with something on your own.

Post the bus study link.

It Isn't exactly a new word, Chief. I suppose in your world you make all the rules about what others can or cannot do. Chief is pretty good.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Post the bus study link.

Are you incapable of searching for SAE Paper 902238 with Google? And I posted the synopsis - feel like I'm spoon feeding some Gerber. You're being obtuse now and just want to argue and troll, and not add anything constructive to the discussion to support your claims - no surprise. Spend $28 and read it.

 

[Trav]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
I see no link to a diesel engine bus study.

I gave the way to find all the talk about the bus study that's gone on here - you were even commenting in most of those threads, but apparently lost memory of the discussions. I've shown the main graphs from the study showing that filters tested in the lab correlate to how well they keep the oil clean in actual use in the real world. Filters that tested the most efficient in the lab kept the oil the cleanest ... so surprise there Einstein.

The bus study was done to show that more efficient oil filters reduced engine wear - read the last sentence carefully in the synopsis below. I don't know what else the non-believing 'flat earthers' want for proof, yet they just keep on babbling nonsense that it's not true and never show proof to support the claims.

Go search for SAE Paper 902238 ... and buy the paper to read it yourself. The synopsis pretty much tells the story, but if you don't believe it then prove otherwise. You continually come up with some cockamamie claim, but never have any real valid data to back it up.




Read what you are posting Chief. Just like I said in the other thread a bypass filter was more important to reducing damaging particles than a full flow, that may be the reason so many big diesels use them.
Modern gasoline engines do not produce the sort of hard particulates in the amount anywhere close to that of a big diesel, without those types of particles being generated there is no need to filter them.

The point is properly maintained modern engines are not shedding metal to any significant degree and with proper air filtration don't have any stringent oil filtering requirements. Keep in mind also the diesels ingest all the air they can get the same as WOT on a gasoline engine all the time opening up a source for an even much greater amount of damaging particles possible through the air filtration system.

This is the reason many engines today use a very small oil filter, the need for a larger one just isn't there unless it is being used to increase the oils overall capacity to help prevent sludge on the 1.8T like VW did.
This is where your whole argument comes apart at the seams, its not a question of a high efficiency filter prevent more engine wear the question is filtering what and where is it coming from?

If the particles are not there to begin with it doesn't matter how efficient or inefficient the filter is.
If the engine was to leak unfiltered air like a sieve into the engine and the engine oil was so poor the engines wore themselves out in 100K or less like they did years ago your argument would have some merit and we wouldn't be talking about it.
Modern engines are very well sealed from unfiltered air ingress, hard carbon particle production in gasoline engines is primarily above the piston head in the combustion chamber and not from coagulating soot in the oil.

The engines used in that study were diesel engines from over 30 years ago, they spewed particles into the air and their own oil at a enormous rate, chances are they were well worn being in the type of service they were in with a lot of bore wear so sure there were a lot of potentially damaging particles to filter.
there is little or no correlation between those and a modern gasoline or even a modern TDI engine commonly found in cars.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Read what you are posting Chief.
Modern gasoline engines do not produce the sort of hard particulates in the amount anywhere close to that of a big diesel, without those types of particles being generated there is no need to filter them.


Obviously you're not reading what I'm saying. It's not about what motors need more or less filtration - that's now become your strawman diversion. It's simply about higher efficiency oil filters keeping oil cleaner and reducing wear compared to less efficient filters. Are you saying that basic fact isn't true? If so, again, post up the proof that low efficiency filters result in oil just as clean, and give the same reduction in engine wear compared to high efficiency filters. If it's been proven the data should be easy to find.

The bus study proved that the more efficient the filter, the cleaner the oil and less engine wear. And it doesn't matter if those engines created more oil contamination than a new 2.0L NA 4 banger. The correlation is still there. That's my point. Can you disprove that claim with a real study?

Originally Posted By: Trav

The point is properly maintained modern engines are not shedding metal to any significant degree and with proper air filtration don't have any stringent oil filtering requirements.

This is the reason many engines today use a very small oil filter, the need for a larger one just isn't there unless it is being used to increase the oils overall capacity to help prevent sludge on the 1.8T like VW did.
This is where your whole argument comes apart at the seams, its not a question of a high efficiency filter prevent more engine wear the question is filtering what and where is it coming from?


Just because filter sizes have gone down doesn't mean engines are magically not contaminating the oil, and that oil filters don't need to be efficient anymore. You make it sound like you know what's going on inside every engine on the road - you don't, nobody does unless every one did UOAs and ISO particle count tests over the OCI diration.

My argument is that more efficient oil filters keep the oil cleaner, which reduces engine wear - regardless on how clean or dirty the engine is. I'm still waiting for an SAE study that proves otherwise. Haven't seen any links from anyone, just people building strawman arguments with nothing to back up their claims.

Originally Posted By: Trav

If the particles are not there to begin with it doesn't matter how efficient or inefficient the filter is.
If the engine was to leak unfiltered air like a sieve into the engine and the engine oil was so poor the engines wore themselves out in 100K or less like they did years ago your argument would have some merit and we wouldn't be talking about it.
Modern engines are very well sealed from unfiltered air ingress, hard carbon particle production in gasoline engines is primarily above the piston head in the combustion chamber and not from coagulating soot in the oil.


Again, you're assuming every engine is not producing any significant contamination. Have you ever studied or seen ISO cleanliness testing data? You'd be amazed on how many particles are in used oil, even out of a "clean" engine. Guess what happens when more of those wear particles are filtered out.

Originally Posted By: Trav

The engines used in that study were diesel engines from over 30 years ago, they spewed particles into the air and their own oil at a enormous rate, chances are they were well worn being in the type of service they were in with a lot of bore wear so sure there were a lot of potentially damaging particles to filter.
there is little or no correlation between those and a modern gasoline or even a modern TDI engine commonly found in cars.


Again, it's NOT about a "correlation" between a diesel bus engine and a new clean burning gasoline engine. It's about the fact that more efficient oil filters result in cleaner oil, and therefore less wear particles to cause engine wear. Is that really that hard to understand? - regardless on how much debris an engine creates.

If you (or anyone else reading this) thinks their engines are hardly making any oil contamination, then go for that low efficiency filter thinking it doesn't matter - it's your vehicle. Meanwhile, based on the simple fact that cleaner oil means less wear particles, I'll always use high efficiency oil filters because nobody really always knows what's going on inside the engine.

 

[Trav]

If the oil is still getting black it is not being filtered to the point of being clean, only a bypass filter can truly clean the oil to the point it could be considered clean.
Of course it matters if the engine is producing particles, a diesel produces much more, that almost 30 year old study is not really valid where modern gasoline engines are concerned.

I have whole house watewr filter in my house they foul in a few months because of the old city system, lots of rust and garbage in the city pipes, the highly efficient 5 micron filter and carbon filter protect the heating, hot water tank, faucets, etc.
My brother lives in a town with a much newer water system, we put the same system in his house and it was still perfectly white at 4 mo.

The point is there was nothing coming into the house that needed filtering out. Water test showed the same results with and without.
Looking at engines UOA's running many different makes of filters all show some PPM of wear metals even with FU so no it doesn't "clean" the oil.
Bypass filters are highly efficient but not full flow filters.

https://www.blackstone-labs.com/by-pass-oil-filtration.php

 

[69Torino]

Just changed the oil in our 2015 Optima. Put the used oil in the jug the new oil cane out of. Keep in mind, this is a 2015 model, GDI Engine Optima with 29k miles. Pretty young car. When I dumped the old oil out of the jug and looked in the bottom, the bottom of the jug was spotted with carbon chunks. Small, but visible. So they settled to the bottom of the pan, and came out with the oil. If there are carbon chunks you can see, there are also carbon chunks you cannot see (without magnification). I will use high quality filters on my junk, always, even if it is a leased car. Food for thought.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Trev - you still don't get the point or the actual focus of the discussion. You're just going in circles with strawman arguments. Nothing concrete to disprove that the bus study: 1) proved that higher efficiency filters kept the oil cleaner (ie, less measured particles, better ISO code), and 2) that accelerated lab testing of filter efficiency is a valid ranking test for comparing filter efficiency performance, and correlates to oil cleanliness ranking in real world use.

And of course by-pass filtering is the next step above a high efficiency full flow filter to increase oil cleanliness - it's not rocket science. Now wouldn t it be ludicrous if someone claimed a by-pass filter didn't keep the oil any cleaner than a super high efficiency full flow filter? Would you make that claim?

It doesn't matter at what level the engine produces contamination (strawman). The fact is, and always will be, that more efficient oil filters result in cleaner oil and less engine wear. If you or anyone thinks otherwise I'm still waiting for the links to valid info that proves otherwise.

And BTW, a normal Blackstone UOA measuring 'insolubles' is nothing like an ISO particle count, which gives the info needed to determine actual oil cleanliness. That has been discussed many times in this forum.

We will always disagree on this, and there is absolutely nothing you or anyone else can say to change my mind, except for links to valid official studies that disprove it all, not strawman arguments.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: 69Torino
Just changed the oil in our 2015 Optima. Put the used oil in the jug the new oil cane out of. Keep in mind, this is a 2015 model, GDI Engine Optima with 29k miles. Pretty young car. When I dumped the old oil out of the jug and looked in the bottom, the bottom of the jug was spotted with carbon chunks. Small, but visible. So they settled to the bottom of the pan, and came out with the oil. If there are carbon chunks you can see, there are also carbon chunks you cannot see (without magnification). I will use high quality filters on my junk, always, even if it is a leased car. Food for thought.


interesting, what oil filter was used in that case? Maybe try the same experiment with a high efficiency filter to see if there's a noticeable difference. Not scientific, but anecdotal observations usually mean something.

 

[69Torino]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: 69Torino
Just changed the oil in our 2015 Optima. Put the used oil in the jug the new oil cane out of. Keep in mind, this is a 2015 model, GDI Engine Optima with 29k miles. Pretty young car. When I dumped the old oil out of the jug and looked in the bottom, the bottom of the jug was spotted with carbon chunks. Small, but visible. So they settled to the bottom of the pan, and came out with the oil. If there are carbon chunks you can see, there are also carbon chunks you cannot see (without magnification). I will use high quality filters on my junk, always, even if it is a leased car. Food for thought.


interesting, what oil filter was used in that case? Maybe try the same experiment with a high efficiency filter to see if there's a noticeable difference. Not scientific, but anecdotal observations usually mean something.


It was a kia OEM 504 Filter this time. I have about a half dozen of them on the shelf to use up.

 

[Trav]

I don't want to change your mind but the bus study is almost totally irrelevant as is filter single pass efficiency when it comes to modern engines.

Here is what we know to be true..

Particles of approx 15 microns or less do the most damage, particles less than 3 microns just pass though clearances and are too big to get under the piston rings and bore and cause no damage. Particles 40 micron and above are blocked and also causing no damage.

Even the most efficient full flow filter will not catch any of these 15 micron particles in a single pass so regardless of the filter brand all are going through to do damage at least once. So you are arguing the efficiency comes from multiple passes to remove a percentage of these particles that have already caused damage.

Take the most damaging particles, the aluminum oxide particles from a Scotch Brite whiz wheel, no full flow filter regardless of its efficiency will filter them, they will damage the engine bearings.
The problem with single pass efficiency is on multi layered bearings many particles will embed on the first pass and remain there until the engine sees high RPM when the crank clearance is smaller and particles now come in contact with the crank surface.

The material the particle is comprised of determines the amount of damage it will cause. Silica and aluminum oxide particles are the absolute worst, the silica comes from poor air filtration, keeping this out is the best way to prevent wear because even if going through the system once before being caught by a filter is enough to cause wear.

A bypass filter will catch these particles but not before they have done some damage, the particles will have gone through many cycles long before the bypass catches them all.
The key to lower engine wear is preventing the particle ingress in the first place not catching it after the fact. Of course a more efficient media will catch more particles but that's not really the issue, the fact is it is a full flow filter and the most damaging particles are getting past it for some cycles unless you have a 2 micron full flow filter that doesn't exist, if it did I with you on this and will buy one today.

IMO all this about higher efficiency full flow filters is marketing and smoke and mirrors and not much more.
Air filter efficiency is another story, the more efficient it is the less engine wear will result, that's not a strawman argument that's a fact.
I have had more engines apart than I can remember or count and the engines with the least amount of wear or bearing damage are the ones with tight air filtration systems, tight PCV systems and properly sealed oil dipsticks and that's the real point, the oil filter plays much less of a role than people imagine.

 

[CT8]

Trav is the master.

 

[SnowmanCO]

Originally Posted By: Motorking
Just asking, why would any of you run an XP instead of Ultra? Ultra always costs less at 8.99 retail, is 99%@20 microns, and has 20k capacity. Pressure drop when new is less than 2psi. Flow from a typical Ultra is more than 10gpm and our LS based race car only flows 5.7gpm at 7500rpm.
XP- They wont release efficiency at 20 microns because it's dismal. They cost more. WIX makes no claims as to how many miles it will go to full capacity. They are in fact redesigning it now because well, nobody is buying them. Honestly do not care what you use just curious as to why?


I trust Wix's build quality based on every filter I have analyzed. "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. I purchased my 57502XP filters for $6.49 each from Rock Auto. That same filter is now 6.69 on RockAuto, and the Fram ultra is $7.81. In my opinion, pricing varies since Wix's filters are not as readily available at DIY type auto parts stores as they are with Fram.

"They are in fact redesigning it" - What proof do you have of that? I know, in fact, you are an employee of Fram, and know because of that a lot of the information you put out there gets interpreted as the Gospel. With the pricing I demonstrated above, the information you are putting out there is not necessarily correct. I personally interpret the information you provide to this forum as highly biased toward the company you work for. Others may choose to differ.

 

[Patman]

Originally Posted By: Trav


Of course a more efficient media will catch more particles but that's not really the issue, the fact is it is a full flow filter and the most damaging particles are getting past it for some cycles unless you have a 2 micron full flow filter that doesn't exist, if it did I with you on this and will buy one today.




Many many years ago when I first starting using Amsoil (early 90s) I seem to recall that they advertised that they had a full flow filter (not bypass) that filtered down to 4 microns. Is my memory playing tricks on me, or did that filter actually exist? Would it even be possible to have a filter that efficient as a full flow design or would that just be going into bypass most of the time?

 

[Trav]

I would think that filter would be restrictive new and even more so as it aged. The only filter I heard of with numbers close to that are those very controversial green things that have a membrane as a bypass filter as well as the full flow element.
I have no idea if they work or not but it sounds like a great idea in theory anyway.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Trav
I don't want to change your mind but the bus study is almost totally irrelevant as is filter single pass efficiency when it comes to modern engines.


It's not irrelevant. The test proved that filters that tested more efficient in the lab kept the oil cleaner in real world use. Again, it't not about a "correlation" between diesel and gasoline engines - the fact is the testing showed that more efficient filters kept the oil cleaner and resulted in less engine wear. Anytime you can keep the oil cleaner, regardless of how dirty it gets over an OCI, there will be less engine wear. I'm really wondering why that simple fact can't be understood by people who think they really understand filtration. What kind of logic says that dirtier oil will not result in more engine wear? If that was the case, then run your engine with no oil filter at all.

Originally Posted By: Trav
Here is what we know to be true..

Particles of approx 15 microns or less do the most damage, particles less than 3 microns just pass though clearances and are too big to get under the piston rings and bore and cause no damage. Particles 40 micron and above are blocked and also causing no damage.

Even the most efficient full flow filter will not catch any of these 15 micron particles in a single pass so regardless of the filter brand all are going through to do damage at least once. So you are arguing the efficiency comes from multiple passes to remove a percentage of these particles that have already caused damage.


You are wrong on this one. You really need to find a copy of ISO 4548-12 and understand what the test measured during an efficiency test. The test measures single pass efficiency in real time - don't let the name "multi-pass" throw you off. You need to understand the test procedure to understand it, and it's been discussed many times over the years in this forum. It seems like most regular members here still don't understand how the test is actually ran and what the output numbers mean.

Do you really believe that a filter rated at 99% @ 20 microns doesn't catch any particles below 20 microns? Have you seen what an efficiency curve looks like? - many have been posted in this forum. FYI, Motorking has said many times that the Ultra catches 80% @ 5 microns - that's a pretty significant portion of wear particles below 20 microns. Other high efficiency filters (like the old PureOne) would have similar performance below 20 microns. What do you think the percentage is of 5 microns caught by a filter rated at 50% @ 20 microns?

Originally Posted By: Trav
A bypass filter will catch these particles but not before they have done some damage, the particles will have gone through many cycles long before the bypass catches them all.


Disconnect there, because bypass filter setups always result in keeping the oil even cleaner, and engines with a good bypass filter setup last much longer (less wear over time) than engines that don't. You also need an efficient full flow filter in conjunction with the bypass filter to get the most out of the oil filtration system. Running a very low full flow filter with a high efficiency bypass filter isn't going to do a well.

Originally Posted By: Trav
Of course a more efficient media will catch more particles but that's not really the issue, the fact is it is a full flow filter and the most damaging particles are getting past it for some cycles unless you have a 2 micron full flow filter that doesn't exist, if it did I with you on this and will buy one today.


Covered by my responses already given above. Efficiency curves are not step functions. A filter rated at 99% @ 20u catches a lot more 2u particles than one rated at 50% @ 20u.

Originally Posted By: Trav
IMO all this about higher efficiency full flow filters is marketing and smoke and mirrors and not much more.


IMO, it's not "marketing and smoke and mirrors". There is lots of engineering data to say otherwise. You almost seem like you don't understand or believe in engineering and science at times, and base everything on you anecdotal observations.

Originally Posted By: Trav
I have had more engines apart than I can remember or count and the engines with the least amount of wear or bearing damage are the ones with tight air filtration systems, tight PCV systems and properly sealed oil dipsticks and that's the real point, the oil filter plays much less of a role than people imagine.


Yes, it's very important to have a sealed engine and a good air filter, but I'll always use high efficiency oil filters because nobody knows exactly how much debris is being ingested or produced inside an engine. The best engine protection against wear it to have BOTH an efficient air filter and an efficient oil filter. Why slack on one when both are really needed to ensure oil cleanliness.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: CT8
Trav is the master.


I'll ATDA. But hey, it's all good and hopefully a somewhat constructive discussion.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Patman
Originally Posted By: Trav
Of course a more efficient media will catch more particles but that's not really the issue, the fact is it is a full flow filter and the most damaging particles are getting past it for some cycles unless you have a 2 micron full flow filter that doesn't exist, if it did I with you on this and will buy one today.


Many many years ago when I first starting using Amsoil (early 90s) I seem to recall that they advertised that they had a full flow filter (not bypass) that filtered down to 4 microns. Is my memory playing tricks on me, or did that filter actually exist? Would it even be possible to have a filter that efficient as a full flow design or would that just be going into bypass most of the time?


Most filters "filter down to 4 microns" ... the key is just how much do they catch at that particle size. If it was given at 60% @ 4 microns, then it means something significant. As mentioned above, Motorking has said the Ultra is 80% @ 5 microns. Way back when the yellow PureOne was popular here, Purolator tech when asked gave the complete breakdown an it was also around 80% @ 5 microns. So yeah, it's possible that a full flow filter can be that efficient.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Trav
I would think that filter would be restrictive new and even more so as it aged.


If you've seen the discussions about "flow vs delta-p" on some of the high efficiency filters, I would say they are not flow restrictive. Nothing to the point where an engine would care. Prime example was a misconception for years that the PureOne was "super restrictive" because it was so efficient and rated at 99% @ 20 microns. Then quite a few years ago Purolator provided a flow vs delta-p curve showing it was as just as free flowing as any other filter you could find flow vs delat-p data for. It's amazing how misconceptions live on and on until some actual engineering data proves otherwise.