NAPA Platinum vs Fram Ultra

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
The oil used is what keeps the guts of engines looking clean - ie, the cleaning ability of the oil and it's resistance against depositing varnish and sludge. Any change in engine wear due to cleaner oil won't usually be seen by the eyeballs.

This is correct and accurate, I was going to point that out yesterday when those pictures were posted. It shows nothing IRT the oil filter efficiency.

More inaccurate nonsense promulgated by those who have an agenda they wish to promote, people thinking they can measure wear by appearance in a photograph.



Yup.....

A combo compression and leak down test will tell you real info on wear.

Observe the tooth count on the cam chain tensioner and see how far its ratcheted out.

Visually clean stuff can often be completely clapped out.

UD

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by Farnsworth
Good point, excessive harmful "particles" would have visibly damaged something by now.


Wrong ... when engine wear happens from contamination smaller than 20u then you won't be able to see it with the naked eye. The kind of wear/damage you see with the naked eye is destructive damage - like when there is major oil starvation and part eat themselves alive. Lots of people here believe that what needs to be seen to quantify wear is some gigantic scrapes and scores in metal. Well that's not true, as parts can be worn pretty good and still look to be in great condition. UD got it right with the statement:

Originally Posted by UncleDave
Visually clean stuff can often be completely clapped out.


I see you're still touting the Frantz filter stuff just like you use to under goodtimes, almost identical commentary. I'm working on a little comparison of the PC data for all to see that a bypass filter is really most efficient for particles 5u or smaller. When you look at the PC in your Frantz link and the PC data of 99% @ 20u spin-on filters, you'll see that down to around 5u the efficient spin-on filters do just as good.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by Bill_W
OEM air filters are better at removing particulate while the aftermarket air filters tries to sell on better flow. (Stay with OEM) But oil filters have gone in the opposite direction and instead of more efficiency like the tan can PureOne, are going for capacity. (Why?)


Not true ... there's more high efficiency oil filters with high holding capacity today then there was 10 years ago.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by Trav
The cows came home the last time we went round and round with this one. You seem to have the idea I am against high efficiency filter, I am not. I buy and use FU all the time, its well made and does a good job with good lifespan. I also us German Mann, Mahle, Napa Golds, Wix, Baldwin, Hastings, Japanese OE and a few others.
My point is this. In a modern engine with a tight PCV and breather system with a high quality properly sealed air filter the difference in wear because of the oil filter is not going to make much difference if any, keeping the oil changed before is spent and maintaining it properly will.

You may not agree with that but that's okay you don't have to. No need to drag this one out, there is no changing anyone's mind.


I really don't care what you use - or if we agree or not. We both have our backgrounds and viewpoints and that's all fine and dandy. I think people reading posts on this board can make up their own minds.

Fact is, more efficient oil filters keep oil cleaner, and cleaner oil is better than dirtier oil. Everyone that studies machinery wear concludes that keeping the oil cleaner results in less wear. Misconceptions that are repeated over and over like high efficiency oil filters reduce oil flow to the engine are always going to be around because people just don't understand how an engine oiling system works as a whole under different operating conditions no matter how simply it's explained. That's just how it is on chat boards.

And I don't care if you or anyone else says the wear difference is nothing to be concerned about. It's my equipment and my money so I buy and use what ever I want to because after 10 years of researching and talking about oil, filters and engines I've come to conclude that spending $3 more for a high efficiency filter is worth it regardless if I can tell if it made a difference or not. If other people can't see there's any kind of benefit, then in the end I really don't care and they can make their own conclusions and decisions. I just provide info I see that might make a light bulb go off in someone's head and realize that not all filters are the same, and not all will necessarily give the same results in real world use like some people believe.

 

[y_p_w]

Originally Posted by Bill_W
A new engine is geared a bit different than the old days. The cylinder walls, piston rings, cams and lifters have evolved to last longer than the old days. Oil has evolved to carry away or encapsulate particles and not sludge up. OEM air filters are better at removing particulate while the aftermarket air filters tries to sell on better flow. (Stay with OEM) But oil filters have gone in the opposite direction and instead of more efficiency like the tan can PureOne, are going for capacity. (Why?)

That picture above shows an engine that gets oil changes frequently.


Depends on the aftermarket air filter. The "free flow" types with oiled gauze or similar try to sell one on free flow at the expense of a bit of efficiency. The majority of disposable air filters try to sell the prospective buyer on better protection. I remember the last time I bought a Fram air filter (it was really just a generic in a Fram box) where it claimed 2x the protection compared to a "standard retail brand" that was unspecified. Other lines might even claim more protection.

I also looked under the hood of a Toyota 86 TRD. The air box had a sticker noting that it had a high flow, reusuable/washable TRD air filter.

 

[ZeeOSix]

^^^ Yep, I stopped using the K&N air filters a long time ago after seeing just how inefficient they were in filtering small dirt particles. Only time anyone would ever get any benefit these days with a "high flow" air filter on computer controlled cars is when the throttle is wide open, like in racing applications. Most high efficiency air filters flow well enough air for 99.999% of the cars on the road. Just like high efficiency oil filters will flow just the same as a very low efficiency oil filters on everyday passenger cars because they aren't screaming around at redline with thick oil making the PD oil pump run in pressure relief.

 

[Bill_W]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
^^^ Yep, I stopped using the K&N air filters a long time ago after seeing just how inefficient they were in filtering small dirt particles. Only time anyone would ever get any benefit these days with a "high flow" air filter on computer controlled cars is when the throttle is wide open, like in racing applications. Most high efficiency air filters flow well enough air for 99.999% of the cars on the road. Just like high efficiency oil filters will flow just the same as a very low efficiency oil filters on everyday passenger cars because they aren't screaming around at redline with thick oil making the PD oil pump run in pressure relief.


Yep... One of the knee jerk assumptions that a K&N filter is going to make a difference on the road. Maybe a second on a long race on the track.

 

[Job]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Farnsworth
Good point, excessive harmful "particles" would have visibly damaged something by now.


Wrong ... when engine wear happens from contamination smaller than 20u then you won't be able to see it with the naked eye. The kind of wear/damage you see with the naked eye is destructive damage - like when there is major oil starvation and part eat themselves alive. Lots of people here believe that what needs to be seen to quantify wear is some gigantic scrapes and scores in metal. Well that's not true, as parts can be worn pretty good and still look to be in great condition. UD got it right with the statement:

Originally Posted by UncleDave
Visually clean stuff can often be completely clapped out.


I see you're still touting the Frantz filter stuff just like you use to under goodtimes, almost identical commentary. I'm working on a little comparison of the PC data for all to see that a bypass filter is really most efficient for particles 5u or smaller. When you look at the PC in your Frantz link and the PC data of 99% @ 20u spin-on filters, you'll see that down to around 5u the efficient spin-on filters do just as good.

Read all my words better. Actually looking at cam lobes by eye will let you see minute wear on them before anything you know how to measure with sees it. Optical reflection off mirror finish profiles is very sensitive. Gear sets are often looked at for the wear pattern is another example. Hand scraping and fitting of parts by eye produces the most accurate machine tool surfaces. In optics you only need three plates and no measuring tools to produce optically flat surfaces to hundredths of a micron. Not one instrument is needed except the eye. Everyone knows you have to use a measuring tool to get an actual number value, not eyes. I sometimes wonder what you actually have done experience wise. Stop saying people are wrong please, maybe you are wrong, and it is off topic. I say the person has a point.
Correction, the eye is a measuring tool of sorts when measuring surfaces through interference. You can get a value using only the wavelength of the light and the eye's interpretation of the interference bands.

 

[newtoncd8]

Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
The oil used is what keeps the guts of engines looking clean - ie, the cleaning ability of the oil and it's resistance against depositing varnish and sludge. Any change in engine wear due to cleaner oil won't usually be seen by the eyeballs.

This is correct and accurate, I was going to point that out yesterday when those pictures were posted. It shows nothing IRT the oil filter efficiency.

More inaccurate nonsense promulgated by those who have an agenda they wish to promote, people thinking they can measure wear by appearance in a photograph.



I do like OEM filters, but I have no agenda. I was simply asking a question, but thanks for taking the shot at me.

 

[ZeeOSix]

^^^ Read my response again. I'm saying you can have wear and it can still look like normal parts that have rubbed together like should be expected. When your oil is filled with excessive wear particles 20u or less, the wear on the surfaces will be so fine that your eyeballs will have no way to tell how much wear there was due to those super fine particles. So your eyes would need a built in laser micrometers capable of measuring down to 0.0001 inch to know for sure.

Obviously you can visually tell parts have been rubbing together which means they are touching to some degree and will have some very small surface wear and look shinny compared to the areas where no rubbing occurred. But that's totally different than looking at surfaces and seeing obvious excessive wear from major metal-to-metal contact, or major larger debris wear from very large particles getting between parts. This is what people don't get when everyone in the machinery world say that cleaner oil means less wear. People expect to look at engine parts and see torn up components, but you're not going to see that kind of visual wear from oil with tons of 20u or smaller particles.