Oil Filter......Flow vs. Filtration?
- Thread starter Cooper
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Cooper
All of the hype around Fram Ultra with it's restricted flow and ultra filtration......I have one on the Civic now. I don't like the way it runs with it compared to the OEM Filtech filter. I will be using OEM next time around.
I'd be too curious to wait until the next OCI. I'd be popping the OEM filter back on ASAP.
All of the hype around Fram Ultra with it's restricted flow and ultra filtration......I have one on the Civic now. I don't like the way it runs with it compared to the OEM Filtech filter. I will be using OEM next time around.
I'd be too curious to wait until the next OCI. I'd be popping the OEM filter back on ASAP.
I agree that the Japanese manufacturers, particularly Toyota, seem to favour flow over efficiency. Consider that many of their cars and trucks are used in countries where driving conditions are harsh and rigorous maintenance is not widely practised, yet those engines last for a long time. I have to believe OEM filters are more than adequate.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Cooper
It is mounted upside down, that doesn't make a lot of sense being a leaky ADBV.
The base of the filter points straight up on a Honda Civic? You got a GM V8 in that thing?
That would be interesting! Let me just go grab one of the LS1's and throw it in......
Check out THIS POST. Maybe I could just do an engine swap....
Originally Posted By: Cooper
It is mounted upside down, that doesn't make a lot of sense being a leaky ADBV.
The base of the filter points straight up on a Honda Civic? You got a GM V8 in that thing?
That would be interesting! Let me just go grab one of the LS1's and throw it in......
Check out THIS POST. Maybe I could just do an engine swap....
Originally Posted By: Cooper
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Cooper
It is mounted upside down, that doesn't make a lot of sense being a leaky ADBV.
The base of the filter points straight up on a Honda Civic? You got a GM V8 in that thing?
That would be interesting! Let me just go grab one of the LS1's and throw it in......
Check out THIS POST. Maybe I could just do an engine swap....
Dang ... that's a sweet ride!
So exactly what orientation is the filter on that Civic?
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Cooper
It is mounted upside down, that doesn't make a lot of sense being a leaky ADBV.
The base of the filter points straight up on a Honda Civic? You got a GM V8 in that thing?
That would be interesting! Let me just go grab one of the LS1's and throw it in......
Check out THIS POST. Maybe I could just do an engine swap....
Dang ... that's a sweet ride!
So exactly what orientation is the filter on that Civic?
The first time I used a Fram Ultra on my Accord 2.4, it had a tick on start up that was intermittent. Never had this issue with the Honda A01 or A02. However, I just put another Fram Ultra on this past OCI and have had no issues whatsoever, quiet starts every time. I think the ADBV was a little leaky. I do like to have flow on start up though, the Fram Ultra is a good compromise. Full synthetic media that flows better than compatible cellulose, while having excellent filtration.
It is mounted with the seal pointed up at a 15 degree angle. Almost vertical, with the seal pointed up from the bottom of the engine.
Originally Posted By: gregk24
The first time I used a Fram Ultra on my Accord 2.4, it had a tick on start up that was intermittent. Never had this issue with the Honda A01 or A02. However, I just put another Fram Ultra on this past OCI and have had no issues whatsoever, quiet starts every time. I think the ADBV was a little leaky. I do like to have flow on start up though, the Fram Ultra is a good compromise. Full synthetic media that flows better than compatible cellulose, while having excellent filtration.
That is good to know, since I have more of them to use. I wonder if it is a quality control issue?
The first time I used a Fram Ultra on my Accord 2.4, it had a tick on start up that was intermittent. Never had this issue with the Honda A01 or A02. However, I just put another Fram Ultra on this past OCI and have had no issues whatsoever, quiet starts every time. I think the ADBV was a little leaky. I do like to have flow on start up though, the Fram Ultra is a good compromise. Full synthetic media that flows better than compatible cellulose, while having excellent filtration.
That is good to know, since I have more of them to use. I wonder if it is a quality control issue?
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Originally Posted By: Cooper
All of the hype around Fram Ultra with it's restricted flow and ultra filtration......I have one on the Civic now. I don't like the way it runs with it compared to the OEM Filtech filter. I will be using OEM next time around.
I'd be too curious to wait until the next OCI. I'd be popping the OEM filter back on ASAP.
What OEM the A01 Filtech USA or the A01 Filtech RoKi or the Honeywell A02
Originally Posted By: Cooper
All of the hype around Fram Ultra with it's restricted flow and ultra filtration......I have one on the Civic now. I don't like the way it runs with it compared to the OEM Filtech filter. I will be using OEM next time around.
I'd be too curious to wait until the next OCI. I'd be popping the OEM filter back on ASAP.
What OEM the A01 Filtech USA or the A01 Filtech RoKi or the Honeywell A02
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
There's no way they could easily obtain the same beta test data in the field unless they instrumented a filter in use with the same test setup as the IOS beta test done in the lab.
They can't perform the beta procedure because an engine operating in the field does not have calibrated particles placed in the oil under controlled conditions. The beta procedure is a standard laboratory test. The real world is not.
There's no way they could easily obtain the same beta test data in the field unless they instrumented a filter in use with the same test setup as the IOS beta test done in the lab.
They can't perform the beta procedure because an engine operating in the field does not have calibrated particles placed in the oil under controlled conditions. The beta procedure is a standard laboratory test. The real world is not.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Cooper
It is mounted upside down, that doesn't make a lot of sense being a leaky ADBV.
The base of the filter points straight up on a Honda Civic? You got a GM V8 in that thing?
Our old 2000 Civic had the oil filter on the side of the block pointing straight back, on my sons '09 Civic the filter does point straight down.
ROD
it would be nice to see a Civic with a LS in it.
Originally Posted By: Cooper
It is mounted upside down, that doesn't make a lot of sense being a leaky ADBV.
The base of the filter points straight up on a Honda Civic? You got a GM V8 in that thing?
Our old 2000 Civic had the oil filter on the side of the block pointing straight back, on my sons '09 Civic the filter does point straight down.
ROD
it would be nice to see a Civic with a LS in it.
Originally Posted By: David1
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Originally Posted By: Cooper
All of the hype around Fram Ultra with it's restricted flow and ultra filtration......I have one on the Civic now. I don't like the way it runs with it compared to the OEM Filtech filter. I will be using OEM next time around.
I'd be too curious to wait until the next OCI. I'd be popping the OEM filter back on ASAP.
What OEM the A01 Filtech USA or the A01 Filtech RoKi or the Honeywell A02
Toyo Roki....I have a bunch of them.
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Originally Posted By: Cooper
All of the hype around Fram Ultra with it's restricted flow and ultra filtration......I have one on the Civic now. I don't like the way it runs with it compared to the OEM Filtech filter. I will be using OEM next time around.
I'd be too curious to wait until the next OCI. I'd be popping the OEM filter back on ASAP.
What OEM the A01 Filtech USA or the A01 Filtech RoKi or the Honeywell A02
Toyo Roki....I have a bunch of them.
Originally Posted By: Wilhelm_D
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
There's no way they could easily obtain the same beta test data in the field unless they instrumented a filter in use with the same test setup as the IOS beta test done in the lab.
They can't perform the beta procedure because an engine operating in the field does not have calibrated particles placed in the oil under controlled conditions. The beta procedure is a standard laboratory test. The real world is not.
That's why your statement that "the standard beta tests really don't correlate well with actual field tests" really makes no sense because you can't easily compare the filtering/beta performances in both environments to compare. That was my point.
So just how did you conclude that filters don't perform the same on the car than they do on the bench? What "field tests" are you referring to? Remember, you don't believe anything unless there are hard facts and data to unequivocally prove something.
And if they really wanted to, they could certainly rig up a car to do the same testing of particles to get real time beta performance. They would have to inject the motor oil with the particulates that they use in the lab, and make the same upstream and downstream particle size and counts while driving around. Not impossible, but not practical to do.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
There's no way they could easily obtain the same beta test data in the field unless they instrumented a filter in use with the same test setup as the IOS beta test done in the lab.
They can't perform the beta procedure because an engine operating in the field does not have calibrated particles placed in the oil under controlled conditions. The beta procedure is a standard laboratory test. The real world is not.
That's why your statement that "the standard beta tests really don't correlate well with actual field tests" really makes no sense because you can't easily compare the filtering/beta performances in both environments to compare. That was my point.
So just how did you conclude that filters don't perform the same on the car than they do on the bench? What "field tests" are you referring to? Remember, you don't believe anything unless there are hard facts and data to unequivocally prove something.
And if they really wanted to, they could certainly rig up a car to do the same testing of particles to get real time beta performance. They would have to inject the motor oil with the particulates that they use in the lab, and make the same upstream and downstream particle size and counts while driving around. Not impossible, but not practical to do.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
That's why your statement that "the standard beta tests really don't correlate well with actual field tests" really makes no sense because you can't easily compare the filtering/beta performances in both environments to compare.
I will try to explain this to you one time only.
The ONLY valid test of an oil filter is actual use in a vehicle. At the conclusion of its use, oil analysis is done and the results tell us something about the the performance of the filter by inference. If the particle count with filter A is lower than with filter B all else being held equal, that infers that A was more efficient than B.
This sort of testing is by its nature non-repeatable and non-reportable. We might, as Mobil 1 did several years provide copies of the results of fleet runs, but that's not something that can be repeated in a laboratory.
For comparison purposes we try to find a test which can be conducted in any lab by anyone and provide repeatable results that can be quantified. That's where ASTM, SAE, DIN, and so on come into it. They devise tests which are repeatable, consistent, and comparable. If five labs conduct the same test on the same oil filter, the results should be essentially the same.
Unfortunately while these tests are repeatable and comparable, they sometimes do not predict how the tested filter will perform in the real world very well. The beta particle test happens to be one that does not a very good job predicting actual on engine performance.
At this point, however, it is the standard test we have to work with.
That's why your statement that "the standard beta tests really don't correlate well with actual field tests" really makes no sense because you can't easily compare the filtering/beta performances in both environments to compare.
I will try to explain this to you one time only.
The ONLY valid test of an oil filter is actual use in a vehicle. At the conclusion of its use, oil analysis is done and the results tell us something about the the performance of the filter by inference. If the particle count with filter A is lower than with filter B all else being held equal, that infers that A was more efficient than B.
This sort of testing is by its nature non-repeatable and non-reportable. We might, as Mobil 1 did several years provide copies of the results of fleet runs, but that's not something that can be repeated in a laboratory.
For comparison purposes we try to find a test which can be conducted in any lab by anyone and provide repeatable results that can be quantified. That's where ASTM, SAE, DIN, and so on come into it. They devise tests which are repeatable, consistent, and comparable. If five labs conduct the same test on the same oil filter, the results should be essentially the same.
Unfortunately while these tests are repeatable and comparable, they sometimes do not predict how the tested filter will perform in the real world very well. The beta particle test happens to be one that does not a very good job predicting actual on engine performance.
At this point, however, it is the standard test we have to work with.
Originally Posted By: Wilhelm_D
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
That's why your statement that "the standard beta tests really don't correlate well with actual field tests" really makes no sense because you can't easily compare the filtering/beta performances in both environments to compare.
I will try to explain this to you one time only.
The ONLY valid test of an oil filter is actual use in a vehicle. At the conclusion of its use, oil analysis is done and the results tell us something about the the performance of the filter by inference. If the particle count with filter A is lower than with filter B all else being held equal, that infers that A was more efficient than B.
According to our resident expert dnewton on UAOs, the value of UOAs in regards to suspended particle counts, he will basically say that a UOA can not be used to determine if Filter A is better than Filter B because the size of the particles being counted (way less than 20 microns) can't be caught by any normal automotive filter. So the UOA isn't setup to give data that could be correlated to the ISO test data that manufacturer use to advertise a filters efficiency.
Maybe dnewton can chime in here with more details.
Originally Posted By: Wilhelm_D
For comparison purposes we try to find a test which can be conducted in any lab by anyone and provide repeatable results that can be quantified. That's where ASTM, SAE, DIN, and so on come into it. They devise tests which are repeatable, consistent, and comparable. If five labs conduct the same test on the same oil filter, the results should be essentially the same.
Unfortunately while these tests are repeatable and comparable, they sometimes do not predict how the tested filter will perform in the real world very well. The beta particle test happens to be one that does not a very good job predicting actual on engine performance.
At this point, however, it is the standard test we have to work with.
Yes, but the value of the ISO testing is that you are comparing all filters tested under the same procedures and standard so you can have an accurate "apples-to-apples" filtering efficiency comparison of all tested filters.
If a UOA could accurately measure all the particles in the same size range as was done in the IOS test, then there is no reason there wouldn't be a strong correlation that the most efficient filter in the test would also yield the least amount of particles it's designed to catch when used in a real world application.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
That's why your statement that "the standard beta tests really don't correlate well with actual field tests" really makes no sense because you can't easily compare the filtering/beta performances in both environments to compare.
I will try to explain this to you one time only.
The ONLY valid test of an oil filter is actual use in a vehicle. At the conclusion of its use, oil analysis is done and the results tell us something about the the performance of the filter by inference. If the particle count with filter A is lower than with filter B all else being held equal, that infers that A was more efficient than B.
According to our resident expert dnewton on UAOs, the value of UOAs in regards to suspended particle counts, he will basically say that a UOA can not be used to determine if Filter A is better than Filter B because the size of the particles being counted (way less than 20 microns) can't be caught by any normal automotive filter. So the UOA isn't setup to give data that could be correlated to the ISO test data that manufacturer use to advertise a filters efficiency.
Maybe dnewton can chime in here with more details.
Originally Posted By: Wilhelm_D
For comparison purposes we try to find a test which can be conducted in any lab by anyone and provide repeatable results that can be quantified. That's where ASTM, SAE, DIN, and so on come into it. They devise tests which are repeatable, consistent, and comparable. If five labs conduct the same test on the same oil filter, the results should be essentially the same.
Unfortunately while these tests are repeatable and comparable, they sometimes do not predict how the tested filter will perform in the real world very well. The beta particle test happens to be one that does not a very good job predicting actual on engine performance.
At this point, however, it is the standard test we have to work with.
Yes, but the value of the ISO testing is that you are comparing all filters tested under the same procedures and standard so you can have an accurate "apples-to-apples" filtering efficiency comparison of all tested filters.
If a UOA could accurately measure all the particles in the same size range as was done in the IOS test, then there is no reason there wouldn't be a strong correlation that the most efficient filter in the test would also yield the least amount of particles it's designed to catch when used in a real world application.
dnewton3
Staff member
I'll throw my .02 in here, and offer some of my observations from a perspective of detailed UOA analysis as well as reviews of filter testing studies from the SAE.
This will be long and boring to many, so feel free to ignore this if data and facts and common sense are not your thing.
First, Lab testing:
Lab tests are great to show how any one particular situation compares/contrasts to another. These tests are often well controlled, but also typically do have some "point" to make, and so they are targeted towards a particular goal (pun intended ...
). There are a few filter studies (not the least of which is the infamous GM filter study #881825 from 26 years ago) that show the relative change in filtration being very important to wear data both in UOA and teardown analysis. HOWEVER ....
That study was grossly biased in how it was run, on purpose. To show the relative value of finer filtration, they HEAVILY dosed the sump with controlled particulate contaminants (fine a/c dust), they ignored what would be deemed an OCI interval, and they discounted any contribution of the add-pack of the host lube. They most certainly did show a reasonable response curve to "better" filtration, but they did so at the very upper end of efficiency, versus a tighter one. IOW, they ran a really loose filter, and a moderate filter, and two really tight filters (40um, 15u, 8.5um, 7um all at 98% eff). The greatest "shift" in wear reduction was (intuitively) moving from 40um to 15um. The 40um was cellulose, the other three were "glass". Gosh - not hard to understand why the results were so awesome, is it?
In that study, the slope was not linear, but a curve. Once a reasonable filtration level was achieved, there was degradation in the ROI for a "tighter" filter. As the filter became more efficient past a point, the effect on wear become less prominent. The relative value going from 40um to 20um is MUCH more important, than moving from 20um to 15um, etc, etc. When you get around 15-20um, the filter is "good enough" for long, sustained use.
The rate of contamination in that study was ABSOLUTELY HUGE! How big? They ran 8 hour tests, and added 50 grams (fifty!) of the fine dust every hour! Think about this for a moment. A typical AFCI (air filter change interval) may be approximately 30k miles. In that duration, you may see an ingestion of perhaps 20-30g of particulate? This is a variable amount depending upon filter used, area driven, rpm, etc. But it's a generalization that's reasonable. Most oil filters can hold 15g fairly reasonably. High end oil filters can hold perhaps 25-30g? But the GM test dumped 50g of dust EVERY HOUR into the crankcase during an 8 hour test, and the ONLY time they changed the oil filter was when the dP (differential pressures across the media was 20 psig!). YIKES! How many of you actually run with no air filter, leave the oil-filler cap off, never change oil, and let that much junk get into your engine? I will be the first to admit I don't know as much as I need to know about air filters; I'm not 100% confident in my ingestion data. But after talking with Jim Allen on this, what I am confident of is that the rate of contamination in that GM study was horrifically huge, and in no way represents a "normal" ingestion rate. They stacked the deck to purposely accelerate wear. Just keep that in mind as we move forward.
Little side note about the GM filter test; the oil was held at 250 degF. Just goes to show that folks get their undies in a wad too easily about their perceived "high" oil temps around here. But I digress ...
BTW - even though the filters were changed, the oil was NOT changed for the duration of the test. Hence, the oil ingested perhaps the equivalent of 150k"ish" miles of particulate, but was never changed; only the filters were changed. Now, how well do you think the add-pack (detergents and dispersants) held up after that abuse? Yeah - I thought so ...
My point to this review? The test was heavily "accelerated" to show the disparity of filtration efficiency; they did it on purpose. OK - I get that. They proved that filters can be a good idea, and how there is relative purpose to the efficiency. Good. But it's not practical info; it's not real world use. And they even admit to it; here is a direct quote:
"It is important to note that this analysis is used only to compare relative wear rates. Used oil analysis from engines in the field will not typically show such a clear correlation since wear metals generated between oil changes will be at much lower concentrations."
Why is this quote important? Because they know that "normal" oil and filter changes (O/FCIs) never incur anywhere close to this much abuse. You'll NEVER see that much contamination in the sump in typical use, and so filtration effect is not nearly as critical.
Summary - what they can prove in the lab does NOT always equate to what happens in the real world. That is because lab tests often have a dedicated purpose and are targeted (biased) to proving or disproving something of interest.
Next topic; Wear Control ...
Equipment wear control in a pressure fed system is generally a function of these three things:
1) filtration efficiency
2) OCI duration
3) tribochemical barrier
We've covered #1. And #2 somewhat relates to #1, but should be understood to be purposely controlled so that several things are monitored. You not only want to make sure that contamination is low, but the add-pack is not overwhelmed. Do NOT misunderstand this to mean that ultra-short OCIs are best for the add-pack, that is not true. But what is true is that any lube has a prescribed amount of additives, and those not only control contamination, but have anti-wear properties, corrosion control, etc. It's a "package" approach. And most of today’s lubes (engine, tranny, gear oil) are well designed and made for the task at hand. Don't underestimate the ability of the add-pack to work in concert with the other two contributors to wear control. The OCI duration directly has effect on the lifecycle of the add-pack. Use it too long, and the oil degrades to a point where it cannot contribute to wear control. Change it too often and there is wasted product that is never utilized. Also, frequent OCIs actually affect, in a negative manner, the next item I'll discuss ...
The tribochemical barrier is something that many don't even understand; purchase and read SAE 2007-01-4133 by Ford/Conoco. They show the CLEAR relationship between oxidation of the chem pack and the development of the anti-wear layers. Yes, Virginia, some amount of oxidation is a GOOD thing! Not so much as to "turn" the oil to goo, but enough that the oxidized layers develop a barrier between moving parts. This is VERY important at start up, and probably the most valuable contributor to start up wear protection. Think about it; before pressure ever arrives, parts are moving. What keeps metal from abrading metal? The combination of add-pack residuals and tribochemical barriers does. Pressure is actually the last thing to arrive; the other two are already present! And if you change oil frequently, the anti-agglomerates and detergents can actually reduce this barrier layer. So get this straight in your head; changing oil too often will tear down the beneficial anti-wear layer, and oil getting hot actually helps lay down this barrier. It is agreed that there are always practical limits to any condition; too hot for too long is a bad thing. But the notion that ultra-frequent OCIs are beneficial is total bovine manure. It's proven in the SAE study. If you disagree, then by all means, run your own study and submit it to the SAE for publication. Until then, I'm sticking with the data I've seen in the aforementioned study.
Filter Flow ...
As for flow itself, the ability of any filter to flow enough volume is WELL past the need of any typical application. Filters generally flow WAY more than the engine will develop for any given rpm. Only a WOT run at really cold start may ever push the filter BP valve open, and don't forget that the pump relief is going to open before that happens anyway. Those two components operate for different reasons. The pump relief protects the filter from bursting and also the engine from too much pressure. The filter relief protects the media from the differential primarily. If it were not there, the engine would get pressure as soon as the media failed anyway! But it would be a undesirable kind of contaminated failure. And don't forget that some engines have the BP in the block and not the filter. Either way, it's to protect the media first and foremost.
Oil Analysis normalcy
I will state this up front; I realize that UOAs are a direct view of lube, and only an indirect view of equipment health. It is far more informational to tear an engine down and actually meausre bearing clearances, observe for pitting and galling and scratching, etc. However, that's just plain ridiculous when it comes to the practical ownership of most equipment. It costs too much in terms of time and money. And so, we rely on UOAs to tell us how the lube is doing and infer how the equipment is being sustained. Most wear starts out small and grows, therefore a UOA is a good predictor of the onset of undesirable conditions. There is always going to be a catastrophic event that a UOA cannot predict; I get that. But the very reason to do UOAs is to practice predictive maintenance. Until you grasp that concept, you're not going to understand the basis for using UOAs. There are benefits and limitations to any tool chosen; I'll not belabor this out here. Just realize it and be ready to move on. I now continue ...
In all my UOA analysis, over way past 10,000 UOAs (I've quit counting now in all my various files), I've never been able to show a direct correlation between "better" filters and UOA wear. That's because any "normal" filter controls the big stuff well enough that a "better" filter has nothing left to grab onto. You are welcome to buy a "better" filter, but the data does not show that it's doing any tangible task. It's a benefit that goes unused. And why? Because the other two contributors to wear control are the primary means of defense. The add-pack (OCI duration) and tribochemical barriers are acting to control the small stuff, whereas the filter is only there to catch the big stuff. Big stuff is an INFREQUENT event; it's not predominant. The oil filter is basically a chunk-catcher. There is no practical filter that I'm aware of that has the ability to catch small particles AND provide full-flow volume. A typical bypass-lube filter can be really efficient at perhaps 2-3um, but it will never flow the volume required to satisfy the floating of parts on the hydrodynamic wedge, whereas a full-flow typical filter can easily do so, but never approach such efficiency. The reality is that big particulate (greater than 15um) is not predominant, and when it does show up it is typically caught the first or second time around by the FF filters. The really small stuff does not matter; it's too small to be of concern. What's in the middle is controlled by the add-pack. As long as your OCI is reasonable, you're going to dump out the harmful stuff before it becomes too prominent. There are lots of very-high-mileage cars that make it a long way simply because someone changed oil every 4-5k miles. There was no fancy, high end filtration in place.
The point to understand is that of efficiency versus predominance. A very high efficiency rating speaks to ability, but it does NOT speak to actual occurrence. A filter can only catch what's thrown it's way; it cannot produce a result where no opportunity exists. There is a big difference between a percentage of event, versus the occurrence (magnitude) of an event. One person out of ten is 10%; 100 people out of 1000 is still 10%. The percent stays the same although the magnitude is very different. Therefore, an efficient filter can be very good at its job, but if there isn't a lot of particulate to catch, the overall contamination is low. Because of great designs, excellent manufacturing abilities, well-developed ECM programs and fuel injection, and close-loop crank-cases, there simply isn't a lot of junk in the engine oil in the first place. What little exists is small, and the ever tiny percentage of big particulate is quickly grabbed any "normal" filter. Get it?
I completely agree that filters are very important to have in the equation. They are one of three contributors to wear control. But the amount they filter, and amount they flow, are moot once you pass a minimum required threshold. Once a filter flows "enough", then flowing "more" isn't going to gain anything. Once a filter grabs down to a reasonable particulate size, it's not going to be "better" to have a tighter efficiency for stuff that is NOT predominant and rarely occurs. I do completely agree that a "better" filter would be defined as one that can last LONGER in service, while still providing that necessary level of protection. Therefore, high-capacity filters (FU, XP, etc) may garner favor if you intend to run long OCIs. But they will NOT pay a dividend in less wear in a tangible sense for a normal application, not any more than using syn lubes will do so for a normal OCI. And after having access to well over 20,000 UOAs in my adult life, more than 1/2 of which are in my personal databases, I'd say you'll have to PROVE ME WRONG with a LOT of data that would DIRECTLY contradict my DECADES of analysis. On top of that, there are SAE studies that I use to back up my claims. As an SAE member, I encourage you to join and read. Don't just listen to a poorly regurgitated synopsis at the bar on a Friday night; go pay for the whole study and read it and understand it.
Review ...
So where does this take us in the OPs question. What's more important; flow or filtration? I'd have to say ...
It depends. It depends upon which side of a moot point you want to be on. Neither flow nor filtration have an upper hand; they both contribute to the equation. You could have a really clean lube that flows too little, and the engine will seize from lack of flow. You could have a lot of dirty oil, but the engine will eventually eat itself alive from particulate contamination. Neither is desirable. But neither is prominent, either. Those conditions are not omnipresent in today's equipment, and haven't been for decades. Filters flow WAY more than the engine needs, even when heavily loaded, and the oil never gets "that dirty" in the first place, unless a HUGE amount of neglect and abuse are heaped onto it. So why worry about stuff that doesn't matter?
I love to make analogies; here's one of my favorite. There is much debate in the world of hunting. Which is better: the .308Win or .30-06?
Both are excellent rounds overall. You have to look into the bullet weights, tail design, expansion properties, propellant (powder) performance, velocity, etc. The debate has raged for decades about which are the "better" rounds. But they are, in fact, complete overkill when shooting a squirrel ....
And that overkill concept applies to threads like this. It's meaningless to debate the finite merrit of which oil filter efficiency is "best", or which filter flows "better", relative to the 99.99999% of applications in our garages.
I offer, as my proof of concept and claim, the following:
- my "UOA Normalcy" article: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis-how-to-decide-what-is-normal/ this data is real world UOA testing.
- SAE study about tribochemical barriers: http://papers.sae.org/2007-01-4133/ this data is real world wear testing.
- SAE study about oil filters: http://papers.sae.org/881825/ this data is lab-controlled biased testing.
These three things, together, speak to UOA wear data, anti-wear layers, and filtration efficiency. These three things show how lab testing and real world application manifest into different results. Before you post a response, I suggest you read and then re-read those documents, to understand the crux of the disucssion. I am NOT suggesting I'm a "know it all" and you all are dumb. But I am suggesting that anyone who brings rhetroic and mythology to the debate is comsuming bandwidth that otherwise could be spent in a constructive manner. For goodness sake, don't cut/paste some link to a marketing page from RP or Amsoil about filters; go directly to the source, read the entire study, and then understand the limitation of that application. It's not impressive when you fall victim to marketing hype, and I, for one, will not go along without kicking and screaming like a three-year-old leaving Chuck-E-Cheese ... I am always willing to learn new things, and see new data. I am not perfect; I make mistakes. But I have a high threshold for what I consider to be "proof" and if you want to convince me otherwise, you'd better bring the big bucket-o-facts with ya. I tend to take real world data and then apply macro or micro analysis; it's what really happens to us common folks. The lab testing is great data, but only when you undersand why/how it was performed, and what limitations exist for it's useful purpose. Until you understand the DOE (design of experiment), you cannot grasp the importance, or lack of relevance, of the results of lab testing.
I actually have a couple of questions of my own ...
- Do you, as the typical BITOGer, run 20w-50 in your fuel-efficient 4-banger, and then stomp on the loud-pedal to WOT for minutes on end immediately after starting your engine in the Yukon in winter?
- Do you, as the typical BITOGer, run your engine with no air filter, change oil every 100k miles, while leaving the oil filler cap off, and only changing oil filters every 20k miles or so?
If these conditions don't apply to you, then the topic about flow vs filtration is moot. Period.
In my opinion, many of you guys worry too much about silly little nuances that don't ever manifest into anything in the real world.
This will be long and boring to many, so feel free to ignore this if data and facts and common sense are not your thing.
First, Lab testing:
Lab tests are great to show how any one particular situation compares/contrasts to another. These tests are often well controlled, but also typically do have some "point" to make, and so they are targeted towards a particular goal (pun intended ...
That study was grossly biased in how it was run, on purpose. To show the relative value of finer filtration, they HEAVILY dosed the sump with controlled particulate contaminants (fine a/c dust), they ignored what would be deemed an OCI interval, and they discounted any contribution of the add-pack of the host lube. They most certainly did show a reasonable response curve to "better" filtration, but they did so at the very upper end of efficiency, versus a tighter one. IOW, they ran a really loose filter, and a moderate filter, and two really tight filters (40um, 15u, 8.5um, 7um all at 98% eff). The greatest "shift" in wear reduction was (intuitively) moving from 40um to 15um. The 40um was cellulose, the other three were "glass". Gosh - not hard to understand why the results were so awesome, is it?
In that study, the slope was not linear, but a curve. Once a reasonable filtration level was achieved, there was degradation in the ROI for a "tighter" filter. As the filter became more efficient past a point, the effect on wear become less prominent. The relative value going from 40um to 20um is MUCH more important, than moving from 20um to 15um, etc, etc. When you get around 15-20um, the filter is "good enough" for long, sustained use.
The rate of contamination in that study was ABSOLUTELY HUGE! How big? They ran 8 hour tests, and added 50 grams (fifty!) of the fine dust every hour! Think about this for a moment. A typical AFCI (air filter change interval) may be approximately 30k miles. In that duration, you may see an ingestion of perhaps 20-30g of particulate? This is a variable amount depending upon filter used, area driven, rpm, etc. But it's a generalization that's reasonable. Most oil filters can hold 15g fairly reasonably. High end oil filters can hold perhaps 25-30g? But the GM test dumped 50g of dust EVERY HOUR into the crankcase during an 8 hour test, and the ONLY time they changed the oil filter was when the dP (differential pressures across the media was 20 psig!). YIKES! How many of you actually run with no air filter, leave the oil-filler cap off, never change oil, and let that much junk get into your engine? I will be the first to admit I don't know as much as I need to know about air filters; I'm not 100% confident in my ingestion data. But after talking with Jim Allen on this, what I am confident of is that the rate of contamination in that GM study was horrifically huge, and in no way represents a "normal" ingestion rate. They stacked the deck to purposely accelerate wear. Just keep that in mind as we move forward.
Little side note about the GM filter test; the oil was held at 250 degF. Just goes to show that folks get their undies in a wad too easily about their perceived "high" oil temps around here. But I digress ...
BTW - even though the filters were changed, the oil was NOT changed for the duration of the test. Hence, the oil ingested perhaps the equivalent of 150k"ish" miles of particulate, but was never changed; only the filters were changed. Now, how well do you think the add-pack (detergents and dispersants) held up after that abuse? Yeah - I thought so ...
My point to this review? The test was heavily "accelerated" to show the disparity of filtration efficiency; they did it on purpose. OK - I get that. They proved that filters can be a good idea, and how there is relative purpose to the efficiency. Good. But it's not practical info; it's not real world use. And they even admit to it; here is a direct quote:
"It is important to note that this analysis is used only to compare relative wear rates. Used oil analysis from engines in the field will not typically show such a clear correlation since wear metals generated between oil changes will be at much lower concentrations."
Why is this quote important? Because they know that "normal" oil and filter changes (O/FCIs) never incur anywhere close to this much abuse. You'll NEVER see that much contamination in the sump in typical use, and so filtration effect is not nearly as critical.
Summary - what they can prove in the lab does NOT always equate to what happens in the real world. That is because lab tests often have a dedicated purpose and are targeted (biased) to proving or disproving something of interest.
Next topic; Wear Control ...
Equipment wear control in a pressure fed system is generally a function of these three things:
1) filtration efficiency
2) OCI duration
3) tribochemical barrier
We've covered #1. And #2 somewhat relates to #1, but should be understood to be purposely controlled so that several things are monitored. You not only want to make sure that contamination is low, but the add-pack is not overwhelmed. Do NOT misunderstand this to mean that ultra-short OCIs are best for the add-pack, that is not true. But what is true is that any lube has a prescribed amount of additives, and those not only control contamination, but have anti-wear properties, corrosion control, etc. It's a "package" approach. And most of today’s lubes (engine, tranny, gear oil) are well designed and made for the task at hand. Don't underestimate the ability of the add-pack to work in concert with the other two contributors to wear control. The OCI duration directly has effect on the lifecycle of the add-pack. Use it too long, and the oil degrades to a point where it cannot contribute to wear control. Change it too often and there is wasted product that is never utilized. Also, frequent OCIs actually affect, in a negative manner, the next item I'll discuss ...
The tribochemical barrier is something that many don't even understand; purchase and read SAE 2007-01-4133 by Ford/Conoco. They show the CLEAR relationship between oxidation of the chem pack and the development of the anti-wear layers. Yes, Virginia, some amount of oxidation is a GOOD thing! Not so much as to "turn" the oil to goo, but enough that the oxidized layers develop a barrier between moving parts. This is VERY important at start up, and probably the most valuable contributor to start up wear protection. Think about it; before pressure ever arrives, parts are moving. What keeps metal from abrading metal? The combination of add-pack residuals and tribochemical barriers does. Pressure is actually the last thing to arrive; the other two are already present! And if you change oil frequently, the anti-agglomerates and detergents can actually reduce this barrier layer. So get this straight in your head; changing oil too often will tear down the beneficial anti-wear layer, and oil getting hot actually helps lay down this barrier. It is agreed that there are always practical limits to any condition; too hot for too long is a bad thing. But the notion that ultra-frequent OCIs are beneficial is total bovine manure. It's proven in the SAE study. If you disagree, then by all means, run your own study and submit it to the SAE for publication. Until then, I'm sticking with the data I've seen in the aforementioned study.
Filter Flow ...
As for flow itself, the ability of any filter to flow enough volume is WELL past the need of any typical application. Filters generally flow WAY more than the engine will develop for any given rpm. Only a WOT run at really cold start may ever push the filter BP valve open, and don't forget that the pump relief is going to open before that happens anyway. Those two components operate for different reasons. The pump relief protects the filter from bursting and also the engine from too much pressure. The filter relief protects the media from the differential primarily. If it were not there, the engine would get pressure as soon as the media failed anyway! But it would be a undesirable kind of contaminated failure. And don't forget that some engines have the BP in the block and not the filter. Either way, it's to protect the media first and foremost.
Oil Analysis normalcy
I will state this up front; I realize that UOAs are a direct view of lube, and only an indirect view of equipment health. It is far more informational to tear an engine down and actually meausre bearing clearances, observe for pitting and galling and scratching, etc. However, that's just plain ridiculous when it comes to the practical ownership of most equipment. It costs too much in terms of time and money. And so, we rely on UOAs to tell us how the lube is doing and infer how the equipment is being sustained. Most wear starts out small and grows, therefore a UOA is a good predictor of the onset of undesirable conditions. There is always going to be a catastrophic event that a UOA cannot predict; I get that. But the very reason to do UOAs is to practice predictive maintenance. Until you grasp that concept, you're not going to understand the basis for using UOAs. There are benefits and limitations to any tool chosen; I'll not belabor this out here. Just realize it and be ready to move on. I now continue ...
In all my UOA analysis, over way past 10,000 UOAs (I've quit counting now in all my various files), I've never been able to show a direct correlation between "better" filters and UOA wear. That's because any "normal" filter controls the big stuff well enough that a "better" filter has nothing left to grab onto. You are welcome to buy a "better" filter, but the data does not show that it's doing any tangible task. It's a benefit that goes unused. And why? Because the other two contributors to wear control are the primary means of defense. The add-pack (OCI duration) and tribochemical barriers are acting to control the small stuff, whereas the filter is only there to catch the big stuff. Big stuff is an INFREQUENT event; it's not predominant. The oil filter is basically a chunk-catcher. There is no practical filter that I'm aware of that has the ability to catch small particles AND provide full-flow volume. A typical bypass-lube filter can be really efficient at perhaps 2-3um, but it will never flow the volume required to satisfy the floating of parts on the hydrodynamic wedge, whereas a full-flow typical filter can easily do so, but never approach such efficiency. The reality is that big particulate (greater than 15um) is not predominant, and when it does show up it is typically caught the first or second time around by the FF filters. The really small stuff does not matter; it's too small to be of concern. What's in the middle is controlled by the add-pack. As long as your OCI is reasonable, you're going to dump out the harmful stuff before it becomes too prominent. There are lots of very-high-mileage cars that make it a long way simply because someone changed oil every 4-5k miles. There was no fancy, high end filtration in place.
The point to understand is that of efficiency versus predominance. A very high efficiency rating speaks to ability, but it does NOT speak to actual occurrence. A filter can only catch what's thrown it's way; it cannot produce a result where no opportunity exists. There is a big difference between a percentage of event, versus the occurrence (magnitude) of an event. One person out of ten is 10%; 100 people out of 1000 is still 10%. The percent stays the same although the magnitude is very different. Therefore, an efficient filter can be very good at its job, but if there isn't a lot of particulate to catch, the overall contamination is low. Because of great designs, excellent manufacturing abilities, well-developed ECM programs and fuel injection, and close-loop crank-cases, there simply isn't a lot of junk in the engine oil in the first place. What little exists is small, and the ever tiny percentage of big particulate is quickly grabbed any "normal" filter. Get it?
I completely agree that filters are very important to have in the equation. They are one of three contributors to wear control. But the amount they filter, and amount they flow, are moot once you pass a minimum required threshold. Once a filter flows "enough", then flowing "more" isn't going to gain anything. Once a filter grabs down to a reasonable particulate size, it's not going to be "better" to have a tighter efficiency for stuff that is NOT predominant and rarely occurs. I do completely agree that a "better" filter would be defined as one that can last LONGER in service, while still providing that necessary level of protection. Therefore, high-capacity filters (FU, XP, etc) may garner favor if you intend to run long OCIs. But they will NOT pay a dividend in less wear in a tangible sense for a normal application, not any more than using syn lubes will do so for a normal OCI. And after having access to well over 20,000 UOAs in my adult life, more than 1/2 of which are in my personal databases, I'd say you'll have to PROVE ME WRONG with a LOT of data that would DIRECTLY contradict my DECADES of analysis. On top of that, there are SAE studies that I use to back up my claims. As an SAE member, I encourage you to join and read. Don't just listen to a poorly regurgitated synopsis at the bar on a Friday night; go pay for the whole study and read it and understand it.
Review ...
So where does this take us in the OPs question. What's more important; flow or filtration? I'd have to say ...
It depends. It depends upon which side of a moot point you want to be on. Neither flow nor filtration have an upper hand; they both contribute to the equation. You could have a really clean lube that flows too little, and the engine will seize from lack of flow. You could have a lot of dirty oil, but the engine will eventually eat itself alive from particulate contamination. Neither is desirable. But neither is prominent, either. Those conditions are not omnipresent in today's equipment, and haven't been for decades. Filters flow WAY more than the engine needs, even when heavily loaded, and the oil never gets "that dirty" in the first place, unless a HUGE amount of neglect and abuse are heaped onto it. So why worry about stuff that doesn't matter?
I love to make analogies; here's one of my favorite. There is much debate in the world of hunting. Which is better: the .308Win or .30-06?
Both are excellent rounds overall. You have to look into the bullet weights, tail design, expansion properties, propellant (powder) performance, velocity, etc. The debate has raged for decades about which are the "better" rounds. But they are, in fact, complete overkill when shooting a squirrel ....
And that overkill concept applies to threads like this. It's meaningless to debate the finite merrit of which oil filter efficiency is "best", or which filter flows "better", relative to the 99.99999% of applications in our garages.
I offer, as my proof of concept and claim, the following:
- my "UOA Normalcy" article: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis-how-to-decide-what-is-normal/ this data is real world UOA testing.
- SAE study about tribochemical barriers: http://papers.sae.org/2007-01-4133/ this data is real world wear testing.
- SAE study about oil filters: http://papers.sae.org/881825/ this data is lab-controlled biased testing.
These three things, together, speak to UOA wear data, anti-wear layers, and filtration efficiency. These three things show how lab testing and real world application manifest into different results. Before you post a response, I suggest you read and then re-read those documents, to understand the crux of the disucssion. I am NOT suggesting I'm a "know it all" and you all are dumb. But I am suggesting that anyone who brings rhetroic and mythology to the debate is comsuming bandwidth that otherwise could be spent in a constructive manner. For goodness sake, don't cut/paste some link to a marketing page from RP or Amsoil about filters; go directly to the source, read the entire study, and then understand the limitation of that application. It's not impressive when you fall victim to marketing hype, and I, for one, will not go along without kicking and screaming like a three-year-old leaving Chuck-E-Cheese ... I am always willing to learn new things, and see new data. I am not perfect; I make mistakes. But I have a high threshold for what I consider to be "proof" and if you want to convince me otherwise, you'd better bring the big bucket-o-facts with ya. I tend to take real world data and then apply macro or micro analysis; it's what really happens to us common folks. The lab testing is great data, but only when you undersand why/how it was performed, and what limitations exist for it's useful purpose. Until you understand the DOE (design of experiment), you cannot grasp the importance, or lack of relevance, of the results of lab testing.
I actually have a couple of questions of my own ...
- Do you, as the typical BITOGer, run 20w-50 in your fuel-efficient 4-banger, and then stomp on the loud-pedal to WOT for minutes on end immediately after starting your engine in the Yukon in winter?
- Do you, as the typical BITOGer, run your engine with no air filter, change oil every 100k miles, while leaving the oil filler cap off, and only changing oil filters every 20k miles or so?
If these conditions don't apply to you, then the topic about flow vs filtration is moot. Period.
In my opinion, many of you guys worry too much about silly little nuances that don't ever manifest into anything in the real world.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Summary - what they can prove in the lab does NOT always equate to what happens in the real world. That is because lab tests often have a dedicated purpose and are targeted (biased) to proving or disproving something of interest.
Amen.
Summary - what they can prove in the lab does NOT always equate to what happens in the real world. That is because lab tests often have a dedicated purpose and are targeted (biased) to proving or disproving something of interest.
Amen.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
feel free to ignore this if data and facts and common sense are not your thing.
feel free to ignore this if data and facts and common sense are not your thing.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I actually have a couple of questions of my own ...
- Do you, as the typical BITOGer, run 20w-50 in your fuel-efficient 4-banger, and then stomp on the loud-pedal to WOT for minutes on end immediately after starting your engine in the Yukon in winter?
- Do you, as the typical BITOGer, run your engine with no air filter, change oil every 100k miles, while leaving the oil filler cap off, and only changing oil filters every 20k miles or so?
If these conditions don't apply to you, then the topic about flow vs filtration is moot. Period.
In my opinion, many of you guys worry too much about silly little nuances that don't ever manifest into anything in the real world.
No and no...
But, I do get additional start up noise, which to me equates more wear, when I am using the Fram Ultra vs the OEM which is nice and quiet on start up.
That is a close as I can get to a max filtration vs max flow filters......
So, hence the topic...and the thought that additional flow and less filtration may work out better in the long run for wear in my Civic.
Oh, and I love shooting my .30-06.....so, that gets my vote.
I actually have a couple of questions of my own ...
- Do you, as the typical BITOGer, run 20w-50 in your fuel-efficient 4-banger, and then stomp on the loud-pedal to WOT for minutes on end immediately after starting your engine in the Yukon in winter?
- Do you, as the typical BITOGer, run your engine with no air filter, change oil every 100k miles, while leaving the oil filler cap off, and only changing oil filters every 20k miles or so?
If these conditions don't apply to you, then the topic about flow vs filtration is moot. Period.
In my opinion, many of you guys worry too much about silly little nuances that don't ever manifest into anything in the real world.
No and no...
But, I do get additional start up noise, which to me equates more wear, when I am using the Fram Ultra vs the OEM which is nice and quiet on start up.
That is a close as I can get to a max filtration vs max flow filters......
So, hence the topic...and the thought that additional flow and less filtration may work out better in the long run for wear in my Civic.
Oh, and I love shooting my .30-06.....so, that gets my vote.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
In my opinion, many of you guys worry too much about silly little nuances that don't ever manifest into anything in the real world.
Really sums it up. Way too much worrying with nothing quantifiable at all, just heresay and conjecture...
In my opinion, many of you guys worry too much about silly little nuances that don't ever manifest into anything in the real world.
Really sums it up. Way too much worrying with nothing quantifiable at all, just heresay and conjecture...
- Status
Similar threads
