Oil filter ratings/ rankings

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
^^^ An engine might last 300K too with a complete sieve of a filter (or no filter at all) if you changed the oil frequently enough. And besides, an engine can become pretty worn out and still seem to run just fine. You'd have to do a complete tear down and accurate wear measurement between two engines ran the same but with low vs high efficiency filters to see if there was truly any difference due to the filter. Been lots of papers on engine wear vs particle size and ever one of them concludes that better filtering is beneficial.

But since high efficiency oil filters are available, that's what I choose to run ... anything 95% @ 20 microns or better.


Of course they do. If you dump X number of particles of Y diameter into an oil stream, the number of particles exiting a filter is going to be different for differing efficiency ratings. The question as you have stated above is how does it affect the longevity of an engine?

It really comes down to just how many "particles" are being introduced into the oil and how many of those particles generate wear. As far as I know I've never seen any data here on BITOG that shows that. And even once those particles are in the oil they have to pass through an area of the engine where they can do damage. Not all of the oil passes through the bearings for example and I would guess that a majority of the oil does not. In addition even a low efficiency filter will trap the same particles that a high efficiency filter will, it only requires more passes to do so as an operating engine is not a single-pass environment. Even a particle count on an oil is of little use IMO, it represents a snapshot of the oil after an unknown number of passes. If a low number of particles are being introduced into the oil (which I suspect) then a particle count will always be low regardless of the filter being used. And remember, the wear metals shown on a UOA are not the particles causing wear.

I don't know, I have a hard time getting excited about oil filter efficiency for passenger car engines. You know my story, OEM Toyota and OEM Honda filters for the entire lives of my engines. If it was all so important those engines should be consuming oil like crazy by now, yet they don't. On the Sienna I do change the oil more frequently than for the others (around 7k now) but the ECHO and the Accord go at least 10k, sometimes longer.

And to 4WD - the 100k mark? Pfft, I don't even remember when that happened.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
^^^ An engine might last 300K too with a complete sieve of a filter (or no filter at all) if you changed the oil frequently enough. And besides, an engine can become pretty worn out and still seem to run just fine. You'd have to do a complete tear down and accurate wear measurement between two engines ran the same but with low vs high efficiency filters to see if there was truly any difference due to the filter. Been lots of papers on engine wear vs particle size and ever one of them concludes that better filtering is beneficial.

But since high efficiency oil filters are available, that's what I choose to run ... anything 95% @ 20 microns or better.


Of course they do. If you dump X number of particles of Y diameter into an oil stream, the number of particles exiting a filter is going to be different for differing efficiency ratings. The question as you have stated above is how does it affect the longevity of an engine?

It really comes down to just how many "particles" are being introduced into the oil and how many of those particles generate wear. As far as I know I've never seen any data here on BITOG that shows that. And even once those particles are in the oil they have to pass through an area of the engine where they can do damage. Not all of the oil passes through the bearings for example and I would guess that a majority of the oil does not. In addition even a low efficiency filter will trap the same particles that a high efficiency filter will, it only requires more passes to do so as an operating engine is not a single-pass environment. Even a particle count on an oil is of little use IMO, it represents a snapshot of the oil after an unknown number of passes. If a low number of particles are being introduced into the oil (which I suspect) then a particle count will always be low regardless of the filter being used. And remember, the wear metals shown on a UOA are not the particles causing wear.

I don't know, I have a hard time getting excited about oil filter efficiency for passenger car engines. You know my story, OEM Toyota and OEM Honda filters for the entire lives of my engines. If it was all so important those engines should be consuming oil like crazy by now, yet they don't. On the Sienna I do change the oil more frequently than for the others (around 7k now) but the ECHO and the Accord go at least 10k, sometimes longer.

And to 4WD - the 100k mark? Pfft, I don't even remember when that happened.


The whole high efficiency oil filter discussion has happened many times on BITOG. The bottom line conclusion always seems to come down to that better filtering isn't going to hurt anything, and may get you some benefits in return - especially when doing longer OCIs. IMO, why not use a high efficiency oil filter since you really don't know what exactly is going on inside the engine in terms of particle generation and how many are actually going through bearings, and how many go round and round before being caught by a lower efficiency filter and causing possible wear.

OEM vs Aftermarket Oil Filters [LINK]

And also, it's been discussed many times that a normal UOA "particle counts" doesn't really seem to tell you the real story. You would have to send the used oil in for a more high tech particle count (like they do when testing filter efficiency per ISO 4548-12) to get a real grasp on how many and what sized particles are floating around in the oil.

 

[4WD]

Psst - you want a trophy for a bunch of old cars with lots of miles - you did not get the point and I don't care

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: 4WD
Psst - you want a trophy for a bunch of old cars with lots of miles - you did not get the point and I don't care


Lol, no trophy wanted. But I do believe it is relevant to my comments about engine longevity.

And I got your point I'm not dense. My comment was not intended to be harsh, it was a joke. But since you don't care then it doesn't matter does it?

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
The whole high efficiency oil filter discussion has happened many times on BITOG. The bottom line conclusion always seems to come down to that better filtering isn't going to hurt anything, and may get you some benefits in return - especially when doing longer OCIs. IMO, why not use a high efficiency oil filter since you really don't know what exactly is going on inside the engine in terms of particle generation and how many are actually going through bearings, and how many go round and round before being caught by a lower efficiency filter and causing possible wear.

OEM vs Aftermarket Oil Filters [LINK]

And also, it's been discussed many times that a normal UOA "particle counts" doesn't really seem to tell you the real story. You would have to send the used oil in for a more high tech particle count (like they do when testing filter efficiency per ISO 4548-12) to get a real grasp on how many and what sized particles are floating around in the oil.


Yes no doubt it has been discussed before - just as it was brought up and discussed in this thread, again. I was merely pointing out the other side of the argument you were advocating.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Yes no doubt it has been discussed before - just as it was brought up and discussed in this thread, again. I was merely pointing out the other side of the argument you were advocating.


Like I said ... doesn't matter to me what anyone else does. I'm just saying what I choose to do, and expect everyone else to make the choices they do for the reasons they believe in.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
People use what they want for the reasons they have ... end of story.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Fram Ultra is best for money(especially when you can buy some for less than $6-7/ea) for Spin-on oil filter.

Cartridge oil filters for European vehicles nothing is better than German brands such as Mann, Mahle, Hengst ...

 

[JerryBob]

Quote:
Does Internet warrior mean to question people's opinions and their bro science? You're voicing your opinion without any data to back it up. You're the one that said base stocks and additives matter. When did we start talking about extended OCI? Are you moving the goalposts? I'm asking you to support your opinion with data. You decline and defer and tell me it's my responsibility to find data to support your statement. That tells me all I need know.


Precisely. This is a good example of the statements on BITOG that need challenging. His statement is directly refuted by Blackstone

Let's not be shy about challenging. I am still waiting to hear from someone how "Amsoil MTL outperformed Redline" in his transmission.

 

[4WD]

Or a motor that benefits from an ADV that continues to work during a long OCI - we know from other material applications that silicone ADV are made from good material

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: JerryBob
Let's not be shy about challenging. I am still waiting to hear from someone how "Amsoil MTL outperformed Redline" in his transmission.


Do you have data that says Redline out performed Amsoil? "Challenging" can go both ways.

 

[carock]

It has been pretty well established in industry that engine weear is directly related to the weight of hard contaminates in the oil. It stands to reason that the more contmainates captured, the longer the engine will last. The only issue is putting a precise number on the improvement. Does a filter that catches twice as many contaminates double the engine life?

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: carock
It has been pretty well established in industry that engine weear is directly related to the weight of hard contaminates in the oil. It stands to reason that the more contmainates captured, the longer the engine will last. The only issue is putting a precise number on the improvement. Does a filter that catches twice as many contaminates double the engine life?


"catches twice as many contaminates" is a loaded statement. Filters don't work that way, it is not an absolute but instead a probability. A lower efficiency filter will capture the same number of particles that a high efficiency filter will, but it will take more passes through the filter to so so. Unless you had a catastrophic event that dumped a large weight of particles into the oil and you happened to weigh the filter just after that event, then the likelihood is that at the end of the day both the low efficiency and the high efficiency filters would weigh the same.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: carock
It has been pretty well established in industry that engine weear is directly related to the weight of hard contaminates in the oil. It stands to reason that the more contmainates captured, the longer the engine will last. The only issue is putting a precise number on the improvement. Does a filter that catches twice as many contaminates double the engine life?


"catches twice as many contaminates" is a loaded statement. Filters don't work that way, it is not an absolute but instead a probability. A lower efficiency filter will capture the same number of particles that a high efficiency filter will, but it will take more passes through the filter to do so.


True ... so the question is, do you want to "sand down" the insides of the engine for a longer or shorter period? Some of you have seen this table already. It shows the probability that a filter rated at 50% @ 20 microns will allow a specific starting number of particles (1,000,000 in this case) to make many more "round trips" through the engine vs a filter rated at 99% @ 20 microns. So by the time the last particle is caught, a million particles went through the engine, whereas with the more efficient filter only 10,101 went through the engine.

 

[kschachn]

My comments were oriented towards the statement "Does a filter that catches twice as many contaminates double the engine life?", and what I said was correct. There was no value judgement as to what is better or worse.

Where is this sand that you mention? You have brought this up before, but I've never seen anything on here nor anywhere that shows there are significant amounts of dangerous particles in the average oil stream. In fact, the evidence is just the opposite that there are no such particles to "sand down" your engine. My experience with using nearly all OEM "rock catcher" filters supports that view, and just the evidence of OEMs using low efficiency filters (if in fact they do). I'd like to see something that shows the contrary, that these particles do exist in significant numbers, and that the use of low-efficiency filters is in any way sanding down and engine.

I will confess that in my response to carock I was thinking of bypass filters (of which he seems to advocate). Your chart would not apply to those, correct? With only a relatively small portion of the oil passing through the bypass filter with each pass that chart would only be correct for full flow filters.

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
True ... so the question is, do you want to "sand down" the insides of the engine for a longer or shorter period? Some of you have seen this table already. It shows the probability that a filter rated at 50% @ 20 microns will allow a specific starting number of particles (1,000,000 in this case) to make many more "round trips" through the engine vs a filter rated at 99% @ 20 microns. So by the time the last particle is caught, a million particles went through the engine, whereas with the more efficient filter only 10,101 went through the engine.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
My comments were oriented towards the statement "Does a filter that catches twice as many contaminates double the engine life?", and what I said was correct. There was no value judgement as to what is better or worse.


My comment was towards your statement of: "catches twice as many contaminates" is a loaded statement. Filters don't work that way, it is not an absolute but instead a probability. A lower efficiency filter will capture the same number of particles that a high efficiency filter will, but it will take more passes through the filter to do so."

I didn't really directly focus on the amount of wear ... but I'd say that if 1,000,000 vs 10,000 particles went through the engine that it's probably true that more wear occurred in the former.

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Where is this sand that you mention? You have brought this up before, but I've never seen anything on here nor anywhere that shows there are significant amounts of dangerous particles in the average oil stream. In fact, the evidence is just the opposite that there are no such particles to "sand down" your engine. My experience with using nearly all OEM "rock catcher" filters supports that view, and just the evidence of OEMs using low efficiency filters (if in fact they do). I'd like to see something that shows the contrary, that these particles do exist in significant numbers, and that the use of low-efficiency filters is in any way sanding down and engine.


I used the term "sand down" to loosely imply wear - I even put it in quotes to signify that. Even just one particle can cause wear, and if you were to largely magnify the damage it would indeed look like the surface was basically hit with sand paper.

I can come from the same angle and say: "Where is all this evidence that there aren't any particles in the oil that could cause wear?".

I see cut open oil filters here, and there is all kinds of crud collected inside the can and down in the pleats of the filter. And that's just the stuff you can see with the naked eye ... that means there's probably even more particles collected that are much smaller that can also cause wear. Obviously engines generate crud as they operate.

I've mentioned many times that you would have to do a very contolled test to see what the wear difference would be just based on the filter's efficiency. I believe someone linked to an article where they did a test like that and it did show less wear with a better filter. I'll see if I can did up the link or thread.

Originally Posted By: kschachn
I will confess that in my response to carock I was thinking of bypass filters (of which he seems to advocate). Your chart would not apply to those, correct? With only a relatively small portion of the oil passing through the bypass filter with each pass that chart would only be correct for full flow filters.


Yes, my example is only for a full flow oil filter.