dnewton3
Staff member
There is no data set that would prove the wear issue one way or another, relative to pre-filling the filter. It's theory at this point.There's a huge difference between added wear and blown-up/failed engines. People use the same arguement when talking about engine wear related to oil cleanliness from filtration or from the oil viscosity used. More engine wear over the long run typically won't result in engine failure, but a more worn engine can effect the overall mechanical condition and performance of the engine.
I cannot prove that pre-filling doesn't reduce wear, any more than you can prove it does.
The data just doesn't exist.
Also, the wear issue relative to filtration is not a universally applied concept.
Reducing particulate is a very good idea; it's important.
But at some point there is a law of diminishing returns, relative to the OCI duration. "Normal" OCIs don't really benefit from hyper-clean oil; that data IS present and available for all to see (if they are willing to see it with an open mind). Once oil is "clean enough", then making it "more clean" doesn't return a wear reduction worthy of the ROI. As you and I have discussed, the difference between a 95% filter and a 99% filter (at 20um) isn't going to make any appreciable difference in wear in a 5-7k mile OCI. There is so much other noise (variation) in "normal" wear rates that you cannot find a statistically significant difference in the wear data relative to the filter efficiency.