OP talking about an OIL filter not air filter. Any dust entering the oil system probably would go through the PCV which is filtered through the air cleaner.
Shop used the wrong oil filter element (cartridge), result in little to no filtration for the past year, how bad is it?
- Thread starter JohsonChou
- Start date
Up until and through the 60's, many cars did not come with oil filters standard. The manual on a 1962 Pontiac I once had mentioned the oil filter as optional equipment.
How about some free oil changes for your trouble.
I'm a really nice person, but I have to increasingly flex on vendors, and people I give my money to.
All customer service is subpar now.
Doubt OP would trust that shop anymore.
I don't see any where any damage would have happened in 2K. You will be fine. I owned a couple older VW's and of course they had no oil filter. After over 100,000 miles those engine were very clean. I changed oil every 3K on them. And the oils today are certainly superior to the 70's.
Take any oil filter on a good engine and disassemble it after 2K and you will see a clean filter. That being said the shop did a lousy job and I would have a hard time trusting them again.
Take any oil filter on a good engine and disassemble it after 2K and you will see a clean filter. That being said the shop did a lousy job and I would have a hard time trusting them again.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2023
- Messages
- 18
I still have filter, kept as evidence. It is a different part number and it is made right… for that part number.
My ex-landlady's '55 Chevy made it well past 100k miles with no filter, and no engine problems.
I have an owners' manual for '62 Chevrolets. It refers to the filter element (cartridge) in several places, but I don't see any hints the filter was optional then.
Evidence for what though? There's not going to be any recourse if the engine fails at say 50k miles or 80k miles or whatever mileage. It would be basically impossible to link a failure to this issue.
Working at a forklift dealership [ we would see high hour engines] the engines with full flow filters would have pretty much double the life of the engines equipped with a bypass only oil filter. That being said air cleaners are probably the more important filter [ the newer forklifts had the Donaldson air filters] when considering the ability to filter small particle sizes. Engines will, with proper care and luck of the draw outlast the vehicle despite the oil filters particle filtering ability.
Zee09
$200 Site Donor 2023
Sorry about the fiasco.
I would love to know the conversation you had with the shop that did this...
I would love to know the conversation you had with the shop that did this...
Here's another good engine wear vs oil cleanliness SAE study - much newer than 1946.
PDF download link
Summary
Beta 75 is 98.7% (call it 99%) efficient, aka: "Absolute" efficiency.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2023
- Messages
- 18
Thanks for the paper linked.
"DIESEL COMPONENT WEAR TEST - Aninvestigation into the relationshipbetween lube oil filtration and rates ofabrasive wear in diesel engines wasperformed by the AC Delco Division ofGeneral Motors(21). Wear of fivecritical component areas in a DDA 6V-53Tengine were measured: upper and lowerrod bearings, slipper bushings,compression and oil piston rings, pistonpins, and the main bearings. Tests wererun for eight hours with the engineoperating at 2500 rpm with oiltemperatures between 240-250' F. Duringthis period, silica sand (AC Fine TestDust) was added to the oil sump in 50gram aliquots every hour, for a total of 400 grams of contaminant. The test wasfound to reproduce typical abrasive wearpatterns. The same engine was used forall tests, and rebuilt after each runwith new parts."
They added 400 grams of contaiments directly to the oil sump to come up with the graph. DDA 6V-53T has 15L oil capacity vs my car with 10L oil capacity, and that is equivelent of 267 gram of junk in the engine. And with 60micron filter (basically rock catcher?) is only 8x worse than 10 micron filter... That does make me feel better since normal passenger car only see like 5-6 grams of containments in 5000 mile from another paper I read.
Anyway, the oil report I am gonna get in 2 weeks is gonna tell the real story.
Interesting study. I like the fact that they did a wear metal analysis of the used oil as well in addition to the direct wear measurements.
A used oil analysis might not tell you a whole lot, unless wear is unusually high. A used oil analysis was performed in this study, and the 60-micron filter only showed around 30% more wear metals in the used oil compared to the 10-micron filter, despite the fact that engine wear increased by 700%. If the oil filters used were identical and the 700% increase in wear was caused by some other factor, there may be an even smaller increase in wear metals measured in the UOA, since some of the wear metals small enough to have shown up on the wear metal analysis in the study would be trapped in the 10-micron filter, unable to be measured.
I'm not sure what the reasons are that wear metals track so non-linearly with actual engine wear, but it's consistent with what we commonly see with UOAs. The standard deviation in wear metals from one engine to another is quite small, even though we know that there should be huge variances in wear rates between different engines based on engine load, trip duration, ambient dust concentration, air and oil filter efficiency, etc. Trying to measure even a doubling of engine wear with a wear metal analysis is pretty much futile. This is why engine wear is physically measured in these old studies, and why more modern studies use radioactive tracer methods.
I propose that we lobby auto manufacturers to install radioactive piston rings in their engines so that BITOG nerds can better measure wear with an oil analysis
What are you expecting it to show exactly?
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2023
- Messages
- 18
This paper is citing two different studies. One is for a field study. One is for a lab testing (which they added a ridiculous amount of junk in the engine). This graph is from the field study where the graph ZeeOsix quoted is from the lab testing, I personally do not think the lab testing reflect real world conditions, as no engine is gonna see 400 grams of pure dust in the engine. The lab testing study was done by a company that sells oil filter too... so it is less crediable, they might just be wanting to selll their new fancy filter.Interesting study. I like the fact that they did a wear metal analysis of the used oil as well in addition to the direct wear measurements.
A used oil analysis might not tell you a whole lot, unless wear is unusually high. A used oil analysis was performed in this study, and the 60-micron filter only showed around 30% more wear metals in the used oil compared to the 10-micron filter, despite the fact that engine wear increased by 700%. If the oil filters used were identical and the 700% increase in wear was caused by some other factor, there may be an even smaller increase in wear metals measured in the UOA, since some of the wear metals small enough to have shown up on the wear metal analysis in the study would be trapped in the 10-micron filter, unable to be measured.
View attachment 164061
I'm not sure what the reasons are that wear metals track so non-linearly with actual engine wear, but it's consistent with what we commonly see with UOAs. The standard deviation in wear metals from one engine to another is quite small, even though we know that there should be huge variances in wear rates between different engines based on engine load, trip duration, ambient dust concentration, air and oil filter efficiency, etc. Trying to measure even a doubling of engine wear with a wear metal analysis is pretty much futile. This is why engine wear is physically measured in these old studies, and why more modern studies use radioactive tracer methods.
I propose that we lobby auto manufacturers to install radioactive piston rings in their engines so that BITOG nerds can better measure wear with an oil analysis
The field study mentioned that the partical count from 5-100micron increased by 7x between 10 and 60 micron filter, this does not mean that the engine wear is 7x more. These particulates can be dust/debris that isn't filtered out by the less efficent filter that isn't engine wear metal. The paper also mentioned this:
"It is important to note thatalthough filters reduced particulatecontamination 25 microns by more than anorder of magnitude, wear metals asmeasured by spectrography were reducedby only -20%. This is due to theseverly limited capability ofspectrographic oil analysis to detectparticles 5 microns and larger(20). Theconsequence is that significantreductions in wear debris achieved byefficient filters are obscured inlaboratory analyses using standardemission spectroscopic methods."
Bascially it means that engine wear resulted in small than 5 micron particulates is only 20% more. But we don't how much engine wear there is when it results in 5 mciron particulates or larger, at least using the methods they had at the time.
And this is exactly the problem with isolated and even sequential UOA. The “testing” environment is completely uncontrolled, and any results from the spectrographic analysis are influenced by any myriad of factors. There is absolutely no way one could confine an isolated variable to the results that are obtained. You can see the results, but you have no way of knowing what to attribute them to.Interesting study. I like the fact that they did a wear metal analysis of the used oil as well in addition to the direct wear measurements.
A used oil analysis might not tell you a whole lot, unless wear is unusually high. A used oil analysis was performed in this study, and the 60-micron filter only showed around 30% more wear metals in the used oil compared to the 10-micron filter, despite the fact that engine wear increased by 700%. If the oil filters used were identical and the 700% increase in wear was caused by some other factor, there may be an even smaller increase in wear metals measured in the UOA, since some of the wear metals small enough to have shown up on the wear metal analysis in the study would be trapped in the 10-micron filter, unable to be measured.
View attachment 164061
I'm not sure what the reasons are that wear metals track so non-linearly with actual engine wear, but it's consistent with what we commonly see with UOAs. The standard deviation in wear metals from one engine to another is quite small, even though we know that there should be huge variances in wear rates between different engines based on engine load, trip duration, ambient dust concentration, air and oil filter efficiency, etc. Trying to measure even a doubling of engine wear with a wear metal analysis is pretty much futile. This is why engine wear is physically measured in these old studies, and why more modern studies use radioactive tracer methods.
I propose that we lobby auto manufacturers to install radioactive piston rings in their engines so that BITOG nerds can better measure wear with an oil analysis