Study: Better Filtration = Lower Wear ?

[buster]

http://www.practicingoilanalysis.com/article_detail.asp?articleid=401&relatedbookgroup=PowerGen Kind of reverse thinking here.

quote:

---

For diesel and gasoline engines, there are a surprising number of laboratory and field studies that report the need to control particles below ten microns. One such study by GM concluded that, “controlling particles in the 3 to 10 micron range had the greatest impact on wear rates and that engine wear rates correlated directly to the dust concentration levels in the sump.”1

---

quote:

---

Much has been published about the risks associated with overextended oil drains and the buildup of carbon insolubles from combustion blow-by.

---

I think I'll use a Mobil 1 Filter. [ April 09, 2005, 08:24 PM: Message edited by: buster ]

 

[MarkC]

I wonder about that too. My last UOA, I used a Napa Gold filter, which is about average I think. This time I've got A PureOne on there. It may be interesting to note any differences in wear metals, but I'm not sure any real conclusions could be drawn.

 

[buster]

When you add this to the idea, it becomes clear why Terry stresses keeping the engine clean and not focussing on the brand as much. This btw is from Amsoil's own website

quote:

---

Federal Mogul Corporation, a manufacturer of engine bearings, pistons, connecting rods and other engine parts, studied over 7,000 case histories of bearing distress and engine failure and never found engine oil to be the cause of a failure. Dirt, the number one cause of engine failure, was found to be responsible for 43.4% of failures

---

 

[1911]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkC: I wonder about that too. My last UOA, I used a Napa Gold filter, which is about average I think. This time I've got A PureOne on there. It may be interesting to note any differences in wear metals, but I'm not sure any real conclusions could be drawn.

---

Thanks Guys, Excellent posts. I made a mention of this information on small particles and wear in one of my recent diatribes here on BITOG. I also stated some good information about how the film thickness is a very dominant feature in controlling how much damage debris particles can do. This information again may be an argument against using the 20wt oils in very hot climates and I have seen this topic mentioned in a paper in Machinery Lubrication Journal last year. 1911

 

[T-Keith]

How is that reverse thinking? Less dirt seems like it would logically be better. Why the Mobil 1 filter, a Pure or AC-delco would be better? -T

 

[darkdan]

Sadly, most full flow oil filters aren't going to catch much in that micron range.

 

[sully]

Interesting article Buster, I've never been a fan of extended drains and have been using M1 filters for a couple of years now. Anything over 5000 miles even using synthetics has always made me nervous. I think I'll stick to moderate drain intervals and continue using FP and LC. Even the more expensive oils are cheap compared to the cost of an engine rebuild.

 

[buster]

quote:

---

How is that reverse thinking?

---

What I meant was, we usually contribute the oil brand/type etc. to contributing to increased wear, which is true to some extent, but if you have really good filtration, you can reduce wear. It's common sense really. You don't want abrasives flowing around in the oil making it abrassive.

 

[ruking77]

I think the interesting thing is there is no real longitudinal studies that have conclusively shown this to be true. If it be true then standard equipment should be: 1. pre oiler 2. bypass oil filter 3. along withthe normal full flow oil filter. This can add 200-500 dollars in the after market. OEM costs would probably be hugely LESS. http://www.streetortrack.com/preoileraccessories.asp http://oilguard.com/price_info.php I think most of us follow the so called "best practices" based on scientific and common sense logic. For example, I have a TDI or diesel motor. The design life of the engine indicates that with reasonable care, 500,000 to 1,000,000 miles are certainly do able. So the real question: how many folks % wise keep the vehicle for 300,000 miles?? Let alone 500,000 to 1,000,000 miles!! So as a result of a series of factors I will do 15,000, 20,000 to 25,000 mile OCI's with Mobil One 5w40 Truck and SUV aka Delvac One 5w40. I am also seriously shooting for 500,000 if not 1,000,000. So while it is logical that a pre oiler would greatly lessen the START UP wear of 40-50% and a bypass filter taking 3-10 microns out of the flow is a good idea, and in fact it probably eliminate 50-60% of the 50-60% of the remaining wear, how much longer does it practically extend the life? Double? (or 1m to 2m miles!!??) Triple? (1.5M to 3M miles?) So I think some of these boundaries should enliven the discussion. [ April 09, 2005, 10:47 PM: Message edited by: ruking77 ]

 

[bighead]

Well, I have a question. I just ordered 7 AC Delco Ultraguard Gold filters. I've heard they are very good, but, just wondered if any of y'all had any personal experience with them..

 

[ruking77]

Yes, with out a doubt, they are very good. However, I think you'd be hard pressed to distinguish any statistical or even noticeable performance differences from the standard AC Delco filters.

 

[1911]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ruking77: [QB] I think the interesting thing is there is no real longitudinal studies that have conclusively shown this to be true. If it be true then standard equipment should be: 1. pre oiler 2. bypass oil filter 3. along withthe normal full flow oil filter. This can add 200-500 dollars in the after market. OEM costs would probably be hugely LESS. Ruking77----You may be onto something here. I implore you to read my recent new post called UOA's versus Jim Fitch (Buster's article author). Quoting from my post...please read: "If particulate debris causes most engine wear and we assume there is only a small amount of debris there after a fresh OC, then it should be obvious that the amount of engine wear should rise exponentially as the OCI progresses. Mathematically, this is a chain reaction scenario gentlemen!!!! Yes dudes, just like a nuclear fission reaction. In other words, at 5,000 miles, your amount of sump debris should be way way higher than it was at 1000 miles and if the debris causes the wear, then you should have way more wear from 5k to 6k miles than you would from 1k to 2k miles. In fact, if most wear truly comes from debris and there is almost no debris after a fresh oil change, then mathematically, there could easily be 50 to 200 times more wear going on between the 5-6k interval as there is during the 1-2k interval. Now let's consider the myriad UOA's that this board seems to be obsessed with. They show no tendency whatsoever towards this kind of behavior. In fact, they may even show/suggest the opposite.....that wear may be lower from 5k to 6k than from 2k to 3k. " Viking, you may be right that there is no real evidence to support the articles statements.....or UOA's are not good indicators of wear. Mathematically speaking...it has to be one or the other and I want to know which it is. Thanks, 1911

 

[ruking77]

I read the Fitch article. While he is directly addressing the diesel, he makes a point about "cleaner oil" helping to lessen (by many many times) emissions. So if we can apply this to gassers, one easy test is to take a "smog" test at a very long oil change interval and on the same day after changings ones oil, take the same "smog" test. My "null" hypothesis would be that there would be no to little difference in the emissions due to so called "clean oil". I also know this from an anecdotal point of view. I ran a 1987 Toyota Landcruiser with 250,000 miles where I did 15,000 mile OCI's for 14 years(16-17 oil changes) I even used the hated FRAM PH8A oil filters!! . When I compared the smog test when it was first required vs at the 14 year mark the results were virtually identical!!!!??? So if Fitch's hypothesis were true my TLC at the 14 year mark should have been a total PIG. Again, if his claims are true that clean oil DOES cut down emissions (by many times) you could say that the EPA is not doing its job BY NOT requiring the aftermarket equipment that I mentioned in an earlier post 1. preoiler 2 by pass oil filter 3 full flow oil filter! Or that oil be kept scrupulously clean by any and all methods. Also it is entirely true that UOA's are not a guarantee or reliable predictor of imminent catastrophic failure. It has always been a trend line indicator. There is also a comparison chart in the article that is particularly disturbing showing a 12,000 mile OCI and a 25,000 mile OCI indicating a 10% loss of oil sump volume. In theory, at any mile mark the baseline operation is to always check the oil (at some interval) and to keep it topped. [ April 10, 2005, 12:22 AM: Message edited by: ruking77 ]

 

[Steve S]

With a gas engine there won't be a noticeable difference as long as reasonable oil change intervals and good air filtration is used. Buster how long do you keep your cars? There is a guy on the diesel anaylsis website who used a bypass filter Amsoil and did anaylsis,on a regular basis and sold his truck at I think 40,000 miles .most people mever keep a car long enough for a bypass heck if someone puts alot of miles on per year then the car will see 500,000 miles without a bypass.

 

[Stinky Peterson]

In most cases you will not see a reduction in wear element levels when using a better filter. I have seen this time and time again since we routinely filter systems in order to comply with our contamination control program guidelines. The problem isn't that filter isn't working but instead it is a limitation of the measurement method. Much of wear that is measured and reported on the oil analysis report is simply too small to be filtered out i.e. atoms and ions. These are measured in angstroms (10^-10) vs. microns (10^-6) which are 10,000 times larger. To see the effects of better filtration it is necessary to do particle counts. In the worse cases of wear large particles are generated and this shows up in the particle distribution and not element levels. For best results it is necessary to look at multiple size ranges and watch for an increase number of larger particles. The ISO code does not do a good job of showing size distribution. This is where the PVi (particle volume index) helps. It is weighted on the number of large particles and jumps dramatically when the distribution changes.

 

[Stinky Peterson]

quote:

---

Originally posted by buster:

quote:

---

How is that reverse thinking?

---

What I meant was, we usually contribute the oil brand/type etc. to contributing to increased wear, which is true to some extent, but if you have really good filtration, you can reduce wear. It's common sense really. You don't want abrasives flowing around in the oil making it abrasive.

---

I read a UOA from Blackstone the other day and they mentioned that they didn't really see much of a difference between oils - this has been my exact observation too! The only time I've seen big differences is when comparing premium diesel oils such as Chevron Delo 400 to their lower quality RPM product and trying to go over the recommend interval. We also see it when using the wrong classification of oil.

 

[Ugly3]

Stinky Peterson - I read a UOA from Blackstone the other day and they mentioned that they didn't really see much of a difference between oils - this has been my exact observation too! The only time I've seen big differences is when comparing premium diesel oils such as Chevron Delo 400 to their lower quality RPM product and trying to go over the recommend interval. We also see it when using the wrong classification of oil. Maybe the best post ever on BITOG!

 

[TooSlick]

Buster, I haven't installed Amsoil bypass filters on my personal cars, even though these systems work exactly as advertised. You'll never wear out any lubricated parts of an engine using Amsoil and their standard air/oil filters, even if you keep the car for 300,000-400,000 miles. I've never had a customer replace any lubricated part on any engine or transmission using Amsoil and I've been actively selling it for about ten years. I am 100% serious about this .... I have a fifteen year old Audi 100, with 230,000 miles and there still is no significant wear on any of the cam lobes that I can see. This is with once a year oil changes and 12,000-22,000 mile change intervals. I don't put the miles on this car I once did when my wife and I carpooled everyday, so I"m down to perhaps 12,000 miles a year now. I change the filter after six months and topoff the crankcase and that's it. I've been doing this in all my cars since 1978 with these same results. It's even hard to wear out small, air cooled engine running synthetic oils and greases. I finally got rid of my cheap, 1976 "Rally Roper" lawn tractor (11 Hp, Briggs and Straton) because chassis parts were failing due to low cycle fatigue. But the engine was (and is) still running fine. I only recommend bypass filters for diesel engine pickups, OTR trucks and other commercial applications like Taxi Cabs and Police cars, or maybe delivery vans that run > 25,000 miles per year. Ted

 

[buster]

quote:

---

I read a UOA from Blackstone the other day and they mentioned that they didn't really see much of a difference between oils - this has been my exact observation too!

---

I agree. I also think as Mark, Blackstone and RL have stated, what we see with some oils, isn't always wear but chemical reactions. MK has stated this as well. RL in particular generates high Pb, but it's not from wear but the oil itself reacting with the bearings. It's really nothing to be concerned about. I think Amsoil does the right thing by making great oil filters and bypass filters. This along with oil analyis helps ensure that it is safe to extend drains. It's a good system they have going with that.

 

[msparks]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stinky Peterson: The problem isn't that filter isn't working but instead it is a limitation of the measurement method. Much of wear that is measured and reported on the oil analysis report is simply too small to be filtered out i.e. atoms and ions. These are measured in angstroms (10^-10) vs. microns (10^-6) which are 10,000 times larger. To see the effects of better filtration it is necessary to do particle counts. In the worse cases of wear large particles are generated and this shows up in the particle distribution and not element levels. For best results it is necessary to look at multiple size ranges and watch for an increase number of larger particles. The ISO code does not do a good job of showing size distribution. This is where the PVi (particle volume index) helps. It is weighted on the number of large particles and jumps dramatically when the distribution changes.

---

Thanks for the bit of info. While I do believe it's true, (most wear metals are not really "particles" but most at the likely atomic level. I do believe that the better filteration will normally show lower wear levels across the board. Especially on Extended drains. Personally I think that brand and type of oil has less to do with it than the better fitration. The thing is, with better filtration, the price of the oil is basically meaninless, becuase of the other benifits of the better oil (cold temperature, better mpg, better performance.)