Yes - it is good info. I have to wonder how much has changed in the last 5 decades since the study was done? Not that the concept itself will be altered, but perhaps today's products would make for different results in magnitude? I will note that this does bring to light the often misunderstood, or practically ignored, topic of wear due to ingestion. This is the concept I base my extreme objection of the infamous GM filter study (881825) upon. GM dumped in HUGE MAGNITUDES of dust into the lube system during the ALT tests, grossly larger than typical ingestion rates, and then essentially said "see - we can alter wear with lube filters". OK; sure you can alter wear when you dump in 570k miles of garbage into an engine in just 8 hours .... so what? Q: How does that translate into real world wear data for the typical user? A: It does not. W: Because the OCI and add pack contributions to wear reduction were purposely manipulated to exclude them from effect; something the average Joe does not do. People often point to that GM filter study in an effort to show that finer lube filtration justifies BP filter use. That is so incredibly wrong it's palpably laughable. That study proves nothing but the fact that lab tests do NOT translate into reality at times. Good air filtration is every bit as important, if not more so, to low engine wear as a typical FF lube filter.
Originally Posted By: jacobs
For anyone interested in engine longevity,I recommend a booklet published by the Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc titled "Ingested Dust, Filters, and Diesel Engine Ring Wear" by Gary E. Thomas and Robert M. Culbert. Publication #680536, available from SAE through their website. This was a real eye opener for me when I first read it and has radically changed the way I view all filtration - not just engine oil.