Previosly on this site someone mentioned a used oil analysis that was done without the the use of an oil filter and it was very similar to one done with an oil filter. Does anyone have the details of that? Is it somewhere on this site in an old thread? I'm curious because that would explain why no matter what filter people see to use, (Fram's, Champ clicker bypasses, E-core, etc) their engines run great and last virtually forever if they adhere to reasonable OCI's. I ran Fram's exclusively for 20 years on 5-6 different cars and they all ran great with very high mileage on the engines which suggests to me that maybe we're putting way too much emphasis on the brand of filter, especially if a used oil analysis without a filter is virtually the same as one with a filter. I beleive that it's much more important how frequently you change the oil and filter than what brands you use.
UOA WITHOUT AN OIL FILTER
- Thread starter MADMIKE
- Start date
- Status
Here is what you are looking for. Several runs with filters and one with no filter.
Bob Really Is The Oil Filter Guy
One further comment. I think the problem we have is that we think you can tell the "worth" or "value" of an oil filter from a used oil analysis. From what I have seen it is the particle count portion of the used oil analysis that indicates how well a filter is doing, few get particle coults done.
Thanks Ugly!
Yes, it it too bad that Bob did not do a particle count. On the other hand, often there are comments on used oil analysis like, "I see increased wear due to the high levels of silicon, must have a bad air filter". So, it appears that wear can increase dramatically due to some particles in the oil(silicon), but not other particles?
I looked up the composition of dirt. The inorganics are largely elements that are measured in an oil analysis. My bad.quote:
Originally posted by Jason Troxell:
How many other elements are present in an engine that are not measured? I think he was talking about engine wear "piggybacking", i.e. normal wear causing accelerated wear because it was not "filtered" out. And the claim by some that used oil analysis could not detect this.quote:
Originally posted by XS650:
Also, silicon is one of the not so many elements that is actually meausured in a used oil analysis.
Anyone want to volunteer a car and not run an oil filter and see how long it lasts?
I'll volunteer to use yours.quote:
Originally posted by Filter guy:
Anyone want to volunteer a car and not run an oil filter and see how long it lasts?
Millions of cars have been run that way, no need to break any new ground. It's been pretty well established that filters are better but the sky doen't fall if you have a bad one occasionally. If it did, the El Cheapo filter companies would be out of business.quote:
Originally posted by Filter guy:
Anyone want to volunteer a car and not run an oil filter and see how long it lasts?
IIRC, BITOG Bob ran a few changes and didn't see any problems no oil filter. That's more a testimonial to the fact that it isn't something that's easy to test than the validity of his results.
I ran 7 vehicles with out full flow filters. I used an adapter and took the high pressure off of the adapter for the input to a bypass filter. Never had a problem. Ran the oil to 30K and changed it. No analysis ever.
No, but silicon from dirt entering the engine is a common cause of increased wear. It's also usually present in dirt.
Also, silicon is one of the not so many elements that is actually meausured in a used oil analysis.
Silicon is hard and naturally occuring silicon in dirt tends to be jagged, so it probably is one of the worst wear causing elements.
How many other elements are present in an engine that are not measured? I think he was talking about engine wear "piggybacking", i.e. normal wear causing accelerated wear because it was not "filtered" out. And the claim by some that used oil analysis could not detect this.quote:
Originally posted by XS650:
Also, silicon is one of the not so many elements that is actually meausured in a used oil analysis.
No oil filters (rock catchers really when you look at the distance between the wear surfaces) is OK, unless you run across an particle that really SHOULD be taken out of the game before it gets to the bearing.
Run into the right sized particle without a filter, and it will embed in the white metal...that's why it is white metal, it allows particles too big for the oil wedge to be taken out of play by pressing them into the bearing surface.
I'd rather throw the particles out with a filter, and use the white metal as a back-up.
The original small block, and a lot of VWs survived quite well without rock catchers.
Run into the right sized particle without a filter, and it will embed in the white metal...that's why it is white metal, it allows particles too big for the oil wedge to be taken out of play by pressing them into the bearing surface.
I'd rather throw the particles out with a filter, and use the white metal as a back-up.
The original small block, and a lot of VWs survived quite well without rock catchers.
That's right--VW's had that wire mesh screen that only caught boulders--many of those engines died an early death though because they were only air cooled and ran really hot--frequent oil changes were a must if you didn't want to rebuild the engine @ 60K.
In College I bought a 19960 Rambler that was already 20 years old but had probably 50-60K miles on it. That engine had no oil filter as OE and just had oil changes at 2-3000 mi. or 6 mos. It was in desert SW so no body corrosion plus body was about equivalent of a sherman tank. straight 6 engine, drove a couple of times from N.Texas to Arizona, sold it with still less than 90k on it and it was still going strong a few years later.quote:
Originally posted by Filter guy:
Anyone want to volunteer a car and not run an oil filter and see how long it lasts?
- Status
