Originally Posted By: BlueOvalFitter
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: BlueOvalFitter
So, basically you're saying, you would not mind having your blood dialysis done using the same filter from the previous patient, and mixing the previous patients 'dirty' blood with your clean blood?
It's a bad analogy. Like I said, oil doesn't carry diseases.
Mixing a little old oil with new oil doesn't hurt anything, especially when most people change their oil too soon anyway, and most oil filters only hold ~8 oz of oil.
It's still an analogy that proves a point. It might be a bad one but oil is still considered the 'LIFE BLOOD' of an engine.
I must concur with Zee; your analogy is poor. The impurities in blood that would lead to making it a scary proposition are much smaller than what the filtering media is being used for. The dialysis is targeted at one thing, not all things, especially as small as micro-viruses. Additionally, the risk probably outweighs the reward in this scenario.
New oil through a used filter is really no risk at all; none whatsoever. The "risk" would only be if either the oil or filter was WAY past it's useful life cycle and in jeopardy of a real failure. As I (and a few others) have shown, even "normal" filters are capable of FCIs WAY past where most would tread, and yet they provided good UOA results, good PCs, and looked just fine upon teardown.
Your analogy is not a good one. It may make sense to you, but not to me or Zee.
I would ask that, if you're so convinced, rather than blather your supposition, prove us wrong. Run some tests; do some well controlled experiments. At least when I make a claim, I back it up with real proof. When Jim Allen wanted to know things about bypass events, he actually set up a good test using credible equipment, and PROVED when bypass events actually happen (very rare indeed). When 2010_FX4 wanted to know about dino v. syns for normal OCIs, he ran trials with a large expenditure for all of us to glean from. When I claimed that longer OCIs actually reduce wear, I went out and put my money where my mouth is. I backed it up with good info from a supporting SAE article, and then ran a few back-to-back OCIs to show real world results. I wrote an entire article about "normalcy" in UOA data, and put (literally) thousands upon thousands of UOAs into data analysis, and proved both the SAE article and my personal experiments viable and credible. Am I an expert? No. Am I a oil-savant? No. But I come up with a thesis, develop a program to either prove or disprove my idea, and then put it into practice. And I let the data talk for me.
To the topic of this thread, the FU is an excellent filter, but it's overkill for nearly any BITOGer, who probably changes oil sooner than most folks out of some perverse sense of coddling his equipment. And that's fine. But it's an emotional response, not a rational practice.
BOF - I owe you an apology because this really isn't pointed solely at you. This is about all the silly ramblings of guesses and hysteria about lubes and filters from the multitudes of masses here. We should be PROVING our positions with real data and controlled trials, not just wishing ever harder that someone would agree with us. I don't mind that you FCI every OCI; fine by me. But if you want to convince others that it's a necessity, then PROVE it, please don't pander it. Maybe you'll prove us wrong; good for you. Maybe we'll all learn something; good for all of us.
Consider this a challenge to many of you; a gentleman's wager, if you will. Do something that contributes, rather than consumes bandwidth.
