Using Same Filter for 2 OCIs or More - I Disagree
- Thread starter KevGuy
- Start date
- Status
I see where you're getting at, but what harm would this actually do? This is all just a speculation.
Running a filter for 2 OCI's is a lot like running extended OCI's. I enjoy changing oil (and filters) enough to where I would just prefer a nice simple 5000 mile OCI.
Realistically I think you would be just fine running a filter for 2 OCI's as long as its rated for the distance.
Running a filter for 2 OCI's is a lot like running extended OCI's. I enjoy changing oil (and filters) enough to where I would just prefer a nice simple 5000 mile OCI.
Realistically I think you would be just fine running a filter for 2 OCI's as long as its rated for the distance.
dnewton3
Staff member
Several things to consider about this thread:
1) the OP really does not clearly define just what OCIs and FCIs mean in his situation; too much ambiguity. Whereas a celluose filter would easily go 2 FCIs if the OCI were 5k miles, I'd not use that same concept of the OCI were 10k miles ...
2) the filter was not defined; are we talking cellulose, glass-enhanced, fully syn?
3) the desire to follow OEM warranty was not discussed; it's an issue both for the OEM and filter maker. If you want warranty coverage you must comply with those conditions if you expect the burden of proof to be on them and not you (should the unthinkable happen)
4) there is clear evidence both in SAE study as well as garage experimentation here that much longer filter OCIs can be tolerated. While some may eschew the practice, it is not, in and of itself, dangerous to do so.
5) there are risks to be acknowledged in all things; one man's concern for extending filter life is another man's concern for multiple event failures (2x more removal and installation is 2x more things to go wrong). If your current filter is working properly, and has life left, then removing it and reinstalling it, or even a "new" filter, is an opportunity for more debris to enter, a gasket seal to leak, etc. Every action has a risk, folks, so pretending that a "new" filter is risk-free is flawed logic.
6) the amount of lube left in the filter and lube tract, should a filter change extension happen, is not a risk to the engine; read and understand SAE 2007-01-4133. Used oil is not a risk where any BITOGer should fear to tread; normal OCIs can be easily extended as there is a HUGE amount of reserve potential in most lubes and filters. Additionally, macro data clearly shows reduced wear when extending O/FCIs, whether you want to believe the facts or not.
7) many companies (mostly Japanese) do offer FCI extension under the conditions they state acceptable; it's not just Honda.
8) there is nothing "wrong" with the "one OCI = one filter" approach, but it can be wasteful. If you don't intend to track used oil analysis and PCs diligently, or if you use them as toys and not tools, then the practice of OCI and FCI extention is not pragmatic or advised. Only those who understand the risks and benefits thereof should be involved.
9) I personally have run "normal" oil and filters out to 10k and 15k miles on multiple extended runs, documented here with used oil analysis and filter disection, and shown it can be safely done. While I understand most folks won't do this, my intent was to prove that there is a great deal of excess capacity in "normal" products and so fear of over-running an OCI or FCI by a few thousand miles is foolish and hyper-sensitive.
10) physical failures (in this case, the fear of torn media) has absolutely no outward indicator as to WHEN it happens. You are no more assured of a tear at 10k miles as you are at 1k miles, or somewhere in between. Also, referring to point #5 above, whereas you may believe you risk a tear for extending an FCI, there is every bit as much a chance of that same variable by introducing a "new" filter. FCIs neither add or detract risk here; it is a false sense of security to presume "new=safer=better". How does one know with certainty that the "new" media is any "better" than media that is already functioning properly? To believe this to be true, you'd have to be able to prove with certainty that you know of a HIGH magnitude of failures at some definitive duration versus the alternative of proving "new" filters have any less chance of failure. This is about statistical opportunity for occurence in each individual element. Folks - I seriously doubt any one of you have the data to prove this one way or another. If you have definitive proof and real statistical data, then by all means bring it forth. Otherwise, you're just contributing to hysterical conjecture to support your own personal belief.
11) knowing the history and condition of both your individual equipment and the lineage of your equiment genealogy are paramount. I'd not advise LONG OCI and FCI extensions on a known sludger engine. But there are some engines out there that seem immune to sludge and have great lube system designs that support careful O/FCI extensions. My point here is that one cannot throw a blanket "yes" or "no" over the entire topic; it depends on a large host of criteria to be considered ...
Once again, common sense seems absent where BITOGers love to tread. Nothing like rehashing a topic over and over with total conjecture, flawed logic, and disregard for data that is already present. A poorly defined and uncontained question will result in the hapless answers we see so rampant here.
.
1) the OP really does not clearly define just what OCIs and FCIs mean in his situation; too much ambiguity. Whereas a celluose filter would easily go 2 FCIs if the OCI were 5k miles, I'd not use that same concept of the OCI were 10k miles ...
2) the filter was not defined; are we talking cellulose, glass-enhanced, fully syn?
3) the desire to follow OEM warranty was not discussed; it's an issue both for the OEM and filter maker. If you want warranty coverage you must comply with those conditions if you expect the burden of proof to be on them and not you (should the unthinkable happen)
4) there is clear evidence both in SAE study as well as garage experimentation here that much longer filter OCIs can be tolerated. While some may eschew the practice, it is not, in and of itself, dangerous to do so.
5) there are risks to be acknowledged in all things; one man's concern for extending filter life is another man's concern for multiple event failures (2x more removal and installation is 2x more things to go wrong). If your current filter is working properly, and has life left, then removing it and reinstalling it, or even a "new" filter, is an opportunity for more debris to enter, a gasket seal to leak, etc. Every action has a risk, folks, so pretending that a "new" filter is risk-free is flawed logic.
6) the amount of lube left in the filter and lube tract, should a filter change extension happen, is not a risk to the engine; read and understand SAE 2007-01-4133. Used oil is not a risk where any BITOGer should fear to tread; normal OCIs can be easily extended as there is a HUGE amount of reserve potential in most lubes and filters. Additionally, macro data clearly shows reduced wear when extending O/FCIs, whether you want to believe the facts or not.
7) many companies (mostly Japanese) do offer FCI extension under the conditions they state acceptable; it's not just Honda.
8) there is nothing "wrong" with the "one OCI = one filter" approach, but it can be wasteful. If you don't intend to track used oil analysis and PCs diligently, or if you use them as toys and not tools, then the practice of OCI and FCI extention is not pragmatic or advised. Only those who understand the risks and benefits thereof should be involved.
9) I personally have run "normal" oil and filters out to 10k and 15k miles on multiple extended runs, documented here with used oil analysis and filter disection, and shown it can be safely done. While I understand most folks won't do this, my intent was to prove that there is a great deal of excess capacity in "normal" products and so fear of over-running an OCI or FCI by a few thousand miles is foolish and hyper-sensitive.
10) physical failures (in this case, the fear of torn media) has absolutely no outward indicator as to WHEN it happens. You are no more assured of a tear at 10k miles as you are at 1k miles, or somewhere in between. Also, referring to point #5 above, whereas you may believe you risk a tear for extending an FCI, there is every bit as much a chance of that same variable by introducing a "new" filter. FCIs neither add or detract risk here; it is a false sense of security to presume "new=safer=better". How does one know with certainty that the "new" media is any "better" than media that is already functioning properly? To believe this to be true, you'd have to be able to prove with certainty that you know of a HIGH magnitude of failures at some definitive duration versus the alternative of proving "new" filters have any less chance of failure. This is about statistical opportunity for occurence in each individual element. Folks - I seriously doubt any one of you have the data to prove this one way or another. If you have definitive proof and real statistical data, then by all means bring it forth. Otherwise, you're just contributing to hysterical conjecture to support your own personal belief.
11) knowing the history and condition of both your individual equipment and the lineage of your equiment genealogy are paramount. I'd not advise LONG OCI and FCI extensions on a known sludger engine. But there are some engines out there that seem immune to sludge and have great lube system designs that support careful O/FCI extensions. My point here is that one cannot throw a blanket "yes" or "no" over the entire topic; it depends on a large host of criteria to be considered ...
Once again, common sense seems absent where BITOGers love to tread. Nothing like rehashing a topic over and over with total conjecture, flawed logic, and disregard for data that is already present. A poorly defined and uncontained question will result in the hapless answers we see so rampant here.
.
Last edited:
+11 dnewton3. In addition; we have too many self appointed experts here. Bring us data always. Ed
I love your posts dnewton.
Unless I was using a filter rated by the manufacturer for 12-15K, I would never even consider using one for two OCs. But I never pay more than $6 for a quality filter, and I'm not talking Purolator or Fram. I also recycle all of my used oil and filters, so I'm not worried about fouling the environment. That, and unless the filter removal is a difficult task, there are precious few reasons to extend a filter interval.
Originally Posted By: NormanBuntz
Unless I was using a filter rated by the manufacturer for 12-15K, I would never even consider using one for two OCs. But I never pay more than $6 for a quality filter, and I'm not talking Purolator or Fram. I also recycle all of my used oil and filters, so I'm not worried about fouling the environment. That, and unless the filter removal is a difficult task, there are precious few reasons to extend a filter interval.
I'm 100% with you. People who do not replace their filter with each oil change are either lazy, stupid or a bit of both.
Unless I was using a filter rated by the manufacturer for 12-15K, I would never even consider using one for two OCs. But I never pay more than $6 for a quality filter, and I'm not talking Purolator or Fram. I also recycle all of my used oil and filters, so I'm not worried about fouling the environment. That, and unless the filter removal is a difficult task, there are precious few reasons to extend a filter interval.
I'm 100% with you. People who do not replace their filter with each oil change are either lazy, stupid or a bit of both.
Originally Posted By: NormanBuntz
Unless I was using a filter rated by the manufacturer for 12-15K, I would never even consider using one for two OCs. But I never pay more than $6 for a quality filter, and I'm not talking Purolator or Fram. I also recycle all of my used oil and filters, so I'm not worried about fouling the environment. That, and unless the filter removal is a difficult task, there are precious few reasons to extend a filter interval.
Previous few reasons.
Well if you consider efficiency increases as the filter loads up I feel longer filter change intervals contribute to less particulate floating in the oil and cleaner oil,so I'll keep on keeping on.
Considering I drive my vehicles into the pavement,and my work vans have in excess of 350k and 400k on the original engines with nothing more than average maintenance I'll call my maintenance plan good.
The work vans aren't babied,driven completely loaded to the point they are almost pulling wheelies and they get the oil changed every 5000 miles,filters every second oil change and none of them consume or burn any oil I'm thinking I'm doing something right.
I guess my laziness is paying off. Who knew I could do less work and still get extremely long service from beaten on equipment that starts every day to get beaten on some more.
Awesome.
Unless I was using a filter rated by the manufacturer for 12-15K, I would never even consider using one for two OCs. But I never pay more than $6 for a quality filter, and I'm not talking Purolator or Fram. I also recycle all of my used oil and filters, so I'm not worried about fouling the environment. That, and unless the filter removal is a difficult task, there are precious few reasons to extend a filter interval.
Previous few reasons.
Well if you consider efficiency increases as the filter loads up I feel longer filter change intervals contribute to less particulate floating in the oil and cleaner oil,so I'll keep on keeping on.
Considering I drive my vehicles into the pavement,and my work vans have in excess of 350k and 400k on the original engines with nothing more than average maintenance I'll call my maintenance plan good.
The work vans aren't babied,driven completely loaded to the point they are almost pulling wheelies and they get the oil changed every 5000 miles,filters every second oil change and none of them consume or burn any oil I'm thinking I'm doing something right.
I guess my laziness is paying off. Who knew I could do less work and still get extremely long service from beaten on equipment that starts every day to get beaten on some more.
Awesome.
From Clevy:
Well if you consider efficiency increases as the filter loads up I feel longer filter change intervals contribute to less particulate floating in the oil and cleaner oil,so I'll keep on keeping on.
Considering I drive my vehicles into the pavement,and my work vans have in excess of 350k and 400k on the original engines with nothing more than average maintenance I'll call my maintenance plan good.
The work vans aren't babied,driven completely loaded to the point they are almost pulling wheelies and they get the oil changed every 5000 miles,filters every second oil change and none of them consume or burn any oil I'm thinking I'm doing something right.
I guess my laziness is paying off. Who knew I could do less work and still get extremely long service from beaten on equipment that starts every day to get beaten on some more.
Awesome.
That's why they make chocolate and vanilla.
Well if you consider efficiency increases as the filter loads up I feel longer filter change intervals contribute to less particulate floating in the oil and cleaner oil,so I'll keep on keeping on.
Considering I drive my vehicles into the pavement,and my work vans have in excess of 350k and 400k on the original engines with nothing more than average maintenance I'll call my maintenance plan good.
The work vans aren't babied,driven completely loaded to the point they are almost pulling wheelies and they get the oil changed every 5000 miles,filters every second oil change and none of them consume or burn any oil I'm thinking I'm doing something right.
I guess my laziness is paying off. Who knew I could do less work and still get extremely long service from beaten on equipment that starts every day to get beaten on some more.
Awesome.
That's why they make chocolate and vanilla.
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Previous few reasons.
Well if you consider efficiency increases as the filter loads up I feel longer filter change intervals contribute to less particulate floating in the oil and cleaner oil,so I'll keep on keeping on.
Considering I drive my vehicles into the pavement,and my work vans have in excess of 350k and 400k on the original engines with nothing more than average maintenance I'll call my maintenance plan good.
The work vans aren't babied,driven completely loaded to the point they are almost pulling wheelies and they get the oil changed every 5000 miles,filters every second oil change and none of them consume or burn any oil I'm thinking I'm doing something right.
I guess my laziness is paying off. Who knew I could do less work and still get extremely long service from beaten on equipment that starts every day to get beaten on some more.
Awesome.
My 1994 LS400 with 360+k miles OCI: 7-8k/6mo with conventional, 13-15k/12mo with syn. FCI: once a year, i.e., filter is reused with conventional oil.
The oil filters were mostly mid-range: Bosch Premium, Purolator P1, Motorcraft ... and some low-end: Pep Boys house brand Pro-Line, Fram Extra Guard, Purolator Classic ...
20+ years and 360+k miles without engine problems. It still has original head and valve cover gaskets. If the use of low-end and mid-range filters up to 15-16k miles would make engine cease to operate in short time, then why it is running after 360k miles with original head and valve cover gaskets ?
Previous few reasons.
Well if you consider efficiency increases as the filter loads up I feel longer filter change intervals contribute to less particulate floating in the oil and cleaner oil,so I'll keep on keeping on.
Considering I drive my vehicles into the pavement,and my work vans have in excess of 350k and 400k on the original engines with nothing more than average maintenance I'll call my maintenance plan good.
The work vans aren't babied,driven completely loaded to the point they are almost pulling wheelies and they get the oil changed every 5000 miles,filters every second oil change and none of them consume or burn any oil I'm thinking I'm doing something right.
I guess my laziness is paying off. Who knew I could do less work and still get extremely long service from beaten on equipment that starts every day to get beaten on some more.
Awesome.
My 1994 LS400 with 360+k miles OCI: 7-8k/6mo with conventional, 13-15k/12mo with syn. FCI: once a year, i.e., filter is reused with conventional oil.
The oil filters were mostly mid-range: Bosch Premium, Purolator P1, Motorcraft ... and some low-end: Pep Boys house brand Pro-Line, Fram Extra Guard, Purolator Classic ...
20+ years and 360+k miles without engine problems. It still has original head and valve cover gaskets. If the use of low-end and mid-range filters up to 15-16k miles would make engine cease to operate in short time, then why it is running after 360k miles with original head and valve cover gaskets ?
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: KevGuy
Originally Posted By: NormanBuntz
Unless I was using a filter rated by the manufacturer for 12-15K, I would never even consider using one for two OCs. But I never pay more than $6 for a quality filter, and I'm not talking Purolator or Fram. I also recycle all of my used oil and filters, so I'm not worried about fouling the environment. That, and unless the filter removal is a difficult task, there are precious few reasons to extend a filter interval.
I'm 100% with you. People who do not replace their filter with each oil change are either lazy, stupid or a bit of both.
That is likely true of some folks. Some are truly lazy and/or stupid, and won't maintain their equipment properly.
But there is another class of folks who don't FCI with every OCI ... They are informed in a manner in which you may not apparently be accustomed. Data and facts outweigh mythology and rhetoric in my world, whereas ignorance and/or arrogance rule in others.
I am not saying that changing a filter with every OCI is a bad thing in terms of engine wear protection. The difference between those who do and do not probably cannot be pushed outside of one standard devation in statistical analysis. It is very reasonable to say that such a practice is not harmful to the equipment. But that does not preclude it from being wasteful. It is proven beyond reasonable doubt that filters do increase their efficiency with use. The loading assists in ever-tightening pore size. As long as the filter has enough capacity for the intended FCI, then to change eariler would be to waste potential. But the loading of a filter is subject and slave to the OCI duration in the first place, along with other factors such as overall engine cleanliness and lineage.
OEM O/FCIs are very safe; overly safe. They are structured to protect the OEM from warranty issues; they do no have your best interest in mind, but their own. Because they don't pay for O/FCIs, they are not vested in the waste. There is a huge amount of potential in both the lubes and filters; SAE studies and macro data show this to be true. (I'm purposely excluding known trouble-prone engines, as always).
This should not be about how good you can make a filter seem in a theorhetical argument, but rather how much value you can get from a product with a reasonable ROI and yet not risk some form of carnage, in the real world. The topic of FCI extension, relative to any particular OCI duration, is a "it depends ..." topic if there ever was one. We cannot expect a one-size-fits-all answer to be reasonable or prudent here. Too many things play into this.
But rest assured that I am neither lazy or stupid, even though I do extend OCIs and FCIs.
To each his own.
Originally Posted By: NormanBuntz
Unless I was using a filter rated by the manufacturer for 12-15K, I would never even consider using one for two OCs. But I never pay more than $6 for a quality filter, and I'm not talking Purolator or Fram. I also recycle all of my used oil and filters, so I'm not worried about fouling the environment. That, and unless the filter removal is a difficult task, there are precious few reasons to extend a filter interval.
I'm 100% with you. People who do not replace their filter with each oil change are either lazy, stupid or a bit of both.
That is likely true of some folks. Some are truly lazy and/or stupid, and won't maintain their equipment properly.
But there is another class of folks who don't FCI with every OCI ... They are informed in a manner in which you may not apparently be accustomed. Data and facts outweigh mythology and rhetoric in my world, whereas ignorance and/or arrogance rule in others.
I am not saying that changing a filter with every OCI is a bad thing in terms of engine wear protection. The difference between those who do and do not probably cannot be pushed outside of one standard devation in statistical analysis. It is very reasonable to say that such a practice is not harmful to the equipment. But that does not preclude it from being wasteful. It is proven beyond reasonable doubt that filters do increase their efficiency with use. The loading assists in ever-tightening pore size. As long as the filter has enough capacity for the intended FCI, then to change eariler would be to waste potential. But the loading of a filter is subject and slave to the OCI duration in the first place, along with other factors such as overall engine cleanliness and lineage.
OEM O/FCIs are very safe; overly safe. They are structured to protect the OEM from warranty issues; they do no have your best interest in mind, but their own. Because they don't pay for O/FCIs, they are not vested in the waste. There is a huge amount of potential in both the lubes and filters; SAE studies and macro data show this to be true. (I'm purposely excluding known trouble-prone engines, as always).
This should not be about how good you can make a filter seem in a theorhetical argument, but rather how much value you can get from a product with a reasonable ROI and yet not risk some form of carnage, in the real world. The topic of FCI extension, relative to any particular OCI duration, is a "it depends ..." topic if there ever was one. We cannot expect a one-size-fits-all answer to be reasonable or prudent here. Too many things play into this.
But rest assured that I am neither lazy or stupid, even though I do extend OCIs and FCIs.
To each his own.
Last edited:
I have a 2014 Focus ST
MC filter at Walmart = $3.97
New motor from Ford = $6000
Clear decision for me
MC filter at Walmart = $3.97
New motor from Ford = $6000
Clear decision for me
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
1) the OP really does not clearly define just what OCIs and FCIs mean in his situation; too much ambiguity. Whereas a celluose filter would easily go 2 FCIs if the OCI were 5k miles, I'd not use that same concept of the OCI were 10k miles ...
Quoted for truth. An oil filter has no idea that the oil was changed or not. Filter life isn't measured by "oil life". It should have a change interval of its own. For convenience's sake, we often change the filter along with the oil. It certainly doesn't have to be done along with the oil.
Person A might do 3k mile OCIs and change his filter every other one, which is 6k miles. Person B might do 6k mile OCIs and change his filter every time, which is 6k miles. Guess what, folks? The filters are being used for the same amount of time/use/miles.
To say that folks are necessarily "cheap" or "lazy" or any other judgement adjective because they don't change their filter at each oil change is laughable. Changing the filter with every oil change is a simple recommendation. It keeps maintenance simple, that's all. And that's fine. If you like simple, then stay with simple. Because someone else might chose to take an analytical look at the filter used and choose to run it for 6,000 miles instead of 3,000 miles doesn't make them lazy. In fact, you could probably argue the opposite.
Some people aren't comfortable thinking outside of the box, and that's okay. But don't fool yourself into thinking that those who are do it because they're cheap or lazy.
1) the OP really does not clearly define just what OCIs and FCIs mean in his situation; too much ambiguity. Whereas a celluose filter would easily go 2 FCIs if the OCI were 5k miles, I'd not use that same concept of the OCI were 10k miles ...
Quoted for truth. An oil filter has no idea that the oil was changed or not. Filter life isn't measured by "oil life". It should have a change interval of its own. For convenience's sake, we often change the filter along with the oil. It certainly doesn't have to be done along with the oil.
Person A might do 3k mile OCIs and change his filter every other one, which is 6k miles. Person B might do 6k mile OCIs and change his filter every time, which is 6k miles. Guess what, folks? The filters are being used for the same amount of time/use/miles.
To say that folks are necessarily "cheap" or "lazy" or any other judgement adjective because they don't change their filter at each oil change is laughable. Changing the filter with every oil change is a simple recommendation. It keeps maintenance simple, that's all. And that's fine. If you like simple, then stay with simple. Because someone else might chose to take an analytical look at the filter used and choose to run it for 6,000 miles instead of 3,000 miles doesn't make them lazy. In fact, you could probably argue the opposite.
Some people aren't comfortable thinking outside of the box, and that's okay. But don't fool yourself into thinking that those who are do it because they're cheap or lazy.
I change my filter every other oil change. I have absolutely no problem using German-made Mann filters for 10K miles. After performing a recent post-mortem on a Bosch 3330, I won't run those for 2 OCI's.
- Status
