Which Filter for extended OCI's?
- Thread starter hitmanharleyk
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Bottom_Feeder
Purolator PureONE filers are not designed to be used for extended OCIs. It doesn't have the holding capacity for it. That's what the new Synthetic model and the Purolator-made Bosch Distance Plus are for.
+1
I do a yearly OCI and use Mobil One filters, which are true extended drain filters and can be had for about $33 with 5 quarts of synthetic Mobil.
Purolator PureONE filers are not designed to be used for extended OCIs. It doesn't have the holding capacity for it. That's what the new Synthetic model and the Purolator-made Bosch Distance Plus are for.
+1
I do a yearly OCI and use Mobil One filters, which are true extended drain filters and can be had for about $33 with 5 quarts of synthetic Mobil.
Triple_Se7en
$50 Site Donor 2024
Originally Posted By: Capa
Bottom_Feeder said:
Napa Gold can be had for reasonable price and Fram XG isn't that bad either price wise, but my question to you is that why have you decided to walk away from Amsoil EA filters, they are awesome! a true Extended Drain filter...
It was the only one on the market for many years today we have quite a few options like;
Bosch D+
Fram Ultra
Purolator Synthetic
Napa Platinum
It was the only one on the market for many years today we have quite a few options like;
Bosch D+
Fram Ultra
Purolator Synthetic
Napa Platinum
Why not just buy EaO filters at PC cost and be done with it?
How long is it taking you to reach 20,000 miles?
Originally Posted By: Triple_Se7en
Originally Posted By: Bottom_Feeder
Purolator PureONE filers are not designed to be used for extended OCIs. It doesn't have the holding capacity for it. That's what the new Synthetic model and the Purolator-made Bosch Distance Plus are for.
Not true regarding holding capacity.
Not true regarding extended OCIs - since you never mentioned what OCI length you believe constitutes an extended OCI.
I don't know why you think so since the the holding capacity of these filters is available on their websites. Or are you saying the added holding capacity isn't necessary for some reason?
And since the OP mentioned a 10k-11k OCI, that's what we're talking about. And since 10k+ OCIs are considered 'extended' around here, there's your answer.
Originally Posted By: Bottom_Feeder
Purolator PureONE filers are not designed to be used for extended OCIs. It doesn't have the holding capacity for it. That's what the new Synthetic model and the Purolator-made Bosch Distance Plus are for.
Not true regarding holding capacity.
Not true regarding extended OCIs - since you never mentioned what OCI length you believe constitutes an extended OCI.
I don't know why you think so since the the holding capacity of these filters is available on their websites. Or are you saying the added holding capacity isn't necessary for some reason?
And since the OP mentioned a 10k-11k OCI, that's what we're talking about. And since 10k+ OCIs are considered 'extended' around here, there's your answer.
Triple_Se7en
$50 Site Donor 2024
Holding capacity doesn't determine the quality of the filter.
For instance: I just purchased a Purolator for my daughter's 2012 Honda Civic 1.8.
I can hold the entire filter in the cup of my hand. So you;re telling me the engine will eventually be harmed by it's low oil capacity? The Honda dealer allowed her 10K on her factory oil. That wasn't an extended range/synthetic media filter that the factory put on. Heck, it wasn't as good as a Pure One.
So you're saying Honda execs don't know their vehicles? You're saying Purolator/Bosch should tell everyone that the Pure Ones must come off the engine prior to 7.5K? Yikes!
I know people that run Purolator Classics for 10K -- no harm done. One of them 'people' is me. I'm first and last owner of all my vehicles since the early 1980s. I have driven my cars to the junkyard. They all ran fine. They were removed from the road due to Michigan salt/rust.
For instance: I just purchased a Purolator for my daughter's 2012 Honda Civic 1.8.
I can hold the entire filter in the cup of my hand. So you;re telling me the engine will eventually be harmed by it's low oil capacity? The Honda dealer allowed her 10K on her factory oil. That wasn't an extended range/synthetic media filter that the factory put on. Heck, it wasn't as good as a Pure One.
So you're saying Honda execs don't know their vehicles? You're saying Purolator/Bosch should tell everyone that the Pure Ones must come off the engine prior to 7.5K? Yikes!
I know people that run Purolator Classics for 10K -- no harm done. One of them 'people' is me. I'm first and last owner of all my vehicles since the early 1980s. I have driven my cars to the junkyard. They all ran fine. They were removed from the road due to Michigan salt/rust.
Last edited:
No, I'm not 'telling you' anything along those lines so give it a rest.
Who's talking about a filter's OIL capacity? Not me, so you read that wrong. I'm referring to the holding capacity of junk filtered out of the oil, not the amount of oil itself. I'm also not talking about Purolator Classics, either. You're the one who brought that up which has nothing to do with what I wrote.
Purolator PureONEs have highly efficient media. They filter out smaller particles than 'normal' filters, so logic says they will accumulate more junk in the same amount of use in the same environment. Logic also says they will come to the end of their usable life sooner since Purolator makes no claims that the holding capacity of the PureONE has been increased, only its filtering ability. Put one of those on an engine for a long time and you're taking a risk that the media will load up beyond what it's designed for before it's replaced. Why? Because it's catching more particles over its lifetime than one of your beloved Classics due to its higher efficiency, but doesn't have any extra place to put it.
And that's where the Distance Plus and the Purolator Synthetic come in, being high in efficiency like the PureONE but having a higher (about twice) crud-holding capacity that the PureONE doesn't have.
So unless the inside of the engine is cleaner than the bathrooms at the Vatican, using a PureONE for a 10k+ OCI is generally not a good idea especially when filters designed for (and marketed for) exactly that are available. Which was my point. Which you missed.
Who's talking about a filter's OIL capacity? Not me, so you read that wrong. I'm referring to the holding capacity of junk filtered out of the oil, not the amount of oil itself. I'm also not talking about Purolator Classics, either. You're the one who brought that up which has nothing to do with what I wrote.
Purolator PureONEs have highly efficient media. They filter out smaller particles than 'normal' filters, so logic says they will accumulate more junk in the same amount of use in the same environment. Logic also says they will come to the end of their usable life sooner since Purolator makes no claims that the holding capacity of the PureONE has been increased, only its filtering ability. Put one of those on an engine for a long time and you're taking a risk that the media will load up beyond what it's designed for before it's replaced. Why? Because it's catching more particles over its lifetime than one of your beloved Classics due to its higher efficiency, but doesn't have any extra place to put it.
And that's where the Distance Plus and the Purolator Synthetic come in, being high in efficiency like the PureONE but having a higher (about twice) crud-holding capacity that the PureONE doesn't have.
So unless the inside of the engine is cleaner than the bathrooms at the Vatican, using a PureONE for a 10k+ OCI is generally not a good idea especially when filters designed for (and marketed for) exactly that are available. Which was my point. Which you missed.
Originally Posted By: Texan4Life
Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
I like the Fram XG or Ultra. Like the metal screen supporting the synthetic media, protecting it from pressure tears. The sure grip allows easy installation and removal which is important if your leaving it on for a long time. filters tend to get hard to remove after a while. Can shell is very hard, not soft like many others.
cool vid. If the OP is interested in construction of some of the filters mentioned I dug up some old posts of cut opens:
XG 6k: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2228578
XG 7.5k: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2421453
XG 12k: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2319467
XG 13.5k: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2258197&page=1
a new napa platinum: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2323101
After looking at the 13k post, I've decided to give the Fram Ultra a try. I picked one up today for $8.57 at my local walmart. 10,000 miles with my Synthetic Amsoil should be a breeze with these. By the way, I've always been anti-fram!!
Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
I like the Fram XG or Ultra. Like the metal screen supporting the synthetic media, protecting it from pressure tears. The sure grip allows easy installation and removal which is important if your leaving it on for a long time. filters tend to get hard to remove after a while. Can shell is very hard, not soft like many others.
cool vid. If the OP is interested in construction of some of the filters mentioned I dug up some old posts of cut opens:
XG 6k: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2228578
XG 7.5k: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2421453
XG 12k: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2319467
XG 13.5k: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2258197&page=1
a new napa platinum: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2323101
After looking at the 13k post, I've decided to give the Fram Ultra a try. I picked one up today for $8.57 at my local walmart. 10,000 miles with my Synthetic Amsoil should be a breeze with these. By the way, I've always been anti-fram!!
Originally Posted By: HarleyK
Originally Posted By: ltslimjim
How long is it taking you to reach 20,000 miles?
7 to 8 months
So if that is mostly highway miles, you may be alright. Changing the filter by 10,000 and topping off may just be the ticket.
Can't wait to see your UOA on this maintenance interval for the time you've committed to it.
Originally Posted By: ltslimjim
How long is it taking you to reach 20,000 miles?
7 to 8 months
So if that is mostly highway miles, you may be alright. Changing the filter by 10,000 and topping off may just be the ticket.
Can't wait to see your UOA on this maintenance interval for the time you've committed to it.
dnewton3
Staff member
Once again I see we, as a group, are focusing on inputs rather than actual results.
hitmanharleyk, what are the UOAs telling you?
Here's a great example of what is possible:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2481872&page=1
Now - let me be 100% clear here. I an NOT suggesting that all vehicles can do this. But, here is a 5.9L diesel that is running up to 20K miles on dino oil and normal filters, with no bypass filter in sight. He is proving that his combination is doable, and very safe, and he is maximizing his ROI. He is letting the data talk, and not listening to internet supposition. If his plan of greatly extending OCIs with "normal" products were so dangerous, then why is the engine wear nearly constant on a "per mile" basis? Where is the real true risk here? These normal products are out-performing most any expectation. If we asked folks on BITOG, would they recommend using dino and a normal filter for 20k miles? No they would not. But the DATA shows it's a fine decision, in this specific situation.
So, for this thread, I say this:
Do you "need" the EaO filter? Would you be "better" with using a lessor filter for more frequent FCIs? I cannot tell you, and neither can anyone else.
But a well-developed series of UOAs can certainly tell you! Let the data talk; ignore the pundits.
hitmanharleyk, what are the UOAs telling you?
Here's a great example of what is possible:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2481872&page=1
Now - let me be 100% clear here. I an NOT suggesting that all vehicles can do this. But, here is a 5.9L diesel that is running up to 20K miles on dino oil and normal filters, with no bypass filter in sight. He is proving that his combination is doable, and very safe, and he is maximizing his ROI. He is letting the data talk, and not listening to internet supposition. If his plan of greatly extending OCIs with "normal" products were so dangerous, then why is the engine wear nearly constant on a "per mile" basis? Where is the real true risk here? These normal products are out-performing most any expectation. If we asked folks on BITOG, would they recommend using dino and a normal filter for 20k miles? No they would not. But the DATA shows it's a fine decision, in this specific situation.
So, for this thread, I say this:
Do you "need" the EaO filter? Would you be "better" with using a lessor filter for more frequent FCIs? I cannot tell you, and neither can anyone else.
But a well-developed series of UOAs can certainly tell you! Let the data talk; ignore the pundits.
Last edited:
yup. that's the problem with this board. people come here for hard data, but 95% of the advice is from old timers based on what "feels good" to them. fortunately this most often errs on the side of being drastically over-safe and not the other way.
Last edited:
dnewton3
Staff member
I cannot agree more with that, and it's become a topic of frustration for some of us here.
Everyone (myself included) have opinions. And, in the absence of facts, opinions are acceptable, but perhaps not helpful.
But when there are tools available (PCs and UOAs) that can show us how well things can perform, why not utilize them?
Further, when we do utilize them, most folk fall into one or more of these catagories:
They pay for UOAs but do not understand how to interpret them properly ...
a- because they do not understand statistical analysis
b- because they don't understand the relationship of direct and indirect UOA indicators
c- they confuse causation with correlation
Point being this:
Why ask about filters? Rather, why not put together a well-designed experiment and post the results.
Most people pay for UOAs, hop from brand/grade to brand/grade, and cannot develop a decent data stream to glean info from. And they either misinterpret the data, or ignore it all together. And then they ask (or profess) what's "best" based upon a poor mantra of rationale.
The OP needs to establish a baseline of UOAs with his current condition, and then manipulate one variable at a time to see which, if any, filter would be "better" for his situation. It would take tens of thousands of miles to establish this, and most BITOGers are simply to ADD to have the patience of this approach.
But why let facts and data get in the way of mythology and rhetoric?
Everyone (myself included) have opinions. And, in the absence of facts, opinions are acceptable, but perhaps not helpful.
But when there are tools available (PCs and UOAs) that can show us how well things can perform, why not utilize them?
Further, when we do utilize them, most folk fall into one or more of these catagories:
They pay for UOAs but do not understand how to interpret them properly ...
a- because they do not understand statistical analysis
b- because they don't understand the relationship of direct and indirect UOA indicators
c- they confuse causation with correlation
Point being this:
Why ask about filters? Rather, why not put together a well-designed experiment and post the results.
Most people pay for UOAs, hop from brand/grade to brand/grade, and cannot develop a decent data stream to glean info from. And they either misinterpret the data, or ignore it all together. And then they ask (or profess) what's "best" based upon a poor mantra of rationale.
The OP needs to establish a baseline of UOAs with his current condition, and then manipulate one variable at a time to see which, if any, filter would be "better" for his situation. It would take tens of thousands of miles to establish this, and most BITOGers are simply to ADD to have the patience of this approach.
But why let facts and data get in the way of mythology and rhetoric?
There are two contexts not being kept in place: One is a filter best value context (often mistaken as a chance to talk about best filter; which is completely relative and a separate context) and the other is 'what should I use' context; co-relation but differing.
The bottom line is, the OP chooses to use synthetic oil filters if possible and wants some options of 'typical' anti-typical of cellulose only filter media.
There is nothing wrong with getting to the point: The OP needs a UOA probably more than anything else moving forward. The good part is the OP racks up the miles quickly.
The bottom line is, the OP chooses to use synthetic oil filters if possible and wants some options of 'typical' anti-typical of cellulose only filter media.
There is nothing wrong with getting to the point: The OP needs a UOA probably more than anything else moving forward. The good part is the OP racks up the miles quickly.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I cannot agree more with that, and it's become a topic of frustration for some of us here.
Everyone (myself included) have opinions. And, in the absence of facts, opinions are acceptable, but perhaps not helpful.
But when there are tools available (PCs and UOAs) that can show us how well things can perform, why not utilize them?
Further, when we do utilize them, most folk fall into one or more of these catagories:
They pay for UOAs but do not understand how to interpret them properly ...
a- because they do not understand statistical analysis
b- because they don't understand the relationship of direct and indirect UOA indicators
c- they confuse causation with correlation
Point being this:
Why ask about filters? Rather, why not put together a well-designed experiment and post the results.
Most people pay for UOAs, hop from brand/grade to brand/grade, and cannot develop a decent data stream to glean info from. And they either misinterpret the data, or ignore it all together. And then they ask (or profess) what's "best" based upon a poor mantra of rationale.
The OP needs to establish a baseline of UOAs with his current condition, and then manipulate one variable at a time to see which, if any, filter would be "better" for his situation. It would take tens of thousands of miles to establish this, and most BITOGers are simply to ADD to have the patience of this approach.
But why let facts and data get in the way of mythology and rhetoric?
Excellent take.
I cannot agree more with that, and it's become a topic of frustration for some of us here.
Everyone (myself included) have opinions. And, in the absence of facts, opinions are acceptable, but perhaps not helpful.
But when there are tools available (PCs and UOAs) that can show us how well things can perform, why not utilize them?
Further, when we do utilize them, most folk fall into one or more of these catagories:
They pay for UOAs but do not understand how to interpret them properly ...
a- because they do not understand statistical analysis
b- because they don't understand the relationship of direct and indirect UOA indicators
c- they confuse causation with correlation
Point being this:
Why ask about filters? Rather, why not put together a well-designed experiment and post the results.
Most people pay for UOAs, hop from brand/grade to brand/grade, and cannot develop a decent data stream to glean info from. And they either misinterpret the data, or ignore it all together. And then they ask (or profess) what's "best" based upon a poor mantra of rationale.
The OP needs to establish a baseline of UOAs with his current condition, and then manipulate one variable at a time to see which, if any, filter would be "better" for his situation. It would take tens of thousands of miles to establish this, and most BITOGers are simply to ADD to have the patience of this approach.
But why let facts and data get in the way of mythology and rhetoric?
Excellent take.
- Status
