Which is more important: Oil or Filter?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by deven
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by deven
Back in early 2000 the original owner of this site, Bob did an experiment where he ran engines without oil filters and the engines ran just fine. It is hard to find those articles because it used to be on the old www.oildrop servers...

Doesnt mean there wasn't increased wear happening. Engines can wear a lot (way past factory wear specs) before they actually start showing it.

My point was that you can get away without using an oil filter for one or two oci's or even more but try getting away without using oil for even one oci. Hence oil is more important than an oil filter.


For the 3rd time, I said way back in this thread that of course oil is more important than the oil filter (and even the air filter). It's obtuse to even think an engine could survive any length of time without adequate lubrication from oil. Oil and oil filter - two separate funtions, and each have their own separate level of performance. Lean towards maximizing both if you want the best combination, and also use a good air filter to complete the trifecta for the best combo.

My viewpoint has always been that the filter is also important because it's the only thing that cleans introduced contamination out of the oil. What's wrong with keeping the oil cleaner than not besides $3 extra for a better oil filter? Keeping oil cleaner shouldn't even have to be justified - it's simple logic.
 
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
My viewpoint has always been that the filter is also important because it's the only thing that cleans introduced contamination out of the oil. What's wrong with keeping the oil cleaner than not besides $3 extra for a better oil filter? Keeping oil cleaner shouldn't even have to be justified - it's simple logic.

To what benefit? As with the way many maintenance items are marketed, going "better" may be more psychological than it is practical. Granted that describes a lot of what's discussed on BITOG, but I'm just putting it out there.

There was a lot of stuff that used to be simple logic but no longer holds given better information. One was that 3000 mile oil changes were the key to engine longevity. Or that "dirty looking" oil was inherently bad.

I spin on a Wix, Purolator, or whatever OEM filter is spec'ed for my vehicle and I sleep well at night. We've got all that newfangled technology in the oil that neutralizes the effect of those tiny little particles that get past a 30 micron filter.
 
Originally Posted by y_p_w
I spin on a Wix, Purolator, or whatever OEM filter is spec'ed for my vehicle and I sleep well at night. We've got all that newfangled technology in the oil that neutralizes the effect of those tiny little particles that get past a 30 micron filter.


Where's the engineering test data (got links?) that proves newfangled oil "neutralizes" wear particles 30 microns and smaller so that inefficient oil filters work just as well as much more efficient oil filters?

Per ISO particle count data, the oil has around 10 times less particulate when using a filter rated 99% at 20u vs a filter rated 99% at 40u. BTW, some WIX and Purolator filters are 95% at 20u or better, but many OEM filters are more towards the lower end of the efficiency scale - 50 to 75% at 20u. I'll take 95% at 20u or better every time. I stopped using OEM filters for a reason.
 
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by y_p_w
I spin on a Wix, Purolator, or whatever OEM filter is spec'ed for my vehicle and I sleep well at night. We've got all that newfangled technology in the oil that neutralizes the effect of those tiny little particles that get past a 30 micron filter.
Where's the engineering test data (got links?) that proves newfangled oil "neutralizes" wear particles 30 microns and smaller so that inefficient oil filters work just as well as much more efficient oil filters?

Per ISO particle count data, the oil has around 10 times less particulate when using a filter rated 99% at 20u vs a filter rated 99% at 40u. BTW, some WIX and Purolator filters are 95% at 20u or better, but many OEM filters are more towards the lower end of the efficiency scale - 50 to 75% at 20u. I'll take 95% at 20u or better every time. I stopped using OEM filters for a reason.

I'm starting to think that the OEM oil filters such as Toyota 90915-YZZF2 are placebos. Perhaps, a hollow can would perform the same as them?
lol.gif


This said, I'm running the combination of M1 EP 0W-20 SN PLUS and the Fram Ultra XG3600 oversized oil filter. I can state with confidence that my engine had never run as smooth before as it's running now. It's smooth as butter. Is the effect purely due to the PAO/ester-based oil with a generous amount of organic friction modifier? Has the oversized full-synthetic oil filter with extreme efficiency contributed to it? Regardless of what the answer is, I really like what I'm seeing and it's good to have the ultimate confidence in oil filtration for $5 over the OEM oil filter.

It's well-known that used oil results in higher friction and lower fuel economy than new oil. Part of it could be due to the particles in used oil. In fact, there are various studies that show that particles in used oil affect the frictional properties of the oil; so, using the most efficient oil filter you can find can in principle improve your fuel economy.

Here is one such study:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1710.04448
 
Originally Posted by Gokhan
It's well-known that used oil results in higher friction and lower fuel economy than new oil. Part of it could be due to the particles in used oil. In fact, there are various studies that show that particles in used oil affect the frictional properties of the oil; so, using the most efficient oil filter you can find can in principle improve your fuel economy.

I think it's a little more complicated than simply going larger and higher theoretical efficiency with lower micron ratings.

As a Subaru aficionado I've been looking up the efficiency ratings of suitable filters. I'm not sure if Subaru publishes their specs, but we know that they have some of the highest bypass valve pressures in the industry. Wix seems to match them. Looking at my 57712, it's rated at 21 micron nominal, although I'm not sure what the efficiency is along with a 23 PSI pressure. I'm under the impression that OEM is higher. They have the 57055, at 15 micron nominal and a 27 PSI pressure. But then there's the 57830 for the BRZ/FR-S/86 with a 35 micron nominal rating and 22 PSI pressure. I can't guarantee that these nominal ratings necessarily reflect OEM ratings, but I suspect they're set up having an idea that they're similar. But if I had a BRZ I wouldn't hesitate to use that Wix filter. I consider regular changes to be important, but if the manufacturer doesn't seem to care that a rock catcher is being used I'm not going to worry about it.

The other issue is that often efficiency can go up as a filter is loaded. I'm not sure going oversized is that great for efficiency as a result.
 
Originally Posted by y_p_w
I think it's a little more complicated than simply going larger and higher theoretical efficiency with lower micron ratings.

As a Subaru aficionado I've been looking up the efficiency ratings of suitable filters. I'm not sure if Subaru publishes their specs, but we know that they have some of the highest bypass valve pressures in the industry. Wix seems to match them. Looking at my 57712, it's rated at 21 micron nominal, although I'm not sure what the efficiency is along with a 23 PSI pressure. I'm under the impression that OEM is higher. They have the 57055, at 15 micron nominal and a 27 PSI pressure. But then there's the 57830 for the BRZ/FR-S/86 with a 35 micron nominal rating and 22 PSI pressure. I can't guarantee that these nominal ratings necessarily reflect OEM ratings, but I suspect they're set up having an idea that they're similar. But if I had a BRZ I wouldn't hesitate to use that Wix filter. I consider regular changes to be important, but if the manufacturer doesn't seem to care that a rock catcher is being used I'm not going to worry about it.

The other issue is that often efficiency can go up as a filter is loaded. I'm not sure going oversized is that great for efficiency as a result.


"Nominal efficiency" in the oil filter industry typically means at 50% efficiency.

If a filter becomes more efficient or less efficient as the filter loads up is a function of the media's ability to securely hold captured particles as the delta-p increases from debris loading, increased flow, cold starts, etc. The worse thing anyone could do is fire up an engine with thick cold oil and a really dirty filter, and rev the engine up high right after a cold start. You can bet that scenario will dislodge a bunch of captured particles from the media.

Some filters do decrease in efficency as they load up. Purolator proved that with testing - I've posted their graph a few times in the oil filter forum. So anytime you can keep the delta-p down across the filter will help ensure captured particles stay captured in the media. I think one contributing factor for why some filters are lower efficiency is because they can't hold captured debris as well as higher efficiency filters can as the delta-p increases across the media.
 
Here's the Purolator/Hummel+Mann graph I mentioned above. If this oil filter was being measured per ISO 4548-12, it's overall efficiency at 20 microns would be 75% which is the average efficiency over the life of the run - that's how ISO 4548-12 calculates the overall end efficiency rating.

So my theory is any oil filter that has a low efficiency rating is suspect of being somewhat of a "debris slougher" when delta-p increases across the filter. Oil filters that are very high efficiency (like 99% @ 20u) can't be sloughing off much debris in order to be high rated in efficiency as defined by ISO 4548-12.

Oil Filter Efficiency vs Loading Time.webp
 
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
[Linked Image]


Thank you for clarifying the misconceptions about the efficiency of dirty oil filters, ZeeOSix!

I always had enough common sense not to believe the old wives' tales telling to use the smallest oil filter you could find and for 20, 30 thousand miles so that the efficiency would increase. As your plot shows, efficiency actually monotonously decreases when the oil filter gets dirtier and dirtier until it finally clogs and the bypass valve opens to let the unfiltered oil circulate to zero efficiency.

Basically, the larger the oil filter and higher the oil-filter efficiency, the better the oil filtration will be. I did make a great choice by using the largest Fram Ultra that would fit then.

Hopefully, people on BITOG will be educated about this and the misconceptions regarding dirty oil filters being more efficient will go away.
 
Originally Posted by Gokhan
I always had enough common sense not to believe the old wives' tales telling to use the smallest oil filter you could find and for 20, 30 thousand miles so that the efficiency would increase. As your plot shows, efficiency actually monotonously decreases when the oil filter gets dirtier and dirtier until it finally clogs and the bypass valve opens to let the unfiltered oil circulate to zero efficiency.

Who suggested doing that? Suggestions have been to follow the manufacturer's filter (or a similar aftermarket filter) recommendations and not go oversized if it's not specifically called for. In my case it's the tiniest oil filter I've ever installed (originally a Tokyo Roki 15208AA100, then a Wix 57712), which I use in good conscience. And when the manufacturer says that it's OK to install a filter every other OCI, I do it without worrying about it.

I remember when I did my first oil change on my WRX and saw this thing, I thought they must be crazy to go so small because it had to have less total capacity compared to the then Purolator-made OEM equivalent in the white can.

[Linked Image]
 
Originally Posted by y_p_w
Who suggested doing that? Suggestions have been to follow the manufacturer's filter (or a similar aftermarket filter) recommendations and not go oversized if it's not specifically called for. In my case it's the tiniest oil filter I've ever installed (originally a Tokyo Roki 15208AA100, then a Wix 57712), which I use in good conscience. And when the manufacturer says that it's OK to install a filter every other OCI, I do it without worrying about it.

I remember when I did my first oil change on my WRX and saw this thing, I thought they must be crazy to go so small because it had to have less total capacity compared to the then Purolator-made OEM equivalent in the white can.

Time to upgrade to a larger/longer, far more efficient Fram Ultra like I did. Some Subaru models suffer from oil consumption and it wouldn't hurt to have better filtration.
 
Oil. Throw an overpriced extended change filter on, forget to add oil, start car.

Then compare this result to add oil to engine, put a cheap filter on.

Tell me which time the car ran longer and which one resulted in a smaller repair bill.

*Disclaimer---don't actually perform this experiment unless you want to ruin your car*
 
Originally Posted by Talent_Keyhole
Originally Posted by RDY4WAR
This was a discussion with a couple friends. We pretty much knew the answers, but weren't sure the extent. I figured I'd bring that discussion here.

Can a superior oil's benefits be diminished by an inferior filter?

Can an inferior oil be improved with the use of a superior filter?

Discuss!


Assuming only using full flow filters,

Yes, poor performing bypass valve, poor efficiency, low capacity can limit OCIs regardless of oil.
Why use an inferior oil, except for economic reasons. A filter is designed to filter, it will not improve an inferior oil, it might reduce the larger damaging wear metals caused by the inferior oil.

What is an inferior oil? Even the store brand oils come from name brand companies. Today's oils are so good, even the cheap store brand oils, that you're not likely to experience any abnormal wear using them. I've used nothing but Super Tech oil in my Corolla and it now has 371K miles and still runs fine...
 
Originally Posted by hatt
Oil. Any decent modern filter that holds together will get you by for many miles.



No filter no problem. No oil dead engine.
 
Originally Posted by Spector
Oil, filters are pretty much useless appendages, can't filter below 20 microns, why bother!!!!!!
Actually that is not so.
 
Originally Posted by Spector
Oil, filters are pretty much useless appendages, can't filter below 20 microns, why bother!!!!!!
Actually that is not so.
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by y_p_w
Who suggested doing that? Suggestions have been to follow the manufacturer's filter (or a similar aftermarket filter) recommendations and not go oversized if it's not specifically called for. In my case it's the tiniest oil filter I've ever installed (originally a Tokyo Roki 15208AA100, then a Wix 57712), which I use in good conscience. And when the manufacturer says that it's OK to install a filter every other OCI, I do it without worrying about it.

I remember when I did my first oil change on my WRX and saw this thing, I thought they must be crazy to go so small because it had to have less total capacity compared to the then Purolator-made OEM equivalent in the white can.

Time to upgrade to a larger/longer, far more efficient Fram Ultra like I did. Some Subaru models suffer from oil consumption and it wouldn't hurt to have better filtration.

Will a "better" filter reduce the oil consumption?
 
I did not read through all this but, AFAIC:
I like having both oil and filter.
Always done it this way and so far so good.

Apologies if this has been posted already.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
Motorcraft Oil Filters
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
ZeeOSix
D
Where to take a Mercedes for an oil change when no MB dealer is nearby?
2
Replies
38
Views
1K
GON
S
How much oil drains when the filter is removed?
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
TCL
C
Getting a new engine from Hyundai
2 3
Replies
47
Views
2K
edyvw
C
Best universal cone filter
Replies
12
Views
959
Delta1
Back
Top Bottom