Why hasn't someone made a more efficient filter?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by harry j
someone should make custom oil filters, made to all OEM specifications just more efficient say absolute at 10 microns or so.

They do; they're called bypass filters.
And they do a great job of removing small stuff.
And if you run really long OFCIs and have a fairly large sump (cost of UOAs is far less than cost of OFCI), they can pay back a good ROI and are a smart decision.
And if you run normal OFCIs, they are total waste of money, because they will never pay back the investment.

And despite all the hype, BP systems (in and of themselves) do NOT extend the lifespan of equipment as an exclusive characteristic; normal OFCIs with normal products will flush out what BP systems filter out. Two roads to the same destination; that of a sump "clean enough" to make the equipment last a long time.
 
I'd be a bit nervous running conventional motor oil out to 15K miles, as I don't think conventional oils resist breakdown with varnish and sludging, etc as well as fully synthetic oils. Probably around 7500 on conventional oil would be the max I'd run it. I'd rather have a minuscule more wear than a varnished/sludged up motor. I want a motor that looks brand new inside when it has 100K+ miles on it.
 
Quote
I don't think conventional oils resist breakdown with varnish and sludging, etc as well as fully synthetic oils.

There's a lot more than just wear rates to consider when comparing conventional and synthetic lubes.
 
Bypass filters can be very effective and if I remember correctly can filter down at 2 microns. I am talking about a full flow filter without the added complexity of

a bypass setup, you know, I want something between a bypass setup and a normal filter. When Amsoil EAO oil filters first came out, they were rated at

15 microns at 98.7% or absolute as they called it. Given that nanofiber oil filters will outflow a cellulose one, can't the efficiency be better?
 
Originally Posted by AuthorEditor
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
I don't think conventional oils resist breakdown with varnish and sludging, etc as well as fully synthetic oils.

There's a lot more than just wear rates to consider when comparing conventional and synthetic lubes.

I certainly agree. One should not extend out the OCIs without understand all the risks. Varnish is actually harmless. Sludge is a different matter, though.

In my two MGMs (4.6L Ford engines), I've run over 150k combined miles of "extended" OCIs. Typically 10k miles, but some longer. The under-valve-cover conditions have always looked fine, even after the long OCIs. In our departed 1995 Villager, I ran 10k and 15k mile OCIs; again no sludge under the valve covers. What my experiments show is that in those engines, there was no risk. I have since sold those two cars to my son; he continues the 10k mile OCIs.

However, there are engines that do not tolerate longer OCIs, because of engine design issues. For example, the Saturn SL2 engines have rings with no drain-back gaps; they tend to sludge the oil at the ring lands and cause stuck rings. Some of the Toyota 4-cyl engines ran very hot in the heads, and so they'd sludge up a conventional oil fairly quickly. Here, even following the OEM schedule didn't stop the issue from happening, so it's not like shorter OCIs solve all problems, any more than longer OCIs always will cause problems. Many engines can tolerate longer OCIs; some cannot, simply because of inherent design issues.

Additionally, the ability to control soot/insolubles is not only about the engine design, but the lube fortification, also. While it is true that PAO syns do resist oxidation better than typical dino oils, those same PAO lubes also do not hold additives in suspension well, and so group II or II+ lube is blended in, so that it holds the additives in suspension. Conventional oil base stocks (II, II+, III) hold additives in suspension very well. And so the anti-agglomerates and detergents can be quite robust in a dino lube product. Those, too, help keep engines clean. As the API service categories are indexed, the requirements to control soot/insolubles increases in both gas and diesel lubes. Lubes today are far more capable than lubes from years ago.

You have to know what engine you have (what strengths and weaknesses it has by design), what lube benefits and concerns exist, as well as the understanding of how to use multiple tools (UOAs, PCs, visual observations, etc) all in concert, to have a successful program. I have NEVER advocated for blind extensions of OCIs without using the tools at hand. But you have to know what those tools are and are not capable of, and then practice the right approach. The reality is that most all engines have wear rates drop out to 15k miles; that is beyond debate. After that, you have to make educated decisions based upon the type engine you have, it's known pedigree, and be willing to put effort into assuring equipment health with using all the available tools.

In my garage, I practice longer OCIs. But I don't do it blindly, and I don't tell others to do it either. What I tell them is if the UOAs is showing good wear rates, and the engine family is not known to have sludge issues, then it's OK to extend the OCI and experiment.

I recently sold my 1966 289ci 2-v Mustang. Before I did, I cleaned up the engine and replaced the valve cover gaskets, which had never been off in the 76k miles since new (we got it used as second owners). I was horrified to see the huge amount of sludge under the valve covers. The first 60k miles under the first owner were unknown to us; I have no idea what OCI they did. But lubes back in the 1960s and 1970s and even early 1980s simply were not fortified well. Hence, even "normal" engines running "normal" OCIs were prone to sludge.

There was a time when 3k miles was the normal OCI recommendation from many sources. Then it became 5k miles. Then 7.5k miles. Now, cars/trucks with IOLMs are showing 10k miles to be common. Even the OEMs are realizing that there's little risk to longer OCIs, as long as the engine design supports it. My 2006 Dmax IOLM would indicate 9-11k miles for an OCI. My brand new Taurus' 3.5L engines both indicate 10k miles + via the IOLM. Data shows that those engines are very easy on oil, hence extended OCIs are not a big risk.

Most engines in the last two decades have been designed well. Most all lubes in the last several API iterations have been fortified very well. Engines run very "clean" today. The risk of sludge is very remote despite all the fear mongering.

If someone is unwilling/unable to practice a full spectrum maintenance program, where UOAs, PCs and under-cover inspections take place, and don't understand the nature of their specific engine, well then I cannot be held accountable for their inept approach if they choose to only follow part of my advice, and not all of it.

But my comments as to wear rates is 100% solid; nearly all engines show lower wear as the OCI matures, at least out to 15k miles, where my data streams typically end.
 
Last edited:
It boggles my small brain that folks that post on BITOG and who are better educated than joesixpack. ....find it difficult to spend a few more bucks to get a 20 micron filter vs a 40 one. Considering at $3 a gallon for gas we spend that every 20 to 40 miles. And the filter can go 10,000+ miles. Can someone explain that to me??
 
Originally Posted by Al
It boggles my small brain that folks that post on BITOG and who are better educated than joesixpack. ....find it difficult to spend a few more bucks to get a 20 micron filter vs a 40 one. Considering at $3 a gallon for gas we spend that every 20 to 40 miles. And the filter can go 10,000+ miles. Can someone explain that to me??


I can think of a few reasons:

1 - They're tightwads / frugal / penny pinchers
2 - The fact that they have to spend increasingly more on fuel means they're looking for any way possible to offset those costs by saving a few bucks on filters, wipers, etc..
3 - They're trying to find that magic/sweet spot - a cheap filter that can perform way above its 'pay grade'. With so many filters out there, who knows if there's one that will surprise you

.. I'm sure there are other reasons
 
Originally Posted by AuthorEditor
From a practical standpoint today's typical car and small-truck engines seem to easily last up to and beyond 200,000 miles with nothing but Cheapy lube oil changes and no-name filters. At that point, much of the rest of the mechanical bits and pieces have either been replaced or will need to be, meaning it is more costly than just buying another vehicle. In the Northeast, the body and frame will be rotted out and need replacing too. It is always possible to build in greater longevity, but it just isn't practical from a cost/benefit standpoint. Personally, I've never junked a car because the engine was failing, and I've never had a major engine failure.
Liked this answer when I first read it, and from a practical and experiential point of view, pretty much covers my thoughts. Basically there's no need, practically speaking what's currently available gets the job done quite nicely. Further, many anecdotes posted this board members using the Asian oem filters which data points show far from most efficient, with anecdotal engine miles in multiple hundreds of thousands. Personally, have a Civic that's similar. It's seen all kinds of filters, never an FU. Other mechanical/body parts and pieces break long before engine, decisions must be made whether cost benefit of those repairs worth it as opposed to buying a new vehicle. Engine still going strong though with just regular oil and filter changes.

As an aside, unlike AE though I have lost an engine (< 100k mi.) in a vehicle long before what should have been it's useful life. Had nothing to with topic filters or oil, rather a manufacturer's defect. Nissan precats puking scoring cylinder walls, rendering the engine an oil consuming sieve. So ime, even a manufacturers defect more likely to shorten useful engine life than the filter used. My .02
 
Well, even though..yes..an engine lasts 200K with a cheap filter but....Most engines burn oil as they get over 100K miles bc wear on piston rings. I am thinking that the better oil filter will minimumize that. Don't really know.
confused2.gif
But buying the Ultra for the price of a gallon of gas more for me is a no-brainer.
 
Originally Posted by Al
Well, even though..yes..an engine lasts 200K with a cheap filter but....Most engines burn oil as they get over 100K miles bc wear on piston rings. I am thinking that the better oil filter will minimumize that. Don't really know.
confused2.gif
But buying the Ultra for the price of a gallon of gas more for me is a no-brainer.


I'm with you on this one Al, as I've said before, even if engines can get to the higher mileage with the cheaper filters, it is my belief that with the better filters those engines will be in better shape at that higher mileage. So that means they'll burn less oil, be cleaner inside, and still get the same MPG and horsepower as that engine did when new. A lot of people neglect to mention that their buddy's 400k engine running on cheap oil/filters, is not in the best of health at that point in time.
 
Originally Posted by Patman
Originally Posted by Al
Well, even though..yes..an engine lasts 200K with a cheap filter but....Most engines burn oil as they get over 100K miles bc wear on piston rings. I am thinking that the better oil filter will minimumize that. Don't really know.
confused2.gif
But buying the Ultra for the price of a gallon of gas more for me is a no-brainer.


I'm with you on this one Al, as I've said before, even if engines can get to the higher mileage with the cheaper filters, it is my belief that with the better filters those engines will be in better shape at that higher mileage. So that means they'll burn less oil, be cleaner inside, and still get the same MPG and horsepower as that engine did when new. A lot of people neglect to mention that their buddy's 400k engine running on cheap oil/filters, is not in the best of health at that point in time.


Stop posting common sense ...
grin2.gif
 
Originally Posted by Al
Well, even though..yes..an engine lasts 200K with a cheap filter but....Most engines burn oil as they get over 100K miles bc wear on piston rings. I am thinking that the better oil filter will minimumize that. Don't really know.
confused2.gif
But buying the Ultra for the price of a gallon of gas more for me is a no-brainer.



I totally agree AI, I have 545,000 miles on my 1993 Civic. It runs like new and hardly uses a quart of Amsoil 0W-30 oil during the 10,000 mile OCI.

The oil filter is an Amsoil EAO36 that unfortunately is no longer made. According to Amsoil, it is absolutely efficient at 15 microns.
 
Last edited:
Here in the great Northeast that Civic would have been rotted away at 200K due to the salt so you would have a beautiful engine in a worthless car that couldn't pass inspection. At least that has been my experience. The only car I ever got above 200K was because I was commuting about 30,000 miles a year and got the miles in before the car rotted.
 
Originally Posted by SirTanon
Originally Posted by Al
It boggles my small brain that folks that post on BITOG and who are better educated than joesixpack. ....find it difficult to spend a few more bucks to get a 20 micron filter vs a 40 one. Considering at $3 a gallon for gas we spend that every 20 to 40 miles. And the filter can go 10,000+ miles. Can someone explain that to me??


I can think of a few reasons:

1 - They're tightwads / frugal / penny pinchers
2 - The fact that they have to spend increasingly more on fuel means they're looking for any way possible to offset those costs by saving a few bucks on filters, wipers, etc..
3 - They're trying to find that magic/sweet spot - a cheap filter that can perform way above its 'pay grade'. With so many filters out there, who knows if there's one that will surprise you

.. I'm sure there are other reasons



I got one for you it does not matter because no one has or will prove a 20 micron vs 40 micron filter extends engine life. For a few BITOG members just can't figure this out.
 
^^^ Someone has never read any studies that correlate engine wear to the oil cleanliness level.
 
Originally Posted by Patman
Originally Posted by Al
Well, even though..yes..an engine lasts 200K with a cheap filter but....Most engines burn oil as they get over 100K miles bc wear on piston rings. I am thinking that the better oil filter will minimumize that. Don't really know.
confused2.gif
But buying the Ultra for the price of a gallon of gas more for me is a no-brainer.


I'm with you on this one Al, as I've said before, even if engines can get to the higher mileage with the cheaper filters, it is my belief that with the better filters those engines will be in better shape at that higher mileage. So that means they'll burn less oil, be cleaner inside, and still get the same MPG and horsepower as that engine did when new. A lot of people neglect to mention that their buddy's 400k engine running on cheap oil/filters, is not in the best of health at that point in time.



Not the case in my experience. Over a hundred pickups in the fleet and each one has a service expected life of 130-50K miles and maybe 4 out of 150 pickups will develop consumption issues such as over a quart in a 350-400 hour OCI which is a around 5K miles in a hot dusty desert. The oil filters currently are Wix made but the contract always goes to the lowest bidder including fluids and all parts. Most oil filters and motor oils are better then what owners need and OCI's are conservative. Why is this fact hard to accept?
 
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
^^^ Someone has never read any studies that correlate engine wear to the oil cleanliness level.

Someone should learn in the real world 40 microns of wear in 200K miles means when the engine is torn down, parts measured, and examined this equals the engine is still within "new" tolerances. Studies are great when the entire context is disclosed.
 
Originally Posted by dave1251
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
^^^ Someone has never read any studies that correlate engine wear to the oil cleanliness level.

Someone should learn in the real world 40 microns of wear in 200K miles means when the engine is torn down, parts measured, and examined this equals the engine is still within "new" tolerances. Studies are great when the entire context is disclosed.


I've been waiting for years for someone to post even one link to a formal scientific study that shows cleaner oil doesn't result in any less wear. That's the point, not if an engine "didn't blow up", "is still running good" or "still within specs" after 200K miles if less efficient oil filters were used.

Granted, if people are doing short OCIs the filter efficiency isn't as important because the sump is dumped of wear particulate relative early that a less efficient filter can't capture. But with longer OCIs a high efficiency filter is going to keep the oil cleaner over the longer OCI duration. Think of the wear factor as the average oil cleanliness level times the OCI mileage. Oil that is twice as dirty with a 5K OCI is basically equivalent to oil half as dirty with a 10K OCI. From the PC data seen in a few studies and in typical UOA PCs, a filter rated at 99% @ 20μ showed oil to be 4 to 5 times cleaner in particulate than a filter rated at 99% @ 40μ (which is probably close to 50% @ 20μ)

You said above you used Wix filters in the truck feet, but if they are the regular Wix filter they are pretty high efficiency (95% @ 20μ). So you're maybe a user of relatively high efficiency oil filters and might not even grasp or acknowledge it. Maybe you should start using 99% @ 40μ or 50% @ 20μ filters with 10K OCIs and see how the fleet does in that case.
 
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
^^^ Someone has never read any studies that correlate engine wear to the oil cleanliness level.


In real world, it is the transmission slipping or the head gasket leak that does the car in, engine oil cleanliness or tolerance does not matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top