Give me a list of engine failures due to a filtering efficiency of 46 microns (or 34 if you are invested in Ascent's 3 year old test results) at 99%.
Will a less Efficient Filter Keep Oil as Clean as More Efficient One
- Thread starter Al
- Start date
Who ever said engines will fail if a lower efficiency filter is used? ... nobody has ever claimed that. It's been discussed many times why better oil filtration can be beneficial by keeping the engine in top mechanical condition. Asking for a list of all the "blown engines" not using efficient filters is the typical strawman in these discussions when people can't understand the simple logic that cleaner oil from higher filtration will help reduce wear. Nothing will ever prove otherwise. If filter efficiency and cleaner oil doesn't matter to someone, then whatever turns their crank is good for them. I really don't care what oil or filters people use, I just point out the facts and the studies that back-up those facts. Everything else without facts is based on feelings, and are often wrong.
Only place where one argues against having cleaner oil…
Yea. Now you can cite this:
And I have been guilty of this. But in the real world where automobile engine live is measured in 5,000 hours that is minuscule to equipment where life is measured in 2 million hours the lower wear gains in going to a 20 micron are also minuscule.
Am I arguing IN FAVOR of less efficient filters no. But as a maintenance supervisor, Mechanical Engineer, and Tribologist falling on one's sword over efficiencies is meaning only in the contest of idle bantering on BITOG Boards
LoL ... you've been here since 2002, so all this has been rehashed probably 1000 times on BITOG by now, and you have over 20K posts so I know you've seen this discussion many times. The info and data has been presented many times over with various studies, etc, and from there it's up to everyone to digest that info, and just decide to use whatever they conclude. Simple as that. Bookmark this thread for future reference.Am I arguing IN FAVOR of less efficient filters no. But as a maintenance supervisor, Mechanical Engineer, and Tribologist falling on one's sword over efficiencies is meaning only in the contest of idle bantering on BITOG Boards
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2021
- Messages
- 1,360
5,000% correkt
I've never seen anyone show any proof choosing lets say a Boss filter over using the OEM filter would increase any wear. All of those fancy graphs don't prove anything on that front. Like I mentioned earlier that higher efficiency oil filter is "one way" of potentially reducing wear but who here knows what grade oil one is running at any given time. Go a grade up if you're that worried about it. To rehash, Unless you know ISO tested OEM filter specifications there's no way of showing if a Boss filter will cause any additional wear. It could be an upgrade even.
What is the OP driving?
What is the ISO tested OEM oil filter specifications?
What is the ISO tested aftermarket oil filter specifications?
Get all that data then & only then can one claim a "Boss" or x filter would cause more wear. But some of us know...then I can argue how good a synthetic oil is vs conventional & that also reduces wear so it may be a wash after all.
What is the OP driving?
What is the ISO tested OEM oil filter specifications?
What is the ISO tested aftermarket oil filter specifications?
Get all that data then & only then can one claim a "Boss" or x filter would cause more wear. But some of us know...then I can argue how good a synthetic oil is vs conventional & that also reduces wear so it may be a wash after all.
Just what I need is high efficiency media when I have evidence of my filter media being torn open with "average" efficiency premium filter across the Winter season up here. A Fan folded mediocre 100sq.in. and very cold oil don't cut it.
Better have nylon or wire backed synthetic media on deck if that's you game. Or avoid Winter
Better have nylon or wire backed synthetic media on deck if that's you game. Or avoid Winter
The most basic logic of understanding engine wear with respect to oil cleanliness is that the dirtier the oil is, and the longer the dirtier oil is used, the more wear there will be - all other factors held constant of course. Trying to justify that a less efficient oil filter doesn't cause more wear by side tracking about what oil is used, etc is skirting the facts and not looking at the engine as an entire system, and how each part of that system can effect wear - including the oil filter. If any one of these items in not doing a top level job, then it will effect the wear rate: Oil, air filter and oil filter are all important to the system. The oil filter is the only component that cleans oil of debris, regardless of how the debris got into the oil.
The only way to make oil cleaner in use it to filter it better in use. With all other factors constant, there is no way for dirtier oil to cause the same or less wear than cleaner oil ... it's physically impossible, and every controlled wear study proves that.
When comparing UOA's with particle counts between a high efficiency vs low efficiency filters you can see the difference in oil cleanliness. Anytime the oil is dirtier there is some increased level of wear going on - there is no physical way around it. Obviously, the impact of the dirty oil on wear depends on the level of oil contamination and how long that dirty oil circulated though the oiling system. When choosing an oil filter, that is the main thing to keep in mind. If someone is doing short OCIs, then using a lower efficiency filter isn't going to matter as much as if that same low efficiency filter is used for a much longer OCI.
I certainly would not use an inefficient oil filter for a longer OCI. Based on the ISO efficiency of the Boss, I would never run one over 5K miles, and certainly not for 10K+ miles like some people may do because they think it's a long OCI filter. Purolator advertises the Boss as an "up to 20K mile" filter. If one was ran that long, especially on a dirty engine, by the end of the OCI the efficiency could be way down in efficiency. And the people who think oil filters "get more efficient with loading" would really be fooling themselves. Ascent's testing showed it was down to ~62% efficient at 20u when it was 50% loaded. Lot of debris sloughing going on in that case is what the test showed.
The only way to make oil cleaner in use it to filter it better in use. With all other factors constant, there is no way for dirtier oil to cause the same or less wear than cleaner oil ... it's physically impossible, and every controlled wear study proves that.
When comparing UOA's with particle counts between a high efficiency vs low efficiency filters you can see the difference in oil cleanliness. Anytime the oil is dirtier there is some increased level of wear going on - there is no physical way around it. Obviously, the impact of the dirty oil on wear depends on the level of oil contamination and how long that dirty oil circulated though the oiling system. When choosing an oil filter, that is the main thing to keep in mind. If someone is doing short OCIs, then using a lower efficiency filter isn't going to matter as much as if that same low efficiency filter is used for a much longer OCI.
I certainly would not use an inefficient oil filter for a longer OCI. Based on the ISO efficiency of the Boss, I would never run one over 5K miles, and certainly not for 10K+ miles like some people may do because they think it's a long OCI filter. Purolator advertises the Boss as an "up to 20K mile" filter. If one was ran that long, especially on a dirty engine, by the end of the OCI the efficiency could be way down in efficiency. And the people who think oil filters "get more efficient with loading" would really be fooling themselves. Ascent's testing showed it was down to ~62% efficient at 20u when it was 50% loaded. Lot of debris sloughing going on in that case is what the test showed.
Last edited:
This is how BR tested filtering efficiency. If you haven't, I suggest you watch their videos to see their methodology. The particle counts they measured on the Endurance and BOSS are:
| Fram Endurance | Purolator BOSS |
Filtering | | |
21-38 microns | 17.9 | 31.6 |
38-70 microns | 2 | 0.3 |
>70 microns | 0.3 | 0 |
Yea. Now you can cite this:
from https://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/30697/choose-oil-filter
And I have been guilty of this. But in the real world where automobile engine live is measured in 5,000 hours that is minuscule to equipment where life is measured in 2 million hours the lower wear gains in going to a 20 micron are also minuscule.
Am I arguing IN FAVOR of less efficient filters no. But as a maintenance supervisor, Mechanical Engineer, and Tribologist falling on one's sword over efficiencies is meaning only in the contest of idle bantering on BITOG Boards
Uhhh what? 2 million hours is 228 years, about double the length the ICE has been around.
If I am understanding this correctly, my 21 year old Civic (180k miles and going strong), which has been fed a mixture of conventional, synthetic, high mileage, and Euro oils, along with a mixture of mostly inefficient oil filters, would last 3.4x longer if it only used high efficiency (15 micron) filters for its entire life. Let's say it ends up lasting 30 years before engine wear takes its toll. That means it would've lasted 102 years if I only used high efficiency filters for its entire life. Am I understanding this correctly?Yea. Now you can cite this:
from https://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/30697/choose-oil-filter
And I have been guilty of this. But in the real world where automobile engine live is measured in 5,000 hours that is minuscule to equipment where life is measured in 2 million hours the lower wear gains in going to a 20 micron are also minuscule.
Am I arguing IN FAVOR of less efficient filters no. But as a maintenance supervisor, Mechanical Engineer, and Tribologist falling on one's sword over efficiencies is meaning only in the contest of idle bantering on BITOG Boards
I've watch every one of BR's videos, and have commented many times in different threads about their testing. The only part of the testing I have any real continence in is the hot flow vs dP. I've compared how BR ranks the "efficiency" results with the ISO efficiency of the filters, and there's not a strong correlation ... especially with the Boss. If it actually ranked the same in a real ISO efficiency test, it would have to be close to 98-99% @ 20u.
Plus the Boss PC in the BR test shows it's more efficint than the Endurance for particles above 38u. Knowing how efficiency vs particle size performance curves look in an ISO 4548-12 test, that doesn't make much sense because if a filter is more efficient at below 38u, it's certainly going to also be more efficient at above 38u. The spec sheet for that same Boss filter model shows 99% >46u. Until someone spends $1000s on an official ISO 4548-12 test like Ascent did, I will believe the official spec sheets from Purolator/M+H since they designed and make the filter.
So you believe the spec sheet over Ascent's result of 34 micron at 99%?
All I can say is at best it's someplace in between the two. But it certainly isn't just right under an Ultra or Endurance like BR ranked it, even if it was 99% @ 34u. It would instead be closer to the other filters that are around 99% @ 30-35u in BRs ranking.
We’re talking 2.3 vs 0.3 particles. That’s just noise. I take that as them being very close to each other. I wouldn’t consider that a win for the BOSS.
The data still shows what I explained - who know if it's really all "noise". How do all the other filters rank to each other if only the 21-38 micron range is used and ignore the other two ranges? I don't know why BR didn't just show the actual particle count data as it's normally shown instead of making up their own particle ranges. Show the actual ISO 4406 PC data is what should be show, like in this example PC format. The particle count at 21u and lower tells a lot about the filtering performance, and BR doesn't even show any PC data below 21u.
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2023
- Messages
- 516
Reason to scale back to 5K was to give Valvoline Restore & Protect oils a try for a few service intervals. Also depending on changes with personal work life, I probably won't be long tripping as I am now in the future. Overall I do agree running these filters longer than 5K would yield more interesting results of real world use in the topic of filtration made for extended drains.
Yea. But I have changed my mind recently.VW's had no oil filter and oil 50 years ago was junk. And yes folks did change every 1500 miles. Still VW's habitually went 60K+ miles between engine ring change. I recall SAE running tests with a "Quality Syn" oil (Mobil 1.)LoL ... you've been here since 2002, so all this has been rehashed probably 1000 times on BITOG by now, and you have over 20K posts so I know you've seen this discussion many times. The info and data has been presented many times over with various studies, etc, and from there it's up to everyone to digest that info, and just decide to use whatever they conclude. Simple as that. Bookmark this thread for future reference.
They would tear engines down at say 100K and clearances met specs of NEW ENGINES. You can bet those filters were like 35 micron filters. Maybe I missed it in this thread. Has any study ever been done that says filtering with 20 micron filters allows an engine to run longer.
Again I am not recommending folks run with a less efficient filter. This is a discussion on where does the science and real world come together. And yes the chart says that there is more wear but again, does it affect engine longlivity over 5,000 hours.
And yes I was off a decimal place when I talked about equipment running 2,000,000 hours.
You have to merge the science and the controlled study data conclusions with your use conditions, judgment and feelings, and decide what's going to make you happy about what filter you choose. Reference the current other thread about the Fram Endurance vs the Purolator Boss. But without the controlled study and test data to make decision, people only have feelings left to make a decision. If you don't really care about efficiency, then not much research is needed.
Last edited:
Similar threads
