Would you all like to see ISO 4548-12 Oil Filter Lab Testing Comparison, Efficiency & Capacity, Pressure vs Flow, Bubble Point, and Burst?

Again which filter would make my engine last the longest in real life application.
 
Again which filter would make my engine last the longest in real life application.
This was only one test for each filter, random sample lots would need to be tested to see if these results are typical for each type. Statistically speaking this is insignificant. I cannot say which is best, only present this small set of data and let you decide what it means.
 
@ZeeOSix Can I run an ultra with 5w-50 @ 6000 rpm 650HP standard oil pump?
Any idea how much actual GPM that oil pump puts out at 6000 RPM? Looking at the delta-p vs flow curves, the Ultra was in the good flowing filter group. The fluid Andrew used for the delta-p vs flow testing was about the same hot viscosity as xW-40 weight oil - it was mentioned earlier in this thread.
 
Engine wear vs oil cleanliness studys always conclude that cleaner oil results in less engine wear. So it shouldn't be hard to connect the next dot.
But I have seen for years vehicles running great with 350,000 miles running Jiffy lube oils and filters. My experience doing fleet work quality oil and what ever filter the parts guy gave us had the engines lasting way too long , My neighbor a very smart guy,, a retired surgeon wanted to buy a hay rake for his hay field and he did lots of research and told me about a rake which worked real good but the articles he read said it was rough on Alfalfa and would potentially cause leave loss from the violent action of the rake. I had to tell him you don't have Alfalfa on your field.
 
Last edited:
Do you have an opinion about what happens to filtration when 2 grams of dust are added to the oil over say 40 hours of engine running? This would be equivalent to the 1 gram/ 1000 miles average dirt produced by an engine. Let’s say at 50 mph to make the 40 hours. I suppose that means adding 1/20 gram per hour, a very tiny amount. This 1/20 gram will circulate over and over for the 1 hour, hundreds of times through the filter.
I know we are to make our own conclusions as you say.
 
But I have seen for years vehicles running great with 350,000 miles running Jiffy lube oils and filters. My experience doing fleet work quality oil and what ever filter the parts guy gave us had the engines lasting way too long.
Engines can still seem to "run great" even with quite a bit of wear on them. Obviously the shorter the OCI, the less filter efficiency matters. If oil was changed every 500-750 miles, you probably wouldn't even need an oil filter on a broken-in engine. But the fact remains, and always will, that the cleaner the oil the less the wear. No study on the subject matter will say otherwise.
 
Particles in the oil do contribute to wear, but they are not a primary source of excessive wear. Excessive heat, torsional vibrations/harmonics, excessive shock/load (ie: detonation), and (of course) loss of lubrication are primary causes of excessive wear. Particles in the oil will increase wear, but not to the extent of sudden catastrophic engine failure. The exception to that would be if the particles agglomerated and clogged up an oil passage somewhere and starved a bearing or lifter of oil, for example. While filtration is important to keeping the oil clean and keeping wear down, it will always be a secondary objective.

I know some engine builders who will block off the oil filter bypass in a Chevy small or big block, use a standard sized filter, pour in 20w-50 oil with a high volume pump, and proceed to run it to 7000+ rpm at <150*F oil temp. Then they wonder why their oil pressure is dropping to zero and keep spinning rod bearings. I never want to starve the engine of oil just to force it through a filter first. Dirty oil is better than no oil.
 
What I am getting at is there are posted million mile Toyota engines and Ford van engines etc ,. and they are not some sub micronic bypass filter equipped nor are they running oil filters other than oem or jiffy lube filters . Looking at the uoa s Most of the super high mile engines we see the uoas on are mostly bought used with high miles. I am positive their owners didn't read the marketing and papers on oil or oil filters. Buying an oil filter to hopefully let you drive you car to the junk yard with a "pristine" engine is the cool thing to do I guess.
 
What I am getting at is there are posted million mile Toyota engines and Ford van engines etc ,. and they are not some sub micronic bypass filter equipped nor are they running oil filters other than oem or jiffy lube filters . Looking at the uoa s Most of the super high mile engines we see the uoas on are mostly bought used with high miles. I am positive their owners didn't read the marketing and papers on oil or oil filters. Buying an oil filter to hopefully let you drive you car to the junk yard with a "pristine" engine is the cool thing to do I guess.
This is a GM study taken from https://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/30697/choose-oil-filter
Relative Engine Life via Filtration.jpg
 
All this about particles cause wear was deduced long ago. The Frantz oil filter was developed with this in mind and ads from the 60’s and earlier talked about clean oil. They work. Here they took off a full flow filter and in 200 miles the Frantz clean up was amazing.


That said, I had a few of them. Took them off or left them on the cars when sold or traded. I gave a box full of them to Goodwill in the 90’s. My dad started buying them in the flea market, and I know $5 would have been the limit for him, if that. I have been looking at them again. It’s terrible. Now if I had a Ford diesel, which I used to have the 6.9, I would put a Frantz on it. Thankfully it is now difficult for me to put one on a car, but the Toyota pickup does have the room.
 
All this about particles cause wear was deduced long ago. The Frantz oil filter was developed with this in mind and ads from the 60’s and earlier talked about clean oil. They work. Here they took off a full flow filter and in 200 miles the Frantz clean up was amazing.


That said, I had a few of them. Took them off or left them on the cars when sold or traded. I gave a box full of them to Goodwill in the 90’s. My dad started buying them in the flea market, and I know $5 would have been the limit for him, if that. I have been looking at them again. It’s terrible. Now if I had a Ford diesel, which I used to have the 6.9, I would put a Frantz on it. Thankfully it is now difficult for me to put one on a car, but the Toyota pickup does have the room.
I have the capability to run this oil sample/batch particle count test. In fact I can sample online in real time taping into a vehicles oil lines as it is running. However the vehicle must be in my lab to do it, and it would be very expensive for the latter.
I wish they stated the sample/batch volume for the particle count. Then you could calculate total counts in the engine with a little algebra.

A quick note: The particle size is not the same as I have tested here, meaning they used a different calibration method to calibrate there particle counter. 2 micron in the Frantz test is not the same corresponding size in my test. I use the ISO 11171 calibration denoted by um(c), not sure what method they used, but it is not the same.
For example if they calibrated with ISO 4402 (which was common back then) then 2um is equivalent to 4.6 um(c) that I use for the ISO 11171 calibration.
 
I have the capability to run this oil sample/batch particle count test. In fact I can sample online in real time taping into a vehicles oil lines as it is running. However the vehicle must be in my lab to do it, and it would be very expensive for the latter.
I wish they stated the sample/batch volume for the particle count. Then you could calculate total counts in the engine with a little algebra.

A quick note: The particle size is not the same as I have tested here, meaning they used a different calibration method to calibrate there particle counter. 2 micron in the Frantz test is not the same corresponding size in my test. I use the ISO 11171 calibration denoted by um(c), not sure what method they used, but it is not the same.
For example if they calibrated with ISO 4402 (which was common back then) then 2um is equivalent to 4.6 um(c) that I use for the ISO 11171 calibration.
I hope you can do more testing like that as time goes on. Give Blackstone some competition. It's all getting a bit much for me. I was supposed to pull some weeds this morning, but look on the internet instead.
 
What I am getting at is there are posted million mile Toyota engines and Ford van engines etc ,. and they are not some sub micronic bypass filter equipped nor are they running oil filters other than oem or jiffy lube filters . Looking at the uoa s Most of the super high mile engines we see the uoas on are mostly bought used with high miles. I am positive their owners didn't read the marketing and papers on oil or oil filters. Buying an oil filter to hopefully let you drive you car to the junk yard with a "pristine" engine is the cool thing to do I guess.

My Tahoe has 274k miles, and I have no intention of getting rid of it anytime soon. When it does come to a point that I send it to the scrapyard, I'll likely strip it down and part it out. An engine with less wear is a good starter for a turbo build in a lightweight drag car. I realize I'm the extreme exception though.
 
What I am getting at is there are posted million mile Toyota engines and Ford van engines etc ,. and they are not some sub micronic bypass filter equipped nor are they running oil filters other than oem or jiffy lube filters . Looking at the uoa s Most of the super high mile engines we see the uoas on are mostly bought used with high miles. I am positive their owners didn't read the marketing and papers on oil or oil filters.
Like said before, it also depends a lot on the OCI. If someone is doing a 3-5K OCI then a high efficiency oil filter isn't as important. For a short OCI, I'd still go for a filter that's at least 90% @20u. The way I see it is why not pay a few bucks more for a high efficiency oil filter that gets changed once a year. One less street taco for lunch over a years time, and it pays for a better oil filter.

Buying an oil filter to hopefully let you drive you car to the junk yard with a "pristine" engine is the cool thing to do I guess.
As long as I own the vehicle, keeping the engine "pristine" is a goal. If it gets wrecked or sold then it's out of my hands, but I don't treat my vehicles based on looking way into the future and say: "I don't care how I treat or take care of it because someday I won't own it anymore".
 
That study from GM (SAE 881825) is a HALT, and as such, it leads many to conclusions that are not based in real life. It would be VERY useful to anyone whom never changed oil and only used "40um" filters are a baseline. Otherwise, it's grossly misleading to the uninformed. Here are some highlights from the study:
- they dumped the equivalent of 570k miles of particulate into the sump over the 8 hours of the test (hence - it's a HALT test)
- they never changed oil once - not one time! during each phase of the test; So any particulate matter smaller than the filter rating remained "forever" in the sump for that test cycle (Who does this???? who among us NEVER changes oil in 570k miles ?????????????)
- they only changed filters when the dP across the filter got to 20 psi (this ain't what happens in the real world)
- they used "40um" as the "baseline" (as if any normal engine filter was that porous these days

GM even admitted right in the conclusion statements of the paper that the results from the study would not be replicated in "normal" operation of a vehicle. They knew that to bring the disparity of filtration effects out, they'd have to manipulate the conditions of the study in such an absurd manner that no "normal" maintenance schedule could be followed.

I concur that reducing particulate loading in the sump is a good thing. But there is also a limit where improving the cleanliness does not really generate a decent ROI for efforts. Once a system is "clean enough", making is significantly cleaner really does not do much for you. This is why we see engines with a million miles on them, but only had "normal" filters used.

Much of this misunderstanding comes from the ignorance of many regarding the size of soot early on in it's lifecycle, as well as the relationship of the OCI to the effects of filtration. What the GM filter study showed is that if you intend to never change oil, filtration is very important. What the study did not show is how filtration effects are muted by the duration of normal OCIs.

I loath this study ... not because it's a bad study, but because it's used by marketing folks to hook customers and trick them into thinking that ever more filtration is always necessary for your engine to be safe, and without it your engine is doomed.
 
That study from GM (SAE 881825) is a HALT, and as such, it leads many to conclusions that are not based in real life. It would be VERY useful to anyone whom never changed oil and only used "40um" filters are a baseline. Otherwise, it's grossly misleading to the uninformed. Here are some highlights from the study:
- they dumped the equivalent of 570k miles of particulate into the sump over the 8 hours of the test (hence - it's a HALT test)
- they never changed oil once - not one time! during each phase of the test; So any particulate matter smaller than the filter rating remained "forever" in the sump for that test cycle (Who does this???? who among us NEVER changes oil in 570k miles ?????????????)
- they only changed filters when the dP across the filter got to 20 psi (this ain't what happens in the real world)
- they used "40um" as the "baseline" (as if any normal engine filter was that porous these days

GM even admitted right in the conclusion statements of the paper that the results from the study would not be replicated in "normal" operation of a vehicle. They knew that to bring the disparity of filtration effects out, they'd have to manipulate the conditions of the study in such an absurd manner that no "normal" maintenance schedule could be followed.

I concur that reducing particulate loading in the sump is a good thing. But there is also a limit where improving the cleanliness does not really generate a decent ROI for efforts. Once a system is "clean enough", making is significantly cleaner really does not do much for you. This is why we see engines with a million miles on them, but only had "normal" filters used.

Much of this misunderstanding comes from the ignorance of many regarding the size of soot early on in it's lifecycle, as well as the relationship of the OCI to the effects of filtration. What the GM filter study showed is that if you intend to never change oil, filtration is very important. What the study did not show is how filtration effects are muted by the duration of normal OCIs.

I loath this study ... not because it's a bad study, but because it's used by marketing folks to hook customers and trick them into thinking that ever more filtration is always necessary for your engine to be safe, and without it your engine is doomed.
No test is perfect.
I like that you have read the SAE 881825 paper. Unless in the study they tracked a vehicle for it's entire life cycle and collected data, I certainly would argue that the statement (GM even admitted right in the conclusion statements of the paper that the results from the study would not be replicated in "normal" operation of a vehicle) should absolutely be included, so I agree with you. That being said, filtration is good a thing. Is their a point where it is overkill for a specific application, yes but we do not know what that is in this case. Will an engine run on a 40um(c) filter yes, and there are plenty of people using them today. Will said engines run for a long time, some will. Is there a greater probability of an engine running longer with a better filter, most data points in this direction.
I do not have an opinion on the GM studies accuracy. I think of it as just another indicator that better filtration is a good idea.
 
Blackstone uses ISO 4406. It's the number of particles in a mL volume.

The 4406 is for categorizing different cleanliness levels from the reading on the particle counter. Both the 4402, 11171, can both be categorized in counts/mL using each calibration standard. You would get different 4406 results for each (4402, 11171). I know the 4402 is discontinued, but I get sent filter drawings now and then form companies that spec the old 4402 on it :-( it is a tuff conversation.
The 4406 was just updated, and I do not have it, perhaps it has an addition that clarifies all this.
It was just an observation, would all be settled with a quick phone call to Blackstone.
 
Back
Top