dnewton3
Staff member
Typical BITOG responses .... Start making comparisons and contrasts without knowing the intended appliation.
OP - what is your specific application? Do you have a known sludger engine? Did you buy the vehicles used in unknown or poor condition? Or, is everything in your garage tip-top shape? Until we know this, the debate is moot.
There are some examples here where "normal" filter would protect WELL past where most fear to tread, and performed well, despite all the rhetoric to the contrary.
I will fully agree that a $2 price differential is nearly moot in your wallet, if you'll all agree than all these top-tier filter converstaions are completely meaningless for "normal" applications.
The debate on efficiency is silly when there is no credible data establishing that minor shifts in efficiency mean anything whatsover. There is NO CREDIBLE PROOF yet to be shown where any SAE study or reliable article has shown efficiency matters past a minimal point. Once a level of filtration is made to be good enough, then achieving "more" has a VERY diminished (if not non-existent) effect in wear reduction. And looking at anecdotal evidence such as Honda and Toyota engines with their own branded filters shows that engine longevity is not directly manipulated by the efficiency above perhaps 80% or so. Whether you use a 95% or 99% filter at 20um will have ZERO bearing on the reasonable life expectancy of your engine in your O/FCI plan is typicall of most folks. And I again throw down the gauntlet and challenge ANY of you to PROVE that my claims are false. Being and SAE member, I've searched high and low, and cannot find that credible link. Having over 10,000 UOAs in my database, I cannot find a causational relationship. But by all means, go ahead and believe otherwise. Suck down that marketing cool-aide.
The conversation about capacity is stupid when probably 75% or more of that capacity goes unused in any normal application. Purchasing a filter that hold 25 grams versus one that holds 20 grams is ridiculous when your expected OCI may only generate 5-7 grams of loading. This is akin to standing in the WallyWorld aisle arguing about a 10 qrt or 12 qrt drain/catch pan, when your engine only holds 5 qrts. Is it really one's contention that having "more" capacity is important, when the "normal" filter is already over-capacitized for the expected application?
In short:
Why debate stuff about efficiency where no proof exists that it means diddly squat after some minimum threashold is acheived?
Why pretend that high-capacity filters have meaningful contribution when average normal filters hold way more than the typical OCI would ever present?
I'd have more respect for some of you if you simply said this:
"I want to buy top-tier products because it makes me feel good, and I know that my money is wasted, but I enjoy it."
Hard for me to argue about that statement. It's an emotional acknowledgement that facts don't matter. Fine by me.
BTW - Nick1994 - I find it hard to believe you "searched" and could not find this topic.
The filter efficiency claims already exist on the Fram and Wix sites.
The filter efficiency debate has been covered here ad nauseum.
OP - what is your specific application? Do you have a known sludger engine? Did you buy the vehicles used in unknown or poor condition? Or, is everything in your garage tip-top shape? Until we know this, the debate is moot.
There are some examples here where "normal" filter would protect WELL past where most fear to tread, and performed well, despite all the rhetoric to the contrary.
I will fully agree that a $2 price differential is nearly moot in your wallet, if you'll all agree than all these top-tier filter converstaions are completely meaningless for "normal" applications.
The debate on efficiency is silly when there is no credible data establishing that minor shifts in efficiency mean anything whatsover. There is NO CREDIBLE PROOF yet to be shown where any SAE study or reliable article has shown efficiency matters past a minimal point. Once a level of filtration is made to be good enough, then achieving "more" has a VERY diminished (if not non-existent) effect in wear reduction. And looking at anecdotal evidence such as Honda and Toyota engines with their own branded filters shows that engine longevity is not directly manipulated by the efficiency above perhaps 80% or so. Whether you use a 95% or 99% filter at 20um will have ZERO bearing on the reasonable life expectancy of your engine in your O/FCI plan is typicall of most folks. And I again throw down the gauntlet and challenge ANY of you to PROVE that my claims are false. Being and SAE member, I've searched high and low, and cannot find that credible link. Having over 10,000 UOAs in my database, I cannot find a causational relationship. But by all means, go ahead and believe otherwise. Suck down that marketing cool-aide.
The conversation about capacity is stupid when probably 75% or more of that capacity goes unused in any normal application. Purchasing a filter that hold 25 grams versus one that holds 20 grams is ridiculous when your expected OCI may only generate 5-7 grams of loading. This is akin to standing in the WallyWorld aisle arguing about a 10 qrt or 12 qrt drain/catch pan, when your engine only holds 5 qrts. Is it really one's contention that having "more" capacity is important, when the "normal" filter is already over-capacitized for the expected application?
In short:
Why debate stuff about efficiency where no proof exists that it means diddly squat after some minimum threashold is acheived?
Why pretend that high-capacity filters have meaningful contribution when average normal filters hold way more than the typical OCI would ever present?
I'd have more respect for some of you if you simply said this:
"I want to buy top-tier products because it makes me feel good, and I know that my money is wasted, but I enjoy it."
Hard for me to argue about that statement. It's an emotional acknowledgement that facts don't matter. Fine by me.
BTW - Nick1994 - I find it hard to believe you "searched" and could not find this topic.
The filter efficiency claims already exist on the Fram and Wix sites.
The filter efficiency debate has been covered here ad nauseum.
Last edited:
