What makes Fram Ultra spin-on filters better?

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Is 20.0000000001 microns equal to 20.0000000000 microns? Or is it greater than?

Measuring a particle size to twelve significant figures would be a pretty neat trick.

The mind has an unlimited resolution.

Nah, just down to the Planck length

 

[Garak]

Fram could always say 20 microns plus or minus the Planck length.

 

[bullwinkle]

Originally Posted By: Motorking
Originally Posted By: bullwinkle
Originally Posted By: daman

I keep reading that Fram Ultras are the bees knees.
Royal Purple & the Wix XP/NAPA PLatinum are 2 more examples. Don't see those on eBay for 6/$25 though (like Ultras)!


Royal Purple and WIX XP/NAPA Platinum are not dual layer media and the efficiency is so low on the WIX made product it is not even published.
Jay-I appreciate your contributions here, and the questions you've answered-but the pictures in this thread show Wix XP & RP filters with TWO layers of media. I agree that the XP's efficiency isn't good (50% @ 20 microns by most reports), and I would (AND DO) use a Fram Ultra over those-but they sure appear to have wire backed two-layer synthetic media.
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3596996/all/%22High_end%22_oil_filte

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Is 20.0000000001 microns equal to 20.0000000000 microns? Or is it greater than?

Measuring a particle size to twelve significant figures would be a pretty neat trick.

The mind has an unlimited resolution.

I'm no expert, but the number 20 by itself means 20 with infinite zeros after the 20. So it's true the mind can think of infinity. But when it is 20 microns it becomes units. I believe the definition of meter itself is limited to some decimal place, I think it's ten places. So there are no exactly 20, at the number with infinite zeros, micron particles that exist. So the Fram > symbol is the correct way to state it, IMO. Because there is no equal to 20 particle. Anyway what it means in practice is it's the line on the graph that says 20 and the others say at 20 because of that. It was a very hard try by someone to discount the high efficiency Fram numbers, but it didn't work.

 

[ZeeOSix]

The graph I posted on page 4 pretty much tells the story of "xx% efficient for particles >yy microns".

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
The graph I posted on page 4 pretty much tells the story of "xx% efficient for particles >yy microns".


And just out of interest...what exactly does that graph mean in terms of engine life ?

after all, its the parameter (well that and lifetime cycle cost) through which these endeavours must be measured.

Absolute figures and graphs/charts only accepted other than statements of faith.

 

[Stewie]

Price and performance.

What else can you ask for!!!

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
The graph I posted on page 4 pretty much tells the story of "xx% efficient for particles >yy microns".


And just out of interest...what exactly does that graph mean in terms of engine life ?

after all, its the parameter (well that and lifetime cycle cost) through which these endeavours must be measured.

Absolute figures and graphs/charts only accepted other than statements of faith.


Running a high efficiency oil filter probably does more good than draining your oil hot.

Lots of info (probably even SAE papers) out there discussing engine wear vs particle size, so running a high efficiency filters probably does help reduce engine wear over the long run. It certainly doesn't hurt to run high efficiency filters unless you don't want to pay the extra cost. Keep in mind that some high efficiency filters are rated for 15K+ miles, so the ROI can be better than using a cheaper filter for a shorter distance. Will someone actually be able to tell the difference in the driver's seat if the engine wore a little bit more using low efficiency filter? ... who knows.

Personally I don't care about "lifetime cycle costs". Running an inefficient oil filter to save a couple of bucks is something I don't partake in, especially since I don't put tons of miles on my vehicles and usually only change oil & filter once a year.

 

[Shannow]

Probably, probably, probably, doesn't hurt, who knows...

Considering the burden of proof that you place on others, I'd like you to expound how many more miles the average owner WOULD get out of their engines using more efficient filters, rather than three probably's and a couple more statements of faith.

Yes, SAE papers supporting your mileage claims would help, now that you've offered that there are likely such.

As an engineer, not caring about "lifetime cost of ownership" means that you are treating the ride as a hobby or project, not rationally in an engineerings sense...

Spending an extra dollar for no benefit that you can measure and advise is clearly irrational in an engineering sense, isn't it ?

Changing the oil hot HAS benefits, and costs nothing whatsoever, and is considered best practice by a wide range of manufacturers.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Probably, probably, probably, doesn't hurt, who knows...

Considering the burden of proof that you place on others, I'd like you to expound how many more miles the average owner WOULD get out of their engines using more efficient filters, rather than three probably's and a couple more statements of faith.

Yes, SAE papers supporting your mileage claims would help, now that you've offered that there are likely such.


As soon as you dig up the proof that draining the sump cold reduces engine life. I'd bet there are more SAE papers on engine wear vs particle size and the use of high efficiency oil filters doing more good than papers about draining the sump hot vs cold does more good to reduce engine wear. I know you've been looking.

Originally Posted By: Shannow

As an engineer, not caring about "lifetime cost of ownership" means that you are treating the ride as a hobby or project, not rationally in an engineerings sense...

Spending an extra dollar for no benefit that you can measure and advise is clearly irrational in an engineering sense, isn't it ?

Changing the oil hot HAS benefits, and costs nothing whatsoever, and is considered best practice by a wide range of manufacturers.


Guess you have a different idea on what a real engineer is. It has nothing to do how they spend their money ... that's an economist or bean counter. People spend money on things that can't be measure all the time - who cares if it's a "hobby". I spent $500 for front and rear sub-frame braces & a strut tower brace that claim to improve the handling of my sports car. Should I not spend the money on that because I can't directly measure the improvements? Your just trying to get into some stupid kind of argument ... you must be bored or frustrated.

Anyone with any kind of engineering aptitude what so ever would realize that based on those engine wear vs particle size papers that keeping the oil as clean as possible is better than not. So nobody should have to "advise" anyone about using efficient oil filters.

Yeah, draining the sump when hot/warm is "best practice" ... and using high efficiency oil filters is also considered the same in my book.

 

[oil_film_movies]

ZeeOSix is right. More particles out is better. (Dropping the mike....)

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Probably, probably, probably, doesn't hurt, who knows...

Considering the burden of proof that you place on others, I'd like you to expound how many more miles the average owner WOULD get out of their engines using more efficient filters, rather than three probably's and a couple more statements of faith.

Yes, SAE papers supporting your mileage claims would help, now that you've offered that there are likely such.


Here's one of many SAE papers discussing engine wear vs oil filter efficiency. Bottom line is the better the filter efficiency, the less engine wear.
http://papers.sae.org/881825/

Here's many more SAE papers to choose from:
http://www.sae.org/search/?qt=engine+wear+vs+oil+filter+efficiency

Here's the search results for engine wear due to cold sump draining. NO relevant hits. You can try all kinds of alternate applicable search phrases and still no hits. Have at it.
http://www.sae.org/search/?qt=engine+wear+vs+cold+sump+draining
http://www.sae.org/search/?qt=cold+vs+hot+oil+sump+drain
http://www.sae.org/search/?qt=oil+sump+temperature+at+drain+interval
http://www.sae.org/search/?qt=benifit+of+hot+oil+drain

 

[Shannow]

OK, I'll type very very slowly...how much longer will a BITOGER's car last following your advice ?

That's the burden of proof that you expect, so off you go...

especially considering that 50 grammes of fine dust introduced to a sump is scarcely "normal" operation for even a reasonably maintained vehicle (the discount that you use against varnish and soot, remember).

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
OK, I'll type very very slowly...how much longer will a BITOGER's car last following your advice ?

That's the burden of proof that you expect, so off you go...

especially considering that 50 grammes of fine dust introduced to a sump is scarcely "normal" operation for even a reasonably maintained vehicle (the discount that you use against varnish and soot, remember).


Sorry man ... you'll never find that information, just like you'll never find how much longer an engine will last if you never drain the sump cold. But as an engineer, wouldn't you agree that proof showing less crud in the oil causes much less engine wear is a good thing?

You're off in the weeds again grasping at straws to continue an argument in typical Shannow style.

Now at least fine ONE SAE paper that says draining the sump cold is detrimental to the engine ... that's not really too much to ask.

 

[goodtimes]

A better test of a filters ability to filter, IMO, would be to add one gram of test dust every 17 hours until 170 hours or 10 grams of dust is added, which equals about 10k of average highway use. Do a particle exam on the whole oil sample every 17 hours. Who knows, such a test might have surprise winners and losers. It all leads to slow but good bypass filters if someone wants the most particle free oil I would say. There is a whole bypass forum just dedicated to this.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
A better test of a filters ability to filter, IMO, would be to add one gram of test dust every 17 hours until 170 hours or 10 grams of dust is added, which equals about 10k of average highway use. Do a particle exam on the whole oil sample every 17 hours. Who knows, such a test might have surprise winners and losers. It all leads to slow but good bypass filters if someone wants the most particle free oil I would say. There is a whole bypass forum just dedicated to this.


Go read those dozens of SAE papers I liked to about engine wear vs filter efficiency and you might see a test like that.

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
A better test of a filters ability to filter, IMO, would be to add one gram of test dust every 17 hours until 170 hours or 10 grams of dust is added, which equals about 10k of average highway use. Do a particle exam on the whole oil sample every 17 hours. Who knows, such a test might have surprise winners and losers. It all leads to slow but good bypass filters if someone wants the most particle free oil I would say. There is a whole bypass forum just dedicated to this.


Go read those dozens of SAE papers I liked to about engine wear vs filter efficiency and you might see a test like that.


You go read first. Here is the second one I glanced at. The first was from 1965. Seems to say use a bypass filter along with a full flow for less bearing wear. Maybe you need to get the bypass filter for your Tacoma. You have the room. Get a Frantz. It's like evolution.

http://papers.sae.org/931941/

 

[ZeeOSix]

^^^ I've read quite a few of them, and they all basically conclude the same thing. IMO, the Ultra is just fine for my Tacoma.

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
^^^ I've read quite a few of them, and they all basically conclude the same thing. IMO, the Ultra is just fine for my Tacoma.

Not the one I linked, that one says you need a bypass filter to keep it from wearing more quickly.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
^^^ I've read quite a few of them, and they all basically conclude the same thing. IMO, the Ultra is just fine for my Tacoma.

Not the one I linked, that one says you need a bypass filter to keep it from wearing more quickly.


You know that's the next level above a regular high efficiency filter. Yeah, there are some guys who are even more nuts about filter efficiency than me or you. Although you went for a MicroGreen with is supposedly a step in that direction.