Wear vs. oil-filter efficiency: SAE/Amsoil paper

[ltslimjim]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
My logic is cleaner oil is better. UOA particle count data shows that higher efficiency oil filters result in cleaner oil (ie, a better ISO 4406 cleanness code). It's been mentioned that there's a correlation between cleaner oil and lower wear particle counts in UOA. Should be pretty easy to see that a 99% @ 20 micron oil filter will keep the oil much cleaner than a 50% @ 20 micron filter, and that's been evident in the discussions in this thread.


I agree. This is basically where my mentality is on this as well, despite not having the kind of data points on demand more guru types have like yourselves. When I observed the ongoing thread of the repaired HG on the '93 Civic having a bypass system and performing such extended OCIs with ease I was convinced: Cleaner oil = major advantage.

Unfortunately, you won't get a FF oil filter to perform as well since its not designed to filter down the oil as well, but these well made 99% or so efficiency 20-25micron; or so, extended filters like Royal Purple, Amsoil, Fram Ultra, Mobil1 EP (not sure of the newer model M1s?) are about as good as it gets.

Ultra for the value is obviously why it's a favorite on BITOG these days with the fall of the Purolator P1 being a previous champion.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: ltslimjim
Ultra for the value is obviously why it's a favorite on BITOG these days with the fall of the Purolator P1 being a previous champion.

The P1 and Bosch Premium still would be champions, on an efficiency and features versus cost criteria, if the media could keep it together.

 

[ltslimjim]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: ltslimjim
Ultra for the value is obviously why it's a favorite on BITOG these days with the fall of the Purolator P1 being a previous champion.

The P1 and Bosch Premium still would be champions, on an efficiency and features versus cost criteria, if the media could keep it together.


True.

 

[Garak]

Yes, it was quite hard to beat their efficiency numbers and a silicone ADBV for $5 per copy for my G37. You don't even have to market aggressively when you're offering that! It does show how quickly a quality product can be ruined, though.

 

[merconvvv]

Originally Posted By: Shannow


Just so people get the gist of what's being spoken about, here's the "analysis" of the Crown Vic's oil "in the field" that formed the basis of the "longer drains are better" paper...

Not that for each mileage, according to the paper they changed the oil, then ran the test ,ileage....they don't mention that they rebuilt the engines, which would be a fairly serious omission, but we HAVE to accept that as fact of course.

The most damaged oils (per the paper, the oils with the most partially reacted AW species) produced tribofilms on test pieces faster and better.



It appears that the authors of the paper should have randomized the runs for the results to have any meaning. Even without true randomization engine A could have the first oil drain at 3k and engine B could have first oil drained at 7.5k and engine C could have first drain at 15k.
At the very least they they could have done a couple more runs after the 15k run. That would be a couple of 3k run to close out their tables. Ofcourse true randomization wud have been easy and ideal.