Good idea to change oil filter every 5000 miles

Status
Not open for further replies.
I find this 15k and 20k thing to be tiring for these reasons:
1. Most oil companies still don't or did not start the miles claims like Amsoil and Mobil
2. The average age of cars in US is what ? Over a decade - man, is that a bunch out of warranty- but such an easy prop to mention warranty disclaimer - that is standard business practice for deep pocket companies in lawyer rich countries
3. Many folks bought 15k oil and drained between 5k and 10k - but you constantly hear the 5k incremental debate
4. M1 AP in particular still has a price point issue and both internal and external competition (like why did Walmart drop EP price concurrently with putting overpriced oil on the shelf)
5. Those so proud they run past manufacturing, formulators, and OEM numbers will always be in the minority - yet are always in judgment of those who place some trust of the good companies that have stood the test of time - too much of this is sport
 
Most folks know I do extended OFCIs.

I realize it's a risk, but nothing I own currently has an OEM warranty in play, so that isn't a consideration in the first place.

The only "risk" I have is voiding the aftermarket product warranty; that of the oil and filter.

BUT - the only time those would even come into consideration is if the product (oil or filter) were reasonably suspected to be the culprit in a sooner-rather-than-later failure. Since I find that situation essentially so remote as to be described as "improbable", then those warranties are pretty much moot to me. Rarely, I have had equipment fail at some point in a life-cycle, and not once have I ever suspected the oil or filter was at fault. So, while I do admit there is a risk to my behavior, it's essentially moot to me; I don't expect to ever have to make a claim against them anyway.

Whereas a lube might not be blended entirely "correct" to it's build sheet, it's likely that it may be a tad off in vis, or be a bit shy in Mg or Ca or something like that. The lube isn't going to make my engine seize in the first 5 minutes probably. The engine/tranny/diff will be "OK", but maybe not protected to the highest level desired. If it does fail due to a horridly bad product mix, it would happen sooner, and the mileage would not be high enough yet to exclude me from lube warranty coverage. It if takes a long time to cause issues, well it's likely that the damage curve is so faint that it will be an annoyance but not a catastrophe.

Same goes for the filter. Either it will cause immediate issues and I'll probably know it (such as media degrades and clogs lifters or such other malarkey), or it won't. If the damage is immediate, then the failure is going to be within the typical OCI coverage and the filter warranty will apply. If the failure mode it chronic and not acute, then the damage will happen over a distance outside of warranty, but also unlikely to be catastrophic and more so be gradual. While annoying, this isn't life altering. Say for example there is a media void that allows 50% unfiltered flow. That's not good, but it's not horrid. After all, there are engines still made today that have only splash lubrication and no filter whatsoever. Admittedly those are not expensive or high use items, but let's not act as if filters are a necessity to acute care in one OCI. Filters ensure a LONGER life cycle, but skipping out of the full protection in one cycle won't cause imminent death to the equipment. Do you teeth rot and fall out when you skip a few toothbrush cycles? Do your plants die if you forget to water them for one day or two? Your engine will NOT die simply because of a media void. It's not good; it's not desirable. I get that. But it's not a death sentence. And therefore, because I don't dissect filters all the time, I will likely never know if it's happened or not. For all I know, it's happened to me several times; how would I know any different? But, my long term history and data bank of macro UOAs can tell me that my equipment is fine. One of two following concepts MUST be a truism:
a) all products I use must be going a good job
b) some of the products I use may have failed
But either way, if my UOAs show good wear rates, it's really moot. Either the products are fine, or they failed and the failure mode resulted in minimal degradation anyway.



If you have an OEM warranty in place, I will always recommend that you follow it. Mostly because the aftermarket products are going to defer to the OEM warranty and schedule in the first place. They won't give you special considerations for using a super-duper filter or a golden-boy synthetic. The written limited warranties essentially make you follow the OEM schedules, and they don't distinguish between product tiers.

Once you're past the OEM warranty, it's open range. If you want to have the aftermarket products cover you, then you're still stuck with OEM limits, because the aftermarket warranties do not recognize alternate maintenance schedules, nor do they recognize the tiers of products (such as EG, TG, FU). All tiers of products in a manufacturer's oil/filter range are treated to the same warranty limits, and that warranty most always defers to the OEM cycles.


- if the failure (regardless of how remote it might be) happens soon in the OFCI, I'm covered under the product warranty
- if the failure happens at a long distance into an extended OFCI, then it's probably an annoyance and not a catastrophe and won't irreparably harm my equipment anyway
I recognize the risks and am willing to assume the responsibility.






side note: it's fair to acknowledge that unique products such as some Amsoil lubes and filters do allow for non-OEM life-cycles, but they also have their own special considerations such as alternate limits and/or UOAs, etc. But that's not really the topic of the OPs thread here so I just wanted to state the obvious before I get blasted by a "yabut" (yeah, but ....) comment.



.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dareo
Honda says to change filter every other oil change on many of its vehicles. Its a small filter too. OLM indicates changes around 5000-7000 miles.

A filter does actually filter better with some particles in it. When it gets too full and goes into bypass is the scary part.


Kind of reminds me of washing your clothes in dirty water.
 
Originally Posted By: JohnnyJohnson
Originally Posted By: dareo
Honda says to change filter every other oil change on many of its vehicles. Its a small filter too. OLM indicates changes around 5000-7000 miles.

A filter does actually filter better with some particles in it. When it gets too full and goes into bypass is the scary part.


Kind of reminds me of washing your clothes in dirty water.

Not really. With many of todays filters holding less than 1/4 qt, that oil is well diluted when fresh oil is added, and the oil filter itself gets more efficient over time.
 
Originally Posted By: JohnnyJohnson
Originally Posted By: dareo
Honda says to change filter every other oil change on many of its vehicles. Its a small filter too. OLM indicates changes around 5000-7000 miles.

A filter does actually filter better with some particles in it. When it gets too full and goes into bypass is the scary part.


Kind of reminds me of washing your clothes in dirty water.
Only if you're using your clothes to try to get the water clean...
 
Originally Posted By: blupupher
Originally Posted By: JohnnyJohnson
Originally Posted By: dareo
Honda says to change filter every other oil change on many of its vehicles. Its a small filter too. OLM indicates changes around 5000-7000 miles.

A filter does actually filter better with some particles in it. When it gets too full and goes into bypass is the scary part.


Kind of reminds me of washing your clothes in dirty water.

Not really. With many of todays filters holding less than 1/4 qt, that oil is well diluted when fresh oil is added, and the oil filter itself gets more efficient over time.


Then why do we ever change them?
 
Originally Posted By: blupupher
Originally Posted By: JohnnyJohnson
Originally Posted By: dareo
Honda says to change filter every other oil change on many of its vehicles. Its a small filter too. OLM indicates changes around 5000-7000 miles.

A filter does actually filter better with some particles in it. When it gets too full and goes into bypass is the scary part.


Kind of reminds me of washing your clothes in dirty water.

Not really. With many of todays filters holding less than 1/4 qt, that oil is well diluted when fresh oil is added, and the oil filter itself gets more efficient over time.


The multi pass efficiency test doesn't show oil filters get more efficient as they are used, according to past posts here. Oil is not air, it's dense. As a filter clogs the pressure drop increases, which causes more particles to be pushed through than at a lower pressure drop. Density and flow make a big difference. Like water breaking apart an obstacle in a river. Or a tsunami wiping away buildings.
 
When I first joined bitog one of the first topics was oil filters becoming more efficient with use. I didn't believe it at the time, but over time came to accept it. Seemed logical.

However, recently on the AF sub forum member edhackett posted a link (below) to a study that indicates, unlike air filters which do become more efficient with use, oil filters do not. The study would appear to correlate with info Z06 got from an engineer at Purolator. Based on the study I no longer believe oil filters become more efficient with use.

That said, I have no reservations about running a filter 2 oci's under some circumstances. Especially in well maintained engines. In fact doing it now with Napa Gold and have done it with an Ultra and a BD+ to ~13-14k miles total.

Oil Filter Efficiency Study.
 
Originally Posted By: Sayjac
However, recently on the AF sub forum member edhackett posted a link (below) to a study that indicates, unlike air filters which do become more efficient with use, oil filters do not. The study would appear to correlate with info Z06 got from an engineer at Purolator. Based on the study I no longer believe oil filters become more efficient with use.


Yep, Purolator told me the efficiency vs loading curve is kind of "hockey stick" shaped, which you can see in this snip-it from the link Sayjac gave above. The efficiency only goes up when the filter is basically fully clogged up. Not good to run a filter that loaded because it means the bypass valve can open.

 
^^^Yep and as it's a partial Mann&Hummel study perhaps where the Puro engineer got his info.

There is another factor though and why I'm not concerned about running a filter 2 ocis, and that's 'holding capacity'.

As another member Jim Allen in information from a filter engineer posted HERE stated "...the average filter at the average car is less than 50% loaded when removed...". He added doesn't apply to everyone but if one keeps other inputs under control (mainly good air filter) then most fit at or below average. I'm thinking most bitog members/readers below the average.

So in a well maintained engine running a quality filter 2 ocis not an issue.
 
User UncleDave ran filters out to tens of thousands of miles, performing particle counts along the way.

His results showed there was a substantial increase in efficiency.

IIRC with Fram Ultras, the benefit of not changing your filter in terms of substantially reduced particle counts, kicked in at 20,000 miles and continued to about 40,000 miles.

I don't think you'd want to do this with a cellulose or blended media. Full synthetic media would be the way to go.
 
Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
User UncleDave ran filters out to tens of thousands of miles, performing particle counts along the way.

His results showed there was a substantial increase in efficiency.

IIRC with Fram Ultras, the benefit of not changing your filter in terms of substantially reduced particle counts, kicked in at 20,000 miles and continued to about 40,000 miles.

I don't think you'd want to do this with a cellulose or blended media. Full synthetic media would be the way to go.


It sounds like some of you guys would like to buy some of efficiency tuned filters how much are you offering?
 
**Now that the Fram Ultra is rated for 20K miles - will you change your routine ?
Originally Posted By: Tony10s
Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
2 OCI's and 15K miles for me.

This is what I plan to do next with a FRAM Ultra.
 
Originally Posted By: Sayjac
"...the average filter at the average car is less than 50% loaded when removed...". He added doesn't apply to everyone but if one keeps other inputs under control (mainly good air filter) then most fit at or below average. I'm thinking most bitog members/readers below the average.

So in a well maintained engine running a quality filter 2 ocis not an issue.
Obviously. How far would a well-maintained healthy engine have to run to clog the oil filter as badly as the ones in that test with the "hockey-stick" curves were (artificially) clogged? Several times the manufacturer's recommended filter change interval, I'd bet.
 
Originally Posted By: ChrisD46
**Now that the Fram Ultra is rated for 20K miles - will you change your routine ?
Originally Posted By: Tony10s
Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
2 OCI's and 15K miles for me.

This is what I plan to do next with a FRAM Ultra.


Not when the routine is 7.5K OCI's. Then a 3rd OCI would place the Ultra at 22.5K, beyond the outer box-listed service number of 20K.
 
Originally Posted By: Triple_Se7en
Originally Posted By: ChrisD46
**Now that the Fram Ultra is rated for 20K miles - will you change your routine ?
Originally Posted By: Tony10s
Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
2 OCI's and 15K miles for me.

This is what I plan to do next with a FRAM Ultra.


Not when the routine is 7.5K OCI's. Then a 3rd OCI would place the Ultra at 22.5K, beyond the outer box-listed service number of 20K.


The "service limit" for an Ultra is not 20k miles.
It is whatever your OEM FCI is listed as.
Which might be an FCI with every OCI. Or some have an FCI as 2x the OCI; situation dependent.
But the filter limit is NOT what the box says; that's marketing manure.
READ THE WRITTEN LIMITED WARRANTY, and the last few pages of this thread.
 
Last edited:
Regarding this:
Oil Filter Efficiency Study.

I find it interesting, but it raises more questions than it answers. I do note that it appears to me as just a fancied ALT; they manipulate many things in the lab to get a result they wanted to see. It does not relate directly to reality IMO. Especially when they have to add "ghost" particles to induce a capture-rate scenario. I am not saying the data is bad. I'm just saying it's data that was a result of manipulating processes in order to exhibit what they wanted to see. It's done all the time in all manner of experiments. But that does not mean it really is a real-world answer to what BITOGers should care about.

And, it flies in the face of SAE 902238 (the bus filter study we've previously discussed ad-nauseam). This study clearly showed that particle reduction via filtration was echoed in UOAs by tracking Fe. And there are a tens-of-thousands of UOAs that clearly show wear-rates trend DOWNWARD as the OCI matures (as the filter and lube are used longer). Not the least of which is exhibited in my data with over 12,000 UOAs.

So what we have now is a conundrum ... The German filter study says that filtration gets worse with time; particle counts are going UP. But the bus-study shows that Fe particles track directly with overall particle counts; Fe data that shows wear rates drop as the OFCI matures, which means particle counts are going DOWN. Guys and Gals - the concepts of these filter studies all cannot be true at the same time. What we have here is one filter study in direct contradiction of another filter study. One says filters get less efficient as they mature; the other shows the opposite. This is why I am very cautious to place faith in "lab" studies. I triple-dog dare you to try and reconcile these two fundamentally opposed filter studies! Every BITOG head should be exploding (maybe imploding?) because you cannot believe both of these filter studies to be true at the same time.


Here's what I know to be unequivocally, indisputably true:
REAL-WORLD WEAR-DATA from all across the North American continent, including uses of all conceivable applications, in every likely variation of severity, shows that wear rates are not getting worse as the OFCI matures. Wear-rates actually get "better" with age (limits acknowledged far past the BITOG fear factor). The how/why of which I find myself caring less and less about every time we discuss it.
I care about OUTPUTS, not inputs. Real-world wear-trend data, from your garage and mine and everyone elses, shows that using lubes and filters for extended OFCIs is safe and effective; it reduces wear AND reduces costs. The method of magic that induces this phenomenon is of no consequence to me. It works, and I accept it for what it is.

There is an excellent quality RCA (root cause analysis) program called "Shainin Red-X". It teaches how to discern the main contributors, ancillary contributors, and non-contributors in causation analysis. I highly recommend taking it.



Psssssttttt .... TBC; that's all I'm saying.
 
Originally Posted By: SilverSnake
I change the filter AND oil every 5,000 miles or six months.


Yep my Toyota warranty says 5000 miles. The weather says nice days in September and April.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top