dnewton3
Staff member
I have read several posts about micron ratings, and I understand the Beta ratio concept decently. What I wanted to post for converstaion was this question: can you draw a reasonable correlation between the beta rating of any particular filter in use, and the UOA it would be associated with?
I offer this for consideration. I like to think that upper end products are worth the expense, if used in an monetarily responsible manner. In other words, synthetic oil and premium filters with EXTENDED OCI's and oil analysis can net big savings, especially in large lube capacity systems. But in economy enviorments, where low milage exists compared to a time line (say 10,000 miles maximum in a year) you might be better with a value based oil and filter.
My experience is this. I occasionally drive a 97 Taurus with the 3.0 Vulcan pushrod engine. I have a couple of Blackstone reports that show my oils (whatever conventional oil is on sale) do quite well with a value filter (AAP - which is a bargin re-brand of a Purolator regular filter). Reports have shown very low insolubles (both less than .5%). All other wear characteristics are ok, too. I am mentally pre-programmed to an O/FCI at 5K, which is about twice a year.
I am wondering if going to a better filter is worth the extra cost, when my insolubles are so low anyway? Am I drawing an incorrect correlation conclusion between the micron rating and the insolubles? Or, are the two unrelated and this is just a coincidence? If a standard, in-expensive filter does this well, why would I spend more money for better filtration? Is the effect of capturing particulate matter of a specific size (beta rating) directly, in-directly, or not at all coincident with the insoluble findings in a Blackstone report?
Please help me understand.
I offer this for consideration. I like to think that upper end products are worth the expense, if used in an monetarily responsible manner. In other words, synthetic oil and premium filters with EXTENDED OCI's and oil analysis can net big savings, especially in large lube capacity systems. But in economy enviorments, where low milage exists compared to a time line (say 10,000 miles maximum in a year) you might be better with a value based oil and filter.
My experience is this. I occasionally drive a 97 Taurus with the 3.0 Vulcan pushrod engine. I have a couple of Blackstone reports that show my oils (whatever conventional oil is on sale) do quite well with a value filter (AAP - which is a bargin re-brand of a Purolator regular filter). Reports have shown very low insolubles (both less than .5%). All other wear characteristics are ok, too. I am mentally pre-programmed to an O/FCI at 5K, which is about twice a year.
I am wondering if going to a better filter is worth the extra cost, when my insolubles are so low anyway? Am I drawing an incorrect correlation conclusion between the micron rating and the insolubles? Or, are the two unrelated and this is just a coincidence? If a standard, in-expensive filter does this well, why would I spend more money for better filtration? Is the effect of capturing particulate matter of a specific size (beta rating) directly, in-directly, or not at all coincident with the insoluble findings in a Blackstone report?
Please help me understand.
