The primary use is determinig just how much rpm your oil can withstand before losing the thin film of lubricant. Once oil films rip apart (thats what it looks like under magnification, just like a sheet pulling apart from overstretching) catastropic failure occurs very quickly unless the pressure is substantially reduced. And its very indicative.

 

Yes, but it makes no allowance for heat and combustion by-products, which can alter outcomes. This is why there is an entire battery of tests to determine if an oil meets an API, ACEA, or ILSAC standard, not just one.

 

There is enormous heat developed. At the end there will be burning lubricant. All other ASTM tests I can remember are physical tests, not performance, such as viscosity, density, analyses, and spectographic.

 

The 4-ball test (it uses 3 balls) is designed specifically for extreme pressure/anti-wear testing. It's best use would be for greases. Like the Timken wear test, it can show stellar results from crappy oils as long as they have large amounts of anti-wear additives. It is not and never was meant to simulate an engine environment. Feel free to dig into this.

But we're getting off track. I don't disagree synth lubes are excellent. They certainly are. But base oil is not the end of things. Motor oils are a cocktail of various bases and additives. Especially in the mass market synth and convention end of things. There's essentially no real line between many of these anymore.

 

The Motorcraft Semi syn 5w-20 is just a tad more and is better quality then the 100% syn wally world oil. Runs around $13.00/5 qt's I have tested it. With how I drive my OCI is 70000 to 10000 to 15% on the MM. UOA looks very good.
I have 12 jugs of this oil on the shelf now.

 

Absolutely correct but the friction test is used to test oils aswell. Provides excellent initial evaluation of oil blends.

 

Actually it is used with quite hot preheated bals and with oils removed from test engines. That test is very good for initial evaluation.

 

You may note those are blends of synthetic and conventional oils. Though I have no test expeience with blends I suspect the conventional part will go as quickly as ever and thus not much of an advantage, except to Marketing. BTW, did you run dyno tests? any other tests to see if its 'better' ? Ah, yes price. Perhaps you get what you paid for.

 

This is from my personal experience - I got a DC2 before I got the Fit, I used the filter which were meant for DC2 - I believe it's HAMP on the Fit. Strangely I could feel the difference between the Honda OEM and HAMP - which is OEM for Honda in Japan. Difference: The accelerating pedal felt heavier when I was on the filter which was meant for DC2. Not sure why? Any?

Back to the topic, Mobil 1 filter looks really good I must say. Is the filter one size fit all car?

 

This review is only a description of construction as observed by a consumer (as opposed to a designer/engineer)...

No strong arguments can be made about the "quality" or any differences in oil filtration performance or effects of design differences.

Look at the original poster's sentence: "Sturdy metal center tubes are critically important to resist crushing, and both filters have them. Bypass valves are critically important to maintain uninterrupted start-up and high RPM oil flow, and both filters have the high quality spring type."

He says something is "critically important"... and how would he know what is critically important???

When we are looking at oil filters that are parts of complex machinery (engine) we can have absolutely no idea of the actual objective parameters of engine/filter performance. Because most of us are not ENGINEERS.

It's like aborigines in Australia who live a hunter-gatherer life style, were to look at the mother board of two different laptops... Then they would claim that one is of "better quality"... look how green it looks, how nicely microprocessors are assembled... and I like these blue diodes.... ! laptop A is so much superior to laptop B (and our shaman advertised it too) ...

I hope someone can get my point here.

 

What is your point ? because you aren't an engineer you don't need to learn from those of us who not only are but have many years experience designing and testing filters? His advice is good: sturdy innards to protect against filter elements collapsing under pressue, having enough filtrer area to last between filter changes, sturdy non=leak containers tested to at least 100 psig, filter media suffiently removing contaminants at pressures and flow rates anticipoated by the application?
Most well known brands have the engineering and materials needed to do a proper job but some, usually some off brand, do not. It might be interesting for you to take a removed filter and check its insides to see if its still doing a good job after 5000 miles. I've tested a couple from China that were junk. But cheap.

 

Can you cite your sources?

 

I know Mobil1 filter is good, My friend used them in his stock car racing oval tracks with no problems. The speed shop I know use Honda filters and haven't had any problems either. If they are good enough for race cars then in a Honda Fit they should be OK.

 

Genuinely curious..

What in mahout's quote is controversial?

 

Well, it's just a lot of people try to use their personal experience of not having an engine failed due to clearly filter problem, as the evidence for a filter being very good.

It's a fallacious logical claim. I didn't have a catastrophic failure with this filter, therefore it must be good. This is enough to conclude that this particular filter is sufficient for the job, but not enough to say that it's better than filter B that the other person is using who has also never had a catastrophic engine failure or other objective indicators of performance.

All of the factors can only be established in laboratory udner controlled conditions. And we never see THESE sources. Everything else is either blind speculation, or educated guesses. But very different from "Good and sound technical knowledge".

I found this article to be great... to expand those "educated" guesses. Engine Oil Filters

 

Quote like this requires citation of the sources if it was meant to be taken seriously... in my opinion.

 

Well, in my own anecdotal but educated observations, between big names like Wix, Fram, AMSoil, and various OE filters vs. Vatozone or fleaBay fodder there is a tangible difference in manufacturing between a nice filter and a cheap one when you take them apart.

Discerning beyond that which of two reputable filters is quantifiably "better" comes down to feed back, dissection and of course lab testing as you have pointed out.

The final factor than becomes opinion

Do you disagree that bargain filters are often of inferior, sometimes shoddy construction?

 

I don't know. Without objective information on their performance, construction, design, and materials used, it's not reliable to say that because they are cheaper, they are inferior.

Price is often determined by factors that have nothing to do with "quality, or as you said, inferiority".

Think of the 3 liter bottle of coca cola and its price per 12 ounce, even bought at a supermarket. Now think of a 12 ounce can of that same drink sold at a movie theater. The price could be 10 times different, but is the quality different. Even if both bought as cans...

I can easily imagine the filters (like batteries) being manufactured by a hand full of manufacturers that monopolized the process thereby bringing the net cost of production down so much as to make other manufacturers uncompetitive and unable to make profit. The manufacturers themselves rarely market and sell their products, and for other reasons, so the auto parts retails chains began to order generic filters and labeling them as their own brand. Obviously prices will be different again for different reasons (volumes of sales, cost of storage, taxes, profit margin, profit objective, brand recognition, etc)... while the "quality" is the same to begin with...

Sorry for a long answer to your question:

 

Sure, but they are in notebooks in two companies, neither of which anyone has a right to.
Whats your sources? Or do you think ignorance is a positive attribute?

 

They are very different.

Each container type and how it is served changes the ratio of cola vs water and in some cases (fountain drinks), syrup vs carbonated water.

Most people don't notice it, nor care to.

At the simplest level, a can of coke is more expensive than a bottle of coke (per oz). But then, a can or bottle of 7-up or RC cola are are cheaper still.

Your analogy is more of buying bulk verses smaller sets verses buying from shops known to be generally more expensive, but still the same expected item... coke.

But DSM is talking about different products, not sellers or quantity of an item. 7-up, RC cola and a few other colas are ALWAYS cheaper than Coca Cola or Pepsi, no matter where you go. Filters, like cola... people buy what they want. They have their perceptions about quality and know the price and judge what is worth it to them. If I can buy Pepsi, I will always choose it over Coke.