Oil Analysis Is Back

C & A s Dad · October 12, 2007

Many of you may remember that I added a TrueFlow intake system to my Yuk XL about 2 years ago. Their system retains the OE airbox but uses a less restrictive tube and an oiled foam filter. Their claim is that the foam filter does a better job filtering dirt than a paper filter or a oiled gauze filter like K & N all while offering more efficient flow.

I had done 2 oil analysis while the Foam filter was being used and was not satisfied with the Silicone (dirt) content of 23 and 25 PPM even though my lab said this was 1/2 of the caution level of 50 PPM for a gas burner. I decided to remove the foam filter and run a CARQUEST (Wix) premium paper filter for the next period and have another test done.

My analysis just came back and the Silicone is 15PPM. A 40% drop in the silicone level. The analyst said it would likely come down further with the next change as the silicone in the engine is further reduced. The analysis was run on the same brand oil, same brand oil filter, the same 6 month period and within 200 miles of the last analysis.

Now I have a decision to make. The MPG also dropped about 1 to 1.5 mpg with the paper filter. Do I accept the higher slicone levels to pick up the MPG or stay with the paper filter and the lower silicone levels. I have always said I would not accept more dirt in my engine to pick up MPG.

I plan to contact TrueFlow and see what they have to say concerning the analysis results.

Disclaimer: I realize this testing is not scientific and there are several factors that could affect this. However, with the reduction of silicone levels by 40 %, I feel there is a measurable difference even with some variables in place.

cmoore74 · October 12, 2007

Trey,

The way I look at filters (and I am by no means an expert) is there are two ways you can increase airflow through the filter itself (or in other words reduce restriction):

1) decrease the density of the filter media (gauze is a good example of this) to allow more air to pass through

2) increase the surface area with comparable media

IMO any filter that increases airflow for a given size does so at the expense of filtration.

This is why I decided to go with the AEM Brute Force which has a dry-flow filter. They claim 99.4% filtration efficiency for fine dust "based on independant laboratory testing". If this is true I think this is about the same efficiency as paper, but due to it being a cone filter the surface area is increased relative to a panel filter and that's how the reduced restriction is achieved.

Anyhow that's my thought process.

Here's a good test of various filter efficiencies:

http://duramax-diesel.com/spicer/index.htm

Here's the lab test of the AEM dry flow filter:

http://www.aempower.com/files/dryflow/SWRI...wandcleaned.pdf

I may, out of curiosity, get a used oil analysis one of these days. If I ever due I'll try to remember to share the results of the silica levels. I guess basically I'm also relying on the claims of the filter company, in my case AEM.

Zembonez · October 12, 2007

Seems like just using either one would keep your truck healthy for its lifetime.

.000025 silicon content compared to .000014. And THAT is suspended (insulated) from contact by the viscosity of the oil. Pretty finely split hairs there. That and the fact that Silica is also coming in via fuel supply. It may be filtered but... Keep in mind air isn't the only thing in the mixture.

Results can be hard to ignore. Sure there are less parts per million. I guess the thing that really makes me scratch my head is that it would likely take 500,000 miles to see any measurable difference at those levels. Sure, it is a little better but what to do... and why?

Nytemare · October 12, 2007

Nice way of putting it in perspective Jim.

Zembonez · October 12, 2007

Nice way of putting it in perspective Jim.

Thanks.

I wasn't knocking anything Trey had to say... just seems like both are pretty darn good filters with those results!

C & A s Dad · October 13, 2007

Jim, I would tend to agree with you. You are correct in saying that it would take hundreds of thousands of miles for this small difference to cause any harm at all and really never thought about silica being introduced into the engine through the fuel. I would be curious as to how these TF test results would compare to an oiled gauze filter. I say this becuase in TF's video showing their testing, their filter showed to stop significantly more dirt than the gauze. Of course, they showed to stop slightly lmore dirt than the paper and according to my results, this is not true.

I am sure I am going to put the TF foam filter back in. Considering we put less than 6,000 miles a year on the truck, I do not think I would ever see any harm from this small of an increase in silica.

I would like to know what "the norm" is for silica levels if anyone would be willing to post their numbers from an oil analysis??? All my lab will say it that my levels are fine and they do not even look at them on a gas engine until they hit 50 PPM.

Zembonez · October 13, 2007

I would like to know what "the norm" is for silica levels if anyone would be willing to post their numbers from an oil analysis??? All my lab will say it that my levels are fine and they do not even look at them on a gas engine until they hit 50 PPM.

Im with you 100% on the "having the best filtration I can" bandwagon. I want my truck to last.

I believe some of the silica would be coming in through the fuel. Think about it. Microscopic particles of dirt have to be floating around in the fuel as well as the air we intake. A filter is only so good... so some of it has to pass through. I'd like to know how much gets by.

I'll send out a sample of mine running the K&N and Mobile One to see what we have. I'd love to see how it stacks up. Who are you using for your Analysis? I think I should use the same folks for control purposes. I'll PM ya when it comes back and maybe we can post the results.(plus anybody else's)

Might be a couple of months before I hit my 5000 mile oil change though.

Wingnut · October 13, 2007

Im with you 100% on the "having the best filtration I can" bandwagon. I want my truck to last.

Whatever dude...You and I both know you get rid of them before they hit 100k miles.

Zembonez · October 13, 2007

Im with you 100% on the "having the best filtration I can" bandwagon. I want my truck to last.

Whatever dude...You and I both know you get rid of them before they hit 100k miles.

HA!

That's long lasting in my book!

Had Fred the longest I ever owned one but didn't quite hit the 100K mark.

C & A s Dad · October 13, 2007

Jim, I use an analysis kit from CARQUEST which is really a Wix Filter analysis. The kit is an 89077 and it comes with a collection bottle and a outer bottle to ship it in along with instructions and the info sheet. Wix subs this out to some lab in GA. I cannot remeber the name but it begins with an S. I will have to look up the name. The reports come back to us with CARQUEST on them instead of the lab name.

If I decide to put the TF foam filter back in, which I likely will, I will be anxious to see if my MPG moves back up. I was averaging about 18.4 MPG with mostly rural mixed driving before swiching filters and I now am in the low 17 range again with mixed driving. Still not bad for a truck this size with 4.10s. It seems hard to believe the filter alone could change the MPG by over 1 MPG.

My mpg testing is based on miles driven and gallons used, not my scan gauge. It provides instant MPG only and will not record an average.