Installed Woods 222 cams, cam bearings, lifters and pushrods at 56,970 miles. Changed oil at 57,919 miles. Theses cams really opened it up. Great low end torque.

 

Maybe next time the BB code will work.

 

Here is my latest UOA from my 2013 Xl1200C.
30000 miles on the bike, 5000 miles on the oil.

I ran the 63731-99A HD Premium 5 micron filter this time.

The 5 micron Premium filter did better at 4 and 6 microns than the Standard Sportster filter.
Not as good at 14, 21, 38 and 70 micron.
Maybe the 5 micron Premium filter isn't as "restrictive" as it seems

The next oil change will be using the WIX 57148 filter.
It is rated as 50% at 6 microns and 95% at 20 microns.
(the HD oil filter wrench, 94863-10, doesn't fit the WIX, the filter is 15 flutes and slightly ~2mm smaller diameter)

 

If these, ( 6 micron & 20 micron), ratings are nominal, do you know how many passes through the filter it takes to reduce those particle sizes by those percentages ?

Sounds to me like you may be interested in checking out "permanent" filter solutions. These are usually rated in "absolute" terms not nominal and thus their performance is much closer to what one would expect to see based on "ratings". Most commercial oil filter ratings systems are highly illusory in their methods with nominal systems being practically useless, even as a means of comparing one nominally rated filter to another. A filter rated nominally at 5 microns typically is not as efficient as one rated at say 30 microns in "absolute" terms.

Don't take my word for this. Google the terms and see for yourself the deceptively useless hodgepodge filter ratings systems have become. They are virtually useless to us but "absolute" ratings are less so than nominal ratings.

 

The 6 and 20 micron ratings on the WIX filter are not "nominal" ratings

The WIX Beta ratios are measured using the ISO 16889:1999 Multi-pass Test.
For additional info on the test -
https://www.machinerylubrication.com...er-beta-ratios

If you would like to have this test performed here is a place that does the testing-
https://www.swri.org/fluid-filter-testing

 

This from the WIX site:

 

The "nominal" rating on the WIX filter I am using is 5 microns.

The Beta ratios listed at 6 and 20 microns are actual test results.
50% at 6 microns and 95% at 20 microns.

 

So, "nothing" is rated at the 98% efficiency rquired by absolute ratings and lord knows how many passes it took the Wix to reduce to the 50% @ 6 micron and 95% @ 20 micron levels. Thats my point bro, Nominal ratings are virtually useless as a means of rating filter effectiveness. These procedures aren't even standardized so you can't judge one nominally rated filter against another but, if its good enough for you,,, "great" !

 

The ISO (International Organization for Standardization) 16889 test is an international standard test.
http://www.baldwinfilter.com/literat...27s/04-2R1.pdf
"This standardization gives you the ability to reliably compare published filter (ß) beta ratios among different brands of filters, rather than relying on micron ratings.
Overall, you can have strong confidence in liquid filter ratings resulting from tests per ISO 16889, as they are highly accurate"

 

Yes, beta ratios are indeed standardized. I have no issues with that claim whatsoever. "Nominal" ratings however are another kettle of fish entirely. They are, to put it bluntly, complete bullshit and totally useless to anyone but a filter salesman talking to someone who knows nothing about how filters are rated. Beta ratings are based on standardized engineered testing. Nominal ratings are a sales invention.


.