Anyone know the rough efficiency of a standard cellulose filter?

[SC Maintenance]

Just curios. I know nothing is published. Maybe there is test data from some time long ago.

I know it likely also changes by the actually cellulose. For example - the old Champ XL advertised 99% at 30um or something. The old Fram orange can was from memory 99% at 25um but they claimed to be better than OEM?

Anyone care to hazard a guess?

 

[Brian123]

Anyone care to hazard a guess?

No!

 

[ZeeOSix]

Too may variables in exactly how the media is designed (how tight the pores are and thick the media is) and even total surface area can play a role in efficiency. If I had to guess, I'd say most 100% cellulose oil fitters would be in the 99% at 30-35u range. A 100% cellulose filter is typically going to be a cheap filter, so efficiency may not be high on the achievement list.

 

[dnewton3]

There was a time when some Fram EG filters were 95% at 20um; their basic cellulose offering. Not bad at all.

Then again, Toyota genuine filters are not nearly that good, something like 60% at 20um? ( I don't recall exactly, other than I was astonished how poor they were, ...) And yet most Toyota engines live very long lives with the OE filter choices.

And I seem to recall that the Motorcraft filters were somewhere in-between; around 85% or so???

The variability of brands and specific filter attributes makes this a conversation to paint with a very broad brush.

 

[SC Maintenance]

The variability of brands and specific filter attributes makes this a conversation to paint with a very broad brush.

For sure its a broad brush.

I am in line with your comments on the Toyota filter in that the majority of people are using whatever there service provider installs and still have a long service life. My interest is very general, but sort of in line in that either a) the cheap filters really aren't too bad, or b) the filter efficiency doesn't seem to matter in the real world all that much, because lots of cars are going lots of miles seemingly without too many issues.

I appreciate your input and data points.

 

[ZeeOSix]

b) the filter efficiency doesn't seem to matter in the real world all that much, because lots of cars are going lots of miles seemingly without too many issues.

That also depends a lot on how long the OCIs are. Plus, if there was engine wear difference over many thousands of miles most people aren't going to detect it unless it's some major wear like bearings making noise or rings losing compression, etc. Just because engines seem to still run well doesn't mean they can't have some level of added wear due to dirtier oil.

The longer the OCI the more important the oil filtration. On a broken in engine you could have just a fine screen if the OCI was very short, like every 1000-1500 miles. Wear from particulate in the oil is proportional to the level of oil cleanliness times how much oil volume is pumped through the engine. Sump volume also plays a roll, as larger sumps are not turned over as fast as smaller sumps over the same OCI. Last thing I'd want to do is run an inefficient filter for long OCIs. Inefficient oil filters continually shed debris (one factor why they are inefficient), and won't eventually clean the oil to the same level as a high efficiency filter from multiply passes like some believe. Why use an inefficient filter (and not because of the "flow over filtration" myth), when you can just as easily run an efficient oil filter.

 

[SC Maintenance]

That also depends a lot on how long the OCIs are. The longer the OCI the more important the oil filtration. On a broken in engine you could have just a fine screen if the OCI was very short, like every 1000-1500 miles. Wear from particulate in the oil is proportional to the level of oil cleanliness times how much oil volume is pumped through the engine. Sump volume also plays a roll, as larger sumps are not turned over as fast as smaller sumps over the same OCI. Last thing I'd want to do is run an inefficient filter for long OCIs. Inefficient oil filters continually shed debris (one factor why they are inefficient), and won't eventually clean the oil to the same level as a high efficiency filter from multiply passes like some believe. Why use an inefficient filter (and not because of the "flow over filtration" myth), when you can just as easily run an efficient oil filter.

All true. But I don't think the 90% that go to the dealer or speedy lube are running short OCI.

 

[ZeeOSix]

All true. But I don't think the 90% that go to the dealer or speedy lube are running short OCI.

Little do they know ... and we don't really know now those engine's mechanical health changes with mileage. Longer OCIs can cause other issues too depending on the oil being used and the driving conditions of the vehicle, like deposits such as varnish, sludge and stuck piston rings.