B50 Particle Count Results!

[Gary - K7GLD]

Sorry to say - but the sample/particle count of mine further above was taken a bit out of context - I was basically doing a before/after test of a Fleetguard microglass filter vs an Amsoil Nanofiber filter. The base test, done with the Fleetguard I normally use was :

The one displayed further above was probably selected by the poster instead of this one because its higher particle count looked worse by comparison than the one of his own he posted in the lead post for this thread

Forgive me if I misjudge you...

The particle count displayed in THIS post is far more typical of my analysis #'s when using my normal Fleetguard full flow filter.

And for the record, on my Frantz, it requires an 80 cent roll of TP and half a quart of oil at about $2.25 a quart per element change - for a total of about $2 for every 2500-3500 miles traveled, depending on truck usage during those miles. Is itt worth it? Each person has to decide for themselves...

 

[md_lucky_13]

I'm fairly certain that I posted them both... Look at the original post, and they are both there??

Or am I losing my mind again?

 

[Shup1]

Well I am hoping to resolve the cost effectiveness of the B50 filter setup..

here are the variables (always 10qts Rotella T dino / 2 qts Lucas w/ 6 months or 7500 miles).

#1 Rotella T dino 10 qts w 2 qts Lucas (6 months or 7500 miles after)
#2 Install B50 setup ($150 with SS braided lines/billet hose holders ect)
#3 B50 bypass & Amsoil full flow.
#4 Amsoil full flow only.

This thread will NEVER die with these variables...

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:

---

I'm fairly certain that I posted them both... Look at the original post, and they are both there??

Or am I losing my mind again?

---

Well, maybe you did post both. Does this assure that you're still not losing your mind?? It's like the statement, "Just because you're not paranoid doesn't assure that people aren't out to get you".

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:

---

Well I am hoping to resolve the cost effectiveness of the B50 filter setup..

here are the variables (always 10qts Rotella T dino / 2 qts Lucas w/ 6 months or 7500 miles).

#1 Rotella T dino 10 qts w 2 qts Lucas (6 months or 7500 miles after)
#2 Install B50 setup ($150 with SS braided lines/billet hose holders ect)
#3 B50 bypass & Amsoil full flow.
#4 Amsoil full flow only.

This thread will NEVER die with these variables...

---

You missed one:

#5 Amsoil full flow and bypass filtration - either in combo or stand alone. You can hit that $150 mark with a BMK-11 setup.

Ditch the Lucas. Just my opinion.

OTOH, if you're set on 6m/7500 mile intervals, you're removing any extended drain from the equations. If conventional oil is in your future, you could be swapping out the oil and keeping the filters intact for more then one OCI.

I'm uncertain of the B50's holding capacity.

 

[Shup1]

I need to justify the $150 bucks for that one....(#5)

I mean the real question is with a bypass filter combo (B50 or B164) just as effecient as a Amsoil setup..everyone speculates...everyone has some data but has anyone performed the DOE on a single vehicle and then evaluated the ROI???
Nothing against AMSOIL, preferred memeber, just do not like the prices of the product...This COULD change if DOE proves significant ROI....but after spending the $30 for an analysis I am almost halfway there...

Just simple math

 

[md_lucky_13]

I agree that it is a good way to judge the efficiency between the two different filters..

But, if comparing the effectiveness between the B50 and any other brand is REQUIRED to determine if it is work, then why do they offer the same bypass filter system for multiple engine combinations?

 

[Shup1]

MD...

I am new here and since I have started posting I see a lot of flame outs on this subject....So I decided to give it as close to a scientific design of experiments as possible (scarey if you knew me)..
Whatever the results this will be a double edged sword, someone will lose and someone will win and then the war starts all over again! My goal is to give data and maybe an economical alternative to the various higher priced cookie cutter (no names please) setups or as I did I looked at various posts, pictures and browsed the speed shop catalogs to develope what I think is right for my application.

Worse case for this board would be...a simple spin on filter base with a Fram filter and two automotive hoses with hose clamps....fun to watch though!

more to come....

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:

---

I need to justify the $150 bucks for that one....(#5)

I mean the real question is with a bypass filter combo (B50 or B164) just as effecient as a Amsoil setup..everyone speculates...everyone has some data but has anyone performed the DOE on a single vehicle and then evaluated the ROI???
Nothing against AMSOIL, preferred memeber, just do not like the prices of the product...This COULD change if DOE proves significant ROI....but after spending the $30 for an analysis I am almost halfway there...

Just simple math

---

#2 Install B50 setup ($150 with SS braided lines/billet hose holders ect)

You didn't seem to have any trouble here

No pressure here. The B50 is a paper filter element. Amsoil's is synthetic. The price difference in replacement elements is commensurate with their comparative value in terms of longevity and efficiency.

If you're desiring to see PC results, msparks posted his with the old Amsoil bypass filter. He had no larger particles ...and plenty in the 2um range ...less in the
..but by all means use whatever you'll feel serves you best. It's very hard to escape the filtration triangle. Size, level of filtration, and longevity cannot be trumped. Synthetic media appears to offer a loop hole to the mix ..but at a cost. Hence, it still comes down to frequency of service. If you are going to service your filter every 3-4k ..or 3-4 months ...then tp is your best friend. Although I'm sure they'll last in service awhile ...I doubt the efficiency level of the B50 will be that high in the lower micron levels. There are paper media hydraulic filters of fine filtration ..that are in no way designed to hold the amount of byproducts of a combustion engine.

It's a nut that defies cracking.

Best of luck with whatever way you go

 

[Shup1]

I agree $150 dollars there....BUT I went overkill and bulletproof & visually appealing....

Again it is a decision that will require a complete DOE and ten ROI on products tested.

No pressure.....I am looking out the blinds as we speak just to make sure! Never know when the AMSOIL police will arrive

 

[Gary Allan]

The ROI on any bypass system for just about anything on the single end user/consumer level is questionable. If you cannot extend drains to offset the cost, then you're down to the added benefits of the high level of filtration. In a diesel, this added soot control can extend drains by a decent amount. In a gas engine, you're typically looking at having the cleanest and least worn engine in the junkyard.

 

[Shup1]

If your gonna be stupid you gotta be strong!

 

[Gary Allan]

It's surely recommended.

 

[Jeremiah]

We're all smart enough to understand this data wasn't done in an optimally controlled environment.

To those of you that discount lab results because a lab technician 'may be having a bad day':
You've stated your case - the data isn't of any use to you. Please quit repeating yourself, provide something else of value to the thread, or go start your own thread and quit pulling this one

My opinion takes this in a different direction, but I've come up with a similar conclusion:

From the data posted, there's no reason for me to believe big-money-brand's are doing any better than the cheapies. In my opinion, the burden of proof is on the guy charging more $$$ to prove his product's increased cost is still more beneficial to me.

Test #1
Take #@$%!-o brand filter, that was run w/ engine for a high # of miles, but sooner than #@$%!-o's recommended change interval. Do an oil sample. Replace #@$%!-o filter with superFilter brand. Run truck. Sample again.

Compare sample data, and show how much better superFilter works.

Test #2 - even better!
Add particulates to virgin oil. Run through #@$%!-o, and superFilter. Provide resulting data, and commence trash talking of inferior brand.

Both tests are cheap, easily repeatable / verifiable, and reasonably conclusive.

 

[Jeremiah]

I'm not sure if I believe this rep, but here's a copy / paste from from my emails...



From: Jeremiah
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 2:54 PM
To: "Gina Johnikins"
Subject: Fwd: RE: B50, B164, BT341

Gina,
Thank you for your quick response, specs and install instructions. I was unable to find the level of filtration (what micron) the B50, B164, BT341 filter down to in the data sheet you provided. The "established micron rating" field was blank.


-Jeremiah

--------------------------------


Jeremiah,

No micron rating listed indicates that it is too low to give an actual rating. We would put it somewhere between a 1 and 2.


Thanks,
Gina Johnikins
Baldwin/Hastings Hotline
1-800-822-5394
Ext. 79778



Too good to be true?

 

[Gary Allan]

Probably so.

Maybe her real name is April Furst

Wix doesn't have a xref for this filter ..even though they have 5/8-18 thread bypass filters. I think that this is a recent adjustment to their xref. I sware that, in the past, B50 has xref'd to 50150 (and those longer/bigger). They're only rated @ 10um.

So ..there may be something to this (or I could be missing something).

 

[Jeremiah]

I can't imagine a $7 filter goes down to 2um. I wish manufacturers in a technical field would provide tech specs on their web sites *sigh*

 

[Gary Allan]

Yes, that would be hard to believe. Most that are truly rated for 2um are in the $40-$80 (or more) range. The difference being the type of service that they're designed for. Donaldson industrial hydraulic filters of that distinction are made for a long haul in a relatively clean environment with relatively high flow rates. To achieve that, you're spending a buttload on expensive synthetic media.


..but take a better paper media ...choke the flow to a trickle ...and you'll get some decent numbers.

 

[Jeremiah]

Perhaps it's one of those "It CAN filter out 2um, but it MOSTLY filters down to Xum" kind of things. I've seen 2 ratings for filtering. I presume them to be "Takes SOME particles out at Xum, and takes all particles out at Yum"

 

[Gary Allan]

Most likely so. If you can read into the beta numbers a little ..there's a congruency to them that most don't really see. When you see Beta10=20 ..that means 95% of particles 10um and higher. Most just think that this means the remaining 5% is composed of 10um and smaller particles. It's not. All size particles ..in decreasing numbers, typically pass through. Now it may be beta20=75 beta20=1000 ..or whatever ..but there seems to be that missing link for many who read the beta ratings.