Baldwin Filter Data - Standard line and HPG

[Oldswagon]

I recently got a bunch of flow and filtration data for Baldwin filters. The data is related to the filters I use in my applications, but they are all pretty common filter sizes so I thought I would share the data on here for others.

The filters I inquired about are the B2/B2-HPG (FL1A), the B6/B6-HPG (PF-35), B1428 (PF1218), and the B9 (long PF-24). I use these filters on Ford, Chev, and Olds V8's, but they are used in many other applications as well.

The data is as follows:

B2 and B6 Filters

BX=2: 12 microns
BX=75: 30 microns
Established Micron Rating: 12
Average Efficiency: 85.2 %
Burst PSI: 200

Flow
3PSI: 1.5GPM
5PSI: 3GPM
10PSI: 5GPM
15PSI: 7.5GPM
20PSI: 9GPM
25PSI: 11GPM

B2-HPG and B6-HPG

BX=2: 6 microns
BX=75: 20 microns
Established Micron Rating: 6
Average Efficiency: 89.35 %
Burst PSI: 200

Flow
3PSI: 2GPM
5PSI: 3GPM
15PSI: 6GPM
25PSI: 9GPM

B1428

BX=2: 12 microns
BX=75: 25 microns
Established Micron Rating: 12
Average Efficiency: 89.44 %
Burst PSI: 300

Flow
3PSI: 2GPM
5PSI: 5GPM
10PSI: 9GPM
15PSI: 11.5GPM

B9

BX=2: 20 microns
BX=75: 40 microns
Established Micron Rating: 20
Average Efficiency: 73.05 %
Burst PSI: 200

Flow
My contact couldn't find any flow data for the B9, but he said that he estimated the flow based on the filtration area and the type of material to be:

10PSI: 7GPM (EST)

In any case, he seemed certain that the B9 would have a slightly better flow rate than the B2/B6.


All filters except the B6/B6-HPG use a ADBV made of nitrile rubber. All filters use a cellulose/polyester/glass blend for the media, except for the B9 which is all cellulose. The B2 and B6 share the same filter element. The B2-HPG and B6-HPG also share the same element.

After reading this data my biggest suprise was that the HPG filters were the worst flowing filters. I was also surprised to see that the B1428 has better filtering and flowing media than the B6/B2 filter. It seems to be a real bargin since I can get them for just under $6 CDN.

I am a little disappointed in the poor filtration of the B9 filter, but it does seem to have excellent flow. I guess since this filter is used on BOP V8's, some old AMC engines, some International gas engines and older industrial diesel engines, Baldwin decided the cellulose media is good enough.

Any comments?

 

[Dan4510]

HPG filters may flow less but they filter much finer. There is an inverse relationship between filtration efficiency and flow.

I have used the b2-hpg and it worked great for me.

Dan

 

[Oldswagon]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dan4510:
HPG filters may flow less but they filter much finer. There is an inverse relationship between filtration efficiency and flow.

I have used the b2-hpg and it worked great for me.

Dan

---

I always thought that because the HPG filters had more synthetic media, that they would filter better without giving up flow. I guess this isn't the case. I think for the money, and the difference in filtration and flow, I will just use the standard B2 filter on my old Torino. I think I am also going to stick with the B1428 on my Chev's as well, since it has excellent flow and decent filtration.

 

[JohnBrowning]

When you consider that the nominal rateing is improved from 12 microns to 6 microns and it is still flowing well that is impresive. You are not looseing that much flow when you consider that you are traping particles that are half the size as before. Their is no free lunch! You can not gain filtration and not give up some flow no matter what type of fibers are used!

 

[edwardh1]

what does the bx 75 refer to?

 

[Dan4510]

Edward,

The following was copied from a hastings service bulletin about filtration.

Hope this helps.

Dan

***************************************************
Beta Ratio is a formula used to calculate the filtration efficiency of a particular filter using the data from multi-pass testing. Part of the ISO 4572 standard says the maximum reliable filtration ratio is Beta(x)= 75. This is commonly known as the "absolute" rating for the filter. Anything above Beta(x) = 75 cannot be statistically verified. The Beta(x) = 2 is commonly known as the "nominal" rating. To convert a Beta ratio to efficiency is simple: Beta Ratio-1/Beta Ratio= Filter Efficiency. The Beta (x)=2 efficiency is (2-1)/2 = 1/2, the efficiency is 50%. The Beta(x)= 75 efficiency is (75-1)/75 = 74/75 = .98666 or 98.67%. The (x) after the word Beta denotes the size particle that is being considered. Therefore, Beta(10)=4 means that the filter in question is 75% efficient at removing 10 micron size contaminants and larger from the hydraulic system (see TSB-89-5R for further information on micron ratings and Beta ratios).

 

[Oldswagon]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JohnBrowning:
When you consider that the nominal rateing is improved from 12 microns to 6 microns and it is still flowing well that is impresive. You are not looseing that much flow when you consider that you are traping particles that are half the size as before. Their is no free lunch! You can not gain filtration and not give up some flow no matter what type of fibers are used!

---

The B2/B6-HPG may have nominal number that is twice that of the other filters, but the absolute numbers are much closer (only 5 microns better than a B1428). In a real world situation, I bet the better flow of the lower line filters will even things out. Sure the HPG filters may filter smaller, but the standard filters will go into bypass mode less. I am sure the HPG filters are also probably better in extended OCI, but I am not interested in stretching my OCI. That being the case, I believe that the much cheaper standard Baldwin filters are clearly the best choice in my situation (I picked up a B1428 for $5.30 the other day).

I was hoping that the HPG line would have similar performance to that of the AC-Delco UPF filters or the Fleetgaurd with Stratopore media. I believe both these filters are supposed to have excellent filtration while having excellent flow numbers. So it seems that the Baldwin HPG media is not nearly as good as the above two filters media.

 

[Chris A]

Do you really think your engine will support more than 3gpm flow? If not, then the flow differences between the filters are nil.

I'd bet a nickel that at 6000 RPM, the oil flow in 99% of the engines is less than 3 gpm.

 

[Oldswagon]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris A:
Do you really think your engine will support more than 3gpm flow? If not, then the flow differences between the filters are nil.

I'd bet a nickel that at 6000 RPM, the oil flow in 99% of the engines is less than 3 gpm.

---

To be honest, I don't know what my oil pumps flow. All of my applications are large old American V8's, so I am sure that they would move a healthy quantity of oil at lower RPMs. These are not high reving engines, so I am sure the oil pumps max out at lower RPMs than a typical small high reving modern engine.

However, I think most of us will agree that when a car is started cold, that the filter will be in bypass mode. A better flowing filter will come out of bypass mode quicker than one that doesn't have better flow. If, as many believe, start-up and warm up cause the most engine wear, then I think it is most important to have a filter will get out of bypass mode ASAP to start filtering that start-up wear. Once the engine is warm and even the lesser flowing filters are out of the bypass mode, I tend to think that little wear occurs. Hence, the better filtering filters will offer no real advantage.

That's my reasoning on why I think that the better flowing Baldwins are the better choice.

 

[jsharp]

The flow vs. filtration question always comes up. Something to keep in mind to add to the unsurity is this. The bypass valve isn't a switch, it's a regulator. Even when bypass valve is open some of the oil still goes through the element.

The amount of flow through the element will be a function of the pressure drop across the filter and the flow rate through the element at that same pressure drop...

[ February 03, 2004, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: jsharp ]