Baseplate holes: Number and Size?

Status
Not open for further replies.
quote:

Originally posted by XS650:

quote:

Originally posted by kenw:

quote:

Originally posted by XS650:

quote:

Originally posted by Filter guy:
Your looking at 1/2 of the equation..

What goes in must come out.

The inlet holes, those in the back plate, need to equal the outlet hole ( the threaded area).


Nonsense.


please explain why you do NOT believe this.


Each restriction results in a pressure drop as the oil is pumped through it. If you were to make the outlet hole so large that it offered virtually no restriction, the restriction at the inlet wouldn't change. There is no direct relationship between them other than the fact that they are both sources of presure drop as oil is pumped through the filter. They are independant sources of restriction, Changing one has no effect on the other.


that I understand. What I don't understand is the "Nonsense" commment.

in the design of fluid flow circuit that we have here, the center hole cross-sectional area is fixed. Nothing the filter maker can do about that. It's what determines the baseline so to speak. Therefore, the small holes should have the same total area (or more to account for surface tension caused by the edges) so as not to become a restrictive element in the circuit.

Yes, overly large small holes do not reduce the total system "resistance". But undersized small holes certainly can increase the resistance. And that was the nature of the previous poster's comment, I believe.
 
quote:

Originally posted by 427Z06:
I have to add, I've never been to concerned with the number and sizes of holes on oil filters as they seem to have always been adequate.

What does have my intrigue though is the miniature filters they have been specing on new cars lately.
snip....


-

Your picture is only of the outside. Cut apart, and measured, the smaller filter may have about as much area as the larger. Even if less, it could be higher quality. the smaller filters are just a matter of one more place to wring out a little fat.
 
quote:

Originally posted by labman:

quote:

Originally posted by 427Z06:
I have to add, I've never been to concerned with the number and sizes of holes on oil filters as they seem to have always been adequate.

What does have my intrigue though is the miniature filters they have been specing on new cars lately.
snip....


-

Your picture is only of the outside. Cut apart, and measured, the smaller filter may have about as much area as the larger. Even if less, it could be higher quality. the smaller filters are just a matter of one more place to wring out a little fat.


I cut apart all the filters I use and in every case, the larger filter has substantially more media. I know that some people have found cases where the canister is larger with no increase in media, but I haven't run across one yet.

Here's just one example:

Outside

inside

And if you're still not satisfied, I'll cut open the two filters I first mentioned and measure those. Anyone want to bet that the smaller filter has the same media surface area as the larger filter?

As far as it being higher quality media, that's pure speculation on our part at this point. From what I've read so far, pore size closely relates to flow rate when tested. All that is left is the possibility of the filtering media to hold more particles, but that obviously has limitations unless you have something that is quite a bit more exotic with various layers filtering different size particles. Maybe that's what makes the UPF or Mobil 1 filters "better"?

This is where Filter guy could step up to the plate and provide some useful information, instead of the tidbits of info most of us have already figured out.

[ November 14, 2004, 12:50 AM: Message edited by: 427Z06 ]
 
Mean velocity DOES NOT CHANGE with any regard to ANY intermediate restriction/resistance (minor and limited conditions apply). No intermediate resistance or conductance changes mean flow rate. No intermediate resistance or conductance has any impact (minor conditions apply) on point of reference pressure or POR FLOW.

Only intermediate changes in velocity occur ..these create intermediate changes in localized pressure.
 
quote:

Originally posted by labman:
For the same area, fewer, larger holes should flow more. I think the holes even Fram filters are much larger than the oil galleys.

The Wix filter I acquired has similar size holes as the ST (USA manufactured Champion Labs), but has more of them. (8 vs 6). I was initially impressed by this, however, maybe I should not be? Perhaps this means the filter media flows less?
 
quote:

Originally posted by 427Z06:
I have to add, I've never been to concerned with the number and sizes of holes on oil filters as they seem to have always been adequate.

What does have my intrigue though is the miniature filters they have been specing on new cars lately.
Big V-8s use to use filters of the size of a Wix 51060 (3.7" Dia. x 5.2" H) but on the Titan 5.6L they're specing something of the size of the Wix 51356 (2.7" Dia. x 3.4" H). A Ford SHO 3.0L V6 would use something of the size of a ST3600 (2.9" Dia x 4.8" H) but the Nissan 3.5L V6 specs something the size of a ST6607 (2.7" Dia. x 2.6" H).

Here's a pic to visually compare the sizes.

ST6607 vs ST3600


What's up with this?


Considering I do have a Titan 5.6, your analysis is spot on, and the 51356 is the filter that I picked up. Also the ST7317.

Interestingly, if you go to Baldwin's site, they list a longer filter part number. It has the same bypass relief pressure, so it should work the same. It's 4" long vs the 3.4" of the stock filter. The stock filter is B1402, the long one is B1431.

[ November 15, 2004, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: Brons2 ]
 
quote:

Originally posted by labman:
For the same area, fewer, larger holes should flow more. I think the holes even Fram filters are much larger than the oil galleys.

I looked at both a K&N and a Napa Gold filter to see the differences, if any, in the size and number of the inlet holes.

The Napa (made by Wix) har much larger holes, albeit fewer of them. The K&N had their characteristic 1/4 inch inlet holes, and plenty of them.

Obviously, I don't know what makes the K&N flow more, but according to the oil filter study, even with these small holes, the K&N was deemed to be a high flow filter.

I suspect the flow rate is determined much more by the filter media and inner tube design than by the inlet holes.

cheers.gif


Bob W.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Brons2:
Considering I do have a Titan 5.6, your analysis is spot on, and the 51356 is the filter that I picked up. Also the ST7317.

Interestingly, if you go to Baldwin's site, they list a longer filter part number. It has the same bypass relief pressure, so it should work the same. It's 4" long vs the 3.4" of the stock filter. The stock filter is B1402, the long one is B1431.


If I owned that Titan, it would just kill me not to use something at least the size of the WIX 51344.
 
Does the 51344 have the same thread size? This is the Baldwin B1431 specs, the Baldwin that is 4" long.

Descriptions : Microlite Lube Spin-on
Contains : Anti-Drainback Valve
14 PSI By-Pass Valve
Fits : Mitsubishi Automotive
Replaces : Mitsubishi AW343979, MD352627
Thread : M20 x 1.5
O.D. : 2 21/32 (67.5)
Length : 4 (101.6)
I.Gskt : [1] Included
Related to : B1400, B1402 (Short Versions)
 
Wix Part Number: 51344
Style: Spin-On Lube
Service: Lube
Type: Full Flow
Media: Paper
Height: 4.069
Outer Diameter Top: 3.242
Outer Diameter Bottom: Closed
Thread Size: 20X1.5 MM
By-Pass Valve Setting-PSI: 8-11
Anti-Drain Back Valve: Yes

Gasket Diameters
Number O.D. I.D. Thk.
Attached 2.490 2.200 0.148

To answer your question, yes.
 
I went and found a 51344. NOT CHEAP. The regular 51356 is $5.49. The 51344 was $9.49. Same parts store mind you. I bought it anyways.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Brons2:
I went and found a 51344. NOT CHEAP. The regular 51356 is $5.49. The 51344 was $9.49. Same parts store mind you. I bought it anyways.

I paid a goodly premium for the 1344 Wix I bought. Next oil change will use Purolator Pure One PL24458, roughly the same size as the 51344 for $5.79 at Pep Boys.
 
quote:

Originally posted by 427Z06:

quote:

Originally posted by labman:

quote:

Originally posted by 427Z06:
I have to add, I've never been to concerned with the number and sizes of holes on oil filters as they seem to have always been adequate.

What does have my intrigue though is the miniature filters they have been specing on new cars lately.
snip....


-

Your picture is only of the outside. Cut apart, and measured, the smaller filter may have about as much area as the larger. Even if less, it could be higher quality. the smaller filters are just a matter of one more place to wring out a little fat.


I cut apart all the filters I use and in every case, the larger filter has substantially more media. I know that some people have found cases where the canister is larger with no increase in media, but I haven't run across one yet.

Here's just one example:

Outside

inside

And if you're still not satisfied, I'll cut open the two filters I first mentioned and measure those. Anyone want to bet that the smaller filter has the same media surface area as the larger filter?

As far as it being higher quality media, that's pure speculation on our part at this point. From what I've read so far, pore size closely relates to flow rate when tested. All that is left is the possibility of the filtering media to hold more particles, but that obviously has limitations unless you have something that is quite a bit more exotic with various layers filtering different size particles. Maybe that's what makes the UPF or Mobil 1 filters "better"?

This is where Filter guy could step up to the plate and provide some useful information, instead of the tidbits of info most of us have already figured out.


What do you want to know...
grin.gif


Filter media as designed for a particular OEM application is not a matter of , well we just use the same sheet of media in every filter we build.

This is where consumers get their shorts in a wad when cutting open various elements and trying to analyse them as to media performance.

My question is.. take any OEM you want ( US, European, Asian). Look at the vehicles they offer to the public. Look at the OEM elements just in physical size only. There are differences, right? But do they say their recommendations for oil change are different because you bought model X instead of model Y?

The oil change interval remains constant whether you bought their smallest car to the largest vehicle they sell. Whether it has their smallest filter or their largest.

What I am getting at is that each "quality" filter manufacturer has multiple medias that they can put into a filter can depending upon application. How else can you make a smaller filter last as long as a bigger one?

When consumers cut open a filter, looks at the paper media..it all looks like paper. What you don't know is the "blend" of the media itself. This is how filter companies solve the problem of filter life per OEM's application.

Technically, a straight synthetic media solves both problems. You can increase the media's efficiency and increase it's dirt holding capacity at the same time. Synthetic also lower initial retriction. Best of all worlds. But more expensive.

Personally imho, in 20 years time, all elements may be synthetic as more and more elements are produced with that media, it lowers the cost. The performance advantage is such that OEM's will be able to offer extended warranties on their engines if a consumer only uses a synthetic media element.

But when you "look" at a particular paper media and want to compare it to another one....
dunno.gif
 
quote:

Originally posted by Filter guy:
Filter media as designed for a particular OEM application is not a matter of , well we just use the same sheet of media in every filter we build.

I doubt they design a different filter media for every car out there. They most likely have a limited selection of media to choose from. Then given some specs from the auto manufacturer and/or by reverse engineering see if a filter they already produce meets those requirements. If not, then they might tweek the media in that model with a different media to include the new requirement. If all else fails, only then would they create a totally new design.

quote:

Originally posted by Filter guy:
This is where consumers get their shorts in a wad when cutting open various elements and trying to analyse them as to media performance.

No one here is getting their shorts in a wad. What we do here is gather information, sometimes from the filter manufacturers themselves, and then measure and test (e.g. Grease's Study, et al)
and analyze to see if there is a better choice. If you can provide us the filter specs such as media type, characteristics of that media such as beta ratios, dirt holding capacity, media area, flow rates at a particular viscosity, etc, etc, that would help and be greatly appreciated.

quote:

Originally posted by Filter guy:
My question is.. take any OEM you want ( US, European, Asian). Look at the vehicles they offer to the public. Look at the OEM elements just in physical size only. There are differences, right? But do they say their recommendations for oil change are different because you bought model X instead of model Y?

The oil change interval remains constant whether you bought their smallest car to the largest vehicle they sell. Whether it has their smallest filter or their largest.


Not!! I have three different vehicles with three different filter sizes and three different OCI recommendations.

And virtually all vehicle manufacturers don't say that about oil either. I.e., I have yet to read a manual that says if you use dino the OCI is X, but if you use a full PAO syn with a robust add pack the OCI is Y. But we've seen through used oil analysis that the quality of the oil has quite a bit of an effect on how long you can go on an OCI. At best, you'll see an auto manufacturer state in a manual to use a particular oil or one that meets only certain specifications.

quote:

Originally posted by Filter guy:
What I am getting at is that each "quality" filter manufacturer has multiple medias that they can put into a filter can depending upon application. How else can you make a smaller filter last as long as a bigger one?

When consumers cut open a filter, looks at the paper media...it all looks like paper. What you don't know is the "blend" of the media itself. This is how filter companies solve the problem of filter life per OEM's application.


You state the obvious without providing any new or useful information.

quote:

Originally posted by Filter guy:
Technically, a straight synthetic media solves both problems. You can increase the media's efficiency and increase it's dirt holding capacity at the same time. Synthetic also lower initial retriction. Best of all worlds. But more expensive.

Again you state the obvious without providing any new or useful information.

quote:

Originally posted by Filter guy:
Personally imho, in 20 years time, all elements may be synthetic as more and more elements are produced with that media, it lowers the cost. The performance advantage is such that OEM's will be able to offer extended warranties on their engines if a consumer only uses a synthetic media element.

More drivel.

quote:

Originally posted by Filter guy:
But when you "look" at a particular paper media and want to compare it to another one....
dunno.gif


So...when I call up the filter manufacturer and ask about two particular filters, the stock spec one and a larger size, and the tech looks up the specs and reads them off and they're identical (including the media type) except that the larger one is rated at a higher flow rate, what harm is there in using the larger size?

And finally, I don't think you understand the "Hot Rodder" mentally a lot of us have here. People modify there cars with headers, exhaust systems, chips, reprogram the CPUs, fit higher performance tires, modify suspensions, etc, all in the search for higher performance. In this little corner of the world, we apply that "Hot Rodder" mentally to lubrication.

Otherwise there's no purpose for this site other than to chant in unison to "read the manual and use the cheapest filter and API speced oil you can find that meets those requirements".

[ November 28, 2004, 11:51 PM: Message edited by: 427Z06 ]
 
quote:

Originally posted by Filter guy:
This is where consumers get their shorts in a wad when cutting open various elements and trying to analyse them as to media performance.

Unfortunately, that's the best source of information avauilable to the consumer, a lot better than "trust me" from people selling us their "stuff".

You telling us we have our "shorts in a wad" adds nothing to the discussion.

If you have some actual information on how we can better evaluate and select filters please share it.
 
quote:

In this little corner of the world, we apply that "Hot Rodder" mentally to lubrication.

lol.gif
lol.gif


..hmmm I find that a conservatively stated observation, if you ask me.
grin.gif


No sump is too big ..no filter too big ..no OCI too short or too long ...no lubrication system is good enough or in need improvement. (visions of philosophers and theologians pondering over a box with a big "N" on it and asking the question: Is "nothing" sacred?). We're just an eclectic lubrication society here. Spanning from the ridiculous to the sublime.


...and contrary to popular belief ..the wheel CAN be reinvented!!
 
quote:

Originally posted by Gary Allan:

quote:

In this little corner of the world, we apply that "Hot Rodder" mentally to lubrication.

lol.gif
lol.gif


..hmmm I find that a conservatively stated observation, if you ask me.
grin.gif


No sump is too big ..no filter too big ..no OCI too short or too long ...no lubrication system is good enough or in need improvement. (visions of philosophers and theologians pondering over a box with a big "N" on it and asking the question: Is "nothing" sacred?). We're just an eclectic lubrication society here. Spanning from the ridiculous to the sublime.


...and contrary to popular belief ..the wheel CAN be reinvented!!


cheers.gif
cheers.gif
cheers.gif
cheers.gif
cheers.gif
 
FILTER GUY? what do you think of the motorcraft fl820s? do you have any flow and filtering specs on this filter? would it be of any benifit if i was to use donaldson, baldwin or fleetguard for my fords?all of the later have there bypass valve at the top of the filter but the motorcraft filter has it at the threads.any advice?
 
quote:

Originally posted by XS650:
............
So let's work backwards.

Assume about 6 gal/min oil flow. That would be 1.9 ft/sec if there was 1 in^2 of hole area.

Any hole area much over 1.9/12 = 0.16 inches^2 would be acceptable by that crude criteria. ..........


Sorry to jump in so late....


What if the flow was 12 gallons a minute?
 
Then you've got a High Volume pump ..and unless you're in NASCAR ..you've got very high oil pressure.


Anyway..12 gallons of flow is 12 gallons of flow. Only the velocities through given restrictions will change. * If they don't ..you don't have 12 gallons of oil flow. (cue Twilight Zone music)


* assuming internal oil pump relief pressures are not exceeded.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom