Beta Ratios

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SHAMUS

Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
294
Location
Puget Sound, WA
Sometime ago, I posted the beta ratios of Purolator's PureONE, and quite a "discussion" began. I do not want to rehash that, but, I would like to ask if you have beta data on your favorite filter (WIX, ST, NAPA, Fram (hahaha) etc), that is not heresay but you can quote a source, let's see it. Please, leave out the "efficiency" ratings and stick with betas.

Yea, if I did a search for each and every filter and spent what little time I have I might be able to come up with something, but, like the PureONE, filters change over time, and it would be "nice" to compile all of this data in one thread. (Please now, no fightin kids!)
 
Last edited:
From Tech Services at Baldwin
Part number B243: B2=12, B75=30
Part number BT223: B2=18, B75=40
 
From Baldwin Tech Department 3/15/2009:
Filter: B1405
B2=18
B75=40
Established Micron Rating: 18
Average Efficiency = 74.65%
Media sq.in.: 163.6
Capacity: 11.5 grams
Media Grade: L60-50
 
From the WIX site:

P/N: 51372
Beta: 2/20 = 12/25
Nominal Micron Rating: 21


From the Royal Purple site:

What are the beta ratios?

Average beta rating based on ISO 4548-12 multi-pass test methods:

B25 = 100 (which means at 25 or greater micron; media is 99% efficient.)
B20 = 75 (which means at 20 or greater micron; media is 98.7% efficient. Also considered absolute rating.)
B10 = 5 (which means at 10 micron or greater; media is 80% efficient.)
 
Last edited:
Hydac Betamicron 4 spin on elements:

B3 > 200

Hydac Betamicron drop in elements

B3 > 1000

Hydac Dimicron off line filters

B2 > 2000

(catalogue information shows B2=1000, but it's been recently upgrade...I got the scoop at some factory training).
 
Wix (and NAPA by definition) list the beta ratio for each of their filters on their web site (and no they are not all the same). Wish everyone provided this data. I'll be interested to see what we come up with on this topic.
 
Originally Posted By: SHAMUS
Are these auto engine filters? I have never heard of them.


They can be if you want them to be. This is a case of, "How much money do you want to spend?"
 
Originally Posted By: Gen1GT
Hydac Betamicron 4 spin on elements:

B3 > 200

Hydac Betamicron drop in elements

B3 > 1000

Hydac Dimicron off line filters

B2 > 2000

(catalogue information shows B2=1000, but it's been recently upgrade...I got the scoop at some factory training).


Obviously specialty hydraulic filters. Hydraulic systems don't produce contamination like an internal combustion engine with ring blow-by going on with each piston stroke.

In the PureONE beta ratio thread, there was claiming that the PureONE's beta ratio of 99.9% efficient @ 20 microns was as good and most hydraulic filters ... well, obviously not in the case of these hydraulic filters.
 
They're not really "specialty" hydraulic filters. They're standard equipment for factories all over the world. Hydac is the largest manufacturer of hydraulic and process filtration in the world and are the 5th largest hydraulic manufacturer. Bosch Rexroth uses primarily Hydac filtration, and Hydac makes the control hydraulics for the BMW cars with active suspension.

They make size 40 spin on elements in the $20 range, but they have high K factors with the lower filtration ratings(although better than paper elements. I won't explain K factors, because the last time I explained a term, I got in trouble for assuming few people knew what it meant LOL). You can get a size 80 element, which has a K factor of .24 for 5 micron, beta 200 elements, which would be reasonable for an automotive application. With a differential pressure gauge, the whole assembly lists for $136 CDN.

Draw your own conclusions:

http://www.hydacusa.com/literature/filters/spin-on.pdf

Let me know if you want pricing on anything.
 
Originally Posted By: Gen1GT
They're not really "specialty" hydraulic filters. They're standard equipment for factories all over the world. Hydac is the largest manufacturer of hydraulic and process filtration in the world and are the 5th largest hydraulic manufacturer. Bosch Rexroth uses primarily Hydac filtration, and Hydac makes the control hydraulics for the BMW cars with active suspension.

Draw your own conclusions:
http://www.hydacusa.com/literature/filters/spin-on.pdf


Nice stuff ... love the depth of the technical data sheet. Wow, I had no idea hydraulic filters has such a large PSID across them. Looking at those delta P vs flow charts show much higher PSIDs then you'd ever see in an automotive filter. That right there is probably one reason they might not be a good idea to use on a normal car. Their large PSID is probably due to the fact they can filter down to a few microns and not so much their physical size.

Originally Posted By: Gen1GT
I won't explain K factors, because the last time I explained a term, I got in trouble for assuming few people knew what it meant LOL).


Well, I've never heard of a "K Factor" for an oil filter, but obviously by looking at the formula at the bottom of the last page in your PDF link, it's the associated flow factor for the filter's total delta P (based on it's physical design), along with other factors such as the oil flow rate and viscosity/SG.
 
Yeah, the higher the filtration quality, the higher the PSID. It just traps more, and has smaller holes for the oil to flow through. Have a look at the K factors of the Betamicron elements compared to the paper elements. The Betamicron elements actually flow more than the paper elements.

How about this PSID?

http://www.hydacusa.com/literature/filters/df.pdf

You can use Hydac filtration for automotive use, it would just have to be oversized to prevent large delta P's.
 
Don’t want to get the thread to far off track, but does everyone recall these posts from a while back:

Quote:
10/22/07 - Beta Sheta! Holy cow guys have you not read my original thread regarding the EaO's real world performance in a real live vehicle?? Lab Beta testing is just that.. There is no such thing as constant flow oil in an engine application. Our oil pressures, flow rate, and viscosities vary continuously, NOT like the laboratory constant temperature, constant flow, close to worthless results..
In my view, it is of much more value in real world results vs. someone's laboratory results... The tests have little real world relevance..
George Morrison, STLE CLS

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...100#Post1012100

Quote:
10/23/07 - Again, these 'laboratory' beta testing procedures have absolutely NO relevance to our real world of automotive engine oil filtratino: none.. If any information relative to to oil filters was anectdotal, it would be these 'lab'tests.

As I previously indicated, all beta testing is done with constant flow, constant velocity, constant viscosity. None of these conditions exist in our engines. Thus any results are simply not relative.

As example, I had occasion to take a name brand filter which had a 3 micron beta 200 rating and install it in a varying flow system, with both upstream and downstream particle counting. On startup the filter indeed returned a 3 micron beta 200+ filtration rate. The moment the flow and pressures were varied (it was a real, live working machine and not a laboratory), the filter returned a 3 micron 1.5 or so. i.e. the filter was worthless in a varying flow/pressure environment. The microglass element was so fragile that it ruptured with the first variation.
George Morrison, STLE CLS

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/posts/1012100/
 
Originally Posted By: Gen1GT
Yeah, the higher the filtration quality, the higher the PSID. It just traps more, and has smaller holes for the oil to flow through. Have a look at the K factors of the Betamicron elements compared to the paper elements. The Betamicron elements actually flow more than the paper elements.

How about this PSID?

http://www.hydacusa.com/literature/filters/df.pdf

You can use Hydac filtration for automotive use, it would just have to be oversized to prevent large delta P's.


Yes, agreed that you could use a hydraulic filter if you wanted super-duper filtering, and if the right size was used so the PISD would be very low. Some of the large hydraulic filters have very high flow rates with relatively low PSIDs.

If and auto engine would benefit enough to justify the mod to use the hydraulic filter is another point of interest IMO.
 
Originally Posted By: CompSyn
Don’t want to get the thread to far off track, but does everyone recall these post from a while back:

Quote:
10/22/07 - Beta Sheta! Holy cow guys have you not read my original thread regarding the EaO's real world performance in a real live vehicle?? Lab Beta testing is just that.. There is no such thing as constant flow oil in an engine application. Our oil pressures, flow rate, and viscosities vary continuously, NOT like the laboratory constant temperature, constant flow, close to worthless results..
In my view, it is of much more value in real world results vs. someone's laboratory results... The tests have little real world relevance..
George Morrison, STLE CLS

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...100#Post1012100


IMO, if there are standardized beta ratio tests, the it at least gives you an 'apples to apples' comparison of all filters tested under the same conditions. That is the key to the testing ... NOT to try and simulate 'real world' conditions.

If a test standard wanted to be produced to vary the flow, pressure, viscosity, etc, etc exactly the same way for all filters tested, then it MIGHT be more representative of 'real world' conditions, but at the same time give you the 'apples to apples' comparison data.

Any kind of standardized testing standard is at least better than zero testing standard.

So what 'real world results' is he quoting or thinking of (red text in his quote)? ... UOAs?
 
Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
Originally Posted By: CompSyn
Don’t want to get the thread to far off track, but does everyone recall these post from a while back:

Quote:
10/22/07 - Beta Sheta! Holy cow guys have you not read my original thread regarding the EaO's real world performance in a real live vehicle?? Lab Beta testing is just that.. There is no such thing as constant flow oil in an engine application. Our oil pressures, flow rate, and viscosities vary continuously, NOT like the laboratory constant temperature, constant flow, close to worthless results..
In my view, it is of much more value in real world results vs. someone's laboratory results... The tests have little real world relevance..
George Morrison, STLE CLS

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...100#Post1012100


IMO, if there are standardized beta ratio tests, the it at least gives you an 'apples to apples' comparison of all filters tested under the same conditions. That is the key to the testing ... NOT to try and simulate 'real world' conditions.

If a test standard wanted to be produced to vary the flow, pressure, viscosity, etc, etc exactly the same way for all filters tested, then it MIGHT be more representative of 'real world' conditions, but at the same time give you the 'apples to apples' comparison data.

Any kind of standardized testing standard is at least better than zero testing standard.


This is interesting too...

Quote:
10/26/07 - For a person developing a data base on published beta ratio's, filter efficiencies, it was important to me to share the test procedures for beta determination of oil filters is flawed... And that those published beta ratios in most cases would not relate to automotive engine oil filtration application.

There ARE accepted oil filter test procedures that much more realistically follow engine oil application but no major filter manufacturer is following them:: guess why..
Their filters will not come close to constant flow/temp/viscosity beta performance numbers....George Morrison STLE CLS

(the reason I add the CLS to my name is our commitment as CLS to share/teach lubrication specific knowledge: a person who is a CLS has achieved a recognized level of lubrication knowledge) I do have other initials but they are not relative to this site or discussion.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/posts/1012100/

Quote:
So what 'real world results' is he quoting or thinking of (red text in his quote)? ... UOAs?


Refer to this thread: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...6034#Post846034
 
Originally Posted By: CompSyn

Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
So what 'real world results' is he quoting or thinking of (red text in his quote)? ... UOAs?


Refer to this thread: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...6034#Post846034


Well, he never mentions what the tested beta ratios are for both filters he's comparing. I'm sure the EaO has a much better beta ratio than a stock OEM Toyota filter, so I would expect the 'real life' particle count to reflect that fact ... no real surprise there IMO.

Quote:
The comparative particle counts for my 2001 Toyota Sequoia with 159,000 total engine miles, using Mobil 1R0W-30 engine oil are as follows:

OEM oil filter PC vs. Amsoil EaO57 Oil filter PC
>4 Microns = 1,817 particles, 128 particles
>6 microns = 990 particles, 70 particles
>14 microns = 168 particles, 12 particles
>25 microns = 34 particles, 2 particles
>50 microns = 3 particles, 0 particles
>100 microns = 0 particles, 0 particles
 
Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
Originally Posted By: CompSyn

Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
So what 'real world results' is he quoting or thinking of (red text in his quote)? ... UOAs?


Refer to this thread: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...6034#Post846034


Well, he never mentions what the tested beta ratios are for both filters he's comparing. I'm sure the EaO has a much better beta ratio than a stock OEM Toyota filter, so I would expect the 'real life' particle count to reflect that fact ... no real surprise there IMO.

Quote:
The comparative particle counts for my 2001 Toyota Sequoia with 159,000 total engine miles, using Mobil 1R0W-30 engine oil are as follows:

OEM oil filter PC vs. Amsoil EaO57 Oil filter PC
>4 Microns = 1,817 particles, 128 particles
>6 microns = 990 particles, 70 particles
>14 microns = 168 particles, 12 particles
>25 microns = 34 particles, 2 particles
>50 microns = 3 particles, 0 particles
>100 microns = 0 particles, 0 particles



Sure!

It’s unclear to me when Mr. Morrison referred to an “OEM oil filter” in his thread, if he was talking about an Original Equipment Manufacturer Toyota/Denso oil filter OR is making a generalization of ALL cellulose type oil filters?

Unfortunately, nobody can ask him.

A few things are clear though, when going through all the posts George Morrison STLE CLS left us with, spanning some six-years; He loved his job and performed many real world filter tests with many different oil filter brands on his own vehicle.

He seemed to enjoy sharing his personal findings on BITOG stating it was for general interests and not to write a book. Given his apparent knowledge and expertise on the subjects of lubrication and lubricant filtration, I wish he would have published book(s) containing all of his testing data/findings before his passing.
 
High quality hydraulic filters are relatively unaffected by changes in flow, viscosity and pressure. If you have a $8,000 servo valve, you can't risk a level of protection based on the assumption that beta ratios aren't valid. A pressure filter is a must for a servo valve, as it is highly prone to contamination related failure. If you're buying a 3 micron, beta 1000 filter, it doesn't matter that it had steady flow, viscosity and pressure for testing, it still has to work. Pressure can vary from 300 to 5000 PSI, and flows can range from cubic inches a minute to full flow of the valve. The filter has to be able to keep up.

I would have serious doubts if a synthetic glass media filter for an automotive application has such vastly different construction as to consider its beta ratio a useless number. I challenge anyone to prove a paper element B20-10 filters better than any B3 >200 filter under any condition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Hohn
Beta Ratio and how and why to use it instead of efficiency rating
Replies
8
Views
5K
ZeeOSix
Carlostrece
Looking for a New Oil Filter
7 8 9
Replies
168
Views
10K
Carlostrece
S
Replacement for Purolator Boss Oil Filters
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
D1dad
F
Purolator date code can’t figure it out
Replies
17
Views
614
Fair enough
Hohn
The Honda Oil Filter Thread
4 5 6
Replies
106
Views
10K
oldsoul24
Back
Top Bottom