BOBISTHEOILGUY FILTER TESTS

cryptokid · May 28, 2003

hey bob, i have a GREAT idea which can solve every test discrepency for you.

install a REMOTE oil filter mount on a car!! use a car as a test subject. perhapos you may have a spare car you and temporarely refrain from driving( as to not wear out the oil oe effect it)
or maybe a friend weith a spare car he fcan loan you.

this way you can test each filter on a REAL engine and test hot cold pressures as well as take various readings such at psi @ 1000 rpm, 2000 rpm 3 and 4 5 6rpm and so on.

what do you think of my idea? you wouldnt even NEED to mount the remote filter mount so a place on the car, just let it sit in the engine compart ment and idle the car as tou do your tests. this is aboput as "real world" as you could ever hope to get!

Terry · May 28, 2003

Crypto, Good idea. Now who wants to volunteer their car ???? Howabout the most junior member of BITOG.

Just kidding.

cryptokid · May 28, 2003

for $700 ill give him a recently rebuilt vw diesel on a test stand. has alternator, injection pump and starter with a bellhousing sawzalled off of a dead tranny. this would be a good test subject, vw diesels run at like 80-140 psi oil pressure depending on what oil thickness ur using and all the other factors like bearing clearence.

the filter housing is standard uhm, american thread, like 3/4 13tpi, or 16tpi, or whatever the 5oh rustangs use (j/k u ford guys!)

consider for a bit more, ill make the thing basically complete, radiator and all. can run it on the stand all day long with a 6 gallon plastic boat tank filled with diesel.

although, i dont have any idea on how to add a tach. im sure there probably "universal" diesel tach kits which ise magnets attached to the main crank or something like that (just a guess)

BOBISTHEOILGUY · May 28, 2003

well crypto, you got everything ya need, why wait on me to do it? Be looking forward to your results.

YZF150 · May 28, 2003

The interesting thing about this test stand is that it seems it can be set-up to simulate an engine oiling system. Once set-up, no adjustments will be required, except perhaps input pressure. Just screw on different filters and measure pressure drop.

Right you are, Sir, and welcome. But to my thinking, pressure drop data are less significant than the flows. There is a developing consensus here that flows protect an engine better than a highly efficient filter. You also suggested that, "Pressure drop across a filter is directly proportional to flow and fluid viscosity." I'm considering it from another angle, that flow is inversely proportional to the pressure drop. The greater the restriction in the filter, leading to a higher delta-P, the less will be the flow.

I do indeed want to see the gauges showing the pressure differential, but I'm also totally on board with the idea of running that oil and catching it in a graduated bucket. What matters most to me is how much oil is a filter going to pass per unit time. I suspect that big delta-P filters will pass less oil.

Pablo · May 28, 2003

About 30 psi or so hot idle.

I guess what I'm getting at is: is the pressure differential a straight line? At 30, 40, 50, 60 psi? I need to know some more about the dynamics of the system...

nooklvr · May 28, 2003

quote:

Originally posted by cryptokid:

install a REMOTE oil filter mount on a car!! use a car as a test subject.

Well, I have a 1998 Camry V6 and have an Amsoil DR on it, and this discussion about that device got me worried a few days ago, so I did an experiment and have a few things to report.

Note: I'm using the Amsoil BP-110 bypass filter and SDF-26 full flow in an effort to get more oil capacity in this engine, because of its reputation of being hard on oil. This brings the total capacity up to about 8 quarts. I'm using Redline 5W-30 oil.

I installed identical pressure gauges at both the input and output and compared readings with and without the spring restrictor removed with both cold and hot oil.

1. There is slightly more delay of buildup of oil pressure with the restrictor in place, about a second or two, presumably because the bypass filter must buildup some pressure for the spring to open.

Compared to the 'stock' setup, with no DR installed, there is more startup 'rattle'. With the DR and bypass spring installed, it takes about 3-4 seconds for this rattle to dissappear on a cold start after sitting for 4 days. This is about the same as when starting up for the first time in stock setup after an oil change.

2. After a cold start, the pressure goes up to about 80 psi on either side, which seems to be the setting of the pressure relief valve for this engine. There isn't much drop across the DR , maybe a few pounds, but pretty insignificant. Repeating this test with the restrictor removed did not make an appreciable difference.

3. With the oil at operating temperature, idle pressure is usually 15-20 psi. This seems low to me, but I don't know what is typical for this engine. Pressure drop across the DR was again not appreciably different. Removing the restrictor also didn't result in an appreciable difference.

4. Where I did notice a significant drop across the DR was at higher rpm's with the oil at operating temperature. For the pressure relief valve [measured at the input of the DR] to be triggered, rpm's of at least 3K had to be produced. That makes for about 85 mph, 4th gear in lockdown. The output of the DR showed a drop of 10 psi or so and this decreased by about 5 psi with the restrictor removed.

The only thing I can think of why Bob's test showed such a high pressure drop across the unit is possibly because his test setup doesn't provide the backpressure looking towards the engine that this test setup did, so flow requirements in his setup are more demanding. Every engine design would be different in this respect. I'm sure there are engines out there with more and wider bearing journal clearances that would be much more demanding than this Toyota V6.

Data that I would like to have is the typical oil pressures on this engine when the filter system is in stock form with a Toyota full flow filter. Anybody?

I had an oil analysis done before the last oil change with Blackstone as the lab. I have no previous analysis to compare this to.

Miles on vehicle: 96600
8100 miles on Redline 5W-30 oil.
results / 'universal averages' (3600 miles)

Aluminum 5 / 3
Chromium 1 / 1
Iron 7 / 9
Copper 4 / 4
Lead 2 / 4
Tin 0 / 0
Moly 589 / 47
Nickel 1 / 0
Manganese 0 / 1
Silver 0 / 0
Titanium 0 / 0
Potassium 0 / 1
Boron 24 / 43
Silicon 22 / 19
Sodium 9 / 5
Calcium 2629 / 1524
Magnesium 19 / 538
Phosphorus 1234/ 732
Zinc 1294 / 856
Barium 1 / 0

Viscosity @ 210F = 62.7
Flashpoint 405
Fuel Antifreeeze 0
Water 0
Insolubles .3
TBN 9.5

I 'believe' the silicon number is relatively high because I think I got some dirt on the lip of the sampling bottle. [expletive deleted]

Overall, these seem to me to be quite nice numbers. How much the bypass is affecting the wear metals one way or the other, I have no idea.

Conclusion:

I don't like the cold startup rattle that this device makes the engine produce. Although this test indicates that it functions fairly well with this engine, I think that the standalone bypass with it's dedicated lines and restrictor combined with a full flow in the standard place is a more optimum way to go. The extra plumbing and the restrictor spring cause enough startup pressure delay to make me want to modify this unit by removing the spring restrictor device, installing two bypass filters. The union on the full flow would have to be changed to a 1", and installing the static restrictor fitting and re-routing the hoses to the oil sending device would also have to be done. This way, it would be like the BMK-12, but with larger diameter hoses, which should do no harm.

Anybody know the thread diameter of the filter union on the opposite side of the full flow filter?

BOBISTHEOILGUY · May 28, 2003

interesting nook, Plexx has a toyota which is where the new black on came from, seems he didn't have 80psi on his oil system. Maybe that's why it didn't work for him? What is the normal oil pressure you have without the DR but with a standard oil filter?

I'd very interested in seeing pics of this setup with the pressure readings as you describe them, any possiblity of seeing this?

Brian Barnhart · May 28, 2003

Bob, I agree with most of what you said in your post that started off "Well, let's consider this as a viable way to look at this...”

However, I’m still pondering your statement “ So, volume wouldn't have to be a part of the equation if the rpm is constant that would mean that volume (what ever it is) is constant, on the input side and depending on the filter restriction, it would reflect drop across each one accordingly.”

I agree that it’s not necessary to measure flow for each filter tested. And I like the idea of running the pump at the same speed and leaving the ball valve at the same setting (in other words, changing only the filter and leaving any adjustments alone). That is like what you have on an engine. But I still think the flow needs to be representative of what an engine (and it’s oil filter) sees.

In an earlier post, I attempted to show (perhaps not very clearly) what might happen if the flow rates in the stand are off. If low rates are too high (or low for that matter), I believe it’s possible to draw incorrect conclusions about filter performance.

I would be all for adjusting the ball valve and input power to the pump such that stand with a dummy filter produces:

40 psi at the filter input and,
Flows approximately 3 gallons per minute.

Then start spinning on the filters and logging data or snapping photos. I don’t think anything else would need to be adjusted. The input pressure might vary a little with different filters, but that is what would happen on an engine too.

Brian

Brian Barnhart · May 28, 2003

A few other comments.

Thanks for the warm welcome.

quote:

I'm considering it from another angle, that flow is inversely proportional to the pressure drop. The greater the restriction in the filter, leading to a higher delta-P, the less will be the flow.

I’m thinking the relationship is something like this (though some of the terms may be squared, etc.):

Filter Pressure Drop = k (some constant) X restriction X flow X viscosity

Therefore if you increase flow, viscosity, or restriction, pressure drop goes up (making pressure drop proportional to flow, viscosity, and restriction)

If you re-write the above equation (solving for flow) you get:

Flow = pressure drop/(k X restriction X viscosity)

From this form you can see increasing restriction or viscosity reduces flow. It also shows that if you want more flow, pressure drop must be allowed to increase. Likewise, to reduce pressure drop, flow must also be decreased.

quote:

I went to school with a Brian Barnhart, any chance you are he?

Definitely. That is my name, and I went to school.

Seriously though, I don’t know. All my schooling was in Ohio and that was many years ago.

jason07-1zzfe · May 28, 2003

quote:

Originally posted by nooklvr:
Well, I have a 1998 Camry V6 and have an Amsoil DR on it...I had an oil analysis done before the last oil change with Blackstone as the lab. I have no previous analysis to compare this to...

That is a great report! Mind posting in the analysis forum as well?

I'm not a big fan of that dual remote either. I think the separate bypass would be a better way to go. But it certainly isn't causing any major problems for you.

[ May 29, 2003, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: BOBISTHEOILGUY ]

K-Man · May 28, 2003

I find it interesting that Red Line does not offer an oil bypass rig, unlike Amsoil. Neither does K&N, which offers high-performance oil filters and would presumably be knowledgeable about such applications. This has implications for the bypass rigs tested.

It would be interesting to duplicate some of these oil flow experiments with a synthetic oil, but obviously we're talking serious $ here. Also, to avoid the Fram anomaly (wow! These cheap Frams with all that cardboard flow better than K&N!), testing 2 or 3 examples each of the cheaper filters would be more representative. If Bob did that, I'll bet he'll find a lot of variance among examples of the same (cheap) filter. In other words, Fram #1 will flow well, #2 will be so-so, #3 will be poor. Just my guess.

[ May 29, 2003, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: ekrampitzjr ]

jason07-1zzfe · May 28, 2003

If it filters more than boulders and small mammals, K&N is not interested.

Patman · May 29, 2003

quote:

Originally posted by ekrampitzjr:

It would be interesting to duplicate some of these oil flow experiments with a synthetic oil, but obviously we're talking serious $ here. Also, to avoid the Fram anomaly (wow! These cheap Frams with all that cardboard flow better than K&N!)

No they don't. Read the re-test of the Fram, it definitely does not flow as well as the K&N. In the initial test it appears it was in bypass mode, just as I suspected. There is simply no way the Fram is going to outflow the K&N under real world conditions, unless it's in total bypass mode.

BOBISTHEOILGUY · May 29, 2003

when we have everything laid out and we are satisfied that we've cover'd the basics, we will dump the mineral 10w30 and replace with redlines full synth(plexx donated 1 case of this to our test) with only 12 qts, we will be limited as to how many tests and what kind of tests we can do, so in the mean time, think of what we want to prove and how with the redline later after everything else said and done.

JohnBrowning · May 29, 2003

While I do not think it matter much I do think testing at higher pressures has merit. My Chevy 3.8V6 never has lower the 40 psi and is at 65psi cruiseing along at 80MPH. My Dodge Dakota always hits the 110 psi when cold and come down to about 50-60 psi at idle once warm reguardless of oil wt. brand or filter. It hits 110 with hot oil once you pass 1800 RPM. Stock specks list curb idle(500RPM) minium at 4 psi and 3000 RPM @ (25psi-110psi). My mothers Tundra list 98psi as the limit before pressure relief valve starts to open. My 17 year old 4Runner required 25-34 psi at idle if memory serves me right and 10 psi for every 1000 rpms above idle. SO while 40 might seem ok for 1960's small block I think it might not represent what is normaly now.

jason07-1zzfe · May 29, 2003

quote:

Originally posted by Brian Barnhart:

quote:

The psi upstream of the filter is irrelevant.
As long as the flow rate is same on all tests and then you can measure the dp. Or you could set the delta p to be the same and measure the different flow rates

Click to expand...

I agree, as long as all you care about is pressure drop verses flow.

The interesting thing about this test stand is that it seems it can be set-up to simulate an engine oiling system. Once set-up, no adjustments will be required, except perhaps input pressure. Just screw on different filters and measure pressure drop. Want to test effects of a different or heavier oil? Just change the oil. Interested in the effects of oil temp? Heat or cool the oil.
...

Isn't that what it's about? Differential pressure vs flow is all that matters. Whether or not the overall line pressure is 40 or 100psi the filter doesn't care. Unless you are trying to test the burst strength of the shell. In which case you have a long way to go pressure wise and I wouldn't want to be the one doing the testing.

Secondly, if same pump RPM=same flow...We then know the answer to which filter flows more...NONE, they will all be the same! This test is pointless! The oil pump will always turn the same rpm at a given engine speed.
Ok I take that back somewhat...less restictive filter would allow the max oil pump volume to be a little higher since it would open the relief valve later.
Maybe that's what should be tested...I.e. set the downstream restriction at a set point, as you have... and then turn up the rpm until the pump relief valve is open and measure the flow at that point. Then you will know how much extra flow you can really get. I.e. does it matter...

[ May 30, 2003, 10:17 AM: Message edited by: Jason Troxell ]

JohnBrowning · May 30, 2003

Hey Patman, I looked up some spec.'s on GM V6's 3.4 and 3.8. The spec.'s are as follows:

The 3.4 has a min. pressure of 15PSI@1100 RPM no reference to oil weight or temp.

The 3.8 was a different beast all together. Minimum pressure 60PSI @ 1850 RPM @ operateing temp. with 10W30 oil.

My 3.8 is barley with in specs. I might need to replace the backing plate on the oil pump.

JohnBrowning · Jun 2, 2003

Hello Bob!!!!! I have question for you. I have a Trasko with about 150 miles on it. I have reason to belive that flow is being reduced. 1)On start up it revs higher then before and stays at higher rpm for longer duration. 2)The oil pressure gauge seems to have some lag with reguards to engine rpm. 3)While it gets full oil pressure in the same total time on cold start the needle seems to be staying on 0psi for 2-3 seconds were before it shot right up almost instantly. 4) The oil seems to be alot hotter then it should be (I felt the filter after a short drive).
I would like to send it to you for testing in your study. Since it is a full flow and bypass filter in one case. I would of course want it back after the testing in structaly sound conditon. If you think you might be interested let me know. After the Amsoil bypass filter situation I am just a bit cautious!!!

brickman · Jun 5, 2003

quote:

Originally posted by Roger:
My figures might be off a bit from the camera angle, but it looks like the percent pressure drop is roughly as follows:

Amsoil: 40 vs 34 = -15%
Mobil 1: 40 vs 30 = -25%
K&N: 42 vs 36 = -14.5%
Fram: 40 vs 38 = -9.5%
Bosch: 40 vs 30 = -25%
Napa Silver: 38 vs 32 = -15.7%
Fram TG: 40 vs 22 = -30%
Napa Gold: 40 vs 32 = -20%
Pure1 40 vs 28 = -30%
Purolator+ : 40 vs 32 = -20%
Motorcraft: 40 vs 24 = -40%
STP: 40 vs 34 = -15%

Fascinating, but I'm not sure I see the trend this early into the testing.

Don't mean to be picky but a few of these percentages are wrong.

K&N: 42 vs 36 = -14.5% - drop of 8#, 8/42=19.04%
Fram: 40 vs 38 = -9.5% - drop of 2#, 2/40=5%
Fram TG: 40 vs 22 = -30% - drop of 18#, 18/40=45%

Just wanted to clarify.

BOBISTHEOILGUY FILTER TESTS

Similar threads