Cellulose filter media better than sythetic?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: dino33
I'm a little leery that an imperfect fit might effect the valve in the filter.


How?


Well, if the filter is not positioned perfectly could there not be interupted oil flow or an effected bypass valve?
21.gif
 
Originally Posted By: dino33
Thanks Jim, makes you wonder why they don't make the filters a little bigger, or at least give you the option of buying a larger one. Now, to find a match so I can use a larger synthetic filter on my car... I'm a little leery that an imperfect fit might effect the valve in the filter. Time for some googling...
12.gif



It's packaging. They want one filter to fit more than one application. If that means making a filter a little smaller to fit one particular application, so be it. Fits the smallest common denominator. Remember the average: the average filter on a standard OCI ends up being less than 50% loaded at the end of the OCI. Most engines don't need anything bigger and if you use the correct oil viscosity, bypass events are minimized... at least enough not to worry the ever practical engine mfr. and his manipulation to the law of averages.
 
Originally Posted By: dino33
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: dino33
I'm a little leery that an imperfect fit might effect the valve in the filter.


How?


Well, if the filter is not positioned perfectly could there not be interupted oil flow or an effected bypass valve?
21.gif



No ... the bypass valve only cares about delta-P across the media. How would the filter "not be positioned perfectly" ?
 
You guys are thinking about this all wrong...IMO, the article is pretty much dead on about the differences between cellulose and syn media. Take a look at each through a microscope. Cellulose fibers are thicker, less uniform, and likely a bit softer. The article is saying that some of the wear particles get lodged, or impinged, into the fiber instead of just getting caught between fibers. Cellulose is also better at adsorption.

Syn of course has more 'pores' or gaps per unit area, and that means better flow, but which has more 'capacity' depends on your definition.

I like the idea of using glass-enhanced cellulose, or 2-ply glass over cellulose. Best of both worlds.
 
Here are two easily found sources of information from Machinery Lubrication and a couple of relevant quotes.


Filter Anatomy

"Cellulose media are advantageous because they can absorb some water contamination. However, these types of media tend to fail more rapidly than synthetic media in acidic and harsh oil conditions. Nevertheless, the primary reason synthetic filter media are preferred is their more consistent porosity and smaller fiber size, which contributes to higher dirt-holding capacity and longevity of the filter."


Dirt Holding Capacity

"Synthetic filter media generally have a higher dirt-holding capacity than cellulose. This is due in part to their more consistent pore size throughout the media. Synthetic fibers are smaller than cellulose fibers, so they can be packed tighter together, creating more pores in which to trap and hold particles. Synthetic fibers also perform better in the harsh environments that tend to destroy cellulose filters."

I also urge you to compare filer capacity of similar sized oil filters. Why would a typical FL820s sized filter with cellulose media have a capacity of 18 grams and a rated service interval of 7.5K and a synthetic media filter be rated for 31 grams and have a service interval of 15K?

Cellulose is generally a surface loaded media. It's a sheet of "paper" with little depth, so most of the contamination is captured on the surface. When all the surface pores are blocked, the filter is effectively plugged.

Syntheic fiber media is a thick "mat" comprised of many fibers. The media filters oil all the way thru it's entire depth, so has much more capacity to hold particles.

You can find any number of pictures of cellulose fitler media here. It's essentially thick paper, pleated and held in shape with resins. Here is a section of a syn fiber media. When I took that pic, I had a cellulose media handy and this Ultra media was at least 10 times thicker. Wish I had shot them together, but I do have that section of media and many cut up filters, so I could actually take pics and measurements when I get a chance. Anyway, in interviews with filter pros at Fram and Parker, I was told that "generally" syn media has about twice the capacity per square inch of media than cellulose. This can vary exactly according to the media but I was asking for generalities.

UltraMedia.jpg


Cellulose has many good qualities and it certainly has some of the qualities mentioned in the sourced article above, bottom line, the article is missing a few details on capacity. And if you search, you will find a number of versions of that same exact story published in other outlets.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dino33
... makes you wonder why they don't make the filters a little bigger, or at least give you the option of buying a larger one.



I'll give you a very simple explanation here ...
Because there is a difference between what is possible and what is actually experienced.

The contamination rates (as defined as the actual amount of particulate and soot/insolubles truly created and ingested during and OCI) that really happen during operation are not really very high.

While a filter may be able to trap and hold a lot of stuff, that does not mean it will do so. This is not because of it's capability (efficiency and holding capacity), but due to the lack of occurences of the contamination.

This of this analogy:
a wide receiver may have the ability to catch 28 passes per game, and run 18.7 yards per carry, but if you only throw him the ball 3 times in the whole game, down at the 7 yard line, then he will never perform to his potential because you've not passed enough opportunities at a great enough distance. You, as the team owner, could buy a "better" wide receiver, but if your game plan is to run the ball with your star full-back, then the passing plan will NEVER utilize the potential of the receiver because your passing game does not test the bounds of the potential.

And so it goes with "better" (bigger filters; syn filters) filtration. If your O/FCI plan is moderate, you will NEVER get into a situation that tests the bounds of any filter, regardless of it's size or construction. That is because the contamination rate in today's engines is low enough that it well below the threshold of "normal" filtration. To a point so low that some OEM even offer FCIs at 2x the OCI. It really does not matter how big a filter you put on, or what media it has. If the contamination rate is not able to usurp the average OCI expectation of contaminant loading, then any filter capacity beyond that is moot. Typically, most filter change intervals are way under-utilized.

So why the "need" for a larger filter, or syn media, when the current filters fill the bill more than well enough?

Filters are getting smaller, and yet OCIs are getting longer. Why? Because the rate of contamination is not great enough to overwhelm the media, regardless of it's construction. As long as the equipment OEM properly spec's a filter for the intended FCI, and then aftermarket makers properly supply a filter for that effect, the net result is ... it works just fine. Therefore, there is no "need" for bigger filters, or more efficient media, or more holding capacity.

The only time you would "need more" (size, capacity, etc) is if you intend to GREATLY extend your O/FCI well past what the OEM intended. And when you get into this arena, you need to be monitoring a whole host of things. Extended O/FCIs are great tools to get ROI, but ONLY when well managed utilizing a wide range of tools (UOAs, PCs, compression testing, visual inspections, fluid level monitoring, etc).

That make sense?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
That make sense?
100%.

Let me try another approach for those who still don't "believe": If you have a fixed number of bugs flying around outside your house, and the 10 sq ft screen in your only window catches them all, then installing a 50 sq ft screen isn't going to catch any MORE bugs.

OK, that's a crude analogy, but DN3 is correct in his assessment. Bigger is only better if the original filter was incorrectly spec'd in the first place, or if you change the operational parameters.

If you want to use a bigger filter because it makes you feel warm and fuzzy, there's nothing wrong with that; just don't think you are improving anything.
 
Originally Posted By: RF Overlord
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
That make sense?
100%.

Let me try another approach for those who still don't "believe": If you have a fixed number of bugs flying around outside your house, and the 10 sq ft screen in your only window catches them all, then installing a 50 sq ft screen isn't going to catch any MORE bugs.

OK, that's a crude analogy, but DN3 is correct in his assessment. Bigger is only better if the original filter was incorrectly spec'd in the first place, or if you change the operational parameters.

If you want to use a bigger filter because it makes you feel warm and fuzzy, there's nothing wrong with that; just don't think you are improving anything.


You are slightly improving a couple of things by using a larger oil filter due to the larger flow area.

1) Increases the holding capacity (holds more "bugs"). Helps insure the filter doesn't load up and cause undue restriction over a long OCI.

2) Lowers the delta-P across the media (as flow area increases, PSID goes down). Helps to keep the filter from going in to bypass as easily.

3) Adds a little more oil capacity to the engine's oiling system.

Do any of these "make or break" the longevity of the engine? Who knows, but it could if for instance it keeps the filter from bypassing as much and helps keep unfiltered oil out of the system.

Bigger doesn't hurt. Bigger is added headroom. Bigger is feel good.
smile.gif
 
Originally Posted By: RF Overlord
Zee, I agree with your points but I think I covered them with my comment "...or if you change the operational parameters."


I agree that the specified filter or a specific vehicle (if the filter was designed correctly) will do fine under the operational parameter of that vehicle and the suggested maintenance schedule.

But, even if those operational parameters all stayed the same, you still get some slight advantages (as I listed above) if a larger filter is used. It just gives you some added "headroom" in some areas.
 
So unless you are trying to go for the Amsoil 25K max, would a filter like the Mobil 1 with a blend be the best? It can do some absorption (cellulose) yet it can hold a lot and can filter finer particles than plain cellulose.

Maybe it depends upon how they actually do the blend!
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
The only time you would "need more" (size, capacity, etc) is if you intend to GREATLY extend your O/FCI well past what the OEM intended.

Agreed. Looking at the "average" vehicle today with small filters and OCIs well beyond the old 3,000 mile standard, can you imagine how long it would take to plug an FL1A or something similarly large?
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
The only time you would "need more" (size, capacity, etc) is if you intend to GREATLY extend your O/FCI well past what the OEM intended.

Agreed. Looking at the "average" vehicle today with small filters and OCIs well beyond the old 3,000 mile standard, can you imagine how long it would take to plug an FL1A or something similarly large?


Something feels better having a large filter the size used in my Cummins.
 
That's different.
wink.gif
I'd expect a large filter on a diesel, or something like my old F-150. But, new cars that don't do a lot of ugly stuff to the oil and use quality, modern oil in the first place likely won't need the dirt holding capacity that something else might.

Lots of guys like to push their OCIs on diesels, so I certainly wouldn't want a Cummins with the oil filter the size of the one on my G. But, for a non-direct injection engine with a reasonable sized sump calling for an SM/GF-4 or better oil over a rather short OCI, a larger filter is likely not required. An FL1A sized filter in the G could probably last for four OCIs. I'm not one to reuse filters, but I can still recognize a waste.

Thinking back to the taxi days, in retrospect, I'm wondering how much longer I could have gone on those small block oil filters than the 6,000 miles I was doing. Those were rather large filters for an application that was rather sedate on the oil (LPG in taxi service).
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: RF Overlord
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
That make sense?
100%.

Let me try another approach for those who still don't "believe": If you have a fixed number of bugs flying around outside your house, and the 10 sq ft screen in your only window catches them all, then installing a 50 sq ft screen isn't going to catch any MORE bugs.

OK, that's a crude analogy, but DN3 is correct in his assessment. Bigger is only better if the original filter was incorrectly spec'd in the first place, or if you change the operational parameters.

If you want to use a bigger filter because it makes you feel warm and fuzzy, there's nothing wrong with that; just don't think you are improving anything.


You are slightly improving a couple of things by using a larger oil filter due to the larger flow area.

1) Increases the holding capacity (holds more "bugs"). Helps insure the filter doesn't load up and cause undue restriction over a long OCI.

2) Lowers the delta-P across the media (as flow area increases, PSID goes down). Helps to keep the filter from going in to bypass as easily.

3) Adds a little more oil capacity to the engine's oiling system.

Do any of these "make or break" the longevity of the engine? Who knows, but it could if for instance it keeps the filter from bypassing as much and helps keep unfiltered oil out of the system.

Bigger doesn't hurt. Bigger is added headroom. Bigger is feel good.
smile.gif





I think generally we're all in agreement.

I will pound out this one point one more time, though. There is a difference between POTENTIAL performance opportunities and the reality of operational conditions being fully pushed to the point of ROI.

Increasing filter contaminant holding capacity isn't a bad thing, but it is not going to manifest into "better" wear protection by any means. It can help lengthen the OCI, but that is ONLY applicable if one actually intend to do so. Most "normal" filters can go 2x the typical OCI; a super-duper high capacity syn media filter could go WAY further than that. But the ability to "hold" more contaminants does not means it will do so automatically. It can only eat up what you feed it; shorter O/FCIs simply don't load a filter to anywhere near the capacity, so adding "more" capacity does not glean an advantage. The ONLY time an advantage can exist, is when some alternative has been usurped. This is a topic of what the term "better" means ... increasing filter holding capacity does not mean the filter is any more efficient, but it does mean it will be efficient for a longer period of time, but ONLY if one uses long enough. "Better" here does not infer increased performance; it indicates longer performance. That is only a benefit if you operate past the former filters loaded life-cycle.

Delta P across the media is never an issue unless you regularly find your filter being blinded off. Jim's testing shows filters rarely ever go into bypass, and when they seldom do, it's only under extreme circumstances (cold sump, very high revs). If the dP across your "normal" filter is 4 psi, (with a bypass setting of 8 psi), then dropping even 50% resistance using a "better" filter really does not mean anything. It might result in a tiny, micro-fractional increase in fuel economy with less pumping loss, but contrasted to the engine lube circuit resistance, it's a fool's errand to claim this as a "benefit".

Adding oil capacity could be a benefit, or a detriment. If one greatly extends the OCI, where the added capacity means some portion of longer OCI gain, then I'd agree. However, if one sticks to a conservative OCI, then adding more oil in the filter simply means more oil is dumped before it's fully utilized; hence - it would serve to increase waste.

Any product under the burning orb in the sky can be either over or under utilized. Calling something "cheap insurance" does not make it any less of a waste. Up-sizing has no realized benefit unless you push that particular circumstance beyond some threshold where a lesser alternative would be compromised.

This is a nit-picking difference between what is possible, versus what is realized.
 
Quote of the day:

"The ONLY time an advantage can exist, is when some alternative has been usurped."

A usurped alternative! Great wordsmithing!

That said, in this whole thread I don't believe the "cheap insurance" mantra was invoked. Truly a good thread!
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Any product under the burning orb in the sky can be either over or under utilized. Calling something "cheap insurance" does not make it any less of a waste. Up-sizing has no realized benefit unless you push that particular circumstance beyond some threshold where a lesser alternative would be compromised.

This is a nit-picking difference between what is possible, versus what is realized.


Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
That said, in this whole thread I don't believe the "cheap insurance" mantra was invoked. Truly a good thread!


lol.gif
... guess I'll say it then ... up-sizing the filter is just that, added "cheap insurance" that the filter will have less delta-P, more holding capacity and a higher likelihood of reliably performing the best it can if it's pushed beyond what a smaller sized filter could deliver under the same or worse circumstances.

People typically make decisions that consider the factors of "added insurance" or "less risk" in life quite often, no matter what they do. Using a larger filter than specified is no different.
smile.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top