Compare resistances to flow of synthetic filters..

Status
Not open for further replies.

Izb

Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
445
Location
London, UK
I wonder about resistances to flow of synthetic oil filters Amsoil EaO (= Royal purple ?), Wix XP (=Napa Platinum), Bosch Distance Plus.
To minimize the opening of the bypass valve in the winter cold, I want to select a filter with a minimum flow resistance.
Difference of 10-20% is not be significant, but if more, it is more important...
 
Last edited:
This information is not generally available, but rest assured your sump had been filtered constantly. Note that the mains drill at the outlet of the filter ahs a very high impedance to viscous lubricant volume flow. I might be more concerned about bypassing at high rpm, varying loads with low viscosity sump at 230C. But cavitation bearing damage is more the reality on "abused" wet sump engines
Regardless, for the Honda I choose WIX filter glassfibre/PC/cellulose with a base-end bypass construction and medium efficiency and upsized for a 1-litre larger engine
smile.gif
 
Last edited:
Full synthetic media filters do flow better per media sq-in ... but I'd say it's no better than you 20% upper range.

For instance, the FRAM Ultra which is full synthetic flows just a hair better than the Purolator non-synthetic PureOne. This is based on Jay @ Fram posing what the delta-p was on the Fram Ultra, and I compared that to this data.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...451#Post1619451

I wouldn't worry too much about "filter flow performance", as most every top tier filter brand will have good flowing oil filters. The oil filter is only 1/15 the total resistance in the oiling system, so you can see it's doesn't add much flow resistance.

Key to keeping the filter from going into bypass on very cold day start-ups is to keep the engine RPM low until the oil warms up some.
 
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
I might be more concerned about bypassing at high rpm, varying loads with low viscosity sump at 230C.


Very hard to get a filter to bypass with hot oil ... even at engine redline. Better check you "230C" ... that's 446 deg F. Not too many oils will take that and would be super thin.
grin.gif


The hotter/thinner the oil, the harder it will be to make the filter go into bypass.

High engine RPM with cold thick oil will put the filter into bypass much easier.
 
Hi,
lzb - When Donaldson first released their Synteq Endurance filters (I believe they are like the EaO) they published the following data:

Bypass range - 15-22 psi
Lubricant - 15W-40
Engine speed - at idle
At a 30F start the by-pass was "closed" at 40F compared to 70F with a Cellulose filter

Obviously the superior flow benefits are greater at more elevated revs when cold

I used the Endurance filters and a 5W-40 synthetic lubricant for several years to minimise cold start wear in my application. Here I had 40 ltr sumps and 40 ltr cooling system capacity and a low temp of around -5C. The combination was very successful
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
When Donaldson first released their Synteq Endurance filters (I believe they are like the EaO) they published the following data:

Bypass range - 15-22 psi
Lubricant - 15W-40
Engine speed - at idle
At a 30F start the by-pass was "closed" at 40F compared to 70F with a Cellulose filter


Seems like a lot of filter delta-p at an idle (over 15 psi).

Guess it depends on what motor this test was done on (ie, pump with a pretty big volume output per engine rev?), and that 15W-40 oil is probably pretty viscous at 30F.
 
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
When Donaldson first released their Synteq Endurance filters (I believe they are like the EaO) they published the following data:

Bypass range - 15-22 psi
Lubricant - 15W-40
Engine speed - at idle
At a 30F start the by-pass was "closed" at 40F compared to 70F with a Cellulose filter


40F=4C
70F=22C

That is one of few reasons because I prefer synthetic filters...
p.s.
Buy there is no information about resistance to flow of synthetic blend fulters like Bosch DP, Pure One, Mobil1, K&N, AFE,...
 
Hi,
lzb - Yes, and when the sump and cooling systems both hold around 40 ltrs it a lengthy process to get them up to temp!

Later I discarded the Endurance FF filters and used a centrifuge and two SS mesh FF inserts instead - in all of my vehicles
 
Originally Posted By: Izb

But there is no information about resistance to flow of synthetic blend fulters like Bosch DP, Pure One, Mobil1, K&N, AFE,...


Sure there is ... I gave you the best flow vs delta-p info you'll ever find on the PureOne filter in this thread already - test data right from Purolator's laboratory.

Here it is again:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...451#Post1619451
 
Even if a non-syn filter would bypass a small percentage of time more often that a syn-media filter under very limited conditions, I would ask someone to show definitive proof (real data please, not conjecture and opinion) that it actually makes a hoots worth of difference to the engine in terms of wear that actually affects the longevity of the engine.

Think about this from a pragmatic view, guys.

The bypass events represent a super-small fraction of total operation time. Let's make up a number; maybe .00005%? It obviously would depend upon many issues that we cannot nail down because they would be situation dependent. But Jim Allen's testing shows that this is typical ONLY when high revs are met with cold sump temps, and he had to force that condition to happen as a means of testing; it's not "normal" by any means. So how often does bypass REALLY happen? Practically never, regardless of the media type.

And, just because a filter goes into bypass does NOT mean the floodgates of Hades have opened and there would be a bazillion particles just salivating to destroy your engine that would OTHERWISE have been stopped at the media. Think about this ... if it is your presumption that a bypass event will lead to a massive migration of particulate past the valve, then that infers there is a HEAVY population of particulate in that size that would otherwise be caught if the bypass had not openend. So, if the bypass does NOT open, then would not the media become saturated and blind off in very short order by default? See the irony here? If your theory is that the media is under constant heavy barrage such that a bypass event would assure a huge onslaught of particulate pummeling, then by default the non-bypass time would just blind off the media in short order, and you'd be right back into full bypass all the time! The reality is that while I would certainly agree that particulate is always present, it's not like there is a storm cloud hanging around the bypass valve like hoodlums at the pool hall.

Here's the reality of how this works:
1) filter media (regardless of construction) has way more capacity than most of you would believe
2) filter bypass event represent a super-tiny fraction of total operation time
3) sump system particulate loading is not nearly as heavy as you'd think, to a manner that a bypass event would assure damage, or the media would blind off super early in the otherwise reasonable expected lifecycle


As some of you know, I ran a FL400S for 15k miles on one dino oil 15k mile OCI and got totally "normal" wear results with no heavy sludging, etc. No syn media, no super-capacity over-sized filter, etc. My point is that once you reach a reasonable level of performance, "more" (efficiency, flow, capacity) simply means diddly squat to real world wear results. What you might see in lab filter data does not always equate to tangible results in the real world under normal use.

Between the VERY small amount of time a filter might be in bypass, and the very limited amount of particulate available at that time of bypass, this is a WAY overblown topic. So while some of you might be able to come up with some lab data, I ask that you show direct, tangible proof that it actually equates to any difference in real world wear and equipment longevity under typical operating conditions, please. Please direct me to a credible study that shows any of this makes a difference in real world applications for normal folks.
 
Last edited:
Yep! Unless there are a massive amount of contamination input, the oil stays in a relatively clean state and short, occasional bypass events don't change that much. Also, remember that bypass does not necessarily mean a full opening of the valve. Most often, the valve just cracks and a little unfiltered oil goes past while the majority of the oil is still flowing thru the media.

Purolator lists their bypass pressure in a range, the first number being the cracking pressure and the second the full open pressure. The filter I was using was 8-16 psi and even running an oil that was a grade higher than spec'ed, driving "normally" 8-10 psi DP was about all I could get and that pressure was only reached a second or so at a time. If I revved high with cold or cool oil, I could get to 12 psi or so, about halfway to 16 psi, but I had to deliberately ignore the gauges to do it.

You can largely avoid bypass under normal circumstances by:

-run the spec'ed grade of oil (the bypass spec is somewhat based upon the oil viscosity)

-keep the revs low until the oil is warmed up (for my 5.4L V8, the "magic" oil temp is 150 F... at that point bypass is not an issue in normal driving)

I'm beginning to form a hypothesis that if you feel the need to run a thicker-than-spec'ed oil, you should run a filter with a bypass spec a little higher as well. Or have a larger filter with more media or the same amount of a higher flowing media.
 
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
I'm beginning to form a hypothesis that if you feel the need to run a thicker-than-spec'ed oil, you should run a filter with a bypass spec a little higher as well. Or have a larger filter with more media or the same amount of a higher flowing media.


Running a filter with a higher specified bypass setting may not always work because it's possible the bypass setting is higher in that filter because it's a bit more restrictive to flow. I believe the bypass setting on the filter is also dependent on the flow characteristics of the media, as well as the max flow and oil viscosity used in service on the vehicles the filter is specified for.

The other two options you mention are probably a better way to go - more media and/or full synthetic media - both leading to better flow and less media delta-p to give more bypass event headroom.
 
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Good point. You probably couldn't make a call on that unless you knew more about the media.


True. I think one good thing about "up-sizing" a filter of the same make/model, that is probably using the same media and has the same bypass setting, is that you are getting more bypass event headroom just from the increase in media area due to less delta-p across the media.

If you could find a larger filter with more media area in the same brand/model that fits, and also has a higher bypass setting, then you might be going in the right direction. But if you were looking at other brands of filters that fit with higher bypass settings, then that higher bypass setting might be due to different filter media flow characteristics.

I doubt a filter manufacturer would increase the bypass setting on any of their filters when the media flows better ... unless that filter was for an application with a high volume oil pump like the Subarus which have pretty high bypass valve settings.
 
Hi,
Dave - You have your views and your experience - I have mine

When you operate engines worth around $45000 each in trucks worth around $600000 the reality changes a little. Combined with unproductive downtime it is imperative that every avenue is followed to remain profitable

The whole of life (1st life), out to around 1.5 million miles without a major breakdown, component replacement or rebuild is one pathway to follow

When you see and hear expensive engines being revved up from freezing temps, wrong lubricant types being used and OCIs being missed - sludged engines, failed turbos, excessive carbon build-up and the engine rebuilds following you become even more aware of the need to be competently innovative! There are perhaps safety considerations to follow too

So, some of us will follow the lead of researchers via the SAE, Component Manufacturers, and the experience of Industrial engine Manufacturers and obtain

Fortunately such things worked economically and from an overall efficiency viewpoint in the environment I worked lived in and derived an income from for most of my life. I will share my experience for those that care to consider it relevant
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3


And, just because a filter goes into bypass does NOT mean the floodgates of Hades have opened and there would be a bazillion particles just salivating to destroy your engine that would OTHERWISE have been stopped at the media. Think about this ... if it is your presumption that a bypass event will lead to a massive migration of particulate past the valve, then that infers there is a HEAVY population of particulate in that size that would otherwise be caught if the bypass had not openend. So, if the bypass does NOT open, then would not the media become saturated and blind off in very short order by default? See the irony here? If your theory is that the media is under constant heavy barrage such that a bypass event would assure a huge onslaught of particulate pummeling, then by default the non-bypass time would just blind off the media in short order, and you'd be right back into full bypass all the time! The reality is that while I would certainly agree that particulate is always present, it's not like there is a storm cloud hanging around the bypass valve like hoodlums at the pool hall.



Depends on what is going on inside the engine.

A filter from my Expedition (FL-820S with a base-end bypass as per Ford.... The idea being that when it DOES bypass, the media isn't "washed" of the particulate and having it sent through the engine):

MotorcraftAFE0w30OCI2-03.jpg


And one of the times I didn't run the FL-820S (PureONE):

PureONEExpy201004.jpg


And then another sample with an FL-820S (I believe this was with M1 AFE 0w-30 in it):

motorcraft8.jpg

motorcraft10.jpg


I certainly wouldn't want that stuff being washed off and sent through the engine by virtue of a bypass event, would you?
 
Thanks for posting that.

A lot of people didn't buy into the thread end bypass idea.

On the other hand, MC filters are quite a way off the Pure 1 efficiency so which is the lesser evil?
 
Bypass location is an overrated characteristic IMO. Note that filters so equipped are a minority in the totality of production. On top of that, I addressed this issue with three engineers who work in the field and that is where "overrated" comes from. More on that in a sec.

For one thing, it depends on the orientation of the filter. If the filter is vertical (dome down) then a threaded end bypass is a better idea. If the filter is horizontal or nearly so, worse yet vertical with the base down, you can see that a threaded end bypass becomes less of a good idea.

The root of the ambivalence from the engineers I interviewed came from these areas:

1) In normal circumstances, bypass events aren't that common.

2) Seldom does the valve fully open or open enough to let a significant amount of oil and contamination thru.

3) "Washing" in the way many people think doesn't happen. What you see in that filter canister is mostly crud that has been washed off by jostling and cutting the filter.

4) Much of the contamination in a filter is embedded in the media and held there by differential pressure. You only see it in dissected pics because it gets knocked off.

5) Two of the three engineers I spoke with think that the design of the Motorcraft base end valve is not so hot. They implied that it is not as reliable as many of the other dome end designs. They did not provide any evidence but claimed they base that opinion on tests their companies did. I don't give that "end-all-be-all" status, but I give it a little weight.. enough to watch closely anyway.

Finally, while I agree a base end bypass is a plus (when filter orientation is conducive) I give it no more weight than any other feature. In other words, I'll take it in the right circumstances but it's not a deal-maker or breaker if all the other design and performance features match my criteria.
 
^^^ Good comments Jim. I agree that the use of a base end bypass valve is really only ideal for filters that are mounted base end up to some degree. I also think that if an engine is pretty clean the bypass location doesn't matter. On a very dirty sludger engine, if the filter was loaded up like mad with base end up, the base end bypass might save the engine for a while. But an engine in that condition isn't going to last very long anyway.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
^^^ Good comments Jim. I agree that the use of a base end bypass valve is really only ideal for filters that are mounted base end up to some degree. I also think that if an engine is pretty clean the bypass location doesn't matter. On a very dirty sludger engine, if the filter was loaded up like mad with base end up, the base end bypass might save the engine for a while. But an engine in that condition isn't going to last very long anyway.


I'd hardly call my example above "very loaded up", but I observed both particulate in the media and sediment in the bottom of the can. You can see both in the pictures.

And yes, my applications has the filter close to vertical (base end up) as do probably most Ford base-end bypass applications.

I'm sure Ford has a few engineers of their own on staff and their reasoning seems to contradict that of the field engineers that Jim spoke to (as is pretty common with engineers) so I wouldn't necessarily just deem one or the other right or wrong here as I think that with the correct qualifiers in place (as you guys are discussing) that there are advantages to the design.

Ford's PDF on this:

http://www.ford-trucks.com/ford-manuals/Oil_Filter_Cutaway_Comparison.pdf


(please go to page 4 which shows typical Ford filter mount orientation)

Certainly makes sense to me and I have observed that type of particulate in the bottom of the can.

Note that using a filter cutter is not beating the filter with a hammer, so I'm unsure as to how we've arrived to the conclusion that this is knocking stuff off the media
21.gif
The act of simply starting your engine imparts far more vibration on the filter than using a cutter on it. Note that I'm not talking about the guys taking theirs apart with a chisel here, LOL!
wink.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top