Yes, what I said may not be true w/every filter as we see here. If only I had enough motivation to create an "oil filter size to efficiency" comparison sheet we may never know for certain about a general trend.
Cut Open: 17 µm Purolator ONE vs 20 µm Fram Titanium
- Thread starter Robvette
- Start date
The restriction of the interior holes is more important than the base plate restriction, since more restriction across the interior will cause the bypass valve to open more easily. The base plate restriction won't have this effect. It's cheaper to drill more holes than it is to increase the filter media area to achieve the required flow/bypass performance.
Here's a calculation for the pressure drop across the interior plate based on your measurements. The pressure drop is 0.126 psi at 11.35 L/min. The entire filter would have around a 2 psi dP at this flow rate, so the pressure drop across the interior plate would be around 6% of the total dP.
I did another calculation for the base plate, and got a value of 0.9 psi. This is really significant at almost half the total restriction, but as you said, the holes may actually flow a bit better than your measurement suggests, and I suspect it's quite a bit lower than this.
I'd be curious to know the number and dimensions of the louvers on the Purolator filter. I suspect the restriction might be really significant, but the filter does have reasonable restriction overall if the data sheet is to be believed.
The data I've seen on this from Ascent suggests that the micron rating only changes by around 5 micron, comparing a new filter to a fully loaded filter that has much higher dP. I'd expect the difference to be much less than 5 micron between a smaller and larger filter.
In real applications, larger filters tend to be designed for higher oil flow rates on larger engines, but will have similar dP to smaller filters. So the different filter sizes should have the similar dP and efficiency in typical applications.
Yes, I believe with all other factors held constant (meaning the exact same filter media being used, under same exact test conditions), a smaller filter with less total media area could (and usually does) show less efficiency. What's strange about the Purolator/M+H Spec Sheets is there are cases where that doesn't seem to hold true - like the PL14006 vs PL30001 example I pointed out, the PL30001 has way more total media area per the Spec Sheet. I've used the PL14006 on my Z06, and I'd call it a medium sized filter, but the PL30001 is pretty huge comparatively. So does that mean their Spec Sheets are messed up, or does it mean that different PureOne filters are using different media? ... which seems bizarre in itself. I'd think that the whole PureOne line would all use the same filter media, just like the whole Ultra line would use the same media, etc.
The main reason that oil filter's can lose efficiency as they load up (depending on the media design) is because as the media loads up and the dP increases, that can cause already captured debris to slough off the media and go down stream. We saw that phenomenon in the Ascent testing too (see link below - read some beyond where the link pops into the thread). Some filter media sloughs off worse than others - it all depends on the exact media design and how it reacts as it loads up and the dP increases across the media.
If a filter rates very high in the ISO 4548-12 efficiency test, then it has a very low dP vs sloughing debris factor (like the Ultra and other high efficiency filters in the Ascent testing). Filters that are not very efficient many suffer from just having lower effective media in the first place, and also a large dP vs debris sloughing factor on top of that.
Would you all like to see ISO 4548-12 Oil Filter Lab Testing Comparison, Efficiency & Capacity, Pressure vs Flow, Bubble Point, and Burst?
Andrew, thank you very much for posting this. I hope this means you're feeling better. The Wix XP going longer before clogging is likely due to it letting so much through. Those results for the XP are very disappointing. It's no wonder they are shy to release the numbers.
bobistheoilguy.com
Last edited:
It does seem odd, but they do indicate on the data sheets that it's different media. The media on this PL14006 seems to be a much darker shade of yellow than on the various PurolatorOne filters that Whip City Wrencher has cut open, and it doesn't seem to be the lighting. Those filters also tend to have a lot of noticeable sparkles in the media, maybe from the glass fiber.
The PL14459 with the 40-micron cellulose is a filter with a 12 psi bypass, recommended for various makes of vehicle, but Subarus as well. The low-restriction media allows it to flow well without bypassing even in the Subaru applications that would normally use a filter with a 23 psi bypass valve. If they used the standard media, they'd have to make a different filter model with a higher bypass setting for those Subaru weirdos (or they could do what FRAM does and just not care about their filters bypassing in those applications).
What's even more odd is that the PL14006 shows just plain cellulose media, were the PL30001 shows a synthetic blend of cellulose and synthetic + glass fibers. The PL14006 has a total media area of 793 cm^2 and the PL30001 has a total media area of 2228 cm^2 (almost 3 times the media area). Yet the PL14006 is 99% @ 17u and the PL30001 is 99% @ 25u.
I would think the synthetic blend media with over 3 times the media area would test better due to those factors - both tested at the same flow rate and oil viscosity. Doesn't seem to add up to me. A pure cellulose media with 1/3 the media area is the better one?
Last edited:
I've noticed that 3 of the 5 data sheets I have for PurolatorOne filters with synthetic blend media show a dP of exactly 14 kPA. When the value isn't 14 kPA, there's always another decimal place shown. It seems to me like another copy/paste job like what we discussed for the BOSS efficiency data.
The PL30001 has almost 4 times the media area as the PL14615 (attached), both synthetic blend, and they show the same 14 kPA at the same flow rate. I'd bet that the dP for the PL30001 is actually far lower.
Attachments
Not sure what to make of it other than just keep trying to make sense of it LOL. The more premium media of the PL30001 shows it can hold x3 times the dust holding capacity albeit at a lower efficiency. The cellulose only smaller filter has better efficiency but only holds 4 grams of dust. Some of these are showing "no relief valve" in the remarks section which I'm assuming is meaning no bypass valve.What's even more odd is that the PL14006 shows just plain cellulose media, were the PL30001 shows a synthetic blend of cellulose and synthetic + glass fibers. The PL14006 has a total media area of 793 cm^2 and the PL30001 has a total media area of 2228 cm^2 (over 3 times the media area). Yet the PL14006 is 99% @ 17u and the PL30001 is 99% @ 25u.
I would think the synthetic blend media with over 3 times the media area would test better due to those factors - both tested at the same flow rate and oil viscosity. Doesn't seem to add up to me. A pure cellulose media with 1/3 the media area is the better one?
View attachment 188861
View attachment 188862
I doubt they'd tell us why the media differences in the same line but a spread sheet comparison could shed some light if there were enough info to compare against each other.
I know that the PL14006 has no bypass valve (as noted on the Spec Sheet), because the engine they are speced for has the filter bypass built into the engine block near the filter mount.Some of these are showing "no relief valve" in the remarks section which I'm assuming is meaning no bypass valve.
That's what I was thinking but it's good to hear some confirmation since you're aware of what vehicle this filter fits. Well that chalks one thing that's straightforward.
wemay
Site Donor 2023
I believe a member here has posted two instances in a row of FRAMs having media integrity issues as well.
2nd Fram Ultra in a row with holes in the crimp
Someone (hint: me) said it was just a matter of time before Trico/"whatever their name is" ruined a good thing. "A matter of time" is apparently up. The true believers will keep making excuses....
bobistheoilguy.com
I've used the PL14006 on my Z06 before - has the LS6 engine, which has the filter bypass in the engine block.
Yeah, but that seems to be a QA issue (maybe only on that specific filter model), and I haven't seen anyone else post similar issue on any other Frams using that seam configuration. Maybe if there's a whole bunch more like that reported, then I'd say there's an accrual on-going issue
Almost have enough Spec Sheets in each line to maybe see something ... probably just more disconnects.
It's hard to base the entire product line of the one off cartridge filters that are constructed entirely different from the spin-ons and even the made in America cartridges that as far as I know the made in USA cartridges are still made the way they've always been with the double layer of pink floss.
The blow test is good enough for me. I'm not buying that Purolator!
garageman402
$100 Site Donor 2024
I'd rather have the bypass in the base, which is where a lot of GM engines have them, so the oil doesn't run over the dirty side of the filter during bypass. Just my preference.
Similar threads
