[Cut Open] PureOne PL12222 - 8,811Miles

[ZeeOSix]

Links to official tests that back up that up?

Here ya go. Figure 1 is the snip-it I posted, and was data from actual filter media testing. Then they modeled the efficiency vs loading they saw and verified thier model matched actual test data. See the section entitled "Three completely different explanations are possible for this behavior". Fact is, not all oil filters get more efficient as they load up.

https://www.geodict.com/Presentations/2013FiltechBeckerHahnLehmannWiegmannPaper.pdf

BTW - I've also seen other info (verified by testing) that said that captured debris can be dislodged from oil filters when there are increases in delta-p across the media. Makes sense that media can't hold every particle it captures when enough delta-p force across the media occurs. Some filters will obviously be better than others in this respect. And like mentioned, if a filter rates high in the ISO 4548-12 efficiency test then it's obviously holding captured particles well as the delta-p increases, otherwise it couldn't make the efficiency rating it ends up with.

 

[ToadU]

OEMs don't really care about oil filters. Most of them are mediocre efficiency.

That is total fiction, an assumption on your part and patently wrong. OEMs certainly care about filtration and it’s not ignored by them during design or testing. OEMs spend huge amounts of money on determining proper oil specs and the lubrication system on an engine is in no way an afterthought—it’s integral to proper engine functioning. When a miscalculation is made it gets very expensive for an OEM. Ask Chrysler and Toyota about their sludge engines And warranty costs.

Your assertion they don’t care because their filter selection does not emphasize efficiency is a spurious argument.

The fact they prioritize other values than only efficiently and super small micron filtering tells me it’s not that important and super small particles have no net effect on engine wear and longevity. Obviously they know more than we do.

 

[bbhero]

If efficiency does not matter... Why do long haul trucks have bypass filtration that is down to 2 microns with a 98 percent plus efficiency??

Of course it matters...

I do believe the Asian vehicle manufacturers place a higher value on air filter efficiency vs oil filter filtration. Prevention beats the cure is likely what they have been working on as a premise for quite a long time now.

And it does matter to regular vehicles just the same.

My car with over 315,000 miles that does not burn hardly any oil at all, still runs very well, and does not leak any oil is a testament to having very good air filtration and oil filtration too.

And manufacturers of cars and trucks do not care but so much if their vehicles make it much past 175,000 miles... Because they know a strong majority of people will not want to keep their vehicles that long on average.

 

[ZeeOSix]

That is total fiction, an assumption on your part and patently wrong. OEMs certainly care about filtration and it’s not ignored by them during design or testing. OEMs spend huge amounts of money on determining proper oil specs and the lubrication system on an engine is in no way an afterthought—it’s integral to proper engine functioning. When a miscalculation is made it gets very expensive for an OEM. Ask Chrysler and Toyota about their sludge engines And warranty costs. Your assertion they don’t care because their filter selection does not emphasize efficiency is a spurious argument.

Less fiction that's patently wrong as your assumptions are. You have any links that prove OEMs really do care about oil filtration so much that they pour huge amounts of money into that effort? You can have a pretty big "miscalculation" on an oil filter and it's not even going to be apparent to anyone behind the steering wheel.

If OEMs cared so much about oil filters and their filtration performance, why doesn't someone like Ford get Purolator to stop making Motorcraft oil filters that can tear media and make efficiency go out the window and potentially harm the engine with broken off pieces of media going downstream? That's an example of where a "miscalculation" can be made and it won't become "very expensive for an OEM" 99.9999% of the time.

Or why don't the OEM filters typically have much efficiency? - and it's not because of "flow over filtration" because of PD oil pumps. Someone could just as easily say (without any data to back it up) that the OEMs make their filters lower efficiency so they can sell more cars later down the road.

The fact they prioritize other values than only efficiently and super small micron filtering tells me it’s not that important and super small particles have no net effect on engine wear and longevity. Obviously they know more than we do.

Re: bold part. Yes, not important to them. Regardless of how little a high efficiency filter may help reduce wear over the long run, it still does. I'm still waiting for someone to show proof with a controlled study that dirtier oil is just as good as cleaner oil in terms of engine wear. Plenty of studies out there that show cleaner oil results in less wear.

Car makers are in the business to make and sell more cars, not make them last forever.

 

[53' Stude]

Less fiction that's patently wrong as your assumptions are. You have any links that prove OEMs really do care about oil filtration so much that they pour huge amounts of money into that effort? You can have a pretty big "miscalculation" on an oil filter and it's not even going to be apparent to anyone behind the steering wheel.

If OEMs cared so much about oil filters and their filtration performance, why doesn't someone like Ford get Purolator to stop making Motorcraft oil filters that can tear media and make efficiency go out the window and potentially harm the engine with broken off pieces of media going downstream? That's an example of where a "miscalculation" can be made and it won't become "very expensive for an OEM" 99.9999% of the time.

Or why don't the OEM filters typically have much efficiency? - and it's not because of "flow over filtration" because of PD oil pumps. Someone could just as easily say (without any data to back it up) that the OEMs make their filters lower efficiency so they can sell more cars later down the road.



Re: bold part. Yes, not important to them. Regardless of how little a high efficiency filter may help reduce wear over the long run, it still does. I'm still waiting for someone to show proof with a controlled study that dirtier oil is just as good as cleaner oil in terms of engine wear. Plenty of studies out there that show cleaner oil results in less wear.

Car makers are in the business to make and sell more cars, not make them last forever.

Glad you know what your talking about sir. I don’t need a tongue lashing from ToadU telling me what I should do

 

[RamFan]

Can't we just enjoy some pics in perfect harmony?

 

[53' Stude]

Can't we just enjoy some pics in perfect harmony?

Yes we can

 

[Simon_G]

How do you know RYCO is right ... they show no test data, or even mentioned that as verified with testing.

How do you know RYCO is wrong?

The phenomenon is discussed in the papers that led to the adoption of ISO 4548.

A quick Google search turns up variations of the same statement by a half dozen prominent filter manufacturers.

 

[Simon_G]

Here ya go. Figure 1 is the snip-it I posted, and was data from actual filter media testing. Then they modeled the efficiency vs loading they saw and verified thier model matched actual test data. See the section entitled "Three completely different explanations are possible for this behavior". Fact is, not all oil filters get more efficient as they load up.

https://www.geodict.com/Presentations/2013FiltechBeckerHahnLehmannWiegmannPaper.pdf

"... measurements performed on filter media sometimes contradict this assumption ..." is not the same as saying the general statement is false.

The paper describes results with the FilterDict module of the GeoDict simulation software and filtration on a hypothetical filter media.

FilterDict Module of GeoDict

The paper appears to be describing a method for detecting "statistically meaningful results .... for rare particle sizes" suggested by computer simulations, not actual filter media testing.

 

[ZeeOSix]

The paper appears to be describing a method for detecting "statistically meaningful results .... for rare particle sizes" suggested by computer simulations, not actual filter media testing.

You missed the part where the data in Figure 1 was ISO 4548-12 efficiency test data. They then developed a model to simulate/predict why actual oil filters show this decreasing efficiency phenomena as the media loads up and develops higher delta-p.

It's a misconception to believe that all oil filters become more efficient as the load up with debris.

 

[ZeeOSix]

A quick Google search turns up variations of the same statement by a half dozen prominent filter manufacturers.

Which proves absolutely noting without some test data to back up the statement. Lots of filter info sites parrot misconceptions over and over. Show me some official test data that shows otherwise.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

What exactly is (are) the point (s) of contention here?

 

[Bob Arnzen]

Which proves absolutely noting without some test data ....

It does seem to suggest that manufacturers of oil filters, who test hundreds or thousands of example each year of their products in the designing and quality checking them believe that filters increase in efficiency with use.

 

[Bob Arnzen]

You missed the part where the data in Figure 1 was ISO 4548-12 efficiency test data.

Reread it.

It describes a single run of ISO 4548-12 and an anomalous result.

"However, measurements performed on filter media sometimes contradict this assumption, as can be seen in Fig. 1."

They propose three explanations, and "In this paper we investigate which of these explanations holds true for a particular filter media showing decreasing efficiency in the multi-pass test." and conclude "that changed flow paths are a possible explanation to sinking filter efficiencies".

Possible, but not demonstrated beyond the computer simulation, and the authors note that normal filter behavior is increased efficiency with use.

The paper is really about the usefulness of this simulation in finding possible explanations of filter behavior, not a test demonstrating that filters generally don't become more efficient with use.

Btw, the issue they're examining is called "retention efficiency".

 

[ZeeOSix]

Reread it.

It describes a single run of ISO 4548-12 and an anomalous result.

"However, measurements performed on filter media sometimes contradict this assumption, as can be seen in Fig. 1."

They propose three explanations, and "In this paper we investigate which of these explanations holds true for a particular filter media showing decreasing efficiency in the multi-pass test." and conclude "that changed flow paths are a possible explanation to sinking filter efficiencies".

Possible, but not demonstrated beyond the computer simulation, and the authors note that normal filter behavior is increased efficiency with use.

The paper is really about the usefulness of this simulation in finding possible explanations of filter behavior, not a test demonstrating that filters generally don't become more efficient with use.

Btw, the issue they're examining is called "retention efficiency".

I had email discussions with Purolator engineers way before this paper came out - I mentioned my conversations with Purolator in quite a few threads where the misconception that all oil filters get "more efficient as they load up" keeps coming up. In those emails the Purolator engineer described the hockey stick efficiency curve, just as Figure 1 (which is an actual ISO test, not simulation) in that paper describes.

You seem to be missing the fact that decreased oil filter efficiency is seen in the ISO testing, and the computer model is there to try and determine the mechanism of why it happens. Yes, "retention efficiency" is a real thing with oil filters, and they can indeed loose efficiency as they load up and the delta-p increases across the media. So that makes the statement "all filters become more efficient as the load up" a misconception.

Can you (or anyone else reading this) give some links that shows similar actual ISO efficiency test data where it shows oil filters are getting more efficient from the very start of the test? Peope keep claiming that happens, but where's the link(s) to back up that claim ... and I'm not talking about some parroted statement on a website. Need to see actual test results.

 

[ZeeOSix]

It does seem to suggest that manufacturers of oil filters, who test hundreds or thousands of example each year of their products in the designing and quality checking them believe that filters increase in efficiency with use.

Where's the actual test data for all to see that backs up their claims?

 

[Arthur E]

I had email discussions with Purolator engineers way before this paper came out ....

And at such time as you can find a citation to a Purolator website supporting what you allege he said, with test results, I will read it with relish.

You seem to be missing the fact that decreased oil filter efficiency is seen in the ISO testing ...

That is not what the paper says. It presents a single example of a filter that did not act according to the general rule, proposed three hypotheses to explain it, and using a computer model showed how one of those hypotheses was feasible.

It did not say that “the statement ‘all filters become more efficient (with use)’" is a misconception.

There is a plethora of common engineering knowledge in all fields that is not being retested and documented to suit the occasional internet pundit who demands fresh proof and a url.

At one time a filter engineer with Champion Laboratories was a Bob is the Oil Guy participant and he spent some time explaining how, for example, ExxonMobil chose a synthetic cellulose blend to take advantage of the increasing efficiency with use to achieve long filter life:

Filter Guy on Mobil 1 Filters

Filter Guy on increasing efficiency with use

 

[ZeeOSix]

Possible, but not demonstrated beyond the computer simulation, and the authors note that normal filter behavior is increased efficiency with use.

Exactly where do the authors of that M+H paper say "normal filter behavior is increased efficiency with use".

 

[ZeeOSix]

And at such time as you can find a citation to a Purolator website supporting what you allege he said, with test results, I will read it with relish.

Figure 1 in the white paper is exactly what the Purolator engineer I had email correspondence with was talking about. Direct email contact with a Purolator engineer is good enough for me, especially when what he was saying is exactly what's shown in Figure 1 of the M+H paper. I highly doubt the Purolator engineer is going to tell me that most oil filters have a "hockey shaped efficiency curve" when they might have found only one oil filter in the world that did, and instead the phenomina is more prevalent than not.

That is not what the paper says. It presents a single example of a filter that did not act according to the general rule, proposed three hypotheses to explain it, and using a computer model showed how one of those hypotheses was feasible.

It did not say that “the statement ‘all filters become more efficient (with use)’" is a misconception.

Well then you're agreeing with me. Read again what I've said in this thread. I said "not all oil filters will become more efficient with use", and the M+H paper proves that.

No where did I say "all filters decrease efficiency with use", and the M+H paper did not say that either. But there are people who believe that ALL oil filters increase efficiency as they load up, and I'm saying that is a misconception and not true. Simple as that. And as I mentioned earlier, if an oil filter has a high ISO 4548-12 efficiency rating, then it by the very definition of the ISO efficiency test, it would have to hold captured particles very well. If the ISO efficiency rating came in much lower, then it could be caused by any or all of those 3 factors listed in the M+H paper.

There is a plethora of common engineering knowledge in all fields that is not being retested and documented to suit the occasional internet pundit who demands fresh proof and a url.

I'm still waiting for links to a formal recent paper that shows almost all oil filters get more efficient with use. If it's been proven, then where's the actaul white paper, etc showing test data info?

At one time a filter engineer with Champion Laboratories was a Bob is the Oil Guy participant and he spent some time explain how, for example, ExxonMobil chose a synthetic cellulose blend to take advantage of the increasing efficiency with use to achieve long filter life:

Filter Guy on Mobil 1 Filters

Filter Guy on increasing efficiency with use

That first thread was in 2006. 'Filter guy' said "There are NOT a standard beta test "specs" as some in here would love to have or think there are." But that was before ISO 4548-12 existed, and has been and still is the industry standard efficiency test since 2009 (after Filter guy's 2006 comment) which puts all testing on a level field with very well defined test requirements and specifications.

The 2nd thread ... so what, 'Filter guy' makes a comment with zero backup info even though he supposedly worked for Champion Labs so everyone is suppose to believe his comments (?). Anyone can say that for whatever reason, and have with no proof to back up claims.

Bottom line is not all oil filters will become more efficiency with use. It will depend on the design of the media on how well is filters and retains captured particles as the delta-p increase from the filter loading up with use. Saying all oil filters become more efficient with use is a false statement and a misconception.

 

[Simon_G]

Where's the actual test data for all to see that backs up their claims?

Since only one person - you - disputes it, it is not a surprise the filter websites are not rife with citations to data.