Differential Pressure Data, Pure 1 & Motorcraft

ZeeOSix

$100 site donor 2022
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
35,862
Location
PNW
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Of course this also means that we are now reliant on the next stage of your testing smile Finding whether it is the restriction in the media or the viscosity of the oil that triggered the bypass event. It is quite possible for it to be a combination of the two.
It's definitely a combination of the two, and also a 3rd factor that creates delta-p, which is the oil volume flowing through the filter. The filter's flow resistance is basically fixed, the oil viscosity and oil flow rate (due to changing the speed of the oil pump with engine revs) are obviously variables. High engine revs with thick oil will result in the highest delta-p across the oil filter, and hence the easiest way to make the filter go into by-pass as Jim's data shows.
Certainly thumbsup What I was digging at was more to the overall effect being an even split between the two, both being significant contributors, rather than one taking the majority of the blame, which seems to be the theory that is currently being considered, that the 10w-30 is the biggest contributor to the event, not the PureONE. I'm thinking specifically as to media efficiency (PureONE vs Motorcraft) with the same oil in the pan, what we are going to see as to the net effect on initial surge/bypass on cold start (as in the tests so performed, there was a big difference between the two viscosities and also two different filters). Essentially, I'd love to see the start-up with the 5w-20/Motorcraft combo replicated with 5w-20/PureONE to see how close they are smile Would be interesting if we find that there is a larger than expected differential with the PureONE and 5w-20. Not saying this will be the case or that I even expect it, but it is possible and that intrigues me grin
That would be my guess too ... the viscosity is what's making the PureOne look more restrictive than the MC under the same cold start-up conditions. My guess is that if Jim does the same cold start-up with the PureOne with the same viscosity and temperature oil, you'll see a very similar dealt-p across the PureOne (my guess is within few PSI - maybe even less depending on the media area of each filter, which is another contributing factor).
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
54,602
Location
Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Of course this also means that we are now reliant on the next stage of your testing smile Finding whether it is the restriction in the media or the viscosity of the oil that triggered the bypass event. It is quite possible for it to be a combination of the two.
It's definitely a combination of the two, and also a 3rd factor that creates delta-p, which is the oil volume flowing through the filter. The filter's flow resistance is basically fixed, the oil viscosity and oil flow rate (due to changing the speed of the oil pump with engine revs) are obviously variables. High engine revs with thick oil will result in the highest delta-p across the oil filter, and hence the easiest way to make the filter go into by-pass as Jim's data shows.
Certainly thumbsup What I was digging at was more to the overall effect being an even split between the two, both being significant contributors, rather than one taking the majority of the blame, which seems to be the theory that is currently being considered, that the 10w-30 is the biggest contributor to the event, not the PureONE. I'm thinking specifically as to media efficiency (PureONE vs Motorcraft) with the same oil in the pan, what we are going to see as to the net effect on initial surge/bypass on cold start (as in the tests so performed, there was a big difference between the two viscosities and also two different filters). Essentially, I'd love to see the start-up with the 5w-20/Motorcraft combo replicated with 5w-20/PureONE to see how close they are smile Would be interesting if we find that there is a larger than expected differential with the PureONE and 5w-20. Not saying this will be the case or that I even expect it, but it is possible and that intrigues me grin
That would be my guess too ... the viscosity is what's making the PureOne look more restrictive than the MC under the same cold start-up conditions. My guess is that if Jim does the same cold start-up with the PureOne with the same viscosity and temperature oil, you'll see a very similar dealt-p across the PureOne (my guess is within few PSI - maybe even less depending on the media area of each filter, which is another contributing factor).
EXACTLY! cheers What a fantastic test providing us with real data here. Truly wonderful. Will be very interesting to see how our theories align with Jim's testing as it plays out. smile
 
Joined
Jun 30, 2011
Messages
8,947
Location
Mahzurrah!
Its been said many times but I'll say it again, thank you Jim for all your work. Great stuff for filter nerds. laugh
 
Joined
Jul 14, 2013
Messages
1,281
Location
California
Thanks for this Jim. Great stuff. Is there anyway you could post the raw data? I would love to create some graphs with it. Would make the interpretation even easier. And since I have higher ambient starting temps and use 5w oil, I am no longer worried about using the dome end bypass since it appears I'll never go into bypass.
 

Jim Allen

Thread starter
Joined
Aug 12, 2005
Messages
4,563
Location
NW Ohio
Originally Posted By: Clevy
So Jim. Are any of these tests going to address the loading of the filter media and how long an oil filter really can be used before requiring a new one.
No, these will be short intervals just to test the DP of the filters in my particular setup. The loading issue is not something I can test very well because, a) I only put 5-6K on my truck per year so this 15K run took two-plus years, b) I have a bypass filter installed which carries a fair bit of the contamination load. There are other indicators of that to be found in oil analysis, consideration of the operating environment, quality of the air filtration and the general characteristics of the engine (is it tired and have a lot of blowby, is it a known metal shedder, i.e. is it all-roller with external cam drive... factors that make it shed less metal) I suppose I could remove the bypass system and try a 15K run without it, noting DP along the way.... but pedantic clean oil guy that I am, I'm not sure I'm willing (or able, he said with a quavering voice) to do that. Plus, the resutls would take another two years.
 

Jim Allen

Thread starter
Joined
Aug 12, 2005
Messages
4,563
Location
NW Ohio
Originally Posted By: TrevorS
Thanks for this Jim. Great stuff. Is there anyway you could post the raw data? I would love to create some graphs with it. Would make the interpretation even easier. And since I have higher ambient starting temps and use 5w oil, I am no longer worried about using the dome end bypass since it appears I'll never go into bypass.
The raw data would be just about impossible for most people to interpret plus there would be a HUGE amount of it to post Would be nice to have some graphs, though. The data is .odf format (Excel clone) could you work with that? I really hae to jump thru hoops to get it off my scabby Windos laptop and onto my Mac (which has "real" Excel).
 
Joined
Jul 14, 2013
Messages
1,281
Location
California
I can get that into Excel, no problem. On a related topic, are you familiar with Forscan? If you have an OBD adapter, it let's you analyze / log virtually anything that is in Fords various modules.
 
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
15,666
Location
The Old North State
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
....In reality, the P1 and MC Data comparison is not useful because of the viscosity disparity....
I quote this portion of the post because imo it's important to recognize that no direct comparison between the two said filters is possible because a of second variable, significantly higher oil viscosity used with the P1. That, lest one make the leap of faith that the difference in results proves anything related to rated efficiency difference and restriction. As ZO6 pointed out and linked to above, even these preliminary P1 results are 'in line' with the laboratory tested Flow vs PSID data for P1 documented in that link. And to quote Jim regarding the use of 5w20 with the MC, "a much thinner oil with better cold start viscometrics". Also in line with Jim's testing is the cautious approach in his conclusion section using the term 'suggestion' as opposed to declaring any final conclusions. What these preliminary results do appear to show is what has been suspected and stated here and related by the engineeers at the Fram labs, ie., bypass events tend to be relatively infrequent and of brief duration. And that these events would tend to coincide with colder ambient temperatures and higher rpm at start up. To add to others, appreciate the information and time spent.
 

Jim Allen

Thread starter
Joined
Aug 12, 2005
Messages
4,563
Location
NW Ohio
Originally Posted By: TrevorS
I can get that into Excel, no problem. On a related topic, are you familiar with Forscan? If you have an OBD adapter, it let's you analyze / log virtually anything that is in Fords various modules.
PM will be sent. Not that particular one. Looks like I need an adapter but it isn't expensive. If my laptop can take in two data streams simultaneously (do you know?), it could make future testing a lot less stressful. Thanks for the tip!
 

dnewton3

Staff member
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
9,911
Location
Indianapolis, IN
There is no best filter here, or best oil, or whatnot that we'll glean from Jim's testing. But what we will find is that fear-mongering over bypass events is just plain silly. While we cannot make direct comparisons or contrast between all the testing, we can see the data alude to general conclusions. Those have been noted by many in this thread; I'll not rehash them. And, although the events are infrequent, I'll also note that other data affirms the other portions of the equations to be mulled over as wear control contributors. Regardless of how many times the filter may or may not bypass (it's not often, to be sure, and typically where few BITOGers would tread with WOT on cold oil ...), the actual wear associated with those events really pales in the overall view. I'd like to see if there is any correlation between frequent bypass events and elevated wear, but frankly that's a needle in the haystack, because modular motor Fords just wear well overall, and the statistical sigma variation shows no real preference or disdain for such events. Do remember that other items are also in play when it comes to wear reduction; the tribochemical barrier and add-pack have a lot to do with this as well. Filters are important, but they are often viewed as the sole means of defense, and that is patently untrue. This kind of contribution, and disucssion, is the meat of BITOG and makes for great conversation.
 

ZeeOSix

$100 site donor 2022
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
35,862
Location
PNW
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Regardless of how many times the filter may or may not bypass (it's not often, to be sure, and typically where few BITOGers would tread with WOT on cold oil ...)
I've seen guys at the drag strip sit in the staging lanes for quite a long time on cold nights, then fire up their car and do a long burn-out at near redline ... then hammer the car all the way down the 1/4 mile at WOT/redline. I'm sure the oil is no where near operating temperature when they fire the car up for the burn-out and run down the strip. I can just imagine what the filter is going through, and no doubt the bypass valve is probably open most of the time during that scenario.
 

dnewton3

Staff member
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
9,911
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Regardless of how many times the filter may or may not bypass (it's not often, to be sure, and typically where few BITOGers would tread with WOT on cold oil ...)
I've seen guys at the drag strip sit in the staging lanes for quite a long time on cold nights, then fire up their car and do a long burn-out at near redline ... then hammer the car all the way down the 1/4 mile at WOT/redline. I'm sure the oil is no where near operating temperature when they fire the car up for the burn-out and run down the strip. I can just imagine what the filter is going through, and no doubt the bypass valve is probably open most of the time during that scenario.
Yes - and that is why they also offer racing filters; specific to the task at hand. Your point is valid, but only for a very small fractional percent of the engines in operation. I typically exclude any form of competitive/speciality sports in my comments because they are too unique to apply to "normal" folks. Guys that race their rides (whether purpose built or weekend racers) are willing to accept some risk from the endeavor. If ya blow a motor while racing, I don't think the filter being in bypass is the main cause of wear ... For "normal" applications, Jim's data is meaningful and enlightening. It is not a blanket we can throw over every situation, but it is much more than what we had in it's absence. But your point is not lost on me; that bypass valve is probably pinned wide open in situations such as what you suggest.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 19, 2007
Messages
3,485
Location
Morris County NJ
I thought I could resist the temptation to clutter this thread with yet another thank you for your efforts, but I can't. THANK YOU JIM time, effort, & expense are all appreciated Steve
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2010
Messages
9,774
Location
Saskatoon canada
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
There is no best filter here, or best oil, or whatnot that we'll glean from Jim's testing. But what we will find is that fear-mongering over bypass events is just plain silly. While we cannot make direct comparisons or contrast between all the testing, we can see the data alude to general conclusions. Those have been noted by many in this thread; I'll not rehash them. And, although the events are infrequent, I'll also note that other data affirms the other portions of the equations to be mulled over as wear control contributors. Regardless of how many times the filter may or may not bypass (it's not often, to be sure, and typically where few BITOGers would tread with WOT on cold oil ...), the actual wear associated with those events really pales in the overall view. I'd like to see if there is any correlation between frequent bypass events and elevated wear, but frankly that's a needle in the haystack, because modular motor Fords just wear well overall, and the statistical sigma variation shows no real preference or disdain for such events. Do remember that other items are also in play when it comes to wear reduction; the tribochemical barrier and add-pack have a lot to do with this as well. Filters are important, but they are often viewed as the sole means of defense, and that is patently untrue. This kind of contribution, and disucssion, is the meat of BITOG and makes for great conversation.
I've always felt that if the oil filter did experience going into by-pass I thought about exactly what was happening,and I was never worried. Let's think about this really. Cold engine and oil. The oil in the sump has just run through the engine but has been filtered and if the engine is well maintained are we to believe that a single pass has agglomerated particulate large enough to cause wear. So this cold oil is screened through the pick up tube and maybe a small percentage isn't being filtered. So only a small percentage of the oil running through the well maintained engine is now draining into the pan. Are we now to believe there is agglomerated particulate large enough to create or accelerate wear? Even worst case scenario. The bp is wide open. No oil is being filtered. That means the engine has to be running at high rpm and load which will be heating the oil very fast so that bp valve is closing quickly. Are we to believe that circulating unfiltered oil for even 5 minutes has created agglomerated particulate large enough to increase wear? I'm sorry. I'm just not buying that in a well maintained engine even 5 minutes wide open is doing any harm. Unless the oil is draining into the pan and somehow there is particulate being dumped into the oil in the pan,that then gets pumped through the filter and THEN the BP opens,allowing oil with particulate past and Into the engine. In that example yes there is very likely a wear problem however no engines operate this way,do they? Can dirt intrude into the oil pan,after draining from the heads? I'm just not concerned about a by-pass event guys. Today's filters clean the oil to the point insols are measured in 0.10% at the top end. I'm just not buying that unfiltered oil with insols at that level just aren't agglomerating particulate fast enough to get big enough to do harm before that filter is closed and trapping the stuff again. I might be wrong however I'd need to see real data before I'll believe I am.
 

ZeeOSix

$100 site donor 2022
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
35,862
Location
PNW
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Cold engine and oil. The oil in the sump has just run through the engine but has been filtered and if the engine is well maintained are we to believe that a single pass has agglomerated particulate large enough to cause wear.
The main concern is if any collected and loose debris in the oil filter is swept in through the bypass valve when it opens, and then goes in to the engine's tight clearance bearings (mains, rods, cam, etc) to possibly cause some damage. That's one reason some people think base end bypass valves are the best (depending on filter's mounted orientation of course).
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
253
Location
Michigan
Some open questions about specific readings. How can there be negative DP values? Is it possible your bypass filter is affecting the measurements? I would think the filter's bypass should cap the DP at the full open PSI value? I assume you are adding the temp and rpm values from independent means. As suggested, correlated RPM data would be helpful if timestamps could be accurate between two collecting applications.
 
Last edited:

ZeeOSix

$100 site donor 2022
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
35,862
Location
PNW
Originally Posted By: mr_diy
Some open questions about specific readings. I would think the filter's bypass should cap the DP at the full open PSI value?
Not necessarily. Look at the time frame the large delta-p values occurred across ... only a second or two. With fast enough data acquisition, you are seeing the dynamic flow & pressure, and resulting bypass action going on with oil flow surges, etc.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
253
Location
Michigan
Originally Posted By: mr_diy
How can there be negative DP values? Is it possible your bypass filter is affecting the measurements? I would think the filter's bypass should cap the DP at the full open PSI value?
Regarding negative DP, it may be that rapidly increasing pressure along with time differences between the sensors ( sensor 2 after sensor1) would explain this. Maybe I misread your setup having a second bypass filter. Honda and Toyota may know what they are doing with their OEM filters.
 
Top