Factory Hyndai OEM filter cut open

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: GRWOil
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: GRWOil
The Fram is catching particles down to 5 microns at 50% efficiency.


901Memphis has posted a few times that the Ultra is more like 80% @ 5 microns.

Link to his post


I've seen different things posted here and there on BIGOT. I wish the fram rep would come post the numbers here. I bet they've got a lot more data points than we have. I've actually got a PM in motorking's imbox, relating to another thread I posted here . . . waiting for a response.

Do you have any data on flow rate and Delta P for the Ultra? I've been looking for it, but can't find an answer anywhere.


I think the 80% @ 5 microns originally came from Jay/Motorking. You'll have better luck emailing him (info in his signature) instead of doing a PM on this site because he doesn't come here too often.

Start reading from this point in the thread linked below for some flow info on the Ultra. It flows very well, probably better than anything beside a full out racing type oil filter.

Ultra Flow Info from Motorking

 

[GRWOil]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: GRWOil
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: GRWOil
The Fram is catching particles down to 5 microns at 50% efficiency.


901Memphis has posted a few times that the Ultra is more like 80% @ 5 microns.

Link to his post


I've seen different things posted here and there on BIGOT. I wish the fram rep would come post the numbers here. I bet they've got a lot more data points than we have. I've actually got a PM in motorking's imbox, relating to another thread I posted here . . . waiting for a response.

Do you have any data on flow rate and Delta P for the Ultra? I've been looking for it, but can't find an answer anywhere.


I think the 80% @ 5 microns originally came from Jay/Motorking. You'll have better luck emailing him (info in his signature) instead of doing a PM on this site because he doesn't come here too often.

Start reading from this point in the thread linked below for some flow info on the Ultra. It flows very well, probably better than anything beside a full out racing type oil filter.

Ultra Flow Info from Motorking



Thanks for the info! It looks like the Ultra is less restrictive than other top shelf filters. Now if only we could get some data points on the OEM filter.

 

[goodtimes]

Those 250x pictures make it look bad on both. Broken pieces everywhere. Which material is used for synthetic filters, glass, plastic, nylon? Cellulose absorbs water and is soft. I wonder what fuzzies are introduced into the oil in the initial use stage after a new filter is put on. Maybe a blend of synthetic and cellulose is the best compromise.

 

[goodtimes]

I think way too much is being made of the multi pass efficiency test numbers. It is a good marketing tool. They load the filter to capacity over four hours, which is not real life use. That's the same as loading the filter to it's capacity in 240 miles of driving @ 60mph. We see people using a filter 10,000 miles here that are nowhere filled. That's about 40 times the test period. Even looking at the 250x pictures the large flat cellulose fiber will catch more fine particles striking it than a smooth uniform strand of synthetic fiber. Nothing goes into the synthetic fiber, all goes around it. In an average car all the oil is passing through the filter about 2-3 times a minute, many passes to catch a very few particles. Then there is the unknown of what particles are made of, soft or hard material. Just skeptical a bit when the new idea gets a little too amazing.

 

[GRWOil]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Those 250x pictures make it look bad on both. Broken pieces everywhere. Which material is used for synthetic filters, glass, plastic, nylon? Cellulose absorbs water and is soft. I wonder what fuzzies are introduced into the oil in the initial use stage after a new filter is put on. Maybe a blend of synthetic and cellulose is the best compromise.


Every synthetic media I've heard of is glass. Many filters are a composite "blend" of large cellulose fibers and synthetic glass fibers. M1, Bosch are two examples that come to mind. In terms of filtration, full synthetics perform best as they are more of a depth filtration rather than surface filtration. The Ultra has two layers of media, most filters have one.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
I think way too much is being made of the multi pass efficiency test numbers.


What else is there better to test and compare ... nothing. Just because it's an accelerated test doesn't mean it's not valid. All filters are tested to the same multi-pass test spec, so that should tell you how they perform under the same test conditions. The ones that perform the best in the test will also perform the best in real use conditions.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
I think way too much is being made of the multi pass efficiency test numbers.

What else is there better to test and compare ... nothing. Just because it's an accelerated test doesn't mean it's not valid. All filters are tested to the same multi-pass test spec, so that should tell you how they perform under the same test conditions. The ones that perform the best in the test will also perform the best in real use conditions.


This is correct, anything else would be pretty meaningless in terms of filtering efficiencies.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Even looking at the 250x pictures the large flat cellulose fiber will catch more fine particles striking it than a smooth uniform strand of synthetic fiber. Nothing goes into the synthetic fiber, all goes around it.


Not true - more like the other way around. The finer synthetic media is much deeper than the cellulose and therefore forces the particles to make many directional changes as the oil flows through the media, which causes the particles to get trapped in the media for effectively. The cellulose media isn't nearly as deep as the synthetic, and has much wider gaps between strands. Therefore, it acts more like a 2 dimensional screen and will allow a lot of the smaller particles through. Go do a search for full synthetic oil filter media on the 'net and do some research ... you'll see why full synthetic media filters better and has less flow resistance.

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Even looking at the 250x pictures the large flat cellulose fiber will catch more fine particles striking it than a smooth uniform strand of synthetic fiber. Nothing goes into the synthetic fiber, all goes around it.


Not true - more like the other way around. The finer synthetic media is much deeper than the cellulose and therefore forces the particles to make many directional changes as the oil flows through the media, which causes the particles to get trapped in the media for effectively. The cellulose media isn't nearly as deep as the synthetic, and has much wider gaps between strands. Therefore, it acts more like a 2 dimensional screen and will allow a lot of the smaller particles through. Go do a search for full synthetic oil filter media on the 'net and do some research ... you'll see why full synthetic media filters better and has less flow resistance.


See the wide flat cellulose strand in the picture? It isn't my picture. If a 1 micron particle hits it, the particle can stick on it or go into it because it is cellular and porous and flat. If the 1 micron particle hits a glass strand in the other picture, it goes around it. I know the fine strands can cross and make very fine openings. That's not true? Cellulose also traps water molecule. The other thing, is all cellulose filters are thin and don't have depth filtering?

 

[ZeeOSix]

^^^ If super small particles 1~5 microns in size "stuck" to all the flat surfaces in cellulose media then don't you think they would have a higher efficiency in that range of particles vs a full synthetic media? They don't, so explain that. Lots of stuff out there explaining how fully synthetic works and how it's better than cellulose in terms of efficiency and holding capacity.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=full+synthetic+oil+filter+media+PDF

https://s3.amazonaws.com/cdn.genosgarage.com/downloads/TechPDF/TDR71_LubeOilFiltration.pdf

 

[Vuflanovsky]

I'd just like to see where the Hyundai OEM from Mann-Hummel is 99.2% at 50 microns or an acknowledgement that someone pulled this figure out of their heinie. I'm not saying it's incorrect...I'm saying I've never seen anything but a nominal rated spec in relation to these filters. I use them and have no doubt that a Fram Ultra will filter better but I question the source of this OEM figure.

 

[GRWOil]

Originally Posted By: Vuflanovsky
I'd just like to see where the Hyundai OEM from Mann-Hummel is 99.2% at 50 microns or an acknowledgement that someone pulled this figure out of their heinie. I'm not saying it's incorrect...I'm saying I've never seen anything but a nominal rated spec in relation to these filters. I use them and have no doubt that a Fram Ultra will filter better but I question the source of this OEM figure.


I did a lot of digging to find this earlier and linked it earlier in the thread. It's the only data point that we've heard from Hyundai and it's posted in a youtube video about the OEM filter and how they contrast with counterfeit filters.

Link to youtube video.

Link to BITOG thread.

99.2% @ 50 microns is very unimpressive filtration in my opinnon.

 

[SHOZ]

I found this on my computer.




Quote:
The Hyundai 26300-5503 oil filter in these pictures is manufactured by the Dongwoo Division of Mann+Hummel AG of Ludwigsburg, Germany. It is engineered specific to Hyundai specifications and has the correct PSI spring pressure, paper media and outlet holes for Hyundai engines. Mann+Hummel is the OEM filter manufacturer for MB, BMW and Audi

Mobil1 filter particle counts:
ISO Code (3): 15/14/12
>= 2 Micron: 479
>= 5 Micron: 177
>= 10 Micron: 49
>= 15 Micron: 19
>= 25 Micron: 4 (typical aftermarket filter rated to 20micron)
>= 50 Micron: 0
>= 100 Micron: 0

Hyundai OEM 26300 35503:
ISO Code (3): 17/17/14
>= 2 Micron: 2474
>= 5 Micron: 916
>= 10 Micron: 253
>= 15 Micron: 98
>= 25 Micron: 23
>= 50 Micron: 2
>= 100 Micron: 0

If you don't want to believe the above data, Hyundai brags about their 50 micron efficiency when most aftermarket filters are rated down to 20-25 micron or less!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEfmPFRaoNo

In the 1988 Correlating Lube Oil Filtration Efficiencies With Engine Wear technical paper published by the Society of Automotive Engineers
(SAE), the relationship between filtration levels and abrasive engine wear was established. Testing determined that wear was reduced by as much as 70 percent by switching from a 40µ filter to a 15µ filter. The SAE conducted tests on a heavy-duty diesel engine and an automotive gasoline engine, and both provided consistent results.

 

[fields]

So which filter should I use I decide to not use OEM?

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
^^^ If super small particles 1~5 microns in size "stuck" to all the flat surfaces in cellulose media then don't you think they would have a higher efficiency in that range of particles vs a full synthetic media? They don't, so explain that. Lots of stuff out there explaining how fully synthetic works and how it's better than cellulose in terms of efficiency and holding capacity.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=full+synthetic+oil+filter+media+PDF

https://s3.amazonaws.com/cdn.genosgarage.com/downloads/TechPDF/TDR71_LubeOilFiltration.pdf



There isn't much "if" about particles impinging on that flat piece of fiber and being captured by it. I just try to not jump on bandwagons and refuse then to look at the possibility my bandwagon may have a few bumps in the tires. Like I said I see benefits, already stated, in cellulose, even though the Fram Ultra doesn't use it.
You already know I think the multi pass test is too short to duplicate real world conditions outside of driving in a dust storm with no air filter. I know they can't test for a real world 10k miles, and probably the instruments can't measure such tiny changes in contaminants. Take a 10 g capacity economy oil filter, if it takes 160 hours on the test machine to equal 10k miles, then they have to add 1 gram of test powder every 16 ours. Such a tiny amount of dust every 16 hours probably can't be tracked. So they accelerate the test 40x to make it workable. But we buy the 10 gram filters and run them for 10k miles and sometimes, even then they aren't loaded.

 

[GRWOil]

Originally Posted By: fields
So which filter should I use I decide to not use OEM?


If you are looking for a non-OEM filter to use for Hyundai there are lots of adequate alternatives, really anything you could pick up at Walmart that is properly listed for your model is good.

If you are looking for the best filter you can reasonably get for Hyundai's then it would be a Fram Ultra, XG9688 is the right one for Hyundai/ Kia. They are available on ebay for ~5$ if you buy a case of 6 and put them on your shelf.

If you are looking for a filter is everything the OEM is and filters better, Mobil 1M1-104, wix 51334XP, Bosch premium, K&N, will all do the job. There are many others that I didn't list here that I would say are also better than the OEM.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
^^^ If super small particles 1~5 microns in size "stuck" to all the flat surfaces in cellulose media then don't you think they would have a higher efficiency in that range of particles vs a full synthetic media? They don't, so explain that. Lots of stuff out there explaining how fully synthetic works and how it's better than cellulose in terms of efficiency and holding capacity.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=full+synthetic+oil+filter+media+PDF

https://s3.amazonaws.com/cdn.genosgarage.com/downloads/TechPDF/TDR71_LubeOilFiltration.pdf



There isn't much "if" about particles impinging on that flat piece of fiber and being captured by it. I just try to not jump on bandwagons and refuse then to look at the possibility my bandwagon may have a few bumps in the tires. Like I said I see benefits, already stated, in cellulose, even though the Fram Ultra doesn't use it.


I highly doubt that super small particles will hit the flat cellulose and just stick there. Like I said, if that was true, then cellulose filters would have better filtering efficiency in the 1~5 micron range, and they just simply don't based on the ISO test data we've seen.

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
You already know I think the multi pass test is too short to duplicate real world conditions outside of driving in a dust storm with no air filter. I know they can't test for a real world 10k miles, and probably the instruments can't measure such tiny changes in contaminants. Take a 10 g capacity economy oil filter, if it takes 160 hours on the test machine to equal 10k miles, then they have to add 1 gram of test powder every 16 ours. Such a tiny amount of dust every 16 hours probably can't be tracked. So they accelerate the test 40x to make it workable. But we buy the 10 gram filters and run them for 10k miles and sometimes, even then they aren't loaded.


I don't think it's a matter of the machines not being able to sense a low level of particles. It's more like all the time and effort involved in conducting the test if it was to go on for months. I'd bet when the test committee came up with the ISO 4548 test method, they verified that the accelerated test they use was giving the same basic answer as one that was way less accelerated. That is part of designing a new valid test method. You just don't sit down and dream up a test method without somehow validating that it's representative and accurate.

 

[Sayjac]

Quote:
....99.2% @ 50 microns is very unimpressive filtration in my opinnon.

And yet, pretty much in line with efficiency data points out there for Honda and Toyota oem oil filters as well.

The Asian vehicle manufacturers don't appear to place an emphasis on efficiency in their OEM filters. One can draw their conclusion(s) as to the reason(s) for and meaning of that finding.

 

[MobilinHyundia]

I have two 2009 Sonata 2.4l and have done several UOA with Fram Ultra, Amsoil filters and OEM filters.
Now I use Fram Ultras.

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
^^^ If super small particles 1~5 microns in size "stuck" to all the flat surfaces in cellulose media then don't you think they would have a higher efficiency in that range of particles vs a full synthetic media? They don't, so explain that. Lots of stuff out there explaining how fully synthetic works and how it's better than cellulose in terms of efficiency and holding capacity.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=full+synthetic+oil+filter+media+PDF

https://s3.amazonaws.com/cdn.genosgarage.com/downloads/TechPDF/TDR71_LubeOilFiltration.pdf



There isn't much "if" about particles impinging on that flat piece of fiber and being captured by it. I just try to not jump on bandwagons and refuse then to look at the possibility my bandwagon may have a few bumps in the tires. Like I said I see benefits, already stated, in cellulose, even though the Fram Ultra doesn't use it.


I highly doubt that super small particles will hit the flat cellulose and just stick there. Like I said, if that was true, then cellulose filters would have better filtering efficiency in the 1~5 micron range, and they just simply don't based on the ISO test data we've seen.

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
You already know I think the multi pass test is too short to duplicate real world conditions outside of driving in a dust storm with no air filter. I know they can't test for a real world 10k miles, and probably the instruments can't measure such tiny changes in contaminants. Take a 10 g capacity economy oil filter, if it takes 160 hours on the test machine to equal 10k miles, then they have to add 1 gram of test powder every 16 ours. Such a tiny amount of dust every 16 hours probably can't be tracked. So they accelerate the test 40x to make it workable. But we buy the 10 gram filters and run them for 10k miles and sometimes, even then they aren't loaded.


I don't think it's a matter of the machines not being able to sense a low level of particles. It's more like all the time and effort involved in conducting the test if it was to go on for months. I'd bet when the test committee came up with the ISO 4548 test method, they verified that the accelerated test they use was giving the same basic answer as one that was way less accelerated. That is part of designing a new valid test method. You just don't sit down and dream up a test method without somehow validating that it's representative and accurate.





I'm sure they know more than I do about testing, but I still say it is not the same basic answer short vs long testing. Like you say it probably is due to cost. Like I say, they probably don't have a machine that can measure 1 gram of test dirt every 16 hours, just not enough particles floating around. The there is the Wix mystery where they say the XP is their best filter, yet are not shy about the 50% efficiency. I am pretty sure Wix also knows a thing or two.