quote:
Originally posted by Russ_Knize:
I do stand by my OPINION that the test has no merit for the following reasons:
Filter restriction in no way can be aligned with filter efficiency. There are too many factors involved and filter restriction has no bearing on filtration efficiency. Case in point: with new chevy engines, there are very loose tolerances. If a filter is very restrictive and you equate that with filtering out smaller particales, but at a lower oil pressure, than it would be safer to have a filter that is less restrictive but lets bigger particles pass(say 20 mirons) because this engine and its' loose tolerances are less tolerant to bigger particles. So effectively, all you are doing is starving the engine for oil.Problem with that case in point senerio is that I only used filters designed specific for my ford escort 1.9 liter engine and all consistent for this one engine therefore eliminating that. Grant you some extra stuff such as bypass and such, another story but the main filter flow tests were based on that one application therefore bearing differences have no valid point. We were studying the vast differences between different filter manufactures for that one app. I also agree, we are not trying to correlate efficiency/filtration with flow rates. Actually at this point we are not worried about eff ratings, it's already supplied by the supplier, therefore no need to repeat that on our behalf. I think what you're missing on this subject is how flow has more affect on wear numbers than how well a filter can clean in the case of a full flow filter. I can also prove to you that it does as this was established with oil analysis and why this test was born due to that test.
I just dont want people making claims about oil filetrs that are untrue. Such AS: "The more restrictive the filter is, the more it filters out." The only way you can truly measure a filters efficience at filtering is to inject a known size particulate into the input of the filter, and mease the particulate that is present on the output. This is why I consider Champion Labs to produce the finest filter on the market. They are consitently rated high on the single and multi pass tests, yet are affordable. I have no argument about what you think on that issue as again, what you're saying about efficiency is of no concern on this test. Again, you miss the point, it's about flow. Is it because of the cheap bypass valve as to why one flows better than the other? no idea and don't care but that's where construction may help determine how good the filtration ability is but again based on if the bypass is cheap or not. We are not trying to repeat the same data that manufactures have already supplied us with. IMO, flow is MORE IMPORTANT than filtration. Having a good filter can be counter productive for wear #'s based on oil analysis. I'll give you references to how this whole flow test came about and exactly why. Myself, that test you provided was pretty cool and based on that, I was recommending m1 filters BUT, when I stumbled on how the fram actually lowered my wear numbers all based on the analysis, that's when we pulled out this little test and started to recognize what was happening. The m1, being a better designed filter, was creating a heavier resistance to the flow of the oil pump. Does it mean its a bad filter, nope by no means, from what I've seen on your test it appears to be doing a better job of filtering. BUT here is something else I saw which got me to realizing that it was restricting my flow aside from just a lab report. I emptied the m1 filter and let drain for about 2 months and when I changed out the fram filter, I drained it for about 2=3days along side of the m1 filter. When I cut open the fram, most of the media was dry, but as soon as I cut open the m1, oil spewed everywhere as the case was still full. Point? Under gravity, the oil would not pass by the filter media of the m1 yet the fram did. The first m1 filter I did this on had 10,000 miles on it, so I did it again with 4k miles on it,same result.
I stand by my assertion that these pressure tests are a wasted effort. No problem, you have a right to your opinion, but you haven't got all the facts as to what exactly we are demonstrating on this. As pointed out, this was a preliminary test and there are more things to establish as flow rate of the pump set at the 40psi input with no restriction, set oil temp at engine temp and I'm also going to re run all these prior tests. I also put on a blank empty fram, to show flow drop with no restriction, a new fram again showing drop, then a 3-4k used fram and how much more of a restriction it did as well. All this info is showing much more on how a filter reacts under basic use and not providing much in opinions based on looks. This is what makes this fun and imo opens up some interesting new facts. The biggest fact I've seen, I'll use a fram before m1 filter as it's not the filtration I'm worried about but wear and that m1 filter didn't help my wear numbers which I based on your test. I found your test to demonstrate some very interesting points on filter construction and carrying this test is a continuation of where you left off. We had construction info, now we have some real flow info, as we already now efficiency info and if you see how you can lower your engines wear numbers by learning how and which seems to have a better flow, then I believe I'm accomplishing my goal. This test isn't to see which can keep an oil cleaner, but work in the whole realm of the system of flow, pressure and efficiency to achieve the best over all wear protection. Currently I am running my engine without a filter and in another 2500 miles will again pull another analysis and see how much does a full flow contribute to or against wear protection. Tell me that can't show you something you don't know. If so, give me your opinion on what I'm going to see on this next analysis, lower than before or is it going to increase the wear numbers? Like me, I have no real idea but have this feeling that they should lower, thus prove that the filter will have no bearing on keeping my wear down but actually show how the full flow filter restricts flow to what ever degree and that contributes to more wear. I'll atleast know that after I get this back. So far, based on this testing and lab reports, they both have backed up each other and that my friend makes this test more viable than just looking at construction and making the same faulty mistake I did based on your findings. Hey, I'm not perfect but for what it's worth, I'm at least providing more real info so check it out. I am really glad you jumped in with your opinions based on your experience as what you provided was great info, was it of any use? I atleast thought so, and even more so now that we have lab results and this little test. So, please, try and keep an open mind as you might just find out I may be on to something you didn't think of. I really appreciate your efforts as it was very interesting and will not condemn you for your efforts as I based your info on what exactly you were trying to do, examine quality construction as I'm trying to establish that not all filter manufactures will provide for the same engine the same exact flow results.
