Filter math?

[dvldoc]

Questions, say you have 2 filers on a dual remote mount set up. One is Luberfiner Imperial XL series with is Absolute at 20 microns & 5 microns nominal, the other is a LF9028 Venturi combo filter whose bypass section is 5 microns absolute.

What does that make the 5 micron efficiency on a single pass? with both filters.

 

[ZeeOSix]

You talking a dual bypass filter setup? If so, the answer is unsolvable without laboratory measurements.

 

[berniedd]

It can't be solved mathematically. You will need real-life measurements. Remember that filtration capability changes as the filters fill up with trapped material.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Also depends on the exact flow rate of oil through each filter.

 

[dvldoc]

Yes it's a different spin on a bypass set up, Much less than a Amsoil unit and as good as I need.

I was just curious if I could extrapilate a efficiency rating from the numbers. Either way it's a good set up.

 

[dnewton3]

In theory, the filter with "lesser" filtration will pass more oil and particulate, until one of two things happen:
1) the "looser" filter becomes efficient (via trapped particles) enough to equal the 'better' fitler (this only happens if two filters are very similar in attributes)
2) a filter change resets the situation

If you had two of the same model filter (two Wix 51515 filters), then one would have a TINY advantage over the other due to small production variances, and they would almost "swap" efficiencies back and forth, trying to equal out.

However, the two filters in your scenario are grossly different. I doubt there's anyway to know without true lab testing. You cannot "model" this with math using simple "beta like" numbers. You'll never know how each filter will react to the other's ability to process lubricant.

 

[Jim Allen]

The only way to calculate this is by measuring flow and by before and after particle counts. I would have sampled the oil at X miles in typical operation before the installation, then starting with new oil and sample again at the same interval to see the drop in contamination.

I am curious how a filter can be 20 microns absolute and 5 microns nominal... typo?

 

[dvldoc]

Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
The only way to calculate this is by measuring flow and by before and after particle counts. I would have sampled the oil at X miles in typical operation before the installation, then starting with new oil and sample again at the same interval to see the drop in contamination.

I am curious how a filter can be 20 microns absolute and 5 microns nominal... typo?


Not a typo. It's the LF9028 a Venturi combo filter, the full flow section is 20 microns absolute the bypass section is absolute at 5 microns. Got to love the stacked disk.

It's the filter on the right. The Baldwin BD7317 on the left works almost as well but is nominal at 5 microns. Cheapest way to do a bypass filter option on any vehicle. Yeah it's not 2 microns but [censored] I don't need that much. Just use a thread adapter for a 3/4 16" to 1-16 thread and your golden. My bypass valve is in the engine so it's not a issue that it does not have one. But if it wasn't I would just run a fitler on my dual mount that had one.

http://www.cumminsfiltration.com/pdfs/product_lit/americas_brochures/LT36043.pdf

 

[Filter guy]

Originally Posted By: dvldoc
Questions, say you have 2 filers on a dual remote mount set up. One is Luberfiner Imperial XL series with is Absolute at 20 microns & 5 microns nominal, the other is a LF9028 Venturi combo filter whose bypass section is 5 microns absolute.

What does that make the 5 micron efficiency on a single pass? with both filters.



How's your Cummins engine doing.

I think there's a couple different things you're looking at.

The Luberfiner XL series is an "Extra Life" full flow filter.

The Venturi Fleetguard is a Full Flow and By-pass combination filter. So there are two elements within the can. Same as Luber-finers equivalent.

Fleetguard uses the stack disc media. Luber-finer and others use a straight synthetic media as the by-pass portion of the element.

As with any by-pass element the flow is "metered" or controlled to take less than 10% of the oil flow volume. By slowing the flow down you can increase the efficiency.

Back to the question at hand. A 5 micron absolute and 20 micron nominal rating for a full flow element is about correct. 10 micron absolute equates to 25 micron nominal as well.

But be careful thinking an ISO test meets Cummins Filtration specs. Cummins uses their own test procedures. One of which is not to use AC test dust. Cummins uses Soft-C which is a sludge of material which includes carbon black. Nasty messy black stuff.

So neither element is a 5 micron single pass absolute rated filter. All are tested multi-pass.

 

[dvldoc]

I actually don't use it on a Cummins engine, If I did I would just use the LF9028 buy itself or my Luberfiner. I use it on my Nissan Elgrand with the QD32ETI 3.2 turbo diesel. These already flow double what the stock filter flows. (this is a overseas vehicle)

Lots of Cummins guys are now running the LF9028 or the BD7317 with great results and a much lower soot count vs just the Statapore media filter.

I'm going for 25000 mile oil changes, Will do a oil analysis at the 12000 to see how she's doing.

I also have the BD7317 filters to try out as well, I am a bit of a filter hoarder.

 

[Filter guy]

I see.

If it were me I'd use the full flow filter and a Luberfiner Model 500 by pass. Provided you have the room.

Use model 500, assembly part number 2141 for upright mounting with element part number 2095. Or you could go larger to the model 750 part number 5234 with element number 2122.

These take a cartridge element and to some are messy to drain. Although mechanics have been using them for 40 years. Just don't send the element to a filter crusher as the elements are depth media and you'll have a mess cleaning up.

Besides the benefit of the increased by-pass filtration you add 2 1/2 gallons of oil to the model 500 or 3 1/2 gallons of oil to the model 750. So you can safely extend drain intervals with increased ol capacity. You also get the benefit of cooling the oil through dissapation of heat through the metal assembly. Provided the assembly is not sitting in hot sun light. You're looking at over 260 grams of dirt holding capacity. But from actual use it's even higher as the test is terminated at 30 hours and the elements in the test don't reach the pressure drop like a spin on would.

These larger housings are much better for extending drain intervals with their large elements versus the small spin-on by-pass elements that are barely bigger than the palm of your hand.

Housing Dimensions:
Model 500
14" tall x 8" around

Model 750
19" tall x 10 1/2" around

 

[Jim Allen]

I agree with Filter Guy. Historically, these double filters have had problems with internal flow. I believe they work off he parallel flow concept (some do anyway) and so you may have less oil running through the finer filter than you would like. With a separate bypass, you get more efficient and reliable operation.

Another of these double filters to look at is the SPX Filtran "Double Duty" line. Supposedly, they have improved upon the concept. Don't know much beyond my discussions with one of their engineers... and their reports are bound to be biased.

 

[dvldoc]

For my set up these are already more than double the flow @ 8.7 GPM compared to the stock filter and double the size dirt holding capcity @ 20g of dirt holding capcity. So this should not be much of a issue. I also have a oil pressure gauge tied into my system to keep a eye on things.

I have never had a issue with a dual mount remote filter set up in the past.

When I get it installed I'll post some pics and results.