lol I believe the tearolator we all have real proof on that one
Flow versus filtration - where's the balance?
- Thread starter Ed_Flecko
- Start date
- Status
no if it was their data i would not believe it unless i saw it with my own eyes...
Originally Posted By: crazyoildude
Im with you ed i am a flow over filtration person also i like the way the ultra looks but i like the way most oem filters flow.. If i was sure the fram ultra flowed as well as some of the oem filters that would be my go to filter. Synthetic or not i believe the filters that catch the most dirt flow the worst and flow is the more important thing. Like i always say dirty oil lubricates no oil does not!
Looking at the ultra it seems to be a well made filter maybe one of the best but im not so sure about its flow ability Looking at the oil holes they seem smaller.
I'm going to play devils advocate here. How do you know that flow is more important than how well it filters. Let's just assume that an engine is producing very low quantities of particles over a given time. Wouldn't you then say, I don't need to run the oil thru a filter at a very fast rate and therefore, I might as well tighten up what I am filtering down to a smaller particle. In other words, there is a sweet spot where flow rate AND particle filtering size should be optimum. I doubt any of us here would know where that is at but that seems to be the crux of this debate.
Im with you ed i am a flow over filtration person also i like the way the ultra looks but i like the way most oem filters flow.. If i was sure the fram ultra flowed as well as some of the oem filters that would be my go to filter. Synthetic or not i believe the filters that catch the most dirt flow the worst and flow is the more important thing. Like i always say dirty oil lubricates no oil does not!
Looking at the ultra it seems to be a well made filter maybe one of the best but im not so sure about its flow ability Looking at the oil holes they seem smaller.
I'm going to play devils advocate here. How do you know that flow is more important than how well it filters. Let's just assume that an engine is producing very low quantities of particles over a given time. Wouldn't you then say, I don't need to run the oil thru a filter at a very fast rate and therefore, I might as well tighten up what I am filtering down to a smaller particle. In other words, there is a sweet spot where flow rate AND particle filtering size should be optimum. I doubt any of us here would know where that is at but that seems to be the crux of this debate.
As its been said many times on this forum, flow is just not a problem with any name-brand oil filter. Only filtering ability need be considered. Flow is a no-brainer for the engineers who design the dad-gum thing. (My use of 'dad-gum' doesn't mean I'm 90 years old by the way.)
Originally Posted By: philipp10
I'm going to play devils advocate here. How do you know that flow is more important than how well it filters. Let's just assume that an engine is producing very low quantities of particles over a given time. Wouldn't you then say, I don't need to run the oil thru a filter at a very fast rate and therefore, I might as well tighten up what I am filtering down to a smaller particle. In other words, there is a sweet spot where flow rate AND particle filtering size should be optimum. I doubt any of us here would know where that is at but that seems to be the crux of this debate.
The filter designer doesn't want to make the filter so restrictive that the oil pump has to operate near max pressure relief, and/or have the filter go into bypass when it isn't even close to be loaded up with debris.
Amsoil had a situation where their EaO13 filter was designed to run a long 25,000 mile change interval. But if these (or any for that matter) filters are ran that long on a dirty engine they could clog all the way up and apparently effect the oil flow. Could be those filters didn't have an adequately sized bypass valve because it was probably all going through the bypass valve of the filter at that point. Amsoil's fix was to recommend a different filter (one less efficient) or cut back on the filter change interval.
Amsoil TSB (Link)
Yes, the "sweet spot" is to design a filter that provides high efficiency (IMO, 95% @ 20 microns or better), while producing a small delta-p across the filter at high engine RPM and has a high holding capacity to keep well away from the bypass valve opening pressure.
Those filters exist ... normally full synthetic media filters, and that's whey they have been invented; to obtain all of those parameters in one filter.
I'm going to play devils advocate here. How do you know that flow is more important than how well it filters. Let's just assume that an engine is producing very low quantities of particles over a given time. Wouldn't you then say, I don't need to run the oil thru a filter at a very fast rate and therefore, I might as well tighten up what I am filtering down to a smaller particle. In other words, there is a sweet spot where flow rate AND particle filtering size should be optimum. I doubt any of us here would know where that is at but that seems to be the crux of this debate.
The filter designer doesn't want to make the filter so restrictive that the oil pump has to operate near max pressure relief, and/or have the filter go into bypass when it isn't even close to be loaded up with debris.
Amsoil had a situation where their EaO13 filter was designed to run a long 25,000 mile change interval. But if these (or any for that matter) filters are ran that long on a dirty engine they could clog all the way up and apparently effect the oil flow. Could be those filters didn't have an adequately sized bypass valve because it was probably all going through the bypass valve of the filter at that point. Amsoil's fix was to recommend a different filter (one less efficient) or cut back on the filter change interval.
Amsoil TSB (Link)
Yes, the "sweet spot" is to design a filter that provides high efficiency (IMO, 95% @ 20 microns or better), while producing a small delta-p across the filter at high engine RPM and has a high holding capacity to keep well away from the bypass valve opening pressure.
Those filters exist ... normally full synthetic media filters, and that's whey they have been invented; to obtain all of those parameters in one filter.
I agree with most of your post. But remember i still believe its better to have dirty oil flowing through an engine than no oil at all because an engine can run for thousands of miles on dirty oil but with no oil it may be the end in under a mile.
Originally Posted By: crazyoildude
I agree with most of your post. But remember i still believe its better to have dirty oil flowing through an engine than no oil at all because an engine can run for thousands of miles on dirty oil but with no oil it may be the end in under a mile.
Agreed ... but if the filter is designed correctly, if the filter completely clogs then the bypass valve will still allow nearly full flow to the engine and choke it enough to cause any engine damage from reduced oil flow.
In Amsoil's case with the EaO, their long interval filters were being clogged up too fast due to dirty engines and causing the filter to run on bypass most of the time. That's something you don't want the filter to do on a regular basis.
I agree with most of your post. But remember i still believe its better to have dirty oil flowing through an engine than no oil at all because an engine can run for thousands of miles on dirty oil but with no oil it may be the end in under a mile.
Agreed ... but if the filter is designed correctly, if the filter completely clogs then the bypass valve will still allow nearly full flow to the engine and choke it enough to cause any engine damage from reduced oil flow.
In Amsoil's case with the EaO, their long interval filters were being clogged up too fast due to dirty engines and causing the filter to run on bypass most of the time. That's something you don't want the filter to do on a regular basis.
^^^ My first sentence was a bit off ... should be:
Agreed ... if the filter is designed correctly, and if the filter completely clogs, then the bypass valve will still allow nearly full flow to the engine and not choke it enough to cause any engine damage from reduced oil flow.
Agreed ... if the filter is designed correctly, and if the filter completely clogs, then the bypass valve will still allow nearly full flow to the engine and not choke it enough to cause any engine damage from reduced oil flow.
Toyota and Honda OEM oil filters are noted for low filtering efficiency relative to various aftermarket oil filters as well as those used by some other OEMs.
The only advantage that I can think of in using a low efficiency filter is that you might see fewer bypass events under very cold operating conditions.
As has been written in numerous threads, no oil filter makes any significant contribution to the total flow restriction in any engine.
Most of us here try to balance maintenance parts quality with cost and most of us consider filtering efficiency to be an important metric in selecting an oil filter.
That said, whether you run the most efficient OTS oil filter or the OEM rock catcher, I doubt that you'd observe any difference in engine life or wear, even if you tore it down.
Maybe the best answer is that in the practical life of any motor vehicle, it simply doesn't matter whether you select high flow and lower efficiency or potentially lower flow and higher efficiency.
The rest of your truck will have turned to junk long before the regularly maintained engine will grenade.
The only advantage that I can think of in using a low efficiency filter is that you might see fewer bypass events under very cold operating conditions.
As has been written in numerous threads, no oil filter makes any significant contribution to the total flow restriction in any engine.
Most of us here try to balance maintenance parts quality with cost and most of us consider filtering efficiency to be an important metric in selecting an oil filter.
That said, whether you run the most efficient OTS oil filter or the OEM rock catcher, I doubt that you'd observe any difference in engine life or wear, even if you tore it down.
Maybe the best answer is that in the practical life of any motor vehicle, it simply doesn't matter whether you select high flow and lower efficiency or potentially lower flow and higher efficiency.
The rest of your truck will have turned to junk long before the regularly maintained engine will grenade.
Originally Posted By: crazyoildude
Im not sure anyone made it to the moon the first time but who cares anyway...lol (im pretty sure it was a hoax after looking at all the evidence)
Had to add this...
I knew it was a hoax when I saw a FRAM OCOD on the lunar lander.
No way it wouldn't fail after all those miles.
Of course with the FRAM Ultra, you would need to go to the moon twice on the same OCI for it to be cost effective.
Im not sure anyone made it to the moon the first time but who cares anyway...lol (im pretty sure it was a hoax after looking at all the evidence)
Had to add this...
I knew it was a hoax when I saw a FRAM OCOD on the lunar lander.
No way it wouldn't fail after all those miles.
Of course with the FRAM Ultra, you would need to go to the moon twice on the same OCI for it to be cost effective.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Toyota and Honda OEM oil filters are noted for low filtering efficiency ...
...Maybe the best answer is that in the practical life of any motor vehicle, it simply doesn't matter whether you select high flow and lower efficiency or potentially lower flow and higher efficiency.
Probably closer to the truth than many here would ever admit...
Fresh oil , changed regularily is 99 % of the battle... oil and filter brand, not so much...
Toyota and Honda OEM oil filters are noted for low filtering efficiency ...
...Maybe the best answer is that in the practical life of any motor vehicle, it simply doesn't matter whether you select high flow and lower efficiency or potentially lower flow and higher efficiency.
Probably closer to the truth than many here would ever admit...
Fresh oil , changed regularily is 99 % of the battle... oil and filter brand, not so much...
that was my first tip off...lol
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: geeman789
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Toyota and Honda OEM oil filters are noted for low filtering efficiency ...
...Maybe the best answer is that in the practical life of any motor vehicle, it simply doesn't matter whether you select high flow and lower efficiency or potentially lower flow and higher efficiency.
Probably closer to the truth than many here would ever admit...
Fresh oil , changed regularily is 99 % of the battle... oil and filter brand, not so much...
I've been trying to get people to realize this for years.
There is some level of filtration efficiency that is important to a reasonably long lifecycle. Anything past that has a very abrupt shift in diminishing returns.
Same goes for flow; enough is enough and "more" isn't any "better" because most any filter will flow WAY MORE than the engine will require.
Once the sump reaches a reasonably clean level, the equipment lifecycle is supported for a very long time. Sump cleanliness can be achieved either by filtering or flushing out contamination; two roads to the same destination. The OEMs will generally be able to define a flow/efficiency criteria that will support their goal. Going past that by over-engineering in one's home-spun wannabe better attempt shows no real tangible effect. But alas, bias and filter bigotry (ignorance and arrogance) run deep with some here.
When it comes to most equipment, as long as you follow OEM criteria for lubes and filters ...
In theory, it matters.
In reality, it doesn't.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Toyota and Honda OEM oil filters are noted for low filtering efficiency ...
...Maybe the best answer is that in the practical life of any motor vehicle, it simply doesn't matter whether you select high flow and lower efficiency or potentially lower flow and higher efficiency.
Probably closer to the truth than many here would ever admit...
Fresh oil , changed regularily is 99 % of the battle... oil and filter brand, not so much...
I've been trying to get people to realize this for years.
There is some level of filtration efficiency that is important to a reasonably long lifecycle. Anything past that has a very abrupt shift in diminishing returns.
Same goes for flow; enough is enough and "more" isn't any "better" because most any filter will flow WAY MORE than the engine will require.
Once the sump reaches a reasonably clean level, the equipment lifecycle is supported for a very long time. Sump cleanliness can be achieved either by filtering or flushing out contamination; two roads to the same destination. The OEMs will generally be able to define a flow/efficiency criteria that will support their goal. Going past that by over-engineering in one's home-spun wannabe better attempt shows no real tangible effect. But alas, bias and filter bigotry (ignorance and arrogance) run deep with some here.
When it comes to most equipment, as long as you follow OEM criteria for lubes and filters ...
In theory, it matters.
In reality, it doesn't.
I vote for flow but I agree, in reality it does not matter. In fact, I believe that oil filters are pretty much useless (like the human appendix, but it is still being reproduced) on new cars and in a properly operating engine with today's oil formulations and engine designs and manufacturing techniques the filter is there for maybe catastrophic reasons only and they capture about nothing IMO (yea I have cut my share open as well).
Seems like the oil filter is only needed for the first couple of oil changes.
After that, engine wear is so slow it doesn't matter much. Combustion blowby contaminants are suspended by detergent/dispersant additives, not filtered out. I see the same thing with hydraulic systems.
So what's the purpose/point?
Sure seems to me that flow is more important than fine silt filtration.
After that, engine wear is so slow it doesn't matter much. Combustion blowby contaminants are suspended by detergent/dispersant additives, not filtered out. I see the same thing with hydraulic systems.
So what's the purpose/point?
Sure seems to me that flow is more important than fine silt filtration.
Originally Posted By: Skid
The air filter is important. The oil filter, much less so.
Here's a study (short mileage though) from the State of California, June 2008: Evaluation of High Efficiency Oil Filters in the State Fleet
https://www.dtsc.ca.gov/PollutionPrevention/upload/CIWMB_Oil_Filters_State_Fleet.pdf
"No differences could be ascertained between the Fram X2 and the standard Car Quest filters performance." X2 is now ultra. Car Quest back then were Wix, I believe.
+1
Dirt ingestion is a major cause of cylinder wear. Dare I say THE major cause of cylinder wear. A good air filter mitigates the need for good oil filtration.
The air filter is important. The oil filter, much less so.
Here's a study (short mileage though) from the State of California, June 2008: Evaluation of High Efficiency Oil Filters in the State Fleet
https://www.dtsc.ca.gov/PollutionPrevention/upload/CIWMB_Oil_Filters_State_Fleet.pdf
"No differences could be ascertained between the Fram X2 and the standard Car Quest filters performance." X2 is now ultra. Car Quest back then were Wix, I believe.
+1
Dirt ingestion is a major cause of cylinder wear. Dare I say THE major cause of cylinder wear. A good air filter mitigates the need for good oil filtration.
Originally Posted By: aa1986
If you can get flow and excellent instead of average filtering, won't your lube last longer?
Isn't that a worthwhile ROI?
Yep - so a huge surface area, fine element synthetic filter does that. Who markets one? Fram Ultra? Everybody says WIX is too coarse.
If you can get flow and excellent instead of average filtering, won't your lube last longer?
Isn't that a worthwhile ROI?
Yep - so a huge surface area, fine element synthetic filter does that. Who markets one? Fram Ultra? Everybody says WIX is too coarse.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked