Flow versus filtration - where's the balance?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
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.


So why didn't they increase the surface area/size of that filter? It was already premium priced?
 
Originally Posted By: aa1986
Fram Ultra & Amsoil.

And if you trust Purolator and believe that filters can go far longer than rated, then a Pure One filters even better.


Didn't Purolator have a longevity issue I saw on a blog here? i.e. - the high efficiency didn't have enough surface area to match the longer OCI of syn oil? Went into bypass? Didn't I also see something about some collapsed elements?

I know Fram's the rage these days, is everybody discounting WIX XP due to too coarse a syn fiber mesh?
 
Yes I've seen multiple posts that say WIX XP is not that efficient.

And PureOnes hold 13g of dirt and I believe Fram Ultra's are nearer 30g.
 
Originally Posted By: aa1986
Yes I've seen multiple posts that say WIX XP is not that efficient.

And PureOnes hold 13g of dirt and I believe Fram Ultra's are nearer 30g.


Let's say that your figures on holding capacity are accurate.
13 grams in a mature engine on an OCI even as long as 10K is more than any engine will need.
After breakin, you don't find much debris of any kind in an oil filter and even breakin debris are typically much less than 13 grams.
Most of the particles are too small to filter out and remain suspended in the oil and are drained out with it.
Were this not the case, you'd see nil wear metals in used oil analysis of factory fill oil, which we all know isn't the case and the few dozen PPM of wear meatls in a typical factory fill UOA don't add up to 13 grams anyway.
Metal shedding only gets better from there, so I don't think that filter holding capacity is of any great importance.
It exceeds the need whether 13 grams or 30, as it should, since we all prefer to err on the conservative side.
 
^^^well I think you are making assumptions without data. There is more to remove than wear metals. I would guess those are minor components. Dirt ingestion from the air and carbon from the combustion process would be my guess as major components. I would love to see an analysis of what a filter catches.
 
That's the problem - insufficient data, and the Marketeers like it that way.

For our engines, we spec air filters but not the oil filters. But all the data we need is available for the air filters - max airflow restriction (dirty), min dirt holding capacity using AZ 'test' dust, min longevity hours, etc.

Why can't we find this for lube oil filters?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Originally Posted By: aa1986
Yes I've seen multiple posts that say WIX XP is not that efficient.

And PureOnes hold 13g of dirt and I believe Fram Ultra's are nearer 30g.


Let's say that your figures on holding capacity are accurate.
13 grams in a mature engine on an OCI even as long as 10K is more than any engine will need.
After breakin, you don't find much debris of any kind in an oil filter and even breakin debris are typically much less than 13 grams.
Most of the particles are too small to filter out and remain suspended in the oil and are drained out with it.
Were this not the case, you'd see nil wear metals in used oil analysis of factory fill oil, which we all know isn't the case and the few dozen PPM of wear meatls in a typical factory fill UOA don't add up to 13 grams anyway.
Metal shedding only gets better from there, so I don't think that filter holding capacity is of any great importance.
It exceeds the need whether 13 grams or 30, as it should, since we all prefer to err on the conservative side.


Does this build a case for priority on efficiency instead of capacity (flow)?
 
Just so we don't get too off topic, there are SAE studies and research out there showing that improved oil filtration does directly relate to reduced engine wear. There are some references and graphs on this "ad"

http://www.upmpg.com/tech_articles/sae_filtration_study/index.html

It is too bad I can't pull up SAE papers. I'm sure there are many. It seems the important line is around 25um and below.
 
Last edited:
I'm lookin' for an osmosis membrane filter with efficiency at the molecular level, with capacity for 100,000 mile OCI.

App. 8 foot long canister element should do it.

28.gif
 
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Just so we don't get too off topic, there are SAE studies and research out there showing that improved oil filtration does directly relate to reduced engine wear. There are some references and graphs on this "ad"

http://www.upmpg.com/tech_articles/sae_filtration_study/index.html

It is too bad I can't pull up SAE papers. I'm sure there are many. It seems the important line is around 25um and below.


I'm about to break down and just pay SAE their ransom for holding those papers done by companies and Federal taxpayer-supported labs hostage to release them to me!!! Me like SAE papers.
 
Originally Posted By: aa1986
Yes I've seen multiple posts that say WIX XP is not that efficient...

.


And maybe WIX feels that good flow and ADEQUATE filtration are a better combination...

But Fram Ultra feels that ADEQUATE flow and EXCELLENT filtration is better...

One thing is for sure... Fram really promotes their 99% efficiency stat... it sounds AWESOME, but does it really matter ?
 
Originally Posted By: CrawfishTails
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Just so we don't get too off topic, there are SAE studies and research out there showing that improved oil filtration does directly relate to reduced engine wear. There are some references and graphs on this "ad"

http://www.upmpg.com/tech_articles/sae_filtration_study/index.html

It is too bad I can't pull up SAE papers. I'm sure there are many. It seems the important line is around 25um and below.


I'm about to break down and just pay SAE their ransom for holding those papers done by companies and Federal taxpayer-supported labs hostage to release them to me!!! Me like SAE papers.



I already own some of the more popular ones.

Let me just say that most of them have a predication of bias to show some delineation that does not manifest into tangible results in the real world. Not the least of which is the infamous GM study 88-1825; what a load of manure. Also 710813 is right down that same alley, as are others. Then there's the Fleetguard study that taunts at used oil analysis, but it's first step out the door is to prove something that may not exist in the first place!

I highly encourage those who are able to pay the "ransom" to do so; I think you'll be enlightened as to what these studies actually do NOT prove.


I conceptually designed a study that would represent a truly practical application; I was bored one day at home. Problem is, the cost/time is simply too prohibitive. And that's where these "filter studies" at the SAE fail to hold my attention; they are accelerated by artificial means, and cannot replicate real world conditions.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: geeman789
One thing is for sure... Fram really promotes their 99% efficiency stat... it sounds AWESOME, but does it really matter ?


Discussion elsewhere on bitog earlier, about how the future, and to some extent right now, will be the trend toward thinner and thinner oil films. Shannow pointed out how particles embed into babbit bearings:

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: CrawfishTails
Also, I wonder if operating in thinner oil films makes oil filter efficiency even more important to get out even smaller particles to fit in there.


Would certainly think so...

The history of white metal was that it was "embedable", and particles bigger than the MOFT would get jammed into the white metal and not sit there scoring things...as more boundary is getting into designs, the bearings are becoming harder, and less embedable, as the localised pressures can be higher than the strength of the old white metals.
 
Originally Posted By: geeman789
And maybe WIX feels that good flow and ADEQUATE filtration are a better combination...

Considering that Wix whitewashed the data for their normal filters, I'm not sure I believe the numbers on the XP, either.
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: LubricatusObsess
Originally Posted By: aa1986
Fram Ultra & Amsoil.

And if you trust Purolator and believe that filters can go far longer than rated, then a Pure One filters even better.


Didn't Purolator have a longevity issue I saw on a blog here? i.e. - the high efficiency didn't have enough surface area to match the longer OCI of syn oil? Went into bypass? Didn't I also see something about some collapsed elements?


What you were probably seeing was the Purolators with torn media, which was not caused by going into bypass. Rather the tearing was caused by brittle media and poor pleat spacing that couldn't take the bending force caused by oil flowing through the filter.
 
Originally Posted By: geeman789

One thing is for sure... Fram really promotes their 99% efficiency stat... it sounds AWESOME, but does it really matter ?


It matters to FRAM's marketing department and bottom line!!
 
I think you guys have convinced me to go back to Fram from WIX. I'm going to use Ultra - not for the capacity, but for the filtration efficiency.

One of those SAE studies said the most damaging wear particles were
Now, how much longer and how much performance retention is gained by a high efficiency filter? To my knowledge, no one has done a study. But - for only a few dollars more per oil change for a Fram Ultra, my question is, why not use the best?
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: geeman789
And maybe WIX feels that good flow and ADEQUATE filtration are a better combination...

Considering that Wix whitewashed the data for their normal filters, I'm not sure I believe the numbers on the XP, either.
wink.gif



Yes, the numbers... just waiting for the 100 % efficient claim to come out... ! Just small print the particle size... like 100 microns or something...

Gotta wonder how "truthful..." most automotive advertising really is... not very would be my guess...
 
Originally Posted By: LubricatusObsess
..... But - for only a few dollars more per oil change for a Fram Ultra, my question is, why not use the best?


Perfect logic. Thats what I do. Its not like it costs much more. I'll assume less particles in my oil is better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
Oil Filter......Flow vs. Filtration?
3 4 5
Replies
97
Views
56K
yvon_la
V
  • Locked
Fram Ultra Synthetic: Flow Restriction, Bypass Setting, and Fine Filtration
2
Replies
31
Views
12K
ZeeOSix
P
  • Locked
Laws of Phisics -- Fram Ultra
10 11 12
Replies
226
Views
124K
UNC151
D
  • Locked
High filtration vs oil pressure
Replies
6
Views
2K
4wheeldog
L
  • Locked
Flow vs filtration rate
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
4wd
Back
Top Bottom