For Those That Feel A Hyundai OEM Filter Doesn't Do The Job....

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix

You think Blackstone has ever correlated "Insoluble %" data to particle count data on the same UOAs to see how they compare? I have from UOAs posted on this site, and I see no real correlation at all between the two.

Dunno, that's a great question for Blackstone (or any test facility for that matter). The results of a particle count and insolubles test can only correlate if the test method is the same.

That said, the insolubles value is a composite parameter (includes particles, contaminants and degradation products that are dissolved or dispersed in the oil) that reflects the degree of oil degradation and oil contamination and significant levels can be a sign of several things occuring including insufficient oil filtration.

Unless I'm missing something (my understanding of "insolubles") if my UOA showed a low insolubles value I wouldn't be worried all that much about particle count or the efficiency of oil filtration system.

I would hope that if Blackstone saw a high insolubles value that they would recommend additional testing for particle count/fuel dilution to get better visibility into that number and determine what's causing it to be so high (fuel contamination, soot, blow by problems, additive issues, oil oxidation etc.) since a high insolubles level is very detrimental to oil integrity (wear, deposit/sludge formation, thickening of the oil etc).


I'd like to know what size range of particulate the "insolubles %" number is measuring. I would think it's particles that are larger than than what most decent oil filters would trap (larger than 20~40 microns). If that's the case, then it only makes sense that a higher efficiency oil filter would lower the insolubles measurement. But as my UOA data comparison shows, the insolubles number does not correlate with the particle count data.

You can have two different tests and methods associated with those tests, and if there's a correlation then you'll see it. A good correlation between insolubles % numbers and PC numbers would show that as the PC counts go up (ie, dirtier oil) then the insolubles % number would also go up. But the data doesn't show that as I showed with examples in that thread I link to a few posts ago. That's why I think the insolubles % number on UOAs really doesn't reflect the true cleanliness of the oil or the filtering performance of the oil filter.

 

[Mad_Hatter]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
I'd like to know what size range of particulate the "insolubles %" number is measuring. I would think it's particles that are larger than than what most decent oil filters would trap (larger than 20~40 microns). If that's the case, then it only makes sense that a higher efficiency oil filter would lower the insolubles measurement. But as my UOA data comparison shows, the insolubles number does not correlate with the particle count data.

You can have two different tests and methods associated with those tests, and if there's a correlation then you'll see it. A good correlation between insolubles % numbers and PC numbers would show that as the PC counts go up (ie, dirtier oil) then the insolubles % number would also go up. But the data doesn't show that as I showed with examples in that thread I link to a few posts ago. That's why I think the insolubles % number on UOAs really doesn't reflect the true cleanliness of the oil or the filtering performance of the oil filter.


Each test has it's merits and are complimentary. PC is gonna give you an idea of filter efficiency and cleanliness and insolubles % is going to give you a broad assessment of the oils health because it counts all contaminants, not just particles of a certain size. And correct me if I'm wrong, I'm pretty sure it's impossible to have both a low insolubles% and poor filter efficiency.

 

[SlavaB]

Originally Posted by hallstevenson
Originally Posted by SlavaB
Your uoa has no particle count, so you have no data to claim that oem is as good as ultra or any other filter
Particle count (high) translate to metal wear, right ? Every one of his values are below the average values that Blackstone recorded.


I believe you're right, yet I don't think you can tell for sure if the filter is rated at 99%@40 microns vs 20 microns based on this uoa. All I'm saying is That unless there's a scientifically determined values of this relation, you can't do any conclusions like "oem is as good as any other filter"

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
And correct me if I'm wrong, I'm pretty sure it's impossible to have both a low insolubles% and poor filter efficiency.


So what you're saying there is that a more efficient oil filter should clean the oil better of all solid contaminates, which is most of what the "insoluble" materials is comprised.

Yet, if you read that thread I posted, you'll see many examples where UOAs that had high PCs numbers had low insolubles numbers, and vice versa. That's what I've been saying all along why there is no good correlation, and therefore the insolubles number doesn't reflect the oil filter's performance like an ISO PC does.

 

[Propflux01]

So exactly what in that UOA says the oil filter was doing a good job? If it's the "insolubles %" it's not a good indicator of filter performance because if you compare insolubles to an actual particle count they do not correlate at all.
[/quote]

I think that was explained in earlier posts.

 

[JoelB]

I think to really conclude anything from this we would need to see a uoa from a super cheap filter and something like a Fram Ultra.

I don't think many have been condemning these OEM filters, more stating the poor efficiency ratings versus other filters. Clearly many hyundai's and kia's are running these filters with no issues.

 

[Mad_Hatter]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix

So what you're saying there is that a more efficient oil filter should clean the oil better of all solid contaminates, which is most of what the "insoluble" materials is comprised.

Yet, if you read that thread I posted, you'll see many examples where UOAs that had high PCs numbers had low insolubles numbers, and vice versa. That's what I've been saying all along why there is no good correlation, and therefore the insolubles number doesn't reflect the oil filter's performance like an ISO PC does.

I'm not the right person to explain your observations. All I know is what I read. And what I've read in re to insolubles % is that it appears to have an inverse relationship to filter efficiency. Filter efficiency is up, insolubles % typically is down.

Blackstone on Insolubles

CIMAC - INTL COUNCIL ON COMBUSTION ENGINES

This article talks about different test methods and how some contaminants (soot in this example) can appear on a particle count test but not [accurately] on the insolubles test. (spoiler alert, the oils dispersant additives kept the soot in suspension and from collecting at the bottom (agglomerated) with other insolubles after being subject to centrifuge)

Soot Testing

 

[DuckRyder]

There is nothing on a standard UOA that is a good indicator of filter efficiency. A little deeper reading on blackstones website will bring you to that conclusion.

A PC count is a good indicator, but if it does not line up with BITOG "wisdom" you'll get accused of bad samples and all sorts of twisting, turning and wrangling to try to discredit you... so don't bother.

 

[Hall]

Originally Posted by SlavaB
...yet I don't think you can tell for sure if the filter is rated at 99%@40 microns vs 20 microns based on this uoa.
Maybe .... (gasp) .... it really doesn't matter in the real world if it filters at 20 microns vs 40 microns. People tend to overthink things and while yeah, a 20 micron filter is "better" on paper, it may not really be necessary. Why not make 10 micron filters or 1 micron filters then ?

 

[Mad_Hatter]

Originally Posted by hallstevenson
Originally Posted by SlavaB
...yet I don't think you can tell for sure if the filter is rated at 99%@40 microns vs 20 microns based on this uoa.
Maybe .... (gasp) .... it really doesn't matter in the real world if it filters at 20 microns vs 40 microns. People tend to overthink things and while yeah, a 20 micron filter is "better" on paper, it may not really be necessary. Why not make 10 micron filters or 1 micron filters then ?

They do make those filters for industrial machinery but those are entirely different beasts.

Fact is, all filters will catch some particles at the lower end of the scale. The efficiency isn't great (like maybe 5% at 5~10 microns) thus filter mfgs don't advertise it. They advertise the best (biggest#) efficiency ("98% efficiency at X microns").

 

[UncleDave]

Without a leak down there can be no conclusion as to how worn this engine is or isn't.

UD

 

[Job]

25 microns is about .001 inch. A 1 inch cube holds 1 billion 25 micron particles appx. The oil sample is 3 oz. 1 oz is 1.8 cubic inches thank you internet. So 3 oz is 5.4 cubic inches, or 5.4 billion 25 micron particles. An insolubles of .2% is 10.8 million 25 micron particles.
There is also a mix of larger and smaller particles, but maybe this is why we see difficulty with insoluble numbers and actual particle count numbers. Something is not the same, different testing.

 

[Revving2Redline]

I thought the Hyundai OEM was awesome but the dealership was kinda ripping me off and since I changed oil every other weekend I used the pro select or napa gold. They are a good filter though

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by DuckRyder
There is nothing on a standard UOA that is a good indicator of filter efficiency. A little deeper reading on blackstones website will bring you to that conclusion.

A PC count is a good indicator, but if it does not line up with BITOG "wisdom" you'll get accused of bad samples and all sorts of twisting, turning and wrangling to try to discredit you... so don't bother.


You shouldn't take it too personally when people try to explore why some PCs don't follow the expected trend of "better PCs with high filter efficiency". Your PC data contributions are appreciated. Nobody knows exactly why, but there could be reasons why PC testing results show up skewed and don't agree with the expected trend.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix

So what you're saying there is that a more efficient oil filter should clean the oil better of all solid contaminates, which is most of what the "insoluble" materials is comprised.

Yet, if you read that thread I posted, you'll see many examples where UOAs that had high PCs numbers had low insolubles numbers, and vice versa. That's what I've been saying all along why there is no good correlation, and therefore the insolubles number doesn't reflect the oil filter's performance like an ISO PC does.

I'm not the right person to explain your observations. All I know is what I read. And what I've read in re to insolubles % is that it appears to have an inverse relationship to filter efficiency. Filter efficiency is up, insolubles % typically is down.


Again, my point is if you the take UAO Insolubles % data and PC data from many samples and list them out like I have with UOA data posted on this site, you'll see there is no strong correlation of the expected inverse relationship. So how can it be concluded that the insolubles % measurement is a good indicator of filter performance?

I still think ISO PC data (oil particulate level) is the better indicator of oil filter efficiency performance, and the insolubles % data is just a rough indicator that doesn't correlate to PC data like you think (read) it should.

 

[Sayjac]

Blackstone has said they see no significant difference(s) in insoluble results in any filters used. If interested in citing google "Blackstone says oil filter brand doesn't matter", first entry.

Further, there have been several bitog UOAs done with filters that had known tears that showed nothing remarkable other than being unremarkable.

So while the UOA looks fine, I don't believe it can attributed to the filter.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by Sayjac
Blackstone has said they see no significant difference(s) in insoluble results in any filters used. If interested in citing google "Blackstone says oil filter brand doesn't matter", first entry.

Further, there have been several bitog UOAs done with filters that had known tears that showed nothing remarkable other than being unremarkable.

So while the UOA looks fine, I don't believe it can attributed to the filter.


Was there any PC data along with those UAOs having ran a torn filter?

 

[Sayjac]

I guess I should have been more specific however, since the topic was insolubles and UOAs I presumed most understood it to be, 'standard UOA results', nothing else.

As point of information, I now make an effort stay out any particle count discussions or controversies here that at times seem endless. As has been alluded to by one reply here, when the results don't appear to agree with filter's known efficiency as has happened here before, in my observation it's on. So best avoided 'for me'.

The reference to unremarkable results was for standard UOA.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Just asking if you recalled any PC data in UAOs where a torn filter was discovered since you mentioned seeing UOAs with torn filters. I think it would be interesting data to see if the PC was noticably worse or not.

As far as people observing and trying to come to conclusions on any kind of test data posted on BITOG, nothing new since this chat board was born. Everyone can come to their own conclusions. It's something that keeps this place interesting IMO.

 

[David1]

They sell them at Walmart now.. I use mother cars.. What's funny it also fits my Honda also.

anyways its a great filter made by Mann .