Fram Endurance Flashlight Test in canister

[Glenda W.]

No, but I have a full copy of ISO 3968, which covers flow-dP and bypass valve testing for hydraulic filters. It seems to be very similar to ISO 4548. PM me an email address and I'll send it to you.


It could be that FRAM would seal the leaf spring to the end cap for this test, since the purpose of the test is to test the leakage of the valve itself. In any case, they'd be able to inspect the leaf spring before the test, and they probably wouldn't test one with an obvious manufacturing defect.

Good point. If the Endurance passed the ISO 4548-2 bypass leakage test the baseplate to bypass interface would have to be free of .020” gaps.

 

[Chumango]

I searched the 'net pretty extensively - even made an account on academia.edu so I could search for research papers. I couldn't find any technical papers on rectangular orifice coefficient as a function of aspect ratio. I did find the same study I referenced earlier with more in depth information that the rectangular orifice they used was 2:1 aspect ratio (length was twice the height). The coefficient was basically an average of 0.50.

Here's an interesting blurb I found in one study on academia.edu. Humm ...

View attachment 239517

That is interesting - it gives conclusions that are contrary to first principles. What is the name of that paper and the authors? I'd like to see it. I might have access to it.

 

[Ronn]

Nope ... you're the one always claiming BRs test results are "valid" and you assume they were leakers like the ones talked about here. There is zero proof of your assumption ... it's just what you want it to be, without any proof of such. So you made the claim, you show the proof. I've said there is no proof one way or other, so I have nothing to prove. If I kept saying the BR Endurance wasn't a leaker, then I'd have to prove it ... but nobody can prove it unless BR still has that same exact filter laying around.


BR hasn't proven that their ranking of any of the filters are valid based on an actual ISO 4548-12 efficiency test (like Ascent) of the same filters to see if the official ISO test results ranks them in the same order as BR's ranking.

This isn’t about whether the “rankings” shown on that table are correct or valid . I wasn’t claiming that. It was my response to Glenda’s question. Maybe she was just being facetious and I fell for it ? Lol.
The point I’m making is that the burden is still on you to support any claim the Endurance filter now available is not performing as claimed by Fram and that the actual filter results (not ranking) of the BR tests do not reflect its performance.
I’m not required to show that the filters tested to date were all leakers and had a bypass defect …Talk about “Gas Lighting” lol.

 

[Fair enough]

No, but I have a full copy of ISO 3968, which covers flow-dP and bypass valve testing for hydraulic filters. It seems to be very similar to ISO 4548. PM me an email address and I'll send it to you.


It could be that FRAM would seal the leaf spring to the end cap for this test, since the purpose of the test is to test the leakage of the valve itself. In any case, they'd be able to inspect the leaf spring before the test, and they probably wouldn't test one with an obvious manufacturing defect.

Ascent filtration tested filters, and he put a cork in the filters with removable bypass valves. If Fram does that which seems they would if Ascent tests according to the procedures, then they overlook any bypass leaks.
They may be unaware of the leaks, as they removed the gasket and went about their business. The testing of assembled filters was done, and they think all is fine. Maybe.
I don’t have the Ascent bubble test but looked it up once, and am in a hurry.

 

[Ronn]

For those who are curious about how BR brands does their testing and some comments they make on ISO, check this video.
I’m not commenting about the actual filters tested here, but I have posted their Endurance results here previously.

 

[ZeeOSix]

This isn’t about whether the “rankings” shown on that table are correct or valid . I wasn’t claiming that. It was my response to Glenda’s question. Maybe she was just being facetious and I fell for it ? Lol.
The point I’m making is that the burden is still on you to support any claim the Endurance filter now available is not performing as claimed by Fram and that the actual filter results (not ranking) of the BR tests do not reflect its performance.
I’m not required to show that the filters tested to date were all leakers and had a bypass defect …Talk about “Gas Lighting” lol.

I never said I think the Endurance isn't performing as claimed. I simply say that any efficiency test, or efficiency "ranking" test could have been done with or without a leak happening inside the filter, and if there was a substantial leak (like some examples seen here) then I'd think it would be reflected in the ISO efficiency test. Nobody has shown any test correlation one way of the other if a leaky leaf spring seal can effect the ISO efficiency to noticeable degree or not.

You on the other hand have somehow firmly concluded that all the ones tested were leakers, and that they perform and have stellar efficiency with an internal leak happening - but you have no real proof, just speculation. So yes, you do have the burden of proof to show that's the case if that's your claim. You're only gaslighting yourself, by making yourself believe something with no real proof, just speculation that you want to believe, lol.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Ascent filtration tested filters, and he put a cork in the filters with removable bypass valves. If Fram does that which seems they would if Ascent tests according to the procedures, then they overlook any bypass leaks.
They may be unaware of the leaks, as they removed the gasket and went about their business. The testing of assembled filters was done, and they think all is fine. Maybe.
I don’t have the Ascent bubble test but looked it up once, and am in a hurry.

Doing a light test on the Fram style spring loaded popped bypass valves I have laying around shows them to be light tight. However, as shown, some metal-on-metal bypass valves built into the end cap like those used on Purolators, etc could leak. Metal-on-metal isn't the best way to seal anything. It's the leaf spring to end cap seal interface that's more apt to leak, especially when just metal-on-metal. Fram OG with the sealing ring on the end cap was a nice design. All good things never last, so no more "gootimes" with the OG Ultra anymore, lol.

 

[ZeeOSix]

That is interesting - it gives conclusions that are contrary to first principles. What is the name of that paper and the authors? I'd like to see it. I might have access to it.

Yes, it seems contrary to some other findings, like the study I posted the Cd coefficients table from. The paper below references other works similar findings where a rectangular orifice had a higher discharge (in the snip-it I posted earlier). Have fun, lol.

 

[Ronn]

Well, here are some shots if my recently purchased Endurance filters. All three on the shelf are the same date of manufacture and I assume the one currently installed is as well. Correct me if I’m wrong, but looks like they were made in Jan of 23? That’s when they were first introduced?
Also some close ups of bypass. Note:
The louvered holes in the tube are being reflected off the base of the valve dome here. It also appears that there “may” be a seal around the base there?

 

[garageman402]

Yes, it seems contrary to some other findings, like the study I posted the Cd coefficients table from. The paper below references other works similar findings where a rectangular orifice had a higher discharge (in the snip-it I posted earlier). Have fun, lol.

View attachment 239593

I'm assuming the "constant head of water" is a column of water kept at a level of 0.9m, & is gravity fed into the tested orifices? This would not duplicate a positive displacement pump, as the volume of water passing would be affected by restriction. In a PD pump scenario the volume would not change, but the velocity would change depending on the (coefficient of) friction imparted by the orifice shape.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I'm assuming the "constant head of water" is a column of water kept at a level of 0.9m, & is gravity fed into the tested orifices? This would not duplicate a positive displacement pump, as the volume of water passing would be affected by restriction.

The constant head of water is just supplying a constant pressure to force fluid through the orifice. Just like the constant dP of 0.8 PSI that was used in the flow calculation of the orifice done in this thread. The PD oil pump doesn't have any bearing except to provide a volume flow through the filter. The resulting dP and associated flow through every element inside the filter (like the media and any leak paths) is a result of the pump forcing the oil through the filter.

In a PD pump scenario the volume would not change, but the velocity would change depending on the (coefficient of) friction imparted by the orifice shape.

The volume (provided by the pump) and viscosity of the oil flowing through any opening creates a dP across whatever it's flow through (ie, the base inlet holes, media, center tube holes, leak path gaps, etc). In the model used in this thread to calculate the flow through the leak gap, it was assumed the dP across the media and leak path was 0.8 PSI. That 0.8 PSI was assumed to be what the filter's dP would be with hot oil and a flow rate of 3.0 GPM.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Well, here are some shots if my recently purchased Endurance filters. All three on the shelf are the same date of manufacture and I assume the one currently installed is as well. Correct me if I’m wrong, but looks like they were made in Jan of 23? That’s when they were first introduced?
Also some close ups of bypass. Note:
The louvered holes in the tube are being reflected off the base of the valve dome here. It also appears that there “may” be a seal around the base there?

View attachment 239597

View attachment 239598

View attachment 239599

View attachment 239600

If your Endurance filters have a seal on the leaf spring, I'd be surprised. It's probaly just a dark looking gap that's shown in the photos. Only one way to find out for sure.

 

[wemay]

Ascent filtration tested filters, and he put a cork in the filters with removable bypass valves. If Fram does that which seems they would if Ascent tests according to the procedures, then they overlook any bypass leaks.
They may be unaware of the leaks, as they removed the gasket and went about their business. The testing of assembled filters was done, and they think all is fine. Maybe.
I don’t have the Ascent bubble test but looked it up once, and am in a hurry.

This is very interesting

 

[garageman402]

The constant head of water is just supplying a constant pressure to force fluid through the orifice. Just like the constant dP of 0.8 PSI that was used in the flow calculation of the orifice done in this thread. The PD oil pump doesn't have any bearing except to provide a volume flow through the filter. The resulting dP and associated flow through every element inside the filter (like the media and any leak paths) is a result of the pump forcing the oil through the filter.

OK, got it. The volume that is restricted just passes through the medium, so the flow through the leak orifice IS variable. Thx!

 

[ZeeOSix]

OK, got it. The volume that is restricted just passes through the medium, so the flow through the leak orifice IS variable. Thx!

There's a higher pressure on whole dirty side of the filter media area, and a slightly lower pressure inside the center tube ... that's basically the dP that's created by the viscosity, flow volume from the oil pump. If there's 0.8 PSI dP across the media, then there's also 0.8 dP across the leak gap, and also the bypass valve. Basically everything on the dirty side sees the same pressure level. If the dP is 12 PSI due to really high engine RPM and high flow from the oil pump, then there's a 12 PSI dP across the media, leak gap and bypass valve. In a case like that, the leak gap will be leaking more flow too.

 

[ZeeOSix]

This is very interesting

Here's the Ascent bubble point testing video. Andrew never made the 3rd video for some reason ... would have liked to see that one.

 

[Ronn]

OK, got it. The volume that is restricted just passes through the medium, so the flow through the leak orifice IS variable

I'm just a novice to all this engineering analysis, but it would seem that "choppy circulation" created in and around any irregular crevasses, would play a major role in the flow through them? Perhaps impeding/delaying it. This is why I think it's near impossible to model a reliable determination of the rate of flow through the cracks.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I'm just a novice to all this engineering analysis, but it would seem that "choppy circulation" created in and around any irregular crevasses, would play a major role in the flow through them? Perhaps impeding/delaying it. This is why I think it's near impossible to model a reliable determination of the rate of flow through the cracks.

The calculations done here are way closer than just guessing, speculating or assuming. A gap with the area seen in some of these examples will leak more than you'd think just by looking at the gap. That's why most people can't really grasp fluid flow without doing some kind of decent calculation. If you can provide better proof, then post it up.

 

[Ronn]

If your Endurance filters have a seal on the leaf spring, I'd be surprised. It's probaly just a dark looking gap that's shown in the photos. Only one way to find out for sure.

We’ll, I went back to tear down video of Fram Endurance with production date only a week or so earlier…. No seals.
Down below old Fram Ultra XG, posted earlier, but just for quick reference.
Then side by side.

 

[garageman402]

Here's the Ascent bubble point testing video. Andrew never made the 3rd video for some reason ... would have liked to see that one.

I remember he contracted Covid in there somewhere, but he still only has the two videos on his You Tube channel.

Looks like the Delco Gold is another Champion product, has the same "ZZ" stamped on the baseplate, but poor seal at the media seam. I did notice the different quality of the leaf spring between the RP & OG Ultra, the Ultra leaf spring has more metal at the narrow part perhaps adding rigidity to it.

Glenda's pic of the leaf spring shows that it's lifted off the end cap surface, which is why I thought removing it from the can caused it to lift. This picture shows a more sturdy & better formed leaf spring on the Ultra than the RP, & yes the Ultra has a gasket.