Agree. Obviously there’s some kind of agenda here. No one goes through that kind of mental gymnastics to defend an old efficiency claim that the company president has corrected.
Fram Endurance Flashlight Test in canister
- Thread starter Glenda W.
- Start date
Your comments are not constructive and are condescending. Please change your language. Thanks.
If I was not heck bent on needing to keep working on my daughter's house, I would side Dremel cut portholes up in a Fram Endurance in thirds ( keep the full radius in the top dome) and we can at least try to see the load on the spring and do a flash light test.
I did just this in post #1. It leaks under pressure.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2024
- Messages
- 728
There are bumps in the metal sealing area, pressure doesn’t push those down with a spring. On a Toyota filter I cut open, a significant bump in the resin seal did the same thing. The problem is the defects can’t be seen without destroying the filter for it’s intended use. The only sure way to avoid the bumps is to buy something else.
The last fram ultra I cut open had lines in the sediment around the bypass sealing surface indicating that there had been movement through that gap...
Came off a 1997 Acura RL with super tech 5w30 HM
Oil was changed last on 9/1/23
Replaced with Valvoline 5w30 HM syn blend red bottle and a slightly different XG7317.
Odometer doesn't work but car is not driven that often. I am guessing 6000 miles.
Note the deposits near bypass valve creases.
Otherwise filter definitely caught some dirt in the bottom.
Oil was changed last on 9/1/23
Replaced with Valvoline 5w30 HM syn blend red bottle and a slightly different XG7317.
Odometer doesn't work but car is not driven that often. I am guessing 6000 miles.
Note the deposits near bypass valve creases.
Otherwise filter definitely caught some dirt in the bottom.
Last edited:
The filter makers need to fix this. I, and most, would gladly pay .25 cents more for the increased sealing of better design.
I now avoid all filters with this cheap out design.
I remember your c&p. For me it removed all doubt that dirty oil is in fact bypassing the media at the gaps.The last fram ultra I cut open had lines in the sediment around the bypass sealing surface indicating that there had been movement through that gap...
Came off a 1997 Acura RL with super tech 5w30 HM
Oil was changed last on 9/1/23
Replaced with Valvoline 5w30 HM syn blend red bottle and a slightly different XG7317.
Odometer doesn't work but car is not driven that often. I am guessing 6000 miles.
Note the deposits near bypass valve creases.
Otherwise filter definitely caught some dirt in the bottom.
^^^ In the case above, the leaf spring was probably not flat either, even if it's smooth and not ruffled. That leaf spring doesn't really look that bad in terms of ruffles. As mentioned throughout this thread, on a metal-to-metal seal like this, in order to have minimum leakage it would have to be perfectly smooth and flat on both sides of the interface between the leaf spring and end cap. The "sealing ring" is just a raised thin ring around the center hole on the end cap. The leaf spring could be perfectly smooth, and if not flat where it seals there could still be an air gap to cause dirty oil to leak.
Last edited:
See post 562 on page 29 …
Came up with a model to show how the efficiency curve would change due to a 15% internal leakage. To simplify it, assumed that the particle size distribution was equal (100,000 particles) in each particle size. The leak gap is large enough to not act as a filter. Shows how the efficiency vs particle size curve would change in and ISO 4548-12 type efficiency test with 15% internal leakage past the media. Blue line is the efficiency curve without leakage, and the orange line is with 15% leakage.
Thought I'd just put it here since this thread has all the discussions about how the internal leakage could impact the efficiency.
Thought I'd just put it here since this thread has all the discussions about how the internal leakage could impact the efficiency.
While I find the 'modeling' somewhat interesting, 'I' look at the current FE (RP/Ams) from a more practical/pragmatic point of view. Is a leaking bypass seal area with oil bypass what one should expect from a premium filter @ $13+? If one can answer yes, then an FE ok for you.
Further, with Purolator post use media tears seen, 'in my observation' many of them have been quite small. 'Likely' smaller than what's been seen in Champ Labs seal area flashlight testing. I don't recall anyone 'modeling' the effects of such small tears. If they had, my 'speculation' is they would have been quickly and roundly criticized. 'To me', the comparison is fair. Perhaps for some, the early statement here 'filtering more than it's not' works.
Further, with Purolator post use media tears seen, 'in my observation' many of them have been quite small. 'Likely' smaller than what's been seen in Champ Labs seal area flashlight testing. I don't recall anyone 'modeling' the effects of such small tears. If they had, my 'speculation' is they would have been quickly and roundly criticized. 'To me', the comparison is fair. Perhaps for some, the early statement here 'filtering more than it's not' works.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2024
- Messages
- 728
With oil circulating once every 20 seconds, there are always 100,000 particles evenly spaced hitting the media? Didn’t the filter work? If it gets down to 100 particles, explain how the 100 find the pores or leaks so perfectly even. More realistically, probably none of the 100 find pores in many of the circulations. They hit media not pores
Explain the extreme case of a 90% bypass, or leak, situation, but the media filters 100% @1-2 microns, or better. The result is constantly clean oil even in diesel soot environments. How does that work?
At some point you need to just give it up.
Both with this user name and all the numerous ones you've had in the past. How many is it now? 10? 15? More?
The leak model was to simply show the effect on a typical ISO efficiency curve, and how it can change based on the size of the leakage. Obviously, the larger the leak, the more effect. This kind of leakage effect would skew garage tests too, like BR's and help explain why efficient filters can rank more like an inefficient filter without any leakage.
It's data so people can see it graphically, and decide for themselves if they are OK to use a filter that leaks internally. Obviously, no leakage whatsoever is the goal and the ideal situation. Not trying to "justify" internal leakage, that's for each person to decide for themselves based on whatever.
It's data so people can see it graphically, and decide for themselves if they are OK to use a filter that leaks internally. Obviously, no leakage whatsoever is the goal and the ideal situation. Not trying to "justify" internal leakage, that's for each person to decide for themselves based on whatever.
Last edited:
Some of the bad media tears were pretty large, and in more than one location (ie, multiple pleats and on both pleat ends). With tears like that, the leak percentage was probably more like 40-50% since the flow will take paths of least resistance. Depends on the dP vs flow performance of the media, and how big the total leak path area is.
Here's what the efficiency curve would look like if there was 40% leakage. Note that regardless of the upstream particle count, the efficiency percentage change will remain the same since it's based on a beta ratio (in vs out particle counts). If the particle count at point A changes, then so does the particle count at points C & D, the the resulting efficiency change is the same. So absolute particle counts at points C & D is determined by the incoming flow particle counts at point A. But regardless if it's 1 million, 100,000 or 100 particles going in at point A, the leak is going to change the beta ratio (efficiency %) the same amount even though the particle counts are changing.
Here's what the efficiency curve would look like if there was 40% leakage. Note that regardless of the upstream particle count, the efficiency percentage change will remain the same since it's based on a beta ratio (in vs out particle counts). If the particle count at point A changes, then so does the particle count at points C & D, the the resulting efficiency change is the same. So absolute particle counts at points C & D is determined by the incoming flow particle counts at point A. But regardless if it's 1 million, 100,000 or 100 particles going in at point A, the leak is going to change the beta ratio (efficiency %) the same amount even though the particle counts are changing.
Last edited:
The particulate in oil can be assumed well mixed and evenly distributed. If it wasn't, then UOA particle count testing wouldn't be very good would it. Engines are continually producing debris that gets in the oil ... if they weren't there wouldn't really be a need for an oil filter. Even if an oil filter doesn't have any dirty oil leakage, the filter media itself can only achieve a level of oil cleanliness. Adding a leak obviously will cause some debris that would normally be caught by the media to get by and go into the engine unfiltered. And if the filter is bad at retaining already captured debris and sloughs off with increased debris loading dP and dP spikes from flow surges, then that sloughed off debris will not all be caught as it comes back around like it should if there is a pretty big leak past the media.
You have data showing someone only using a bypass filter without a full flow filter? Old cars use to only have some kind of bypass filter, but for some reason the auto industry decided that wasn't quite enough. The bypass filter is really only meant to take out the smallest stuff that a full flow filter can't. A bypass filter would have to be pretty huge and have a relatively low dP vs flow to work as a full flow filter. That's not their purpose. And if an efficient bypass filter had an internal leak, its efficiency would be impacted too.
Last edited:
Similar threads
