Fram Endurance oil filters.
- Thread starter Analog-1
- Start date
Why is this hard for you to comprehend?
Seriously. The notion that the best performing filter may also have flaws?
Don’t confound flaws within overall performance.
Seriously. The notion that the best performing filter may also have flaws?
Don’t confound flaws within overall performance.
Like said in the other thread, a small gap can flow more than someone would think. So if a leak was that much you wouldn't care?
Last edited:
You don't know what the performance is if it was leaking 15% of the flow based on a valid test. You seem to think it wouldn't have an impact. How much would a filter need to leak for you to think it wasn't a good thing ?
Last edited:
That’s not the question
We don’t have an answer, as to the impact of this leak. And , no we don’t know as you continue speculate if it’s 15% or what ever you want to pull out of your arse.
16% was based on a known gap size and a small dP across the gap. It wasn't pulled out of anyone's arse. As the dP increase, so does the leak volume. You saw the calculations in the other thread, but obviously didn't follow. You have a better calculation?
If there was a tear in the media that was 1 mm wide by 3/4 inch long would you think it's nothing to be concerned about?
Agreed.
Yes. Two gaps measured .75”x.020” each. Not small imo for an area meant to be sealed.
Not sure why this thread got resurrected?
Hopefully my last post in this thread for the good of the community.
Last edited:
Unfortunately, this is yet ANOTHER example of how First Brands is cutting corners, to save pennies per filter, and ruining a good thing (the OG Ultra design). For want of a little seal between the leaf spring and media end cap. There's ZERO REASON to pay twice as much for a filter that has leakage past the media from day one...
Just some thoughts. You have slivers of light on two sides indicating minute crevasses BELOW the spring plate. So, the oil flows UNDER the plate before entering tube. This is a “ circuitous” path at best.
Also effecting the flow rate is the viscosity factor. This isn’t water! I maintain that the estimated 1-2 oz per SECOND (10%+) leakage is a gross overestimate! That’s 2-4 QTs per minute. True, no one knows at this point, but the current estimates defy common sense. I will continue to remain convinced that this minuscule leakage doesn’t materially affect the overall efficiency.
Is this “acceptable”? Depends on how you want to interpret that. It’s not acceptable in the sense that something can be done to remedy it. However, in my case, I will accept the filter “as is” because in my assessment, it’s still one of the best performing/stoutest filters available.
So…round and round we go.
Also effecting the flow rate is the viscosity factor. This isn’t water! I maintain that the estimated 1-2 oz per SECOND (10%+) leakage is a gross overestimate! That’s 2-4 QTs per minute. True, no one knows at this point, but the current estimates defy common sense. I will continue to remain convinced that this minuscule leakage doesn’t materially affect the overall efficiency.
Is this “acceptable”? Depends on how you want to interpret that. It’s not acceptable in the sense that something can be done to remedy it. However, in my case, I will accept the filter “as is” because in my assessment, it’s still one of the best performing/stoutest filters available.
So…round and round we go.
Last edited:
Ok, that’s .5mm wide.
Hmmm…
Split the difference shown here (below) and you get average of .075mm per sheet of typical printer paper.
That’s almost 7 sheets for the .5mm estimate in width.
Just want to confirm that’s what you got?
Even if true, as I pointed out, its flow path isn’t straight in (under plate from the side) and you have viscosity factor. So flow rate is impeded accordingly.
You have no real grasp of fluid mechanics. "A “circuitous” path at best". What?
The calculated flow was 0.57 GPM with hot oil at 11.5 cSt and a 0.8 PSI dP across the leak gaps. The filter media was estimated to flow 3 GPM under those same conditions (flow vs dP test data). So that's where the 16% flow leakage came from for that configuration. The other thread went through all the calculations. Of course if the leak gap is larger the leak volume is also larger. And if the dP is larger the leak volume is also larger.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2024
- Messages
- 734
How do diesel engine bypass filters clean up the soot and the particles a full flow misses, with 90% oil leaking unfiltered past the full flow’s best efforts, if one is used? My answer is Im not sure but has to do with there is less soot generated than the filter removes per unit time. The same idea can be applied to a leak in the bypass.
I have a Briggs engine lawn mower that has gone to no oil changes ever, because the system is sealed and a good air filter is used. I still changed it initially but probably wont again, and used their synthetic 5w-30 oil. No oil filter at all.
I have a Briggs engine lawn mower that has gone to no oil changes ever, because the system is sealed and a good air filter is used. I still changed it initially but probably wont again, and used their synthetic 5w-30 oil. No oil filter at all.
Would it take LESS TIME for oil to flow through that size gap if it were to be located directly on TOP of the spring plate, completely unobstructed.....VS where it is in this particular case? It would appear that having a gap being sequestered UNDER the spring plate is considerably more tortuous...with other factors like turbulence which may come into play being under the plate vs directly on top. Your calculations appear to apply to the first instance...ON TOP with direct straight flow into a gap. They simply use size as a parameter, without taking the nuances of location and path of flow. This may seem like "nitpicking", but location and path taken would appear to be critical in determination of flow rate through a gap of a given size."A “circuitous” path at best". What?
The calculated flow was 0.57 GPM with hot oil at 11.5 cSt and a 0.8 PSI dP across the leak gaps.
Last edited:
Seems like good analogy...
I'm waiting for a response to it. I've always maintained the small amount bypassed gets filtered out, since filter capacity isn't burdened and the very high efficiency remains intact as well.
I'm waiting for a response to it. I've always maintained the small amount bypassed gets filtered out, since filter capacity isn't burdened and the very high efficiency remains intact as well.
Last edited:
All covered in the other thread you ruined.
Note paper was measured with a caliper at .005”. Four pieces(.020”) could be pulled through with some friction. Length measured .75” straight across so around the round opening would actually measure more. My measurements are conservative.
Instead of running your mouth contribute…. I’d like to stop commenting
Last edited:
Not sure this helps but I believe soot is something like 2 microns and pretty much goes through a normal filter.
The gap is essentially a leak path inside a large pressure vessel (the dome area of the filter) with a dP across the leak gap.
True, that's why bypass filters with a 2u rating are used on diesel applications, in conjunction with a full fliw filter of course. They pickup what the full flow filter can't.
His comment…
“My answer is Im not sure but has to do with there is less soot generated than the filter removes per unit time. The same idea can be applied to a leak in the bypass.”
Not sure, but I think the point wasn’t “soot” per se?
Substitute “soot” for “particles equal to or greater than 20 microns”
Trying to equate a non-leaking full flow filter with an added bypass filter also in the system is apples to oranges.
See post 7. A full flow filter isn't suppose to have constant internal leaks going on, especially ones large enough to be a significant leak volume. A leak gap like seen on the these leaf springs is basically the same as a small tear in the media. If you or anyone else likes leaky oil filters that reduce their efficiency then go for it, but trying to justify them in every way you can think of is just trying to convince yourself that they are still "worth using". Just like when Purolators were tearing media, I was a long time Purolator user, but dropped them like a hot potato because I'd rather not use a leaky filter. Some people tried to justify the leaky torn media, lol.
Similar threads
