Fram Endurance / Walmart End of Life ?

[ZeeOSix]

Ah …. so I’m drinking now…
Yes

I figured you were since it seems you are way out of context with what you're thinking ... so what else would I conclude, lol. That article has absolutely nothing to do with oil filters that are leaking internally - go read that article. It's talking about test calibration and standards for ISO 4406 particle count tests ... you know, the method that BR uses to rank the efficiency. You think maybe their PC data has some "extrapolation with assumptions". The ISO 4548-12 test is the only valid efficiency test. And a filter with a big leak isn't going to be at 99+% @ 20u in an ISO test with a big internal leak going on ... it's impossible.

There’s always the “ad hominem argument” to deflect
Bottom line
You took an observation and ran with it …
AKA …extrapolated with ASSUMPTIONS that have not been substantiated. In fact, all test (Brand Ranks) and observations of particle counts in used oil to date have shown this filter to be superior.
All you have are assumptions based on a sliver of light. You’ve got NOTHING.. but arm chair calculations based on this

I didn't run with anything. You can't even follow the context of the discussion in that particle count article I linked in post 104. I'll ask again ... would you rather have a filter with a big leak gap like that or one with no big gap to leak past the media? Do you understand that there's no way a filter could be 99% @ 20u if it has a big leak going on inside. If it was 99% @ 20u with no leakage, then a 10% leak would make it 89% efficient and a 15% leak would make it 84% efficient.

But you keep trying to convince people that a leaky filter is still the "best" on the market.
"I don't usually choose leaky oil filters, but when I do I choose high efficiency leaky filters".

 

[Glenda W.]

My new to me Jeep uses a cartridge filter. I may try an Endurance and do a particle count to see if it outperforms the Endurance canister at 15(Boss level) mentioned here. Would be a fun uncontrolled test.

 

[Ronn]

I'll ask again ... would you rather have a filter with a big leak gap like that or one with no big gap to leak past the media? Do you understand that there's no way a filter could be 99% @ 20u if it has a big leak going on inside. If it was 99% @ 20u with no leakage, then a 10% leak would make it 89% efficient and a 15% leak would make it 84% efficient.

And “"Therein lies the rub"…
We still don’t have any actual EMPIRICAL DATA that substantiates this claim!
The small “gap“ relative to the OVERALL area of the filter itself is minuscule! Furthermore, there’s absolutely no accounting for the fact that the small amount that could get around the filter (“bypassed”) is promptly RECIRCULATED back into the filter continuously.
Lastly, I would not simply “dismiss” all the results that WE DO HAVE (BR Tests and used oil particle counts) that support the superiority of this filter “in action”.
All you have are “theoretical results” based on assumptions. SHOW me one legitimate instance where this filter FAILS TO PERFORM as advertised…”99% @20microns” which btw, is backed by ISO tests that you claim are “ambiguous”.
The burden is on YOU…. not me , arm chair observations… assumptions and calculations notwithstanding.

 

[ZeeOSix]

And “"Therein lies the rub"…
We still don’t have any actual EMPIRICAL DATA that substantiates this claim!

If you make that claim, then you can't keep saying it's not an issue based on BRs testing. Saying two conflicting things, and only accepting one you think it true, regardless of the "no actual empirical data" mantra.

The small “gap“ relative to the OVERALL area of the filter itself is minuscule! Furthermore, there’s absolutely no accounting for the fact that the small amount that could get around the filter (“bypassed”) is promptly RECIRCULATED back into the filter continuously.

It's not about the size of the gap relative to the area of the filter. It's a leak, and if it's leakage percent based on the total flow through the filter media, then that's how it needs to be analyzed. The bigger the leak gap, the more the leakage percent, and the more it lowers the efficiency of the filter. It's not that hard to understand.

Sure anything that leaks past the media gets recirculated for another chance to be caught. That's really not how a filter should work, and filters aren't suppose to have a constant internal leak past the media. But if you like that then go for it ... but others who understand how filters should actually work really aren't buying into that "but it might get caught on a different pass" excuse as a reason to use a leaky filter.

Lastly, I would not simply “dismiss” all the results that WE DO HAVE (BR Tests and used oil particle counts) that support the superiority of this filter “in action”.

So now BR's data is "empirical data" when you said before we have no "empirical data". It's only "valid empirical data" when it fits your narrative, lol. Like said before, based on the PC model and just from pure common sense, a non-leaking filter that ISO 4548-12 tests at 99% @ 20u can not still be that efficient with any internal leakage. And if it tested at 99% @ 20u with an internal leak, then it would have to be a very small leakage ... it would have to be around 1% or less of a leak.

How do you know that the filters BR tested that ranked about the same as the inefficient Boss (99% >46u per M+H) didn't have leaky leaf springs? That's basically the only way they could all rank around the same because there's a big difference between them and the Boss per official ISO 4548-12 efficiency testing.

All you have are “theoretical results” based on assumptions. SHOW me one legitimate instance where this filter FAILS TO PERFORM as advertised…”99% @20microns” which btw, is backed by ISO tests that you claim are “ambiguous”. The burden is on YOU…. not me , arm chair observations… assumptions and calculations notwithstanding.

Get an ISO 4548-12 test done on some leaking vs not leaking filters and you'd see the difference. The PC model basically shows what would happen in an ISO 4548-12 test comparing a non-leaking filter to one with say a 10-15% leak going on. The ISO testing Ascent did now 4 years ago (back in 2021) showed the RP did well, but I'm betting it also didn't have a ruffled leaky leaf spring. And who knows exactly when Fram ISO tested the FE ... most likely before it even hit the streets back in April 2023. So that that were ISO tested probably had a non-leaking leaf springs. Back when they knew how to stamp a smooth flat leaf spring.

But the bottom line is based on some of the major leak gaps seen on Champ Lab made filters (including the FE), those filters could have pretty reduced efficiency due to the leakage, depending on the level of internal leakage. The PC model shows that, and it's a valid analysis of the affect of the leak on the efficiency. You can't prove otherwise, and probably don't really understand the physics, but that's fine as long as you think that leaky filters are still doing what you want them to do. When is the last time you cut open an FE you used to look at the leaf spring and leak gap?

 

[Ronn]

Sure anything that leaks past the media gets recirculated for another chance to be caught. That's really not how a filter should work, and filters aren't suppose to have a constant internal leak past the media. But if you like that then go for it ... but others who understand how filters should actually work really aren't buying into that "but it might get caught on a different pass" excuse as a reason to use a leaky filter

You need to distinguish between filter types. A “leak” in the car intake air filter or home water filter… which are SINGLE PASS…has an impact orders of magnitude greater vs recirculating filters like car oil or swimming pool filters.
It’s obvious in this case that allowing ANY oil ( however small) , to bypass the filter , will “by definition” diminish the RATE at which it can perform at maximum capacity. I say “RATE”, because filter capacity remains the same, but it’s the amount of oil passing through it per unit time that is reduced.
So for example…Instead of filtering “one gallon per per minute “, it filters “.99 gallons” per minute, with the .01 gallon “missed” being filtered on a subsequent pass. This begs the question..,Does this really make a real difference as to overall filtration performance in this particular case?
You say I say TOMATO
You say I say POTATO

 

[ZeeOSix]

You need to distinguish between filter types. A “leak” in the car intake air filter or home water filter… which are SINGLE PASS…has an impact orders of magnitude greater vs recirculating filters like car oil or swimming pool filters.

Sure, but if you like the filter with reduced efficiency to operate that way, then go for it. Not the ideal way for a full flow filter to operate. Any full full filter, regardless of the application, that has internal leakage past the filtering media is basically defective, or not designed very well.

It’s obvious in this case that allowing ANY oil ( however small) , to bypass the filter , will “by definition” diminish the RATE at which it can perform at maximum capacity. I say “RATE”, because filter capacity remains the same, but it’s the amount of oil passing through it per unit time that is reduced.

Don't think you really understand how filtration works. The filter having a leak or not has no relationship to "capacity" of the filter. Don't know what you actually mean by "rate at which it can perform at maximum capacity". It should be more like "ability it can perform at its maximum designed efficiency". Any internal leakage reduces the filter efficiency.

Do you realize that the ISO 4548-12 test is basically a real-time measurement of the filter's single pass efficiency? Yes, it's true that if oil is recirculated over and over, some of the debris that got through on previous passes might get caught on a subsequent pass. But engines are continually generating debris as they run. If they didn't you wouldn't see lots of debris in many of the oil filters cut open and posted here. And the ones that "look clean" will actually have microscopic debris deep in the media that can't be seen with the naked eyes.

So for example…Instead of filtering “one gallon per per minute “, it filters “.99 gallons” per minute, with the .01 gallon “missed” being filtered on a subsequent pass. This begs the question..,Does this really make a real difference as to overall filtration performance in this particular case?

That's not how it works when there's an internal leak in a full-flow filter. If there is 3 gal/min of flow through the filter, and it has a 15% leak, then 0.15 x 3 gal/min = 0.45 gal/min (57.6 oz/min) bypasses the media and is unfiltered. It's all about how much dirty oil gets by the media and is not filtered. But if you think debris that got by the media will get caught the 2nd, 3rd or 4th time around, then great ... it's your justification. Kind of the same justification people would give when filters had big tears in the media, lol. If people like that in a filter, then that's their decision. Would you try to justify a filter that had torn media as the leak path? How long are you going to keep trying to justify it ... just justifying it for yourself should be enough.

You say I say TOMATO
You say I say POTATO

I say: "When choosing leaky filters, choose a high efficiency leaky filters". If a non-leaking filter efficiency was even lower to start with, and had a leak on top of that, then the issue is more accentuated.

 

[Ronn]

Yes, it's true that if oil is recirculated over and over, some of the debris that got through on previous passes might get caught on a subsequent pass.

“SOME debris MIGHT get caught” ???
This is the heart of the matter. You’re minimizing the effectiveness of filtering out recirculated particles here.
It’s highly likely that in this case, with a superior filter rated @20 microns 99% (wire backed) you’re going to capture the vast majority of particles missed on the very next pass. What’s the probability of a particle passing through a relatively small gap twice in a row??

 

[Glenda W.]

The engine constantly produces debris so there’s always some passing through the gap. It’s a never ending cycle. If it was a set amount of debris your multi pass clean up theory would make more sense.

 

[Ronn]

The engine constantly produces debris so there’s always some passing through the gap. It’s a never ending cycle. If it was a set amount of debris your multi pass clean up theory would make more sense.

Understood. But what’s really taking place is a brief “delay” in filtering a SMALL FRACTION that initially gets bypassed. So constant filtration is still in play and no oil gets “unfiltered”…even with the incessant production of debris. When you have the best filter media available, as in this case, SMALL leaks simply don’t trump overall filtration efficiency. I’ve raced cars with known inherent boost leaks….ask me why

 

[SC Maintenance]

Understood. But what’s really taking place is a brief “delay” in filtering a SMALL FRACTION that initially gets bypassed. So constant filtration is still in play and no oil gets “unfiltered”…even with the incessant production of debris. When you have the best filter media available, as in this case, SMALL leaks simply don’t trump overall filtration efficiency. I’ve raced cars with known inherent boost leaks….ask me why

I don't understand filtering much but I do understand fluids and pressure gradients, and I think your way underestimating how much oil is going to pass through even a very small leak vs the dp across the filter media. If you started at 99% your going to be light years away from that number with even a very small leak.

 

[Ronn]

I don't understand filtering much but I do understand fluids and pressure gradients, and I think your way underestimating how much oil is going to pass through even a very small leak vs the dp across the filter media. If you started at 99% your going to be light years away from that number with even a very small leak.

Are you taking into account that the oil that does get around this filter gets immediately recirculated to the filter? What are the odds it makes it back into the small “leak” space second time around?

 

[ZeeOSix]

I don't understand filtering much but I do understand fluids and pressure gradients, and I think your way underestimating how much oil is going to pass through even a very small leak vs the dp across the filter media. If you started at 99% your going to be light years away from that number with even a very small leak.

True ... I've tried to explain that to him but he won't believe it. The particle count model clearly shows that the bigger the leak, the more impact it has on efficiency. One could argue that a filter that leaks 50% of the volume past the media will "eventually catch the stuff that got by". Sure, the smaller the leak is the less impact it has, but the bottom line is an internal leaky filter isn't ideal. Would someone still justify the leak if it was torn media or a stuck open bypass valve causing the leakage. Reminds me of the Purolator torn media days when the fanboys kept trying to justify torn media as being "no big deal".

 

[SC Maintenance]

Are you taking into account that the oil that does get around this filter gets immediately recirculated to the filter? What are the odds it makes it back into the small “leak” space second time around?

Its not about probabilities. A "small" leak is going to pull much more volume through than you think. So your "small" leak might be pulling 10% of your flow - because the dp in the small leak is zero and doesn't restrict flow at all vs very thick media being very high dp. So in this example your 99%@ 20um just went to 89%@20um - which is pretty much what any remotely decent filter without a leak will give you.

Based on your theory why not just buy the cheapest filter you can at that point. I mean eventually that particle will get trapped whether it takes one trip or 100?

But you do you.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Understood. But what’s really taking place is a brief “delay” in filtering a SMALL FRACTION that initially gets bypassed. So constant filtration is still in play and no oil gets “unfiltered”…even with the incessant production of debris. When you have the best filter media available, as in this case, SMALL leaks simply don’t trump overall filtration efficiency. I’ve raced cars with known inherent boost leaks….ask me why

Now boost leaks are analogous to leaky oil filters? What's the big attraction with the Endurance (or any filter) that has a ruffled leaf spring and most likely some internal leakage going on? What would be the attraction of a filter with torn media causing an internal leak?

Another negative aspect of a bad internal leak is that pretty much any sized debris could go through a large leak gap. Not only does it reduce the filter's efficiency overall, but it could let even larger debris through than a much less efficient filter might. So if a 99% @ 20u filter had a 15% internal leak, the efficiency would drop to 84%, but it could also let debris through much larger than say 40u that a 99% @ 40u filter would catch.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Its not about probabilities. A "small" leak is going to pull much more volume through than you think. So your "small" leak might be pulling 10% of your flow - because the dp in the small leak is zero and doesn't restrict flow at all vs very thick media being very high dp. So in this example your 99%@ 20um just went to 89%@20um - which is pretty much what any remotely decent filter without a leak will give you.

Based on a pretty good sized leak gap that @Glenda W. measured on an Endurance (a 59 page thread !), I came up with 15% leakage. I even went pretty low on the effective flow coefficient based on the gap configuration. That one Endurance had a pretty bad leak gap, so probably near a worse case example. Yes, if the filter is high efficiency without any leakage, then the resulting efficiency is the no leakage efficiency minus the leakage percentage.

 

[Ronn]

Another negative aspect of a bad internal leak is that pretty much any sized debris could go through a large leak gap

The leak isn’t “internal” not related to the filter itself.
It’s a metal /metal issue
Get real

 

[SC Maintenance]

The leak isn’t related to the filter
It’s a metal /metal crevice
Get real

Its location makes no difference to the efficiency characteristics. A leak is a leak.

 

[ZeeOSix]

The leak isn’t related to the filter
It’s a metal /metal crevice
Get real

What are you talking about, a "metal to metal crevice" ... not related to a filter ... what?

 

[Ronn]

Its location makes no difference to the efficiency characteristics. A leak is a leak.

I was responding to reference of internal leak..which it is not.

 

[Ronn]

What are you talking about, a "metal to metal crevice" ... what? Where's the Dos Equis guy.

Spring plate on top of filter canister is ???