Grease Ver 3 Oil Filter Study Released

[T-Keith]

This study goes a long way toward filter restriction, however, it does not shed much light on how it actually effects engines.

What might be better in that respect is a full filter test, similar to Bob's only with proper temperature oil and a filter without a internal bypass. This would factor in the rest of the filter design as well as media area questions. Also used filters could be tested.

Until something like this is done, we won't have alot of the answer to the questions asked.


-T

 

[Grease is the word]

I think if you did Bob's test with 70F oil and used the 1218 filters (w/o bypass), you could compare filters apples to apples w/o having the by-pass as a factor.

I don't think you would have to heat oil to have a meaningful test.

This begs the question, "is Bob's equipment available to do the testing again with a 1218 style filter series?"

 

[Roger]

Thanks Schultz , intuitively I agree with you. The more I learn about filters, the more I realize I really don't know what heck is going on inside those little critters.

I'm slowly coming around to the belief that characteristics other than filtering ability are what truly count... i.e.: silicone ADBV, flow, bypass valve quality, construction quality and so on. Using the appropriate oil, OCI and air filter may be more infinitely more important too.

Although I must say, your little study seemed to debunk the popular belief that Motorcraft filters contain the same filter element as a PureOne.

They were at oppossite ends of Pore Size range! Plus, how do you account for the regular Fram flow? If I read your chart right, it had one of the worst flow calculations. Yet as I looked at the pressure guages Bob set up with his filter tests, that same filter had with one of the lowest pressure drops...or best flow.

So little time. So many filters.

Keep up the good work.

 

[Schultz]

quote:

---

"After this testing I've concluded, real filtration will only occur with a bypass system or a remote full flow fine rated hydraulic filter."

and...

"I'm not sure a good running engine would ever plug the filters below the Parker hydraulic filter."

---

OK, rather than put grease as the middle man I'll fess up to being the Tester and stating my opinion in the above quotes.

So let me explain the first one: One of the filters tested was a Parker 10µm hydraulic filter, rated to remove 50% of 10µm particles in a multipass test. Only three filters tested better than the Parker filter. Therefore, most will not accomplish better than 50% reduction of 10µm particles. It has been stated that particles larger than 5µm can cause wear in certain areas of the engine were the clearances are 5µm or less, but in most cases, the oil film is thicker than 5µm. This led me to conclude that none of these filters would filter to any great efficiency below 10µm, which is were a bypass or a fine rated full flow hydraulic filter does it job well.

For the second quote: Let me start with saying this is my opinion, I don’t have any data to back this up. It would seem a good running engine under normal use would not be wearing away large (>20µm) chunks of metal; they would likely be smaller (
Glad to see everyone enjoyed the web page Grease put together and all the work that went into it.

 

[Schultz]

quote:

---

"After this testing I've concluded, real filtration will only occur with a bypass system or a remote full flow fine rated hydraulic filter."

and...

"I'm not sure a good running engine would ever plug the filters below the Parker hydraulic filter."

---

OK, rather than put grease as the middle man I'll fess up to being the Tester and stating my opinion in the above quotes.

So let me explain the first one: One of the filters tested was a Parker 10µm hydraulic filter, rated to remove 50% of 10µm particles in a multipass test. Only three filters tested better than the Parker filter. Therefore, most will not accomplish better than 50% reduction of 10µm particles. It has been stated that particles larger than 5µm can cause wear in certain areas of the engine were the clearances are 5µm or less, but in most cases, the oil film is thicker than 5µm. This led me to conclude that none of these filters would filter to any great efficiency below 10µm, which is were a bypass or a fine rated full flow hydraulic filter does it job well.

For the second quote: Let me start with saying this is my opinion, I don’t have any data to back this up. It would seem a good running engine under normal use would not be wearing away large (>20µm) chunks of metal; they would likely be smaller (
Glad to see everyone enjoyed the web page Grease put together and all the work that went into it.

 

[Grease is the word]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roger:
Plus, how do you account for the regular Fram flow? If I read your chart right, it had one of the worst flow calculations. Yet as I looked at the pressure guages Bob set up with his filter tests, that same filter had with one of the lowest pressure drops...or best flow.

---

IMO, it probably had the most wide open by-pass valve. I think all filters were in by-pass mode because of the room temp oil.

 

[gerhardb]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grease is the word:
IMO, it probably had the most wide open by-pass valve. I think all filters were in by-pass mode because of the room temp oil. [/QB]

---

Keep in mind that different applications are going to have different requirements.

For instance, the Honda application is based on use with the VTEC engines. Those engine get up to 8000RPMs. As RPMs increase, the oil pressure increases. The filter is EXPECTED to by-pass in order not to create a significant restriction to oil flow. This does not mean that the filter isn't filtering oil... it is, just not 100% of the oil passing through it. That happens at lower RPMs when the by-pass valve pressure does not exceed 12 PSI.

This is by design.

It also appears that Fram's design is quite acceptable with Honda, as they make the US / Canada OEM filters. (Which use the same the by-pass valve design.)

UOA's with the Fram x2, of which I've got about 5, indicate that the filter filters oil extremely well in real world conditions. It's right up there with the AMSOIL SDF-22 (in the Honda application).

Gerhard

[ June 02, 2004, 09:12 AM: Message edited by: gerhardb ]

 

[tdi-rick]

Another observation is that the micron ratings from individual brands can't be extrapolated from this test to different model filters between the same brand.
All the manufacturers use a range of media that they choose from. A case in point is Baldwin. The filter that Grease tested had a nominal rating of 6 micron and an average efficiency of 89.35%.
A filter (B74) I enquired about yesterday had a nominal rating of 22 micron and 72.2% efficiency. It is also a much smaller filter, with 290.3 sq. in. of media.

We can only speculate as to what design criteria the engineers were trying to balance when they choose the media for each application.

Realistically, apart from the specific application, all we can take from a test like this is relative construction values.

Awsome undertaking and great reading all the same.

Rick.

 

[Grease is the word]

quote:

---

Originally posted by tdi-rick:
[QB] Another observation is that the micron ratings from individual brands can't be extrapolated from this test to different model filters between the same brand.

---

Generally, yes, this statement is true. However, many times the media is the same. For example, the PureOne PL24651, PL20195, and PL34631 all had the same media and have different applications. The same thing with three Fram TG's in this test -- they had the same media.

One way to determine if the media is the same is to email the filter manufacturer like tdi-rick did and ask them if the XXXX filter has the same media as their PF1218 map. If it does, you can use the data from this test for your application.

Grease

 

[Grease is the word]

Thanks for everyone who has made donations for web hosting. I think its up to $12 so far. I'm sure by the end of 12 months $35 will come in.

Number of visits has shot way up since version 3 hit the street -- over 2000 visits in less than 2 weeks.

Thanks again to Schultz for the media testing. He did an incredible and professional job and was a pleasure to work with.

Grease

 

[vettenuts]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richin Chicago:

quote:

---

Originally posted by T-Keith:
The M1 filter does flow less than alot of filters, no lie there, just perception. I don't think anyone said it flowed poorly, only that it will flow less, because of good filteration. This is proven true.

I'm curious about the UPF filter as well. However I think that filter area doesn't make as big of a difference to flow as this study might indicate. AcDelco themselves claim that it flows better than the others. This test shows differently. It's definately a well constructed filter.

-T

---

Just some personal experience. Patman convinced to give the K&N filter (HP 1007) a try in place of my UPF 44 Delco filter. I spend a ton of time on a roadcourse and wanted lots of flow. I took some careful readings of my digital information on my Ls1 engine on a 2000 Corvette. At 210F the K&N always shows pressure at 40 to 41 PSI. The UPF 44 was always in the low 30s. This is in 6th gear on the highway at about 1700 RPM or 70 MPH which is what I based the readings on. Since then I have heard quite a few "track junkies" tell me the UP 44 is not the filter for the LS1 if you are concerned about flow rates.

---

I changed from the Mobil-1 to the UPF figuring I had better flow but my UOA didn't really bear this out

Now that I am just starting a new change (I only have about 150 miles on this oil change) I am wondering if I should pull off the UPF in favor of a K&N to see what that does to my UOA this period. Hmmmmmmmmm

 

[Schultz]

It was a pleasure working with you too Grease, but I have to say you had the brunt of the work load. Great job!

Tim

 

[Matt_S]

That really is excellent work. The one thing I would have liked to see, though, is the Delphi AC Delco, compared to the Champion AC Delco (I believe it was the Champion filter being used in the test). It would be interesting to see if there are any real differences between the two.

FWIW, I can get the Delphi filters at Murrays here and would be willing to make a donation.

 

[Grease is the word]

Matt,

I'm glad you enjoyed it. Yes, the Delphi filter test would be interesting. For right now we are really burned out on doing any more filters. However, I will certainly record the Delphi as a viable candidate should we decide to do another batch.

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grease is the word:
http://www.oilfilterstudy.com/viscosity_vs_temp.htm

---

Hey Grease, is your viscosity chart outta wack?
Isn't 66C equal to 151F ?

 

[Grease is the word]

Yes, from 150F and hotter the F and C don't correspond exactly. I am checking it out to see which axis is correct.

Very observant! Thanks!

 

[Schultz]

Good catch, the chart was copied from Parker's online hydraulic handbook, so there isn't a way of editing it.

 

[Grease is the word]

^

Just giving this a bump for the newbees on the site.

www.oilfilterstudy.com

Grease

 

[edwardh1]

who know how the SAE tests that purolater mentions are conducted?

 

[edwardh1]

quote:

---

Originally posted by edwardh1:
who know how the SAE tests that purolater mentions are conducted?

---

s in
PureOne filters meet the flow requirements of automotive applications. We
test our filters per SAE specification HS806 Chapter 1, and the standard
flow rate requirement that we follow states that the pressure differential
(between inlet and outlet) shall not exceed 3.0 psi at a flow rate of 3.0
gpm. On the PL30001 filters, flow restriction is 0.8 psi (avg) at 3.0 gpm.