Grease Ver 3 Oil Filter Study Released

Gary Allan · Jan 3, 2005

Grease ..don't you know that no good deed goes unpunished??

If you make it go fast ... "you're too fast"
If you make it go slow ... "you're too slow"
If you try and start it... "you'll never get it moving"
If you get it moving .."you'll never get it stopped".

The cheap seats contains the toughest critics.

guile · Jan 8, 2005

I must be missing something ... I took notice after reading the study and it stated that the WIX filter

quote:

This mid-priced filter appears to have average filtration and flow and rates

with a flow rate of

quote:

30W 70F Oil flow @ 10psi: 9.1 oz per minute

and the Mobil 1 filter

quote:

This filter appears to flow well and have very good filtration ability.

with a flow rate of

quote:

30W 70F Oil flow @ 10psi: 8.1 oz per minute

. To me it seems that the WIX flows better than the Mobil 1 filter, yet the study says the Mobil 1 flows well, while the WIX is only has an average flow rate??

Gary Allan · Jan 8, 2005

Keep it in the context of the testing modality. All filters ..on the same engine ..flow the same amount of oil. Only the pressure drop across the media varies. That is, one filter may go into bypass before another one. This was a pressure depenent test ..not a flow dependent test.

Now that doesn't alter the difference between the two filters ...but they may be in the same "class" of flow/resistance to flow.

Filter guy · Jan 10, 2005

Grease/Shultz..

When you looked at square inches of media or pleat count......did you consider the basis weight of the media itself?

In otherwords, generaly you get smaller pleat count with higher basis weight media ( thicker).

The filter canister limits the size of the element. In order to get more media in the same volume of an endcap, use lower basis weight (thinner).

I'm not sure if your test results ( I admit i've just read the thread and not the report itself) accounts for the differential of basis weight when your apparently doing your calculations after flowing through a section of media and then multiplying by square inches.

This "may" be one reason why some of the premium filters which use higher basis weights didn't do as well as those with lower basis weight media.

btw..out of curiosity which Parker part number were you using 921999 or 928763?

T-Keith · Jan 10, 2005

He has filter thickness in there, but in terms of flow the total filter area means more then the amount.

-T

Grease is the word · Jan 10, 2005

quote:

Originally posted by Filter guy:
Grease/Shultz..

When you looked at square inches of media or pleat count......did you consider the basis weight of the media itself?

In otherwords, generaly you get smaller pleat count with higher basis weight media ( thicker).

The filter canister limits the size of the element. In order to get more media in the same volume of an endcap, use lower basis weight (thinner).

I did not measure the media alone by weight. I do have a measurment in the .xls file that is the filter and encap weight -- i.e. the canister. It could be used as a comparison against filter area -- some kind of value of weight to EFA (of course the Fram EG & TG could not be compared because of the paper endcaps). There would be some error in doing this since the endcaps have slightly different designs such as metal thickness, necks, etc. Some would weigh more or less than others by a small amount.

There are differences though looking at the media that way. For example, if you divide the EFA by the canister weight (the media and endcaps only) of the M1 and the PPP filters (the two extremes), they differ by more than one and a half times.

I would cut out 50 or 100 sq. inches of media from each filter and measure the weight and add it to the data, but these filters are all now at my local sanitary landfill

.

Grease is the word · Jan 11, 2005

quote:

Originally posted by guile:
I must be missing something ... I took notice after reading the study and it stated that the WIX filter

I will try to post this without guile

-- gotta love the forum handle...

The differences you see probably are do the moon phase, my mood, whether I got to kick the dog that day, etc.

Seriously, that is a good catch. I was probably not consistent with my personal observations. This was probably due to writing the text at different sessions, several iterations of the study, etc.

When I go back and do some edits to make things more clear, I will come up with some standards for text observations.

Filter guy · Jan 12, 2005

Grease..thanx..

I thought some in here might be interested in some of the media test done in the lab. They include:

Mean flow pour size
Basis weight
Media strength

A Gurley stiffness tester, detemines pleatability

Optical Comparator to determine media calliper and corregation depths.

Elmendorff tear, Mullen burst and flex fatigue test determine various media strength values.

This is done when the media is shipped in. The paper supplier sends their testing in, then Champ (and i'm reasonably sure other filter manufacturers ) do their test to verify results.

Then the other SAE or ISO tests are done on actual product.

Also fyi,
Champ tests filters down to -40 degrees celsius.

There is also a humidity testing chamber to test for corrosion and rusting of parts. If I remember correctly it is an accelerated salt spray test.

Colt · Mar 5, 2005

I love product reviews!

blueglide88 · Mar 14, 2005

After looking at the data, I have a question. The Purolator Pure One has the best filtration, but the worst flow (PL20195 flows 1.1 gal/min@10psi). How much volume does an oil pump put out? If the average pump puts out more than 1.1 gal/min.....then I think pressure would begin to build and the bypass would come into play. If an average pump puts out less volume, then I see no reason to use anything but the Pur One for best filtration. Does anybody know how at what rate an oil pump pumps oil?

LarryL · Mar 22, 2005

I've been using Mobil 1 filters on my 850 Turbo Volvo and at 136k miles the insolubles were 0.3. Does that indicate the filter is at least doing it's job?

Schultz · Mar 22, 2005

quote:

Grease/Shultz..

When you looked at square inches of media or pleat count......did you consider the basis weight of the media itself?

In otherwords, generaly you get smaller pleat count with higher basis weight media ( thicker).

The filter canister limits the size of the element. In order to get more media in the same volume of an endcap, use lower basis weight (thinner).

I'm not sure if your test results ( I admit i've just read the thread and not the report itself) accounts for the differential of basis weight when your apparently doing your calculations after flowing through a section of media and then multiplying by square inches.

This "may" be one reason why some of the premium filters which use higher basis weights didn't do as well as those with lower basis weight media.

btw..out of curiosity which Parker part number were you using 921999 or 928763?

Regarding basis weight. Didn't measure basis weight, but I did measure the media thickness. All the filters that I've seen to date could easily easily have 50-150% more efa in them. The "premium" filters wern't always the thick medias, most were around .030". Only the Fram X2 was in the .050" range, but it too could have gotten a lot more media in the can.

The parker # was 921999 This one has a lower beta ratio than the glass media version.

Bob The Builder · Mar 22, 2005

Hey there guys. Was debating posting this in here or under another topic, but here goes. All technical stuff aside, Which filter is better? Do you want to run a filter that exhibits higher filter pressure readings at a given rpm or lower?

I can give an example of what I am talking about from first hand experience. I was pool service man for around 10 years, and my example has to do with pool filters. When a given pool filter is perfectly clean, or brand new, let's say the pressure gauge is reading 25 lbs of pressure. This is the starting point to go by whenever you clean it in the future. Now let's say 2 months down the road, the filter is reading 32 lbs of pressure on the gauge, I know that I need to think about cleaning it, to reduce the pressure reading back to that 25 lb starting point (or close to it)

Why do I clean it? Well, obviously to reduce the pressure reading, and to increase the volume of water going through the filter media. That said, would an oil filter that reads a higher pressure number at the gauge in fact be more restricted, and actually be reducing the volume of flow as opposed to an oil filter with a lower gauge reading?

BtB

PS. I may edit this and add more later.

Gary Allan · Mar 23, 2005

Well, in comparison to your pool pressure gauge reading ...you would need one upstream and one down stream of the filter to determine your PSID. This would tell you how much pressure was consumed overcoming the filter. The flow would be reduced as the restriction increased. To make an equivalent comparison ..you would have to have a variable speed pump that would maintain a post filter pressure (and therefore flow) and a bypass that would limit the head pressure at the pump ..and the pressure differential across the filter to protect the membranes.

In all but a few instances ..the flow isn't "restricted" ..the flow stays the same and the pressures change. Your filter is either in bypass or it isn't.

You'll note that you don't typically see any change in indicated PSI on your oil gauge as your OCI progresses. That's because the flow never changes (limited excpetions apply). Now it may vary from one viscosity to another ..but you don't typically see 45 psi @ 100 miles into the OCI and then 35 psi at 3000 ..even though the filter MUST have added restriction to it.

C4Dave · Mar 23, 2005

Grease,
I'm curious about this statement on your spreadsheet, "*Motorcraft: due to a short pleat height of 3/8" was the only one to have a pleat crest in the BP test sample, this likely reduced its bubble point values somewhat, because its flow indicates it is a little tighter than Hastings but not as tight as Super Tech"

What does this mean exactly? What is a pleat crest? I thought that the Motorcraft was basically a Pure One filter, but your testing shows otherwise. Is your conclusion influenced by bad data caused by the "pleat crest"?

Schultz · Mar 27, 2005

quote:

Grease,
I'm curious about this statement on your spreadsheet, "*Motorcraft: due to a short pleat height of 3/8" was the only one to have a pleat crest in the BP test sample, this likely reduced its bubble point values somewhat, because its flow indicates it is a little tighter than Hastings but not as tight as Super Tech"

What does this mean exactly? What is a pleat crest? I thought that the Motorcraft was basically a Pure One filter, but your testing shows otherwise. Is your conclusion influenced by bad data caused by the "pleat crest"?

Grease did that great website and all the other stuff on there, I put together the spreadsheet that you're referring too and did the testing.

The pleat crest is the where the filter media is folded or pleated, at top or bottom ^^^^. It's typical to see failures or reduced retention at the folds, especially with stiff medias. I had heard the motorcraft was a Pure One too, but it definatly was not. The pleats were only 3/8" high verses 1/2" on both versions of the Purilators. The media was also different. I don't think I got any bad data, I think there was reduced retention or lower bubble points at the pleat crest or fold that gave the media a larger pore size than it really has. Keep in mind I took a folded filter and flatened out again to test it. This likely damaged it a little. All the other filter medias had pleats large enough that I didn't have to flaten them out, I just punched a flat piece out.

Winston · Apr 13, 2005

Fascinating stuff, really! I love reading all the numbers and stuff. I would like to chime in with a few comments.

The pool guys analogy does not work with automobile oil pumps because the oil pump is a positive displacement pump. No matter what the restriction is downstream it will not affect the flow rate. The pool pump is a centrifugal pump whose flow varies with downstream restriction (head).

As far as the best filter. Although we call these filters full flow filters, they will be running in bypass mode sometimes (cold starts, high revs). Even if there is no bypass in the filter the engines bypass valve will come into play sometimes. So, in reality, these are all bypass filters! Thus, one could argue that smaller pore size is more important than flow. If you have nice small pores the filter will eventually filter out smaller particles. Which is a good thing.

As far as Shultz's comment that it does not matter which filter you use since most wear occurs due to 5-10u particles. Well, the reason that the most wear occurs due to 5-10u particles is because that is the limit of filtering capability of most filters. In reality the finer the filtering the better. If we filtered down to 5u we would find that most wear occurs due to particles of the 2-5u size.

I vote for the filter with the smallest pores. Having said that I might worry that the filter would become fully loaded quickly, but I do not think I will worry about that since most manufacturers dont even recommend changing the filter with each oil change. They must know that the filters do not tend to get fully loaded.

Go Fram Tough Gaurd! Go Pure One! Go AC UPF!

I wonder if Walmart will take back my two new FRAM XG's

Don't yell at me. I am just spouting off like everyone else.

[ April 14, 2005, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: Winston ]

smthrj53 · May 2, 2005

Could the oilfilter study site be modified so I don't need to disable my firewall to view it?

Schultz · May 24, 2005

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."

I'm just curious, why led you to say these things?

I’ll answer since I did the pore & flow testing. In that part I voiced some of my opinions and observations.
The first observation/opinion: Here's my logic and what I'm basing it on. I sampled numerous used filters that I cut apart, but I didn't pore test them. I know you can't see anything below 40µm, but oil still dripped through easily, which demonstrates that there is very little particulate loading. Besides these filters being nominally rated in the 40-60µm range will have very little dirt holding capacity below 30µm because the particulate would likely get flushed through, maybe caught again for a while, but likely flushed through again...you can imagine the cycle. Therefore, that's what led me to conclude if you want real filtration (
The second statement is really an opinion since I have no factual testing. I thought a car really shouldn't be producing large particulate above 20µm otherwise it would self-destruct quickly. Therefore, if it's running right it should never plug a filter. My opinion is these filters serve the purpose of catching sludge buildup or other large "boulders" that might find there way into the oil, which is a very important propose. I would think that if these filters were prone to plugging then the automaker would have a differential pressure switch on the engine to alarm that the filter was plugged. OK maybe not some less expensive cars, but you would think the high end ones would have it by now.

Tim

majora · Jul 16, 2005

Here is the URL for another filter study that has been around for a while. Take it for what it is worth.

http://www.scuderiaciriani.com/rx7/oil_filter_study/

Grease Ver 3 Oil Filter Study Released

Similar threads