Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by dnewton3
After the relief the oil will get to the FF filter, where there is essentially no flow loss, but perhaps a minuscule amount based on dP; "Y" now becomes "Z" in value. PSI also drops from "B" to "C" in value.
All oil volume leaving the pump heading to the filter will go through the filter. The delta-p across the filter does not change the flow through the filter.
You are correct, but I was allowing for tiny fractional losses like leaks after the pump but before the filter (think of a seal leak prior to the filter; volume loss there). As I said, it's minuscule and not really worth noting, but in BITOG land, we always risk either over-stating or under-stating something. I probably shouldn't have mentioned it, but as soon as I did, there'd be a yabut tossed my way ...
(the following isn't directed at Zee, but just the general reading public)
BOTTOM LINE:
I don't want a filter with the "best" of anything. I want a filter that provides a minimum of adequate flow and efficiency for the intended duration I will put it into, for the least cost. "Adequate" does not mean inferior; it only means "meets the desired performance criteria". If I want a filter that's 90+%, and rated to 10k miles, then there are a fairly decent roost of choices on the shelf. There's no data I've ever found that would indicate flow is even a risk at that 10k mile limit. Most of us don't have any idea what the true flow needs actually are for any given rpm. Even Jim Allen, when he did his dP experiments, didn't bother tracking flow; he knew that the flows were what they were, and no amount of bickering was going to change them. I am supremely confident that any decent brand filter I choose will have the efficiency and flow needed at the OCI duration I'll induce, and yet STILL have some excess capacity when I toss it in the garbage ... I don't need to spend more money to waste more capacity on a "better" filter.
I've driven a few vehicles to their death. Sometimes timely, and sometimes untimely. I've retired vehicles due to salt-induced corrosion, or being totaled in a wreck. At times, I've just got bored and wanted something different; traded it out before any natural cause took it out of service. And not once have I had to retire a vehicle because it quit running due to my filter selections (of which there have a scads of choices used over these past decades).
I do not fault anyone whom spends their hard earned money the way they see fit; more power to them! But I do take issue when folks imply that using anything less than top-tier products is somehow an inference that I'm not caring for my vehicles well enough. As if "best" is only satisfied by, and defined as, the most money spent.
Pretty much any filter I can think of on the market today will flow WELL more than the engine needs it to. So why do we continuously debate the merits of excessive capacity when it's never been proven to be of any consequence?