I called Purolator about PL14610 flow rate.

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
There may be Hondas that use something besides the 14610 series. If there are Hondas that use a different series, it's probably safe to say that Honda is not the predominant application for that series of filter, and Purolator is probably specifying a media for each part number that is most closely matched to the more popular applications of that particular part number. In this world of multi-use part numbers in the aftermarket, you're not going to be able to nail the OES specs exactly for every single application. You pick a good compromise, test it, and go with it.


Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I think when they design an oil filter they make sure it can flow well enough without excessive media delta-P to meet the engine's oiling system specs (ie, oil pump volume output vs engine RPM), and give it a bypass setting that matches the filter's flow performance and engine oiling system parameters. If an oil filter is designed to flow and filter well, it will meet the specs of hundreds of applications, that's why one filter can be used on hundreds of different vehicles as seen in the filter application catalogs. Oil filters are not really that "matched" to any particular vehicle.


Think we are essentially saying the same thing.

The most critical thing about designing an oil filter is to ensure the maximum anticipated delta-P is not going to critically effect the engine's oiling system or the filter itself, the bypass valve setting is adequate for the filter's design (ie, delta-P and holding capacity) and the engine application, and that the filter has enough holding capacity to last the recommended filter change interval of the vehicle manufacturer. Making an oil filter to satisfy a vehicle that demands the most in those areas will certainly ensure that filter will be more than adequate for all of the other vehicles they recommend that specific filter for.

 

[Sayjac]

I've used lots of PL14610's and variants with very satisfactory results. Here's just a couple examples. I'd have no fear about running them two oci's in my Honda. That said, considering they can be purchased now for ~$4.80, not much reason to. Running one now on a 3.0L Accord. No noise, smooth and quiet. The second link shows the old Advance Total Grip and the PL 14610 with ~7k mi. The AAP TG would be similar to a Classic, but no quite as efficient. There's more, iirc member barlowc has posted a couple PL14610 that looked fine over a longer oci. In my experience, in comparison to some other Puro's the L/PL14610 and variants tend to have generally straight and uniform pleating

PL14610~7800 mi oci.

PL14610 ~7k mi., AAP TG 7317.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Think we are essentially saying the same thing.


I think so.

And again, I'm not arguing for the OES filter, and I'm not arguing against it. There really is little to no information that demonstrates that it's not adequate for very long engine life, so I hate to see it derided as insufficient. Not as efficient as others, sure. Inadequate for proper engine protection? It doesn't appear that way, at least to me.

 

[Jim Allen]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Yeah, it's one of those 'round and round' discussions. I'm not totally convinced that these tests were done in a way that gives the whole story. They are always looking at particles much smaller in size than the filters they are using can effectively filter too, so seems like the data is non correlating to some degree. Would be nice to see a test that does a much larger range of particle size, but we have already seen some of those tests (GM and Amsoil particle size vs. wear) and the results were that better filters do keep more wear particles out of the oil.

So like you, the conclusion for me it to use high efficiency oil filters because it "can't hurt" to do so.

Zee, I'm not sure you are fully grasping that paper. They weren't "looking at" any particle sizes, they were just showing that a normal UOA is not an adequate means of evaluating the oil fitlers effect on engine wear, within the range of fitler efficiency they tested.

They tested a range of filters with efficiency as high as 10 absolute, a filter 59% @ 10 micron with a bypass that was absolute at 10 um, and a more or less standard filter that was 55% @ 10 um. The resulTs were statistically indistinguishable BASED ON UOA RESULTS ALONE.

The "3um" you refer to and what is mentioned in the quote I posted is merely a reference to the spectrographic analysis that is normally done... and that analysis can only "see" particles in the 3-5 um range.

Had PC be done to the samples, you would have seen a difference but the telling part is that even with the more finely filtered oil, the differences in the metals we commonly look at in a UOA to gauge wear showed very little difference.

Does that mean within the range of the filtration tested there is no statistical difference in wear, or does it mean better methods are needed to determine the differences? Perhaps a little of both but I lean more to the theory that the difference are there difficult to measure using the common means we have available. About all Blackstone (or any other lab) can do in a UOA is say that oil filtration is "adequate" or "inadequate" as measured by a tape measure, not a micrometer.

PC is another matter, but there are several methods of doing that, the primary ones being optical and pore blockage. If you recall my collaboration with 2010FX4, we compared pore blockage vs optical and saw a big difference in results (the pore blockage being more “optimistic” and generalized due to it’s computer program-generated numbers based on flow restriction vs an actual count of the particles). The PC allows us to rate the filtration performance/efficiency of the filter but not the effects that efficiency has on wear.

The result of the Fleetguard test more or less say the same thing as Dave Newton’s statistical analysis does… but is interpreted differently:

*Dave’s interpretation is that the difference in wear is statistically insignificant.

*The Fleetguard conclusion is that the standard UOA is an inadequate metric to measure the differences in wear based on filtration efficiency.

Who is right. Or are they both right. The logical conclusion is that less contamination results in less wear. The question is… by how much?