not true!!!!! paper lets far more in the engine when it just gets hot!!! 35u absolute beats any paper filter!!!this paricular filter i use is not a screen its a mesh and it holds contaminates..don't know about other brands..
Last edited:
K&N Reusable Oil Filters...
- Thread starter dino33
- Start date
- Status
That's how they used to do it 60 years ago. Probably works fine, modern engines run very clean so filters don't do much normally unless something breaks.
thats right!!hattersguy, its all about flow to the engine and doing your maint..
Originally Posted By: boxcartommie22
not true!!!!! paper lets far more in the engine when it just gets hot!!! 35u absolute beats any paper filter!!!
I'm betting the ISO testing is likely done with hot oil, so the efficiency that the ISO test measures for paper & synthetic filters is what you get.
not true!!!!! paper lets far more in the engine when it just gets hot!!! 35u absolute beats any paper filter!!!
I'm betting the ISO testing is likely done with hot oil, so the efficiency that the ISO test measures for paper & synthetic filters is what you get.
Originally Posted By: boxcartommie22
thats right!!hattersguy, its all about flow to the engine and doing your maint..
With a positive displacement oil pump, you get all the flow no matter how the filter flows, as long as the pump doesn't hit pressure relief - which would be hard to do even with cold oil unless you revved the engine pretty high.
No doubt that these metal mesh filter flow better, but it doesn't matter much if the oil pump is operating below it's pressure relief point.
thats right!!hattersguy, its all about flow to the engine and doing your maint..
With a positive displacement oil pump, you get all the flow no matter how the filter flows, as long as the pump doesn't hit pressure relief - which would be hard to do even with cold oil unless you revved the engine pretty high.
No doubt that these metal mesh filter flow better, but it doesn't matter much if the oil pump is operating below it's pressure relief point.
ISO testing is done hot and I'm not sure what tommie thinks that has to do with efficiency differences with a screen fitler ("mesh to the hoi palloi) . Under the ISO definition, the micron rating at 98.7 % is considered "absolute." We often round that up to 99%.
From the Baldwin Filter Site:
"The term “nominal” micron rating typically means that the filter is capable of removing 50% of a specific size particle, however, some companies’ “nominal” micron ratings may range anywhere from 1 to 98.6% efficient at removing a specific particle size. The term “absolute” micron rating means that the filter is capable of removing at least 98.7% of a specific size particle. This rating is far more accurate."
A cellulose ("paper" for those of you in Rio Linda) filter can be made at any micron rating desired. The P1 is absolute at 20 um, for example.
Can anyone provide efficiency documentation for the mesh filter yet?
From the Baldwin Filter Site:
"The term “nominal” micron rating typically means that the filter is capable of removing 50% of a specific size particle, however, some companies’ “nominal” micron ratings may range anywhere from 1 to 98.6% efficient at removing a specific particle size. The term “absolute” micron rating means that the filter is capable of removing at least 98.7% of a specific size particle. This rating is far more accurate."
A cellulose ("paper" for those of you in Rio Linda) filter can be made at any micron rating desired. The P1 is absolute at 20 um, for example.
Can anyone provide efficiency documentation for the mesh filter yet?
From my research, the issue is that paper filters are measured in averages that may allow larger particles through whereas the stainless mesh filter is measured differently and filters in absolutes. Dont they use these metal mesh filters in medical equipment?
Cleaning an oil filter is easy, besides, there are flow advantages, absolute filtering advantages 100% efficient at filtering anything 35u and larger, and virtually no chance of hitting the bypass and letting totally unfiltered oil back into the engine.
If it is actually better, I would not mind washing out a filter while the oil drains into the oil pain for an hour..
Am I wrong?
Cleaning an oil filter is easy, besides, there are flow advantages, absolute filtering advantages 100% efficient at filtering anything 35u and larger, and virtually no chance of hitting the bypass and letting totally unfiltered oil back into the engine.
If it is actually better, I would not mind washing out a filter while the oil drains into the oil pain for an hour..
Am I wrong?
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
ISO testing is done hot and I'm not sure what tommie thinks that has to do with efficiency differences with a screen fitler ("mesh to the hoi palloi) . Under the ISO definition, the micron rating at 98.7 % is considered "absolute." We often round that up to 99%.
From the Baldwin Filter Site:
"The term “nominal” micron rating typically means that the filter is capable of removing 50% of a specific size particle, however, some companies’ “nominal” micron ratings may range anywhere from 1 to 98.6% efficient at removing a specific particle size. The term “absolute” micron rating means that the filter is capable of removing at least 98.7% of a specific size particle. This rating is far more accurate."
A cellulose ("paper" for those of you in Rio Linda) filter can be made at any micron rating desired. The P1 is absolute at 20 um, for example.
Can anyone provide efficiency documentation for the mesh filter yet?
The silence has been deafening...
ISO testing is done hot and I'm not sure what tommie thinks that has to do with efficiency differences with a screen fitler ("mesh to the hoi palloi) . Under the ISO definition, the micron rating at 98.7 % is considered "absolute." We often round that up to 99%.
From the Baldwin Filter Site:
"The term “nominal” micron rating typically means that the filter is capable of removing 50% of a specific size particle, however, some companies’ “nominal” micron ratings may range anywhere from 1 to 98.6% efficient at removing a specific particle size. The term “absolute” micron rating means that the filter is capable of removing at least 98.7% of a specific size particle. This rating is far more accurate."
A cellulose ("paper" for those of you in Rio Linda) filter can be made at any micron rating desired. The P1 is absolute at 20 um, for example.
Can anyone provide efficiency documentation for the mesh filter yet?
The silence has been deafening...
Steve: My goal is not to zing folks, rather it's to learn and maybe to teach. To the extent there appears to be a crusade or soapbox involved, I am just railing again the internet mentality where ad hype, half truth and uninformed opinion masquerades as fact.
Spinkick: A mesh screen is a filter and can be measured and evaluated the same way as any other filter, whether cellulose, synthetic or any other type of media. The confusion for some folks, perhaps you as well, is that each filter manufacturer chooses to represent their product using a different standard. Some use various aspects of ISO 5011, others 4406. Some use the old SAE nomimal, some multipass some single pass, or some older SAE standard. Some avoid the topic altogether, which is ominous.
For the most part any standard can be applied to any filter. When you are evaluating two filters, you need to know which method has been used to rate it's performance so you can compare it to the same testing done on another fitler.If two different standards are presented, you have to know, at least roughly, how they compare.
Mesh filters are not that common as oil filters in industrial or automotive application. This is because, generally, they are less efficient than other media. The reason you see them in racing is because of the flow aspect and an engine zinging at 7000 rpm needs flow more than fine filtration and those engines will be overhauled often and long term wear is not an issue. That standard is not applicable in most other ordinary venues.
Regarding the mesh filters in question, I'm not seeing any coherent, comparable standard being presented officially from the manufacturer. Some guys have chimed in with various numbers but those are not found to be verified on the official websites of the retailers or manufacturers. What are the specs? Can't say they are great or that they stink until you know the full specs. I couldn't make an informed decision about buying one without those specs and can't understand how someone else could.
Spinkick: A mesh screen is a filter and can be measured and evaluated the same way as any other filter, whether cellulose, synthetic or any other type of media. The confusion for some folks, perhaps you as well, is that each filter manufacturer chooses to represent their product using a different standard. Some use various aspects of ISO 5011, others 4406. Some use the old SAE nomimal, some multipass some single pass, or some older SAE standard. Some avoid the topic altogether, which is ominous.
For the most part any standard can be applied to any filter. When you are evaluating two filters, you need to know which method has been used to rate it's performance so you can compare it to the same testing done on another fitler.If two different standards are presented, you have to know, at least roughly, how they compare.
Mesh filters are not that common as oil filters in industrial or automotive application. This is because, generally, they are less efficient than other media. The reason you see them in racing is because of the flow aspect and an engine zinging at 7000 rpm needs flow more than fine filtration and those engines will be overhauled often and long term wear is not an issue. That standard is not applicable in most other ordinary venues.
Regarding the mesh filters in question, I'm not seeing any coherent, comparable standard being presented officially from the manufacturer. Some guys have chimed in with various numbers but those are not found to be verified on the official websites of the retailers or manufacturers. What are the specs? Can't say they are great or that they stink until you know the full specs. I couldn't make an informed decision about buying one without those specs and can't understand how someone else could.
I understand what you are saying. I wish that there was an apples to apples comparison on the site.. If you had one of these mesh filters, would it be enough to send your oil to Blackstone for example, and if it came back clean, tell you that the filter is effective (enough)?
I've sent an email to K&P engineering whom also makes these filters to see if they can give us a better idea on what we are working with here with these filters vs the paper ones and also a chance to defend their product. I linked to this thread so hopefully we can get some good information.
I read this on their site; it seems to apply to our question about these filters vs "regular" paper ones, does it not? Here it is:
4) How does this type of filtration compare to paper oil filters?
We use ASTMF316 testing procedures which eliminate many of the user variables found in the SAE procedures. Basically, the filter media is pressurized from one side, and when the media starts passing particles, that is the micron rating. We sent filter media from several common brands of paper filters to the lab to be run through the ASTM test. We sent the media to the lab with no names, just numbers for identification so they wouldn't have any idea what brand filter they were testing. The results for the paper filters ranged from 48 microns for the best filter to over 300 microns for the worst filter. Our tests were right in line with other testing results we have researched that have paper media filters passing particles anywhere between 50 and 90 microns. What does this mean? Paper filters are rated on averages, percentages of efficiency (also known as beta ratios) and multiple passes, so a 10 micron rated paper filter (as advertised on the packaging) may be letting particles 50 microns and larger through. The medical grade stainless steel cloth that we use is consistent across the entire media surface and is rated at 35 microns, meaning nothing larger than 35 microns should pass through the material. The bottom line is we meet or exceed the filtration performance of OEM filters, eliminating any warranty issues.
I've asked them if that means its 100% efficient up to 35u, and 0% efficient on everything smaller. We will see what they say.
I read this on their site; it seems to apply to our question about these filters vs "regular" paper ones, does it not? Here it is:
4) How does this type of filtration compare to paper oil filters?
We use ASTMF316 testing procedures which eliminate many of the user variables found in the SAE procedures. Basically, the filter media is pressurized from one side, and when the media starts passing particles, that is the micron rating. We sent filter media from several common brands of paper filters to the lab to be run through the ASTM test. We sent the media to the lab with no names, just numbers for identification so they wouldn't have any idea what brand filter they were testing. The results for the paper filters ranged from 48 microns for the best filter to over 300 microns for the worst filter. Our tests were right in line with other testing results we have researched that have paper media filters passing particles anywhere between 50 and 90 microns. What does this mean? Paper filters are rated on averages, percentages of efficiency (also known as beta ratios) and multiple passes, so a 10 micron rated paper filter (as advertised on the packaging) may be letting particles 50 microns and larger through. The medical grade stainless steel cloth that we use is consistent across the entire media surface and is rated at 35 microns, meaning nothing larger than 35 microns should pass through the material. The bottom line is we meet or exceed the filtration performance of OEM filters, eliminating any warranty issues.
I've asked them if that means its 100% efficient up to 35u, and 0% efficient on everything smaller. We will see what they say.
Last edited:
Oil analysis won't tell you much because it only measures the particles < than 5 microns in the spectrometer. What you need to do is a particle count and one test still won't tell you much. I know this because I have spent a lot of money doing such things. Been down the same road you're on, in other words. Blus have have had the opportunity to interview engineers at various oil fitelr mfrs and learned enough from them to be dangerous.
I saw that material on the K&P site but I missed the reference to the ASTM test, so thanks for highlighting it. First off, the ASTM synoposis for the test says this:
"Significance and Use
This test method may be used to:
Determine the maximum pore size of a filter,
Compare the maximum pore sizes of several filters, and
Determine the effect of various processes such as filtration, coating, or autoclaving on the maximum pore size of a membrane.
Membrane filters have discrete pores from one side to the other of the membrane, similar to capillary, tubes. The bubble point test is based on the principle that a wetting liquid is held in these capillary pores by capillary attraction and surface tension, and the minimum pressure required to force liquid from these pores is a function of pore diameter. The pressure at which a steady stream of bubbles appears in this test is the bubble point pressure. The bubble point test is significant not only for indicating maximum pore size, but may also indicate a damaged membrane, ineffective seals, or a system leak.
The results of this test method should not be used as the sole factor to describe the limiting size for retention of particulate contaminants from fluids. The effective pore size calculated from this test method is based on the premise of capillary pores having circular cross sections, and does not refer to actual particle size retention. See Test Method E128 for additional information."
This test appears to be one used for membrane filters, in which mesh screen filters. It's an obscure test that you can't readily compare to other filters... which is why they probably used it. Plus, they didn't offer up any manufacturers names of the comparative filters either and for all we know, the tests were done 20 years ago when filters weren't as good as they are now.
Anyway, good on you for following up with them and pleas pass along what they said. Should be informative in one way or another.
I saw that material on the K&P site but I missed the reference to the ASTM test, so thanks for highlighting it. First off, the ASTM synoposis for the test says this:
"Significance and Use
This test method may be used to:
Determine the maximum pore size of a filter,
Compare the maximum pore sizes of several filters, and
Determine the effect of various processes such as filtration, coating, or autoclaving on the maximum pore size of a membrane.
Membrane filters have discrete pores from one side to the other of the membrane, similar to capillary, tubes. The bubble point test is based on the principle that a wetting liquid is held in these capillary pores by capillary attraction and surface tension, and the minimum pressure required to force liquid from these pores is a function of pore diameter. The pressure at which a steady stream of bubbles appears in this test is the bubble point pressure. The bubble point test is significant not only for indicating maximum pore size, but may also indicate a damaged membrane, ineffective seals, or a system leak.
The results of this test method should not be used as the sole factor to describe the limiting size for retention of particulate contaminants from fluids. The effective pore size calculated from this test method is based on the premise of capillary pores having circular cross sections, and does not refer to actual particle size retention. See Test Method E128 for additional information."
This test appears to be one used for membrane filters, in which mesh screen filters. It's an obscure test that you can't readily compare to other filters... which is why they probably used it. Plus, they didn't offer up any manufacturers names of the comparative filters either and for all we know, the tests were done 20 years ago when filters weren't as good as they are now.
Anyway, good on you for following up with them and pleas pass along what they said. Should be informative in one way or another.
Originally Posted By: spinkick
I've asked them if that means its 100% efficient up to 35u, and 0% efficient on everything smaller. We will see what they say.
Based on the way a wire mesh filter works with constant pore size, I'd say yes to that question you posed. It "theoretically" catches everything 35 microns and bigger, and lets everything through that is less than 35 microns.
I've asked them if that means its 100% efficient up to 35u, and 0% efficient on everything smaller. We will see what they say.
Based on the way a wire mesh filter works with constant pore size, I'd say yes to that question you posed. It "theoretically" catches everything 35 microns and bigger, and lets everything through that is less than 35 microns.
Good observation Zee. Ands now that you bring that up, that's the big difference. A mesh is a constant pore size. A cellulose has many varying pore sizes. Syn media is more consistent but still somewhat variable but not nearly as consistent as mesh. The thing about cellulose and syn media , they grow more efficient as they load up and get more restrictive. That cannot be said of the mesh. It will retain its efficiency but as the pores get blocked what will happen is that it gets more restrictive but without getting more efficient (to a significant degree).
The ASTM test reference above is a single pass test.. which isn't real world. The oil circulates a bazillion times and gets more material each time it does and as a result, it will catch more of the smaller particles from entrapment and embedding. That is one reason why the ISO and SAE multipass tests came into being is that they represent the more real world situation. A cellulose or syn media can be more efficient overall than it's "absolute single pass" rating might indicate because the "maze" of the media can catch the smaller particles.
The ASTM test reference above is a single pass test.. which isn't real world. The oil circulates a bazillion times and gets more material each time it does and as a result, it will catch more of the smaller particles from entrapment and embedding. That is one reason why the ISO and SAE multipass tests came into being is that they represent the more real world situation. A cellulose or syn media can be more efficient overall than it's "absolute single pass" rating might indicate because the "maze" of the media can catch the smaller particles.
Last edited:
Good points guy. As for as the flow being reduced, even significantly so, I'm wondering if it really is reduced to anything lower than the paper media. I guess just like anything else, there are trade offs for everything and no holy grail of filters.
AMSOIL runs a bypass filter setup, do you know how this would work on a daily driven turbo car? I
AMSOIL runs a bypass filter setup, do you know how this would work on a daily driven turbo car? I
^^^ Jim, based on what you said above, I then wonder what the real world "holding capacity" is on these wire mesh filters? As you said, and I agree, as the wire mesh pores get blocked the oil flow would theoretically become totally blocked off at some point ... ie, the filter would be "totally loaded up". To me, it seems a wire mesh oil filter couldn't really be ran for a long OCI unless the engine was very clean and didn't produce much debris. Putting a wire mesh filter in a dirty sludger would be a recipe for disaster I would think.
So how do they rate the holding capacity and mileage interval ratings for these mesh filters like they would for a normal spin-on filter? I imaging if they ran the wire mesh filter through the ISO test suite we would know and it would be a real "apples-to-apples" performance comparison.
So how do they rate the holding capacity and mileage interval ratings for these mesh filters like they would for a normal spin-on filter? I imaging if they ran the wire mesh filter through the ISO test suite we would know and it would be a real "apples-to-apples" performance comparison.
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Steve: My goal is not to zing folks, rather it's to learn and maybe to teach. To the extent there appears to be a crusade or soapbox involved, I am just railing again the internet mentality where ad hype, half truth and uninformed opinion masquerades as fact.
Jim, we operate a third gen machine shop in the family, with tons of real world racing engine experience. These filters are laughingly referred to as "screen doors" as they catch the big stuff and let the small stuff pass through. This is perfectly ok on an engine where its life is measured in races and high mileage is not expected.
Their primary advantage is the ease of forensic analysis either before or after a failure. They are quick and easy to service trackside and see exactly what is coming loose inside the motor. They are not intended for long OCI's in street driven vehicles at all. They may actually work comparably to a paper filter but only for a short time period as they will quickly plug up if you don't pull them and service them often.
Steve: My goal is not to zing folks, rather it's to learn and maybe to teach. To the extent there appears to be a crusade or soapbox involved, I am just railing again the internet mentality where ad hype, half truth and uninformed opinion masquerades as fact.
Jim, we operate a third gen machine shop in the family, with tons of real world racing engine experience. These filters are laughingly referred to as "screen doors" as they catch the big stuff and let the small stuff pass through. This is perfectly ok on an engine where its life is measured in races and high mileage is not expected.
Their primary advantage is the ease of forensic analysis either before or after a failure. They are quick and easy to service trackside and see exactly what is coming loose inside the motor. They are not intended for long OCI's in street driven vehicles at all. They may actually work comparably to a paper filter but only for a short time period as they will quickly plug up if you don't pull them and service them often.
- Status
Similar threads
