dezlpwr
Thread starter
Yes it is. This is the one for my Harley.That is a heavy duty looking reusable filter. Is that the 10 year old one?
Yes it is. This is the one for my Harley.That is a heavy duty looking reusable filter. Is that the 10 year old one?
I certainly am not claiming superiority over other oil filters out there. I would agree that K&P is. Kind of like Gale Banks and his "superior" differential covers in a way?One thing seems pretty clear, it takes a lot of dubious maneuvering and excuse making to try and demonstrate some sort of superiority (or even equality) for this kind of filter.
Seems like the norm with a lot of oil filter manufacturers these days. Omitting of information seems more common than misleading. I tend to wonder about companies that choose to omit or not disclose anything about their oil filters. Plenty out there, especially OEM!Perhaps, if done for looks rather than substance. Or done based on misleading or incomplete information. That's the impression I get here I guess.
It is hard to make accurate comparisons when different standardized tests are used. I do know there may be a reason it is done with this type of filter, but at the same time one should always be suspicious when that is the case.If, and I say if, this K&P filter does indeed capture everything 35 microns and greater, doesn't it make it a superior oil filter to a Wix XP? I unknowingly thought Wix XPs were the best of the best and used them on and off for years until I saw the Ascent testing posts on BITOG. I realize comparing the K&P to a "somewhat inferior" XP to make it seem better is not ideal. I'm amazed at how many people out there think the Wix XP is a far superior filter than it actually is...
Yeah I agree on that. Yes I've pretty much searched every reusable oil filter topic on the internet. Much more of them on the Harley Forums. K&P oil filters are very common on Harleys. Way more so than other applications besides general aviation. I think I'm going to contact OAI about doing a particle count next time. They have it listed on their results form but I'm not sure how to request it. That would potentially prove or disprove some of the naysayers and or convince me to turn them in to expensive paperweights?It is hard to make accurate comparisons when different standardized tests are used. I do know there may be a reason it is done with this type of filter, but at the same time one should always be suspicious when that is the case.
Just for completeness there have been many threads on reusable filters, you may wish to check out some of these:
Resuable oil filters?
One of the popular oil cooler kits for the MQB/MK7 VAG cars (GTI, R, Golf, A3/S3) is made by Racingline. It utilizes a resuable filter like in the video. Anybody here have experience with or opinions on these and cleaning them/re-using?bobistheoilguy.com
Also be careful when people make comparisons to aviation. As someone who has worked in aviation for 30 years or so, I can tell you that things are done for many, many reasons other than technical superiority. And in the GA sector many things are done because that's the way it has always been done and no one has spent the money or time to take on the liability of doing it better. Whenever someone touts "aviation" as evidence of technical superiority you should run in the opposite direction. A comparison to the automotive industry is almost never warranted.Yeah I agree on that. Yes I've pretty much searched every reusable oil filter topic on the internet. Much more of them on the Harley Forums. K&P oil filters are very common on Harleys. Way more so than other applications besides general aviation. I think I'm going to contact OAI about doing a particle count next time. They have it listed on their results form but I'm not sure how to request it. That would potentially prove or disprove some of the naysayers and or convince me to turn them in to expensive paperweights?
I agree 100% also. Just because it is more common in GA and on Harleys most certainly does not make it better. In addition to doing a particle count, maybe I should start a Go Fund Me and have Ascent test one of my K&Ps?Also be careful when people make comparisons to aviation. As someone who has worked in aviation for 30 years or so, I can tell you that things are done for many, many reasons other than technical superiority. And in the GA sector many things are done because that's the way it has always been done and no one has spent the money or time to take on the liability of doing it better. Whenever someone touts "aviation" as evidence of technical superiority you should run in the opposite direction. A comparison to the automotive industry is almost never warranted.
Same for being common on a Harley, common does not mean better. It doesn't even mean equal. Unless there is solid standardized testing to show it is equal or better then all it means is a group of individuals "like" it. Even here, a particle count is not the same as a filtration test.
I think that would be very interesting.I agree 100% also. Just because it is more common in GA and on Harleys most certainly does not make it better. In addition to doing a particle count, maybe I should start a Go Fund Me and have Ascent test one of my K&Ps?
I think that would be very interesting.
Don't count on my donation however since I will never be a potential customer of this filter
True, but an oil PC would give an idea of the filter's performance. Of course there would have to at least be a similar PC done on the same engine using the same oil and OCI with a good known high efficiency filter to see the difference in PC outcomes. That would be the easy and cheap way to compare vs an ISO 4548-12 test.Even here, a particle count is not the same as a filtration test.
Yeah that is my plan. Do a UOA with particle count with the K&P, then dump oil and switch to a Fram Ultra and do the same. Same OCI etc to keep things even. I think I'll do that! The K&P is on now.True, but an oil PC would give an idea of the filter's performance. Of course there would have to at least be a similar PC done on the same engine using the same oil and OCI with a good known high efficiency filter to see the difference in PC outcomes. That would be the easy and cheap way to compare vs an ISO 4548-12 test.
In the real world? I don’t see how.True, but an oil PC would give an idea of the filter's performance. Of course there would have to at least be a similar PC done on the same engine using the same oil and OCI with a good known high efficiency filter to see the difference in PC outcomes. That would be the easy and cheap way to compare vs an ISO 4548-12 test.
Comparing PCs with different oil filters on the same engine, same oil brand/viscosity for the same OCI ... and use the same lab for the PC. That's as good as it's going to get in a "real world" test.In the real world? I don’t see how.
Looking forward to my experiment and posting the results on here. kschachn will still be unimpressed but that's fine. Still waiting to hear back from OAI regarding running a PC test. It's on their oil analysis report but it is blank on my sample reports.Comparing PCs with different oil filters on the same engine, same oil brand/viscosity for the same OCI ... and use the same lab for the PC. That's as good as it's going to get in a "real world" test.
I don't need an ADBV on my boat, RV or Cummins truck because the oil filter sits upright/vertical. On my '22 Subaru I installed a Baxter Performance Anti Drainback adapter so no worries for me. This one:My only issue with Hubb, Gopurepower, and K&P.... was that some don't have an ADBV valve
You clean them by simply rinsing out the cartridge media backwards of oil flow.
What prevents it from backwashing at every shutdown?
They do look pretty. So, instead of tossing a filter into the landfill, unless you have a filtered parts washer, most will simple waste a can of carb/brake cleaner on it for service. Or, can you just use Palmolive and your garden hose unfiltered water?
We use stainless mesh filters and never sent one out for bubble point testing. They were multi-filtered switchable mounts with either differential pressure gauges or sensors, and most importantly flow rate sensors/alarms, which allowed maintenance to switch from clogged filters to unclogged filters, or use several in parallel. As long as the media clogged every 3-4 days, they didn't need testing. If they didn't clog up after a week, there were tossed and replaced with new. Of the hundreds in use, only a few failed in the past decade. After a good backwashing, acid washing, and then final rising, they were put back into service 25+ times a year.
Besides particle counts, one can send out a new and used filter for gram holding capacity. Nothing like finding out what your filter can hold and what your typical loading is (or overloading with current OLM and 10k intervals).