OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Out in the backyard filtering gravel, lol.But where is the Wix XP on that chart?
List of oil filters with 99% efficiency at 20 microns.
- Thread starter Bill7
- Start date
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Yes, the FRAM Ultra had the 2nd highest holding capacity, despite having by far, the highest efficiency.
And Fram ultra is so ultra anymore... I wonder what was given up when they swapped to the synth over cellulose
There is not one person here that can quote their engine's gram producing per miles or gallons of fuel burned. And, everyone needs to see how much a filter holds before it becomes useless. There is more to a filter than micron rating.
There is not one person here that can quote their engine's gram producing per miles or gallons of fuel burned. And, everyone needs to see how much a filter holds before it becomes useless. There is more to a filter than micron rating.
True, but by cutting them open you can get a pretty good idea. Even my old "sludge monster" 1MZ-FE isn't doing any visual loading of the media. I think the worry over filter loading is almost always a non-issue except in cases of abuse.
People throw out this sort of thing sometimes yet nearly all the filters cut open here show virtually nothing.
Media captures most within the media. Its not all suppose to be on the surface. If you reach that point, you have an interval issue, or are cleaning previous sludge. Unless there is a hard part failure, or media holes, looking at media tells you nothing else.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Oh, I agree. I think the "update" (not to be confused with "upgrade") reduced the holding capacity. It was a cost cutting measure.
Of course cellulose has lower holding capacity than any of the synthetic medias, which is also important to keep in mind.
Yep.
If it’s lucky…
Not so sure they gave up much except straight pleats instead of wavy pleats after use.
Keep in mind that the total media area increased significantly with the new media in order to keep the high performance - ie, low delta-p vs flow, holding capacity and efficiency (ie, less retained particulate shedding from dP). The media has to be efficient and retain captured particles very well to still be ISO 4548 efficiency rated at 99+% @ 20u.
Last edited:
New Ultra has way more media area for a given model/sized filter, which could mean the holding capacity is essentially the same. Fram would not keep the 20K mile rating if the holding capacity was a lot less than the old Ultra which was also rated at 20K miles.
Last edited:
Does any one have any numbers showing or have any idea how many 20 micron particles there are for a given engine with 20K, 15K, 10K, 5K and 3K miles on said oil? With out these numbers discussion of efficiencies is mental gymnastics.
My simple way of of thinking clean oil = less particles. So whether you run a "rock catcher" or an ultra makes no difference with a short OCI.
If you like to stretch your OCIs out then yes the efficiencies will make a difference.
My simple way of of thinking clean oil = less particles. So whether you run a "rock catcher" or an ultra makes no difference with a short OCI.
If you like to stretch your OCIs out then yes the efficiencies will make a difference.
I think you’re understanding this wrong. Even one large particle that passes through the filter, over and over and over, can wreak damage given enough time.
Cleaner oil, whether at 1 mile or 20,000 miles, will ALWAYS result in less wear.
Here's some UOA particle count data at 21u (close enough to 20u) from different oil filters (not the same engine except the last two entries). These are the number of 21u particles per mL of oil. So in 5 quarts, multiply that by 5 x 946 mL/qt = 4,730. 71 particles per mL would therefore be around 335,800 total 21u particles in 5 qts of oil. If only 6 particles per mL, then a total of 28,380 21u particles in 5 qts (11.8 times less).
And these were around 5K-6K OCIs I believe. If the filter's holding capacity is lower than what the OCI length is and it loads up too much, it will most likely become less efficient and shed already captured debris, so those numbers would most likely go up with more miles.
True ... in general, the longer the OCI the better it is to use a higher efficiency oil filter. If you changed oil every 500-1000 miles, might not even need an oil filter. But the bottom line will always be that the cleaner the oil remains, and the less cycles it makes through the engine, the less engine wear from particulate there will be.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Unless it was already major overkill
The old Ultra has significantly more surface area than the EaO for example.
I was also wondering what Chrysler products SRR was talking about. Chrysler made some excellent engines back in the day (225, 318, 340, 383, 426, 440)....even the 2.2 and 2.5 were good engines. The Mitsu was an oil burner because of valve stem seals IIRC...and the VW 1.7 in the Omni wasn't great but all in all Chrysler engines (and transmissions) were very good....it was the rest of the car that left a lot to be desired.
Gotta zoom way out ... 62% @ 20u.
Wasn’t referring to the V8s, mainly all of the 4s and 6s from mid-80s to the end of the Neons. Maybe it’s different where I live, people don’t appear to take care of them? All I know is that following most of the 4-cyl ChryCos during that timeframe was harder to breathe than following the mosquito truck, and there were fewer mosquitos behind those cars!
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2010
- Messages
- 9,606
I cut open an XG5 today and it was the original Ultra media with wire backing. Anyone know if the spin-ons are still the original media?
The cartridges are not (at least not the XG11665).
The cartridges are not (at least not the XG11665).
Similar threads
