I have for some time been interested in the use of magnets to augment oil filtration. I am generally a Doubting Thomas and want to see proof of things so I called the president of Fluid Rx to find out about their Magna-Guard product. I received several products to test and reading material. Several SAE papers were referenced: 8881827- Review of Lubricant Contamination and Diesel Engine Wear, Needelman and Madhaven, and 881825 - Correlating Lube Oil Filtration Efficiencies with Engine Wear, Staley (GM). Both are from the Truck and Bus meeting, Indianapolis, IN, 1988. They also quoted a later paper - 991927 - Review of Lubricant Contamination and Diesel Engine Wear (author(s) not listed). All papers included a host of additional references.
All these references are old but certainly hold true. Maybe there are few new papers as we already know all there is to know about filtration and it’s usefulness. One recurring theme is that the concentration of particles, particularly in the 0 - 20u range cause the most wear. This was brought out in the latest SAE handbook as well. Particles 30u to 80u and more cause wear but actually less than a higher concentration of smaller particles.
The problem with filtration is, well, filtration. The filter gets clogged, the pressure drop through the filter increases and eventually the filter is just bypassed altogether. There has to be a happy middle ground where there is some filtering but not too much. The use of magnets is certainly helpful. Just look at any transmission or differential magnetic drain plug.
I had several questions for the president of the company. 1- What was the reduction of oil flow as this magnet they sell is placed into the oil filter itself? (It must be a metal spin on filter). He showed another paper that shows an average pressure drop of 0.4 PSI at an oil flow rate of 8 GPM (separate paper). This is certainly acceptable. 2 - Why is not everybody using this? He said people were slow to accept this concept but that several large trucking companies (his major sales) have been using them for years. He has simply not gone for a national advertising campaign. ?Maybe he makes enough money? I see no reason not to use these magnets.
Several endorsements were quoted:
Motor Trend, Nov., 1999, Aftermarket Business, Feb., 2000, PowerLine, NYT and others.
Now, having endorsed their use I will say that every car I own will get them. I have not figured out how to use them in the MB’s (SL600 and Maybach) where the filter is just a paper? glass? element and the cover is aluminum. I will figure it out.
One thing complicates the effort to quantitate their benefit. If your gas mileage slowly increases as iron containing particulates are removed then that would be a measurable criteria. When doing a UOA however, the iron (Fe) would be picked up by the magnet. If my engine had increased wear with that new 10 wt oil I was trying I may get an artificially low Fe level. On the other hand at least that Fe would not be circulating causing even more wear. It would seem that Cu, Pb and other metals would be high anyway in my failing engine. If the magnet was making the engine better with removal of all the circulating Fe particles then other wear particles would also have to go down. There would still be a reduction in Cu, Pb and others. Perhaps, with less wear and better lubrication the additives would last longer. This is actually a claim of the engineer. They say that oil change intervals may be doubled with the use of their magnets. (This I would have to see).
I think we should all try these things, give the data to the manufacturer and get published. Maybe something we do would benefit others in this way.
Other things that I have obtained are graduated filter paper tests for motor oil, gear lubes power steering fluid and other fluids. There are charts and pictures to compare. These are all inexpensive but standardized filter paper tests and with the aid of any UV light, particulate tests. Again, I see no down side to these products and I will incorporate them immediately.
Sources:
www.magna-guard.com
www.fluidrx.com
aehaas
All these references are old but certainly hold true. Maybe there are few new papers as we already know all there is to know about filtration and it’s usefulness. One recurring theme is that the concentration of particles, particularly in the 0 - 20u range cause the most wear. This was brought out in the latest SAE handbook as well. Particles 30u to 80u and more cause wear but actually less than a higher concentration of smaller particles.
The problem with filtration is, well, filtration. The filter gets clogged, the pressure drop through the filter increases and eventually the filter is just bypassed altogether. There has to be a happy middle ground where there is some filtering but not too much. The use of magnets is certainly helpful. Just look at any transmission or differential magnetic drain plug.
I had several questions for the president of the company. 1- What was the reduction of oil flow as this magnet they sell is placed into the oil filter itself? (It must be a metal spin on filter). He showed another paper that shows an average pressure drop of 0.4 PSI at an oil flow rate of 8 GPM (separate paper). This is certainly acceptable. 2 - Why is not everybody using this? He said people were slow to accept this concept but that several large trucking companies (his major sales) have been using them for years. He has simply not gone for a national advertising campaign. ?Maybe he makes enough money? I see no reason not to use these magnets.
Several endorsements were quoted:
Motor Trend, Nov., 1999, Aftermarket Business, Feb., 2000, PowerLine, NYT and others.
Now, having endorsed their use I will say that every car I own will get them. I have not figured out how to use them in the MB’s (SL600 and Maybach) where the filter is just a paper? glass? element and the cover is aluminum. I will figure it out.
One thing complicates the effort to quantitate their benefit. If your gas mileage slowly increases as iron containing particulates are removed then that would be a measurable criteria. When doing a UOA however, the iron (Fe) would be picked up by the magnet. If my engine had increased wear with that new 10 wt oil I was trying I may get an artificially low Fe level. On the other hand at least that Fe would not be circulating causing even more wear. It would seem that Cu, Pb and other metals would be high anyway in my failing engine. If the magnet was making the engine better with removal of all the circulating Fe particles then other wear particles would also have to go down. There would still be a reduction in Cu, Pb and others. Perhaps, with less wear and better lubrication the additives would last longer. This is actually a claim of the engineer. They say that oil change intervals may be doubled with the use of their magnets. (This I would have to see).
I think we should all try these things, give the data to the manufacturer and get published. Maybe something we do would benefit others in this way.
Other things that I have obtained are graduated filter paper tests for motor oil, gear lubes power steering fluid and other fluids. There are charts and pictures to compare. These are all inexpensive but standardized filter paper tests and with the aid of any UV light, particulate tests. Again, I see no down side to these products and I will incorporate them immediately.
Sources:
www.magna-guard.com
www.fluidrx.com
aehaas