Oil filter efficiency.

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

splineman

Joined
Aug 21, 2013
Messages
81
Location
New Zealand
Hi Guy's,
I have a Ryco Z87A oil filter on my bike and Ryco tell me its 91.37% at 30 micron.
Is this a good spec? How does it compare to say a 10 micron filter?
Sorry for my ignorance but I expected a beta ratio spec but this is what they told me.
Cheers.
 
Originally Posted By: splineman
Hi Guy's,
I have a Ryco Z87A oil filter on my bike and Ryco tell me its 91.37% at 30 micron.
Is this a good spec? How does it compare to say a 10 micron filter?
Sorry for my ignorance but I expected a beta ratio spec but this is what they told me.
Cheers.


Is the quoted efficiency via a standard SAE test? Single pass test, multi-pass test.

Run a UOA on your oil with a PC (particle count) and you will quickly see what particle size its really picking up.
 
Ok so this spec is sort of meaningless then.
I had SS reusable one before that was rated at 30 microns absolute.
I thought the conventional filter would be an improvement but now im not so sure.
I guess I will try running it and get uoa done.
 
91% at 30um really isn't outstanding by any means, but as mentioned, it would be nice to know what standard was applied to find that rating.

In contrast, most "typical" automotive fitlers are 95% or better at 20um, in ISO 4548-12 testing, which is a widely accepted practice standard.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
91% at 30um really isn't outstanding by any means, but as mentioned, it would be nice to know what standard was applied to find that rating.

In contrast, most "typical" automotive fitlers are 95% or better at 20um, in ISO 4548-12 testing, which is a widely accepted practice standard.


Thanks for the reply....I have asked the question of Ryco and will post any reply.
 
So would you guy's agree with my thinking that the 30um absolute SS filter is worse than this Ryco filter?
If it's filtering 91% at 30um it's also filtering smaller particles at some unknown rate correct?

Sorry to be pedantic but I think I remember a poster saying any paper filter is better than the reusable ones. Not to start a fight or anything, just genuinely concerned.

BTW Ryco specify the filter in question for my Harley Sportster.
 
What other filter brands do you have to choose from? It's usually pretty hard to get filtering specs on motorcycle filters for some reason. Hi-Flo seems to be a favorite with the motorcycle community. K&N usually makes a good bike filter too.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
What other filter brands do you have to choose from? It's usually pretty hard to get filtering specs on motorcycle filters for some reason. Hi-Flo seems to be a favorite with the motorcycle community. K&N usually makes a good bike filter too.


Thanks for the comment.

I can get Hiflo at Supercheap $30 ea, or stock Harley $20. The reason I bought the Ryco is that it is recommended for my bike as being OEM spec and I get them for $4 wholesale where my wife works. Ryco brand is sold as as stock replacements for Toyota dealerships so I assumed the quality would be fine.
Then I got the email from Ryco with the spec quoted above and cannot decide if it's ok or not.
I really hate paying big money for a filter simply cause it's for a Harley....that bugs me no end.
 
Originally Posted By: williestreet
I have never seen any results on Stainless filters other than the Absolute claim which I don't believe. Show me independent results vs other filters and maybe I would pay attention.
I would choose paper over Stainless everyday. Would never install one myself.
I would put on the ryco.

http://www.calsci.com/motorcycleinfo/FilterXRef.html


Thanks for the comment williestreet. After reading a bit around the site here I had come to the same conclusion on the reusable filter. The Ryco is installed and I may just leave it for now. I have emailed Ryco for more info on the testing spec but am not going to hold my breath.
 
Originally Posted By: splineman
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
What other filter brands do you have to choose from? It's usually pretty hard to get filtering specs on motorcycle filters for some reason. Hi-Flo seems to be a favorite with the motorcycle community. K&N usually makes a good bike filter too.


Thanks for the comment.

I can get Hiflo at Supercheap $30 ea, or stock Harley $20. The reason I bought the Ryco is that it is recommended for my bike as being OEM spec and I get them for $4 wholesale where my wife works. Ryco brand is sold as as stock replacements for Toyota dealerships so I assumed the quality would be fine.
Then I got the email from Ryco with the spec quoted above and cannot decide if it's ok or not.
I really hate paying big money for a filter simply cause it's for a Harley....that bugs me no end.


The efficiency of the Hi-Flo, K&N or Harley OEM probably isn't any better than the Ryco. If you can contact those other manufacturers and find out it might be worth the effort to see how they stack up to the Ryco's efficiency spec.
 
I got some info back from Hiflo. They say the Hf170 for my bike is a 10um filter. 99% efficiency.
The also claim it compares favourably with the Harley filter, 63805_80t.
The Hiflo would seem to be a better filter than the Ryco and it's also specifically recommended for my bike.
Correct?
 
Originally Posted By: splineman
I got some info back from Hiflo. They say the Hf170 for my bike is a 10um filter. 99% efficiency.


Wow, that's hard to believe if it is really 99% @ 10 microns.

I have a feeling that's not exactly what they mean. If they said "it's a 10 micron filter" and then said "it's 99% efficient" without saying at what micron size, then it doesn't necessary mean they are saying "it's 99% efficiency at 10 microns".

When they said "it's a 10 micron filter", it could mean that it will catch some 10 micron particles. Maybe you can call back and get better clarification. I just bought a Hi-Flo from Amazon for my bike, it was only $6.50.
 
Hi ZeeOsix, I hear what you are saying, here is the quote from Hiflo.

"HF170 is a 10um rated filter with a 99% efficiency which favourably compares with 63805-80T."

Would you say any of these filters,including Ryco, would filter better than the SS reusable one I have.
 
Originally Posted By: splineman
Hi ZeeOsix, I hear what you are saying, here is the quote from Hiflo.

"HF170 is a 10um rated filter with a 99% efficiency which favourably compares with 63805-80T."


IMO, that statement is open to interpretation, as I said above. If they would have said "with a 99% efficiency at 10um", then there would be no ambiguity.

Originally Posted By: splineman
Would you say any of these filters,including Ryco, would filter better than the SS reusable one I have.


Definitely the Hi-Flo or Harley. The Ryco being around 91% @ 30 microns probably isn't any worse than the SS filter, and probably slightly better because it will catch some particles less than 30um. If you can get Hi-Flo for a decent price, them maybe that's the way to go.
 
Yeah I agree the hiflo looks to be a decent filter.
I will use those going forward.
Thanks for the input mate.
By the way I have emailed hiflow for testing clarification.
Will post if I hear anything.
 
thumbsup2.gif
... sounds good. I'd be interested in Hi-Flo's response since I'm using them now too.
 
I would be excited and shocked at the same time to think that filter is essentially B75 at 10um! (B75 is roughly 98.7%, so close enough for this conversation relative to their claim of 99%). If it were that efficient, I'd also wonder just how long it's FCI could be given it's size and intended use in full flow application.

There was a conversation here in the mc forum as to the Harley specs many years ago. Same topic about the efficiency of the Harley filter. Harley claims it's a "5 um" rated filter, but they don't specify the efficiency at that size. At the time (and I believe still today) Wix offered the 51348 filter for the HD engines. There was uproar from the HD faithful that a "car" filter would be offered as a direct replacement for the 5um rated HD filter. I contacted Wix directly and asked. I was told that Wix did a reverse engineering approach to that application. They took a few HD "5um" rated filters, and tested their beta/ISO performance. And in their determination those filters were no more efficient that Wix premium glass-enhanced cellulose filters they still make today. Wix determined that they could provide the same protection as the HD premium filter with their typical media offerings. But by gosh, because HD stated that their filter was a "5um" filter, you'll be hard pressed to push the faithful off that egotistical mountain.

This is likely typical of the HiFlo filter disucssion as well. Any filter can be "rated" at some arbitrary particle size, but it's all in the wording. This is why ISO standardized testing is done. It's not surprising that many companies don't want to share the data; it's likley we'd all discover that there is precious little difference in most products.

I am not saying the HiFlo is a bad filter, nor any other brand discussed here. I'm just urging caution when reading statements. I want to see official claims based upon ISO protocol; they can keep the rhetoric and hype.

This is a topic not unlike many others; a little bit of information is dangerous because it leaves too much unknown, while whetting the appitite of the uninformed just enough to encourage poor conclusions.
 
Last edited:
Is this the thread you're talking about:

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1170035

This is probably my all time favorite motorcycle vs car oil filter thread. Lots of good info. It was that thread plus other research that I no longer run mc specific filters.

Here's a link to what Purolator says I should run on my bike:

http://www.purolatorautofilters.net/resources/Popup/Pages/PartDetailPopup.aspx?partnum=Ml16822

Here's what I'm running:

http://www.purolatorautofilters.net/resources/Popup/Pages/PartDetailPopup.aspx?partnum=L10241

All the info; height, relief valve setting, etc; are the same. The only thing is I can't find the efficiency rating on the mc filter.

Here's what I get on the Wix website for a ML16822:

http://www.wixfilters.com/Lookup/PartDetails.aspx?Part=51215

It shows a nominal rating but not beta ratio.

Here's what I can find that fits a Twin Cam:

http://www.wixfilters.com/Lookup/PartDetails.aspx?Part=57148

The nominal for this one is 5, but the beta is 2/20 = 6/20. This isn't as good as the Purolator classic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Hohn
Filter Efficiency: when small differences aren't small
3 4 5
Replies
84
Views
5K
ZeeOSix
D
Amsoil Ea oil filter - Cut Open
Replies
11
Views
1K
DV0993
S
Replacement for Purolator Boss Oil Filters
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
D1dad
SOUNDMAN5000
Do I have a Defective S&S Oil Filter for My Harley?
2
Replies
36
Views
1K
Hootbro
ZeeOSix
Efficiency Info on the New Mobil 1 Filter
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
4K
kitchbow
Back
Top Bottom