Are their any oil filters other than the Purolator Pureone that claim to match the efficiency of the Fram Ultra at 20 microns?
Oil filters comparable to Fram Ultra Effeciency
- Thread starter 2James1
- Start date
- Status
Hi,
2James1 - Be cautious about claims made about filter efficiency!!
Tests have shown that most cylinder/ring/piston wear results from abrasives below 5micron in dia. Like wise the lubricant varies in thickness at various "stations" within the engine and can sometimes be below 5micron. Hence the relevance of using a lubricant with the prescribed HTHS vis.
It is also known that oil gallery pressure loss can be up to around 28% at max. torque just when the engine needs most flow! This can sometimes result in bearing and other component wear
So, choosing a conforming lubricant and a FF filter with excellent cold flow characteristics is a wise engine life insurance move
Claims on FF filter efficiency can be questionable!!
2James1 - Be cautious about claims made about filter efficiency!!
Tests have shown that most cylinder/ring/piston wear results from abrasives below 5micron in dia. Like wise the lubricant varies in thickness at various "stations" within the engine and can sometimes be below 5micron. Hence the relevance of using a lubricant with the prescribed HTHS vis.
It is also known that oil gallery pressure loss can be up to around 28% at max. torque just when the engine needs most flow! This can sometimes result in bearing and other component wear
So, choosing a conforming lubricant and a FF filter with excellent cold flow characteristics is a wise engine life insurance move
Claims on FF filter efficiency can be questionable!!
True, but the filter that does well at 20 microns will do better at 5 microns than one that doesn't.
You'll need a bypass set up to seriously make any dent that on particles that small though.
The Fram Tough Guard is also a 99% filter, as is the Pure One and I believe the Bosch D+.
You'll need a bypass set up to seriously make any dent that on particles that small though.
The Fram Tough Guard is also a 99% filter, as is the Pure One and I believe the Bosch D+.
Pureones for my car (Honda Ody) are 40 microns per the printing on the packaging box (yes, the media varies it seems)
Napa Gold I picked up yesterday for the same van are 21 microns made by Wix.
I am not sure about the micron rating on Ultra, but I am guessing it has to be 25 microns or less.
Napa Gold I picked up yesterday for the same van are 21 microns made by Wix.
I am not sure about the micron rating on Ultra, but I am guessing it has to be 25 microns or less.
Doug, where do you find cold flow characteristics of an oil filter? Also that approx. 28% loss of flow you are talking about in the gallery, do you mean in relation to a very high efficiency filter restricting flow? Just some clarifications to your informative post.
Thanks
Thanks
Hi,
chubbs1 - Yes, the gallery loss was after the FF filter. In the tests the pressure drop across the FF filter exceeded the test maximum of 0.6bar after 300hrs. This was then the agreed FF filter change out point for repeatability
As to the flow characteristics the Filter's Manufacturer may be able to provide data.
In the tests referred to the differential by-pass operating range was 15-22psi. The cellulose filters typically took an oil temp of around 70F to avoid bypass, with synthetic media this was 40F
Such tests are done using spectrographic, infra red and a range of other analysis techniques along with real time measurement of oil flow (and sometimes wear metals) at various points
Distribution of wear metal particle size was greatest at .05-1 microns at 30%, combined 0.25 to .05microns was 47%. The 1-2micron volume was 20% and the rest made up the total
I hope this is of some interest
In my own testing a centrifuge removed the need for a FF filter of any sort and I used 60micron SS inserts instead which again aids flow at all temperatures
All this said, for the average user a good quality conforming lubricant and the latest media filter along with mandated OCIs is all that's needed for excellent engine life
Of course for extended OCIs other factors should be considered
chubbs1 - Yes, the gallery loss was after the FF filter. In the tests the pressure drop across the FF filter exceeded the test maximum of 0.6bar after 300hrs. This was then the agreed FF filter change out point for repeatability
As to the flow characteristics the Filter's Manufacturer may be able to provide data.
In the tests referred to the differential by-pass operating range was 15-22psi. The cellulose filters typically took an oil temp of around 70F to avoid bypass, with synthetic media this was 40F
Such tests are done using spectrographic, infra red and a range of other analysis techniques along with real time measurement of oil flow (and sometimes wear metals) at various points
Distribution of wear metal particle size was greatest at .05-1 microns at 30%, combined 0.25 to .05microns was 47%. The 1-2micron volume was 20% and the rest made up the total
I hope this is of some interest
In my own testing a centrifuge removed the need for a FF filter of any sort and I used 60micron SS inserts instead which again aids flow at all temperatures
All this said, for the average user a good quality conforming lubricant and the latest media filter along with mandated OCIs is all that's needed for excellent engine life
Of course for extended OCIs other factors should be considered
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: KCJeep
True, but the filter that does well at 20 microns will do better at 5 microns than one that doesn't.
I would disagree with that.
There is no assurance whatsoever that a rating at one level will have effect at another level, espcially one so far removed. ISO testing parameters and protocal exists for this very purpose.
True, but the filter that does well at 20 microns will do better at 5 microns than one that doesn't.
I would disagree with that.
There is no assurance whatsoever that a rating at one level will have effect at another level, espcially one so far removed. ISO testing parameters and protocal exists for this very purpose.
If I read his post correctly, Doug is talking about gallery loss after 300 hours of operation... e.g. a filter that is nearing or at it contaminant capacity. That's ~12,000-18,000 miles in service.
DP or "flow" is a function as much of oil viscosity as it is the filter efficiency. If you need more cold flow, there are two ways to achieve it; better cold flow characteristics from the oil (lower "W" numbers, higher VI) or a less restrictive (less efficient) filter. In light of the oils we have today, going the second route seems counter productive to me.
One of the more interesting things said by Doug was : "In the tests referred to the differential by-pass operating range was 15-22psi. The cellulose filters typically took an oil temp of around 70F to avoid bypass, with synthetic media this was 40F." This is illustrative of the superior flow characteristics of synthetic media in general. It would be interesting to know some more details in that case... I presume the oil was the same viscosity but were the filters of the same efficiency?
Generally speaking, the superior flow characteristics of synthetic media allows for higher efficiency with no loss of flow (vs cellulose) plus higher capacity and longer life. In other words, you could replace a 35 um absolute cellulose FF filter with a 20 um syn. filter and have the same or better oil flow along with as much as 40-50% more capacity in the same physical size filter. I was speaking generally there, the exact details could vary alot.
As to not trusting public filter efficiency ratings, beyond mistakes If we cannot trust what we are told about filter efficiency (generally speaking), especially now that the manufacturers are presenting the test data according to ISO test standards, how can we trust anything we are told by any parts or lubricant manufacturer? Am misinterpreting what Doug is said? If so, perhaps he could clarify his remarks.
DP or "flow" is a function as much of oil viscosity as it is the filter efficiency. If you need more cold flow, there are two ways to achieve it; better cold flow characteristics from the oil (lower "W" numbers, higher VI) or a less restrictive (less efficient) filter. In light of the oils we have today, going the second route seems counter productive to me.
One of the more interesting things said by Doug was : "In the tests referred to the differential by-pass operating range was 15-22psi. The cellulose filters typically took an oil temp of around 70F to avoid bypass, with synthetic media this was 40F." This is illustrative of the superior flow characteristics of synthetic media in general. It would be interesting to know some more details in that case... I presume the oil was the same viscosity but were the filters of the same efficiency?
Generally speaking, the superior flow characteristics of synthetic media allows for higher efficiency with no loss of flow (vs cellulose) plus higher capacity and longer life. In other words, you could replace a 35 um absolute cellulose FF filter with a 20 um syn. filter and have the same or better oil flow along with as much as 40-50% more capacity in the same physical size filter. I was speaking generally there, the exact details could vary alot.
As to not trusting public filter efficiency ratings, beyond mistakes If we cannot trust what we are told about filter efficiency (generally speaking), especially now that the manufacturers are presenting the test data according to ISO test standards, how can we trust anything we are told by any parts or lubricant manufacturer? Am misinterpreting what Doug is said? If so, perhaps he could clarify his remarks.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: KCJeep
True, but the filter that does well at 20 microns will do better at 5 microns than one that doesn't.
I would disagree with that.
There is no assurance whatsoever that a rating at one level will have effect at another level, espcially one so far removed. ISO testing parameters and protocal exists for this very purpose.
Generally speaking, a filter that is more efficient at 20um will grab more of the smaller particles. You need to see the full ISO test to show it. Here is the test efficiency I was give for the Royal Purple FL820S equivalent, for example....
B25=100
B20=75
B10=5
.... but I have seen some that list even more and smaller particle sizes than 10 um.
Here are the same specs for a K&N filter...
B30=100
B20=20
B10= 2
... and the efficiencies are different across the board. The RP is 99% @ 25um while the K&N is 99% @ 30 um yet look at the difference in the 10um Betas, the RP being 80% @ 10 um (B5) vs 50% @ 10 um (B2).If you dig, you can find other examples. These are just two I found quickly.
Originally Posted By: KCJeep
True, but the filter that does well at 20 microns will do better at 5 microns than one that doesn't.
I would disagree with that.
There is no assurance whatsoever that a rating at one level will have effect at another level, espcially one so far removed. ISO testing parameters and protocal exists for this very purpose.
Generally speaking, a filter that is more efficient at 20um will grab more of the smaller particles. You need to see the full ISO test to show it. Here is the test efficiency I was give for the Royal Purple FL820S equivalent, for example....
B25=100
B20=75
B10=5
.... but I have seen some that list even more and smaller particle sizes than 10 um.
Here are the same specs for a K&N filter...
B30=100
B20=20
B10= 2
... and the efficiencies are different across the board. The RP is 99% @ 25um while the K&N is 99% @ 30 um yet look at the difference in the 10um Betas, the RP being 80% @ 10 um (B5) vs 50% @ 10 um (B2).If you dig, you can find other examples. These are just two I found quickly.
Very interesting and informative posts Doug. I am leaning towards using the Bosch Distance Plus. What is the general consensus on this filter?(other than it being overkill)
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: KCJeep
True, but the filter that does well at 20 microns will do better at 5 microns than one that doesn't.
I would disagree with that.
There is no assurance whatsoever that a rating at one level will have effect at another level, espcially one so far removed. ISO testing parameters and protocal exists for this very purpose.
Generally speaking, a filter that is more efficient at 20um will grab more of the smaller particles. You need to see the full ISO test to show it. Here is the test efficiency I was give for the Royal Purple FL820S equivalent, for example....
B25=100
B20=75
B10=5
.... but I have seen some that list even more and smaller particle sizes than 10 um.
Here are the same specs for a K&N filter...
B30=100
B20=20
B10= 2
... and the efficiencies are different across the board. The RP is 99% @ 25um while the K&N is 99% @ 30 um yet look at the difference in the 10um Betas, the RP being 80% @ 10 um (B5) vs 50% @ 10 um (B2).If you dig, you can find other examples. These are just two I found quickly.
I understand all that; I agree with you in that you and I would need to see the full ISO testing, as previously mentioned.
But you know me; I'm not focused on the lab as much as the real world results. Little of that difference in "better" applies to the engine as typically operated by Joe Public. It is probably my error in making the leap in this conversation from lab to road results; my apologies if I over-extended the topic.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: KCJeep
True, but the filter that does well at 20 microns will do better at 5 microns than one that doesn't.
I would disagree with that.
There is no assurance whatsoever that a rating at one level will have effect at another level, espcially one so far removed. ISO testing parameters and protocal exists for this very purpose.
Generally speaking, a filter that is more efficient at 20um will grab more of the smaller particles. You need to see the full ISO test to show it. Here is the test efficiency I was give for the Royal Purple FL820S equivalent, for example....
B25=100
B20=75
B10=5
.... but I have seen some that list even more and smaller particle sizes than 10 um.
Here are the same specs for a K&N filter...
B30=100
B20=20
B10= 2
... and the efficiencies are different across the board. The RP is 99% @ 25um while the K&N is 99% @ 30 um yet look at the difference in the 10um Betas, the RP being 80% @ 10 um (B5) vs 50% @ 10 um (B2).If you dig, you can find other examples. These are just two I found quickly.
I understand all that; I agree with you in that you and I would need to see the full ISO testing, as previously mentioned.
But you know me; I'm not focused on the lab as much as the real world results. Little of that difference in "better" applies to the engine as typically operated by Joe Public. It is probably my error in making the leap in this conversation from lab to road results; my apologies if I over-extended the topic.
Last edited:
Quote:
... As to not trusting public filter efficiency ratings, beyond mistakes If we cannot trust what we are told about filter efficiency (generally speaking), especially now that the manufacturers are presenting the test data according to ISO test standards, how can we trust anything we are told by any parts or lubricant manufacturer?
+1. If one can't trust the oil filter industry standard ISO 4548-12 test procedure published efficiency ratings, not sure how one could trust any parts or oil spec based testing.
As for bypass events, on my visit to Fram test labs the consensus opinion of their engineers was that in properly maintained vehicles, such events are relatively rare and of short duration.
... As to not trusting public filter efficiency ratings, beyond mistakes If we cannot trust what we are told about filter efficiency (generally speaking), especially now that the manufacturers are presenting the test data according to ISO test standards, how can we trust anything we are told by any parts or lubricant manufacturer?
+1. If one can't trust the oil filter industry standard ISO 4548-12 test procedure published efficiency ratings, not sure how one could trust any parts or oil spec based testing.
As for bypass events, on my visit to Fram test labs the consensus opinion of their engineers was that in properly maintained vehicles, such events are relatively rare and of short duration.
Originally Posted By: dgsbikes
I am not sure about the micron rating on Ultra, but I am guessing it has to be 25 microns or less.
Basically 99% @ 20 microns or above per FRAM's website.
http://fram.com/products/oil_filters/fram_ultra_oil_filter/index.asp
I am not sure about the micron rating on Ultra, but I am guessing it has to be 25 microns or less.
Basically 99% @ 20 microns or above per FRAM's website.
http://fram.com/products/oil_filters/fram_ultra_oil_filter/index.asp
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
chubbs1 - Yes, the gallery loss was after the FF filter. In the tests the pressure drop across the FF filter exceeded the test maximum of 0.6bar after 300hrs. This was then the agreed FF filter change out point for repeatability.
The oil pressure to the engine shouldn't have been effected unless the positive displacement oil pump was in pressure relief. So I'm still puzzled how the "oil gallery pressure loss can be up to around 28% at max. torque" ... was this at near engine redline when the oil pump was in pressure relief?
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
It is also known that oil gallery pressure loss can be up to around 28% at max. torque just when the engine needs most flow! This can sometimes result in bearing and other component wear.
Hi,
chubbs1 - Yes, the gallery loss was after the FF filter. In the tests the pressure drop across the FF filter exceeded the test maximum of 0.6bar after 300hrs. This was then the agreed FF filter change out point for repeatability.
The oil pressure to the engine shouldn't have been effected unless the positive displacement oil pump was in pressure relief. So I'm still puzzled how the "oil gallery pressure loss can be up to around 28% at max. torque" ... was this at near engine redline when the oil pump was in pressure relief?
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
It is also known that oil gallery pressure loss can be up to around 28% at max. torque just when the engine needs most flow! This can sometimes result in bearing and other component wear.
Hi,
Jim - Yes, you read me correctly
The reducing OP (max. torque) is attributable to component wear in oil pump, main and BE bearings. Max torque in the test engines had a range 1200-1350 rpm, measured at 1200rpm IIRC
These are of course controlled/accelerated wear tests to ascertain data on engine/component life in the real world operation as Mr Newton refers to
The Filter Efficiency "common" standard should be stated as a first parameter. However, claims in advertising are often purposely confusing to a purchaser and unless they similarly refer to the same data one should be cautious in summary IMO
Of course you can see that the real contaminants that cause significant wear comprised 90% of that collected and were less than 2microm
Particle counts will of course generally confirm this - and "big bits" above 30microns are rare except in a catastrophic failure. Hence my own use of 60micron SS FF inserts with virtually no flow restriction
In my own engines the contaminant uptake was 0.0025grm/km comprising mainly soot and Fe
Jim - Yes, you read me correctly
The reducing OP (max. torque) is attributable to component wear in oil pump, main and BE bearings. Max torque in the test engines had a range 1200-1350 rpm, measured at 1200rpm IIRC
These are of course controlled/accelerated wear tests to ascertain data on engine/component life in the real world operation as Mr Newton refers to
The Filter Efficiency "common" standard should be stated as a first parameter. However, claims in advertising are often purposely confusing to a purchaser and unless they similarly refer to the same data one should be cautious in summary IMO
Of course you can see that the real contaminants that cause significant wear comprised 90% of that collected and were less than 2microm
Particle counts will of course generally confirm this - and "big bits" above 30microns are rare except in a catastrophic failure. Hence my own use of 60micron SS FF inserts with virtually no flow restriction
In my own engines the contaminant uptake was 0.0025grm/km comprising mainly soot and Fe
Last edited:
Hi,
Jim - Yes, based on my experience over millions of kms (and tear down/measure up) it worked(s) very well indeed
We know that element filters perform most of their cleaning during the first pass of lubricant and that a centrifuge works continuously from start up.
In my case the centrifuge would go three OCIs (average OCI of 90kkms - so 270kkms)without cleaning and the SS FF elements were virtually left untouched. They were checked from time to time and always found to be completely residue free. Lubricant top up rate averaged 6kkms/litre over all engines
Normal element filters and a centrifuge produced no better results than when using the centrifuge and SS FF 60micron screens
Using a top quality 5W-40 synthetic lubricant and the engine manufacturers and Oil Cos lubricant condemnation points helped a lot of course
It is always a cost/benefit exercise of course. In the end it meant an OCI increased from 15kkms to 90kkms and of course much less downtime in operations - a true economic benefit indeed
It has been quite common over many years for Euro heavy engine manufacturers to use centrifuge cleaners
Jim - Yes, based on my experience over millions of kms (and tear down/measure up) it worked(s) very well indeed
We know that element filters perform most of their cleaning during the first pass of lubricant and that a centrifuge works continuously from start up.
In my case the centrifuge would go three OCIs (average OCI of 90kkms - so 270kkms)without cleaning and the SS FF elements were virtually left untouched. They were checked from time to time and always found to be completely residue free. Lubricant top up rate averaged 6kkms/litre over all engines
Normal element filters and a centrifuge produced no better results than when using the centrifuge and SS FF 60micron screens
Using a top quality 5W-40 synthetic lubricant and the engine manufacturers and Oil Cos lubricant condemnation points helped a lot of course
It is always a cost/benefit exercise of course. In the end it meant an OCI increased from 15kkms to 90kkms and of course much less downtime in operations - a true economic benefit indeed
It has been quite common over many years for Euro heavy engine manufacturers to use centrifuge cleaners
Doug Hillary - it sounds like these engines are some heavy industry type ... "max torque at 1200 RPM" for example. Do these engines have positive displacement oil pumps, and if so what kind of pump bypass pressure setting do they have? What kind of oil pressure do they typically run at when at full operating temperature?
Hi,
ZeeOSix - Yes, this Thread is now way OT. My answer to the OP was simply to alert him to some variables - see further under the By-Pass Filters Thread
The test engines were 10 litre, 6 cylinder, turbo-intercooled DI diesels. Mine were 12.7 Series 60 Detroits
The test engines initially showed 4.5bar gallery oil pressure after the FF filters at maximum torque. I believe this was also around the max oil pressure when hot. They had 35 litres oil capacity and a 15w40 HDEO was used
Other details are not to hand
ZeeOSix - Yes, this Thread is now way OT. My answer to the OP was simply to alert him to some variables - see further under the By-Pass Filters Thread
The test engines were 10 litre, 6 cylinder, turbo-intercooled DI diesels. Mine were 12.7 Series 60 Detroits
The test engines initially showed 4.5bar gallery oil pressure after the FF filters at maximum torque. I believe this was also around the max oil pressure when hot. They had 35 litres oil capacity and a 15w40 HDEO was used
Other details are not to hand
Thanks for the info. I'm trying to understand how you measured the pressure drop across the oil filter. Did you have a delta-P transducer, or use a pressure sensor before and after the filter?
If these engines have a positive displacement oil pump in good shape, then the engine oil pressure down stream of the filter shouldn't change regardless of how dirty the oil filter is (ie, causing filter delta-P) unless the oil pump hits pressure relief (ie, hits max constant pressure output) due to the filter's increase pressure drop.
As pointed out in many of these flow & delta-P conversations, a loaded up oil filter will make the oil pump hit pressure relief sooner, which in turn then causes a flow to stay at a constant volume as long as the pump is in pressure relief. Any higher engine RPM above that point of pump pressure relief would be slightly "starving" the engine of volume compared to if the filter wasn't so restrictive.
If these engines have a positive displacement oil pump in good shape, then the engine oil pressure down stream of the filter shouldn't change regardless of how dirty the oil filter is (ie, causing filter delta-P) unless the oil pump hits pressure relief (ie, hits max constant pressure output) due to the filter's increase pressure drop.
As pointed out in many of these flow & delta-P conversations, a loaded up oil filter will make the oil pump hit pressure relief sooner, which in turn then causes a flow to stay at a constant volume as long as the pump is in pressure relief. Any higher engine RPM above that point of pump pressure relief would be slightly "starving" the engine of volume compared to if the filter wasn't so restrictive.
- Status
Similar threads
