I highly doubt the string had any effect on filtration. Its presence or absence merely indicates whether the filter was made under the old methods or new ones.
Oil Filters Revealed
- Thread starter youther
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: river_rat
Y'all are a bit more literate than me. parochial is the only one I know. That means Nuns might beat you.
Not exactly a literal interpretation, but close.
Y'all are a bit more literate than me. parochial is the only one I know. That means Nuns might beat you.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Originally Posted By: river_rat
Oops I deleted my other post. Oh well. Just a reiteration of how I just wanted to see which filters I might use let more dirt through. Didn't care all that much about the numbers as the tests and criteria might be different with different manufacturers for all I knew.
As they get really, really loaded up in the end runs of the tests, these usually let more through, but equally between types/brands.
Oh, nothing said here was intended to impugn your efforts with your improvised test platform/format.
Oops I deleted my other post. Oh well. Just a reiteration of how I just wanted to see which filters I might use let more dirt through. Didn't care all that much about the numbers as the tests and criteria might be different with different manufacturers for all I knew.
As they get really, really loaded up in the end runs of the tests, these usually let more through, but equally between types/brands.
Oh, nothing said here was intended to impugn your efforts with your improvised test platform/format.
Where's river rat's study posted at?
Gary, I must be misunderstanding river_rat's testing or else your comments. I thought Rob tested the efficiency of oil filters by particle size (about 10 microns), not by capacity? Rob, feel free to answer this question, too.
Unless you're running a filter designed for extended intervals (like the Amsoil EaO), I wouldn't push a filter close to maximum capacity. With its filtering ability, I personally wouldn't run the Purolator PureOne past 5-8k miles in mixed driving.
Rob thought filters at 20 microns fit into three categories:
1. Super-high efficiency - Donaldson, PureOne/Bosh Premium (99.9%)
2. 98% area - M1/K&N, which he considered a "happy medium" between filtration and oil pressure drop
3. Sieves - Denso and the Japanese filters tested
By the way, since you're an Amsoil dealer, I was disappointed that Rob never received the RP and Amsoil filters from BuickGN.
Unless you're running a filter designed for extended intervals (like the Amsoil EaO), I wouldn't push a filter close to maximum capacity. With its filtering ability, I personally wouldn't run the Purolator PureOne past 5-8k miles in mixed driving.
Rob thought filters at 20 microns fit into three categories:
1. Super-high efficiency - Donaldson, PureOne/Bosh Premium (99.9%)
2. 98% area - M1/K&N, which he considered a "happy medium" between filtration and oil pressure drop
3. Sieves - Denso and the Japanese filters tested
By the way, since you're an Amsoil dealer, I was disappointed that Rob never received the RP and Amsoil filters from BuickGN.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
I'll try and make myself more clear. What I said and RR's results are divorced from each other.
A filter's manufacturer's rating is performed under a protocol that, IIRC, states its efficiency at the saturation point. That is, where it is rendered inert and the down stream particles increase.
Given that this will form various curves based on, among other things, holding capacity, those performance curves can be radically different from one filter to another in length, while showing equal or superior performance. That is, a 99.x efficiency at 20 microns may be at 11.9999gms out of 12gms holding capacity. I would figure that the curve would be somewhat exponential/non-linear and form the infamous "hockey stick" rate of change near the end of life ...it's rated efficiency.
That's why I said that I'm paying more attention to the nominal (single pass) ratings as they are (probably) more indicative of day to day (what's that fancy term) in situ performance.
So take my comments out of the context of rr's testing and more leaning toward ratings in general.
It is a shame the BGN never sent the EaO or RP filters. I would expect to see both perform to lower levels than others, just like M1 and K&N; the EaO more so due to my aforementioned reasons.
A filter's manufacturer's rating is performed under a protocol that, IIRC, states its efficiency at the saturation point. That is, where it is rendered inert and the down stream particles increase.
Given that this will form various curves based on, among other things, holding capacity, those performance curves can be radically different from one filter to another in length, while showing equal or superior performance. That is, a 99.x efficiency at 20 microns may be at 11.9999gms out of 12gms holding capacity. I would figure that the curve would be somewhat exponential/non-linear and form the infamous "hockey stick" rate of change near the end of life ...it's rated efficiency.
That's why I said that I'm paying more attention to the nominal (single pass) ratings as they are (probably) more indicative of day to day (what's that fancy term) in situ performance.
So take my comments out of the context of rr's testing and more leaning toward ratings in general.
It is a shame the BGN never sent the EaO or RP filters. I would expect to see both perform to lower levels than others, just like M1 and K&N; the EaO more so due to my aforementioned reasons.
Thanks, I think I understand. You're saying the ISO efficiency rating is measured when the filter is at its maximum capacity. That's not very helpful in the real world, since its filtering efficiency at the unloaded level is unknown. I strongly agree that the nominal rating is the most useful number given.
I also think the EaO/RP, if tested, would have been categorized with M1/K&N.
I also think the EaO/RP, if tested, would have been categorized with M1/K&N.
Last edited:
When it comes to flow vs. filtration, I liked the way river_rat left his conclusions open to interpretation. In many instances, flow can be more critical. In others, it could be filtration.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Originally Posted By: Bruce T
Thanks, I think I understand. You're saying the ISO efficiency rating is measured when the filter is at its maximum capacity. That's not very helpful in the real world, since its filtering efficiency at the unloaded level is unknown. I strongly agree that the nominal rating is the most useful number given.
I also think the EaO/RP, if tested, would have been categorized with M1/K&N.
Yeah, that's the basic idea. It's not something cast in stone, it's just some "latest revelation" in my ongoing expansion of perception on this whole filtering thing. It's surely subject to critique and alteration.
For example, when we're shown flow
SID curves, how would they appear near the multipass rated level of filtration? Not nearly as good as they do clean where they're well below their published "best" filtering numbers. The two figures are somewhat divorced, IMO ..or so I reason.
You now have a new axis of influence on how you rate a filter. While a figure of comparative performance may be useful, which one alters your view?
2/20/75 = 5/10/20 vs. 10/15/30
10 PSID @ 10gpm vs. 10gpm
10gms holding capacity vs. 8gms?
In this case it will take longer for the higher efficiency filter to reach it's rated level and the (alleged) poorer filtering filter may give better filtering performance (massage the numbers to make the concept work).
If you never reached either 8 or 10gms, how would you know which one is really working better?
That's why I see the nominal rating having more merit than I have given it credit for ..and how a 25k rated EaO can show poorly in comparison to a 15k rated M1 in a 10k particle count comparison; and even more poorly in a 5k comparison.
Thanks, I think I understand. You're saying the ISO efficiency rating is measured when the filter is at its maximum capacity. That's not very helpful in the real world, since its filtering efficiency at the unloaded level is unknown. I strongly agree that the nominal rating is the most useful number given.
I also think the EaO/RP, if tested, would have been categorized with M1/K&N.
Yeah, that's the basic idea. It's not something cast in stone, it's just some "latest revelation" in my ongoing expansion of perception on this whole filtering thing. It's surely subject to critique and alteration.
For example, when we're shown flow
SID curves, how would they appear near the multipass rated level of filtration? Not nearly as good as they do clean where they're well below their published "best" filtering numbers. The two figures are somewhat divorced, IMO ..or so I reason. You now have a new axis of influence on how you rate a filter. While a figure of comparative performance may be useful, which one alters your view?
2/20/75 = 5/10/20 vs. 10/15/30
10 PSID @ 10gpm vs. 10gpm
10gms holding capacity vs. 8gms?
In this case it will take longer for the higher efficiency filter to reach it's rated level and the (alleged) poorer filtering filter may give better filtering performance (massage the numbers to make the concept work).
If you never reached either 8 or 10gms, how would you know which one is really working better?
That's why I see the nominal rating having more merit than I have given it credit for ..and how a 25k rated EaO can show poorly in comparison to a 15k rated M1 in a 10k particle count comparison; and even more poorly in a 5k comparison.
Thanks for the education.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
I don't know if it's an education. It's a new(er) school of thought to ponder
This is an ongoing maturing process (things we learn here). We usually learn stuff that forms opinions ..then learn stuff that changes those opinions.
This is an ongoing maturing process (things we learn here). We usually learn stuff that forms opinions ..then learn stuff that changes those opinions.
Maybe that's why Wix's advertized nominal is so unspectacular, even though the media is pretty impermeable to most grit and comparably to other good filters.
Maybe their nominal rating is based on a new, clean filter where the others rate theirs on a highly loaded element.
Food for thought.
Maybe their nominal rating is based on a new, clean filter where the others rate theirs on a highly loaded element.
Food for thought.
- Status
