As usual, any oil filter or oil etc, is to be used properly on an app by app basis. This includes miles or time in service, conditions seen, and current engine environment if known. This app, perhaps try a PL14610 up to 7,500 miles.
P1 Autopsy- 10K Miles
- Thread starter Jim Allen
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: MinamiKotaro
Originally Posted By: MinamiKotaro
This filter looks fine to me. I've seen filters with a lot less miles look just as "bad".
I doubt it was completely clogged. A PL30001 is rated to hold ~9 grams of contaminant. A healthy engine won't shed anywhere near 9 grams of crud in 10,000 miles.
This filter looks much smaller than a PL30001 but I'll wager the capcity is still more than enough for a 10K run.
Whoops. The PL30001 size is rated for 13 grams.
The surface area of the PL30001 is 400 sq in! That's what, almost 5 times the surface area of the filter Jim was using? If the media is of similar efficiency, then wouldn't the filter capacity scale to the media surface area, at least with a 2-dimensional filter media such as the one in question? If so, that means that this filter doesn't have a lot of capacity--and I could see restriction happening pretty soon.
While I know Purolator posted some data showing how well their filters flow, how well is a filter with <90 sq. in. of media flowing after being in service for 7.5K?
Originally Posted By: MinamiKotaro
This filter looks fine to me. I've seen filters with a lot less miles look just as "bad".
I doubt it was completely clogged. A PL30001 is rated to hold ~9 grams of contaminant. A healthy engine won't shed anywhere near 9 grams of crud in 10,000 miles.
This filter looks much smaller than a PL30001 but I'll wager the capcity is still more than enough for a 10K run.
Whoops. The PL30001 size is rated for 13 grams.
The surface area of the PL30001 is 400 sq in! That's what, almost 5 times the surface area of the filter Jim was using? If the media is of similar efficiency, then wouldn't the filter capacity scale to the media surface area, at least with a 2-dimensional filter media such as the one in question? If so, that means that this filter doesn't have a lot of capacity--and I could see restriction happening pretty soon.
While I know Purolator posted some data showing how well their filters flow, how well is a filter with <90 sq. in. of media flowing after being in service for 7.5K?
Originally Posted By: JOD
While I know Purolator posted some data showing how well their filters flow, how well is a filter with div>
As has been said before ... it all depends on how clean the engine is. Filters really need a real time Delta-P sensor across them so they can be monitored for flow restriction/clogging if they are to be used for extra long OCIs. Can't tell anything about the level of loading by visual inspection, unless it's jugged full of sludge or the media is blown out from too much restriction.
While I know Purolator posted some data showing how well their filters flow, how well is a filter with div>
As has been said before ... it all depends on how clean the engine is. Filters really need a real time Delta-P sensor across them so they can be monitored for flow restriction/clogging if they are to be used for extra long OCIs. Can't tell anything about the level of loading by visual inspection, unless it's jugged full of sludge or the media is blown out from too much restriction.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: JOD
While I know Purolator posted some data showing how well their filters flow, how well is a filter with div>
As has been said before ... it all depends on how clean the engine is. Filters really need a real time Delta-P sensor across them so they can be monitored for flow restriction/clogging if they are to be used for extra long OCIs. Can't tell anything about the level of loading by visual inspection, unless it's jugged full of sludge or the media is blown out from too much restriction.
Well, I agree that you can' tell restriction by looking at the filter. I mean, Jim's hypothesis is plausible; on the other hand, sometimes and apple is just an apple...and maybe the pleats would have looked wavy after 100 miles in service? Hard to say.
One thing though: this is hardly an instance of an "extra long" OCI. This is significantly shorter than the oil filter change interval, which is 15K. I know he didn't change the oil @ 7.5K, but still, any filter should be suitable for 10K in a clean engine. Most OLM's on modern cars are going at least that now.
Originally Posted By: JOD
While I know Purolator posted some data showing how well their filters flow, how well is a filter with div>
As has been said before ... it all depends on how clean the engine is. Filters really need a real time Delta-P sensor across them so they can be monitored for flow restriction/clogging if they are to be used for extra long OCIs. Can't tell anything about the level of loading by visual inspection, unless it's jugged full of sludge or the media is blown out from too much restriction.
Well, I agree that you can' tell restriction by looking at the filter. I mean, Jim's hypothesis is plausible; on the other hand, sometimes and apple is just an apple...and maybe the pleats would have looked wavy after 100 miles in service? Hard to say.
One thing though: this is hardly an instance of an "extra long" OCI. This is significantly shorter than the oil filter change interval, which is 15K. I know he didn't change the oil @ 7.5K, but still, any filter should be suitable for 10K in a clean engine. Most OLM's on modern cars are going at least that now.
I always thought P1 filters were restrictive. There is a filter study comparing OEM toyota filters with aftermarket and OEM was 160 sq.in. vs P1 127 sq.in., vs even less in other brands (same application). Moreover, OEM costs 50% of overpriced P1.
There was a picture posted on a honda forum of a collapsed P1 filter. Compare to the stock cartridge (toyota OEM looks identical):
There was a picture posted on a honda forum of a collapsed P1 filter. Compare to the stock cartridge (toyota OEM looks identical):
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
I always thought P1 filters were restrictive.
Well, P1's answer to that was the published flow rates, as seen in this thread. Thing is, that's with a new filter. When you combine high filtration efficiency with small surface area for the media though, I think it's reasonable to question how well the filter will flow in service.
After reading a little more, I have to wonder if that's the big difference between my situation and Jim's; I think our filters use similar (if not identical) media, but the Ford Racing 820S has liter has roughly 3 times the surface area. While again it's a lot of supposition, looking at that filter I'd also probably opt for a shorter interval, a less efficient filter or one with a more 3-dimensional media.
I always thought P1 filters were restrictive.
Well, P1's answer to that was the published flow rates, as seen in this thread. Thing is, that's with a new filter. When you combine high filtration efficiency with small surface area for the media though, I think it's reasonable to question how well the filter will flow in service.
After reading a little more, I have to wonder if that's the big difference between my situation and Jim's; I think our filters use similar (if not identical) media, but the Ford Racing 820S has liter has roughly 3 times the surface area. While again it's a lot of supposition, looking at that filter I'd also probably opt for a shorter interval, a less efficient filter or one with a more 3-dimensional media.
Don't feel bad, here is a $2.87 ST filter with 11,948 miles on it... 
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
2) I now know that the P1 is nowhere near a 10K filter. Not enough capacity. I learned that even with a clean engine, some media just doesn't have the capacity for a long run.
If your engine is as clean as you say, that filter was probably not loaded up as much as you think. You can't go by "wavy" pleats ... as I said, mine looked the same with only 5K on it with a super clean engine (Altima V6 with 45K miles).
As Purolator says on their website, they make the claim that their filters will last to the car manufacturer's OCI recommendation.
So what is the Honda OCI for the service you've put this car through ... 7,500 OCIs ??
A valid point. But makes for some thought provoking debate here.
Gary Allan often touted that a quality made filter was more capable than most of us would realize. He also touted the "filtration triangle"; size, efficiency, lifecycle. A larger filter will last longer, if other things are held constant.
However, I take issue with some of the "limits" being tossed about here. My 2000 Galant 2.4L engine manual calls for OCI at 7.5k miles, but the FCI is 2x that at 15k miles (every other oil change)! So, in theory, the P1 could be a 15k mile filter, by just complying with the OEM spec, at least in my application. This filter debate is no more or less dependend upon conditional limits than any oil debate.
As Gary used to say: "YMMV".
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
2) I now know that the P1 is nowhere near a 10K filter. Not enough capacity. I learned that even with a clean engine, some media just doesn't have the capacity for a long run.
If your engine is as clean as you say, that filter was probably not loaded up as much as you think. You can't go by "wavy" pleats ... as I said, mine looked the same with only 5K on it with a super clean engine (Altima V6 with 45K miles).
As Purolator says on their website, they make the claim that their filters will last to the car manufacturer's OCI recommendation.
So what is the Honda OCI for the service you've put this car through ... 7,500 OCIs ??
A valid point. But makes for some thought provoking debate here.
Gary Allan often touted that a quality made filter was more capable than most of us would realize. He also touted the "filtration triangle"; size, efficiency, lifecycle. A larger filter will last longer, if other things are held constant.
However, I take issue with some of the "limits" being tossed about here. My 2000 Galant 2.4L engine manual calls for OCI at 7.5k miles, but the FCI is 2x that at 15k miles (every other oil change)! So, in theory, the P1 could be a 15k mile filter, by just complying with the OEM spec, at least in my application. This filter debate is no more or less dependend upon conditional limits than any oil debate.
As Gary used to say: "YMMV".
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Jim ... checkout this thread of mine. Same PureOne PL14459 filter, and pleats look similar. Like I said before, Purolators typically have wavy pleats after use ... seen it in many photos posted on this board by various members.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...807#Post2042807
Boy, that post was two years old and so great I wonder how I missed it! Thanks. Don't know how you managed to to get away with putting that oil filter on the dining room floor. My wife woulda used her shotgun on me!
Anyway, looks identical to mine pretty much. I have been cutting open a lot of my filters the past few years but these were the waviest pleats I've seen on my stuff. I guess that's the nature of the P1 beast. Still going to a full syn fitler next time but this thread, and especially your pics, loosened my sphincter up quite a lot. The thought of running a filter to the ragged edge of collapse... I shudder!
PS- My expert commentator said the odd collapsed looking area was due to uneven pleat spacing at the seam. He called it a poor design.
Jim ... checkout this thread of mine. Same PureOne PL14459 filter, and pleats look similar. Like I said before, Purolators typically have wavy pleats after use ... seen it in many photos posted on this board by various members.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...807#Post2042807
Boy, that post was two years old and so great I wonder how I missed it! Thanks. Don't know how you managed to to get away with putting that oil filter on the dining room floor. My wife woulda used her shotgun on me!
Anyway, looks identical to mine pretty much. I have been cutting open a lot of my filters the past few years but these were the waviest pleats I've seen on my stuff. I guess that's the nature of the P1 beast. Still going to a full syn fitler next time but this thread, and especially your pics, loosened my sphincter up quite a lot. The thought of running a filter to the ragged edge of collapse... I shudder!
PS- My expert commentator said the odd collapsed looking area was due to uneven pleat spacing at the seam. He called it a poor design.
Last edited:
Good commentary above.
One thing to bear in mind is that because of the Honda engines run VVT, they have more oil flow and pressure than the average bear. That might be a factor in distorting the pleats.
Despite how the filter looked, as stated above, the only way to know anything would be to subject the used filter to some tests and measure its DP.
The more we hash this out, it seems very unlikely that the filter was loaded to capacity. If you saw my 8500 mile UOA and looked inside the oil cap you'd know this is no grungemaster engine. These filters have been successfully used at 15K intervals. Anecdotally, at least, all this points to the filter likely being fine. Overall, I saw whew!
I think the bottom line here is that I overreacted to a situation I had never seen on a reputedly "high quality" filter but was essentially within the realm"normal" for this brand.
One thing to bear in mind is that because of the Honda engines run VVT, they have more oil flow and pressure than the average bear. That might be a factor in distorting the pleats.
Despite how the filter looked, as stated above, the only way to know anything would be to subject the used filter to some tests and measure its DP.
The more we hash this out, it seems very unlikely that the filter was loaded to capacity. If you saw my 8500 mile UOA and looked inside the oil cap you'd know this is no grungemaster engine. These filters have been successfully used at 15K intervals. Anecdotally, at least, all this points to the filter likely being fine. Overall, I saw whew!
I think the bottom line here is that I overreacted to a situation I had never seen on a reputedly "high quality" filter but was essentially within the realm"normal" for this brand.
Two unrelated comments:
- Most modern automotive engines have VVT these days.
- The Purolator 14459 and 14610 have the same metric threads.
- Most modern automotive engines have VVT these days.
- The Purolator 14459 and 14610 have the same metric threads.
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Despite how the filter looked, as stated above, the only way to know anything would be to subject the used filter to some tests and measure its DP.
and??? Really, I see two options for you: 1)rig up a test bench to test it at home, or 2)install oil pressure gauges right before and after the filter. Don't you need to dress up the Honda like your truck? I know this is a lot of work, but in the interest of science and all... I also wonder about using a P1 for 10K again and sending it to Purolator. I bet they'd be willing to test the pressure differential.
Despite how the filter looked, as stated above, the only way to know anything would be to subject the used filter to some tests and measure its DP.
and??? Really, I see two options for you: 1)rig up a test bench to test it at home, or 2)install oil pressure gauges right before and after the filter. Don't you need to dress up the Honda like your truck? I know this is a lot of work, but in the interest of science and all... I also wonder about using a P1 for 10K again and sending it to Purolator. I bet they'd be willing to test the pressure differential.
Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Despite how the filter looked, as stated above, the only way to know anything would be to subject the used filter to some tests and measure its DP.
and??? Really, I see two options for you: 1)rig up a test bench to test it at home, or 2)install oil pressure gauges right before and after the filter. Don't you need to dress up the Honda like your truck? I know this is a lot of work, but in the interest of science and all... I also wonder about using a P1 for 10K again and sending it to Purolator. I bet they'd be willing to test the pressure differential.
As to extra gauges... no way. This is my wife's car. She howled when I installed a a Scangage II (and I had to take it out and regift to my brother). Did I mention she has a 12 ga riot gun? Three-inch mag 00 buck?
I have some possible sources for getting a filter tested but if they did, they likely wouldn't let me publish the results testing a competitor's filter... even here... afraid of a lawsuit. Been through that before. If I could talk Puro into it, maybe. But if the results were bad, they'd block me. Been there too.
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Despite how the filter looked, as stated above, the only way to know anything would be to subject the used filter to some tests and measure its DP.
and??? Really, I see two options for you: 1)rig up a test bench to test it at home, or 2)install oil pressure gauges right before and after the filter. Don't you need to dress up the Honda like your truck? I know this is a lot of work, but in the interest of science and all... I also wonder about using a P1 for 10K again and sending it to Purolator. I bet they'd be willing to test the pressure differential.
As to extra gauges... no way. This is my wife's car. She howled when I installed a a Scangage II (and I had to take it out and regift to my brother). Did I mention she has a 12 ga riot gun? Three-inch mag 00 buck?
I have some possible sources for getting a filter tested but if they did, they likely wouldn't let me publish the results testing a competitor's filter... even here... afraid of a lawsuit. Been through that before. If I could talk Puro into it, maybe. But if the results were bad, they'd block me. Been there too.
dnewton3
Staff member
Is it wrong to presume that the crushing of the media (perhaps better defined as partial collapse?) would be due to the leaf pressure? Do they have a "stack up" issue in the tolerances in some filters, but not others?
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Is it wrong to presume that the crushing of the media (perhaps better defined as partial collapse?) would be due to the leaf pressure? Do they have a "stack up" issue in the tolerances in some filters, but not others?
"Leaf pressure" ... ?? Not following you there.
You talking about Jim's filter, or the cartridge filter photo on th3e previous page?
Is it wrong to presume that the crushing of the media (perhaps better defined as partial collapse?) would be due to the leaf pressure? Do they have a "stack up" issue in the tolerances in some filters, but not others?
"Leaf pressure" ... ?? Not following you there.
You talking about Jim's filter, or the cartridge filter photo on th3e previous page?
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
"Leaf pressure" ... ?? Not following you there.
You talking about Jim's filter, or the cartridge filter photo on th3e previous page?
He means the leaf spring at the dome end.
"Leaf pressure" ... ?? Not following you there.
You talking about Jim's filter, or the cartridge filter photo on th3e previous page?
He means the leaf spring at the dome end.
dnewton3
Staff member
My apologies. Yes, I meant the leaf spring in Jim's picture.
The goal of the spring is to apply pressure to the media element to seal the filter, right? But excess pressure could put too much force on the media, and "crush" is towards the base end, no? So I'm asking if this might be a tolerance stack-up problem? Is it seen on other similar products in their line up?
Not that a small amount of crush/collapse would really destroy the media, but it's obviously unappealing and makes one question where the "crush limit" would be and still not affect the filtration?
And, I would note that the crush factor could probably be an issue in either a spin-on (such as Jim's) or in a cartridge (such as friendly_jaceK). One happens at the factory in assembly; one happens in the garage upon installation. But they both would be a result of the media not fitting in the intended range they were intended to occupy, per the manufacturing print. IOW - some amount of force is desireable; too much is not. Several issues might contribute:
1) media element too long for designed space
2) containment component too short for designed space
3) spring force too great
- material spec'd correctly?
- material made correctly?
- material formed incorrectly?
What we know for sure is that the media was crushed past a point we'd all find acceptable.
What we don't know is if that crushing resulted in a loss of media performance (efficiency) and what caused that crushing. We can only offer subjective guesses.
The goal of the spring is to apply pressure to the media element to seal the filter, right? But excess pressure could put too much force on the media, and "crush" is towards the base end, no? So I'm asking if this might be a tolerance stack-up problem? Is it seen on other similar products in their line up?
Not that a small amount of crush/collapse would really destroy the media, but it's obviously unappealing and makes one question where the "crush limit" would be and still not affect the filtration?
And, I would note that the crush factor could probably be an issue in either a spin-on (such as Jim's) or in a cartridge (such as friendly_jaceK). One happens at the factory in assembly; one happens in the garage upon installation. But they both would be a result of the media not fitting in the intended range they were intended to occupy, per the manufacturing print. IOW - some amount of force is desireable; too much is not. Several issues might contribute:
1) media element too long for designed space
2) containment component too short for designed space
3) spring force too great
- material spec'd correctly?
- material made correctly?
- material formed incorrectly?
What we know for sure is that the media was crushed past a point we'd all find acceptable.
What we don't know is if that crushing resulted in a loss of media performance (efficiency) and what caused that crushing. We can only offer subjective guesses.
Last edited:
With a metal core and endcaps (and there is no sign of crushing) could the media in my case even be crushed that way? I have noticed instances of cartridge filters being crushed by improper installation or QC by the filter MFR (filter too tall). I've done that once myself with the 1um water filter in our house water system.
In the brief exchange with the engineer I consulted, he said that unevenly spaced pleating is more likely to go wavy. He also said that excess moisture will break down the resins in the cellulose media that gives it structural rigidity and that can cause the media to collapse. I doubt that's much of a factor in my case.
In any case, this has been enlightening for me. Enough so that I researched the oversized units for the Honda. Researched the PL14610 size (about a half-inch taller), then looked at cross referencing in the cost effective full syn filters and came up with the Fram Ultra XG7313 and the PSL14610. There are others, of course, but both these two are on shelves and at about $9. I think both are better than the M1-110, which is a syn blend media that's priced at about $12. RP's 10-2867 is a great filter, but no better thatn the PSL or the Ultra and is priced out of my market at $15. The D+ is $13.50 and is a syn blend media. Didn't price an Amsoil. Know it's a good fitler but it will be the highest priced of all of them and not all that much better (if at all) than most on this list. Plus I have to pay to get it shipped.
Even with the slight edge the Ultra has in efficiency over the PuroSyn (99%@ 20u vs 25u) I could go with either but I picked up some XG7317s for $7 and that sealed the deal. I now have enough Honda filters on hand for the next 10 years.
In the brief exchange with the engineer I consulted, he said that unevenly spaced pleating is more likely to go wavy. He also said that excess moisture will break down the resins in the cellulose media that gives it structural rigidity and that can cause the media to collapse. I doubt that's much of a factor in my case.
In any case, this has been enlightening for me. Enough so that I researched the oversized units for the Honda. Researched the PL14610 size (about a half-inch taller), then looked at cross referencing in the cost effective full syn filters and came up with the Fram Ultra XG7313 and the PSL14610. There are others, of course, but both these two are on shelves and at about $9. I think both are better than the M1-110, which is a syn blend media that's priced at about $12. RP's 10-2867 is a great filter, but no better thatn the PSL or the Ultra and is priced out of my market at $15. The D+ is $13.50 and is a syn blend media. Didn't price an Amsoil. Know it's a good fitler but it will be the highest priced of all of them and not all that much better (if at all) than most on this list. Plus I have to pay to get it shipped.
Even with the slight edge the Ultra has in efficiency over the PuroSyn (99%@ 20u vs 25u) I could go with either but I picked up some XG7317s for $7 and that sealed the deal. I now have enough Honda filters on hand for the next 10 years.
Last edited:
- Status
