Particle Count Comparison, 2/5/06

[The Critic]

code:

---

Date 2/1/06 1/15/06 1/26/05 10/19/05 11/22/05



Year 2003 2003 2004 2004 2002

Make Toyota Ford Infiniti Infiniti Jeep

Model 4Runner Ranger G35 G35 Wrangler

Engine 4.7L V8 4.0L V6 3.5L V6 3.5L V6 2.5L 4-cyl



Miles on Oil 4830 5576 4850 6500 8994

Miles on Unit 20206 61381 14800 36500 50125

Time on Oil 7.5 months 2 months 1 month


Oil Brand Mobil 1 Mobil 1 GC GC Rotella T

Oil Model SuperSyn Ext. Perf. Green Green Synthetic

Oil Weight 5W30 5W30 0W30 0W30 5W40

Ratings API SM API SL API SL API SL API SL



Sump Size 6.5 qts 5.0 qts 5.0 qts 5.0 qts 4.0 qts



Make-Up Oil 0 0 0 0 0



Filter Brand Wix Motorcraft Mobil 1 Mobil 1 Purolator

Filter Model PureOne

Filter Part # 51348 FL-820S M1-110 M1-110 PL14670



Air Filter K&N OEM? OEM OEM? OEM



Fuel Additives Lucas, Techron None LC LC None

Oil Additives None None FP FP None



Conditions Short Trips Hwy Hwy Hwy Short Trips



Aluminum 2 4 1 2 6

Chromium 0 1 0 0 3

Iron 5 12 7 7 74

Copper 1 3 11 6 8

Lead 0 0 2 3 0

Tin 0 0 0 1 0

Molybdenum 61 76 8 1 122

Nickel 0 0 0 0 2

Manganese 0 0 2 1 1

Silver 0 0 0 0 0

Titanium 0 0 0 0 0

Potassium 0 1 1 7 2

Boron 45 175 2 1 4

Silicon 11 10 9 9 19

Sodium 5 8 1 1 9

Calcium 1894 2513 3132 2520 2666

Magnesium 9 19 105 103 125

Phosphorus 517 784 637 635 935

Zinc 576 939 780 789 1234

Barium 0 0 0 0 0



SUS Viscosity 59.4 64.0 62.1 64.2 78.3

Flashpoint 375 405 410 415 345

Fuel
Antifreeze 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Water 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Insolubles 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.4

TBN (D-974) 4.4 4.8 3.8 3.5 2.5



ISO Code (3) 16/15/13 15/14/11 ? ? 17/16/13

ISO Code (2) 16/12 15/11 15/12 16/13 ?

>2microns= 883 404 757 1060 1666

>5microns= 327 149 280 392 617

>10microns= 90 41 77 108 170

>15microns= 35 16 30 42 66

>25microns= 8 3 7 10 15

>50microns= 0 0 0 0 1

>100microns= 0 0 0 0 0

---

I'll start new threads with the latest update(s), as more Particle Counts come in.

 

[vad]

Those reports are from different vehicles.
Useless for the comparison purposes.

 

[Gary Allan]

Well, I dunno bout that, vad (and when I say that - I mean ..I don't know

). The lower particle numbers you can probably throw out. FF filters aren't designed to trap them. But the filters don't care what engine they're on ..they either trap particles or they don't.

For example, if you compare mileages (this may have some holes in it ..maybe not) ..the two M1 filters are almost exactly the same amount of "better" then my PureOne. My PureOne is just a bit higher then both of them.

9000/6500

1.38
10um 149 (170)
15um 58 (66)
25um 14 (15)

9000/4850

1.86

10um 143
15um 56
25um 13

The MotorCraft appears to be the winner here.


The Wix appears comparable to my PureOne.

That is, all the expensive filters just about compare $ for $ in performance. The MotorCraft appears to be doing a better job then any of the higher priced filters at anywhere from about 1/2 to 1/3 the cost.

[ February 06, 2006, 06:57 AM: Message edited by: Gary Allan ]

 

[The Critic]

Ahh...Vad is right! This is comparison is worthless....

The Wix filter was used in an app with a 6.5qt sump, the M1 in a 5qt sump, and PureOne in a 4qt sump. Of course the one with the 6.5qt sump will show the lowest PC count...the particles are being diluted!

Am I on the right track here?

 

[Gary Allan]

Probably ..but think it out and adjust the numbers for sump ..like I did mileage. The process could still mean you're FOS (just as I may be)...but what the heck ..maybe someone will come in ...spank both of us (and explain why).

Consider it paddle bait ..and you're looking for the job of being the guy who says "Thank you very much, sir. Can I have another?"

I'm glad that you pointed that out there...now I'll say that PureOne is just as good as M1 in this comparison.

MC is still the sleeper champion here.

[ February 06, 2006, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: Gary Allan ]

 

[Chimay]

That wix filter cost me about $5.19. and yes it was a 6.5 sump.

 

[Filter guy]

Michael

What is usefull is to compare the numbers on the same engine under ( as near as possible) the same conditions.

I will say that the Wrangler was run to long on the oil because the TBN number is low. Did the lab make note of that on the report?

If memory serves, you don't want to get below 3 on the TBN..

 

[Gary Allan]

Well, let's cipher my mileage figures and then factor sumps ..on a per quart basis (if practical).

I'm using my 9k as a standard since I've already done the mileage that way. The assumption being that all subjects went 9k with 4 quart sumps.


10um-149 x 1.25 (4 to 5) 186
15um 58 ................ 73
25um 14................. 19

For the Wix the mileage/sump composite is 3.02

10um 272
15um 106
25um 24


The MC is at a 2.0 mileage/sump conversion

10um 82
15um 32
36um 6

Winner and still champion (purolator actually)


Mel, I'm sure that there's flaws in this type of cross analysis. But what the heck? As you can see, I've manipulated the numbers to make my PureOne look better then the other filters that I could spank

There was no way for me to make the MC look bad. I guess I could say that it's so far out of whack with the rest of the filters ..that it's an anomaly and should be thrown out

.

Blackstone does the TBN method that puts 1 as the cut off level. My TBN was low ..only due to it's starting point of about 12. Otherwise 2.5 would be fine for any other oil after 13 months of use in a 4 season climate. The short trips killed it. I would think that my next UOA will show TBN of about 5 or more over the same mileage.

 

[The Critic]

FG,
Blackstone considers 1.0 a safe cut-off using their scale.

Blackstone uses a different, ASTM D-974 protocol which will produce readings that are roughly 2pts lower than samples tested using the more common, ASTM D-4739 protocol. Often times, people see a 1 or 2 TBN with a Blackstone report and "flip," when their TBN is actually reading 3-4 when tested through other means.

Of course, TBN is only one factor of the overall equation so it doesn't determine everything; I think Gary's Jeep also had a problem with dirt ingestion as well.

 

[The Critic]

code:

---

Miles on Oil: 5K 5.5K 5K 6.5K 9K

Filter: Wix MC M1 M1 Pureone



>2microns= 1148 404 757 1060 1333

>5microns= 425 149 280 392 494

>10microns= 117 41 77 108 136

>15microns= 45 16 30 42 53

>25microns= 10 3 7 10 12

>50microns= 0 0 0 0 1

>100microns= 0 0 0 0 0

---

I've adjusted the Wix and PureOne figures so that they are comparable to the M1/MC figures w/ a 5qt sump. I don't think its fair to adjust the numbers (for the PureOne) to replicate a 5K interval, as the particles being accumulated may not be linear, and also because the filter becomes more efficient as it ages.

 

[Filter guy]

Then why do Blackstone say this:

A low test result, meaning very little additive is left, is down around 2.

From here:
http://www.blackstone-labs.com/do_i_need_a_tbn_.html

Which is why I said that 3 TBN is the number usually people want to stay above.
-----------------

And from another lab:

Detergent-dispersant oils have a high Base number (TBN). The laboratory analysis of TBN will show you when the oil's active detergent-dispersant levels have dropped to dangerous levels. The condemning limit for TBN is a 50% decrease from the new oil reference. It is wise to apply a (+-)10% accuracy level to this test when using a production laboratory.
http://www.herguth.com/ftir-oil-analysis.htm

[ February 06, 2006, 09:45 PM: Message edited by: Filter guy ]

 

[The Critic]

That tutorial was written back prior to Blackstone's switch to the D-974 testing protocol. At that time, they were using the "Dexil" test strip for testing TBN. The Dexil protocol produces readings about 2 pts higher than their D-974 method. With the Dexil protocol, TBN readings are only given in 0.5 increments (i.e. 1.0, 1.5, 2, 2.5, etc), as you may've noticed w/their examples.

 

[Gary Allan]

Well, I don't dispute your assertion ..it's just that, depending on how the rest of the analysis is written, (if you read the comments) 2.5 will be either "your TBN was 2.5 which shows that additives are still present (paraphrased)" ...or if it's not so good "your TBN was 2.5 ..which means that there was very little additive left" ..it's somewhat nebulous in the details there.

They usually also state in the analysis that 1 would be considered the limit.

Again, I think 3 is a good target number to shoot for. The decay is probably not linear ..so 2.5 to 1 is probably quicker then 12-9

 

[Gary Allan]

I don't think its fair to adjust the numbers (for the PureOne) to replicate a 5K interval, as the particles being accumulated may not be linear, and also because the filter becomes more efficient as it ages.

Naturally.

5k (MI)

280/5k = 56/k

6.5k (M1)

392/6.5k= 60

Can we agree that "the filter becomes more efficient as it ages" isn't necessarily a rule??

 

[Chimay]

Do these particle counts show how good the filter is working, or that some motors just have more wear? How can we really know? Is there a corelation between the insolubles and particle count or particle size?

 

[Winston]

Great Post Michael. I knew someone would say it is "useless". Anyway, you missed a couple PC's I think. There was a Toyota filter, a Trasko, and a Mercedes Fleece filter.

Also, are you trying to pull a fast one? Those numbers you posted under the MC filter were for an M1 EP filter!

Particle count with M1 EP filter

Maybe these PC's do tell you something.

I think the most important thing is to look at the ISO code, not the actual particle count numbers.

The M1 EP filter has the best ISO code. (You have a typo, the ISO code was 14/11, not 15/11.)

I have an oil sample from my 7500 mile OCI with Castrol syntec and a Fram XG sitting on my workbench. Just trying to figure a way to explain the need for a $40 analysis to my wife. Soon.

[ February 10, 2006, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: Winston ]

 

[The Critic]

You're right about the ISO #.

I'll have to have one of the mods correct it. Thanks for pointing this out.

I put in Mobil-1 5W-30 EP this run, but this time there's a Mobil-1 M1-210 EP filter instead of a Motorcraft FL-820S...so, when I change out this mix, I'll ask Blackstone to do another particle count (maybe someone can translate what the heck those numbers even mean?) and we'll see just how much better at filtration the Mobil-1 filter is than the wonderfully inexpensive Motorcraft's.

It is a MC filter; M1 EP filter is currently being used.

Probably did miss a few PCs but will add them to this thread when I get around to it.

 

[Gary Allan]

Very naughty and negligent of you, Michael

Do you know how many unsuspecting members went out and returned M1, PureOne, and Wix filters and then hopped down to Wally World and loaded up on MC???

Good detective work there, Winston.

 

[Filter guy]

What is an ISO cleanliness code?

The ISO 4406 (International Standards Organization) cleanliness level standard. It is based on two range numbers representing 5 & 15 micrometers particle counts per milliliter of sample fluid. The two sizes were selected due to the fact that smaller size was thought to be representative of the fine silt present in the fluid, and the larger size was indicative of the wear contaminants present.


ISO Chart

The cleanliness of your hydraulic fluid is very crucial to the trouble-free and cost-effective operation of your hydraulic system and engine components. The ISO code is a method of measuring oil cleanliness.

The code consists of two numbers, e.g. 18/15. The first number corresponds to the number of particles in the 5 micron range in one millilitre of oil. The second number corresponds to the number of particles in the 15 micron range. The lower the numbers, the cleaner the oil.


You can find the the chart here as I con't know how to paste it in:
http://www.kleenoil.ca/iso.htm

 

[T-Keith]

Seems like way too many factors to make a good comparison. Even saying that there doesn't seem to be too much variation. Making a good comparison with particle counts may be more difficult then it seems. I applaud your effect though.