Particle Count Data Point: PP vs P1

[Ericm]

Another particle count data point.
I ran a Premium plus filter for 4000 miles (with 1.5 qt. make up oil). I pulled an oil sample, then changed to a Pure One filter without adding any new oil. I ran the P1 for 470 more miles and pulled the second sample.
(More Details at end of post.)

Filter....PP........P1

Miles
on
Filter..4000......470

Miles
On Oil..4000.....4470

Make up
Oil.....1.5 qt......none

Particle
Count
>5u....42760......22399
>10u...13959.......1408
>15u....3820........308
>20u....1280........124
>25u.....605.........62
>50u......68..........9
>75u......14..........3
>100u......4..........2

Fe
Debris.....7.........18

ISO.....23/19.......22/15

Particle
Volume....26...........4

Anti
Freeze...Neg........Pos*

Water....Neg........Pos**

Fuel.....Neg........Neg

Elements
PPM
Cu........1......2
Fe........3......4
Cr........0......0
Ni........0......0
Ti........0......0
V.........0......0
Ag........0......0
Sn........0......0
Al........2......3
Si........2......6
Na........4......3
K.........0......0
Mo......109....105
B........98.....99
Ba........0......0
Ca.....1994...1856
Mg........8......5
Mn........2......2
P.......828....769
Sb........0......1
Zn......966....917

Viscosity: 14.0 cSt
Oil type: Chevron Supreme mixture of 5w-30 and 20w-50

* According to Butler Cat Lab the glycol test is extremely sensitive and may be a false positive.
** According to Lab the presence of water was low enough for a particle count to be taken. Water will only skew PC numbers higher.

A laser type particle counter was used. (The lab did not dilute the samples for particle counting).

Vehicle is 1993 Geo Metro XFi. Total mileage at end of test was approx. 265470.
Filters were oversize: Purolator L20195 and PL20195.

Sampling procedure:
The car was driven about 20 miles (about 80% freeway). At end of drive the car was not turned off, but left idling for approx. 5 minutes until sampling equipment was gathered. With the engine running at idle a sample was drawn from dipstick tube.
When the filter was changed I poured as much used oil from the PP filter into the new P1 filter as I could, filling the P1 about half way.

Some possible introduction of errors include the use of sampling tubing which was too flexible (flexible clear vinyl tubing). The tubing was inserted and removed from the dip stick tube several times during the drawing of the first sample. The curl of the tubing and flexibility caused it to only intermittently become submerged in the oil while the first sample was being drawn. Thus a significant amount of bubbles and crankcase air was drawn into the sample bottle. The same method was used on the second sample in an attempt at as much consistency as possible, though I became somewhat more skillful at drawing the second sample. (I plan to use the more rigid polyethylene tubing next time.) Both samples were drawn on windy days, which could have introduced an unknown amount of airborne dust into the samples.

I consider this just one data point which MAY indicate a Pure One filter is more efficient than a Premium Plus in real world conditions. Due to the possiblity of sampling errors, I feel more testing is required to confirm this.
I changed oil (to 20w-50) and left the P1 filter on. I hope to compare the P1 to EaO after next 4000 mi.
Thanks to member 427Z06 for his sampling suggestions on 03/07/07.
Comments?

 

[rn2fine]

Wow !!! Interesting data. The filtration of the P1 is quite impressive based upon the results you have presented. I look forward to the P1 to EaO data.

 

[unDummy]

Yep, Pureone is impressive media.

SWheat also did some filter PC's and Pureone looked excellent.

Too bad the cartridge crushed in the 6i and my Nissans also clattered at idle with the P1 filter. Oil flow is what I'm worrying about. My Toyota runs a +2-oversized pureone which seems to sound OK.

http://www.oilfilterstudy.com/

 

[Titan]

I had an engine that clattered at idle when cold with the P1, too! Running a larger P1 would seem to be a good strategy. Anyway, I switched to Wix, and it's results at 15000 miles are stellar...not oversized, no clatter.

 

[rn2fine]

Quote:

---

Yep, Pureone is impressive media.

SWheat also did some filter PC's and Pureone looked excellent.

Too bad the cartridge crushed in the 6i and my Nissans also clattered at idle with the P1 filter. Oil flow is what I'm worrying about. My Toyota runs a +2-oversized pureone which seems to sound OK.

http://www.oilfilterstudy.com/

---

I have used the Grease data too (www.oilfilterstudy.com). The spreadsheet is awesome. I have been using PP and Baldwins ever since I read the report. PPs flow great and filter well. I am comfortable with the P1 in warmer weather with oil that is not too thick. I like to run HDEO like Delo and Rotella Syn. The Grease report shows a good balance of filtering and flow from the Baldwins and I have used the HPG series several times. The Amsoil SDF filter that Grease tested looked impressive in terms of balance (filter and flow) but the cost has deters me. Many people seem to indicate that the EaO filter flows and filters well. I will wait to see both a particle count and a comparative flow test like what Grease did before plopping dow $15+ for an EaO. The vigin filter pics posted by Big O Dave show that the EaO media looks substantially like a Donaldson synthetic product that was also in the Big O Dave post. Maybe Big O Dave can chime in on this as he appears to have seen both side by side. I wonder if EaO media is Donaldson Synteq media? In the Grease report (only on the linked spreadsheet, no pics) the Syntec media appears to perform similar to other brand name filters, but nothing spectacular. I have not seen Grease around here but I would be willing to throw him some money to add the EaO. I would test one myself but I have no expertise or equipment like Grease. Until then its PPs, Baldwin HPGs, and P1s for me. Again, thanks for the great PP vs P1 data.