Particle count testing of various oil filters

[ltslimjim]

Okay, is this the same oil change interval with 2 different filters or two different OCIs all together? I'd be curious to see a reversal of use. Use the OEM for instance, and then follow up with a run on the M1 EP again. Just a thought.

I do agree that you'd probably see more variations in PC testing in short trip analysis/experiments compared to longer highway runs.

PS: I can't wait to see a PC on the RP, it's the filter spec'd for my app!

 

[glum]

I'm confused by the question. I used the same type of oil each time. The first time, I sampled after 2,500 miles, and changed the oil/filter at the same time. The second time, I sampled after 2,700 miles but didn't change the oil/filter immediately. However, today, ~250 miles later (i.e. 250 miles after the initial 2,700), I've changed the oil/filter again.

I may run the OEM filter again, but given this showing, I'm not really eager to. The RP is on there now, and in ~2,500 miles, I'll send it in. Then I'll go back to M1EP and run that sucker and test it again. Can't say for sure but from here on out it'll probably be mostly short-tripping.

 

[ltslimjim]

Okay, I misunderstood is all. I'd definitely use aftermarket, then, IMO. Just make sure the start-up engine noise is never a problem.

 

[FZ1]

Big Fan of your testing,BT. What I observed from your filter testing was that,no matter which filter you ran,the engine wear metals seemed unaffected. I concluded that many filters can produce similar results re engine wear metals. What' your opinion?

 

[glum]

As promised--and yes, after all this time--I'm providing the results of the PC test I had done on the oil used along with a Royal Purple 10-2808 filter. It really did take all this time to accumulate enough mileage. I short-tripped exclusively, which I expect is harder on the oil and the filter.

I went 2,600 miles this time, because for the two aforementioned PC tests, I went 2,500 and 2,700 miles, so I figured I'd split the difference. Having the oil in use all this time has been driving me nuts, because I subscribe to the notion that short-tripping necessitates performing an OC by time, not by mileage. I really should have changed it back in November--about three full months ago.

The FilterMag was in place, exactly as before. The oil used was Valvoline SynPower 5W-30 (SN). As I mentiond in a previous post, I tried to find SM SynPower, but could not.

The results:

Royal Purple 10-2808

Mileage on oil at time of testing: 2,600 miles

ISO Code (3): 18/17/15

>= 2 Micron: 3535
>= 5 Micron: 1309
>= 10 Micron: 362
>= 15 Micron: 140
>= 25 Micron: 33
>= 50 Micron: 3
>= 100 Micron: 0

The results speak for themselves. I will not be purchasing any more RP filters. I remember some other PC tests posted by another forum member which indicated that the RP filter produced lackluster results. I didn't believe it then; now, I do. I'm a bit disappointed.

I have no plans to perform more PC tests. Also, my recent absence has been entirely due to my own choice. I expect this to be my last post on this forum, and I don't plan to check for replies. (I don't mean that in any dismissive or otherwise offensive way whatsoever.)

The test results shown for this test are taken from an email sent by Blackstone Labs. I will only post again if the hard copy report I get in the postal mail disagrees with this data, which would indicate that they made a typographical error. (The first two sets of results have been checked against their respective hard copies already.)

I hope this has been helpful.

Thank you.

Goodbye.

 

[BeerCan]

Aw man. I just purchased some RP filters. I am sure it is not the end of the world, but it shows you how slick marketing works.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Nice experiment. Has anyone done something similar with the PureOne to see how it compares?

 

[Pablo]

Thanks.

I STILL contend Blackstone's counts are not repeatable and reproducible - or just plain are not that accurate.

 

[ltslimjim]

Didn't Jim Allen post some particle counts using various oil filters?

 

[subiedriver]

I'm glad I've been running M1 filters on my Suby and based on these results, I'll continue too! I'm sure the P1 would have had good results, I've used a few of those too.

 

[ltslimjim]

^IIRC, Jim Allen's findings were the more expensive filters did seem to make somewhat of a difference on cleanliness codes/insols, etc. for HIS app. Each car/engine can vary. Even this engine might look better on a 2nd consecutive run with that filter, just a thought. Not necessarily conclusive, which is why JA's long-drawn-out documentation was so cool. I think RP, M1, and Amsoil all did well in the end, also a P1 may have done about as good as well. One Amsoil filter run was sorta 'meh', but a subsequent use/different Amsoil filter had different results.

 

[Sayjac]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
Thanks.

I STILL contend Blackstone's counts are not repeatable and reproducible - or just plain are not that accurate.

+1 I too have my doubts about the reliability of Blst particle count tests. In other words, if I used RP filters I wouldn't let these results dissuade me from further use. JMO

 

[Jim Allen]

Blackstone uses a valid and useful method but it's more accurately called "contaminant analysis" rather than a "particle count." It's called the pore blockage method and was mostly designed to be used when an oil is too dirty (opaque, as with sooty diesel oil) to use an optical particle count, or as a quick "on the line" method. It's industry standard stuff.

It runs a measured amount of the oil thru a screened orifice (10 or 15 micron screens at Blackstone) and measures the restriction of the materials caught in the screens. A computer program calculates the likely spread of contaminant sizes [censored] uses a Rockwell Automation Digital Contam-Alert particle counter, if you want to look it up and see how it works... it's a commonly found lab tool and Blackstone isn't the only company that uses them.

Pore blockage is a viable method to measure contamination and for comparing two filters apples to apples as glum did. The actual particle counts can be subject to some debate because the spread comes from a computer model rather than actual counts but when I have had the same oil tested both by pore blockage and an actual optical particle count, the counts of the various sizes are different but the ISO codes were the same or very close and that's "in the ballpark" enough to evaluate a couple of filters in the way glum did it. If you need a finer measurement or want to debate 472 counts @ 2u vs 526, then you need an optical count. Optical counts often cost a bit more than pore blockage, but it also often depends on the age and quality of the counter a particular company is trying to pay off ( : < ).

Testing the efficacy of my new bypass system, I recently had some stuff done on a SpectroLNF Q200 optical counter and it even gives you representative pictures of the particles, sorts them by a Wear Map (sliding, sever sliding, fatigue, non-mettalic, etc.). Pretty whiz-bang. Pretty accurate. Pretty expensive. It's a three page printout.

Anybody that wants to find an SAE paper can go to SAE.org. Just about every one ever written from day-one is there and referenced by subject. They are not free to download and they are copyrighted, which is why people who have them don't (or shouldn't) dispense them on the web. If you are interested enough, you will pay the $20 bucks and download your paper.

If you look at glum's results, you see a significant difference in performance between the two results. You can see the Hyundai filter is probably around 20-25u absolute because that's where the numbers start to go up. You can see the M1 is around 15-20u absolute. I'd factor in cost difference but based on performance, the M1 is the clear winner. Restriction isn't much of a factor at this level, IMO. The finer filter may have a higher bypass pressure to account for a higher DeltaP and/or more filter area. The difference really isn't huge but the M-1 does a much better job in that critical 10-15u range.

The Magnefilter might skew the tests a little but you did the right thing leaving it on for both tests, glum. I tested a Magnefilter for efficacy and got inconclusive results. Not much change in before and after particle counts (actual particle counts). The only way to test it farther is the get ferrographic tests done, where they measure the actual iron in the oil, but that's REAL expensive. Decided it wasn't worth it. I have them on a couple of tractors and think the benefit would be with engines that naturally shed a lot of iron or in long OCIs where the iron tends to go up faster than you'd like.

The other thing I learned in tests is that the spectrographic metals tests on a UOA will not change a lot even if the particle counts do...except in certain circumstances where a high particle count is causing a lot of wear.

It's becoming clearer to me that, within a certain range of contamination (amount and size), very little extra wear occurs that's directly related to the contamination. There's a balance point where that changes for the worse and I think that balance point is where the engineers designed cost-effective filtration systems and maintenance intervals.

That's not to say that getting the oil cleaner than this balance point (wherever it is) isn't beneficial, just that the benefits are not as dramatic short term (hopefully this thought is clear) as getting below that negative part of the balance point.

My motivation in improved filtration is to be able to extend the OCI. Cleaner oil lasts longer. The benefits in engine wear are not dramatic and occur way down the road (500K miles vs 350K all other things being equal). I've been sorting through a lot of published data on oil life vs filtration, but in the bypass realms anyway, having bypass filtration adds 3-5 times the TBN retention (therefore 3-5 times the life) to the oil. It's hard to get a real number but there are white papers (SAE and otherwise) on the subject that are more objective than those from companies with product to sell.

I wouldn't be surprised that better primary filtration didn't add to oil life as well. Would be some interesting tests to run anyway but I doubt the results would be dramatic.

 

[bbhero]

Interesting information here about a companion between a Mobil 1 and Hyundai oil filter with a PC... Which one is better?? Seems pretty obvious. Though the Hyundai oil filter is not totally all that bad either.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by bbhero
Interesting information here about a companion between a Mobil 1 and Hyundai oil filter with a PC... Which one is better?? Seems pretty obvious. Though the Hyundai oil filter is not totally all that bad either.


Both of those PCs seem too good to believe. Method of UO sampling could have skewed them to be much better than expected. Ptetty short runs on the oil with a Filtermag (might have helped some), plus doesn't say what vehicle it was on or miles one the engine. These PCs are better than what a typical full blown bypass filtering system would give.

 

[bbhero]

Still it was interesting that the M 1 did even better than the other... All other aspects placed aside... Cleaner oil does matter or is helpful...

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by bbhero
Still it was interesting that the M 1 did even better than the other... All other aspects placed aside... Cleaner oil does matter or is helpful...


Yep, I'd expect the M1 to do better than an OEM. If all variables were between the rwo were constant, then makes sense the M1 was better.

 

[Talent_Keyhole]

Originally Posted by glum
I'm confused by the question. I used the same type of oil each time. The first time, I sampled after 2,500 miles, and changed the oil/filter at the same time. The second time, I sampled after 2,700 miles but didn't change the oil/filter immediately. However, today, ~250 miles later (i.e. 250 miles after the initial 2,700), I've changed the oil/filter again.

I may run the OEM filter again, but given this showing, I'm not really eager to. The RP is on there now, and in ~2,500 miles, I'll send it in. Then I'll go back to M1EP and run that sucker and test it again. Can't say for sure but from here on out it'll probably be mostly short-tripping.


I just posted a thread on VOA's comparing quart container with oil from bulk storage at a dealership. The same oil but handled and distributed quite differently. The bulk storage fluid was 32x more contaiminated.

Did you consider fluid mixing in your filter performance. 10-20% can remain. I sampled the above bulk storage oil after running my engine at 2k rpm for 15 minutes, The increase in particle count was extremely high, and wear metals was present in significant numbers, and a decrease in TBN after only a few minutes.

 

[Talent_Keyhole]

Originally Posted by glum
I'm confused by the question. I used the same type of oil each time. The first time, I sampled after 2,500 miles, and changed the oil/filter at the same time. The second time, I sampled after 2,700 miles but didn't change the oil/filter immediately. However, today, ~250 miles later (i.e. 250 miles after the initial 2,700), I've changed the oil/filter again.

I may run the OEM filter again, but given this showing, I'm not really eager to. The RP is on there now, and in ~2,500 miles, I'll send it in. Then I'll go back to M1EP and run that sucker and test it again. Can't say for sure but from here on out it'll probably be mostly short-tripping.


I just posted a thread on VOA's comparing quart container with oil from bulk storage at a dealership. The same oil but handled and distributed quite differently. The bulk storage fluid was 32x more contaiminated.

Did you consider fluid mixing in your filter performance. 10-20% can remain. I sampled the above bulk storage oil after running my engine at 2k rpm for 15 minutes, The increase in particle count was extremely high, and wear metals was present in significant numbers, and a decrease in TBN after only a few minutes.