Particle Counts on three filters & one car

[SWHeat]

Here are the particle counts that have been done thus far on a 2000 Chevrolet Prizm (1ZZFE). Two of the three filters are not the stock OEM size, only the K&N was the "correct" or OEM size. Next up is the beloved Wix. I'll be using the 51516 part number as per their website it has the best beta ratio (the three Wix part numbers I considered: 51348, 51516, and 51394). If there is another 3/4-16 threaded Wix oil filter with a better beta ratio than the 51516 that is not too wide (the 51515 is too wide...hits the oil pan) let me know and I'll try that one instead.
Enjoy.

Code:

---

Miles on Oil Filter 4,786 (3-22-06)

***Filters Used***

Air Filter Brand STP (has about 30K)

Oil Filter Brand K&N HP-1003



***Particle Count***

ISO Code (2) 17/14

ISO Code (3) 17/16/14



>2 micron 2146

>5 micron 795

>10 micron 220

>15 micron 85

>25 micron 20

>50 micron 1

>100 micron 0



Miles on Oil Filter 5,589 (7-4-06)

***Filters Used***

Air Filter Brand STP (~5500 miles)

Oil Filter Brand Baldwin B-233



***Particle Count***

ISO Code (2) 19/16

ISO Code (3) 20/19/16





>2 micron 10150

>5 micron 3760

>10 micron 1041

>15 micron 402

>25 micron 96

>50 micron 9

>100 micron 0







Miles on Oil Filter 5,137 (9-19-06)

***Filters Used***

Air Filter Brand STP (~10750 miles)

Oil Filter Brand Purolator PureONE PL10241



***Particle Count***

ISO Code (2) 15/12

ISO Code (3) 16/15/12



>2 micron 782

>5 micron 290

>10 micron 80

>15 micron 31

>25 micron 7

>50 micron 0

>100 micron 0

---

 

[LateArrivalforLSU]

SWHeat,

What company did your particle count?

 

[Gary Allan]

This puts PureOne out in front by a decent margin.

It appears, except for the highest number (most times you're dealing with 1 thru 3) ..the rest fall loosely into a 3-4X relationship as you go smaller.


Quick!! Go get an M1 while they're still $7.99!!

 

[Pablo]

Why does the Baldwin appear to filter so chrappy???

 

[deven]

Is it okay to assume as well that the pureone is also in the bypass mode less since the particle count is so good??

 

[daman]

I agree, the Baldwin don't look to impressive.

 

[SWHeat]

All three of the particle counts were performed by Blackstone Labs. Comments from Blackstone were as follows: K&N: Clean for an engine oil, Baldwin: fairly clean for an engine oil, PureONE: very clean.

I have no idea why the Baldwin did so poorly. As stated it was not the correct OEM size for the Prizm/Corrolla (of course the PureONE wasn't either). I may try a different Baldwin part number at a later time, or not. I do have a Baldwin B2-HPG filtering my other car's transmission at this time.

I have two of the Mobil1 M-209 sized filters on hand that were purchased on sale a couple of months ago. It should be interesting to see how it compares on this engine.

This is not scientific, but, I have no other way to compare.

I will also run a PureONE of the larger size (PH3600, M-209, FL-400s) at a later date to see how it compares.

The "bigger" picture can be had at the UOA forum. Latest UOA

 

[Ugly3]

deven - no

 

[ekpolk]

It is very interesting data, thanks. Gary, I think you have to confine the conclusions to the narrow circumstances involved. For example, if you look at my G35's UOA from last June ( click here), you'll see that while using a K&N oil filter (filtering GC green), I got results very similar to those the Pure One generated here.

Tantalizing, and there are clearly differences between the filters, but there are so many variables that come into play that I'm not sure any of us can accurately discern true quality variations between the filter makes.

 

[MarkC]

Gary did a test a while back and sorta concluded that none of the filters he tested went into bypass very often. Correct me, Gary, if I'm mistaken.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:

---

Gary, I think you have to confine the conclusions to the narrow circumstances involved. For example, if you look at my G35's UOA from last June ( click here), you'll see that while using a K&N oil filter (filtering GC green), I got results very similar to those the Pure One generated here.

---

That may not be the case if you use a like sized PureOne. Your engine may or may not have produced anywhere near the same particle ouput as the test engine in this comparison. Your K&N in that size may be of like apparent performance when compared to THIS PureOne on THIS engine.

Your oil velocity through a given filter may be higher or lower and alter the outcome of the PC.

The only variable that I think you can't account for is the production variable where you may have one filter that meets the absolute perfect spec's and another that meets the minimum spec's.



MarkC: In my observations, bypass activity would be very rare under most circumstances. It only came close to happening when the pump was in relief for me. Now loading can surely add to PSID, but without that increasing baseline pressure approaching the bypass level, I just don't see it happening without a pump relief event.

YMMV depending on your oil pumps relief setting. Cold oil doesn't move on a dime. Your bypass valve is there to limit the amount of flow restriction that can occur. Your pump may be spinning its tires for a bit until things get fully in motion. The PSID is the expression of flow potential vs. flow realized. As those two (pump output and realized flow) approach unity, the differential evaporates ..regardless of viscosity. Your static PSID across your filter (very little) will vary based on velocity increase that occurs at a given viscosity. 2PSID may be reduced to .2PSID when warm - the flow is identical (from our limited view and not accounting for any losses - i.e. for all practical purposes) ..while 6 PSID may decay to 2PSID due to loading.

 

[XS650]

You do all realize that oil velocity through a filter element is on the order of 1 ft/minute? About the speed of a racing snail.

 

[Nebraskan]

I have to wonder, on Particle Count, that if one is not EXTREMELY careful, you will invoke more particle count than what is actually there. When you are talking in the 2µ, 5µ, 10µ, 15µ, 25µ range, it would not take much of a bit of contamination to totally throw the results off. If the oil was not at the same temp from change to change. If the oil sample was taken during the first 2 quarts as opposed to the last 1 quart... if there was a bit of dirt, smudge or such on the drain plug that was there when the oil was started... Since these are all microscopic, even if your hands had dust on them you couldn't see it could make a difference on particle count. If the engine was tilted more one time over the other it might throw off the particle count .. so on and so forth.

Do you get what I'm implying? I'm not saying that the tests are fake, or biased, or anything. I'm just saying that without being in nearly sterile conditions when grabbing samples and maintaining rigorous sampling criteria, you could actually sabotage your own research.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:

---

I have to wonder, on Particle Count, that if one is not EXTREMELY careful, you will invoke more particle count than what is actually there. When you are talking in the 2µ, 5µ, 10µ, 15µ, 25µ range, it would not take much of a bit of contamination to totally throw the results off. If the oil was not at the same temp from change to change. If the oil sample was taken during the first 2 quarts as opposed to the last 1 quart... if there was a bit of dirt, smudge or such on the drain plug that was there when the oil was started... Since these are all microscopic, even if your hands had dust on them you couldn't see it could make a difference on particle count. If the engine was tilted more one time over the other it might throw off the particle count .. so on and so forth.

Do you get what I'm implying? I'm not saying that the tests are fake, or biased, or anything. I'm just saying that without being in nearly sterile conditions when grabbing samples and maintaining rigorous sampling criteria, you could actually sabotage your own research.

---

Well, you have to use some reasonable "lab hygiene" in your sampling technique. I tend to think if you can have UOAs showing single digit wear metals and contaminants ..then you're doing a decent job of protecting the integrity of your samples.

When I see multiple PC results with an almost identical progression in particle count as you go down in size ..it, for some reason, gives me the impression that the test result is valid. I would think that if there was any added contamination ..it would be very difficult to not include a decent amount of larger sized particles.

Just my opinion

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:

---

You do all realize that oil velocity through a filter element is on the order of 1 ft/minute? About the speed of a racing snail.

---

Yes, but not all snails are created equal

 

[XS650]

That's why I specified racing snails.

 

[SWHeat]

Nebraskan,

The only difference between the three "sampling techniques" was that the PureONE was taken from a SureDrain after about a 1/2 quart flow and the sump was not chaged out. All were taken about a 1/2 hour after a full day of driving (I drive around a lot during the day...average 120 miles a day). The drive home can vary from 20-50 miles depending on where I finish up. These samples were all taken after a fully hot engine drive of at least 40 miles. Another oddity with the PureONE sample was that it was taken with the car inclined on two 2x10 boards instead of my standard one. I had no idea the incline could have such a dramatic effect on the particle count.

Anyway, the rest of the samples will be through the SureDrain, on a two board incline, in the same driveway, after "exactly" a 10 minute wait from shutdown, after at least a full quart of flow, and taken in mid stream from a Blackstone Labs container. All will be around 5K miles. Sump may not be dumped as I'll be using GC and I'm shooting for 7500 mile OCI (yes, I'll be dumping the quart back into the sump

)

If you would like....I could rinse out the sample bottle with denatured alchohol followed by two rinses of distilled water and air dried in a sterile room as I have no idea to the cleanliness of the Blackstone Labs sample bottle.

Really, I could. But for my purposes, that might be a bit much. Oh, and my home is far from sterile.

 

[ekpolk]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Gary, I think you have to confine the conclusions to the narrow circumstances involved. For example, if you look at my G35's UOA from last June ( click here), you'll see that while using a K&N oil filter (filtering GC green), I got results very similar to those the Pure One generated here.

---

That may not be the case if you use a like sized PureOne. Your engine may or may not have produced anywhere near the same particle ouput as the test engine in this comparison. Your K&N in that size may be of like apparent performance when compared to THIS PureOne on THIS engine.

Your oil velocity through a given filter may be higher or lower and alter the outcome of the PC.

The only variable that I think you can't account for is the production variable where you may have one filter that meets the absolute perfect spec's and another that meets the minimum spec's.

(...snip...)

---

Gary, looks like we already "semi-agree" about this. The main problem I see with generalizing from one-engine results like this is that even another example of the same engine may produce different results. I theorize that all engines have what one might call a "net rate of oil contamination," which would be pretty much what the name says. Over so many miles and so much time, engine X is going to put so much "stuff," including the particles this test shows, into the oil. Engines of a given design, given similar treatment and circumstances, would probably hover around a farily constant NROC value. Additionally, assuming a filter does not spend an outrageous amount of time in bypass (no indication of that that I can see here), results by filter brand should also be fairly consistent. On the other hand, if an engine, either a particular example or an entire class/design, for whatever reason has a substantially different NROC, would (or could) this not create different looking results in a basic particle count test (assuming NROC is a constant and real-world filters never catch 100% first pass)? And couldn't the NROC of any give engine vary substantially depending upon the circumstances? For example, consider two engines of the same design, one new and just broken in, given frequent O/C, and another dirty, neglected, and operated in very dusty conditions? This is "where I'm coming from" with the "many variables" idea.

 

[ekpolk]

Quote:

---

I have to wonder, on Particle Count, that if one is not EXTREMELY careful, you will invoke more particle count than what is actually there. When you are talking in the 2µ, 5µ, 10µ, 15µ, 25µ range, it would not take much of a bit of contamination to totally throw the results off. If the oil was not at the same temp from change to change. If the oil sample was taken during the first 2 quarts as opposed to the last 1 quart... if there was a bit of dirt, smudge or such on the drain plug that was there when the oil was started... Since these are all microscopic, even if your hands had dust on them you couldn't see it could make a difference on particle count. If the engine was tilted more one time over the other it might throw off the particle count .. so on and so forth.

Do you get what I'm implying? I'm not saying that the tests are fake, or biased, or anything. I'm just saying that without being in nearly sterile conditions when grabbing samples and maintaining rigorous sampling criteria, you could actually sabotage your own research.

---

The same argument might apply as to the whole UOA process, really. The elemental wear results are themselves measured in ppms, which of course, are truly tiny amounts. I sample using a pump that sucks oil up a tube, through the dipstick guide. I draw up three samples, which I discard before keeping the last, hoping to purge any extraneous stuff from the hose or bottle. For those who sample from the oil drain, I'd think there is a much greater risk of a chunk of crud skewing either overall UOA or PC results. You just have to be careful and do the best you can.

 

[SWHeat]

Quote:

---

On the other hand, if an engine, either a particular example or an entire class/design, for whatever reason has a substantially different NROC, would (or could) this not create different looking results in a basic particle count test (assuming NROC is a constant and real-world filters never catch 100% first pass)? And couldn't the NROC of any give engine vary substantially depending upon the circumstances? For example, consider two engines of the same design, one new and just broken in, given frequent O/C, and another dirty, neglected, and operated in very dusty conditions? This is "where I'm coming from" with the "many variables" idea.

---

EK, what you say is true and hence eliminates this "experiment" from anything other than what it is...comparisons on one engine with multiple variables than cannot be controlled. However, after increasing the database over a couple of years...a trend should be able to be seen. I hope.

Until an independent source spends 100K for an apples to apples comparison, with all of the specific variables published...this is all I can do to be "semi" scientific for my personal use. Others can take or leave the data for valid reasoning as you (and Nebraskan) point out.