Recent Particle Counts, lets discuss

[The Critic]

Here are some recent particle counts people have posted:

2005 Toyota 1GR-FE, 11/06
4008 oil miles/19828 engine miles
Amsoil 5w-30, M1 EP Oil Filter, Denso Air Filter

ISO code (2)------15/12
ISO code (3)------15/15/12
>= 2 micron====631
>= 5 micron====233
>= 10 micron===64
>= 15 micron===25
>= 25 micron===5
>= 50 micron===0
>= 100 micron==0

2005 Toyota 3MZ-FE, 5/06
6885 oil miles/14958 engine miles
M1 5w30, M1 Oil Filter

ISO Cleanliness Code 16/13

>=2 micron=1186
>=5 micron=439
>=10 micron=121
>15 micron=47
>=25 micron=11
>=50 micron=1
>=100 micron=0

2003 Toyota 4.7L V8, 2/06
4830 oil mies/20206 engine miles
M1 5w30, Wix Oil filter, K&N Air filter

ISO Code was 16/15/13:
>2mu=883
>5mu=327
>10mu=90
>15mu=35
>25mu=8
>50mu=0
>100mu=0

2005 Toyota 3MZ-FE, 10/05
Castrol Start-Up 5w30, Toyota Oil Filter
3205 oil miles/8075 engine miles

>=2 micron=1565
>=5 micron=580
>=10 micron=160
>=15 micron=62
>=25 micron=14
>=50 micron=1
>=100 Micron=0
ISO cleanliness code 16/13

2004 Prius Hybrid, 9/06
M1 EP 5w30, Toyota Oil Filter
3500 oil miles, 18.5k engine miles
PARTICLE COUNT DATA

2 microns or less = 959
5 microns or less = 355
10 microns or less = 98
15 microns or less = 38
25 microns or less = 9
50 microns or less = 0
100 microns or less = 0
ISO Code = 16/12, “clean”

2005 Civic DX, 10/06
Havoline 5w20, OE Filtech Filter
10k oil miles, 20k engine miles

Particle Count
ISO Code (2) 14/10 clean
NAS 1638 Class 0
ISO Code (3) 14/13/11
>= 2 micron 252
>= 5 micron 93
>= 10 micron 25
>= 15 micron 10
>= 25 micron 2
>= 50 micron 0
>= 100 micron 0

2003 Ford 4.0L V6, 4/06
M1 EP 5w30, MC filter
5015 oil miles, 71397 engine miles

ISO Code (2) 14/11 clean
NAS 1638 Class 0
ISO Code (3) 14/14/11
>= 2 micron 303
>= 5 micron 112
>= 10 micron 31
>= 15 micron 12
>= 25 micron 2
>= 50 micron 0
>= 100 micron 0

2003 G35, 1/05
GC 0w30, M1 oil filter
5k oil mile/15k engine miles

PARTICLE COUNTS

Size of Particle Count

>=2 microns 757
>=5 microns 280
>=10 microns 77
>=15microns 30
>=25microns 7
>=50microns 0
>=100microns 0

2003 G35, 10/05
GC 0w30, M1 Oil Filter
6.5k oil miles, 36.5k engine miles

PARTICLE COUNTS
>=2microns 1060
>=5microns 392
>=10microns 108
>=15microns 42
>=25microns 10
>=50microns 0
>=100microns 0

2003 G35, 4/06
GC 0w30, K&N Oil Filter
4668 miles/50k engine miles

PARTICLE COUNT DATA
2 microns or less = 580
5 microns or less = 215
10 microns or less = 59
15 microns or less = 23
25 microns or less = 5
50 microns or less = 0
100 microns or less = 0

2003 G35, 6/06
GC 0w30, K&N Oil Filter
7100 oil miles, 53k engine miles

PARTICLE COUNT DATA
2 microns or less = 833
5 microns or less = 308
10 microns or less = 85
15 microns or less = 33
25 microns or less = 7
50 microns or less = 0
100 microns or less = 0

So, what conclusions can we draw from this data? Can it be said that the new M1 EP oil filter outperforms the older M1 oil filter? And the K&N oil filter performs equally, if not slightly better than the M1 EP oil filter?

Discuss...

 

[XS650]

I thought I saw a pattern, so did a quick check.

One conclusion I can make from that data is that some, perhaps a lot of it, isn't actual measurements.

If you divide the particle count for >15 into the particle count for >2, the result is very close to 25.2 in nearly every case. Does anyone know which if any of the numbers in thier reports are actual counts and which are dry labbed?

Thanks for putting that data all in one place so the patterns show up.

 

[lindermant]

lol - I was working a similar thread last night (wanted to put all the particle count info on one thread for comparison purposes)! Your thread encompasses most of the data I grabbed before I got bored and gave up

I'll just add one more data point (from my Odyssey):

2004 Honda Odyssey 3.5L V6, 10/06
Havoline 5w20, OE Filtech Filter
5,954k oil miles, 30,016k engine miles

Particle Count
ISO Code (2) 15/11 clean
NAS 1638 Class 0
ISO Code (3) 15/14/12
>= 2 micron 479
>= 5 micron 177
>= 10 micron 49
>= 15 micron 19
>= 25 micron 4
>= 50 micron 0
>= 100 micron 0


I like the #'s from both the Honda Filtech and Motorcraft filters myself...

 

[XS650]

If you multiply the >2 number by the value shown for each >particle count, it comes out essentially identical to Blackstones entire chart.

>2 1.000
>5 0.370
>10 0.102
>15 0.040
>25 0.009
>50 0.000
>100 0.000

Lindermant, here's you results run through the same calculations.

Blackstone My calcs using the above relationship
report and Blackstones >2 number only. Rounded to
nearest whole number
479 479
177 177
49 49
19 19
4 4
0 0
0 0

I got results just as close on an unposted particle count of mine.

Just what is Blackstone actually doing and how much value is it in comparing filters?

 

[The Critic]

I think the given results are valid. If you compare the values for the particles obtained from engines with < 15k miles, they are consistently higher than from those obtained from engines with a higher mileage. My personal theory behind this is that the newer engines are still breaking in, and are shedding off more metal, hence the higher particle count.

 

[XS650]

Quote:

---

I think the given results are valid. If you compare the values for the particles obtained from engines with < 15k miles, they are consistently higher than from those obtained from engines with a higher mileage. My personal theory behind this is that the newer engines are still breaking in, and are shedding off more metal, hence the higher particle count.

---

The results are misleading unless they make a disclaimer in big letters someplace on their order form and report. I didn't recall seeing such a disclaimer on my order form and it isn't on my report. Blackstone needs to fix this. Either do the implied work or be up front about what they actually do.

They are making it look like they are doing a lot more than they actually are. Their test results won't show the differences between filters with different particle profiles.

Some filter types have a sharp cut-off and will pass virtually nothing above a certain particle size and pass like crazy below that limit. A screen type filter would work like that. A more conventional filter doesn't have such a sharp cutoff.

Perhaps they explain how they arrive at those numbers someplace, but I didn't run across it on their website. They aren't doing the particle counts that their data implies. That's not good.

It's like a car company running a 0-60 test on a car and publishing a sheet of performance data for all times from 0 to top speed based only on 0-60 time.

Does anyone know of a UOA company that actually does particle counts for different sized particles?

 

[lindermant]

XS650 - interesting find that all (most?) Blackstone particle counts seem to follow the formula you provided.

I did find this on Blackstone's page:

http://www.blackstone-labs.com/all_about_particle_counts.html

guess we'll have to call 'em to get the scoop (i.e. do they test for each micron range, or just base the numbers off of one micron range based on past experience)

 

[SWHeat]

I find the mathmatical reality of the Blackstone particle counts, including my personal ones both posted and not, disturbing. Surely not every brand of filter will "always" have the same mathmatical trend as demonstrated by XS650. Yet with the particle counts I posted and the ones collected here, the pattern exposed is uncanny. I think an explanation is in order. Just what does $19.50 get you?

 

[SWHeat]

I can't find the particle count I'm looking for with this search function. However, it was one with a bypass filter that had high 2 micron numbers and zero particles for 15 microns and larger. However, here are some links. All of the Blackstone labs particle counts have the same mathmatical "skew" to them...even with bypass filtration. The only one that does not from the links below is of the pre/post filter test by Spicer, but he used another lab.

Particle count with amsoil bypass

Particle count with Frantz bypass

A pre and post bypass filter comparison with another lab

 

[Ericm]

XS650, lindermant, and SWHeat: I'm wondering if the recent post by zardozfromoz on 9/7/06 under "Gas Engine Used Oil Analysis" subject "Valvoline Running In Oil, 3000km, Porsche 968, incl particle count" (8/31/06) may shed some light on this. It seems that only 15 micron particles are measured and the rest extrapolated from the 15 micron particle count. http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/s...e=10#Post255829

 

[SWHeat]

Quote:

---

XS650, lindermant, and SWHeat: I'm wondering if the recent post by zardozfromoz on 9/7/06 under "Gas Engine Used Oil Analysis" subject "Valvoline Running In Oil, 3000km, Porsche 968, incl particle count" (8/31/06) may shed some light on this. It seems that only 15 micron particles are measured and the rest extrapolated from the 15 micron particle count. http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/s...e=10#Post255829

---

Ericm,

Thank you so very much for the above post. So, basically, all of the particle counts I've been getting are of the 15 micron size only. I guess the comparisons are still valid, but only for one data point. This really puts me in a cursing mood. I should have "results" from a sample sent last Tuesday tomorrow and was recently sent 12 more sample bottles. Their website description of "particle counts" is deceptive: "The number of particles are counted in seven different size ranges (see the sample Particle Count test results below)."

First Mobil 1, now this. It has not been a good month for the "trusting" little guy.

I would not have had a problem with the extrapolation method....if I would have known that is what I was paying for...of course now that I'm educated....I will be doing some "lab shopping." Ugh. Bad news comes in groups of three. What next?

 

[lindermant]

ericm, I think you're on to it:

http://www.blackstone-labs.com/all_about_particle_counts.html
sample data below taken from URL provided above:

Code:

---

Part. >10µ/mL: 68

Grav.: 0.5 mg/L

ISO: 15/12

SAE: 4

NAS (>5µ): 7

Size Distribution

(Hydraulic)

Screen Size 10

>SIZE COUNT

>2µ = 661

>5µ = 244

>10µ = 68

>15µ = 26

>25µ = 6

>50µ = 1

>100µ = 0

---

Looks like they test for 10 micron and then use their formula to get the rest.

***edited - just read zardozfromoz's thread - guess there's no need to call blackstone

does anyone know if all labs that do particle count test use this method? I'd rather have hard numbers than estimates...

 

[bruce381]

numbers to me look way low I use herguth labs and "normal"
>2 micron will be like 10,000 or 20,000 do not know about calibration but Blackstone seems way to clean or low.
bruce

 

[Gary Allan]

http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/s...true#Post605705

Well whomever did msparks PC didn't do any calc based on >15um

 

[SWHeat]

That is the one I was thinking of....good to have you back Gary. It has been a little quiet around here the past few days.

 

[The Critic]

I'm really "The Critic," am I, for stirring up the pot?

 

[Ericm]

lindermant, good call on the "screen size". Maybe they use 10u for hydraulic and 15u for engine oil...?
Regarding which labs use this pore blockage method, Butler Cat told me they use a laser type counter. From this example from the VOA Library I haven't noticed a ratio or pattern between the different sizes from Butler Cat lab. Curious what others think.
http://63.240.161.99:8080/bitog/voalibrary/delo-15w40.jpg
P.S. Critic, great topic. Thanks for stirring the pot.

 

[Gary Allan]

I've always seen between a 2.X to 3.X progression as you go smaller. What's funny is that the biggest particles can usually be thrown out of that apparent relationship.