Royal Purple oil filter
- Thread starter 4WD
- Start date
- Status
4WD
$50 site donor 2025
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: 4WD
Does it have a solid end cap?
All filters that have a base end bypass valve have a solid end cap on the dome end.
Right, so it does not wash parallel and past the filter element in bypass?
That is not a plus?
Originally Posted By: 4WD
Does it have a solid end cap?
All filters that have a base end bypass valve have a solid end cap on the dome end.
Right, so it does not wash parallel and past the filter element in bypass?
That is not a plus?
Originally Posted By: 4WD
Right, so it does not wash parallel and past the filter element in bypass?
That is not a plus?
Sure it's a plus, except if the filter is vertical base down. Imagine debris that has settled down right on top of the bypass valve area. Then the bypass opens up and that debris gets swept in due to oil flow going through the bypass valve.
I'd never run a filter with a base end bypass valve if the filter is mounted base down.
Right, so it does not wash parallel and past the filter element in bypass?
That is not a plus?
Sure it's a plus, except if the filter is vertical base down. Imagine debris that has settled down right on top of the bypass valve area. Then the bypass opens up and that debris gets swept in due to oil flow going through the bypass valve.
I'd never run a filter with a base end bypass valve if the filter is mounted base down.
4WD
$50 site donor 2025
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: 4WD
Right, so it does not wash parallel and past the filter element in bypass?
That is not a plus?
Sure it's a plus, except if the filter is vertical base down. Imagine debris that has settled down right on top of the bypass valve. Then the bypass opens up and that debris gets swept in due to oil flow going through the bypass valve.
I'd never run a filter with a base end bypass valve if the filter is mounted base down.
Ok… base is up (5.3L GM) … but still looking for psi of bypass … Thanks
Originally Posted By: 4WD
Right, so it does not wash parallel and past the filter element in bypass?
That is not a plus?
Sure it's a plus, except if the filter is vertical base down. Imagine debris that has settled down right on top of the bypass valve. Then the bypass opens up and that debris gets swept in due to oil flow going through the bypass valve.
I'd never run a filter with a base end bypass valve if the filter is mounted base down.
Ok… base is up (5.3L GM) … but still looking for psi of bypass … Thanks
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
What part of "catches 80% at 10 microns and larger" don't you understand? - serious question.
Anything to say about what I asked? Or is it the same attack the questioner method? I already was clear, shouldn't have to repeat it.
Example:
A filter has a 10 gram capacity. The 4 hour test puts 10 g test dust in the filter, each hour 1/4 I believe is how they do it, and they measure the efficiency.
Now do the same test with the same lab machine but put the 10g of dust over 8 hours,16,32,64,128,256 hours. 240 hours represents appx an oci in real life. The dust will circulate appx 60 times more than the 4 hour test.
Explain how the 240 hours of filter circulations is the same as 4 hours. Oil filtering for 10 days 24/7 versus 4 hours.
Believing 20% of X size particles remain in your oil in real life with an 80% filter is a nice easy button, but wrong. It only applies to the exact 4 hour test and nothing else.
What part of "catches 80% at 10 microns and larger" don't you understand? - serious question.
Example:
A filter has a 10 gram capacity. The 4 hour test puts 10 g test dust in the filter, each hour 1/4 I believe is how they do it, and they measure the efficiency.
Now do the same test with the same lab machine but put the 10g of dust over 8 hours,16,32,64,128,256 hours. 240 hours represents appx an oci in real life. The dust will circulate appx 60 times more than the 4 hour test.
Explain how the 240 hours of filter circulations is the same as 4 hours. Oil filtering for 10 days 24/7 versus 4 hours.
Believing 20% of X size particles remain in your oil in real life with an 80% filter is a nice easy button, but wrong. It only applies to the exact 4 hour test and nothing else.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Believing 20% of X size particles remain in your oil in real life with an 80% filter is a nice easy button, but wrong. It only applies to the exact 4 hour test and nothing else.
You need to understand how the ISO efficiency test is ran. You are really stuck on this stuff.
You continually claim the ISO test is flawed because it doesn't represent "real life" efficiency. It's not intended to, but as I've posted many times there is the SAE Bus Study that clearly shows filters that tested best in the lab also tested best in real world use, and kept the oil cleaner, which resulted in less engine wear.
I challenge you again to go link up a valid technical source that shows through controlled experimentation that filter efficiency makes no difference in the cleanliness of the oil. Don't keep posting how you think how it should work - back up your claim with valid information.
As I said earlier, once again this has gone very tangential from your original comments.
Believing 20% of X size particles remain in your oil in real life with an 80% filter is a nice easy button, but wrong. It only applies to the exact 4 hour test and nothing else.
You need to understand how the ISO efficiency test is ran. You are really stuck on this stuff.
You continually claim the ISO test is flawed because it doesn't represent "real life" efficiency. It's not intended to, but as I've posted many times there is the SAE Bus Study that clearly shows filters that tested best in the lab also tested best in real world use, and kept the oil cleaner, which resulted in less engine wear.
I challenge you again to go link up a valid technical source that shows through controlled experimentation that filter efficiency makes no difference in the cleanliness of the oil. Don't keep posting how you think how it should work - back up your claim with valid information.
As I said earlier, once again this has gone very tangential from your original comments.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Believing 20% of X size particles remain in your oil in real life with an 80% filter is a nice easy button, but wrong. It only applies to the exact 4 hour test and nothing else.
You need to understand how the ISO efficiency test is ran. You are really stuck on this stuff.
You continually claim the ISO test is flawed because it doesn't represent "real life" efficiency. It's not intended to, but as I've posted many times there is the SAE Bus Study that clearly shows filters that tested best in the lab also tested best in real world use, and kept the oil cleaner, which resulted in less engine wear.
I challenge you again to go link up a valid technical source that shows through controlled experimentation that filter efficiency makes no difference in the cleanliness of the oil. Don't keep posting how you think how it should work - back up your claim with valid information.
As I said earlier, once again this has gone very tangential from your original comments.
Still no answer. No one is saying filter efficiency makes no difference. Filter efficiency doesn't mean only the multi pass test. When you come up with something to explain my question, post it.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Believing 20% of X size particles remain in your oil in real life with an 80% filter is a nice easy button, but wrong. It only applies to the exact 4 hour test and nothing else.
You need to understand how the ISO efficiency test is ran. You are really stuck on this stuff.
You continually claim the ISO test is flawed because it doesn't represent "real life" efficiency. It's not intended to, but as I've posted many times there is the SAE Bus Study that clearly shows filters that tested best in the lab also tested best in real world use, and kept the oil cleaner, which resulted in less engine wear.
I challenge you again to go link up a valid technical source that shows through controlled experimentation that filter efficiency makes no difference in the cleanliness of the oil. Don't keep posting how you think how it should work - back up your claim with valid information.
As I said earlier, once again this has gone very tangential from your original comments.
Still no answer. No one is saying filter efficiency makes no difference. Filter efficiency doesn't mean only the multi pass test. When you come up with something to explain my question, post it.
When you can post official data that proves the ISO test is invalid to rate comparative filtering performance to real world use (something official that counters the Bus Study), then post it. You're just trolling now with the subject matter and going in circles (usual MO), but never post anything official (SAE study or equivalent) to backup your claims that a filter that rates low in the ISO test will perform just as good or better in real use than more efficient filters tested in the lab - that's always been your theory, and the underlying troll point in this discussion.
Again, the ISO test is not meant to 100% simulate real use, so unlatch from that and understand that a filter that rates high in ISO efficiency is going to perform better in real use than a filter that rates low in ISO efficiency.
Don't Stop Believing - Journey, 1981.
Again, the ISO test is not meant to 100% simulate real use, so unlatch from that and understand that a filter that rates high in ISO efficiency is going to perform better in real use than a filter that rates low in ISO efficiency.
Don't Stop Believing - Journey, 1981.
4WD
$50 site donor 2025
Please reply to the correct member … I still can’t find the PRV setting, so will search Amsoil after my flight …
Thanks …
Thanks …
Originally Posted By: 4WD
Please reply to the correct member … I still can’t find the PRV setting, so will search Amsoil after my flight …
Thanks …
The Fram equivalent (PH10575) shows 9-15 PSI, but you'll likely have to call or email RP to get an exact answer, the filter section of RP's website really doesn't have much info.
Please reply to the correct member … I still can’t find the PRV setting, so will search Amsoil after my flight …
Thanks …
The Fram equivalent (PH10575) shows 9-15 PSI, but you'll likely have to call or email RP to get an exact answer, the filter section of RP's website really doesn't have much info.
4WD
$50 site donor 2025
Originally Posted By: bullwinkle
Originally Posted By: 4WD
Please reply to the correct member … I still can’t find the PRV setting, so will search Amsoil after my flight …
Thanks …
The Fram equivalent (PH10575) shows 9-15 PSI, but you'll likely have to call or email RP to get an exact answer, the filter section of RP's website really doesn't have much info.
The XG10575 has been my most common filter for the last few years. (Base upward). However, on new engine that calls for higher bypass psi … It is hard to find a good 10k - 15k filter … so perhaps having a bypass on top is better than flushing some larger debris off the media (when bypass is on bottom like Fram)
Originally Posted By: 4WD
Please reply to the correct member … I still can’t find the PRV setting, so will search Amsoil after my flight …
Thanks …
The Fram equivalent (PH10575) shows 9-15 PSI, but you'll likely have to call or email RP to get an exact answer, the filter section of RP's website really doesn't have much info.
The XG10575 has been my most common filter for the last few years. (Base upward). However, on new engine that calls for higher bypass psi … It is hard to find a good 10k - 15k filter … so perhaps having a bypass on top is better than flushing some larger debris off the media (when bypass is on bottom like Fram)
4WD
$50 site donor 2025
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Did you try contacting Royal Purple customer service? If they don't know the bypass valve setting of their filters, then who does?
No, just got back from overseas and ordered one … will run two 7k OCI’s on the 20-500 which is what the OLM lets me run …
Then cut it open …
Did you try contacting Royal Purple customer service? If they don't know the bypass valve setting of their filters, then who does?
No, just got back from overseas and ordered one … will run two 7k OCI’s on the 20-500 which is what the OLM lets me run …
Then cut it open …
Patman
Staff member
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Did you try contacting Royal Purple customer service? If they don't know the bypass valve setting of their filters, then who does?
Royal Purple's customer service is quick at responding, I sent them an email yesterday afternoon and received a response this morning. I asked them about the bypass valve setting on their 10-48 filter, which is the PF64 equivalent. This is their reply to me:
Quote:
Oil filter bypass valves are almost never listed as one set psi, they are listed as a range of psi.
The bypass valve psi range for the Royal Purple filter #10-48 is 11 to 17 psi.
If you have room for a longer filter that is 4.45” long but otherwise is the same dimensions, Royal Purple extended life synthetic oil filter (part #20-500) has a bypass range of 18 to 22 psi, and is also used in a good number of other GM engines currently. The 10-48 is 3.40” long.
Did you try contacting Royal Purple customer service? If they don't know the bypass valve setting of their filters, then who does?
Royal Purple's customer service is quick at responding, I sent them an email yesterday afternoon and received a response this morning. I asked them about the bypass valve setting on their 10-48 filter, which is the PF64 equivalent. This is their reply to me:
Quote:
Oil filter bypass valves are almost never listed as one set psi, they are listed as a range of psi.
The bypass valve psi range for the Royal Purple filter #10-48 is 11 to 17 psi.
If you have room for a longer filter that is 4.45” long but otherwise is the same dimensions, Royal Purple extended life synthetic oil filter (part #20-500) has a bypass range of 18 to 22 psi, and is also used in a good number of other GM engines currently. The 10-48 is 3.40” long.
4WD
$50 site donor 2025
Originally Posted By: Patman
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Did you try contacting Royal Purple customer service? If they don't know the bypass valve setting of their filters, then who does?
Royal Purple's customer service is quick at responding, I sent them an email yesterday afternoon and received a response this morning. I asked them about the bypass valve setting on their 10-48 filter, which is the PF64 equivalent. This is their reply to me:
Quote:
Oil filter bypass valves are almost never listed as one set psi, they are listed as a range of psi.
The bypass valve psi range for the Royal Purple filter #10-48 is 11 to 17 psi.
If you have room for a longer filter that is 4.45” long but otherwise is the same dimensions, Royal Purple extended life synthetic oil filter (part #20-500) has a bypass range of 18 to 22 psi, and is also used in a good number of other GM engines currently. The 10-48 is 3.40” long.
Thanks for that … I’m holding one RP 20-500 and looks like I can run (PRV upward) on my 5.3L eco3 …
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Did you try contacting Royal Purple customer service? If they don't know the bypass valve setting of their filters, then who does?
Royal Purple's customer service is quick at responding, I sent them an email yesterday afternoon and received a response this morning. I asked them about the bypass valve setting on their 10-48 filter, which is the PF64 equivalent. This is their reply to me:
Quote:
Oil filter bypass valves are almost never listed as one set psi, they are listed as a range of psi.
The bypass valve psi range for the Royal Purple filter #10-48 is 11 to 17 psi.
If you have room for a longer filter that is 4.45” long but otherwise is the same dimensions, Royal Purple extended life synthetic oil filter (part #20-500) has a bypass range of 18 to 22 psi, and is also used in a good number of other GM engines currently. The 10-48 is 3.40” long.
Thanks for that … I’m holding one RP 20-500 and looks like I can run (PRV upward) on my 5.3L eco3 …
- Status
