status: Filter Element Efficiency Study

63Avanti · Oct 14, 2007

status: Filter Element Efficiency Study

Just a quick set of notes, if you have credible data for me, PLEASE send it to me via e-mail, NOT PM.

My current process and conclusions:
1. It is sad that the companies that tout "Beta" the most legitimate method of comparison are the least willing to share it. Try this: "google" both "Beta Ratio" and a filter brand name. Count the hits. Then look for real data. You will be unpleasantly surprised. Counter to this is that those companies that barely mention Beta (or efficiency), e.g. Wix, have Beta Ratios prominently displayed on (nearly) all filter spec sheets. What do the others have to hide?

2. I have decided to remove hydraulic and other non-automotive filters from the study. Belatedly, I discovered that the non-automotive world finds automotive filter efficiencies to be a joke. Adding even one of the non-automotive filters would seriously skew the data, making the auto filters look very bad.

3. For a baseline set of data, I am using the "let us cut apart the filters and look at them" site http://home.mindspring.com/~ed_white/id7.html. It is definitely the best laid out, with the most readily usable data. I think that it also is the most comprehensive.

4. I am attempting to get data from the manufacturers for each of the branded filters in the site above. I will use the rating criteria as stated in that study, adding my findings to come up with a composite. As stated above, some companies respect their customers and provide Beta ratings. However, there are several that tout Beta as the only valid method but do not respect their customers and refuse to release the data.

5. The three factors (and weights) I will use are
a. filter efficiency for particulates < 15 microns, (50%)
b. filter efficiency for particulates >= 15 microns,(25%)
c. the rating from the site above (25%)
yes, I will normalize the data. Therefore, if any filter is tops in all category, it will have a rating of 100.

6. I am giving all companies until 30 October to provide customer-respecting data on Beta for < and >= 15 microns.

7. I do not know if I can "clear" the raw data by the legal staff mentioned in the other thread. If I can, then I will post it, to allow you to crunch your own numbers.

cheers!

Gary Allan · Oct 14, 2007

Quote:

2. Belatedly, I discovered that the non-automotive world finds automotive filter efficiencies to be a joke.

It's not so much a joke as it is what's practical.

The non-automotive world may operate 24/7/365 and isn't in an internal combustion environment. Typically the only thing that they have to deal with is decay/wear relating particles and do so at a radically reduced rate of their automotive counterparts. To adopt like filtration for automotive use would require either changing it out well ahead of the lubricant's end of life, expensive media, or much larger size/capacity.

Automotive filters are designed to last up to the lubricant's potential end of life. Any finer and they would not last to that finish line.

So, $300,000 machinery may get a $95 Beta3=1000 filter serviced every 150-250 hours while a $3-5k mass produced engine may get a Beta30=2 that costs $5 for up to 15,000 miles. One may go up to 25 years in service before rebuild/trade/replacement/upgrade ..the other maybe 10-12 before it's worthless

It's simply a matter of ROI.

63Avanti · Oct 14, 2007

Gary,
excellent response and clarification.

Quote:

Quote:

2. Belatedly, I discovered that the non-automotive world finds automotive filter efficiencies to be a joke.

Click to expand...

It's not so much a joke as it is what's practical.

The non-automotive world may operate 24/7/365 and isn't in an internal combustion environment. Typically the only thing that they have to deal with is decay/wear relating particles and do so at a radically reduced rate of their automotive counterparts. To adopt like filtration for automotive use would require either changing it out well ahead of the lubricant's end of life, expensive media, or much larger size/capacity.

Automotive filters are designed to last up to the lubricant's potential end of life. Any finer and they would not last to that finish line.

So, $300,000 machinery may get a $95 Beta3=1000 filter serviced every 150-250 hours while a $3-5k mass produced engine may get a Beta30=2 that costs $5 for up to 15,000 miles. One may go up to 25 years in service before rebuild/trade/replacement/upgrade ..the other maybe 10-12 before it's worthless

It's simply a matter of ROI.

glenncof · Oct 14, 2007

63A...

Why not add holding capacity (mgrams/sq inch) of the media ?

Pablo · Oct 15, 2007

Dude - check your emails for Amsoil contacts. Not sure if these things make it through your SPAM filter.

Lonnie · Oct 15, 2007

Full flow filter performance/value/roi is a very difficult subject as Pablo points out. We have been working on figuring it out for 20 years and as soon as we have the answer something out there proves the theory to be too simplistic.

I gave up and chose the new Amsoil filter and Terry Dyson said that he agreed that it was an excellent choice and might be the best performing ff filter on the market. So, since it’s my car I can throw out the cost factor. After all it’s my car.

In fleet service we are working out having our own filter made to spec with the buying power of 8653 on and off road vehicles and stationary engines thru seven purchase centers. We have already worked out more universal sizes and eliminated 40% of the part numbers with the hope of trimming 20% more.

Pablo’s comment about filter efficiency is well taken. Make a ff filter too good and it won’t last for the oci. Make the spec too loose and you will never know until it’s too late to adjust the spec.

In our testing we have a device attached to the filter that sends a signal to a receiver to report time and temperatures. We are building maps that tell us how the filter is doing and what the driving cycles show in oil temps. This is actually proving to help more than lab bench work. I’m going to try to get someone to make the device a commercial product at a reasonable price but first I have to build a case for using it and if the information is useful and find out if anyone would buy the thing at any price. The tech heads say it shows nothing because they should do all that analysis and the non tech heads say just change the oil and filter because a new oil and filter change will fix everything.

63Avanti · Oct 16, 2007

Good thought,
but years ago, I customized the spam filter to toss the
"naughty" into a bit bucket. I check the bit bucket periodically,
nope, Amsoil has never responded, unless you count auto-generated non-responses.

Quote:

Dude - check your emails for Amsoil contacts. Not sure if these things make it through your SPAM filter.

Pablo · Oct 17, 2007

Let me try this again - I sent (emailed) you the name and phone # of the Amsoil guy to talk to and get the numbers.

63Avanti · Oct 17, 2007

Quote:

Let me try this again - I sent (emailed) you the name and phone # of the Amsoil guy to talk to and get the numbers.

You did, I got it, a crisis in my (paying) job has forced me to put it off for a couple of days. (and THANKS!) Now, could someone do the same for Mobil 1, PureOne, K&N, FRAM, etc!

63Avanti · Oct 20, 2007

With the exception of the brands that do an excellent job of ignoring the requests for data, I am getting data from companies.

Some basic decisions, still in review, about the in-process paper.
1. It will be formatted like the familiar Consumer Reports style with the ratings going from 5 red to 5 black.
2. It will will have 5 factors scored, price, construction quality (lifted from the URL below), beta (< 15 microns), beta (15 - 30 microns), and a composite of the non-price scores.
3. After looking over the SAE papers on filters and engine wear, I am working on how to weight the score to emphasize efficiency at lower microns.
4. I am leaving to a future person with even more guts than I to score the "useful life" of a filter (how many miles you can leave on the engine), aka "dirt holding capacity". Some of the commercial filters such as Fleetguard, and WIX HD would gain significantly if this were added.
5. Beta is per ISO 4548-12:2000, WITHOUT "modification" or "tailoring".
6. I still feel restrained from releasing raw data, see the other thread, but I will footnote sources for others who wish to see which companies are responsive.
7. Lack of released data will be scored "5 black".
8. I will not provide a separate score of "value for price", as I, so far, do not have a reasonable algorithm that would work for a majority of users. (The construction quality score will not have cost in it)
9. If I see an obvious "best buy", I will mark it.

Thanks to those who e-mailed me direct contacts, they have all been followed up, though without responses as of this date. Many thanks!

Please, keep the direct contact info in e-mails. As I doubt that a day-by-day recital of non-responses is all that interesting, I will no longer respond to questions posted here.

Quote:

status: Filter Element Efficiency Study

Just a quick set of notes, if you have credible data for me, PLEASE send it to me via e-mail, NOT PM.

My current process and conclusions:
1. It is sad that the companies that tout "Beta" the most legitimate method of comparison are the least willing to share it. Try this: "google" both "Beta Ratio" and a filter brand name. Count the hits. Then look for real data. You will be unpleasantly surprised. Counter to this is that those companies that barely mention Beta (or efficiency), e.g. Wix, have Beta Ratios prominently displayed on (nearly) all filter spec sheets. What do the others have to hide?

2. I have decided to remove hydraulic and other non-automotive filters from the study. Belatedly, I discovered that the non-automotive world finds automotive filter efficiencies to be a joke. Adding even one of the non-automotive filters would seriously skew the data, making the auto filters look very bad.

3. For a baseline set of data, I am using the "let us cut apart the filters and look at them" site http://home.mindspring.com/~ed_white/id7.html. It is definitely the best laid out, with the most readily usable data. I think that it also is the most comprehensive.

4. I am attempting to get data from the manufacturers for each of the branded filters in the site above. I will use the rating criteria as stated in that study, adding my findings to come up with a composite. As stated above, some companies respect their customers and provide Beta ratings. However, there are several that tout Beta as the only valid method but do not respect their customers and refuse to release the data.

5. The three factors (and weights) I will use are
a. filter efficiency for particulates < 15 microns, (50%)
b. filter efficiency for particulates >= 15 microns,(25%)
c. the rating from the site above (25%)
yes, I will normalize the data. Therefore, if any filter is tops in all category, it will have a rating of 100.

6. I am giving all companies until 30 October to provide customer-respecting data on Beta for < and >= 15 microns.

7. I do not know if I can "clear" the raw data by the legal staff mentioned in the other thread. If I can, then I will post it, to allow you to crunch your own numbers.

cheers!

status: Filter Element Efficiency Study

Similar threads