Synthetic Blend Versus Fully Synthetic Media (Choosing Based on OCI)

[mphilleo]

There's a lot of great threads here about oil filter media types and how they perform, including one by @OVERKILL . I've installed a Baxter spin on oil filter adapter on my 2012 Jeep Wrangler with the Pentastar 3.6 and I've been enjoying it for the benefits it provides.

However, the recommended oil filters for this adapter are both challenging to find or find at a decent price. There are plenty of filters that have the same threads, dimensions, etc, however they are fairly explicit about using a filter that has a 22 PSI bypass rating (WIX 57045, WIX 57502, Mobil1 M1-212 and M1-212A). I can easily get a Purolator One blue (yes, I know about the "tearolator" thing) at my local Menards for less than half the price of these others, or even a Purolator Boss for less. I'd considered the Fram 10575 TG/XG but it only gives a bypass range of 18-26 PSI, which averages to 22, but it isn't 22.

Anyway, the point is, I only put on about 4,000-5,000 miles a year and use Pennzoil Full Synthetic or Platinum and I'm debating whether I can run the Purolator One either twice a year, filter only, or just run it annually since I'm well under the 10,000 recommended mileage limit. The other reason I'm discussing this is filtration efficiency differences between synthetic blend media versus fully synthetic blend media. My understanding is that synthetic blend media is the best of both worlds, for debris across the micron scale, for shorter or regular duration OCIs. Their main drawback being they can see reduced flow or filtration quality sooner as they have less capacity than fully synthetic.

On the flipside, my understanding is that fully synthetic media is more effective for larger micron debris for a longer period of time, but the compromise of the higher flow rate they offer is a tradeoff for filtration of debris on the lower end of the micron range. Am I correct in my grasp on this? If I am, I see a synthetic blend media filter being the best route for my particular application, but I would love to hear your input.

 

[OVERKILL]

There's a lot of great threads here about oil filter media types and how they perform, including one by @OVERKILL . I've installed a Baxter spin on oil filter adapter on my 2012 Jeep Wrangler with the Pentastar 3.6 and I've been enjoying it for the benefits it provides.

However, the recommended oil filters for this adapter are both challenging to find or find at a decent price. There are plenty of filters that have the same threads, dimensions, etc, however they are fairly explicit about using a filter that has a 22 PSI bypass rating (WIX 57045, WIX 57502, Mobil1 M1-212 and M1-212A). I can easily get a Purolator One blue (yes, I know about the "tearolator" thing) at my local Menards for less than half the price of these others, or even a Purolator Boss for less. I'd considered the Fram 10575 TG/XG but it only gives a bypass range of 18-26 PSI, which averages to 22, but it isn't 22.

Anyway, the point is, I only put on about 4,000-5,000 miles a year and use Pennzoil Full Synthetic or Platinum and I'm debating whether I can run the Purolator One either twice a year, filter only, or just run it annually since I'm well under the 10,000 recommended mileage limit. The other reason I'm discussing this is filtration efficiency differences between synthetic blend media versus fully synthetic blend media. My understanding is that synthetic blend media is the best of both worlds, for debris across the micron scale, for shorter or regular duration OCIs. Their main drawback being they can see reduced flow or filtration quality sooner as they have less capacity than fully synthetic.

On the flipside, my understanding is that fully synthetic media is more effective for larger micron debris for a longer period of time, but the compromise of the higher flow rate they offer is a tradeoff for filtration of debris on the lower end of the micron range. Am I correct in my grasp on this? If I am, I see a synthetic blend media filter being the best route for my particular application, but I would love to hear your input.

Synthetic media in commercial applications tends to have the highest efficiency rating. In fact that is one of its benefits along with increased flow and holding capacity. The downside of course is cost. Donaldson has some insanely efficient synthetic media filters while some of the entries in the consumer space, like the WIX XP, are atrocious. So, it depends on who makes it. FRAM has always had a focus on efficiency, which is why the Ultra, in both incarnations, has excellent filtration efficiency. They've cut costs on that can now by transitioning to a blend media, which is less expensive to produce and also doesn't require the wire backing that a synthetic media does. I suspect they are just using the same media found in the ToughGuard with a "topper" to increase holding capacity.

I'd have no reservations running the FRAM XG in your application, the bypass range is fine, none of the bypass valves are going to be dead-on at 22psi, at least FRAM is giving you the range where it will activate.

Change the filter when you change the oil. If that's every 10,000 miles, then that's fine. Some people will run a filter for more than one OCI, but that's not something I'd do in my applications because the HEMI has a tendency to produce a lot of contaminants (as do the GM LSx engines, there's a TSB from AMSOIL on this for their filters).

 

[mphilleo]

Synthetic media in commercial applications tends to have the highest efficiency rating. In fact that is one of its benefits along with increased flow and holding capacity. The downside of course is cost. Donaldson has some insanely efficient synthetic media filters while some of the entries in the consumer space, like the WIX XP, are atrocious. So, it depends on who makes it. FRAM has always had a focus on efficiency, which is why the Ultra, in both incarnations, has excellent filtration efficiency. They've cut costs on that can now by transitioning to a blend media, which is less expensive to produce and also doesn't require the wire backing that a synthetic media does. I suspect they are just using the same media found in the ToughGuard with a "topper" to increase holding capacity.

I'd have no reservations running the FRAM XG in your application, the bypass range is fine, none of the bypass valves are going to be dead-on at 22psi, at least FRAM is giving you the range where it will activate.

Change the filter when you change the oil. If that's every 10,000 miles, then that's fine. Some people will run a filter for more than one OCI, but that's not something I'd do in my applications because the HEMI has a tendency to produce a lot of contaminants (as do the GM LSx engines, there's a TSB from AMSOIL on this for their filters).

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, it was nice getting your input.

You mentioned above that you suspect they're using a synthetic blend media in the Ultra, which would likely be the same media used in the ToughGuard, except with a different dome/topper for additional capacity. Based on that, is there any advantage going with the Ultra over the ToughGuard, at least in my case?

 

[OVERKILL]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, it was nice getting your input.

You mentioned above that you suspect they're using a synthetic blend media in the Ultra, which would likely be the same media used in the ToughGuard, except with a different dome/topper for additional capacity. Based on that, is there any advantage going with the Ultra over the ToughGuard, at least in my case?

Exactly. There's like a "sprayed on" layer of synthetic on top of the base (blend) media in the updated Ultra. That's because cellulose or blend doesn't have the holding capacity of true synthetic depth filtration media. The workaround there is to add a dusting of synthetic to bolster holding capacity. The old Ultra was several layers of synthetic media (you can see my C&P thread) with a wire backing which of course makes it more expensive to produce. Economies of scale apply to using the TG base media as well.

Since you are running 10K intervals, yeah, the TG would be just fine. You wouldn't see an advantage with the "new" Ultra.

 

[ZeeOSix]

There's a lot of great threads here about oil filter media types and how they perform, including one by @OVERKILL . I've installed a Baxter spin on oil filter adapter on my 2012 Jeep Wrangler with the Pentastar 3.6 and I've been enjoying it for the benefits it provides.

However, the recommended oil filters for this adapter are both challenging to find or find at a decent price. There are plenty of filters that have the same threads, dimensions, etc, however they are fairly explicit about using a filter that has a 22 PSI bypass rating (WIX 57045, WIX 57502, Mobil1 M1-212 and M1-212A). I can easily get a Purolator One blue (yes, I know about the "tearolator" thing) at my local Menards for less than half the price of these others, or even a Purolator Boss for less. I'd considered the Fram 10575 TG/XG but it only gives a bypass range of 18-26 PSI, which averages to 22, but it isn't 22.

Anyway, the point is, I only put on about 4,000-5,000 miles a year and use Pennzoil Full Synthetic or Platinum and I'm debating whether I can run the Purolator One either twice a year, filter only, or just run it annually since I'm well under the 10,000 recommended mileage limit.

People get too wrapped up around the filter bypass valve setting. The bypass valve setting has a lot to do with the design of the filter itself. The other factors is the vehicle the filter is used on, with respect to what oil viscosity is used and what the maximum oil volume output of the oil pump is. The thicker the oil used, and the higher the the oil volume going through the filter, then the higher the bypass valve will be set (all other factors being constant, like debris load over OCI use).

Also, you are doing pretty short OCIs of 4K-5K miles, so I'd assume the engine is pretty clean inside so the filter should not load up much with debris and cause the bypass valve to open. As @OVERKILL mentioned, the 18-26 PSI bypass spec on the Fram TG and XG 10575 is a range. The average is 22 PSI, so IMO it meets the "22 PSI" suggestion by the filter adapter maker.

The other reason I'm discussing this is filtration efficiency differences between synthetic blend media versus fully synthetic blend media. My understanding is that synthetic blend media is the best of both worlds, for debris across the micron scale, for shorter or regular duration OCIs. Their main drawback being they can see reduced flow or filtration quality sooner as they have less capacity than fully synthetic.

It really depends on the media design. For instance, the Purolator PureOne is very efficient and it also a good holding capacity and it flows well. One way that is achieved is the use of a lot of media area, which is another factor in the filter's holding capacity and flow performance.

On the flipside, my understanding is that fully synthetic media is more effective for larger micron debris for a longer period of time, but the compromise of the higher flow rate they offer is a tradeoff for filtration of debris on the lower end of the micron range. Am I correct in my grasp on this? If I am, I see a synthetic blend media filter being the best route for my particular application, but I would love to hear your input.

Again, it depends on the filter media design. The Fram Ultra for instance (old and new media) is very efficient below 20 microns, where other filters are not as efficient down low. Also, the Purolator PureOne (not a full synthetic media) was/is very efficient below 20 microns.

Go read this thread from this point forward, and if interested read the whole thread from the beginning.

Would you all like to see ISO 4548-12 Oil Filter Lab Testing Comparison, Efficiency & Capacity, Pressure vs Flow, Bubble Point, and Burst?

I have this as a “watched” thread, so if you do happen to start a new one, could you put a note or link in this one to direct followers to the new thread? Thanks!! Yes, no problem I can do that.

bobistheoilguy.com

 

[Schandyman]

For me couldn't make a difference worth noticing. But I do like the taste of a Wendy's burger over McDonald's and BK

 

[mphilleo]

Exactly. There's like a "sprayed on" layer of synthetic on top of the base (blend) media in the updated Ultra. That's because cellulose or blend doesn't have the holding capacity of true synthetic depth filtration media. The workaround there is to add a dusting of synthetic to bolster holding capacity. The old Ultra was several layers of synthetic media (you can see my C&P thread) with a wire backing which of course makes it more expensive to produce. Economies of scale apply to using the TG base media as well.

Since you are running 10K intervals, yeah, the TG would be just fine. You wouldn't see an advantage with the "new" Ultra.

People get too wrapped up around the filter bypass valve setting. The bypass valve setting has a lot to do with the design of the filter itself. The other factors is the vehicle the filter is used on, with respect to what oil viscosity is used and what the maximum oil volume output of the oil pump is. The thicker the oil used, and the higher the the oil volume going through the filter, then the higher the bypass valve will be set (all other factors being constant, like debris load over OCI use).

Also, you are doing pretty short OCIs of 4K-5K miles, so I'd assume the engine is pretty clean inside so the filter should not load up much with debris and cause the bypass valve to open. As @OVERKILL mentioned, the 18-26 PSI bypass spec on the Fram TG and XG 10575 is a range. The average is 22 PSI, so IMO it meets the "22 PSI" suggestion by the filter adapter maker.


It really depends on the media design. For instance, the Purolator PureOne is very efficient and it also a good holding capacity and it flows well. One way that is achieved is the use of a lot of media area, which is another factor in the filter's holding capacity and flow performance.


Again, it depends on the filter media design. The Fram Ultra for instance (old and new media) is very efficient below 20 microns, where other filters are not as efficient down low. Also, the Purolator PureOne (not a full synthetic media) was/is very efficient below 20 microns.

Go read this thread from this point forward, and if interested read the whole thread from the beginning.

Would you all like to see ISO 4548-12 Oil Filter Lab Testing Comparison, Efficiency & Capacity, Pressure vs Flow, Bubble Point, and Burst?

I have this as a “watched” thread, so if you do happen to start a new one, could you put a note or link in this one to direct followers to the new thread? Thanks!! Yes, no problem I can do that.

bobistheoilguy.com

Thanks folks. That link was interesting, @ZeeOSix . It looks like the Ultra media does well in that testing, so based on the correlation/tie in between the Ultra and TG media, the TG would be "enough" or more than enough oil filter for my moderate OCI. I'm guessing with the 5w30 specced for my engine, 18-26 PSI, averaging at 22 PSI, should be just fine.

 

[OLEJOE]

I believe the 57045 bypass rating is 12-15.