Each filter's element was carefully examined.
1. I measured pleat depth using a tread depth gauge (not surprising given that I'm a tire dealer).
2. I measured the width of each element using a ruler.
3. I determined the area of each element by multiplying the number of pleats by 2 (since each pleat has two sides) by the depth of the pleats and then by the width of the element.
4. Many elements use a metal clamp to fasten each end of the element into a cylinder shape; this eliminates one pleat from being useful for filtering, and thus, I did not count that pleat. Similarly, the remaining filters used glue to fasten each end of the element, thus one pleat in these type element was glued together, thus rendering that pleat useless for filtering, and this pleat was not counted. It was assumed that if the element did not have a metal clamp, it had a glued-together pleat.
5. On the elements with metal endcaps (all but the Fram), the endcap wraps around and obscures a portion of the element, minimizing or eliminating oil flow in that area of the element, I assumed. Thus, I measured the width of the element from the open edges of the endcaps, only counting unobscured media. Here, the Fram's fiberboard endcaps give it an advantage, since the only obstruction at the edges of the element is a where a minimal amount of adhesive was absorbed by the element, where it is glued to the fiberboard endcaps.
6. All elements utilize some form of adhesive to attach the media to the endcaps. Another possible advantage of the Fram design (fiberboard endcaps) is that less adhesive is apparently needed (based upon my observations) to fasten its media to its endcaps, thus freeing more of the element to filter. The other designs (metal endcaps) require more adhesive and more is absorbed into the edges of the elements, diminishing filtering area. This diminishment adds up.
Here are the results, ranked from most filtering area to least:
[ August 26, 2005, 11:00 PM: Message edited by: 59 Vetteman ]
1. I measured pleat depth using a tread depth gauge (not surprising given that I'm a tire dealer).
2. I measured the width of each element using a ruler.
3. I determined the area of each element by multiplying the number of pleats by 2 (since each pleat has two sides) by the depth of the pleats and then by the width of the element.
4. Many elements use a metal clamp to fasten each end of the element into a cylinder shape; this eliminates one pleat from being useful for filtering, and thus, I did not count that pleat. Similarly, the remaining filters used glue to fasten each end of the element, thus one pleat in these type element was glued together, thus rendering that pleat useless for filtering, and this pleat was not counted. It was assumed that if the element did not have a metal clamp, it had a glued-together pleat.
5. On the elements with metal endcaps (all but the Fram), the endcap wraps around and obscures a portion of the element, minimizing or eliminating oil flow in that area of the element, I assumed. Thus, I measured the width of the element from the open edges of the endcaps, only counting unobscured media. Here, the Fram's fiberboard endcaps give it an advantage, since the only obstruction at the edges of the element is a where a minimal amount of adhesive was absorbed by the element, where it is glued to the fiberboard endcaps.
6. All elements utilize some form of adhesive to attach the media to the endcaps. Another possible advantage of the Fram design (fiberboard endcaps) is that less adhesive is apparently needed (based upon my observations) to fasten its media to its endcaps, thus freeing more of the element to filter. The other designs (metal endcaps) require more adhesive and more is absorbed into the edges of the elements, diminishing filtering area. This diminishment adds up.
Here are the results, ranked from most filtering area to least:
[ August 26, 2005, 11:00 PM: Message edited by: 59 Vetteman ]
