BTW, a BITOG member has volunteered to send me an Amsoil SDF24 (PF 1218)oil filter to add to the study (no this isn't an Amsoil dealer, just an individual that has an extra one he's not using and is interested in the results).
Ver 2 Mercruiser / ACPF1218 Oil Filter Study w/ Pore and Flow Data
- Thread starter Grease is the word
- Start date
- Status
You know, that thought about the pureone filtering only 5 ounces per minute crossed my mind too. But, I knew that at correct operating temperature, those numbers would go up astronomically. But the question of flow still comes up. A lot of us are thinking that high flow is best. But what exactly is high flow? I'm sure it's engine dependent. A Honda high flow spec's sure wouldn't be the same for a LS1 engine. Wonder if there was a way we could find out what the engine specs are and then match that with the filter. I wonder if the OEM filters are exactly matched for that particular engine. If you had a filter that flowed more than the OEM, would that be a waste and possible shortening the filter life expectencies? That pureone at 5 ounces a minute, hell, that's about half a beer can per 60 seconds. Now that, sounds pretty low, but look at particle size removal. Wow. With heated oil, I bet that thing would flow like a Banshee and probably out perform any OEM.
I'm just wondering if the higher flow is really all that important and what exactly is considered high flow.
I'm just wondering if the higher flow is really all that important and what exactly is considered high flow.
Flow may be important
maybe thats why Merc flows a lot since most boat engines run wide open all the time 4500 RPM.
My car around town never goes over about 2000 RPM.
Much less flow demand.
I like pure one
maybe thats why Merc flows a lot since most boat engines run wide open all the time 4500 RPM.
My car around town never goes over about 2000 RPM.
Much less flow demand.
I like pure one
also interesting, buried in the report
It’s fairly certain all of the filters would be in bypass mode at start up and most of warm up.
It’s fairly certain all of the filters would be in bypass mode at start up and most of warm up.
The PF1218 relies on the engine to do the bypass since none of these filters have a bypass. I have no idea what that specification is for the engine provided bypass.
The rates for oil flow are all done at 10psi (or 20psi for similar numbers in the report) to keep things simple and even.
If we are talking about 40psi with a hot oil, I don't know if the PureOne is going to be in an issue in a boat at 4800rpm WOT for several minutes. I doubt very seriously that it would be in a car at 2000rpm.
After posting my earlier comment on potentially avoiding PureOnes, I realized I had a brain hiccup in that I misinterpreted your way-cool survey as flow-testing ENTIRE FILTERS, when in fact you were flow-testing small swaths of filter paper. My comment was in error since media flow rates are only relevant when coupled with total media area: A hypothetical PureOne with 1,000 sq in of surface would flow like a fire hydrant AND filter very efficiently.
But ironically, I'm thinking that my earlier faulty comment might actually be correct, that PureOnes might be flow blockers. In short, the RK/Mini-Mopar study from a few years back showed PureOnes as having significantly more total area than other makes, possibly to make up for a more restrictive media. But your new survey shows PureOnes as no longer having this advantage:
RK/MINI-MOPAR SURVEY (several years old)
PureOne: 400 sq in
Fram Extra Guard: 193
AC Delco: 315
STP: 360
Wix: 349
GREASE MERCRUISER SURVEY (new info)
PureOne: 330 sq in
Fram Extra Guard: 183
AC Delco: 326
STP: 326
Wix (long): 305
Your new survey doesn't really reflect PureOne as featuring increased media area over the competition any more. The significance of this is open to interpretation, but I think I'll stick with my earlier, accidental comment: Go with PureOne if they offer you an oversize option (one with more media, and not just a bigger can). If not, make sure to also check out other options, such as the AC, Baldwin, etc..
But ironically, I'm thinking that my earlier faulty comment might actually be correct, that PureOnes might be flow blockers. In short, the RK/Mini-Mopar study from a few years back showed PureOnes as having significantly more total area than other makes, possibly to make up for a more restrictive media. But your new survey shows PureOnes as no longer having this advantage:
RK/MINI-MOPAR SURVEY (several years old)
PureOne: 400 sq in
Fram Extra Guard: 193
AC Delco: 315
STP: 360
Wix: 349
GREASE MERCRUISER SURVEY (new info)
PureOne: 330 sq in
Fram Extra Guard: 183
AC Delco: 326
STP: 326
Wix (long): 305
Your new survey doesn't really reflect PureOne as featuring increased media area over the competition any more. The significance of this is open to interpretation, but I think I'll stick with my earlier, accidental comment: Go with PureOne if they offer you an oversize option (one with more media, and not just a bigger can). If not, make sure to also check out other options, such as the AC, Baldwin, etc..
Yes, we did a sample of the media and then multiplied that by the effective surface area.
Great testing, THANK YOU!
Do you have a chart or conversion formula that would equate the pore size to micron size?
Also what does the EFA stand for in the last column of the chart?
TIA
Do you have a chart or conversion formula that would equate the pore size to micron size?
Also what does the EFA stand for in the last column of the chart?
TIA
Good test BTW. Very interesting how the PureOne did. I used them in my Lesabre because of the good construction and filtering, but now I'm worried about flow. The supertech and AC are looking good now, though I'll miss the silicon ADBV.
-T
-T
what typically would a pure one flow in GPM in a warm engine?
seems like more than 3gpm or so GPM would be enough.
what do small V6s and 4s need in gallons per minute , in normal highway use - up to say 75 MPH --ie not racing at 6000 RPM?
anyone know??
seems like more than 3gpm or so GPM would be enough.
what do small V6s and 4s need in gallons per minute , in normal highway use - up to say 75 MPH --ie not racing at 6000 RPM?
anyone know??
You are welcome. EFA = Effective filter area. Number of pleats * pleat hgt * pleat wid * 2.
I don't know that I would stay away from them.
Look at it this way -- The PureOne flows better than a Fram Extra Guard.
“This is only possible with a fully synthetic filtering media though, such as the one the Ultraguard Gold uses, or those old Harddriver filters that were discontinued a while ago.”
Paper or cellulose media’s are fully capable of filtering down to 1-micron levels and with an asymmetric or graded media (top side is very open and funnels to a dense bottom side) you can get great flow too. Synthetics like glass (and others too) often have a one other advantage, they can be positively charged which provides an affinity to capturing and holding dirt.
“Do you have a chart or conversion formula that would equate the pore size to micron size?
Also what does the EFA stand for in the last column of the chart?
TIA”
The formula that was cited in the report was:
D = 4s cosine Θ/ P x 10to the 6th power
D = pore diameter in mm
s = Surface tension of the test liquid in Newton /m, this is measurement of how much force is required to break through the surface of the liquid.
Θ= contact angle between the liquid and the pore wall. Both oil and glycerol readily wet all of the filter medias tested.
P = pressure in Neton/m2, this is the pressure when bubbles begin to flow through the media.
Paper or cellulose media’s are fully capable of filtering down to 1-micron levels and with an asymmetric or graded media (top side is very open and funnels to a dense bottom side) you can get great flow too. Synthetics like glass (and others too) often have a one other advantage, they can be positively charged which provides an affinity to capturing and holding dirt.
“Do you have a chart or conversion formula that would equate the pore size to micron size?
Also what does the EFA stand for in the last column of the chart?
TIA”
The formula that was cited in the report was:
D = 4s cosine Θ/ P x 10to the 6th power
D = pore diameter in mm
s = Surface tension of the test liquid in Newton /m, this is measurement of how much force is required to break through the surface of the liquid.
Θ= contact angle between the liquid and the pore wall. Both oil and glycerol readily wet all of the filter medias tested.
P = pressure in Neton/m2, this is the pressure when bubbles begin to flow through the media.
So, if the Mercruiser filters don't have a ADBV on them, then one can assume that they will indeed have a higher flow. My point is, if you look at oil filters that have the ADBV on top, it looks like the actual valve itself, although it may be in the open position, may in fact hamper the flow. It's not a full flow design, the oil has to go around the valve first. That will create back pressure and reduce the flow somewhat. I've read both of the reports and nicely done. However I don't agree that larger pore size filters are NOT linear to flow. Granted, it's not a straight line, but it is a line none-the-less. The larger the pore size, the higher the flow.
Just to clarify. All of the filters had anti-drain back valves (silicon or nitrile) and none had bypass valves. The PF 1218 GM spec is to have the bypass as part of the engine.
My point about flow and pore size was that some filters flowed better than others considering their pore size.
Excellent work. Appreciate the time and expense you put into this project.
Do have a question on the spreadsheet. On the tab labeled “Filter Date” there seems to be a typo in row 43 that totals the pore & filter ratings. The formula for the K&N is different then the rest. I believe you intended to give double weight to flow. If this is the case then the formula for the K&N is correct and the others need to be updated. This does not change the overall rankings, just closes the flow gap between the K&N and the pack.
Thanks again for your efforts.
Do have a question on the spreadsheet. On the tab labeled “Filter Date” there seems to be a typo in row 43 that totals the pore & filter ratings. The formula for the K&N is different then the rest. I believe you intended to give double weight to flow. If this is the case then the formula for the K&N is correct and the others need to be updated. This does not change the overall rankings, just closes the flow gap between the K&N and the pack.
Thanks again for your efforts.
Most probably all of these filter's boxes claim they filter mo betta than any other filter
Thank youquote:
Originally posted by patf:
Do have a question on the spreadsheet. On the tab labeled “Filter Date” there seems to be a typo in row 43 that totals the pore & filter ratings. The formula for the K&N is different then the rest. I believe you intended to give double weight to flow. If this is the case then the formula for the K&N is correct and the others need to be updated. This does not change the overall rankings, just closes the flow gap between the K&N and the pack.
Thanks again for your efforts.
BTW,
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked