Ver 2 Mercruiser / ACPF1218 Oil Filter Study w/ Pore and Flow Data

[T-Keith]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grease is the word:

quote:

---

Originally posted by T-Keith:
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

---

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.

If the car manufacturers were concerned that a Fram (that has such widespread use), I think there would be changes.

---

Yes, but I also race my car, and it produces more power and will run at higher rpms than the manufactorer intended.

-T

 

[TC]

Some potentially helpful info...

"The Taurus SHO V6 pump is rated at 12.1 GPM at 43 PSI at 6400. Since output is near linear for the positive displacement internal gear, one could approximate this as 2 GPM per 1000 rpm. Pump specifications for the V8 are absent but assumed to be similar if not slightly greater." http://www.shoclub.com/lubrication-oil/lubrication-oilpart1.htm

Engine displacement for the early-90s SHO V-6 was 3,153cc, a mid-sized engine these days. For purposes of this filter survey, I'll go way, way out on a limb and suggest that a lofty goal of 12 gpm/min @ 45 psi filter flow might be reasonable for the "average" sized sporting or DOHC engine, barring actual data on your specific oil pump (oil pump flow spec's are tough to come by). Differing opinions are welcome -- I'm sure I missed something somewhere...

Also, the report mentions "for simplicity I used 1 gram = 1 milliter." If this might affect the test results, Kendall pegs their 30w oil at "0.875g/cm3," which is the same as 0.875g/ml -- perhaps you were already aware of such a spec.

Using the "oz/sq in/min @ 20 psi" column, I come up with the following media flow rates at 20 psi...did I interpret your methodology correctly?
PureOne (330 sq in): 1.6 qts/min
STP (326 sq in): 3.8 qts/min
K&N (343 sq in): 4.7 qts/min

I'm at a loss as to how this jives with the Baldwin/Hastings claims of "12 gpm @ 16 psid." Either I'm missing something basic, or perhaps they're including bypass flow as well...? (Some time back I came across a website that mentions Frams as having "3 gpm bypass valves," so this might be a good rule of thumb for competitors' similarly-sized plunger bypass valves.) Geez, I need a couple beers after all this...

[ January 28, 2004, 08:02 PM: Message edited by: TC ]

 

[Grease is the word]

quote:

---

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 to patf for finding that error. That was a sharp eye. It is now fixed. None of the raw data (pore size, flow, etc.) was affected. My attempt at weighting the data to come up with ranking had a bug. After it was fixed, some of the filters stayed the same in this overall ranking, some changed by one ranking, and one changed by two.

As I mentioned in the conclusion, since this ranking is certainly not perfect, you should consider filters close to each other in the ranking virtually the same. Especially when they only vary by one overall ranking point. My weighting system is no where near that accurate

If you are serious about analyzing the data to come up with the filter for you, look at the raw data to confirm your decisions.

 

[Grease is the word]

quote:

---

Originally posted by T-Keith:
Yes, but I also race my car, and it produces more power and will run at higher rpms than the manufactorer intended.

-T

---

Yes, I agree, if you are racing, you have different needs and would certainly consider high flow filters.

 

[Grease is the word]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TC:
Using the "oz/sq in/min @ 20 psi" column, I come up with the following media flow rates at 20 psi...did I interpret your methodology correctly?
PureOne (330 sq in): 1.6 qts/min
STP (326 sq in): 3.8 qts/min
K&N (343 sq in): 4.7 qts/min

---

Yes, I believe that is correct.

 

[Grease is the word]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TC:
I'm at a loss as to how this jives with the Baldwin/Hastings claims of "12 gpm @ 16 psid." Either I'm missing something basic, or perhaps they're including bypass flow as well...?

---

Perhaps it is 200 deg F oil vs. our 70 F oil. As mentioned in the flow study document (right before the conclusion):

"at 20°C the viscosity is 4 N-s / m2 and at its about .04 N-s / m2 at 100°C which is about a 100 times thinner at normal engine operating temperatures"

[ January 28, 2004, 09:27 PM: Message edited by: Grease is the word ]

 

[edwardh1]

a real encore would be to do something similar with something there is almost no data on
AIR FILTERS

Gages cost a lot more tho and flow measurement is a lot harder

 

[Grease is the word]

I was getting ready to look at water filter separators/filters for boats. I was stopped in my tracks when I saw my issue Feb '04 of Trailer Boats Magazine show up with a shootout of F/S.

I was relieved!

It was great b/c it told me that the WIX F/S is much better than the Merc. It has the potential to hold more water and has a smaller filter micron rating.

I'm afraid I couldn't do any justice to air filters.

 

[edwardh1]

too bad.
Its needed.

re merc oil filter test
interesting to me the flow of the Merc - my bet is they know that most boats when not idling run wide open or close (3500 RPM +) ..
versus cars

 

[T-Keith]

So I guess the questions still remains, will any of these filters pose a major restriction on most engines?

-T

 

[Grease is the word]

Another thought someone shared was that a boat is likely to get water in the oil and the water may swell the pores closed -- hence the need for the large pores. Don't know, but it sounded feasible.

I think that is why I will probably run the K&N on the boat and consider a bypass.

As for cars, I will use PureOne, AC, Baldwin, and WIX -- in no particular order.

 

[Grease is the word]

quote:

---

Originally posted by T-Keith:
So I guess the questions still remains, will any of these filters pose a major restriction on most engines?

-T

---

I go back to the hot oil vs. the 70F oil we used. I will post the jpg that shows the change in oil as the temperature increases.

Also, I posted earlier that the widespread Fram Extra Guard is calculated as the worst flowing filter in this test. The AC flows almost twice as well as the Fram EG. The PureOne flows almost 20% better than the Fram EG.

 

[Schmoe]

Just thought of something. There was a forum "discussion" on warming an engine up or not a while ago. I was surprized that a couple of prized and well versed members here didn't adhere to that rule of thumb and never let the engine warm up at all. I am a staunch believer in letting them warm up. This helps prove my point. If you crank and go, at least for a few seconds, there is NO WAY that enough oil is getting into your engine. Maybe this is why most advertisements mention that 90% of engine wear is at start up. Well, yeah. If you fire it up and go on down the road. I mean, we're talking about anywhere from 1.7 to 3 or so quarts per MINUTE? Not a whole lot of protection going on until things start warming up.
Grease, excellent report.

Am very interested to see what you come up with when you convert the results to warmer oil.

 

[labman]

I seldom warm up. I do use 5W-30 and avoid Fram filters. Mostly the weather here has the decency to stay above 0F. My poor old Valiant had to put up with Valvoline 10W-40 in -25 F the first winter I was here. My car and truck are garaged, but it isn't that warm out there.

 

[Patman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schmoe:
Just thought of something. There was a forum "discussion" on warming an engine up or not a while ago. I was surprized that a couple of prized and well versed members here didn't adhere to that rule of thumb and never let the engine warm up at all. I am a staunch believer in letting them warm up. This helps prove my point. If you crank and go, at least for a few seconds, there is NO WAY that enough oil is getting into your engine. Maybe this is why most advertisements mention that 90% of engine wear is at start up. Well, yeah. If you fire it up and go on down the road. I mean, we're talking about anywhere from 1.7 to 3 or so quarts per MINUTE? Not a whole lot of protection going on until things start warming up.
Grease, excellent report.

Am very interested to see what you come up with when you convert the results to warmer oil.

---

Shmoe, are you talking about boat owners not warming up their engines first, or car owners?

I just see no reason for a car owner to do this. All you need to do is drive very gently after you first start the engine, and this is the best thing to do because the slight load on the engine helps it warm up much faster.

I do not believe that 90% of engine wear occurs on the initial cold start. I believe a good portion of it (I'm gonna guess 60-70%) occurs during the entire cold start phase, so shortening this time will lower your engine wear. Idling your engine to warm it up means your engine spends a much longer time before it's oil gets warm, so you'll see higher wear numbers.

Bob has always mentioned he believes you get a lot of your engine wear when you're in town and you accelerate from a stop. This change in oil flow is what causes the wear. This ties in with this study here, because Bob's theory is that with a higher flow oil filter, your oil flow is not disturbed as much when you accelerate from a stop.

The time when you see the least amount of engine wear is at steady throttle on the highway, with the oil fully warmed up.

 

[Grease is the word]

Since my oil filter budget is blown and some folks want to test their "favorite" filter they are donating three filters to the PF 1218 study.

These are Amsoil, Mobil 1, and AC racing -- all in the PF1218 format.

I'll post again when we are done with adding these three.

 

[Grease is the word]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schmoe:
Grease, excellent report.

Am very interested to see what you come up with when you convert the results to warmer oil.

---

Thanks, Schmoe (I love that name, BTW).

It turns out I can't post the viscosity / temperature chart because it is copyrighted. If you are interested, PM me.

 

[Schmoe]

Patman, you were one of the ones I was referring to as prized and well versed. I can not for life of me understand why you don't believe in warming up an engine, car engine that is. Especially in this killer cold weather we are having. You just got to let things expand. Look at the flow of oil filters at 70F, hardly anything is flowing. Now, drop that down about another 70 degrees, and then, what flow until oil warms up. Even with a "light" load, it is still a load none-the-less. Idleing, no load. Sure, there is the concern on fuel blow-by in the rings, but imagine how much blow-by when it's under a light load, even more. I also agree with Bob on wear metals are more significant in city style driving, but cold temperature should be added to that as well. Of course, these are all my opinions and no scientific fact, just using knowledge from working on engines most of my life.
You mentioned change in oil flow causes most wear.....well, I'm adding that to my "feeling" that cold oils aren't getting to the engine fast enough and that will sustantially increase engine wear. Come on, you JUST got to see my point??? Even just a little?????

 

[Patman]

I honestly still don't see the need. In my case for one, I run a block heater, so the engine already has a little bit of heat in it before I leave on a very cold morning.

But even without it, I would still pull away in less than 30 seconds after starting.

Keep in mind, when I back out of my driveway in the morning, I do not touch the gas pedal for about a minute, I just let the automatic do all the work and let the car idle it's way out of my townhouse complex. Then, for the next two minutes or so, I am so light on the gas pedal that the trans shifts into second at only 1500rpm. For the next 2-3min after that, I keep the rpms below 2000. In fact, I often drive my entire morning drive to work without going above 2000rpm, unless I get lucky and get an open stretch where traffic dies off, so I can do a good acceleration run. But I would then wait until the oil is warmed up.

Another point of note. When I first start my car on a very cold morning, the oil pressure goes up to about 50psi. For these first few minutes when I'm driving it, my oil pressure does not go up any higher than this, so I know I'm not pushing it too hard and I know the oil filter is flowing well enough to supply the engine with the oil it needs. There have been occasions in the past where I ran different filters and thicker oil in the winter (and didn't use a block heater), and would notice my oil pressure was much higher (60-65psi maybe) during this cold start cycle. I do believe my choice in running K&N oil filters and 0w30 oil definitely helps keep my engine wear to a lower level during this cold weather.

So I do agree that you don't want to push your engine hard during this warmup phase, but I also do not agree that idling it is the way to do this. Just drive it extremely gentle, and the engine will warm up faster without hurting it. I'm sure my wear numbers after this winter will prove that I'm not hurting my engine with my driving practices.

[ January 30, 2004, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: Patman ]

 

[73Duster]

You mentioned change in oil flow causes most wear.....well, I'm adding that to my "feeling" that cold oils aren't getting to the engine fast enough and that will sustantially increase engine wear. Come on, you JUST got to see my point??? Even just a little?????

When an engine is idling you have low oil pressure, when rpm's go up so does the oil pressure, which means that now all the bearings are seeing more oil via the pressure which increases the hydrodynamic oil cushion inside the larger bearing clearances from the low temp until they come up to operating temp which brings the clearances back to normal. So idling for 2-3 minutes and then driving slow/easy load is the way to better engine protection and faster warm-up.
Loss of hydrodynamic oil cushion is also the main cause of wear during hard acceleration when the shaft is pushed to one side of the bearing until the speed steadies. This is one reason high performace cars in the 60 and 70 were recommended to use straight 30 or 40 wt oil when used for high performance driving (aka racing) and 20w50 for street driving. The factory service manual for my 340 duster states this. All to protect against the HOC loss.
http://machinerylubrication.com/article_detail.asp?articleid=518&relatedbookgroup=Maintenance
A good picture of the eccentric nature of a journal and bearing. Also the article is good.