Virgin Black Magic Light Tests: ST MP7317, Champ PH2835XL
- Thread starter cptbarkey
- Start date
Yes that is what Ascent did but the formal procedure is that you are to ensure the filter to be tested cannot bypass and that the bubble test is on the test element.
DELAYED filtration!!! That’s a good one
Since the engine continuously produces contaminants the DELAY is never ending. In fact the contaminants will continue to circulate around the engine in a state of constant BYPASS.
Personally I’ll skip the DELAYED filtration feature. Plenty of high efficiency filters available without the DELAY.
Last edited:
New wording on Fram filters:
99%+ efficient *
* For micron sizes larger than the variable sized gap between leaf spring and center tube
* Based on ISO testing modified for delayed filtration as per @Ronn on bitog (No additional contaminants added at 5 minute intervals. Test terminated when 99% number reached. Report final efficiency instead of average)
Last edited:
I like a lot of your logic, could also contribute to why cars that short trip generally have much higher wear than cars that get driven for long periods all at once.
I like my black magic better, it involves walking to my recycle bin and opening the lid. hard pass.
Ronn, You can't be serious.
Understand that you're talking about a PERMANENT bypass. Anytime a filter bypasses it's denied filtering. Essentially claiming "some of my engine oil may not get filtered now but it might get filtered eventually" is not having a superior filter. My preference is still taking a low efficiency filter vs a permanent partial bypass and you've not convinced me.
Last edited:
Giving props to the OP here for now "seeing the light", literally and figuratively. As mentioned, when I posted my virgin FE7317 showing seal area light, he did dismiss it by calling it 'black magic flashlight' test. Actually, I thought it was funny. Now however, he's a convert to the bright side of the black magic flashlight test AND more importantly recognizing what it means, dirty upstream side oil in bypass.
Fwiw, I found the same results on an MP7317 that I c&p not too long ago, but before my more recent FE7317 oil bypass finding. So, another consistent result. I got to give some props to WCW too, my inspiration for the virgin FE7317 c&p light test as follow up to his FE7317 "black magic flashlight test".
Otoh, reading a couple now extreme minority opinions this thread, it's clear some still in denial. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Fwiw, I found the same results on an MP7317 that I c&p not too long ago, but before my more recent FE7317 oil bypass finding. So, another consistent result. I got to give some props to WCW too, my inspiration for the virgin FE7317 c&p light test as follow up to his FE7317 "black magic flashlight test".
Otoh, reading a couple now extreme minority opinions this thread, it's clear some still in denial. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2024
- Messages
- 728
I suppose a cage like fixture could be made to apply the exact pressure to the bypass spring ends to do the bubble point test. If Fram did that to the XG2 I bought it would failed though. It seems unlikely they have thought about the design leaking.
Ascent also had to rearrange a built in bypass valve to stop it from leaking. A valve like that would leak until bypass events rearranged it better. I forgot which one without looking at the video.
The bubble point test is only meant to test the build integrity of the filter media element, and it does not include the bypass valve. Andrew mentioned that in his video, and he corked the end cap where a leaf spring type bypass setup would normally be in the filter assembly. ISO 4548-2 is the test procedure that specifically tests the bypass valve, and it's done on only the bypass valve after it hjas been removed from the filter assembly.
As pointed out by @CharlieBauer pointed out, one prerequisite of running ISO 4548-12 is to ensure that there is not leakage around the filter element/media.
When a filter makers comes up with an oil filter design, they should run it through all the applicable ISO tests so that they can verify that it meets their design goals. But here's the rub ... when those filters were initially tested, it could very well be that their manufacturing quality was top notch at the time, so those are the efficiency results they obtained and claim. Once that's done, they won't retest unless there is a major change in design, like when Fram changed the media design on the Ultra. Fram did retest the efficiency based on the emails some members here received from Fram (and shared here) showing the old vs new Ultra efficiency number.
As we have seen lately, seems that the stamping quality of the leaf spring has gone way down hill and when that leaf spring is only a metal-to-metal seal then the way they interface with the end cap would obviously fail the bold part of ISO 4548-12, paragraph 9.1.1 below. That clearly says that fluid can not bypass the filter element. If the manufacturing quality degrades with time, like the ratty leaf spring stamping that could effect the efficiency performance, then the manufacturer would not know what the actual impact would be unless they tested it in that configuration. They may not even be that aware of the issue until they come across the discussions like the ones going on here on BITOG. But the big air gaps we've seen posted here, if those filters were tested per ISO 4548-12, Section 9 the filter would fail before it was even efficiency tested. Requirement: "Ensure that the test fluid cannot by-pass the filter element to be evaluated." Big air gaps between the leaf spring and end cap would make that requirement a fail.
Here's the section in ISO 4548-12 that addresses the preliminary preparation for the efficiency testing. Note the bold part. ISO 2942 is the separate bubble point test.
ISO 2942, Hydraulic fluid power — Filter elements — Verification of fabrication integrity and determination of the first bubble point.
---------------------------------------
9 Preliminary preparation
9.1 Test filter assembly
9.1.1 Ensure that the test fluid cannot by-pass the filter element to be evaluated. Unless agreed between the purchaser and manufacturer, the by-pass valve of the filter element shall be kept operative. If the by-pass valve has been made inoperative, this shall be clearly stated in the test report.
9.1.2 Subject the test filter element to a fabrication integrity test in accordance with ISO 2942 using MIL-H-5606 fluid prior to the multi-pass test or following the multi-pass test if the element is not readily accessible as in the spin-on configuration.
9.1.3 If the integrity test has been carried out prior to the multi-pass test and if it fails to meet the test pressure agreed between the purchaser and the manufacturer, disqualify the element from further testing. If the integrity test has been carried out after the multi-pass test and if it fails, disqualify the test result.
Last edited:
I just made mention of this in another thread, but I think it's more relevant here. Looking at that graph, it really seems like the Wix may have been a leaker.
Yes there were 2 Wix XP's tested by Ascent. 1 failed the bubble test at the bypass valve and the 2nd couldn't reach 99% efficiency even at 50 microns. And years before that, it was tested by a competitor(?) and was discovered to have a leaky bypass valve.
TBH it doesnt concern me