Virgin FE7317 cut open w/light to bypass seal area.

[Ronn]

Yes, it's a "controlled" test for the most part, but as has been discussed in other threads, if every filter brand and model they tested was also ISO 4548-12 tested, would they all rank exactly in the the same order? I don't think so. When you look at the available official ISO efficiency numbers on some of the filters they have tested, they won't rank the same as their tests show. The Boss's efficiency ranking is a good example of that, and was discussed in the other various threads where this comes up.

I think the focus of this thread is to question whether the flashlight “test” indicates a filtration flaw in the Endurance filter, so any discussions about ISO testing and ranking seems irrelevant. The question remains …is flashing a light through this filter's bypass valve (when disassembled) enough to counter the actual filtering results of this filter intact?? Obviously the answer is a resounding NO!!!
That’s it in a nutshell.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I think the focus of this thread is to question whether the flashlight “test” indicates a filtration flaw in the Endurance filter, so any discussions about ISO testing and ranking seems irrelevant. The question remains …does flashing a light through this filter bypass valve (when disassembled) trump the actual filtering results of this filter intact?? Obviously the answer is a resounding NO!!!
That’s it in a nutshell.

Well, it's also possible that this gap is not common to every Endurance made. Maybe something has changed in the production of the leaf springs along the way. Most likely there is more than one machine that makes them, so what's the variance between machines, as well as on the same machine every time it's set and operated. Similar to how louvers can be all over the place on the same filter brand and model. It's also possible the filters efficiency tested didn't have the gap.

Only way to really determine any impact of a gap would be to efficiency test a bunch, then cut them all open and inspect for the presence of any gaps that could have leaked dirty oil. If filters were found with a gap, was their ISO efficiency worse than ones without a gap. That's the only way to know.

 

[Ronn]

Well, it's also possible that this gap is not common to every Endurance made. Maybe something has changed in the production of the leaf springs along the way. Most likely there is more than one machine that makes them, so what's the variance between machines, as well as on the same machine every time it's set and operated. Similar to how louvers can be all over the place on the same filter brand and model. It's also possible the filters efficiency tested didn't have the gap.

Only way to really determine any impact of a gap would be to efficiency test a bunch, then cut them all open and inspect for the presence of any gaps that could have leaked dirty oil. If filters were found with a gap, was their ISO efficiency worse than ones without a gap. That's the only way to know.

The test I sited was a RANDOM SELECTION of all the filters....and Endurance clearly came out on top. That's statistically significant. The TWO flashlight tests (we now have TWO... here and the video I presented) BOTH showed gaps>>>> ERGO>>> Gaps are probably present in all these filters. So.... The RANDOM filter tested for flow, in all probability, also had a GAP. BINGO!
Again...this thread is questioning whether a small gap makes a difference, and so far the ONLY TEST we have indicates it doesn't. ISO standards have NOTHING to do with this controversy. You can't make the argument on the significance of any GAPS on filtration until you can demonstrate this in actual testing. We HAVE a test, but people still try and find ways to debunk it and choose instead, to SPECULATE on how a small slit of light under the bypass "MIGHT" diminish filtration. So the strategy is to blow smoke about ISO standards.

 

[ZeeOSix]

The test I sited was a RANDOM SELECTION of all the filters....and Endurance clearly came out on top. That's statistically significant. The flashlight tests (we now have TWO... here and the video I presented) BOTH showed gaps>>>> ERGO>>> Gaps are probably present in all these filters. So.... The RANDOM filter tested for flow, in all probability, also had a GAP. BINGO!

Nobody knows if the ones efficiency tested had a gap or not, because they were not actually inspected for a gap after they were tested. That's the only way to know. It's entirely possible they didn't have a significant gap. Just because a few showed to have a gap doesn't mean they all will have a gap. Just like badly formed louvers doesn't mean they will all have badly formed louvers.

 

[Ronn]

Nobody knows if the ones efficiency tested had a gap or not, because they were not actually inspected for a gap after they were tested. That's the only way to know. It's entirely possible they didn't have a significant gap. Just because a few showed to have a gap doesn't mean they all will have a gap. Just like badly formed louvers doesn't mean they will all have badly formed louvers.

OH...OK. So far we have TWO confirmed flashlight tests on RANDOM picks and BOTH show gaps......HMMMM????
Let's let logical minds decide.

 

[ZeeOSix]

OH...OK. So far we have TWO confirmed flashlight tests on RANDOM picks and BOTH show gaps......HMMMM????
Let's let logical minds decide.

Need proof, not speculation based on two examples that every one of them have a gap. I gave reasons earlier why. Just like you can't conclude that a few filters with bad louvers means every filter of that brand and model has bad louvers.

 

[Glenda W.]

YES! Lets use logic. Don’t use a filter with a gap in the bypass leaf spring seal area. Just like you wouldn’t use a filter with torn media….personally I like all of the oil filtered not most of it….thus the reason I choose high efficiency filters.

Also the iso document shows all of the controls. BR controlled two on the list of dozens. He absolutely couldn’t repeat his results. The fact that he only has one set of results is the biggest red flag. At the most basic level you would double check results on any “test” to make sure their accurate. “measure twice, cut once”

Also I agree with Zee0Six. Most likely this was a production change that occurred just like when Fram removed the fiber seal on the Ultra/Titanium bypass. I’ll use more logic here because Champ Labs is building the Endurance for Fram.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Modelling this as an orifice with an equivalent open area, the flow rate through the leak is 2 GPM when the dP across the media is 0.8 psi. A media dP of 0.8 psi on this filter may require a flow rate through the media of ~3 GPM. The total flow rate through the filter would then be ~5 GPM including the leak. So around 2 GPM / 5 GPM = 40% of the oil flow would bypass the media in this example.

Out of curiosity I did some modeling myself and got the following.

Model parameters:
1.25 inch circumference center tube
0.020 inch gap, and gap only at 1/3 of the circumference
C = 2πr = πD
C = π x 1.25 = 3.927 inches
Gap area = 0.333 x 0.020 x 3.927 = 0.02615 sq-in
Hole diameter that equates to area of 0.02615 sq-in
A = πr^2
r = sqrt(A/π) = 0.09123 inch
D = 2r = 0.1825 inch

Result was with hot oil at 11.5 cSt, and a dP of 0.8 PSI, it would flow 0.57 GPM. So if the filter itself was flowing 3 GPM at 0.8 PSI as you assumed, this model says the leak would be 0.57/(3.0 + 0.57) = 16% of the total flow.

 

[Glenda W.]

Out of curiosity I did some modeling myself and got the following.

Model parameters:
1.25 inch circumference center tube
0.020 inch gap, and gap only at 1/3 of the circumference
C = 2πr = πD
C = π x 1.25 = 3.927 inches
Gap area = 0.333 x 0.020 x 3.927 = 0.02615 sq-in
Hole diameter that equates to area of 0.02615 sq-in
A = πr^2
r = sqrt(A/π) = 0.09123 inch
D = 2r = 0.1825 inch

Result was with hot oil at 11.5 cSt, and a dP of 0.8 PSI, it would flow 0.57 GPM. So if the filter itself was flowing 3 GPM at 0.8 PSI as you assumed, this model says the leak would be 0.57/(3.0 + 0.57) = 16% of the total flow.

View attachment 238306
View attachment 238307

Thanks for this. Unfortunately I have two FE’s in service right now. Not a happy camper.

 

[Ronn]

OK...
One more time. LOGICAL ARGUMENT>>>>
This filter has minute gaps under the Bypass and the reason for this is that Fram, for whatever reason, decided to remove a gasket from a previous application. So, we can conclude (from ALL the tear downs performed so far with the "flashlight" test) that ALL Endurance filters have small gaps there. So far, so good.
So, this begs the question>>> DO THESE GAPS MATERIALLY EFFECT THE EFFICIENCY OF THIS FILTER??<<
I have two explanations why they DO NOT:
1) My "DEAD HORSE" screen shot showing an ACTUAL CONTROLLED PARTICLE FILTRATION TEST on a randomly selected INTACT FLOWING Endurance filter compared to other Fram versions. It's plain as day. Some here try to use specious arguments like... A) "It's not ISO sanctioned ..... B) "Tested filter may not have had the defect".'....C) "Mathematical Models" indicate significant reduction. Those are NOT LOGICAL arguments! ISO has NOTHING to do with the results of this test and the ODDS of the tested filter NOT having the defect are VERY REMOTE. Mathematical Models do NOT TRUMP ACTUAL TEST RESULTS shown so far.
2) ...This is speculative, but likely>>>>FRAM decided to remove the gasket to reduce cost knowing full well it would result in an imperfect seal below the bypass. Now to the NITTY GRITTY>>>>>THEY CONCLUDED DOING SO WOULD HAVE NO MATERIAL IMPACT. It's a forgone conclusion they must have performed their own tests....that's a no brainer. Again, we have an actual performance test done independently that also corroborates this.
In conclusion....So far, the weight of EVIDENCE supports the "NO MATERIAL IMPACT" argument. There is ZERO evidence to support the SPECULATION in the "FLASHLIGHT TEST".
So, I'm just going to leave it at that. If you think Fram is currently peddling FALSE CLAIMS on it's Endurance Filter (READ>>LAW SUITS), then look for another filter.

 

[Glenda W.]

Common sense: DO NOT USE FILTER WITH A HOLE IN THE END CAP.

 

[ZeeOSix]

^^^ Post 90 … All speculation (no real proof of claims) and dead horse hype.

 

[Ronn]

Thanks for this. Unfortunately I have two FE’s in service right now. Not a happy camper.

In service and you're questioning their reliability? OK... WHY NOT REPLACE THEM THEN? Seriously.

 

[Glenda W.]

In service and you're questioning their reliability? OK... WHY NOT REPLACE THEM THEN? Seriously.

Will be Tuesday

 

[Ronn]

Common sense: DO NOT USE FILTER WITH A HOLE IN THE END CAP.

LOL...."HOLE"??? NOW THAT'S HYPE IN SPADES.....

 

[Glenda W.]

LOL...."HOLE"??? NOW THAT'S HYPE IN SPADES.....

 

[Ronn]

View attachment 238327

View attachment 238328

FROM one of the first videos on this subject
Here's the comment the Video Creator made. It's in the "Comments Section", not in the video itself>>>>>

"This small space between the bypass valve and end cap wouldn't be a deal breaker for me, definitely, more oil will get filtered than not filtered. I still think these are very good oil filters."

LOGIC vs HYSTERIA

 

[Glenda W.]

FROM one of the first videos on this subject
Here's the comment the Video Creator made. It's in the "Comments Section", not in the video itself>>>>>

"This small space between the bypass valve and end cap wouldn't be a deal breaker for me, definitely, more oil will get filtered than not filtered. I still think these are very good oil filters."

LOGIC vs HYSTERIA

View attachment 238330

 

[Ronn]

So what do we do about AMSOIL filter with this flashlight test???
Looks like IDENTICAL BYPASS of Endurance
Time to DUMP??? LOL
It has ISO BLESSING!!!!
"High Efficiency Efficiency is a filter’s ability to capture contaminants. The more efficient a filter is, the more contaminants it will remove from oil. AMSOIL Oil Filters provide a filtering efficiency in accordance with industry standard ISO 4548-12 of 99 percent at 20 microns – one of the best ratings on the market. "

 

[Ronn]

Can’t wait to see replies to my last post