What does filter extended duration actually mean?

[Greasymechtech]

https://abw.by/news/experience/2015...aslyanyi-filtr-rabotaet-vsego-2500-kilometrov

Similar to how we tested effectiveness of filtration and media at alliedsignal 30 years ago.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Had a feeling that was going to be brought up. Where's the YT video showing it in action? ... recall seeing one while running thick oil in Russian Siberia, lol. Of course filters will go into bypass if the oil is super thick and engine RPM is pretty high. But once oil is full warmed up a filter should not go into bypass if the bypass setting is right. That's what Jim Allen testing also showed. Knowing the actual dP across the filter and comparing to the bypass setting spec is close enough to deterine if bypassing could occur or not, on the engine it was tested on of course.

And exactly how does that prove that Jim Allen was wrong?

 

[Greasymechtech]

Jim Allen didn't prove what he was saying. Regardless of the gram holding capacity of the media, it doesn't take much to reduce flow and enable bypass. I am not in filter manufacturing anymore. 1 company was bought out by a competitor and simply shut down and auctioned off. The other has been thru several owners. But, I didn't forget all that I've learned even though some has faded. Your filter is in bypass more often than you want to believe. I am pretty sure that Jim Allen didn't spend any time working in any filter manufacturing plants. Like so much 'consensus' out there, too much misinformation is considered factual.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Jim Allen didn't prove what he was saying. Regardless of the gram holding capacity of the media, it doesn't take much to reduce flow and enable bypass.

Look at Ascent's filter tesing and the dP verses loading data. Takes a lot of loading to get the dP increase rate really going.

You think Fram or anyone else would rate their filters like they do if they went into bypass with 1000 miles on them. The ISO efficiency rating is with the filter not going into bypass. Filter designers and manufacterers know their filter dP vs loading performance through testing. And of course loading reduces the headroom betweem the dP vs the bypass setting, which should be taken into account when specifying a filter's bypass setting. But a blanket statement that "Regardless of the holding capacity of the media, it doesn't take much to reduce flow and enable bypass" is not accurate.

And besides, flow does not decrease when the filter loads up because the PD pump (if not in relief) ensures that.

 

[Greasymechtech]

Bench testing and the real world yield different results.
Bench tests are great for internet debates and R&D expectations. Real world will put it to shame.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Bench testing and the real world yield different results.
Bench tests are great for internet debates and R&D expectations. Real world will put it to shame.

You have data and links to controlled testing that proves that? You do realize that the big filter makers also do some in field testing. IIRC, Motorking mentioned that's how they obtained the normal real use loading rates, then used that to factor out their filter mileage ratings. It's not some "made up advertising" number, but based on data. And it's most likely on the conservative side to be safe.

 

[fantastic]

The engine and filter were NOT engineered for each other. Nobody remembers the FL-2055???

Some filter manufacturer's reverse engineer from OEM filters. On top of that don't OEM auto manufacturers select/manufacture the appropriate filter for the engine? To say they were not engineered for each other is not logical.

 

[Greasymechtech]

Sure, its so logical then engines would never have problems ever since all parts and components are selected and manufactured to work perfectly for and with each other. There would be no need for warranties, class action lawsuits, technical bulletins, recalls, and service campaigns. Its just all perfect at the automaker.

 

[kschachn]

Bench testing and the real world yield different results.
Bench tests are great for internet debates and R&D expectations. Real world will put it to shame.

This is a very common statement, but very uninformed about how things are actually determined. For the most part, there is no such thing as real world testing that yields anything of actual value.

 

[Sayjac]

I’d not seen that quote before, thanks.

Just what does a “50% loaded” oil filter look like? I try to cut mine open, and usually see nothing. I’m guessing this is all microscopic, caught in the fibers—but filter media is stained from motor oil. ?

Would you leave the filter wrapped in paper towels, let it wick oil off for a few days, then try to look under a microscope?

From personal experience, I couldn't say what 50% loaded "looks like." I generally wick (in used paper shop towel) my post use filter media for pics with c&p. I rarely see much of anything inside pleats, even after cutting media away from endcaps. If you watch WhipCityWrencher yt inspection of spread out wicked media, he takes a magnet to them and if he finds a few small flecks in the pleats, that's a lot for him. Yeah as noted, likely more to it than those flecks.

Beyond that, having read many of Jim Allen's posts here including his start up oil pressure/bypass testing, I respect his expertise. What he said/says about filter holding capacity, just rings true 'for me.' Thus, holding capacity not something I'm concerned with in filter use.

 

[ZeeOSix]

If someone was interested in how much debris in grams the filter gained over an OCI, they could do a delta filter weight before and after use. Use an accurate digital scale with high resolution, and baseline the new filter wieght with it filled to the top with oil. After use, fill it to the same top point again with the same oil and weigh it again. Delta weight is grams of captured debris.