I found this video interesting and was surprised by the results.
Motorcycle filters? Or typical for any filter?
Motorcycle filters? Or typical for any filter?
Which Filter Media Performs Best?
- Thread starter Joenpb
- Start date
Lot more than just the media type can effect the overall efficiency. How well the media retains already captured debris can also have a big impact on the efficiency as the filter loads up. The old Purolator PureOne was cellulose blend and had an efficiency of 99+% @ 20u. They also used a ton of media area, which also helped keep the dP down and gave it good flow vs dP performance.
Some interesting takeaways I had after viewing the video.
1. Cellulose media absorbs moisture/condensation in oil.
2. Cellulose media can load up with more particulates before going into bypass.
3. Synthetic media didn't have better flow (a big surprise).
4. Cellulose media did a better job removing particulates.
The more I learn about oil filters the more I realize they are in bypass often, and performance isn't equal to cost.
1. Cellulose media absorbs moisture/condensation in oil.
2. Cellulose media can load up with more particulates before going into bypass.
3. Synthetic media didn't have better flow (a big surprise).
4. Cellulose media did a better job removing particulates.
The more I learn about oil filters the more I realize they are in bypass often, and performance isn't equal to cost.
Last edited:
1) is true.
2) not really true. If the media area is the same, the depth filtering synthetic media will typically hold more debris.
3) not really true. If the media area is the same, a full synthetic media should flow better.
4) it really depends on the exact design of the media, and somewhat on the total media area. There are cases where full synthetic media (per constant area) can be more efficient than cellulose. Most full synthetic filters are high efficiency. Most cellulose filters are lower efficiency.
Oil filters are more complex then most people realize once you really start deep diving into them. These type of YouTube videos just confuse people more than anything.
This has been talked about a lot on BITOG. Oil filters are rarely in bypass when the oil is at operating temperature. The easiest way to make a filter go into bypass would be to hammer the gas pedal right after a cold start-up before the oil warms up and thins down.
Last edited:
The synthetic media in that test looked the same as used by Royal Purple, and its size was comparable to the cellulose filter.. Not sure if it was a RP filter, but it didn't flow as well or hold as much particulate as the Cellulose media. its performance didn't merit an increased cost over a cellulose filter. The downside to Cellulose, it probably shouldn't be used over 5K miles.
He never showed the oil temperature or the flow rate he was using, so any change in either of those factors would change the dP across the filter. Regardless, there was only a few PSI of dP difference between those filters - which will not really matter on an engine. I would have expected the wire mesh filter to have more of a decrease than it did.
Watch from time 5:00, and tell me that big container of 32 teaspoons of particulate was actually caught by that small oil filter. Something doesn't add up there, lol.
Agree that the oil temp was ambient and not indicative of real world engine temperatures. Not sure that means everything else is not applicable. Thanks
Do you really believe that small filter held all of 32 tablespoons of debris? Look at the container he shows. Look at the size of the filter in relation to the container full of test particulate. How many grams is 32 tablespoons of the stuff he was using? A lot. Plus he never cut open the filters to show the captured amount of debris.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2024
- Messages
- 2,120
I always been the econo/oe filter running guy.
Also doesn't "caking" of particulates in a cellulose filter "clog up" the flow pathway far faster then a 3 denominational (3D) flow pathway of a deeper 3D structured synthetic media? Kinda common sense.......
Typically, yes. Full synthetic mrdia with (3D) depth filtering ability should be both more efficient, and have better holding capacity.
Found some interesting comments on that video.
Most valid technical comment:
"A more dense, higher efficiency filter will naturally show more resistance to oil flow, thus higher pressure. The ICP test of the wear metals is not reliable in this test scenario. 1st the test will not see particulates above 10 microns, full flow filters are not efficient at these smaller sizes, the filters are designed to flow oil and stop the largest particulates in 30 micron range. Lastly, the small difference wear particles does not take into account repeatability and normal margins of error. A better test is Particle Count using patch membrane. It's an ISO test used to determine the cleanliness of oil and performance of a filter. It separates particles in the oil by size and quantity in the thousands for smallest to less than 100 in the largest. Blackstone can do this test, as well as other labs. A better test is to put the 30 micron aluminum powder in clean oil, filter the same oil mixture through each filter, plus a control oil sample...."
Other comments:
"As a mechanical engineer and someone who has worked at labs for majority of my career developing testing methodologies. This was absolute beautiful to watch. Ryan and F9 folks did it again.
Edit: Ok - so there are a bunch of comments about how this test is clearly not accurate. Well, no. But it is still **** near close. This is the type of testing and engineering forefathers did prior to SOPs and Published standards. There is nothing wrong with doing it. And like ANY science. IF you have a different opinion, YOU TOO can make a video and challenge it."
"As someone who does this type of testing every day, nice work! My company uses fiberglass for our filters on industrial engines, but we expect the filters to last for thousands of hours before servicing. Paper is indeed the best choice for automotive use as there's no better media for the price."
Most valid technical comment:
"A more dense, higher efficiency filter will naturally show more resistance to oil flow, thus higher pressure. The ICP test of the wear metals is not reliable in this test scenario. 1st the test will not see particulates above 10 microns, full flow filters are not efficient at these smaller sizes, the filters are designed to flow oil and stop the largest particulates in 30 micron range. Lastly, the small difference wear particles does not take into account repeatability and normal margins of error. A better test is Particle Count using patch membrane. It's an ISO test used to determine the cleanliness of oil and performance of a filter. It separates particles in the oil by size and quantity in the thousands for smallest to less than 100 in the largest. Blackstone can do this test, as well as other labs. A better test is to put the 30 micron aluminum powder in clean oil, filter the same oil mixture through each filter, plus a control oil sample...."
Other comments:
"As a mechanical engineer and someone who has worked at labs for majority of my career developing testing methodologies. This was absolute beautiful to watch. Ryan and F9 folks did it again.
Edit: Ok - so there are a bunch of comments about how this test is clearly not accurate. Well, no. But it is still **** near close. This is the type of testing and engineering forefathers did prior to SOPs and Published standards. There is nothing wrong with doing it. And like ANY science. IF you have a different opinion, YOU TOO can make a video and challenge it."
"As someone who does this type of testing every day, nice work! My company uses fiberglass for our filters on industrial engines, but we expect the filters to last for thousands of hours before servicing. Paper is indeed the best choice for automotive use as there's no better media for the price."
^^^ LoL ... those YT comments from the "engineers" are funny. They obviously don't understand the official oil filter testing standards, and how that YT video test is flawed. The first comment was accurate about the UOA can only see Fe particles less than 5-7 microns and that most filters can't filter much of that size of particulate, so it's a bad way to judge the filtering performance.
Yeah paper is pretty good.
Modern synthetics that aren't glass do a very good job filtering, flowing and holding dirt and that's where paper and synthetics differ. Dirt or metal is more likely to slide down the paper filter and collect in the bottom of the filter where synthetics try to hold more of the dirt.
Steel filters are normally the kings of flow, stopping nothing smaller than 30 microns and using steels bendyness to the filter makers advantage on larger filter they normally are able to pack a lot more surface area into a car or truck size canister.
Modern synthetics that aren't glass do a very good job filtering, flowing and holding dirt and that's where paper and synthetics differ. Dirt or metal is more likely to slide down the paper filter and collect in the bottom of the filter where synthetics try to hold more of the dirt.
Steel filters are normally the kings of flow, stopping nothing smaller than 30 microns and using steels bendyness to the filter makers advantage on larger filter they normally are able to pack a lot more surface area into a car or truck size canister.
Last edited:
