It is a bypass filter after all so why dont they make it filter at least 10 microns like a 51050? A 51515 full flow filters much better than a 51010 bypass.
Wix Bypass Filter 51010 Rated At 32 Microns
- Thread starter John With Beastly 302
- Start date
- Status
It's what's on my 1945 Ford 2N. I was surprised the first time I saw the nominal rating of 32 microns. I'm thinking of plumbing in my remote full flow mount with 3/4-16 threads and just running a 51515 or a Mobil 1 M1-301. Does it cause a problem running a full flow filter as a Bypass? I wouldn't think so. I know I'm going to have to install a restrictor in the mount after I see what size is in the old canister filter. The factory return is in the back of the governor.
from what i understand the ford N2 uses the fram C3 its 2 micron. try advanced auto, should be in stock. but dont worry this is a good filter.
iam getting older than i think. i dont know if C3 is 2 micron or not.
C3P is a 2 micron stacked plate depth filter.
According to Fram.
Advance auto carries it as a stock item.
According to Fram.
Advance auto carries it as a stock item.
dnewton3
Staff member
As stated, "it depends" upon application.
I had an old 1987 diesel Escort. It had both a FF and BP filter, both mounted on the same mount opposed to each other, one above and one below on the same mount pad (mounted as if they were a mirror image).
The full flow Wix: 51324 has 21um nominal, with a bypass pressure of 16psi. (Currently rated at beta 2/20=6/20 by wix)
The bypass filter for that engine was Wix 51839, also 21um nominal, but with no bypass valve in it. (Also currently rated at 2/20=6/20 by Wix).
Both had the same thread pitch, both had similar burst pressures, and both had the same 9-11 gpm flow rating.
How is a bypass filter supposed to filter "better" than the full flow when they are rated the same????????
Go figure ....
I had an old 1987 diesel Escort. It had both a FF and BP filter, both mounted on the same mount opposed to each other, one above and one below on the same mount pad (mounted as if they were a mirror image).
The full flow Wix: 51324 has 21um nominal, with a bypass pressure of 16psi. (Currently rated at beta 2/20=6/20 by wix)
The bypass filter for that engine was Wix 51839, also 21um nominal, but with no bypass valve in it. (Also currently rated at 2/20=6/20 by Wix).
Both had the same thread pitch, both had similar burst pressures, and both had the same 9-11 gpm flow rating.
How is a bypass filter supposed to filter "better" than the full flow when they are rated the same????????
Go figure ....
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
As stated, "it depends" upon application.
How is a bypass filter supposed to filter "better" than the full flow when they are rated the same????????
Go figure ....
It is so dum today to see this, BUT back 60 to 80 years ago, filtration was a new concept and those days that filtration micron rating was considered good. And then many very old engines had no filters or had just a bypass filter.
As stated, "it depends" upon application.
How is a bypass filter supposed to filter "better" than the full flow when they are rated the same????????
Go figure ....
It is so dum today to see this, BUT back 60 to 80 years ago, filtration was a new concept and those days that filtration micron rating was considered good. And then many very old engines had no filters or had just a bypass filter.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
How is a bypass filter supposed to filter "better" than the full flow when they are rated the same????????
Go figure ....
Easy answer: Brownian diffusion and gravitational settling due to slower filtration rate.
How is a bypass filter supposed to filter "better" than the full flow when they are rated the same????????
Go figure ....
Easy answer: Brownian diffusion and gravitational settling due to slower filtration rate.
dnewton3
Staff member
I see your point; I don't agree that it really means much in a real sense of bypass filtration in a moving vehicle.
We could, in theory, take ANY vessel and mount it in such a way, and restrict it's flow low enough, that it would filter out particles. But it would have to be LARGE and have PAINFULLY slow flow to have this effect. In fact, I would even suggest that the "gravitational settling" is probably offset by the constant giggling motion of the vehicle keeping stuff in suspension when in use.
That only leaves the Brownian diffusion. From what I understand of it, it's really the principle of interaction of particles among themselves, and not in relation to outside influence such as forced selection or reduction (filtration).
Neither this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion
Nor this:
http://www.scienceisart.com/A_Diffus/DiffusMain_1.html
Or even this:
http://www.stat.lsa.umich.edu/~ionides/620/notes/diffusions.pdf
show any relevance to velocity as being a determining factor in Brownian diffusion. IOW - The speed of the particle diffusion will not have large relevance in the likelyhood of it being trapped in the media.
I'm not clear as to what your inferece was? Were you inferring that the diffusion would be more selective at a lower flow rating? The mathematical formulas don't support this. Diffusion is the relationship of the particles to themselves, not to an outside influence.
We could, in theory, take ANY vessel and mount it in such a way, and restrict it's flow low enough, that it would filter out particles. But it would have to be LARGE and have PAINFULLY slow flow to have this effect. In fact, I would even suggest that the "gravitational settling" is probably offset by the constant giggling motion of the vehicle keeping stuff in suspension when in use.
That only leaves the Brownian diffusion. From what I understand of it, it's really the principle of interaction of particles among themselves, and not in relation to outside influence such as forced selection or reduction (filtration).
Neither this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion
Nor this:
http://www.scienceisart.com/A_Diffus/DiffusMain_1.html
Or even this:
http://www.stat.lsa.umich.edu/~ionides/620/notes/diffusions.pdf
show any relevance to velocity as being a determining factor in Brownian diffusion. IOW - The speed of the particle diffusion will not have large relevance in the likelyhood of it being trapped in the media.
I'm not clear as to what your inferece was? Were you inferring that the diffusion would be more selective at a lower flow rating? The mathematical formulas don't support this. Diffusion is the relationship of the particles to themselves, not to an outside influence.
Last edited:
All on the road vehicles except for a small amount of trucks spend more time sitting still and engine off than moving. At rest, the oil in the bypass filter is most affected by gravitational settling. Once settled, the particles are tougher to move again due to the density and smaller porosity of the media.
See this for more info on Brownian diffusion with respect to filtration. It might be a little hard to follow if you don't have a background in particle physics.
media.corning.com/WorkArea/downloadasset.aspx?id=38079
See this for more info on Brownian diffusion with respect to filtration. It might be a little hard to follow if you don't have a background in particle physics.
media.corning.com/WorkArea/downloadasset.aspx?id=38079
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
All on the road vehicles except for a small amount of trucks spend more time sitting still and engine off than moving. At rest, the oil in the bypass filter is most affected by gravitational settling. Once settled, the particles are tougher to move again due to the density and smaller porosity of the media.
Could that not be also said of any filter, even full flow filters? So, going back to your previous statement, you said that gravitational settling would make the bypass filter "better", but based upon your explanation, that advantage cannot exist because it disallows the claimed superiority when the very same circumstance exists in any filter. Your statements are contradictory, are they not? Also, are you ignoring the comments I made that both filters in my example are 21um nominally rated? There is no "smaller porosity media" in my example. You've attributed a condition to the situation that does not exist.
As for the Corning link; I must admit that's a bit of a hard read. That article is about DPFs and their effects with gaseous mediums. DPFs are depth-bed type media and not the relative thin-based typical cellulose media with liquids such as oil. The two are not directly comparable.
Quoting a short bit here:
While the clean FE increases with decreasing all median pore size, a significant increase in clean
filter pressure drop is observed for wall median pore diameters ...
What that means (and most of us would probably agree upon) is that as a filter becomes loaded with particulate, its pore size constricts, and that increases the efficiency of the filter. It also increases the velocity of the fluid through the filter media as best it can support the Bernoulli priciple. And it increases the deltaP across the media.
More of the article:
The filter microstructure not only has influence on the clean filter filtration efficiency, but also on the evolution of the FE as soot is captured in the filter. As the soot gets deposited in the microstructure, the soot itself acts as a filtering medium and thereby contributes to the increase in the FE. The FE gradually increases from the clean filter FE to full efficiency (100%) ...
Also, in section 4 "Conclusions":
It is estimated that while Brownian diffusion is efficient in capturing particles less than 30nm and interception/inertia is efficient for particles greater than 300nm, it is the intermediate range from 30 to 300nm that no mechanism is dominant ...
OK - first, we cannot really apply this DPF-gaseous filter example to a liquid oil filter; there is no reaonable cause to assign such assumptions. However, what we can glean is that Brownian diffusion is only effective at ULTRA small particle sizes (below 30nm). 1um = 1000nm. So, it's reasonable to presume (admittedly with no direct evidence from this article) that Brownian particulate diffusion would have little to no effect in a traditional liquid oil filter, expecially one with 21um nominal rating! The pores are WAY too large to have the Brownian diffusion effect efficiency. Kind of like worrying about how fast a mouse may run through the cattle gate, as if he slowed down he might get caught up in the opening ... The two filters I mused about were both 21um nominal; I seriously doubt Brownian diffusion will greatly effect the filter efficiency one way or another. And this article you touted does nothing to convince me otherwise. It's an interesting article; it has little if nothing to do with oil filters.
Neither of your explanations are valid for your claims against the examples I made of the Escort full flow and bypass filters. Gravitational settling would be just as effective on a full flow filter setting at rest, and the Brownian diffusion happens on a scale WAY smaller than what is presented in the typical oil filter media.
Again, I cannot find where these support your assertions.
All on the road vehicles except for a small amount of trucks spend more time sitting still and engine off than moving. At rest, the oil in the bypass filter is most affected by gravitational settling. Once settled, the particles are tougher to move again due to the density and smaller porosity of the media.
Could that not be also said of any filter, even full flow filters? So, going back to your previous statement, you said that gravitational settling would make the bypass filter "better", but based upon your explanation, that advantage cannot exist because it disallows the claimed superiority when the very same circumstance exists in any filter. Your statements are contradictory, are they not? Also, are you ignoring the comments I made that both filters in my example are 21um nominally rated? There is no "smaller porosity media" in my example. You've attributed a condition to the situation that does not exist.
As for the Corning link; I must admit that's a bit of a hard read. That article is about DPFs and their effects with gaseous mediums. DPFs are depth-bed type media and not the relative thin-based typical cellulose media with liquids such as oil. The two are not directly comparable.
Quoting a short bit here:
While the clean FE increases with decreasing all median pore size, a significant increase in clean
filter pressure drop is observed for wall median pore diameters ...
What that means (and most of us would probably agree upon) is that as a filter becomes loaded with particulate, its pore size constricts, and that increases the efficiency of the filter. It also increases the velocity of the fluid through the filter media as best it can support the Bernoulli priciple. And it increases the deltaP across the media.
More of the article:
The filter microstructure not only has influence on the clean filter filtration efficiency, but also on the evolution of the FE as soot is captured in the filter. As the soot gets deposited in the microstructure, the soot itself acts as a filtering medium and thereby contributes to the increase in the FE. The FE gradually increases from the clean filter FE to full efficiency (100%) ...
Also, in section 4 "Conclusions":
It is estimated that while Brownian diffusion is efficient in capturing particles less than 30nm and interception/inertia is efficient for particles greater than 300nm, it is the intermediate range from 30 to 300nm that no mechanism is dominant ...
OK - first, we cannot really apply this DPF-gaseous filter example to a liquid oil filter; there is no reaonable cause to assign such assumptions. However, what we can glean is that Brownian diffusion is only effective at ULTRA small particle sizes (below 30nm). 1um = 1000nm. So, it's reasonable to presume (admittedly with no direct evidence from this article) that Brownian particulate diffusion would have little to no effect in a traditional liquid oil filter, expecially one with 21um nominal rating! The pores are WAY too large to have the Brownian diffusion effect efficiency. Kind of like worrying about how fast a mouse may run through the cattle gate, as if he slowed down he might get caught up in the opening ... The two filters I mused about were both 21um nominal; I seriously doubt Brownian diffusion will greatly effect the filter efficiency one way or another. And this article you touted does nothing to convince me otherwise. It's an interesting article; it has little if nothing to do with oil filters.
Neither of your explanations are valid for your claims against the examples I made of the Escort full flow and bypass filters. Gravitational settling would be just as effective on a full flow filter setting at rest, and the Brownian diffusion happens on a scale WAY smaller than what is presented in the typical oil filter media.
Again, I cannot find where these support your assertions.
Last edited:
You asked about Brownian theory applicable to particle filtration and I gave you a primer. There are many articles on the web that you can learn from but they do cost money. I get them for free at work. I worked for Honeywell and up until last year they owned FRAM, the filter maker. I dont' have the time nor the effort to explain to you the relationship of Brownian diffusion in bypass filter. Since you do not have a background in particle physics I am not surprised that you doubt what you don't understand.
Bypass filter is not constructed the same as full flow even for the same rating. The speed of the oil going through the bypass is a lot slower than the full flow, an order of magnitude or more. Brownian principle applies equally to either gas or liquid and the effects of particle sizes will be different depending on the filter medium and construction. If you pour the same amount of oil into a full flow and a bypass filters and turn them up side down, which one will empty out first? The slower the oil flow the more gravitational effect will be felt. We are talking months here, not hours, so the cumulative affects will be more pronounced. Remember, it takes months and thousand of miles to accumulate a few grams of dirt.
One thing in the article that I think you have missed: "It was observed that the clean filter FE is higher and soot load level needed to reach maximum FE is lower for lower flow rate conditions. This is primarily due to the increased capture efficiency for smaller sized particles by the mechanism of Brownian diffusion at lower flow rates (lower Peclet number)." You need to understand what the Peclet number means and not just the filter rating.
Bypass filter is not constructed the same as full flow even for the same rating. The speed of the oil going through the bypass is a lot slower than the full flow, an order of magnitude or more. Brownian principle applies equally to either gas or liquid and the effects of particle sizes will be different depending on the filter medium and construction. If you pour the same amount of oil into a full flow and a bypass filters and turn them up side down, which one will empty out first? The slower the oil flow the more gravitational effect will be felt. We are talking months here, not hours, so the cumulative affects will be more pronounced. Remember, it takes months and thousand of miles to accumulate a few grams of dirt.
One thing in the article that I think you have missed: "It was observed that the clean filter FE is higher and soot load level needed to reach maximum FE is lower for lower flow rate conditions. This is primarily due to the increased capture efficiency for smaller sized particles by the mechanism of Brownian diffusion at lower flow rates (lower Peclet number)." You need to understand what the Peclet number means and not just the filter rating.
dnewton3
Staff member
Actually I do understand most all of that, although I can always learn more.
What you don't understand is so terribly simple ...
In the application I mentioned, my 1987 diesel Escort, both the full flow and bypass filters are of similar construction and rating. The mount they shared in the engine had no flow restriction; both ran the same lube at the same flow rate. I was not commenting on ALL bypass filters as we know them; I was commenting on my previous specific sitation.
If the two filters in my Escort flow the same (9-11gpm), and there is no flow restriction in the mount, then how in the world can Brownian diffusion create a superior FE in one filter over the other? For all practical purposes, they are operating under the same conditions. You are presuming a condition that does not exist, and I'm running out of ways to try and make you understand this very important point!
And I didn't miss that point of Brownian diffusion helping the FE; I dismissed it because of what I already stated earlier above. They noted the effect in nanometers of particulate, which is 1/1000th of a micron. That is WAY TOO SMALL to worry about in a full flow filter that passes 10gpm with a nominal rating of 21um pore size ... You are focusing on the minutia of nanometers; that is NOT the same as the FE capability of the filters we're discussing from my 1987 Escort! You are, in effect, arguing the point of how many pennies it might take to offset the national debt; you scale is GROSSLY way off.
You very well may be correct in your assertions, but you've failed to link anything so far that directly relates to the lube world we discuss, with any proof that makes sense to us non-Honeywell draconians. Your examples are poorly reasoned and the "proof" is not directly attributed to the topic.
I don't take people at their word when the evidence does not support their point of view. Want to convince me you're right? Then link stuff relevant to the topic and show coorelation.
I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm saying you've not proved yourself right. That is a classic distinction. I might very well be able to learn something new from you; I'm certainly not infallable. I most assuredly don't know everything. We often don't see eye-to-eye, but that does not mean I cannot glean from your experiences and knowledge. But you've got to earn it, not just expect it.
Teach me; don't preach to me.
What you don't understand is so terribly simple ...
In the application I mentioned, my 1987 diesel Escort, both the full flow and bypass filters are of similar construction and rating. The mount they shared in the engine had no flow restriction; both ran the same lube at the same flow rate. I was not commenting on ALL bypass filters as we know them; I was commenting on my previous specific sitation.
If the two filters in my Escort flow the same (9-11gpm), and there is no flow restriction in the mount, then how in the world can Brownian diffusion create a superior FE in one filter over the other? For all practical purposes, they are operating under the same conditions. You are presuming a condition that does not exist, and I'm running out of ways to try and make you understand this very important point!
And I didn't miss that point of Brownian diffusion helping the FE; I dismissed it because of what I already stated earlier above. They noted the effect in nanometers of particulate, which is 1/1000th of a micron. That is WAY TOO SMALL to worry about in a full flow filter that passes 10gpm with a nominal rating of 21um pore size ... You are focusing on the minutia of nanometers; that is NOT the same as the FE capability of the filters we're discussing from my 1987 Escort! You are, in effect, arguing the point of how many pennies it might take to offset the national debt; you scale is GROSSLY way off.
You very well may be correct in your assertions, but you've failed to link anything so far that directly relates to the lube world we discuss, with any proof that makes sense to us non-Honeywell draconians. Your examples are poorly reasoned and the "proof" is not directly attributed to the topic.
I don't take people at their word when the evidence does not support their point of view. Want to convince me you're right? Then link stuff relevant to the topic and show coorelation.
I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm saying you've not proved yourself right. That is a classic distinction. I might very well be able to learn something new from you; I'm certainly not infallable. I most assuredly don't know everything. We often don't see eye-to-eye, but that does not mean I cannot glean from your experiences and knowledge. But you've got to earn it, not just expect it.
Teach me; don't preach to me.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
What you don't understand is so terribly simple ...
In the application I mentioned, my 1987 diesel Escort, both the full flow and bypass filters are of similar construction and rating. The mount they shared in the engine had no flow restriction; both ran the same lube at the same flow rate. I was not commenting on ALL bypass filters as we know them; I was commenting on my previous specific sitation.
Did you disect the mount to be sure that there is no restriction or do you just look at it and assume that is the case? Did you do a pressure check at both inputs AND the returns? Same question applies to the filters? Unless you fully disect the filters and the mount, you can only guess.
If after you have done all that and the filters are exactly the same (not just similar contruction and rating) and the mount has the same return pressure from both filters, then you just have a double filter setup and not a bypass filter. A bypass system requires either a restriction of flow or thicker media (not necessarily smaller porosity) to work. A thicker media (think speed bump) will slow down the flow and act the same as a flow restriction in the mount. Brownian diffusion will then takes over.
What you don't understand is so terribly simple ...
In the application I mentioned, my 1987 diesel Escort, both the full flow and bypass filters are of similar construction and rating. The mount they shared in the engine had no flow restriction; both ran the same lube at the same flow rate. I was not commenting on ALL bypass filters as we know them; I was commenting on my previous specific sitation.
Did you disect the mount to be sure that there is no restriction or do you just look at it and assume that is the case? Did you do a pressure check at both inputs AND the returns? Same question applies to the filters? Unless you fully disect the filters and the mount, you can only guess.
If after you have done all that and the filters are exactly the same (not just similar contruction and rating) and the mount has the same return pressure from both filters, then you just have a double filter setup and not a bypass filter. A bypass system requires either a restriction of flow or thicker media (not necessarily smaller porosity) to work. A thicker media (think speed bump) will slow down the flow and act the same as a flow restriction in the mount. Brownian diffusion will then takes over.
Just got an email from my friend at FRAM. He said the diesel engine in the 87 Escort is Mazda made and they speced 10 micron for the full flow and 5 micro for the bypass filter. FRAM made two different filters for that car. The full flow PH2921 is 20 micron nominal and the PH3828 is 10 micron nominal and both meet Ford specs. So, by design the filters are different. If the filter is designated as bypass the flow restriction might be in the filter and not the mount. I personally do not know where the restriction is but there is a flow restriction somewhere in that car.
dnewton3
Staff member
Yes - I know what the car had for a filter mount. I've been a "gear head" my whole life; I understand what I'm lookin at when I see it. I knew it was a Mazda engine. In fact, it had a few iterations from it's introduction into the Ford line in 1994/5 in both the Tempo/Topaz, and Escort/Lynx. They also used this engine in the Ranger (although not mounted transversly).
Also, what FRAM makes for this application is meaningless. Once again, I limted my comments to the two WIX filters for this vehicle. Why you brought Fram into this is beyond me.
I'm at a loss; you constantly divert away from my topics and questions. This is no different that your comments in the S2000 thread about Amsoil saying their EaBP filters won't pull out "wear metals", then when I provide you with direct quoted evidence to the contrary, with the name and title of my Amsoil source, you change your tune and divert.
I've had enough of your "debates"; they are poorly framed, lack reason, and offer no real credible proof tanamount to any given topic, and your lack of ability to stay "on course" is mind numbing.
I don't wish to continue this debate, because it's not one.
You may have the last (rambling) word.
Also, what FRAM makes for this application is meaningless. Once again, I limted my comments to the two WIX filters for this vehicle. Why you brought Fram into this is beyond me.
I'm at a loss; you constantly divert away from my topics and questions. This is no different that your comments in the S2000 thread about Amsoil saying their EaBP filters won't pull out "wear metals", then when I provide you with direct quoted evidence to the contrary, with the name and title of my Amsoil source, you change your tune and divert.
I've had enough of your "debates"; they are poorly framed, lack reason, and offer no real credible proof tanamount to any given topic, and your lack of ability to stay "on course" is mind numbing.
I don't wish to continue this debate, because it's not one.
You may have the last (rambling) word.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
Just got an email from my friend at FRAM. He said the diesel engine in the 87 Escort is Mazda made and they speced 10 micron for the full flow and 5 micro for the bypass filter. FRAM made two different filters for that car. The full flow PH2921 is 20 micron nominal and the PH3828 is 10 micron nominal and both meet Ford specs. So, by design the filters are different. If the filter is designated as bypass the flow restriction might be in the filter and not the mount. I personally do not know where the restriction is but there is a flow restriction somewhere in that car.
Is it possible that "Darcy's Law" has an equation in this?
Just got an email from my friend at FRAM. He said the diesel engine in the 87 Escort is Mazda made and they speced 10 micron for the full flow and 5 micro for the bypass filter. FRAM made two different filters for that car. The full flow PH2921 is 20 micron nominal and the PH3828 is 10 micron nominal and both meet Ford specs. So, by design the filters are different. If the filter is designated as bypass the flow restriction might be in the filter and not the mount. I personally do not know where the restriction is but there is a flow restriction somewhere in that car.
Is it possible that "Darcy's Law" has an equation in this?
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Also, what FRAM makes for this application is meaningless. Once again, I limted my comments to the two WIX filters for this vehicle. Why you brought Fram into this is beyond me.
Because you have failed to prove that the two WIX filters are the same except for looks. The two WIX filters even have two different part numbers. One will flow slower than the other and that is why. You just can't seem to understand the concept of slow flow filtering.
Also, what FRAM makes for this application is meaningless. Once again, I limted my comments to the two WIX filters for this vehicle. Why you brought Fram into this is beyond me.
Because you have failed to prove that the two WIX filters are the same except for looks. The two WIX filters even have two different part numbers. One will flow slower than the other and that is why. You just can't seem to understand the concept of slow flow filtering.
Last edited:
- Status