Some Filtration Comparisons from the Bench

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
3,402
Location
Iowa
I wanted to share some comparisons of common oil filters' apparent cleaning ability.

The way I do this is to carefully cut the filter elements out of the cans without damaging them. Some elements are open at both ends, and I seal these tight at the end that goes toward the dome of the canister--away from the threaded end. I have a bread loaf pan of 5W-20 motor oil that I have mixed in a copious quantity of talcum powder (about 10 microns average as per The Filter Council); about half a cupful per quart. The mixture is thoroughly stirred, and the filter elements to be compared are immediately lowered in at the same time. When the the center tubes of the elements are full of filtered oil, A syringe is fitted with a 12 inch piec of 1/8 inch inside diameter tubing which is used to stir the inner contents of the filter and then draw a sample. The sample tubes are filled and plugged with pieces of nails at both ends. These sample tubes will be mounted vertically for more than a week to view the amount of filtrate that stacks up on the bottoms for comaprison. However, a lot can be seen just by the initial clarity of the diffeent samples.
I also note which filter elements fill faster/flow better.

A mention about the filters' advertized efficiencies:
The PureOne model that I used--a PL20195 states 99.9% efficient at 20 microns. (20 one-thousandths of a millimeter)

The Mobil 1 Extended Performance M1-209 states 99.2% efficiency, but without giving a particle size for which it can earn this rating. However, by telephone to the maker, Champion Labs, they told me they were "in the ballpark of a 10 micron nominal" filter. This means they catch about half the 10 micron sized particles--and more as the debris gets bigger of course.

The Toyota OEM made by Denso, part number 90915-YZZD1 stated nothing specific.

The Fram PH3593A (orange can) is shown as 95% efficient >20 microns. Presumably, they think you don't know what > means.

The WIX built NAPA Gold 1348 has a nominal rating of 21 microns and a Beta of 2/20=21/37. The beta means 21 micron at 50% and 37 microns at 95% catch, respectively.

The K&N HP-1004 I used, according to K&N via email:
Filter media efficiency (per ISO 16889):



100% at 40 microns

100% at 35 microns

100% at 30 microns

99.4% at 25 microns

98.9% at 20 microns

97.1% at 15 microns

92.3% at 10 microns

82.5% at 5 microns

But I am skeptical of the test conditions as this element was tested twice and never gave as clear of filtrate as it should have by comparison with know filter types.

Here are some pictures:

Left to right: Fram orange, WIX, K&N
These have settled for a few days. I am non-plussed by the NAPA Gold/WIX. But This does correspond to the given betas, efficiencies, in my opinion. It is a well built filter, but has never been an outstanding performer in my cleaning tests. I used Fram for the low standard.
The Wix NG still did a bit better than the K&N.

DSC01319.jpg


Left to right: PureOne, Toyota OEM (Denso), Mobil 1 E.P., WIX, K&N
It is hard to tell from the photo, but there is a clear visual difference in the first three, and the second two. The order of cleanliness from best to worst is also left to right. The PureOne, as expected, was outstanding. The Denso and M1 were almost the same but I have to give the nod to the Denso. The Denso also flowed best of all. The WIX and K&N were a bit on the mediocre side of cleanliness but both flowed well.
The PureOne flows twice as fast as the same models made several years ago. There must have been some concern about strat-up valve rattle--but I am speculating on that. The flow charts I have seen for the PureOnes show a nice, pleasing flow curve comparing favorably to other popular filters. The M1 flows about 2/3 again as fast as the PureOne in my test.
Of course, these are all at room temperature with gravity pushing the oil in.

DSC01317.jpg


So there you have it. Numbers are numbers, ads are ads, and dirt is dirt when held up to the light.
Take this for whatever it's worth.

Rob
 
You're welcome guys.
Sorry about the dumbing down the terminology, but I posted this first on a non-oil forum and copied and pasted it here.
 
Would you mind testing some more exotic media like the Donaldson Synteq or Fleetguard Stratapore stuff?
 
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Would you mind testing some more exotic media like the Donaldson Synteq or Fleetguard Stratapore stuff?

Love to, but It's time and money. I'll get to it when I can though.
11.gif
 
Originally Posted By: river_rat
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Would you mind testing some more exotic media like the Donaldson Synteq or Fleetguard Stratapore stuff?

Love to, but It's time and money. I'll get to it when I can though.
11.gif



Wonderful! I'd be curious as to the results, since they have some very impressive specs (on paper of course).
 
Originally Posted By: wirelessF
Surprised to see Denso doing well in the test.

I was too the first time I tested one several months ago.
I expected the good performance this time--but still wanted to run it again for direct comparison with some new filter types...It's a really good filter. Especially for less than $6 at the dealer.
 
Thanks for the tests. This answers my concern with pureone having poor flow in tests done a few years ago but great flow on the flow graph circulated on the web.
 
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
Thanks for the tests. This answers my concern with pureone having poor flow in tests done a few years ago but great flow on the flow graph circulated on the web.

Yes, I cut open a blue one and a new gold/yellow one (same part numbers) and posted here about the flow difference, etc. The media even looks a little different now than on the old style PureOnes.
 
I can't even pronounce those words, Gary! But thanks.
I'll post more pics when the grit settles on the last five tubes.
 
Interesting test.

But what that doesn't take into account is that oil is under pressure and forced thru the filter. This would force many particles into the media material and as the particles built up by constant circulation the efficiency would increase.

These filters also to not claim to be good at filtration that fine. Most use the 20-25 micron level to show good filtration.

But thanks for taking the time and coming up with the test.
 
You bring up an interesting point. Why are filters usually tested at 20-30 microns and the Filter Council is using 10 micron average talc? Haven't I read that most of the wear comes from 30 micron particles? Turbidity from particles too fine to cause much problem may not be important.
 
Originally Posted By: ZZman
But what that doesn't take into account is that oil is under pressure and forced thru the filter. This would force many particles into the media material and as the particles built up by constant circulation the efficiency would increase.

Thanks for the input, Z.
Yes, to a point they will collect more particles with recirculation.
There is a a point of diminishing returns, however, on the finer particles.
Most filters are already rated with the multi-pass test until the filter becomes plugged and, of course, even with that test they do not catch all the stuff.

The reason for this examination is to make a visual comparison between filters of known and unknow advertized efficiencies. e.g., if the PurOne is supposedly in the ballpark of 99.9% efficient at 20 microns, and produces a relatively very clear filtrate upon a single pass with the same contamination level in the oil as filter "B" which produces a milky, opaque filtrate, then we can probably assume that the filter B has a much lower efficiency than the filter with the advertized 99.9% rating (with either mulitple or single passes).

It helps me to decide which to put on my engine.
I don't care too much about % ratings, but if I have a filter that catches most very fine airborne-able particles such as talc in the very first pass, and flows easily, is constructed adequately well, then I consider it a superior filter choice for my engine. (I am not trying to figure a specific muti-pass beta.)
 
Originally Posted By: labman
You bring up an interesting point. Why are filters usually tested at 20-30 microns and the Filter Council is using 10 micron average talc? Haven't I read that most of the wear comes from 30 micron particles? Turbidity from particles too fine to cause much problem may not be important.

I believe the current consensus is 10-20 micron particles cause the most wear.
The filre council is not using talc as far as I know, but I got the average micron size of talc from their website.
 
Now that the oil is clear above the “grit stacks,” here are some more objective pictures:
Left to right; Fram orange, WIX, K&N
It appear the WIX does best, Fram second and then K&N.
LtoRFramWixKN.jpg





Left to right; Mobil 1, PureOne, K&N, Denso, and WIX
This oil/talc concentration is stronger than in the above picture.
Note that I attempted to bracket the tops and bottoms of the grit stacks for visibility because some of these are resting on air bubbles rather than the bottom of the tube. The results are as expected considering the relative turbidity of the oil tubes before settling out with the exception of the K&N which must have developed a media leak. As in the picture above, it already has been tested. I don’t know what happened to the K&N as it was handled with the same care as the others. Must be a defect. (still unacceptable to leak like this)
LtoRM1P1KNDenWix-Copy.jpg
 
Great work Rob got your PM been busy here not much puter time,anyway very nice man looks like the P1 is still a great performer i too would like to see more tested like the synthetic fleetgaurd and RP and AC UPF could PP funds if others would be willing too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top