Some Filtration Comparisons from the Bench

[SuperBusa]

Originally Posted By: labman
Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
Originally Posted By: river_rat
Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
Yep ... can certainly see a visual difference in the media between the Purolator Classic and the PureONE.

I don't doubt that labman said the newer Purolator product that he cut apart had less media if he says so, but look at these. How could you get any more media on these? You couldn't.


From the photos, it looks like they all have the same number of pleats to me. Maybe you can count them to verify. Maybe labman should actually post photos so he has some credibility ... seems I don't have any left because I use the term 'cardboard' to describe any filter that doen't have metal endcaps.

You are saying I am a liar? If my word isn't good enough for you, I don't need you.


Why would you need me if I don't have any "credibility" anyway?

You should be more careful on throwing around your "no credibility" statements.

 

[SuperBusa]

Originally Posted By: river_rat

Left to Right; Bosch, Denso, PureONE, and Purolator Classic:

I'd almost say the Bosch slightly out did the PureONE, but it's hard to get a reading on the amount of talc when it's settled on the sides of the tubes. Maybe you could gently flick the tubes, and keep the tubes straight somehow to get the talc to settle evenly at the bottom of the tubes (?).

Obviously, the Denso does worse than the other 3, which just confirms my plan to switch to the PureONE on the Tacoma after the 2 Densos I have left are gone ... maybe even before that.

 

[river_rat]

Ya. But within the margin of error. That is to say, any pile that's less than maybe a full fourth again in apparent volume than another--they can alternate that much in succesive tests in equal filters. (Random turbulence or air entrained in the media I suppose.)

I tried but I can't budge anything by tapping because the stuff is so fine and soaked in the oil it's like thick batter.
They will eventually pack themselves from gravity. But I didn't want to wait any longer for a pic.
The better ther filters, the finer the stuff that gets though and that takes longer to settle.

 

[Furrner]

Originally Posted By: river_rat

I tried but I can't budge anything by tapping because the stuff is so fine and soaked in the oil it's like thick batter.
They will eventually pack themselves from gravity. But I didn't want to wait any longer for a pic.
The better ther filters, the finer the stuff that gets though and that takes longer to settle.


What about holding them in your hand and twirling your arm like a propeller to centrifuge the stuff to the bottom of the tubes?

I have been following this thread from the beginning, awesome work.

 

[river_rat]

Originally Posted By: Furrner
I have been following this thread from the beginning, awesome work.

Thanks.

I tried the centrifuge bit. Had tubes chucked in a drill at 800 RPM and still doesn't work.
Time is the only thing that seems to settle the filtrate--but it's a good suggestions and thanks for it anyway.

 

[SuperBusa]

Originally Posted By: river_rat
Originally Posted By: Furrner
I have been following this thread from the beginning, awesome work.

Thanks.

I tried the centrifuge bit. Had tubes chucked in a drill at 800 RPM and still doesn't work.


Wrong centrifuge direction. Need to spin them around your head like the moon around the Earth.

 

[river_rat]

I was doing it wrong....

Worst thing (I don't mind waiting a few days for settling) is our good digital camera pooped out.
Fortunately, the problem it has is so common that Sony is extended warranting it but we have to mail it in.

I'll try to get some more pics with our lousy camera though.

 

[river_rat]

Well the autofocus decided to work this morning so here is a little better picture. I hope this helps see the true comparison.

The main thing to note is that the particulates that made it through the Bosch and PureONE elements is so fine that it is kind of hovering above the botton of the tubes. You can see that it if "flocky" and loose by the light passing through. Not very dense at all, so not much material there. It is even more apparent with the naked eye than the camera lens.

Look at the Denso, then, and the Purolator Classic (far right) the material is denser and has settled faster. Even though the pile is not high, you should be able to see that though it (the Classic) filtered very well, it did not result in the little cloud of very fine material that the 99.9% efficiency filters have.

(Also please note that the specks above the debris piles are not particles but small air bubbles caused by my washing the outside of the tubes off in warm water.)

L to R; PureONE, Bosch, Denso, Purolator Classic:

 

[SuperBusa]

I'm loosing faith in Denso.

 

[Ronn]

Originally Posted By: river_rat
Originally Posted By: daman
Originally Posted By: river_rat
There are some variations, but overall I'd rate them from memory here
Filtration:
1. Delco UPF 52 (discontinued)

You can still get the UPF-52 rob,from GM dealer or Rockauto.com

You can? Cool! It is one solid filter.
(I wish they made one in a UPF53 for my truck.)


You can get the UPF 53 on Ebay..I just ordered a box of 6 for $22 delivered. Do a search for this filter on Ebay and you'll find it.

 

[Ronn]

"The UPF52 was a little bit ahead of the PureOne on filtering out my talc, but the flow rate was by far
the slowest of any filter I’ve tested so far (but also the best filtration I’ve ever seen…but I might just stick with the P1 all things considered.
The regular PF52 did a really good job too and seems to be an excellent choice."

Take a look at this info...especially the *flow* studies. BTW..Pure One and Mobil are in this study, just not mentioned by name

Delco Study

 

[river_rat]

Originally Posted By: Ronn
Delco Study


Thanks for the link.
Potential pressure drop across the media looks to me like it will be higher than average in the UPF, but probably not enough to worry about except maybe for racing engines.
My actual results fit this chart better than Delco's.
Cut one open and give it a try. It's easy!

 

[Ronn]

COLD:
UFP here flows 8GPM @PSID 25...all the others require PSID of 45 or higher (MUCH HIGHER!) to obtain that flow.

HOT:

UFP flows 10GPM@ 4PSID...all others are PSID 5-9 for that flow rate.

In these graphs the *competition* isn't mentioned, but you can figure it out if you look at the charts that mention *them* (all on the graph you posted).

 

[SuperBusa]

Originally Posted By: Ronn
Delco Study


Good link ... hard to find such data on the 'net.

Originally Posted By: river_rat

Potential pressure drop across the media looks to me like it will be higher than average in the UPF, but probably not enough to worry about except maybe for racing engines.


Look closely at the scales on the graphs.

If you look closely at these two graphs, you will see they are similar ... note the scales are opposite between the two graphs below, so you have to do a mirror image on one to compare it to the other.

Both are PSID vs COLD Oil flow.

Also notice that the second graph says "SUS2000 (Simulates 5W-30 @ 190F)" where as the first graph says "SUS2000 (Simulated 5W-30 @ 34F)". Both are ACDelco produced graphs.

I think the 2nd graph has a typo - SUS can not be 2000 with 5W-30 oil at 190F.

The PureONE looks like the green line in the hot oil flow graph. It looks to be ~5 PSID at 10 GPM, which is really close to the data that Purolator sent me when testing the PL14006 on their flow bench.

 

[chevrofreak]

<3 Purolator

 

[Ronn]

Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
Originally Posted By: Ronn
Delco Study


Good link ... hard to find such data on the 'net.

Look closely at the scales on the graphs.

If you look closely at these two graphs, you will see they are similar ... note the scales are opposite between the two graphs below, so you have to do a mirror image on one to compare it to the other.

Both are PSID vs COLD Oil flow.

The PureONE looks like the green line in the hot oil flow graph. It looks to be ~5 PSID at 10 GPM, which is really close to the data that Purolator sent me when testing the PL14006 on their flow bench.



Yes..they are one and the same (with Delco *Silver* left off on the upper). Axis parameters are simply reversed. Someone took the data I posted..... put brand names on it..reversed the parameters.... *rounded off* the #s and *published* it, avoiding copyright infringement with the changes.

 

[Ronn]

Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
Originally Posted By: Ronn
Delco Study


Good link ... hard to find such data on the 'net.

Also notice that the second graph says "SUS2000 (Simulates 5W-30 @ 190F)" where as the first graph says "SUS2000 (Simulated 5W-30 @ 34F)". Both are ACDelco produced graphs.

I think the 2nd graph has a typo - SUS can not be 2000 with 5W-30 oil at 190F.

The PureONE looks like the green line in the hot oil flow graph. It looks to be ~5 PSID at 10 GPM, which is really close to the data that Purolator sent me when testing the PL14006 on their flow bench.

Yes, it's a typo. Here's another COLD FLOW graph at a GIVEN PSID of 10 with corresponding FLOW RATES. They show with correct temp here:

 

[Sayjac]

Great graphs. I prefer the multiple line graph(s) to the bar at one psid point(10), for trending information. Clearly the Ultraguard is fine filter. Good catch by Busa on the cold oil temp. I'd expect nothing less.

However, if the first cold oil graph correlates to the Delco graph, only the x,y axis information is reversed, I'd say the Pure One is the turquoise or bluish, ie., Comp #5 in both cold and hot oil graphs. In other words the same for both Delco Graphs.( Unless I'm somewhat colorblind which is a possibility.

) That being the case, the Pure One results in the Delco graphs would correlate positively with what riverrat is finding in his testing. Science!

I wish the legend names/colors on Delco graphs were somewhat bigger/differentiated but it could be my cheap flat screen monitor. lol But the Delco Ultraguard yellow is easily seen though, makes sense.

Anyway, great contribution and

 

[river_rat]

Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
If you look closely at these two graphs, you will see they are similar ... note the scales are opposite between the two graphs below, so you have to do a mirror image on one to compare it to the other.

Yes. I was tired and didn't even notice that the two charts are in agreement.
I stand corrected.

Originally Posted By: Ronn
Axis parameters are simply reversed. Someone took the data I posted..... put brand names on it..reversed the parameters.... *rounded off* the #s and *published* it, avoiding copyright infringement with the changes.

I think that came from Purolator originally.

Anyway, I and we are all probably nitpicking a little bit. The UPFs are very good filters, in my opinion.

But these elements at room temperature flow more slowly than the others I looked at and I will take that over a manufacturer published chart any day since I can't be sure of the conditions of their tests--such as are these elements all the same size and for the same apllications?
That's why I do these comparisons in the first place.

When I'm choosing a filter for my truck, I want to SEE how one flows and filters compared to another before I put that puppy on. I don't attempt to give numbers such as GPM @ X psi @ X deg F, since I don't test for that. But I am convinced which elements pass oil easier in the exact part numbers I compare, because I put them all in the same fluid at the same time, at the same depth (read pressure), and time it with a second hand or stop watch.

Although the flow rates in the graphs are not perfectly linear, I do not believe that the pores in a filter element change shape enough to suddenly pass oil in such a way as to surpass the others when they are run in the actual on-engine application in most cases...At least I am not convinced yet. But I'm learning all the time.

 

[SuperBusa]

Originally Posted By: river_rat

Originally Posted By: Ronn
Axis parameters are simply reversed. Someone took the data I posted..... put brand names on it..reversed the parameters.... *rounded off* the #s and *published* it, avoiding copyright infringement with the changes.

I think that came from Purolator originally.


Actually, the graph below was originally published by ACDelco back in around 2002 when the UPF series hit the streets.

This same exact graph was posted all over the Corvette chat boards back then, and I actually had email correspondence with ACDelco Tech Department about that graph.

Obviously, they have since removed their association with the other brands to prevent any possible legal actions.

Originally Posted By: river_rat

Although the flow rates in the graphs are not perfectly linear, I do not believe that the pores in a filter element change shape enough to suddenly pass oil in such a way as to surpass the others when they are run in the actual on-engine application in most cases...At least I am not convinced yet. But I'm learning all the time.

I believe the flow data, and can certainly believe that as flow and PSID increases in the media it can have an effect on it's flow characteristics. What you see are very slight differences, but they do show up in the ACDelco data.