High Flow Oil Filter

[Spyder7]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
Its one of the better comparisons I've seen.


In your opinion of an amateur presentations? I'll agree. The photos are top notch and the site is well constructed.

Unfortunately you never saw Grease's filter study where one member, who is an engineer at PALL Filtration put a bunch of filters through a battery of tests. Swatches of media tested for flow at given pressures, bubble machine testing, etc. I really wish I had saved the pages. Not so much for the content, which could be subject to change, but for the legit procedural techniques used in testing.

Quote:
Interestingly, two performance filter brands that are manufactured by Champion Labs still use the old design. They are Mobil 1 and K&N. Examples of each purchased in 2008 were not "Ecore" filters."


This is opinion based on ..what? Visual observation? I saw Big Foot and he resembles Charlton Heston as depicted in the remake of The Planet of the Apes. I posted it on the internet ..and you can quote me.

Quote:
I never mentioned RP in the post you quoted.


With a real big smile on my face ..and kindly asked ..are you a "rhyme and meter" anal retentive nitpicker? Does it really make any difference the I (big EYE sound) put RP in with M1 ..which totally appears to be an identical filter?

Quote:
Edit: The Mobil 1 EP is not just marketed as an "endurance" filter. It is also marketed as a performance filter. From their own site:

Mobil 1 Extended Performance Oil Filters

* Designed for today's longer service intervals.
* Removes more contaminants than conventional filters using an advanced synthetic fiber blend filter media.
* High-capacity design stores more contaminants (two times the capacity of the leading brand).
* Reduces resistance to oil flow while improving filter efficiency.
* Withstands up to five times the normal system operating pressure.


Will 3 out of 5 points in the marketing presentation work? The FIRST 3 out of 5

Quote:
To me that reads like high performance marketing.


Well, it depends on your context of "high performance". Are you talking the filter or the application that it's installed on? Sure the filter "performs" well. Is it intended for HIGH PERFORMANCE use? ..and I'll even say that it can be BOTH ..but that's not the question. What do you mean?

Fram's HP line are poorly filtering high performance filters. You're not putting M1 in with them, are you?

Now look at the K&N marketing. Only someone ignoring the company's target market could possibly NOT see that it's intended for the (would be) street rodding crowd.



..and, again, you may in fact be correct. It's just that there's been absolutely no bona fide evidence that the M1 and K&N are merely different cans with the same internals (media). I would hope for someone other than the tech line phone sitter just getting on to the next phone call to fill in his day.


I have provided more evidence to show that they are both based on the same Champ designs, which another member has confirmed as well (while noting a small variation in the K&N implementation, which is more than you have offered to refute that they are not.

You instead choose to beat a dead horse by, having been the one to dispute the fact, persist in demanding more proof, all the while offering nothing of your own to prove otherwise - when you are the one who took issue with it to begin with (and yes, I will nitpick about the fact that you somehow interjected RP into a post of mine, when I had not even mentioned them and have no familiarity with them).

That 3 of the first 5 sentences talk of its endurance properties, does not negate the fact that its also marketed as a performance filter, nor are the two mutually exclusive - as you seem to be so hung up on.

Gary is it that hard to admit you might have gotten it wrong on the M1 filter - just as you did by reading RP into my post when it was never mentioned? Or is that pill so hard to swallow that you instead have to go to the lengths of contortions your last post has provided us with?

-Spyder

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
You instead choose to beat a dead horse by, having been the one to dispute the fact


Correction. I ask for verification of a "ran away with" assertion that now had become an alleged fact since you've repeated it enough.

Again, you may be correct, but I've seen nothing to instill confidence in the yet to be verified assertion.

I've coined a term for it on some other boards that I used to belong to. "Opinion creep". It's an evolutionary process.

Quote:
and yes, I will nitpick about the fact that you somehow interjected RP into a post of mine, when I had not even mentioned them and have no familiarity with them).


Thank you for confirming my inquiry as to your general static demeanor.

btw- if you had instead said PR with M1 we wouldn't be having this "qualified to the nth degree" discussion. I am of the opinion that it's just a rebadged M1 ..but the K&N has never been thought of that way ..

..and, yes, it shares the internal design. Why would you expect otherwise

The orange can of death and the HP line look identical internally too. Are you suggesting that they're the same since they pass the visual test?

..and ..for the (how many?) time ..you may be right, but I'll wait for an authoritative source before I bather it around as fact.

Quote:
That 3 of the first 5 sentences talk of its endurance properties, does not negate the fact that its also marketed as a performance filter, nor are the two mutually exclusive - as you seem to be so hung up on.


Is this a "Because I say so" assertion that you've morphed into a new fact? ..and I didn't say that they're mutually exclusive ..

...just to refresh your eyes .. did you miss this ..or just conveniently forget it in your haste?

Quote:
..and I'll even say that it can be BOTH


Quote:
Gary is it that hard to admit you might have gotten it wrong on the M1 filter - just as you did by reading RP into my post when it was never mentioned? Or is that pill so hard to swallow that you instead have to go to the lengths of contortions your last post has provided us with?


Sypder7 ..is it that hard to admit that you're repeating hearsay that you want to belief and recite as rhetorical fact and cannnot provide any verification or confirmation for?

Is it all to hard for you to say "I'm led to believe"?

..and for the 99th time, you MAY be correct ..but so far you've got vapor to back it up. I didn't make the assertion and runway with it like I was pals with the engineers at Champ Labs.

 

[Spyder7]

When I make the comparison between the two (K&N and M1) I tend to do it the way I've read it: that both are based on the same Performance Design from Champion Labs.

This doesn't mean they are completely identical, as either may spec some slight modification to the design.

Except for the nut on the K&N, the seem identical though; and they also quote similar efficiency numbers: Mobil 99.2%, K&N 99%.

Are you familiar with Occam's Razor Gary? If so, is it more probable that being nearly identical with nearly identical efficiency ratings, that they are essentially the same filter (right down to the media inside) and that K&N uses the same figure but simply rounds it down? Or more likely that each company came up with, independently, 2 near identical designs that are efficient to within 0.2% of each other?

Keep in mind before you answer that there are many filter distributors who sell filters under their own name; yet the majority of them are designed and made by a much smaller number of companies, who don't all sell their product directly to consumers under their own name.

-Spyder

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
When I make the comparison between the two (K&N and M1) I tend to do it the way I've read it: that both are based on the same Performance Design from Champion Labs.


If you're saying that they both look the same and have silicone ADBV's and mesh backed media (I think

) and are otherwise non-Ecore filters..sure. That would constitute "Performance Design" in some mismash of nomenclature. I don't believe that I'm disputing that and am I really disputing anything here other than questioning if the K&N is otherwise identical in all respects to the M1 and (

) RP filters?. I believe that they have an integrated open end bypass valve ..as opposed to the modular one from Wix ..it could be reversed however. Except for the integration ..they're pretty much the same. You're looking at an EaO vs. M1. I believe the M1 components go diagonally from bottom left to top right due to the "goo" on the baseplate. That was VSOT that sank out in my horizontally mounted M1 filter. The (would be otherwise) "silt" that Ford frets about so much.



Quote:
This doesn't mean they are completely identical, as either may spec some slight modification to the design.



Ah ..and here's what our whole big display here is all about. That, while apparently identical for physical features, the K&N may indeed have a different media. One that may allow some added (imo) non-feature of higher flow rates on bench testing.

Quote:
If so, is it more probable that being nearly identical with nearly identical efficiency ratings, that they are essentially the same filter (right down to the media inside) and that K&N uses the same figure but simply rounds it down? Or more likely that each company came up with, independently, 2 near identical designs that are efficient to within 0.2% of each other?


Got me swinging

You're the one doing the ciphering and "reasoning" that they're identical. That is, forming an opinion based on reasoned assumptions. If that's what you're presenting ..FINE.

This is not FACT.

Now I'll say, that based on my testing and observations, for 99.9% of the users out there, that NO filter makes a bit of difference in terms of "flow". Note the distinct qualification. Hence I never give a rat's behind about bench figures. They're only valid (to me-an opinion) in comparison to other filters and really have ABSOLUTELY no bearing upon how the filter performs in your engine ...again "qualified" for 99.9% of the users out there. There will always be exceptional circumstances that are outside of that envelope. Most of us love to think that we're unique in all ways. Most often, we're not. Our service is not severe ..our demands are not high ..etc..etc.

Quote:
Keep in mind before you answer that there are many filter distributors who sell filters under their own name; yet the majority of them are designed and made by a much smaller number of companies, who don't all sell their product directly to consumers under their own name.


All filter man's produce filters that they do not market. Also no filter man makes a filter for every application and buys rebadged filters from their own competition to fill in the gaps. Donaldson appears to focus on high end industrial hydraulics and Asian based HD equipment ..WIX appears more automotive and otherwise "mobile" equipment. Purolator looks like automotive with high penetration into retail outlets. Champ is an OEM assembly line man and otherwise a job shop ..also offering a variety of labels for quicklubes and whatnot (most have a quicklube offering that may be made by someone else). I mean, you've got to be talking something like a $0.25 of rolling line costs for the things ..if that (just a swag). The rest is the cost of doing business.

 

[john1944]

If you're saying that they both look the same and have silicone ADBV's and mesh backed media (I think

)

Neither M1 or K/N have mesh backed media ---- only the Royal Purple filter does.

 

[Gary Allan]

I was tearing apart the M1 and the same sized EaO ..the EaO has the screen backed media. I could not recall of the M1 did.

But ..I do thank you for now confirming that the RP is not just a rebadged M1.

See? This has turned into a productive exchange.

 

[chubbs1]

Wow it must be an internet myth but to me the OP was looking for an oil filter w/ higher flow rate, K&N's are known for that. A wix racing filter would do the trick also he almost blatantly states that he would sacrifice filtration for flow. I've cut open K&N's and MI EP filters and the media is thinner on the former, which makes me believe the emphasis is on flow.

 

[Gary Allan]

If this is a daily driver ..or anything other than something that will be refreshed on regular basis, the "R" filters from WIX or FRAM would not be my first choice. They're truly sieves with something like a 60um rating. You would be enduring incidental stuff banging around, and it would sensibly require oil changes on a radically shortened schedule.

Fine for the bracket racer. Not for the Sunday or daily driver.

But for all the dragged out dialog ..would you want to leave someone with just an answer without qualifying it?

No one said "why would you want to go and do that?" ..which is the rhetorical response from someone who doesn't see the sense to your desire/question ..and all they leave off is "you idiot".

None of that went on here.

 

[Gary Allan]

I think I missed this


Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan

Now if you're slamming up against the relief on the pump, then all filters are highly resistant to flow. That's why you have a bypass valve. That narrow range is just about all there is to talk about for most (note "most" - there are always exceptions ..terms ..and conditions)


I wouldn't say all filters are "highly resistant to flow" ... even when the oil pump is putting out max flow to the filter & engine (ie, meaning the oil pump is in pressure relief).

What I would say is that when the oil pump is in pressure relief is when the most pressure drop occurs across an oil filter because that is the condition where the oil flow volume is maximized. Most good flowing oil filters will produce about 4 to 6 psid with hot oil (200 deg F, 5w-30) at max flow volume, which means the bypass valve should never open when the oil is hot unless the filter is super loaded up and clogging.


Compared to air, you bet they all are ..which is the difference between a filter and a pipe.

When they test flow capability, they take a swatch of the media and apply a pressure to it. They read that flow. This is where you get the "free flowing" or "more restrictive" data points.

But the difference is just about no difference at all in the engine (most applications - as always, I'm required to qualify everything ..every time so that nitpickers have nothing to latch on to).

Essentially you're looking at a brick wall to pressure/resistance flow ..which is what you have in pump relief ..at least to the proportion that the total flow is relieved.

That's why they have a bypass valve. It limits the potential resistance the the filter can present to flow. It has virtually none when the pump is out of relief, since the engine is making the majority of the back pressure of the total circuit. Many times what the filter adds to the whole deal.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I think I missed this
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan

Now if you're slamming up against the relief on the pump, then all filters are highly resistant to flow. That's why you have a bypass valve. That narrow range is just about all there is to talk about for most (note "most" - there are always exceptions ..terms ..and conditions)


I wouldn't say all filters are "highly resistant to flow" ... even when the oil pump is putting out max flow to the filter & engine (ie, meaning the oil pump is in pressure relief).

What I would say is that when the oil pump is in pressure relief is when the most pressure drop occurs across an oil filter because that is the condition where the oil flow volume is maximized. Most good flowing oil filters will produce about 4 to 6 psid with hot oil (200 deg F, 5w-30) at max flow volume, which means the bypass valve should never open when the oil is hot unless the filter is super loaded up and clogging.


Compared to air, you bet they all are ..which is the difference between a filter and a pipe.


Don't know why you bring up air filters when we are talking about oil filters. But if you put oil through an air filter it will be more restrictive than putting air through it. Same with an oil filter ... it would be much less restrictive to air flow than oil flow.

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan

When they test flow capability, they take a swatch of the media and apply a pressure to it. They read that flow. This is where you get the "free flowing" or "more restrictive" data points.

But the difference is just about no difference at all in the engine (most applications - as always, I'm required to qualify everything ..every time so that nitpickers have nothing to latch on to).


Yes, that's why most oil filters aren't very restrictive ... regardless if the oil pump is "in relief" or not. All it means when the oil pump is in relief is that the flow through the filter & engine is maximum for the viscosity at hand. When the pump is in relief is that same time the pressure drop across the filter and engine is also at its maximum for the viscosity at hand.

The pressure drop across the filter is about 1/15th that across the engine circuit. So, for example, if the oil pump is in pressure relief at 75 psi, the drop across the filter will be 5 psi, and the drop across the engine circuit will be 70 psi. (pressure drop ratio of 5/75 = 1/15 = filter is 15 times less restrictive than the engine circuit).

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Essentially you're looking at a brick wall to pressure/resistance flow ..which is what you have in pump relief ..at least to the proportion that the total flow is relieved.

That's why they have a bypass valve. It limits the potential resistance the the filter can present to flow. It has virtually none when the pump is out of relief, since the engine is making the majority of the back pressure of the total circuit. Many times what the filter adds to the whole deal.


I doubt many filters go into bypass unless they are very clogged up with debris - even with cold oil I don't think they go into bypass if the filter is new/clean. I think the 15:1 pressure drop ratio pretty much holds true regardless of the oil viscosity.

It is entirely possible that a filter could go into bypass mode before the pump goes into pressure relief if the filter is highly clogged. The filer's bypass valve and the oil pump's pressure relief valve are really not dependent on each other or tied together in any way.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
Don't know why you bring up air filters when we are talking about oil filters. But if you put oil through an air filter it will be more restrictive than putting air through it. Same with an oil filter ... it would be much less restrictive to air flow than oil flow.


I was referring to an empty pipe ..as though no filter was there at all. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.

Quote:
Yes, that's why most oil filters aren't very restrictive ... regardless if the oil pump is "in relief" or not.


Oh ..but they are. Try pouring oil through a funnel ..and then try pouring it through a filter. Same deal with just applying a pressure/resistance deal (read as applied pressure over a given resistance/restriction). In that scenario you're applying "oil column of pressure to atmospheric. In relief the oil has somewhere else to go. That's why you have a bypass valve that limits the resistance of the filter ..therefore limiting the amount of flow reduction.

Quote:
All it means when the oil pump is in relief is that the flow through the filter & engine is maximum for the viscosity at hand.


Yes ..

Quote:
When the pump is in relief is that same time the pressure drop across the filter and engine is also at its maximum for the viscosity at hand.

Hmmmm...the pressure as read from the pump side of the filter will be the relief level (or higher if the output is more than the relief port can manage at that time/speed/moment) ..the pressure below the filter will read the pressure developed at that flow rate ..at that visc

the filter will see the difference. Without a bypass, that "drop" (in relief it is indeed a "drop" in pressure) could be 100% of flow ..or the media could breach ..turn into a sail and cover the outlet (like that poor guy with a BowTie who did that senseless bypass plug thing that Chebbie rodder's appear so fond of ..while not using a sieve for a filter like the Fram HP line)

..since its normal state in a pressure over resistance scenario is EXTREMELY HIGH. If the oil has an option to go elsewhere ..without the safety of the bypass mechanism, it will take it as the path of least resistance.

Quote:
The pressure drop across the filter is about 1/15th that across the engine circuit. So, for example, if the oil pump is in pressure relief at 75 psi, the drop across the filter will be 5 psi, and the drop across the engine circuit will be 70 psi. (pressure drop ratio of 5/75 = 1/15 = filter is 15 times less restrictive than the engine circuit).


I will only argue that for the formula ..not the magnitude. It was never quite a fixed ratio. It was more like a "valve constant" when out of relief. 2PSID or less would be a typical reading. It gets hard to read.

Now there can surely be exceptions. If your pump is loose either by design or fatigue, you'll (then) drop more across the filter since you're in some "beyond negligible pump leakage" scenario.

Quote:
I doubt many filters go into bypass unless they are very clogged up with debris -


Absolutely!! The more loaded a filter ..the smaller it appears. Simple enough there.

Now YOU can see why I try and tell everyone that obsessing over a filter going into bypass is really much ado about nothing (FOR MOST APPS)

Quote:
It is entirely possible that a filter could go into bypass mode before the pump goes into pressure relief if the filter is highly clogged. The filer's bypass valve and the oil pump's pressure relief valve are really not dependent on each other or tied together in any way.


The filter can go into bypass in a few scenarios. But the main thing I've been trying to communicate here is when a filter WILL see elevated PSID. That may or may not mean a bypass event. One would be at startup when the engine isn't fully enveloped. There's no "back pressure" to shore up the downstream side of the media.

If the filter is loaded, the effects of pump relief will be exacerbated. You've got a static load on the filter that (perhaps) can only pass 1/2 the fluid ..at that moment ..at that flow rate ..at that viscosity. Once you're out of relief, the same "climbing of engine back pressure" will compress the "apparent resistance" of the filter.

This still may not mean a relief event.

People with engine side gauges can pretty much see when the filter is at elevated PSID. It will be where the needle climbs ..and then slows way down ..then finally settles out. You're witnessing the transition from high(er) PSID to (maybe) none. To "know" you would need one above ......like I used to come up with all this dandy rhetoric.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan

Quote:
Yes, that's why most oil filters aren't very restrictive ... regardless if the oil pump is "in relief" or not.


Oh ..but they are. Try pouring oil through a funnel ..and then try pouring it through a filter. Same deal with just applying a pressure/resistance deal (read as applied pressure over a given resistance/restriction). In that scenario you're applying "oil column of pressure to atmospheric.


Let's keep this discussion in perspective. Sure a filter is "restrictive" when compared to an open pipe or funnel with only gravity as the moving force. But oil filters are also pretty "non-restrictive" when compared to the engine's oiling system. The 15:1 ratio is pretty standard rule of thumb for most modern oiling systems. So in other words, if the filter is only 1/15th of the total pressure drop, then it has to be relatively free flowing since it is flowing the same oil volume that is going into the engine (ie, "full flow filter").

If an oil pump max pressure output was 75 psi, you would see about 70 psi if the sensor was after the filter (ie, a 5 psid across the filter, and 70 psi at inlet to engine oil circuit). If you removed the filter, you'd see 75 psi at the sensor since there would be zero filter psid.

When the oil pump goes out of pressure relief (due to less RPM and/or thinner hot oil), you will basically still have the 15:1 pressure drop ratio, like this example - assume the oil is at constant viscosity here:

Oil pump press ... Filter PSID ... Engine Oil Press
70 ... 4.7 ... 65.3
60 ... 4.0 ... 56.0
50 ... 3.3 ... 46.7
40 ... 2.7 ... 37.3
30 ... 2.0 ... 28.0
20 ... 1.3 ... 18.7

So you can see that if the oil warms up and the pump goes out of relief and the pump is putting out 40 psi, that means the oil filter psid is reduced down around 2.7 psid. Maybe this is what you are always referring to as the psid disappearing after start-up. BUT, if this engine could hit oil pump pressure relief (75 psi) with hot oil, then the oil filter will be producing 5 psid because in order to build 75 psi with hot oil the pump is putting out tons of volume (like 10 or 12 GPM).

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
In relief the oil has somewhere else to go. That's why you have a bypass valve that limits the resistance of the filter ..therefore limiting the amount of flow reduction.

... Just because the oil pump goes into pressure relief doesn't necessarily mean the filter goes into bypass. In fact, the filter may be many psid away from going into bypass if it's clean, flows well and has a properly set bypass valve setting. Just because the oil pump is in pressure relief doesn't mean there is any less oil going through the filter & engine. In fact, when the pump is in pressure relief that is when the MAX oil volume is going through the filter & engine.

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
When the pump is in relief is the same exact time the pressure drop across the filter and engine is also at its maximum for the viscosity at hand.

Hmmmm...the pressure as read from the pump side of the filter will be the relief level (or higher if the output is more than the relief port can manage at that time/speed/moment) ..the pressure below the filter will read the pressure developed at that flow rate ..at that visc


Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
The pressure drop across the filter is about 1/15th that across the engine circuit. So, for example, if the oil pump is in pressure relief at 75 psi, the drop across the filter will be 5 psi, and the drop across the engine circuit will be 70 psi. (pressure drop ratio of 5/75 = 1/15 = filter is 15 times less restrictive than the engine circuit).


I will only argue that for the formula ..not the magnitude. It was never quite a fixed ratio. It was more like a "valve constant" when out of relief. 2PSID or less would be a typical reading. It gets hard to read.


I was using these numbers as an example. My LS6 follows this example very well. See the other example above on how the filter psid drops as the oil pressure drops when the pump is out of relief mode.

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Now there can surely be exceptions. If your pump is loose either by design or fatigue, you'll (then) drop more across the filter since you're in some "beyond negligible pump leakage" scenario.

... If the oil pump is "loose" or "fatigued" then it might not even make it to pressure relief mode if it can't build up enough pressure. The psid drop across the filter is based on the actual oil volume going through the filter. Like I've said, if the pump can make it to pressure relief - which is the MAX oil pressure it can put on the engine's oil system - then the filter will experience it's highest psid level. This is true even if the oil pump is leaking or inefficient. A filter + engine oil circuit combo can only flow X GPM at Y head pressure (from the pump) at Z viscosity.

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
I doubt many filters go into bypass unless they are very clogged up with debris -


Absolutely!! The more loaded a filter ..the smaller it appears. Simple enough there.

Now YOU can see why I try and tell everyone that obsessing over a filter going into bypass is really much ado about nothing (FOR MOST APPS)

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
The filter can go into bypass in a few scenarios. But the main thing I've been trying to communicate here is when a filter WILL see elevated PSID. That may or may not mean a bypass event. One would be at startup when the engine isn't fully enveloped. There's no "back pressure" to shore up the downstream side of the media.


My theory is that even when you change the oil filter and it bone dry (meaning no envelopment of engine back pressure), that the inrush of oil is not at a sufficient volume to cause a bypass event. Now if you put the pedal to the floor and hit red line at start up with a bone dry filter then it might go into bypass due to the insane oil volume hitting the media.

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
People with engine side gauges can pretty much see when the filter is at elevated PSID. It will be where the needle climbs ..and then slows way down ..then finally settles out. You're witnessing the transition from high(er) PSID to (maybe) none. To "know" you would need one above ......like I used to come up with all this dandy rhetoric.


An engine side oil pressure gauge only tells you what the supply pressure is at the entrance of the engine's oil system. Of course the needle will start high and slowly come down due to the oil warming up and thinning out ... nothing magic there. The filters psid will also be coming down proportionally as I showed. The only way to estimate what the psid is across the filter is to know what the oil pump's relief pressure setting is, and then read the oil pressure on the engine side when the pump is in relief. The difference is the filter psid. Example: Pump relief at 75 psi, engine oil pressure is 70 psi at high RPM with cold oil. Filter psid is 75 psi - 70 psi = 5 psid. I've done this with my LS6 and it correlated pretty well.

As you mentioned ... of course the easier, and more accurate way, would be to have a delta P gauge or a pressure sensor before and after the filter.

 

[Steve S]

Originally Posted By: boxcartommie22
if you want a top notch filter then get a stainless steel filter. filters 100% 35u 80% 10u and flows 57 gpm. been using these for 2years or more keeps oil nice and clean...the paper oil filter companies will not tell you all the big particles that escape in a paper filter...also metal shavings will pierce through the paper....also increased oil pressure
?

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
Let's keep this discussion in perspective.


Okay..

Quote:
Sure a filter is "restrictive" when compared to an open pipe or funnel with only gravity as the moving force.



Simply stated, a filter is not "free flowing". Even with pressure applied, without "back pressure" It will show its EXTREME difference in resistance compared to not being there at all. No automotive filter I know can pass fluid as good as an empty pipe. Therefore, any and all filters are extremely resistant to flow. Without an engine downstream, 100% of the pressure developed would be expressed over it.

A 100watt light bulb is a tremendous resistance if it's the only thing in the circuit. 100% of the voltage applied is developed over it. Put a 1000watt bulb in line with it, and that resistance is compressed to 1/10. (no nitpicking - just used for showing how a BIG restriction can magically appear VERY SMALL)

Put a 1' hole in a bulkhead in a 100' diameter pipe at midspan ..massive restriction ..until you cap the end of the pipe with a 2" outlet.

How many ways can we not be arguing for you to see it?

Quote:
The 15:1 ratio is pretty standard rule of thumb for most modern oiling systems.



Well, can you point me to the publication where a competent authority stated it? Now if it's just some LS(?) rod jockeys reasoning things amongst themselves...we'll get to that in a minute.

In my observations that ratio was up to 41:1 ..since it was 2PSID or less out of relief ..and the pressure limit was 82lb. Out of relief they tracked within 2lb of each other. The transition from relief to a unified flow (single, not "split") would be from the limit of the bypass rating ..to 2PSID (or less).

Wix technical, btw, has this same impression when asked about the pressure across the filter ..now they're thinking "FOR MOST APPS" at most sensible flow rates/ranges...but it validated my observations ..as much as some didn't like to accept them since they like to quote bench data that's as convoluted by the marketing weasels as Castrol's "90% of all wear occurs at startup!" while totally leaving off "that's pretty much unavoidable".

Quote:
When the oil pump goes out of pressure relief (due to less RPM and/or thinner hot oil), you will basically still have the 15:1 pressure drop ratio, like this example - assume the oil is at constant viscosity here:


I won't necessarily argue with the concept ..but it is not normally that "big". Under your example scenario, you're very near bypass thresholds ..and I assure you, there's virtually no differential of merit in MOST APPS (more for the LS jockeys later).

Quote:
Oil pump press ... Filter PSID ... Engine Oil Press
70 ... 4.7 ... 65.3
60 ... 4.0 ... 56.0
50 ... 3.3 ... 46.7
40 ... 2.7 ... 37.3
30 ... 2.0 ... 28.0
20 ... 1.3 ... 18.7


..and you got these REAL measurements ..how?

Did you have gauges above and below the filter on a non-LS engine? I keep saying that since I will get to it later.


Quote:
... Just because the oil pump goes into pressure relief doesn't necessarily mean the filter goes into bypass.


Go back and read my post again. I really must speak in tongues.

Was this unclear for content and intent?

You appear to be arguing with me ..but making the same points to refute mine.


Quote:
But the main thing I've been trying to communicate here is when a filter WILL see elevated PSID. That may or may not mean a bypass event.


I mean, if you're looking for an argument, that's two doors down on the right. This is ABUSE

Quote:
... If the oil pump is "loose" or "fatigued" then it might not even make it to pressure relief mode if it can't build up enough pressure.


Okay ..I'll even MORE simply state it. If you can see a filter actually drop any appreciable pressure across it (assume a NEW filter and hot oil - just to eliminate the variables) ..you're in a relief event. You just don't know it.

Have you ever experienced a change in idle pressure with a change in filters? If that figure is lower ..then there is absolutely no two ways about it ..you're shunting oil somewhere. A few LS(?) owners report this ..and it leads to "true myths" about "better flowing" or "more restrictive" filters.

If your pressure sender is downstream of the filter ..and you change filters ..and you get a lower reading ..how can that be possible unless there's a leak at the oil pump? Think about it now. If the same flow at the same visc was going to the engine, the engine would be developing the same pressure. If it's not, it's not getting the same flow. With a positive displacement pump ..it's supposed to, unless one of two conditions exist. Either it's in relief ..or it's internal leakage is "relieving" SOME flow.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan

Quote:
The 15:1 ratio is pretty standard rule of thumb for most modern oiling systems.


Well, can you point me to the publication where a competent authority stated it? Now if it's just some LS(?) rod jockeys reasoning things amongst themselves...we'll get to that in a minute.

In my observations that ratio was up to 41:1 ..since it was 2PSID or less out of relief ..and the pressure limit was 82lb.


But what was the filter's psid when the oil pump WAS in relief at 82 psi? That is when you have to compare pressure ratios to get a good measure of filter vs. engine ratio.


Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Have you ever experienced a change in idle pressure with a change in filters?


No ... never, and I've used the same oil with 4 or 5 different oil filters and the RPM/temp/oil pressure data is virtually identical with them all.

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
If that figure is lower ..then there is absolutely no two ways about it ..you're shunting oil somewhere. A few LS(?) owners report this ..and it leads to "true myths" about "better flowing" or "more restrictive" filters.


The oil pressure at idle should remain the same if the oil pump is NOT in pressure relief ... even if the filter is more restrictive - assuming idle speed an oil viscosity is the same and the positive displacement pump is not shot. The only time you could tell if the filter is more restrictive is if you can see a lower oil pressure when the oil pump is in relief (ie, at max output pressure at high RPM). This is with the oil pressure sensor between filter and engine of course. Or of course, if you had a delta P gauge across the filter itself.

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
If your pressure sender is downstream of the filter ..and you change filters ..and you get a lower reading ..how can that be possible unless there's a leak at the oil pump? Think about it now. If the same flow at the same visc was going to the engine, the engine would be developing the same pressure. If it's not, it's not getting the same flow. With a positive displacement pump ..it's supposed to, unless one of two conditions exist. Either it's in relief ..or it's internal leakage is "relieving" SOME flow.


I agree ... but in my experience I have never seen different oil pressure readings with many different filters under the same exact conditions. I imaging there could have been a few tenths or even a 1/2 psi difference, but my built-in digital gauge only reads in 1 psi increments. It does have an oil temp sensor, so I know the oil temps at these test points also, which is a critical parameter in these measurements.

I can't respond to all this going around stuff ... it's getting too diluted at this point. If you want to hash out main points, then go for small pieces at a time from here out.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
Sure a filter is "restrictive" when compared to an open pipe or funnel with only gravity as the moving force.


Simply stated, a filter is not "free flowing". Even with pressure applied, without "back pressure" It will show its EXTREME difference in resistance compared to not being there at all.


If you pumped 10 GPM of 200 deg F 5w-30 oil through a filter it's going to produce the same psid if it's connected to an engine or the center tube outlet pukes to the atmosphere. If the filter is not connected to an engine, it will take much less pump pressure to make 10 GPM flow ... it will not take 75 or 80 psi like when the filter is on an engine ... it will probably only take 5 psi, which is what the psid would end up being.

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
No automotive filter I know can pass fluid as good as an empty pipe. Therefore, any and all filters are extremely resistant to flow. Without an engine downstream, 100% of the pressure developed would be expressed over it.


Like I said above, if the filter was free to puke into the air (zero back pressure from the engine), it will still produce the same PSID based on the GPM and viscosity of oil going through it. The pump will just be working a lot less and be developing much less supply pressure to push the same oil volume through the filter. The pump will not be producing 75~80 psi when there is not back pressure from the very restrictive engine oiling system.


Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
A 100watt light bulb is a tremendous resistance if it's the only thing in the circuit. 100% of the voltage applied is developed over it. Put a 1000watt bulb in line with it, and that resistance is compressed to 1/10. (no nitpicking - just used for showing how a BIG restriction can magically appear VERY SMALL)

Put a 1' hole in a bulkhead in a 100' diameter pipe at midspan ..massive restriction ..until you cap the end of the pipe with a 2" outlet.

How many ways can we not be arguing for you to see it?

Same thing as saying the oil filter is 1/15th or 1/30th or whatever as resistive as the engine. IMO, when one can say the oil filter is only 1/15th or less resistive than the engine, then relatively speaking, the filter is not a very restrictive component in the total system. Yeah, compared to air or to a 10 ft dia pipe it's "restrictive", but relative the the rest of the system that the pump needs to force oil down, the filter is not very restrictive.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
But what was the filter's psid when the oil pump WAS in relief at 82 psi? That is when you have to compare pressure ratios to get a good measure of filter vs. engine ratio.


Simply whatever the difference in total pump output and realized pump output with a maximum of the filters bypass setting.

Let's say for a minute that you're relief port is REAL BIG. The engineer was having a brain issue that day. Now suppose that: at the start up/idle speed ..at a given visc ..at a give temp...ONLY 1/2 of the supplied flow could fit through the engine.

Just suppose...

If that occurred you would have (we'll go with 100psi for pressure limits)

50psid across the filter and 50psi developed over the engine.

Now before you go objecting ..watch what happens when the flow begins to form ONE flow instead of TWO (engine and relief port)

Supply/engine (above and below the filter)

100/50 50% relief flow
100/75 25% relief flow
100/85 15% relief flow
100/90 10% relief flow
100/96 5% relief flow
100/98 0% relief flow for all essential purposes.

Now it can start to decay as it warms.

But ..son of a gun ..we've got a bypass valve @ 12psi so the filter can NEVER appear as it CAN...an INCREDIBLE resistance to flow.

100/88 88% flow
100/89 89% flow
100/94 94% flow

etc...etc.

As you were starting it would look like this

(I'll cut to the chase)

88/86
90/88
92/88
94/88
96/88
98/88
100/88
then ..as the relief event "eased" (fluid doesn't always like to move from a static column to full speed -whatever that speed is)

100/90
100/92
100/94
100/96
100/98
99/97
97/95
etc..etc..etc.



Quote:
No ... never, and I've used the same oil with 4 or 5 different oil filters and the RPM/temp/oil pressure data is virtually identical with them all.


Hmmm..then how does that jive with your figures there? You either had to see elevation above or de-elevation below to sense that increased PSID ...and if accurate, you would indeed see the difference between one filter over another; which I assert you will not outside of a relief event (loading and other factors ignored for the conceptual view).

Quote:
The oil pressure at idle should remain the same if the oil pump is NOT in pressure relief


So, again, we find ourselves in total agreement. If you don't see that, you have to have either a stuck/scored relief mechanism ..worn pump gears ..or a "loose design", right?

See how easy we get along?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
But what was the filter's psid when the oil pump WAS in relief at 82 psi? That is when you have to compare pressure ratios to get a good measure of filter vs. engine ratio.


Simply whatever the difference in total pump output and realized pump output with a maximum of the filters bypass setting.

... define "realized pump output". If you mean the oil pressure after the filter, then yes that would be the delta P across the filter. So what was your filter delta P measured value when your oil pump was putting out 82 psi in relief mode?

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Let's say for a minute that you're relief port is REAL BIG. The engineer was having a brain issue that day. Now suppose that: at the start up/idle speed ..at a given visc ..at a give temp...ONLY 1/2 of the supplied flow could fit through the engine.

Just suppose...

If that occurred you would have (we'll go with 100psi for pressure limits)

50psid across the filter and 50psi developed over the engine.


Gotta put a comment in at this point. Please explain how the filter could have a 50 psid if the oil pump's supply pressure was 100 psi ... that's not possible unless the oil filter was equally as restrictive to flow as the engine. We have already agreed that the engine is at least 15 times more restrictive than a filter. Plus, if the filter had say a 12 psi bypass valve, it would not allow any more than 12 psid across the media (if the bypass valve could flow the required volume to keep the psid at 12) ... you already eluded to that above.

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
No ... never, and I've used the same oil with 4 or 5 different oil filters and the RPM/temp/oil pressure data is virtually identical with them all.


Hmmm..then how does that jive with your figures there? You either had to see elevation above or de-elevation below to sense that increased PSID ...and if accurate, you would indeed see the difference between one filter over another; which I assert you will not outside of a relief event (loading and other factors ignored for the conceptual view).


Because at idle the oil pump is not in relief and the oil pump is probably tight (only 20K miles). With a positive displacement oil pump, if the pump is not in relief then all the oil volume leaving the pump is going through the filter and engine. At idle (800 RPM) with 200 deg F 5w-30 oil, the volume going through filter A or B or C or D will be the same volume, and the same volume going through the engine so the oil pressure sensor will read the same value as long as the oil pump is not in relief. Once the oil pump goes into relief, then I would be able to see any differences in filter restriction that would show up as less engine oil pressure (after the filter).

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
The oil pressure at idle should remain the same if the oil pump is NOT in pressure relief


So, again, we find ourselves in total agreement. If you don't see that, you have to have either a stuck/scored relief mechanism ..worn pump gears ..or a "loose design", right?

See how easy we get along?

As I just said above, if the oil pump is not in relief then you can not detect how restrictive the oil filter is unless you directly measure the delta pressure across the filter with gauges.

 

[Spyder7]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
When I make the comparison between the two (K&N and M1) I tend to do it the way I've read it: that both are based on the same Performance Design from Champion Labs.


If you're saying that they both look the same and have silicone ADBV's and mesh backed media (I think

) and are otherwise non-Ecore filters..sure. That would constitute "Performance Design" in some mismash of nomenclature. I don't believe that I'm disputing that and am I really disputing anything here other than questioning if the K&N is otherwise identical in all respects to the M1 and (

) RP filters?. I believe that they have an integrated open end bypass valve ..as opposed to the modular one from Wix ..it could be reversed however. Except for the integration ..they're pretty much the same. You're looking at an EaO vs. M1. I believe the M1 components go diagonally from bottom left to top right due to the "goo" on the baseplate. That was VSOT that sank out in my horizontally mounted M1 filter. The (would be otherwise) "silt" that Ford frets about so much.



Quote:
This doesn't mean they are completely identical, as either may spec some slight modification to the design.



Ah ..and here's what our whole big display here is all about. That, while apparently identical for physical features, the K&N may indeed have a different media. One that may allow some added (imo) non-feature of higher flow rates on bench testing.

Quote:
If so, is it more probable that being nearly identical with nearly identical efficiency ratings, that they are essentially the same filter (right down to the media inside) and that K&N uses the same figure but simply rounds it down? Or more likely that each company came up with, independently, 2 near identical designs that are efficient to within 0.2% of each other?


Got me swinging

You're the one doing the ciphering and "reasoning" that they're identical. That is, forming an opinion based on reasoned assumptions. If that's what you're presenting ..FINE.

This is not FACT.

Now I'll say, that based on my testing and observations, for 99.9% of the users out there, that NO filter makes a bit of difference in terms of "flow". Note the distinct qualification. Hence I never give a rat's behind about bench figures. They're only valid (to me-an opinion) in comparison to other filters and really have ABSOLUTELY no bearing upon how the filter performs in your engine ...again "qualified" for 99.9% of the users out there. There will always be exceptional circumstances that are outside of that envelope. Most of us love to think that we're unique in all ways. Most often, we're not. Our service is not severe ..our demands are not high ..etc..etc.

Quote:
Keep in mind before you answer that there are many filter distributors who sell filters under their own name; yet the majority of them are designed and made by a much smaller number of companies, who don't all sell their product directly to consumers under their own name.


All filter man's produce filters that they do not market. Also no filter man makes a filter for every application and buys rebadged filters from their own competition to fill in the gaps. Donaldson appears to focus on high end industrial hydraulics and Asian based HD equipment ..WIX appears more automotive and otherwise "mobile" equipment. Purolator looks like automotive with high penetration into retail outlets. Champ is an OEM assembly line man and otherwise a job shop ..also offering a variety of labels for quicklubes and whatnot (most have a quicklube offering that may be made by someone else). I mean, you've got to be talking something like a $0.25 of rolling line costs for the things ..if that (just a swag). The rest is the cost of doing business.



We could continue jousting back and forth on this, but there is no need as you hit the nail on the head: I present the similarity based upon reasonable assumptions that form the opinion. Those assumptions are based on:

1. Having seem them dissected and noticing how very identical they look;

2. Having seen it stated that they both use the Performance design by Champion;

3. Having seen efficiency ratings posted by both companies as within 0.2% of each other;

4. Knowing as fact that there are many filter branders and distributors, but very few companies designing and making all these different brands.

Based on the above, I reasonably conclude that they are both based on the same design and any differences between them are insignificant. I apply Occam`s Razor and conclude that the above is still consistent with Mobil's placing its (not entire) emphasis on the endurance of the filter, as its sold under the same name as the oil designed to go the same distance; and also consistent with K&N placing their emphasis on the performance aspect, as they are not in the oil business and their market is the (aftermarket) performance enthusiast.

With the reasoning being informed by some study in business and economics (in the context of a few university electives) and management experience from a former career, I find it more credible that the two companies are using the same core design and placing their own branding twist on it to confirm to each company's target market, than it is to believe this all coincidence and that the two filters were developed independently and share nothing other than coincidental design similarities.

I find that especially unlikely when Champion's business is to design and produce filters to be distributed under other brand names and that Mobil and K&N would have to invest significant sums in re-inventing a wheel they could simply purchase and brand as their own from an established firm who operates under that business model.

I have yet to see you post any actual evidence to the contrary by the way. If you have proof that this is not the case, feel free to educate us to the contrary; rhetorical arguments do not constitute refutation.

-Spyder

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
confused ... define "realized pump output". If you mean the oil pressure after the filter, then yes that would be the delta P across the filter. So what was your filter delta P measured value when your oil pump was putting out 82 psi in relief mode?


In relief a % of flow "fits" in the engine. This % of flow will equal that % of pressure.

Simply stated. IF 1gpm=100psi of pressure (use a figure that's convenient for the demonstration -whatever visc ..whatever this that or the other thing as long as it works in your head) then .5gpm would develop 50psi.

Can you agree to that? Now first it helps if you want to see what I'm saying.

I may not be communicating it well.

Take these points in isolation. We should be able to integrate them at the end.

Quote:
Gotta put a comment in at this point. Please explain how the filter could have a 50 psid if the oil pump's supply pressure was 100 psi ... that's not possible unless the oil filter was equally as restrictive to flow as the engine. We have already agreed that the engine is at least 15 times more restrictive than a filter. Plus, if the filter had say a 12 psi bypass valve, it would not allow any more than 12 psid across the media (if the bypass valve could flow the required volume to keep the psid at 12) ... you already eluded to that above. confused


Go back and read it again. I later said (paraphrased) "Oh...son of a gun..this filter has a bypass valve, so it CANNOT REACH 50psid".

AGAIN = you're in total agreement with me. It's amazing! (it would help if you had a core desire to understand what I'm trying to communicate - instead of heavily leaning to disproving what I assert. So far, I think we're batting a thousand

)

That's why a bypass valve is there. To prevent the filter from showing its TRUE resistance/restriction to flow and starving the engine of oil. Now there are higher bypass rated valves on some engines, but that's factored by the OEM (VW/AUDI/etc) ..but your typical filter can develop NO MORE than 15+/- PSID to inhibit flow to the engine.


Try this on for size and see if you can agree with this scenario as stated. Don't worry about how we got there ..don't worry about this or that, just see if you can understand me for this example IN ISOLATION ..it doesn't have to have ANY practical application ..it's just for conceptual view.


We have a super duper filter ..titanium can...rebar reinforced media that's a titanium wire mesh.

We have our 100psi relief level pump.

Now ..in whatever manner possible ..whatever visc required ..whatever flow rate ...(doesn't matter)

What are your readings across the filter when 50% of the pump output is being relieved? Now you first have to accept the given that 50% of the pump output is NOT going to the engine and 50% of the pump output IS.

What would gauges look like above and below the filter. The filter has NO BYPASS and was designed to withstand 50000PSID.

What do you get?