BITOG Oil Filter Test

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
May 27, 2002
Messages
5,335
Location
London, AR
This is just an idea. I have a member who would like to see an oil filter test. I need ideas on how to proceed with this. First, we are talking about running a FF filter on a vehicle and then having a particle count done. On the oil or filter, I am not sure. I have my own idea on this, but it would only interest me. I need a viable test, within monetary limits, that we could do. We could use members that drive many miles a month. Then pay for their testing with various filters. They buy the filter and oil and BITOG pay for the test. (I do have a starting donation if we proceed from a member)
I need ideas on how to proceed with this.

Or if this is to far in left field, say so. Ideas is the name of the game.

smile.gif
 
I was going to post something similar to this but you've simply beat me.
grin.gif


This is my idea, with two options.

Option 1:

The car owner can be running a specific oil/filter for a specific drain interval, in a specific car...BITOG members can have a donation to reimburse the owner for oil analysis and particle count costs as the original owner may not have intended to have the oil/filter analyzed.

Option 2:

If BITOG wants to see a particular oil/filter run under a certain set of conditions, for a certain amount of time, in a particular car, as long as it is reasonable, we can find a person who is willing to do it (and fits the profile). Then, BITOG will reimburse the owner for the oil, filter, and analysis costs.

Thoughts?
 
A few thoughts:

Any "testing" to be done should have some baseline. Whomever is doing it should be doing oil analysis and particle counts first, hopefully have multiple results so as to have an average..and then they will have something to compare.


The driving conditions should be as similar as possible.

All information about the vehicle should be known:
Air filter changed per schedule?
Coolant changed per recommendations?
Total mileage.
Any cleaner used first?


I'm sure people will want to see the filter cut open after it is used. Which is fine to a certain extent. It would of more interest --not--to show the pictures until the test is completed on all the various filters used in the test. That way we can look at the numbers and try to draw conclusions without a bias because of pictures.


I did offer, once, to have an e-core filter sent back to Champ for analysis. The person I picked back when has yet to pm me back so I take it he is an infrequent user of the board. ( He had a rebuilt engine with over 200,000 miles on it. I thought it would be great to see how the filter did on a high mileage engine.) I could offer that for a filter on a one time basis..as lab testing isn't cheap. But Champ said they'd do me a favor.
 
Interesting idea.

I don't know where to start. It would be nice if you have a frequent flyer type driver ..but I guess it really wouldn't matter as long as the service was consistant.

I would think that using two modes of testing would be nice. One who does a time based OCI. The other would be a frequent flyer. You then just rotate between filters. On the second round, you run the filter twice the distance (every other OCI). This would tell you both performance and endurance of the level of filtration. One filter may perform very well in limited useage ..but load above capacity in longer service ..yielding poorer PC results.

As with most testing here, it would take some time to accumulate the data..but would be worthwhile.
 
I don't see how this can be done without spending a lot of money and time, a lot of time. You need to find a fleet of indentical vehicles that rack up lots of miles in a short time driving basically the same conditions using the indentical lubricant in all test vehicles. Then you have to convince them its in their best interest to do the test, meaning provide them an incentive like free oil filters etc.

To be honest test, it would be best if the user had no idea what filter he was using so as not to change his habits to influence the out come.

In the end all you will have in one persons opinion of whats good and whats not so good.

Take a collection and hire a testing facility such as SW Reseach. Pay them a couple hundred thousand $$ and then get ready for the critism.
 
I think this would be hard to do with the amount of miles required and the difficulty controlling the variables. I would be more interested in a flow test involving filters without bypasses, but that's just me.
 
I think everybody would like to see a good head to head filter test.

The trouble is, there are so many filter sizes... all can't be tested... most are bound to be disappointed with the choices (because it wouldn't include "their" part number). A poll would have to be taken to see which filters are the most desired.

Then another poll would need to show which brands should be tested (since there are so many brands).

It's going to be a lot of work, and a lot of cost.

As far as the test method, I am a little concerned with using only particle count tests in actual cars. Particle counts are the most important parameter, but I'd also be interested in bypass performance (esp. in E-core), pressure drops, etc. The other thing is that there are a lot of variables when using actual cars. You would have to use a lot of cars for each filter to get a statistically significant sample set.

I think lab testing would be more appropriate and take less time. I'd be willing to bet the cost would be a lot, though. (I'm talking over six grand).

Don't mean to be a downer, but lab testing would be my dream test. Maybe we could get Consumer Reports or an Auto magazine to help cover some of the costs then they get to publish?

I'm just throwing out crazy ideas here.

Ha ha... funny thing is that as soon as the test is done, the mfrs would all change their designs (especially if the results got published in a major magazine).
 
I don't agree. It's not a test that requires a whole lot of controls. You just need consistant service. Take the 3m/3k guy. He tests a PureOne ..gets a PC. X-results. He does not change the filter. 6months/6k ..he gets a PC. Y-results. Are they close?

Next round he uses WIX. Same deal.

There are quicker ways to determine the filtering capability of a given filter out of the box. You simply save drain oil ....the amount really doesn't matter. You then mix it 50:50 with new oil. You do a PC on the composite ..pour it into engine with new filter. Run some programmed amount of mileage (whatever - short)...do PC ..continue on the same sump for X amount of miles ..do another PC ..using any make up oil from the original composite "boxed" oil.

Use the same batch for another filter comparison.

What you'll lose out on is the "filters gain in efficiency as they age" thingy ...but ...so?

It would appear to only require any user to halve their normal OCI for getting the original "used oil" ..then they don't have to fret about putting used oil into their engine. It would have been in there anyway
dunno.gif
(that is, 6month/6k ..does 3m/3k and then uses that 3k old oil for 3k/3m - alter as needed for frequent flyers).
 
Don't you see the problem with running 3m/3k and/or 6m/6k miles for every filter? That would take years! Plus over that amount of time, air filters and PVC valves age, problems may develop, conditions change, ect.

-T
 
Wait a minute. We are putting the cart before the horse. Before it is determined HOW to do the test, we need to first determine WHAT we want to test.

Filtration efficiency
Pressure drop vs. dirt loading
Pressure drop vs. flow rate
Bypass leakage and operation
ADBV effectiveness

This is what I'm thinking. Unfortunately, that is a lot of data and only a big expensive lab test will be able to measure all of that stuff.

In an automotive environment, all you can really measure is efficiency (particle count, sort of) and pressure drop over time (if you install a Gary Allen style system). Bypass leakage MAY show up as a higher particle count. Maybe user comments about noise would be helpful. It's not terribly scientific, but better than nothing. The user would not be permitted to know the type of filter in use.
 
quote:

Don't you see the problem with running 3m/3k and/or 6m/6k miles for every filter? That would take years!

Sure ..to complete. That doesn't mean that in 6 months NO useful data can be had.

3m/3k with PureOne PC
3m/3k with Wix PC



Which one had a lower PC?

This subject then moves on to Hastings, Amsoil, etc.

quote:

Plus over that amount of time, air filters and PVC valves age, problems may develop, conditions change, ect.

I think that you're seeing "UOA" here and not PC. You can have Cr and Pb out the ying-yang and the PC will be fine. PC, at least above a certain size, is totally dependent on filtration. We don't have a clue about filter loading yet. That would be the only case, at least as I reason it, that any of those factors will have any impact upon this type of filter test.


All that is necessary, IMHO, is getting a consensus on what/who the test subject will be. You would want someone who does 12k a year ..but is still doing 3k/3m OCIs. You would probably want him/her in a southern/western state ..just to eliminate the winter element (although we really don't see too much in UOA in regards to winter differences).

You then find a 6m/6k type of driver and he/she does the same thing. The two subjects don't necessarily have to have anything in common at all to yield useful data.
 
Gary;

3m/3k with PureOne PC
3m/3k with Wix PC
--------

What happens if someone gets a hold of a poor filter? We've seen on here virtually every brand where someone complains.

SAE tests are averages taken of multiple samples.
Generally at least a minimum of 3. ( sometimes more).

This allows for varying pleat counts from element to element.

Now for expediency, yes ..test one filter. But if that one is an anomoly...this website will have people believing that Brand X is poor because of one filter tested and that may not be indicative of the particular part number at all.

Just fyi...
grin.gif


It's not complicated at all...until you try to do it..lol
 
Cut it open when you're done
dunno.gif
Besides that, it would be regarded like any oddball reading in UOA. If I see a very clean result with a PureOne ..and a radically dirty result with a WIX ..I will have the sense to say "something is unright". The difference between the best and the worst shouldn't fall too far out of a sensible range ...or so I would reason.

Look at it this way ...many of you are coming up with reasons why not to do this. I'm challenging that reasoning...if for nothing more then to get you to come up with more reasons ..otherwise it would just be "no ..it's not a good idea" ..and that would be it.
dunno.gif


[ January 20, 2006, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: Gary Allan ]
 
"The two subjects don't necessarily have to have anything in common at all to yield useful data."

I disagree. Different engines run different oil pressures, air filtration, quantity of oil, ect. Different dirt injestion would lead to different particle counts, unless you think the filter would remove all of it.
 
So?
smile.gif
You're comparing one filter to another on the same engine. The results don't have to be comparative across subject lines to determine a "winner".
 
Since there's already labs that do UOA's, why not see if we can find one, such as Blackstone, that already tests used oil filters, or would be willing to start testing used oil filters? Then, ask the lab what they'd charge a person who sent a used oil filter in for analysis. It would work just like the UOA's we are having done. I'd send the lab my used oil filter, they'd test it for the things that the lab and we BITOGER's would jointly decide would be tested for in each test, I'd pay for the test, and I'd post the test results here on BITOG. Perhaps if we all used the same lab we could get them to give us a deal on the cost of the tests.
 
quote:

Wait a minute. We are putting the cart before the horse. Before it is determined HOW to do the test, we need to first determine WHAT we want to test.

Filtration efficiency
Pressure drop vs. dirt loading
Pressure drop vs. flow rate
Bypass leakage and operation
ADBV effectiveness

This is what I'm thinking. Unfortunately, that is a lot of data and only a big expensive lab test will be able to measure all of that stuff.

I agree with this statement. What do we want to test?

One thing I would like to see is a bunch of OCI's with particle counts for different filters. I would like to find some guy that runs his vehicles a lot of miles so we could get a lot of filters that were used under similar conditions. (assuming that the guys driving conditions do not vary that much). People who drive a lot of miles could nominate themselves.

There was a guy who drives 60k a year. We could get 10 different filters in one year. That would be pretty good.
 
quote:

I disagree. Different engines run different oil pressures, air filtration, quantity of oil, ect. Different dirt injestion would lead to different particle counts, unless you think the filter would remove all of it.

Sure ..so unless you have the same engine as the test subject ..that data would be worthless to you??

Let me say it this way. In a PC test, there are larger particles and smaller particles. We can reason that some of the larger particles will cause resultant smaller particles by knocking around inside the engine. So if we had no filtration ..we would probably see some form of mathmatical relationship between large and small particles. It won't be direct ..but the presense of more large particles will mandate the presense of more small particles.

Small particles can be produced by various sources that are not wear related. Soot from combustion byproducts ..etc.

If you have an abundance of small particles ..when you don't have a substantial amount of large particles ..then you can assume that the filter is doing a good job and the smaller particles are composed of normal decaying metals ..and soot/insolubles.

The filter only traps the larger particles. That's the only figure you need to really see from a PC test for a standard FF filter.

quote:

Filtration efficiency
Pressure drop vs. dirt loading
Pressure drop vs. flow rate
Bypass leakage and operation
ADBV effectiveness

Most of these things are beyond our capability in any economical manner and are typically transparent to the end user anyway. They would also tend to be user specific.


ADBV effectiveness - not a critical issue. Only to stop the filter from being back flushed.
Pressure drop vs. flow rate - flow rates vary from engine to engine ....but PSID is usually very low.
Bypass leakage and operation: If the bypass is open any substantial amount of time ..then the PC would surely show more large particles.
Dirt holding capacity: This would only be possible to measure if the same filter was used on the same engine over extended OCI. Intermediate oil sampling (PC) would be take and the same filter would be left on until PC of the larger particles began to increase "out of ratio of mileage".

I could be wrong with what Tony had in mind here. But PC ..if you look at what can be obtained with PC as the primary test indicator ..can tell you the "bottom line" on how good a filter ...filters. There's no other gauntlet the any filter can run that won't boil down to how well it removed particles.
 
Well, not too long ago, a group of filter manufacturers got together to have some testing done. As I understand it, they all contributed to the costs. Testing was done by SouthEast Research.
Fluids with known levels of contaminants were run through the fluids in certain specified times and amounts. The cleanliness (or lack thereof) was measured.

Pretty much eliminates the unknown, non-reproduceable factors, such as type engine, miles on engine, quality of fuel, etc.

Are they going to release the results to BiTOG or anyone else? Not very likely.

At any rate, this study was what let AMSOIL to dealing with Donaldson to get access to their nanofiber technology.

But, have fun with whatever testing you can come up with.
 
****..

I think you mean Southwest Research Labs..in San Antonio, TX.

Second, from your description, I had never once seen filter companies go in together for testing.

Each company specifies their own test. If that includes competitive filters, so be it. And when Champ ran a test, I guarantee you they wouldn't "share" it. They may gleem some information for some brochure.

Usually Champ either uses the test to confirm their own testing. Or they do it on behalf of a private brand who requests specific testing versus brand X, or Y, or Z. So that their marketing department can use the information in some brochure of theirs as "independent" testing.

I highly doubt Champ, Wix, Purolator, Fram, Donaldson, Hastings, Parker, AC, Baldwin, Fleetguard, Gohner, Kralinator, and any other members of the Filter Council got together for an industry test to see..where are we.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top