I have reading on this site for a while now and I just want to comment on automotive oil filters. First off...its seems to be a little too critical on technical specs of these filter element when most automotive filters down to 20-25 micron. Think about this for a second.... most of your bearing clearances are in the range of 6-12 micron range, so your not filtering the contaminents in that range anyways. If you really want your oil to be clean, I would recommend an external kidney loop system added to your engine, filtering at a slow rate (the less the better) with a 3-5 micron absolute filter.
automotive filters
- Thread starter Pistol_Pete
- Start date
- Status
I thought 20 microns was a standard to which all filters would be judged, not the limit of filtering capability.
It is a standard but the multi-viscosity oils your filter would by-pass too much depending on flow rates and pressure. I would guess that most are a nominal rating and not absolute. I see alot of automotive filters with alot of multi=pass efficiency ratings, which doesnt mean alot to me...if you want good filters, you would want absolute rated filters which alot of industrial filter have those type of ratings and also they have a "beta-ratio rating". But it all comes down to cost though...ppl wont pay $100 for a filter for their car.
The better an automotive filter is at catching 20 micron particles, the better it will be at catching all sizes of particles IMO - relatively speaking. The only comparison we have from some filter makers (an not all give the data) is the efficiency spec at 20 microns - so that's what people use until something better comes along.
Baldwin makes a series of filters (sadly not for the automotive market) that combines two stacked elements, one coarse (20 micron or so) and one fine (5 micron), essentially an integrated bypass filter set-up. The construction pushes some small amount (5% perhaps) through the fine filter.
The best thing to do is put it to a real test and get particle counts by running filters for the same amount of time during the oil samples. It seems like alot of ppl judge an element by there looks...but looks dont show real numbers. IMO the only thing i would look at a filter is: what type of material it has (paper or synthetic), how many pleats it has and how wide are the pleats. This will give you a basic idea of how much contaminants it will hold, so the more surface area it is the better...I would suggest them for the longer OCI. Ideally you want a Differential pressure across the filter in order to get it full life capacity but its not realistic or cost effective. How many engines out there fail from lubricated related failures?
Originally Posted By: Pistol_Pete
IMO the only thing i would look at a filter is: what type of material it has (paper or synthetic), how many pleats it has and how wide are the pleats.
Agreed. But most importantly, I look at the rated efficiency (beta) of the filter based on ISO testing. If a manufacturer doesn't list an ISO test result, I find one that does.
I also look at the construction ... ie, metal end caps and center core, and if it has a silicone ADBV or not. Just my standard for choosing a filter.
IMO the only thing i would look at a filter is: what type of material it has (paper or synthetic), how many pleats it has and how wide are the pleats.
Agreed. But most importantly, I look at the rated efficiency (beta) of the filter based on ISO testing. If a manufacturer doesn't list an ISO test result, I find one that does.
I also look at the construction ... ie, metal end caps and center core, and if it has a silicone ADBV or not. Just my standard for choosing a filter.
It sucks that the automotive industry dont put some type of kidney loop system...maybe that would put a huge dent in the profit on the oil industry though! lol. I cant imagine getting OCI of 50k...that'd be awesome! Of course with UOA involved.
I agree with that also...I was just saying in general going off of looks not tech specs. That would be the first thing I look at and then look at the element and decide from there or do a series of tests of a couple of them.
Autopsy picture observations on BITOG...
Filters with cellulose or resin/cellulose media have more pleats and a thinner media than synthetic media filters.
Filters with synthetic media have less pleats but the media is 2x, 3x thicker than cellulose or resin/cellulose media filters.
Filters with cellulose or resin/cellulose media have more pleats and a thinner media than synthetic media filters.
Filters with synthetic media have less pleats but the media is 2x, 3x thicker than cellulose or resin/cellulose media filters.
Also I would like to say something about the extended OCI ppl out there...it is cheap insurance to change your filter more often if your going extended time... you just dont know what your Dp across the element is. You dont want a element in operation running so close to by-pass in its normal operating range.
I agree with the media but IMO i would go for synthetic anyday over paper.
Originally Posted By: Roadrunner777
Baldwin makes a series of filters (sadly not for the automotive market) that combines two stacked elements, one coarse (20 micron or so) and one fine (5 micron), essentially an integrated bypass filter set-up. The construction pushes some small amount (5% perhaps) through the fine filter.
Google Microgreen oil filters. They have a filter that has a built-in teflon bypass filter.
Baldwin makes a series of filters (sadly not for the automotive market) that combines two stacked elements, one coarse (20 micron or so) and one fine (5 micron), essentially an integrated bypass filter set-up. The construction pushes some small amount (5% perhaps) through the fine filter.
Google Microgreen oil filters. They have a filter that has a built-in teflon bypass filter.
- Status
Similar threads
