Beginning to wonder about E-core technology...

[Filter guy]

Big O Dave....where was the

...lol

Kanling:

The bubble point test is done on a completed element. Endcaps and all. It is done to find any leaks through the media or under the endcaps. It tests the element in total.

There is also a leakage test performed on a complete assembled filter. This test is done to see if the ADBP leaks. I believe there is an allowance of X milliliters of fluid per a certain time frame. Obviously the new E-core designed ADBP passes this test. After all they have to please others ( OEM's, AC Delco, etc.) not just themselves.

 

[kanling]

FG, I would be very interested to see the test setup diagram for the bubble point test because I don't understand how leakage through the endcaps can be tested on an element removed from the filter. At least describe how the element is held in place during the test and in what type of container the test is performed in.

As far as the leakage test that "obviously" passes, surely Champion Labs will be willing to post the test setup, allowable leakage, and results on their web site then to quiet the doubters and attract customers who are interested in documented performance.

As I've said before, I really like the features and intent of the E-core design. If my doubts about bypass/endcap leakage could be proven false, I would use E-core exclusively.

 

[Filter guy]

kanling:

No, Champ or any filter company is not about to post exact specifics of filter tests. Because, and I can't stress this enough, there are NO specific standards. There are multiple variables that either the OEM, private label customer, or filter company can choose to run the test under. SAE and ISO just set the procedures for the equipment and how to use it. As to under what pressure rates, flow rates, contaminant add rates, termination point, etc..is all up for grabs.

The ADBP leakage test is run under SAE HS806-2001 Chapter 10. ( I asked

)

As for the bubble point test, the assembled element is put into a housing and sealed on the open ends of the element. Any leak because the filter was not put into the housing correctly would show up in 1 second. So the lab tech would would correct his/her error and rerun the test.
I also think, from memory, the housing is see-through and the lab tech can see where the leak occurs. Whether that be in the media of the element or the either end cap of the element. Which is why the element is removed from the filter itself in order to run the test.

If you want to see all this done, take a tour of the lab. Anyone's lab, provided they'll let you in. Or send me a pm, I might have another solution for you kanling.

 

[99]

I'll never use a Ecore filter for reasons already discussed here over the past year or so.

 

[BigAl]

quote:

---

I'll never use a Ecore filter for reasons already discussed here over the past year or so.

---

From reading this forum, I have concluded that there are problems with ALL brands of oil filters. Just to be safe, I think I'll modify my engine to run without one.

 

[kanling]

Well, as Filter guy just pointed out no filter company posts any kind of test procudure details. Its a shame, too. For filters that use a unique construction method (e.g. E-core) it really would help in backing up any claims of superiority. As with anything, the guy who does something different than the crowd is always eyed with suspicion, even if he's the one doing it better.

And sorry, FG, I still don't understand the bubble point test identifying end cap leakage. If the end caps are attached and the element is in a canister of some kind... how flow through the element vs. flow around it can be identified isn't clear.

I was thinking that one way to test for bypass leakage (of which I'm more concerned) would be to plug the bypass holes and get some curves of flow vs. pressure. Then run the same test with the holes open. If the bypass didn't leak much ahead of the bypass setting, the second curves should closely overlap the first ones up until the bypass pressure.

I'll send you a PM, FG, as you requested. If there is something else to share, though, I think it would be better shared with everybody.

 

[Filter guy]

Kanling:

The bubble point test is run similar to flowing fluid "through" the filter. The filter element is sealed on both ends so that nothing can get by.

The filter is submersed in fluid. Then "Air" is sent through the filter, if memory serves, reversed flow. From inside the center tube area out through the filter element.

Any leak will show immediatly. Whether that be because of a hole in the media or a leak through the seam where the endcaps are ( E-core style or metal type). Or a leak through the seam where the pleats are joined.


here's a link showing the test equipment by an independant lab..
http://www.swri.edu/3PUBS/BROCHURE/D08/OILFILT/oilfilt.HTM

Well actually it shows other lab equipment as well.

Here's someones description of how they run the test:

Test that are typically conducted are:

Bubble Point
The bubble point test is based on the fact that for a given fluid and pore size, with constant wetting, the pressure required to force an air bubble through the pore is inversely proportional to the size of pore diameter. In practice, this infers that the pore size of a filter can be established by wetting the element with a fluid and measuring the pressure at which the first bubble stream is emitted from the upper surface of the element when air is applied from the underside.

The point at which the first stream of bubbles emerges is the largest pore. Therefore, the bubble point value can be used to obtain a relative measure of the size of the single largest pore in a filter element.

The relationship is based on Poiseuille's law which can be simplified to:


P = K/d

Where: K = an empirical constant dependent on the filter material, form and units of testing

Since this constant is essentially a capillary shape factor and is related to the material being tested as well as its form, it is easy to see why bubble point is typically only a relative comparison value for a given element and/or media.

10 LPM
The 10 LPM measurement is a continuation of the bubble point test. If after the bubble point is measured, the air flow is increased until the bubbles emerge from the second largest hole, then the third and so on until a point is reached where air bubbles appear over the entire surface of the element the open bubble point is reached. This open bubble is a relatively good measure of the mean pore size of an element provided there are no other restrictions or physical limitations.

Since this point can vary from filter to filter and media to media, SMP developed the 10 LPM (10 liters/min) test several years ago with one of its customers to establish a standard wet air flow test that could be used as a relative measure of the mean pore size of an element. This test provides a somewhat broader perspective of an element's mean pore size and ultimate integrity.


---Now you know more than you ever wanted to..lol
But the bubble point test is also used to test element integrity. As you can figure out now for yourself. Wonderful thing this internet thingy..

 

[kanling]

Well, that link doesn't really explain the test setup either, so I'll have to take your word for it that the end caps are part of the bubble point test. I guess they would be if only the openings in the top and bottom of the filter are plugged and the end caps themselves are not clamped.

Still there is no bypass performance leakage information from that test. And the bypass is the most interesting part of the e-core design. The bypass design is the best e-core feature if it is not the worst. To me, it all depends on the leakage. If I had test data, I could be convinced immediately. Otherwise I'll just have to judge over time by UOAs.

January or Feb next year I might be in a good position to give your contacts a call to borrow the Champ Labs presentation DVD you suggested in your PM. It would be an interesting view, for sure, even though its not e-core specific. Now I'm temporarily working closer to DC so its not so easy to be in Balto during the day. LOL, maybe you should get Champ to send a few copies to Netflix. It would be one of the "most rented" among the BITOG crowd!

 

[99]

BigAl-Have you been in a coma this past year?

 

[BigAl]

quote:

---

BigAl-Have you been in a coma this past year?

---

Frams have always had many problems. Champ clickers split the media, especially in non-GM applications. Baldwins were made with short center tubes. The gaskets on Delphi-made ACDelcos stick to the engine because they are not crimped to the can very well. Pure-One pleats can tear at the ends and don't flow as well as some others. Asian filters typically have low efficiency. Ecores are marginally bonded, and I found gaps in the media of Purolator Premium Plus and Quaker State filters.

Did I miss one?

Oh, yes. I've found rusty end caps on some of my Supertechs, but that's probably my own fault.

[ November 10, 2005, 10:14 AM: Message edited by: BigAl ]

 

[Dan4510]

Toilet paper filters are the answer...

Dan

 

[BigAl]

quote:

---

Toilet paper filters are the answer...

---

They're squeezably soft. Plus, If you use the scented rolls, they make your exhaust pipe smell cleaner.

 

[beanoil]

"From reading this forum, I have concluded that there are problems with ALL brands of oil filters. Just to be safe, I think I'll modify my engine to run without one. "
Oh c'mon guys... In true BITOG fashion, one would need to run a double filter setup of 2 different brands, to minimize the chance of any particular filter having a problem. That being said, I like the e-core design, and have no issues with what I have seen after cutting them open. For about 2.00, I can't find another filter in the price range with it's quality. At any given moment, there must be 4 million of these things in service from WMT&L, on eveything from Aveo's, to X-Dreams, and they are obviously motoring down the road. If you want to spend more on a filter for whatever features you feel are important, rock-on. It's your dime, and your right. But to say the e-core isn't proven, or of low quality, is more one's natural ability to resist change, and not necessarily rooted or supported by fact.

 

[labman]

How many cars are junked because the engine is worn out? That is with Fram being the best selling brand plus many of the private labels.

The Ecore is half as much, and likely a better filter.

Oh, just thought about all Lubeowner's customers that ran those crappy Warners for years.