I called Purolator about PL14610 flow rate.

[ARCOgraphite]

Hokie- Thanks for that insight I was about to post on the lack of HLA on this honda design.

Greg_ I would hazard a guess the tick after fillup is THE EVAP purge valve - a noisy ticker on many cars if there ever was one. Look for it under hood and put a polish stethoscope on it to verify.

Also, dont discount Fuel Injector tick - they can be quite noisy too - moreso than a bit of extra lash. Mine dont like Shell fuel detergents for some reason.

In any event, when was the valve lash last adjusted on the K24? If it hasnt been done I will guarantee you a couple valves are out of spec. 3 thousandths sloppy will make noise.

Nebver use the a02 and see my sig for a great Wix filter for this app with a Si adbv. Also the ACDelco PF2057 is more than fantastic in the summer ( O.E. Champion - makers of M1 and some K&N (?) iIRC ).

 

[IT_Architect]

Interesting thread. I just happen to be looking at the PL14610 now. I have a couple 2006 Saturn Vues with the Acura MDX V6 power train that uses these. I was joking on another thread where I posted that the tiny PL14610 must using chicken wire for filtering media in order to flow enough oil. That turned out to have an element of truth to it. The PL14610 and PL14612 are the only two filters rated using 40 microns instead of 20.

I realize a lot of cars use this filter. Nonetheless, I cannot be convinced that in this day and age that these filters are adequate for their application, especially since they are the only filters that have to be rated at 40 microns instead of 20, in order to attain the advertised efficiency rating. I'm of the opinion that these filters are simply standard components, relics from days gone by, with their greatest assets being cheap to build, and able to fit into tight places. My initial reaction to this situation was thinking about remoting to an FL-1A/PL30001, which I subsequently learned they do make kits for.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: IT_Architect
I was joking on another thread where I posted that the tiny PL14610 must using chicken wire for filtering media in order to flow enough oil.


The 14610 actually has quite a bit of media surface area ... around 105 sq-in. Other PureOne filters with less media area are rated at 99/9% @ 20 microns, like the PL14459 which has about 85 sq-in of media area. Go figure.

Originally Posted By: IT_Architect
That turned out to have an element of truth to it. The PL14610 and PL14612 are the only two filters rated using 40 microns instead of 20.


There are actually 2 more, them being the PL14476 & PL14477 which have the SAE threads instead of the metric threads which the 14610 & 14612 have.

 

[IT_Architect]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
There are actually 2 more
I saw that, but I didn't know their numbers. I would a lot rather see the 400 sq. inch, 20 micron FL-1A/PL30001, but it is what it is.

 

[Hokiefyd]

PM BITOG user "tegger". He's used the Honda A02 filters on his Acura Integra since new, which was over 400,000 miles ago. This filter is adequate for the application.

 

[rrounds]

How about a Baldwin B199
3" X 5 1/8"
or the very large B202
3 11/16" X 5 3/8"

ROD

 

[IT_Architect]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
PM BITOG user "tegger". He's used the Honda A02 filters on his Acura Integra since new, which was over 400,000 miles ago. This filter is adequate for the application.
the difference between the 15400-plm-a01 (filtech)oil filters, and the 15400-plm-a02 (honeywell/Fram), is the manufacturer. I don't believe our Honda dealer handles 02s anymore because they are have cardboard end caps instead of steel on the Filtech. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpzykhkH1oo

Originally Posted By: rrounds
How about a Baldwin B199
3" X 5 1/8"
or the very large B202
3 11/16" X 5 3/8"

We'll see if I go that far with it. I know they make the remote filter kits for the popular FL1A, but anything that would get me down into the 20 micro area would be good.

 

[Sayjac]

Quote:
....the difference between the 15400-plm-a01 (filtech)oil filters, and the 15400-plm-a02 (honeywell/Fram), is the manufacturer. I don't believe our Honda dealer handles 02s anymore because they are have cardboard end caps instead of steel on the Filtech. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpzykhkH1oo...

Ironic comparison, and mostly incorrect conclusion regarding the A-01 endcaps. Actually the A-01 is a no endcap design, with glued/sealed pleat ends. Only the portion of the pleats nearest the centertube is metal, I suspect as an extention on the centertube and perhaps to hold the retainer spring and bypass mech at dome end. So it's really no endcap A-01 vs A-02 fiber endcap/engineered media a Fram prefers to call them. The following recent thread would give more accurate information. http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3034187#Post3034187

But, it is true that both Honda oems are relatively inefficient. The A-02 tested at ~66%@20um, and while I've not seen a published efficiency spec for the A-01, a similar no endcap designed Toyota OEM tested a lowly ~51%@20um, safe to say it's not much more efficient than the A-02, or even less so. But if your Honda dealer sells the the A-01 that would put them in the minority. The A-02 is the standard Honda filter used and sold at dealers in this area.

As for the topic'd PL14610, used many on my Hondas including right now. And while rated 99.9@40um, it could still well be in the lower to mid 90's at 20 um. But whatever, I'm confident it's much more efficient than either of the OEM rock catchers. If others choose to chase either oem at whatever cost simply because they are oem that's their choice but it doesn't make others choosing to find something more efficient incorrect. But it's true, if adequete is what one seeks, the A-02 will fits that description. And as stated here, the science shows oil filter flow in pc use to be a moot point.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: sayjac
But it's true, if adequete is what one seeks, the A-02 will fits that description. And as stated here, the science shows oil filter flow in pc use to be a moot point.


Every filter discussed in this thread, including the A01, the A02, the PL14610, etc, is "adequate". Similar terms include "enough", "sufficient", "suitable", etc. Does the filter remove damaging particles to such a degree that the engine will live for many hundreds of thousands of miles? Check, check, check (for the three filters listed above).

I think it's accurate to say that flow AND filtration to the nth degree are both moot points. Some will choose to find a filter with superior filtration, and that's fine. Some will choose to find a filter with superior flow, and that's fine. In the end, the engine doesn't really care about either; as long as there is "adequate" filtration and "adequate" flow, the engine will live a life that's longer than most folks will own the car.

Now...if your metric is efficiency rating per dollar spent or something like that...then that's a different story.

 

[Sayjac]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: sayjac
But it's true, if adequete is what one seeks, the A-02 will fits that description. And as stated here, the science shows oil filter flow in pc use to be a moot point.


Every filter discussed in this thread, including the A01, the A02, the PL14610, etc, is "adequate". Similar terms include "enough", "sufficient", "suitable", etc. Does the filter remove damaging particles to such a degree that the engine will live for many hundreds of thousands of miles? Check, check, check (for the three filters listed above).

Guess I must have touched a nerve to get the thesaurus broken out to define the word adequate, without having quoted a reference post.

Clearly though the premise of this thread that somehow the PL14610 flow somehow would/could be the cause of noise, has been clearly disproven with multiple posts regarding no scientific basis for the claim. That and the OP is currently using a relatively inefficient A-01 and still getting the noise.

Contrary to flow considerations in pc use, efficiency is measureable by ISO testing, and many here prefer something more efficient than ~65%@20um, or filtration efficency to the lowest common denominator, especially when paying a dealer premium for that filter. So yes it's about ROI also.

I heard at Fram test labs that a possible reason for the A-02's low efficency is because cars on the island of Japan are only certified for relatively brief compared to other countries, before being sold used off the island. While I don't necessarily believe that, Japan used car exporting does confirm the practice.

Whatever the case, those discussing and preferring a filter with better filtration efficiency and construction is no different than those preferring a certain oil, transmission fluid, part, detail product etc. I have no problem if one seeks something adequate, but if others discuss and prefer something more, that's what Bitog is about imo.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: sayjac
Contrary to flow considerations in pc use, efficiency is measureable by ISO testing, and many here prefer something more efficient than ~65%@20um, or filtration efficency to the lowest common denominator, especially when paying a dealer premium for that filter. So yes it's about ROI also.


I agree with everything about your post but this paragraph. While we can measure efficiency, (likely) none of us knows what is truly the minimim allowable in terms of efficiency to support long engine life. Is it 65% at 20 microns? Is it 45% at 20 microns? Is it 25% at 20 microns? The notion that a certain efficiency is the "lowest common denominator" is just a guess, just conjecture.

I certainly have no argument that some filters are more efficient than others. I also certainly am not advocating against someone preferring a more efficient filter. What I would like to see, however, before we condemn certain filters as nothing more than "rock catchers", is evidence that the stuff smaller than rocks leads to shorter engine life.

Maybe all a filter NEEDS to do is catch the rocks...

I'm all for someone wanting a more efficient filter. I get that; I have a bunch of PureONEs on my shelf and I'm using PSL14610s right now. So I certainly understand. But the tone of some conversations appears to convey that OEM filters are somehow insufficient, or inadequate. It is that notion that I disagree with...unless there is data to support it (another strong suit of BITOG: the frequent call for one to have data to support a statement).

If I have misinterpreted your position, I apologize.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd

I certainly have no argument that some filters are more efficient than others. I also certainly am not advocating against someone preferring a more efficient filter. What I would like to see, however, before we condemn certain filters as nothing more than "rock catchers", is evidence that the stuff smaller than rocks leads to shorter engine life.

Maybe all a filter NEEDS to do is catch the rocks...


There are some reports out there, but some people believe the data is "flawed". IMO, if they all say about the same thing, then there must be some validity to the data.

Read up ...

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=engine+wear+vs+particle+size

 

[mechanicx]

Quote:
A study by General Motors (GM) (Staley, D.R. 1988) correlated engine wear with filter efficiency.3 Researchers added dust to the engine oil, and used two different-sized filters. They weighed engine parts before and after testing. GM concluded that dust particles in the exact size of the oil-film thickness, 2 to 22 μm, abrade engine parts at the greatest rate. They also found that the filter’s ability to remove the most abrasive particles had been accurately predicted by the single pass efficiency test. Engine wear was reduced by 50 percent with 30 μm filtration versus 40 μm, and by 70 percent with 15 μm filtration.

http://www.amsoil.com/techservicesbullet...gine%20wear.pdf
Quote:
With Engine Wear technical paper published
by the Society of Automotive Engineers
(SAE), the relationship between filtration levels
and abrasive engine wear was established. Testing
determined that wear was reduced by as much as
70 percent by switching from a 40μ filter to a 15μ
filter.
The SAE conducted tests on a heavy-duty diesel
engine and an automotive gasoline engine, and
both provided consistent results




But the thing is does the engine oil develop much 2-22 micron particles through normal use since the air filter very finely filters out dust particles.

But research does show that the smaller particles cause the most wear. So a higher efficiency oil filter, can provide more protection. How much of a difference in wear in the real world is not so certain. Provided the air filter is working and there aren't much small abrasive particles developing in the oil in the first place, maybe not much.

But if there are particles in the oil, clearly particles in 5-15 micron range are the most damaging and can cause significant more wear.

Don't diesel develop more abrasive particles in the oil than gas engines? I think oil filter efficiency may be much more important with a diesel.

Sorry the jabbered character should display "um", so microns.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: hokiefyd
What I would like to see, however, before we condemn certain filters as nothing more than "rock catchers", is evidence that the stuff smaller than rocks leads to shorter engine life.


I will quote myself here.

Hint: I didn't say that I'd like to see evidence that stuff smaller than rocks leads to less engine wear. I said that I'd like to see evidence that stuff smaller than rocks leads to shorter engine life.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Quote:
Engine wear was reduced by 50 percent with 30 micron filtration versus 40 microns, and by 70 percent with 15 micron filtration.


That's why a lot of industrial equipment and vehicles use by-pass filtering setups, so they can get even the particles down to 5 microns filtered out of the oil.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: hokiefyd
What I would like to see, however, before we condemn certain filters as nothing more than "rock catchers", is evidence that the stuff smaller than rocks leads to shorter engine life.


I will quote myself here.

Hint: I didn't say that I'd like to see evidence that stuff smaller than rocks leads to less engine wear. I said that I'd like to see evidence that stuff smaller than rocks leads to shorter engine life.

Read above ... it says that smaller particles do the most damage.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: hokiefyd
What I would like to see, however, before we condemn certain filters as nothing more than "rock catchers", is evidence that the stuff smaller than rocks leads to shorter engine life.


I will quote myself here.

Hint: I didn't say that I'd like to see evidence that stuff smaller than rocks leads to less engine wear. I said that I'd like to see evidence that stuff smaller than rocks leads to shorter engine life.

Are you saying a more warn engine that has long or long enough engine life is just as acceptable as one that has less wear (and potentially longer ultimate life and quieter operation).

I agree that an engines useful service life might be determined by other issues besides just abrasive wear presumably at bearing and journals-corrosion wear, gaskets, timing chain etc. But it seems any part that is oiled would wear more with more abrasive in the oil. And what's wrong with retiring a car with the engine closer to new condition?

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Quote:
Engine wear was reduced by 50 percent with 30 micron filtration versus 40 microns, and by 70 percent with 15 micron filtration.


That's why a lot of industrial equipment and vehicles use by-pass filtering setups, so they can get even the particles down to 5 microns filtered out of the oil.



But I wonder how much abrasive particles in the oil do gas engines develop versus diesels?

Another factor is filter efficiency extending oil life. Commercial diesels use more extended OCI.

Of course cars are extending their OCI more now. So with extended OCIs higher filter efficiency and high holding capacity may be more important. Don't Hondas comparatively run shorter "extended" OCI than some other makes?

 

[Hokiefyd]

I apologize for my short reply earlier. Reading back over it, I think it was a little rude and discourteous.

Mechanix, yes, exactly. To me, "engine wear" means as much as the amount of iron in a UOA. It doesn't really matter to me if engine A has 50% more wear than engine B, if both engines will run to 400,000 miles anyway. Engine A's crank journals may be the slightest but larger than those on engine B, but as long as enough film strength is generated to keep the sliding surfaces apart, to me, the "wear" is just a number.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
I apologize for my short reply earlier. Reading back over it, I think it was a little rude and discourteous.

Mechanix, yes, exactly. To me, "engine wear" means as much as the amount of iron in a UOA. It doesn't really matter to me if engine A has 50% more wear than engine B, if both engines will run to 400,000 miles anyway. Engine A's crank journals may be the slightest but larger than those on engine B, but as long as enough film strength is generated to keep the sliding surfaces apart, to me, the "wear" is just a number.


I tend to agree. But what I think is in a gas engine, in the real world vs intentionally putting abrasive in the oil in testing, the abrasive maybe are not there in enough quantity to make the engine wear and oil filter efficiency difference significant.

Let's say you had poor air filter efficiency and operating in dusty conditions, then oil filter efficiency may make a significant difference in wear. So in a sense high oil filter efficiency could be considered back up.