Some Filtration Comparisons from the Bench

[Sayjac]

Originally Posted By: river_rat
5W-20 @ room temperature:
"Dip test--left to right and top to bottom: K&N, PF52, UPF52, and PureOne
Time to fill the center tubes to the level of the oil mix:
K&N and PF52 tied at about 60 seconds
PureOne = 3 minutes
UPF53 = more than 5 minutes"

I agree with you about the Synlube claim; but I don't want this thread to veer into an argument about motor oil claims or hypes.

Thanks. I agree, there's already another thread here about that.

Your finding on the K&N is interesting. IIRC, it was edpolk who said that while the K&N and M1 look the same, the K&N was made for flow, and the M1 for filtration efficiency.

 

[daman]

Originally Posted By: river_rat

UPF53 = more than 5 minutes"

U mean 52 Rob? just so members dont get confused. But that long Huh?

 

[Ronn]

Originally Posted By: river_rat
5W-20 @ room temperature:
"Dip test--left to right and top to bottom: K&N, PF52, UPF52, and PureOne
Time to fill the center tubes to the level of the oil mix:
K&N and PF52 tied at about 60 seconds
PureOne = 3 minutes
UPF53 = more than 5 minutes"

I agree with you about the Synlube claim; but I don't want this thread to veer into an argument about motor oil claims or hypes.

Just a quick question...

Were the filters saturated with oil before the dip test?
How reliable is this *passive* flow test..ie, no significant PDSI?

 

[SuperBusa]

Originally Posted By: Ronn
Originally Posted By: river_rat
5W-20 @ room temperature:
"Dip test--left to right and top to bottom: K&N, PF52, UPF52, and PureOne
Time to fill the center tubes to the level of the oil mix:
K&N and PF52 tied at about 60 seconds
PureOne = 3 minutes
UPF53 = more than 5 minutes"

I agree with you about the Synlube claim; but I don't want this thread to veer into an argument about motor oil claims or hypes.

Just a quick question...

Were the filters saturated with oil before the dip test?
How reliable is this *passive* flow test..ie, no significant PDSI?


I was wondering the same thing. Could be that if the the dip/flow test is done with dry elements, it might have some kind of effect on how the filter "flows" in these tests because of how the material initially wets and flows.

If you did tried the same test with elements that have already been saturated with oil, I'm wondering if that would show the UPF flowing better than it does when initially dry and dipped in the oil bath?

 

[daman]

I do believe he tested these filters multiple time yes..

 

[Ronn]

Originally Posted By: SuperBusa


I was wondering the same thing. Could be that if the the dip/flow test is done with dry elements, it might have some kind of effect on how the filter "flows" in these tests because of how the material initially wets and flows.

If you did tried the same test with elements that have already been saturated with oil, I'm wondering if that would show the UPF flowing better than it does when initially dry and dipped in the oil bath?


Well, if the synthetic filter is DENSER with a much higher *effective* surface area (not measureable, but inherent on the microscopic/capillary level), then it may very well be a heck of a lot more ABSORBTIVE. If that's the case, a DRY filter with more absorbtive capacity will take *forever* before it allows passage under saturation.

 

[river_rat]

Originally Posted By: sayjac
Your finding on the K&N is interesting. IIRC, it was edpolk who said that while the K&N and M1 look the same, the K&N was made for flow, and the M1 for filtration efficiency.

I think they used to "sell" them that way, but now the K&N filters at least as well as the M1, both in the betas I got directly from K&N via email, and my own tests indicate that as well. It's a real good filter that Performance Gold.

Originally Posted By: daman
U mean 52 Rob? just so members dont get confused. But that long Huh?

Yeah, I'm sorry, I meant 52, not 53.
Yeah, that long.

Originally Posted By: Ronn
Were the filters saturated with oil before the dip test?
How reliable is this *passive* flow test..ie, no significant PDSI?

I don't recall in this case, as it makes no difference other than shortening all their fill times a little bit, but does not change rankings.
Reliable? I have seen no relative changes when psi is applied using thin oil, I have not tested all filters this latter way by any means.
However, if you think that one filter will fill much faster and still produce a bigger pressure drop in use than another (both the same size and application), you're going to have to work overtime to convince me.
If the center tubes are significantly different size, then yes, but I factor in these differences by calculating cc per minute before I rank them.
Anyway, this is a comparison. You need to take from it what you wish. I put this out there because no one else of all the filter reviews I've ever seen avtually attepts to filter with oil filters, or compare which one's apparently pass oil easier. If you want an SAE test, you'll have to pay for that.

Originally Posted By: daman
I do believe he tested these filters multiple time yes..

That is correct.

You guys all have a good Thankgiving--I gotta run 'til later.

 

[Ronn]

Originally Posted By: river_rat


Originally Posted By: Ronn
Were the filters saturated with oil before the dip test?
How reliable is this *passive* flow test..ie, no significant PSDI?

I don't recall in this case, as it makes no difference other than shortening all their fill times a little bit, but does not change rankings.
Reliable? I have seen no relative changes when psi is applied using thin oil, I have not tested all filters this latter way by any means.
However, if you think that one filter will fill much faster and still produce a bigger pressure drop in use than another (both the same size and application), you're going to have to work overtime to convince me.

You guys all have a good Thankgiving--I gotta run 'til later.


Well, it does make a *difference*. It will indeed shorten all their oil times, but the DENSER, more ABSORBTIVE filter will be shortened MORE % wise, since no more oil is being *diverted* into the filter itself. That *could* change the rankings. If a more ABSORBTIVE filter isn't fully saturated, it *should* flow better realtive to a much less absorbtive filter when they are both saturated. Note I say *relatively* better, since it's still possible that the less absorbtive filter may still flow better overall when saturated, only relatively less.

Anyway.. Just wanna say... I appreciate this discussion and River's contribution

Happy Thanksgiving to all.

 

[river_rat]

Originally Posted By: Ronn
Well, it does make a *difference*. It will indeed shorten all their oil times, but the DENSER, more ABSORBTIVE filter will be shortened MORE % wise, since no more oil is being *diverted* into the filter itself. That *could* change the rankings.

Good point and exactly right.
One of the reasons I run samples several times is to get a consistant filtering pattern after the media is saturated and look for a "push through" of dirt when the media is fairly packed with it (dirtier probably than it will ever get in an engine) but also to observe refilling rates at the same time. But in this case I don't remember if those times I have posted were from wet or dry. The rankings were consistant though in each run, I do remember that.
(And I have not yet seen a ranking change for significant flow rate differences in any of these "tests" of many, many filters.)

 

[postjeeprcr]

Originally Posted By: river_rat
5W-20 @ room temperature:
"Dip test--left to right and top to bottom: K&N, PF52, UPF52, and PureOne
Time to fill the center tubes to the level of the oil mix:
K&N and PF52 tied at about 60 seconds
PureOne = 3 minutes
UPF53 = more than 5 minutes"

I agree with you about the Synlube claim; but I don't want this thread to veer into an argument about motor oil claims or hypes.

If I could afford a Synlube filter I would buy one and ship it to river but I can't. Also according the one of the filter study websites the hard driver filter has not been made since around 2001-2002 yet they use the same pic and as far as I know all synthetic material filters have a wire mesh backing.

River keep up the great work.

 

[Ronn]

Originally Posted By: postjeeprcr
Also according the one of the filter study websites the hard driver filter has not been made since around 2001-2002 yet they use the same pic and as far as I know all synthetic material filters have a wire mesh backing.



Yep.. the last time they made the AC UPF was in that time frame

They are>>>> ONE AND THE SAME FILTER ...IMHO of course.

 

[river_rat]

Ronn, Here's an old thread from Bob himself in case you haven't seen it yet.
Some--maybe most-- of these filters have changed their ratings and presumably the medias.

I notice the old style Mobil 1 filter with the gray can is used. There were some complaints apparently about that one about lower oil pressure, but the black M1 Extended Perfomance ones on the shelves for the last several years all seem to check out as a statistical tie in flow and filtration with the K&Ns now.
More media and huge, huge, improvement in flow.
Personally, I think the equivalent K&Ns and M1s are the same type and amount of media.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=314996#Post314996



Originally Posted By: postjeeprcr
River keep up the great work.

Thanks man!

 

[labman]

I was chopping open filters before there was a BITOG. The tape measure is a crude tool. Over the last 10 years or so, I have seen a steady decline in the amount of media in the lower priced filters I have used. It is possible less of a better media is OK. Unfortunately with the Ecores, change in ownership of Purolator, and who knows what else, I am afraid much of the older information tells us nothing about the current filters.

Keep up the good work.

 

[river_rat]

I agree. Interesting reading though.

Did you ever find an ST3950? I struck out so far.

 

[river_rat]

Now that things have settled several days, here are some new pics of the very last runs:
Left to right in both these is PureONE, Bosch, Purolator Classic, and Toyota OEM Denso.
Top picture is the first run with clean but oiled elements.

Bottom picture is the second run with the
elements becoming pretty dirty with the dirty talc + flour and oil mixture. Looks like the Denso hit its
limit where dirt may be starting pushing through past its peak in-use efficiency.

The third run looked about like the second run pictured here.

1st run: P1, Bosch, Puro classic, Denso

2nd run: P1, Bosch, Puro classic, Denso...almost nothing for "dirt" in the first two

 

[river_rat]

Here are some close-ups of media samples.
For scale, the [ is 1/8 inch.

Oh yeah, the Donaldsons arrived today!

Thank you.

Mahle, .020” thick:

Denso, .027” thick:

Fram Orange, .023” thick:

Super Tech (Ecore), .029” thick:

Wix, .023” thick:

Purolator Classic, .023” thick:

K&N, .027” thick:

PureONE, .023” thick:

 

[SuperBusa]

Originally Posted By: river_rat
Now that things have settled several days, here are some new pics of the very last runs:
Left to right in both these is PureONE, Bosch, Purolator Classic, and Toyota OEM Denso.
Top picture is the first run with clean but oiled elements.

Bottom picture is the second run with the elements becoming pretty dirty with the dirty talc + flour and oil mixture. Looks like the Denso hit its limit where dirt may be starting pushing through past its peak in-use efficiency.

1st run: P1, Bosch, Puro classic, Denso

The Denso always looks so bad compared to the PureONE/Bosch Premium. Even the Purolator Classic looks to do just as good or even a little better than the Denso.

 

[OVERKILL]

Glad to hear the Donaldson arrived!!!!

 

[river_rat]

Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
Even the Purolator Classic looks to do just as good or even a little better than the Denso.

The Puro Classic always outdoes it in my tests, yes. I'm lees enthused with the OEM all the time. Pretty decent, but you can do quite a bit better filtration for a $3-$4 Classic it seems.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Glad to hear the Donaldson arrived!!!!



Better pics

Ecore Supertech .029" thick:

Purolator Classic, .023 in thick:

 

[OVERKILL]

So when are you doing the Donaldson?