UOA "Insolubles %" vs ISO Particle Count

[CharlieBauer]

Originally Posted by paulri
Compare the ISO codes for the new oil out of the bottle, and the oil that had been filtered by the TG for 5000 miles--it was cleaner at 5K. That is some impressive filtering going on. (21/14/10 vs. 22/20/16 new). Those sets of numbers don't look like blackstone extrapolations either--they have different patterns.

Originally Posted by CharlieBauer

For example, there was a recent toughguard that achieved an ISO code of 21/14/10 after just 5k miles:

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4107645/Honda_NC700X_Red_Line_10W30



Thanks for pointing that out as I missed that. I agree it's a significant improvement and though it's just one data point, it supports the idea that a lower capacity and or cellulose synthetic blend filter is going to achieve lower particle counts more quickly than a high capacity full synthetic filter.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by A310
Here's a Blackstone sample I took of some transmission fluid. Although the insoluble % was zero, the fluid particle count told another story and recommended I change it.


That's another data point that clearly shows that there is no correlation between the insolubles number and the particle count numbers.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Here's data from the "Bus Study" that shows the filters that tested most efficient in the lab also gave the cleanest oil in real world use. That's basically the same thing my data in the first post in this thread is showing. Filter B is a Purolator Boss rated at 99% @ 40 microns, and Filter D is a Fram Ultra rated at 99% @ 20 microns. The shape of the particle count data curves also look basically the same on a logarithmic scale.

It shouldn't be any great surprise that more efficient oil filters result in cleaner oil.

 

[CR94]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
... Filter B is a Purolator Boss rated at 99% @ 40 microns, and Filter D is a Fram Ultra rated at 99% @ 20 microns. ...
?? Or vice versa, from the looks of the plots?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by CR94
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
... Filter B is a Purolator Boss rated at 99% @ 40 microns, and Filter D is a Fram Ultra rated at 99% @ 20 microns. ...
?? Or vice versa, from the looks of the plots?


I was talking about my original plots, not the Bus Study plots above to make sure I'm clear. I was saying that my data shows the same trend as the Bus Study graphs.

Filter B (orange line) is a Purolator Boss rated at 99% @ 40 microns.
Filter D (yellow line) is a Fram Ultra rated at 99% @ 20 microns.

 

[bulwnkl]

Originally Posted by paulri
Compare the ISO codes for the new oil out of the bottle, and the oil that had been filtered by the TG for 5000 miles--it was cleaner at 5K. That is some impressive filtering going on. (21/14/10 vs. 22/20/16 new). Those sets of numbers don't look like blackstone extrapolations either--they have different patterns.


That work was done by LabOne in Phoenix.

 

[Job]

Originally Posted by CharlieBauer
Originally Posted by A310
Here's a Blackstone sample I took of some transmission fluid. Although the insoluble % was zero, the fluid particle count told another story and recommended I change it.

That's a good particle count considering it's a 50 to 100 micron transmission filter. Very similar results to a Fram Ultra.

Don't know which Ultra PC you're looking at CB, but here's a Fram Ultra PC ... yes, one data point. Insolubles was 0.1% on this UOA.

Much better than the PC of the transmission filter that A380 posted - 6 vs 91 particles at 21 microns.

View attachment 555

Times 4000 for a 4 liter system. 24000 nasty 21 micron particles. Which must be perfect little spheres to be 21. Not 20 not 22 they come up with 21. Then there’s the fractions of particles. And what 160 million 4 micron lapping particles? That’s good? It’s time you move up to bypass filtration with sub micron filters to go to the next level of cleanliness