Filter Flow Performance - Any Good Ref Data ?

[SuperBusa]

So I had some discussions with Purolator engineering, and asked them if they could share any flow performance data on their PureOne oil filters. Their response was basically that their data is "proprietary" and can't be shared - probably understandable. BUT, they wouldn't even share any basic info like "max flow capability" like WIX/NAPA shows (ie, 7-9 GPM max) to get an idea of how restrictive they might be. Or even say something like "The PureOne meets or exceeds SAE Test XYZ for flow."

Are they hiding something? Doesn't it make sense that if their PureOne filters flowed well that they would advertise that spec? They are so tight lipped it makes me wonder if PureOne is something I should use or not ... on the fence now about them. I might go with WIX now, as it sounds like they flow well, but they don't quite filter as well as the PureOne (95% vs 99.9% @ 20u). Purolator kindly shared the filtering performance spec, but nothing for the flow performance.

If there any independent flow data around that shows where the PureOne sits compared to the other filters on the market?

 

[SilverC6]

It's odd that the only criticism I have ever heard about the Pure One is that it was flow restricting.

"The word" was that you were okay with the standard Purolator but the Pure One might starve your engine of precious lubrication due to its restrictive filter element.

I always filed this away with the Pennzoil sludge rumors.

Maybe this explains why I use both the Pure One and Pennzoil today.

 

[SuperBusa]

Originally Posted By: SilverC6
It's odd that the only criticism I have ever heard about the Pure One is that it was flow restricting.

"The word" was that you were okay with the standard Purolator but the Pure One might starve your engine of precious lubrication due to its restrictive filter element.

I always filed this away with the Pennzoil sludge rumors.

Maybe this explains why I use both the Pure One and Pennzoil today.



Well, you would think that if Purolator saw all this supposed "flow restricting rumor" all over the internet, that they would divulge the true (and also in their advertising somehow) if it didn't have a possible flow performance problem - seems like that would just be common sense in the marketing world to ward off potential sales loss due to "false rumors". Why would they not divulge the flow performance if it was outstanding? Makes me wonder. Like I said, any other manufacture can buy any other manufacture's filter, tear it down, analyze and test it to see exactly what it is. Why not let the consumer know how it performs? … unless there is something about it that their marketing department thinks would hurt the sales.

 

[Mr Nice]

Theres nothing to worry about, the PureOne have the necessary flow for your engine.

I've gone 15K miles on a PureOne with no problems.

 

[SuperBusa]

Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
Theres nothing to worry about, the PureOne have the necessary flow for your engine.

I've gone 15K miles on a PureOne with no problems.


If that's the case, then why can't Purolator say so? They don't understand that saying nothing (not even that they’ve verified through testing that it flows better than most) is interpreted like trying to hide something that the customer doesn't want to hear. They need a new marketing manager IMO.

 

[Gary Allan]

While I don't understand why they won't give you the numbers, I don't think it makes a difference. Most don't publish this data. Wix just gives you a generic flow variance for the filters (not all are rated @ 9-11) ..but they don't publish their PSID at the given flow rate ..visc ..etc. They may if you ask them ..but hardly anyone ..anywhere.. asks.

That's not saying that, on any one application, a (cough-cough) "freer flowing" filter vs. a (cough-cough) "restrictive" filter may alter your apparent start up/warm up performance in terms of noise symptoms. In those cases, more often than not, they're just that, symptoms. They're symptoms of oil pump wear or whatever.

 

[SuperBusa]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
While I don't understand why they won't give you the numbers, I don't think it makes a difference. Most don't publish this data. Wix just gives you a generic flow variance for the filters (not all are rated @ 9-11) ..but they don't publish their PSID at the given flow rate ..visc ..etc. They may if you ask them ..but hardly anyone ..anywhere.. asks.


I hear ya. I guess if you believe that "Flow vs. PSID" chart that ACDelco published for their Ultragaurd, it also shows the PureOne and other major top tier filters and shows that they all flow pretty decently, even under cold oil conditions.

It's kind of sad that people have to believe ACDelco's data for the flowrate performance of a Purolator.

 

[LoneRanger]

Have you ever noticed the flow port holes in the metal center sleeves on various filters? Some filters have larger ports and more of them and some have smaller ports and fewer.

What are their criteria for how many flow ports or holes are in the center sleeve?

How does this effect flow, OR is the center sleeve design so secondary to the flow characteristics of the filter media that it really doesn't matter?

 

[SuperBusa]

Originally Posted By: LoneRanger
Have you ever noticed the flow port holes in the metal center sleeves on various filters? Some filters have larger ports and more of them and some have smaller ports and fewer.

What are their criteria for how many flow ports or holes are in the center sleeve?

How does this effect flow, OR is the center sleeve design so secondary to the flow characteristics of the filter media that it really doesn't matter?



That's a good question. I've wondered how these hole sizes and number of holes are decided upon in the design. One day when I was bored, I looked at the total hole area of 3 things on a WIX filter.

1) inlet holes at the base.
2) outlet holes in the center core.
3) hole size of the main hole that threads to the engine.

What I found was that the total area was basically the same for all three which makes sense. If the total hole area on the inlet base was significantly different than the center core total hole area I would think the smaller area would be the "choke point" of the oil flow.

But like you mentioned, the filter element itself could be the biggest restriction. It would be impossible to tell unless you tested a filter assembly without the element, and then the same filter with the element and compared “Flow vs. Deta P” performance of both configurations.

 

[labman]

I wouldn't be surprised if all that stuff is just what looked good enough to somebody and it has always been enough nobody bothered to change it. Holes are cheap. Redesigns aren't. Even the plastic cages in the Ecore and cartridge elements may be by guess and by garsh, and as long as the media isn't pushed through.

 

[mrsilv04]

Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
Theres nothing to worry about, the PureOne have the necessary flow for your engine.

I've gone 15K miles on a PureOne with no problems.


Thanks, but one person going 15k without a problem isn't an adequate sample.

 

[Steve S]

Oh my response and feeling is If it is not important enough for you to tell me what I want to know I will use a filter from a competitor who answers my questions on the products ....and ther are companies that will and those companies that care about their customers. Its youe $$$ and $$$ is power if used properly.

 

[SuperBusa]

Originally Posted By: Steve S
Oh my response and feeling is If it is not important enough for you to tell me what I want to know I will use a filter from a competitor who answers my questions on the products ....and ther are companies that will and those companies that care about their customers. Its youe $$$ and $$$ is power if used properly.


Exactly ... and that is probably why ACDelco came out with this graph in their advertisement of the Ultraguard oil filters. They wanted to show that is not only filtered well, but also flowed very well so consumers wouldn't automatically associate high performance filtering with a highly restrictive filter.

The graph does show the other major filters on the market, so I guess if you believe ACDelco's data then you also have the performance of the other filters on the graph. IMO, if the graph is accurate, then all the filters shown probably flow well enough for almost anyone.

I know if I manufactured a high performance filter that had both high filtering and flow performance I'd certainly let it be known to the consumers out there.

That’s why I get suspicious of manufactures that use this “it’s proprietary information” excuse to get around divulging any kind of flow performance.

 

[glenncof]

From an engineering perspective, there are always trade-offs.

For a given media type & area, flow and particle size would seem to a trade-off. It seems finer filtering media will also need greater holding capacity for a given life expectancy.

More flow (or lower differential pressure) could be gotten with more area but there are diminishing returns when you stuff to much into the can. More area gives more holding capacity up to a point.

I think that's the design point for the PureONE; fine filtering with lots of media.

Based on this I would not put one on a dirty (oil neglected) engine and hope to get 10K miles out of it.

Going to pure synth media like the UPF, the media can be given 'depth' while getting fine filtering as glass is more controllable in manufacturing and can be layered.

BUT ask the question...do I need high flow thru the filter ? I would guess probably not unless high performance app.

 

[LoneRanger]

The graph shows a "Wix Sport truck" filter. Is thisa special Wix or just a regular Wix with some marketing finesse via a catchy name?

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: mrsilv04
Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
Theres nothing to worry about, the PureOne have the necessary flow for your engine.

I've gone 15K miles on a PureOne with no problems.


Thanks, but one person going 15k without a problem isn't an adequate sample.



Well, it does imply that one should be doing a 15k OCI/FCI to begin with. I'm of the notion that any filter is capable of 15k-20k, the difference being the level of filtration. Again, that assumes that one falls into a service duty that would lean toward that type of longevity (longer fully warmed miles per cold start).

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
But like you mentioned, the filter element itself could be the biggest restriction. It would be impossible to tell unless you tested a filter assembly without the element, and then the same filter with the element and compared “Flow vs. Deta P” performance of both configurations.


Have you ever seen a Permacool sandwich adapter? The bypass port is very small. Only on high volume pump applications does an additional hole need to be drilled. These are used to mount bypass filters on many engines where the owner doesn't want to drain to a zero pressure return (for various reasons). The entire pump output for the entire engine squeezes through that tiny port.

I don't think you've got a real grip on ports (holes, orifices, whatever) in a positive displacement scenario. They're points of fluid acceleration. Way more often than not.

 

[SuperBusa]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan

I don't think you've got a real grip on ports (holes, orifices, whatever) in a positive displacement scenario. They're points of fluid acceleration. Way more often than not.

LOL ... I don't think you think I know as much as I do. Yes, I fully understand flow, pressure and even orifices (all kinds actually

)

BTW - they are also not only "points of fluid acceleration" but points of "flow restriction" ... which is exactly the context of the discussion we are having with regard to "holes".

Tell ya what ... go close up 7 of the 8 holes in the base of your oil filter and then tell me how much the delta P across the filter assembly changed ... it will be significant.

The flow "orifice" area just decreased to 1/8th what it was. You can't tell me that the pressure drop with the same flow being forced through it will not increase significantly and that only the flow "accelerated" without a corresponding pressure drop.

 

[steveh]

I just went on the Purolator web site under motorcycle oil filters. They tell you not to use the PureOne on a motorcycle. It says because of PureOne's high efficiency the motorcycle oil pump may not be able to handle the pressure. If I go on the Wix web site they list the same filter for my Honda cycle as many Honda cars. Maybe the PureOne's don't flow well.

 

[SuperBusa]

Originally Posted By: steveh
I just went on the Purolator web site under motorcycle oil filters. They tell you not to use the PureOne on a motorcycle. It says because of PureOne's high efficiency the motorcycle oil pump may not be able to handle the pressure. If I go on the Wix web site they list the same filter for my Honda cycle as many Honda cars. Maybe the PureOne's don't flow well.


It could be that they are more restrictive, but how much? ... I know Purolator won't tell anyone how they flow.

This is the quote right off their website with regaurd to using the PureOne on a motorcycle:
"If you're thinking you want to install a PureONE oil filter on your bike, please think again. PureONE oil filters are designed for vehicles, not bikes. Because of PureONE's high efficiency, the motorcycle oil pump may not be able to handle the pressure. The Purolator motorcycle filter line is designed to meet the specific needs of a bike; therefore we highly recommend the use of a Purolator ML filter over a PureONE oil filter."

I don't know what they really mean by "Because of PureONE's high efficiency, the motorcycle oil pump may not be able to handle the pressure."

I think most motorcycle oil pumps put out about the same pressure as automotive pump before going into by-pass mode ... probably around 80 psi. Frankly, I don't think whoever wrote that statement on Purolator's website really knew what they were trying to say.

I emailed Purolator about that statement, and this is their response:
"Lot of Motorcycle Forums bring about the subject of PureOne for Filtration performance and have preference for these. Since, we do not validate performance of PureOne in motorcycle segment, we suggest to use Purolator Motorcycle filters for motorcycle applications. Since we do not have validation data of PureOne on numerous Motorcycle applications, we do not recommend PureOne for Motorcycles. At the same time, L14610 and PL14610 test data is per Automotive test parameters and may not be directly related to motorcycle performance evaluations.

If individuals use PureOne for Motorcycle applications, they need to change filters at specific intervals, based on their own experience of usage intervals."