Some Filtration Comparisons from the Bench

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: labman
Should gladden the hearts of all the oversize filter people.

Indeed.
Myself, sometimes I use a "one up" size longer filter, and sometimes not--but I'm thikning about emailing K&N and asking what the deal is. Theres' abig difference in this case and I usually don't see any significant difference in this test with different sizes from the same type/brand.
 
You've got to figure a multipass test with the same stuff. The smaller filter may prove just as good over more evolutions. It would then break down to (basically) the life span of the filter.
 
When I had a PF 47 app, I often ran a PF 52. Not much choice for a cartridge filter. Now, about avoiding something smaller now I can't buy a ST 3950.
 
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
You've got to figure a multipass test with the same stuff. The smaller filter may prove just as good over more evolutions. It would then break down to (basically) the life span of the filter.

Perhaps so.
I'm surprised the little one has a different media. Maybe because of its size, they wanted more flow?
Anyway, the initial media porosity is evidently courser on that little guy.
 
Thanks to Daman, I got an AC-Delco UPF-52 to check out.
I decided to compare it to a PureOne PL24011 and a Regular Delco PF-52.
These are equivalent filters for the same application.
DSC01477.jpg


I was a little surprised the UPF52 was using a nitrile anti-drainback valve.
Not that that’s a problem but all the premium filters seem to use silicon nowadays.
DSC01478.jpg


A close up of the UPF52 media. That stuff is really thick—and packed in there. 34 pleats.
DSC01486.jpg


And the standard PF52--48 pleats:
DSC01485.jpg


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
DSC01491.jpg


Left to right, PF52, UPF52, and PureOne
There is an area of hard to see settlement in the UPF 52 because the oil is still a little cloudy after more
than 48 hours. I tried to highlight the picture a little bit. This was the clearest of the photos.
I ran two identical dip tests with these three and the UPF52 filtered the best both times.
LtoRPF52UPF52P1.jpg


The UPF52 was a little bit ahead of the PureOne on filtering out my talc, but the flow rate was by far
the slowest of any filter I’ve tested so far (but also the best filtration I’ve ever seen…but I might just stick with the P1 all things considered.
The regular PF52 did a really good job too and seems to be an excellent choice.
 
I'd run any of these and feel good about it.
If you aren't having any low oil pressure indications with the UPF52, looks like hardly any dirt will get through it.
They aren't pulling you leg, apparently, with the efficiency quoted.
The PureOne is second place--not by much--but flows quite a bit better.
The PF52 flows great, and was third in this filtration test, but better by far than "average" as far as I can see.
 
rr, excellent quality pics, thanks for sharing, also to those who sent filters. Like you, I'm a tad surprised that the UPF52 uses a nitril adbv, but it's not that big a deal IMO. All look like quality filters.

fwiw, the pics of the procedure, make it easier to understand. Glad you interpret the results though. Adding in the 'cost factor' would also be a purchase consideration, at least for me.
 
Thanks. I was glad to get the chance to look at an AC Ultraguard as I've never seen one in person. I've heard they've been discontinued?
Originally Posted By: sayjac
...the pics of the procedure, make it easier to understand...

It's pretty simple.
1. The main thing is keeping everything even and the same between elements. e.g., you can't test a new dry element next to one that's been tested and is oily and talcy.

2. The mixture must be stirred immediately before dipping---all elements at the same time.

3. A 12 in. piece of clear vinyl tubing (1/8" I.D.) from Ace Hardware is used. The oily mix that fills the center tube must be stirred immediately again before drawing a sample as the talc settles out quickly. The sample is drawn from about the center of the center tube. Not sucking rignt off the bottom of the element where crud can form.

I use a no-needle medicine syringe from Walgreens. Free for the asking at the Pharm. counter.
 
Originally Posted By: river_rat
I'd run any of these and feel good about it.
If you aren't having any low oil pressure indications with the UPF52, looks like hardly any dirt will get through it.
They aren't pulling you leg, apparently, with the efficiency quoted.
The PureOne is second place--not by much--but flows quite a bit better.
The PF52 flows great, and was third in this filtration test, but better by far than "average" as far as I can see.


I think it is a cool test but hard to judge flow as in an engine the oil is being pushed through and not just slowing filterting through the filter.
 
Originally Posted By: postjeeprcr
I think it is a cool test but hard to judge flow as in an engine the oil is being pushed through and not just slowing filterting through the filter.

Right, all I can tell is one filter media resists flow much more or a little more than another...That it will do for sure.
It won't tell you the flow will be insufficient in an engine.
 
Since motor oil is relatively newtonion, the flow test shjould be fairly valid.

I haven't commented too much on this thread, but I am enjoying it. I muchly prefer numbers to guess work.
 
Originally Posted By: labman
I muchly prefer numbers to guess work.

I'd give numbers if I could.
Filter manufacturers can but they have a vested interest in making those numbers look good.
Usually though they seem to be more or less in line with the comparisons I've done.

When I look at some brands, the website or box just says "excellent filtration" or something like that.
I can't use that info...but if their "excellent" filtration keeps coming up approximately the same compared to, say, a Wix with published info, then I can see that it is probably in the ballpark of the Wix Beta.

Otherwise what I can do is show that filter A always lets a bunch more junk through than filter B, and flows easier or harder in repeated tests.
I'm not selling anything, but that's good enough for me to choose a filter for my truck--along with general filter construction. I'll run BuickGN's filters when I get them and that will probably be all.
...My shop is a mess with oil and smells like baby powder and petroleum, I've picked my favorites and trust my results, and spent more than $150 on filters.
 
Quote:
I've picked my favorites and trust my results, and spent more than $150 on filters.


That's enough for application to The Fraternity of Curious BITOG Lubenuts.
 
Yes i knew from day one when i started using them UPF it had a nitrile anti-drainback valve but that doesn't matter as much to me yea would be nice to have the silicon but i love the better filtration.

thanks again Rob for doing these tests,and pics great job bud!. Very interesting for sure not surprised with the slower flow rate as you can see with my above link post there's two layers,but i still think that's relevant and the filters made to flow well,i get these filters for just over $8 for a case of 6 so i'm going to continue to use them for sure.

i have one on my pick up now and it's cold here in MI no start up noise with 10w30HM.
 
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
That's enough for application to The Fraternity of Curious BITOG Lubenuts.

I resemble that remark.
thumbsup2.gif

To me, "guesswork" (if that's what labman meant)is looking at a filter's vaguely stated published efficiency--like XX% at >20 microns like Fram says...Not cutting it open and actually filtering with it.

I don't know what the filter's lifetime average % is, but there's no quessing relative media porosity when the crud settles--and they are definitely related.


Originally Posted By: daman
i have one on my pick up now and it's cold here in MI no start up noise with 10w30HM.

I've run just about every possible type of filter I can get off the shelf, under all conditions, on my old van that has an OP gauge tapped after the filter. I've never seen any noticable pressure difference between any of them, so I'm not surprised.

FWIW, All these filter elements that were removed from the cans, including the UPF52, when new and dry--you can put your mouth over the center tube hole and breath all day through them. You could walk around as long as you want and not run out of air...If that makes any sense. When they are oily, sure, they seem really restrictive, but then so do the oily bearing gaps and oil galleries.
Seems to me like a pretty minor pressure drop across the element relative to the rest of the oil system in most engines.
 
Have to remember too when that oil gets hot 180-200 deg it thins out and flows waaay better.

so not an issue with any of these filters IMO.
 
Originally Posted By: daman
Have to remember too when that oil gets hot 180-200 deg it thins out and flows waaay better.

so not an issue with any of these filters IMO.

I agree. I've washed some older elements in hot soapy water from the inside out to see if it would make any filtering difference after they dried. (it didn't) and the sink faucet cant even keep the center tubes full at full blast. It runs through too quick. And full temp 20-30 weight is about the same viscosity as whole milk...literally.

Main reasons I'd use the PureOne is cost and availability. But that tough built UPF52 really stops the dirt.
 
Guess work to me are those that look at the outside of a filter and rave about how good it looks, or even cut it open and do the same without comparing it to anything. Also speculating the results of what the end caps or center tube are made out of.

River Rat is producing some real data. Since motor oil's viscosity doesn't vary very much with shear, the gravity based test should be fairly valid. And room temperature is an interesting data point. Do we want a filter that bypasses at start up?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top