Some Filtration Comparisons from the Bench

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: labman

River Rat is producing some real data.

I agree...

Real enough for me,it's at least something to go on....
 
Guys, the EAO and RP filters I promised are still coming. Got into a dispute with the bank over some checks. Long story short the funds are short but it will be resolved shortly. I've been wanting to see this sort of test for so long and I'm the one holding up progress now.
 
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
Guys, the EAO and RP filters I promised are still coming. Got into a dispute with the bank over some checks. Long story short the funds are short but it will be resolved shortly. I've been wanting to see this sort of test for so long and I'm the one holding up progress now.

No worries. I haven't cleaned up the mess down there yet.
11.gif
 
Man, there are some really great threads going on right now. Thanks for this one Rob! Can't wait to see the results of the RP filter.

Cheers!

Ken
(currently running M1 EP)
 
Originally Posted By: kbuzbee
Man, there are some really great threads going on right now. Thanks for this one Rob! Can't wait to see the results of the RP filter.

Cheers!

Ken
(currently running M1 EP)


I can not wait for the results of the Royal Purple filter either.
 
Ya me too. While we're waiting I'm testing an ecore. No pics yet but it's looking pretty good in the filtration.
I've gradually come to accept these ecores as a decent filter for cheap.
 
Originally Posted By: another Todd
So with the high filtration rate of the pure ones, is there any chance they are filtering out the oils additive package?


Not a chance.
 
Originally Posted By: jmac
Originally Posted By: another Todd
So with the high filtration rate of the pure ones, is there any chance they are filtering out the oils additive package?


Not a chance.


Not a chance in H E double hockey sticks!
 
I asked the same question but for bypass filters--which filter super duper micro teeny fine. Gary Allen set me straight by linking me to a site that compares the micron(s) range filter pore size vs. the nanometer range molecule size for the additive molecules.

No, like these guys said, it's impossible.
 
Johnny hasn't corrected me, but I suspect some of the solids in my YB Pennzoil may be ground limestone. They collect on the filter the first pass and lay there waiting for an acid to come by and nab it. Maybe other stuff too.
 
Here is the Ecore test I promised, along with some notes on the Wix observations.
The picture below is representative of several comparison tests that kept coming of the same way.
Left to right: Ecore PF-53 IIRC, Mobil 1 Extended Performance M1-102, WIX 51348, and Denso (Toyota OEM 90915-YZZD1).
They are all for the same application.

The Ecore always does pretty well in the comparisons with it's published efficiency of 96% single pass at 15-20 microns and 94% mutipass at 20 microns.

The Mobil 1 always tests for me as one of the better filters for filtration, and is about the same as the K&Ns I've tested. This (the M1) is advertised at 99.2% mutipass efficiency but without a micron size given. Champion Labs however told me by phone that it was about a 10 micron nominal filter (50% at 10 microns), which is pretty respectable and the results show it. It does not test as good as the PureOne, but it isn't all that far behind it either.

The WIX efficiency for this particular filter is not spectacular, showing a 21 microm nominal rating, but in practice, always filters about as well as the M1.
Does this meant the M1 filters worse than expected, or the Wix filters better than expected in the real world?
Since the M1 consistently meets or beats any number of filters with good published efficiencies, and it not far behind the PureOne, I have to go with the weight of evidence that the Wix filters better than expected and that the Wix published ratings are conservative.
The are in fact a lot of variables in how the SAE tests are done, and so published ratings vary.
The Wix, may lose some of this efficiency after it has been in use for a while and may appear closer to the conservative published ratings--but the media is obviously stopping fine debris as well as higher rated filters. This is also evident in that the flow rate in the oil in the test with similar media surface area is about the same as the M1. This indicates to me that something--either median pore size, or depth of media is probably fairly similar, because they both use a blended media. The other possibility is that the Wix ratings that they published have not been updated in some time as media technology keeps improving.

The Denso flows very fast, and filters decently from past experience--maybe average. It's a good filter, I say, but probably not the best at capturing the smaller particles in the fewest passes.

LtoRecoreM1WixDenso.jpg



Pictures of my messy shop. I've done a lot of tests!
DSC01549.jpg

DSC01552.jpg

DSC01554.jpg

DSC01551.jpg

DSC01555.jpg

DSC01553.jpg
 
Originally Posted By: daman
Great job rob,your a valuable member here for sure,this stuff takes time and effort on your part.
thumbsup2.gif


Hey thanks man.
I've learned a lot in the process and think I've got the test procedures down for repeatability of results.
I have also reluctantly changed my opinion of the Ecores. I was kind of concerned about them at first, but at least the later versions, seem to stay together well and I consider them a viable choice for a fairly decent low cost filter now. I still don't like Frams except for the Extended Guard model.
 
Originally Posted By: daman
Great job rob,your a valuable member here for sure,this stuff takes time and effort on your part.
thumbsup2.gif



Yes ... Rob is now a certified "oil filter testing mad scientist".
wink.gif
 
Sure makes me glad I installed a Pure One filter along with 6 qts of Redline 0w-30 last Thursday!!!!! Thanks for all your hard work testing the filters!!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top