I called Purolator about PL14610 flow rate.

[dnewton3]

I will caution you all on relying on the GM filter study.

It is heavily biased in many manners. Never look at that study synopsis and think you know what it said.

BUY THE STUDY AND READ IT FOR YOURSELF.

Allow me to point out what I think is important to note, but you need to read the full study, and then understand not only what it does say, but what it does not say.

First, they (GM) wanted to accelerate the wear into a period that would be easily consumable for them. Next, they needed to exclude other controls so that ONLY filtration could be studied.

Now, if you understand ANYTHING about OCIs and wear, you'll agree that three things help control wear:
1) OCI duration
2) oil add-pack
3) filtration efficiency

To study the filters in the GM study, they heavily over-dosed the engine sump with contamination. No - wait - let me rephrase that ... They GROSSLY OVER-DOSED the sump. They put in enough silica (fine ac dust) that normally would have taken tens of thousands of miles to ingest; they dump in 50 grams every hour, as I recall, for 8 hours in a row. That is 400 (four-hundred) grams of dust in a day. Never in your wildest dreams would you ever encounter such contamination in a year, let alone a day.

Next, they completely negated the OCI by never changing oil during the test. Ever. They never relieved the sump with an exchange. So once the add-pack was overwhelmed, it was not refreshed. The detergent and dispersant additives cannot be expected to last forever, especially when seriously overwhelmed past their intended life-cycle.

Only AFTER they dumped in tons of dirt, and then ignored OCI regimes, did they experiment with filtration efficiency ratings of differing beta capabilities.

Then, they looked at wear metals from UOAs as an indication of filter performance relative to wear.

And, they specifically noted in the text, that one would never see such disparity in wear data from real world UOAs. Why? Well, if you're like most of us, you don't DUMP tons of dust into your sump, and then NEVER change oil .... Allow me to quote:
It is important to note that this analysis is used only to compare relative wear rates. Used oil analysis from engines in the field will not typically show such a clear correlation since wear metals generated between oil changes will be at much lower concentrations.
IOW - they acknowledge that normal maintenance routines will never exhibit such differences in wear control because the filter does not act exclusively; the filter works in concert with the OCI and the add-pack.

In short, they dumped a ton of garbage into the engine, never changed oil, and then credited "better" filters with reducing wear ...
Now, if you are in the habit of leaving the oil filler cap off, running without an air filter, and never doing an OCI, then this study might have some impact into your choice of filter. But most of you BITOGers are completely AR in the other direction, and change fluids and filter too often. NEVER would you EVER be in a situation such as what this study represents. So the conclusion of correlation (not causation) of the study is inapplicable to you.

Go ahead and quote that study if you want to, but when you do, be sure you all know what it states, and how it was achieved.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Of course cars are extending their OCI more now. So with extended OCIs higher filter efficiency and high holding capacity may be more important. Don't Hondas comparatively run shorter "extended" OCI than some other makes?


That's why you are seeing more efficient and longer OCI (full synthetic) oil filters appearing all the time ... because with full synthetic motor oil you can extend the OCI and the more efficient filter helps keep the oil cleaner over the extended OCI, and you also don't have to change the filter because it has high holding capacity if needed.

 

[mechanicx]

Yeah and you need a higher holding capacity with higher filtration efficiency. Except apparently for Honda OE filters are not providing higher efficiency with their dinky inefficient filters.

 

[IT_Architect]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Quote:
GM concluded that dust particles in the exact size of the oil-film thickness, 2 to 22 μm, abrade engine parts at the greatest rate. They also found that the filter’s ability to remove the most abrasive particles had been accurately predicted by the single pass efficiency test. Engine wear was reduced by 50 percent with 30 μm filtration versus 40 μm, and by 70 percent with 15 μm filtration.
Which is precisely why I say it is NOT adequate. Since all of the rest of the filters are rated to be efficient at 20 microns, it is evident that the auto industry has established long ago that 20 microns is the definition of adequate. And it would take more than one study to convince an entire industry to move to 20 microns. It's very likely that the reason for the 40 micron rating is inadequate filter size to support the required flow at 20 microns. For the one who mentioned the small dust used to wear out the engines, I would be interested in that study. When I was involved in testing like that, we just used transmission fluid. The engine parts stay lubricated and cooled and the engine wears out in half the time.

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Yeah and you need a higher holding capacity with higher filtration efficiency. Except apparently for Honda OE filters are not providing higher efficiency with their dinky inefficient filters.
My view exactly!

Originally Posted By: sayjac

....the difference between the 15400-plm-a01 (filtech)oil filters, and the 15400-plm-a02 (honeywell/Fram), is the manufacturer.
You crossed off the wrong one. It should read the difference between the 15400-plm-a01 (filtech)oil filters, and the 15400-plm-a02 (honeywell/Fram), is the manufacturer. Fram doesn't manufacture Honda filters, Filtech and Honeywell do. They are simply dual-sourced, as are most car parts. You could come back and say that the Frams are manufactured by Honeywell, but there are differences between the ones they sell to Honda, and the ones they sell to Fram, thus it is not valid to compare a Honda Filtech to a Fram Honeywell in place of the Honda Honeywell. Moreover, while a certain brand may find it no longer makes sense to manufacture their own products, there is sometimes more that sets their product apart than simply marketing. For instance, it may be that Purolator makes the Bosch, but Bosch may have developed an advanced media, that Purolator may not use in Purolators, Motorcrafts, PowerFlos, or ProLines.

Originally Posted By: sayjac

As for the topic'd PL14610...while rated 99.9@40um, it could still well be in the lower to mid 90's at 20 um. But whatever, I'm confident it's much more efficient than either of the OEM rock catchers.
This is pure speculation, but I can throw in some logic to support that position. If we are to take the differential pressure presented by the OP, that he received from Purolator, to be accurate, then the PL14610, with more filter area, and 2 1/2 times the pressure drop at 3 gpm, is very likely filtering more efficiently than either of the two OEM filters. I can't think of a way to challenge the motives of the guy from Purolator because admitting to a higher pressure drop is not a good PR move.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: IT_Architect
It's very likely that the reason for the 40 micron rating is inadequate filter size to support the required flow at 20 microns.


Disagree with that logic, because as I said earlier the 14459 has less media area than the 14610 (85 vs 105 sq-in. Have cut both open and measured the media area, as have other members here), but the 14459 is rated at 20 microns. So it doesn't make sense that the 40 micron rating on the 14610 is "to obtain better flow". If anything, the filters with the least media should have the worse filtering performance based on that logic, and it's not true.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: IT_Architect
It's very likely that the reason for the 40 micron rating is inadequate filter size to support the required flow at 20 microns.


The reason for the rating at 40 microns is because the filter is trading efficiency for capacity. If you are using "standard" media types, you really can't increase both efficiency *and* capacity at the same time...at least not while you maintain the same physical can size. You kind of have to take one or the other here.

The alternative is to use more exotic medias. You can see that in the Purolator Synthetic filters. They are rated for 10,000 miles by Purolator (good capacity) and are also rated with good efficiency. But look closer: the PSL series filters (the Synthetic filters) are rated at 25 microns vs. 20 microns like most of the PureONEs. Evidence, again, that efficiency and capacity are somewhat at odds with each other, even with more expensive medias. Purolator has designed a long-duration filter, and had to give up some rated efficiency to get there.

99% efficient at 25 microns compared with 99.9% efficient at 20 microns on PureONE.
27 grams holding capacity on PSL30001 compared with 13 grams on PL30001.

Classic case of efficiency vs. capacity. There's no free lunch.

 

[Sayjac]

Originally Posted By: IT_Architect
Originally Posted By: sayjac
....the difference between the 15400-plm-a01 (filtech)oil filters, and the 15400-plm-a02 (honeywell/Fram), is the manufacturer.

You crossed off the wrong one. It should read the difference between the 15400-plm-a01 (filtech)oil filters, and the 15400-plm-a02 (honeywell/Fram), is the manufacturer. Fram doesn't manufacture Honda filters, Filtech and Honeywell do.

No, I crossed out the correct one. Honeywell no longer owns Fram, and hasn't for some time now. Rank Group now own Fram, thus the slash through Honeywell, which is now history. Rank also owns Champ and their filter products are being wrapped under the name Fram, sold as a "Fram product." Hope that clears up your misconception regarding current Fram ownership.

Originally Posted By: IT_Architect
They are simply dual-sourced, as are most car parts. You could come back and say that the Frams are manufactured by Honeywell, but there are differences between the ones they sell to Honda, and the ones they sell to Fram, thus it is not valid to compare a Honda Filtech to a Fram Honeywell in place of the Honda Honeywell. ... For instance, it may be that Purolator makes the Bosch, but Bosch may have developed an advanced media, that Purolator may not use in Purolators, Motorcrafts, PowerFlos, or ProLines.

While Rank Group is now the parent company as Honeywell was previously, Fram is the filter manufacturer. Having visited the Fram test labs last fall, I can confirm this. But, it is true that the A-02 made by Fram is made to Honda specs, and as stated in my previous post here I gave the possible explanation I was given as to why they may be so relatively inefficient.

And I'm well aware that the Purolator 'made for' filters listed to which Quaker State, ProMotive, Group7 et al. can be added may not and likely are not exactly the same as Purolator Classics and Pure One. Like the Fram made Honda A-02, these 'made fors' would be made to the specs of the name on the filter. Though, many such as the QS, ProMotive and Group7 et al may well be exactly the same with the exception of the name.

As for Bosch, they are currently made by Purolator and have been for quite some time now. Thanks to a member's excellent filter study, river_rat showed that while Bosch Premium has named their media, it has become generally accepted here that the Bosch Prem is a Pure One clone. They also have the same stated efficiency percent, though as is Bosch practice, no micron level is listed. Also the now the current US Purolator made Mann is generally accepted now to be a Classic clone. Some Filtration Comparisons from the Bench Filtration Comparisons summary

Originally Posted By: sayjac
Quote:
As for the topic'd PL14610...while rated 99.9@40um, it could still well be in the lower to mid 90's at 20 um. But whatever, I'm confident it's much more efficient than either of the OEM rock catchers.

This is pure speculation, but I can throw in some logic to support that position......

True, thus the word "could" in my statement. But again, I'm confident that the PL14610 efficiency easily distances itself in a positive manner, from the tested A-02 efficency. Fwiw, I'm not the only one on this board over time that has speculated the 20um efficiency could well be in that range. As for the OP's email, I didn't pay much attention because as I said in my first post here, the now much posted P1 Flow vs PSID thread, is the definitive information regarding P1 flow and thus my reference source. Pure One Flow vs PSID from Purolator

 

[doitmyself]

Originally Posted By: chubbs1
gregk24. You have the worst case of OCD I have seen. Get some help.


A classic BITOG thread. It has expanded to 9 pages of discussion of like minded OCD'ers. We cannot deny our passion/sickness to discuss the details, even though we concede that just about any filter would take this engine beyond the life of the rest of the car.

 

[Jim Allen]

Mechanicx is right on target. It's not just the size of the particle, it's the concentration of them. The reason Honda gets away with the low efficiency filters is that contamination inputs on modern engines are low and the contamination levels never rise to a high or dangerous degree before the oil is changed. The tables turn when the contamination inputs are high, such as HD engines in very harsh environments, and THAT's when you need enhanced filtration.

The statement,"5-15" um particles cause the most wear," is based on testing done as noted above... very high concentrations of test dust added artificially over a short period. I don't think that statement or that test methodology is all that applicable to most of us or the real world (more so for HD engines in construction, farming, mining, etc.) but it makes a great marketing tool to sell enhanced filtration in the light duty world. To mind mind those tests are most useful for we light duty schlubs for showing which contamination LEVELS deliver the most or least wear.

To my knowledge, and I've spent a LOT of money on SAE white papers in the past few years, there are no conclusive, real world tests that show any significant differences in wear rates or engine longevity with filtration efficiency in the range of those commonly found in filters today and at contamination levels commonly found in everyday LD vehicles. Such tests would be expensive, time consuming and probably just confirm what we all intuit... the differences in wear rates are not huge in the 15-40 um absolute range with contamination levels/inputs at some sane point. Would love to find such tests if they have been done.

It's pretty clear and well proven that higher efficiency oil filters CAN extend oil life by keeping the contamination levels low. This "works" the additive package less hard so the oil stays viable longer. That's the ROI payoff for a high efficiency filter but you have to use the extended OCI capability to get that ROI. The idea that any sort of payback can be achieved thru engine wear is a fallacy, I think, 99+ % of the time. I say that being a guy willing to pay extra for high efficiency filtration just for my emotional health and enjoyment ( : < ) as much as for the extended oil life, but I am realistic about my illogical motivation and about what appear to be true the facts of the case.

The question of why Honda and others choose to be below the curve in efficiency has not been answered to my satisfaction. Given what we know about oil flow, that's not a likely answer and it's proven by the many people running much higher efficiency filters over long periods with no ill effects. Also with no apparent advantage in long term wear it seems, I might add. You can die of old age before you wear out a properly maintained Honda engine whether you are using a low or a high efficiency filter.

Money savings? Perhaps. But it's only a couple of pennies difference to put a higher efficiency media in what is already a well constructed filter. Honda isn't a company that are penny pinchers for the sake of penny pinching alone... in the way some others are (can you say F-O-R-D ( : < ).

My WAG is that it's institutional. Honda, and others, are very insular and institutional with some of their technical practices (automatic transmissions for example). The current oil filtration practice is "adequate" and "satisfactory" and therefore requires no attention or changes. Car companies get that way, just as people do ("By Golly, my father was a Pennzoil man and so am I!"). In light of the lack of facts here, that as good a WAG as any I've heard.

As to being able to determine the effectiveness of filtration via UOA, that is debunked by Fleetguard's white paper, "Differentiating Filter Performance by Oil Analysis Reports" (you can find it HERE ). The conclusion states:

"OIl sampling analysis may not be an acceptable means of differentiating fitlers for several reasons:

*Engine Wear rates may not be identical- There are too many variables that affect this, filters being just one of them. This could be due to driver differences and vehicle duty cycle.

*The particle size distributions for the engine wear particles may not be the same for all engines- Particle size distribution would effect the number of particles passing under the cut point of the filter, thus causing variations in the oil samples.

*Oil analysis tests such as ICP typically are unable to detect particles larger than 3 micron - The reusults of the oil analysis test show a limited view of the actual condition of the oil. This is especially true when engine failure is imminent and wear particles would be large enough to be caught by a filter."


This paper illustrates some of the difficulties in getting a real-world test done on the effect on wear from high efficiency filtration. If it can't be done via field tests then you would need thousands of hours on an engine dyno on dozens of engines.

Somebody here at BITOG, and forgive me for forgetting who, chimed in early on that the MOST important filter is the air filter because that's the major contributor to outside contamination. I am now fully convinced of that... if I wasn't before. With good air filter and a tight crankcase, contamination inputs from normal wear are very, very low with a modern engine.

Also, as Dave Newton is fond of saying, and dead right I might add, the OIL may be the biggest, or a bigger, contributor to low wear rates vs filtration in the "normal" range found today. The OIL helps keep the contamination rates lower and the filter doesn't have all that much to do... assuming little or no outside contamination input.

Perhaps the MOST important time for a high efficiency oil filter is at break in, where the built-in dirt from manufacturing and material from break-in are running rampant. During this break-in period, contamination levels are perhaps higher than at another time (given an engine "tight" against outside contamination). Once wear rates settle down to normal, the high efficiency filter is less needed.

Perhaps also, the "dirty" engines of the past need(ed) better filtration because of flat tappets, timing chains and other mechanical parts that naturally shed more metal than the roller tappet and belt-drive cams of today. And those older engines also had poorer air filtration and crankcase sealing (road draft tubes, etc.).

To end my long-winded post, I think anyone looking for a simple "one size fits all" axion to the filtration question is looking for the keys to the sea chest (a comical fool's errand joke if you've ever been a seaman). It just isn't as simple as one or the other being "better" and that's that.

 

[IT_Architect]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: IT_Architect
It's very likely that the reason for the 40 micron rating is inadequate filter size to support the required flow at 20 microns.

Disagree with that logic, because as I said earlier the 14459 has less media area than the 14610 (85 vs 105 sq-in. Have cut both open and measured the media area, as have other members here), but the 14459 is rated at 20 microns. So it doesn't make sense that the 40 micron rating on the 14610 is "to obtain better flow". If anything, the filters with the least media should have the worse filtering performance based on that logic, and it's not true.

I, and others on this thread are not equating filter size with micron size. There are filters the size of a thimble can filter down to 1 micron. However, it is not physically possible to do so with the same oil, at the same gpm, and maintain the same pressure drop. If there is more filter area in the PL14610, the pressure differential would drop, not go up. If it filters to a finer micron level, the pressure differential would go up. With the PL14610, there is MORE filter area, along with a 2 1/2 fold INCREASE in pressure differential. That leaves only two possibilities. Either the PL14610 uses radically inferior filtering material, or it is effectively filtering at a finer micron level. The reason for testing at 40 microns is in all likelihood because that is what the standard testing criteria is for this filter type. If we tested the efficiency of the PL14610 and OEM filters at 20 microns instead of 40 microns, it is likely we would find a massive difference in efficiency. Based on the numbers, it is possible, even likely, that the PL14610 is using industry standard 20 micron filtering material, with more pleats and filtering area. This is the basis for the chicken wire and rock catcher comments.

I was overdue for an oil change on one of our Vues, so yesterday I did an oil change using PL14610. Based on the above, I expect I'm making a trade. The trade is, I'm starting with a higher differential pressure, and getting finer filtering (hopefully). Oil pumps used in our vehicles are positive displacement pumps. The flow is going to happen regardless of the pressure differential, all the way up to the oil pumps pressure relief valve setting. It also means that the PL14610 is more likely to bypass on cold oil, and perhaps, even with its increased media area, not be able to remain effective for as long before going into bypass due to the filter's contaminant capacity. To help compensate, I switched to Mobile 1 0W-20. However, I'm already having second thoughts that I should have gone with the Bosch DistancePlus, which has the additional filtering area, plus demonstrably superior filtering material. With engines that use this filter, we have no idea when the filter is in bypass. Some applications put the pressure relief in the engine, and are able to detect when a filter is in pressure relief.

There is only one likely explanation to have this filter model, filter to a particulate size twice the size of the industry standard, and that is because it is used in applications that require too many gpm for standard filter media to filter to 20 microns, because of its small filter area. The only way to mitigate that situation is with a premium filter, and perhaps change it more often. However, a better solution would be to simply use a larger filter, that can filter to the industry standard micron size, with standard filtering materials, and be able to buy the filter at a standard price. That is the basis for my comments for using a remote engine oil filter kit in order to use the incredibly common and good FL1A filter, which is something racers have been doing for decades. I have subsequently discovered there are kits available for this filter type as well, however, I'm not at that point yet. I am at the point of entertaining the Bosch.

 

[HerrStig]

One would think we are talking about a Bugatti Veyron here.

 

[Jim Allen]

Regarding PD, bear in mind the media. Some high efficiency media flow better per square inch of media... eg a lofted synthetic media vs a typical molded cellulose media... equal efficiency assumed. The lofted medai also has a higher capacity than the cellulose, so it's capacity is greater per square inch of media.

I have about 1500 more miles before I can test this on the DP setup in my F150. I will test and datalog the DP on a variety of filter brands and types (all FL820S equivalents on the same oil viscosity and oil temps.

By way of a near final report, the P1 with about 15K on it, has been holding at 4-5 psi DP @ 2000 rpm with 10W30 oil at ~185F EOT for the past 7K miles since the test apparatus was installed. Have seen no significant changes. recently experienced a longish run @ 200F EOT and DP dropped to around 3-4.

Wonder how much lower it will go with the 5W20 I intend to install. There was a significant increase in oil pressure with the 10W30 (installed as an experiment) vs the OEM rated 5W20.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: IT_Architect
It's very likely that the reason for the 40 micron rating is inadequate filter size to support the required flow at 20 microns.


The reason for the rating at 40 microns is because the filter is trading efficiency for capacity. If you are using "standard" media types, you really can't increase both efficiency *and* capacity at the same time...at least not while you maintain the same physical can size. You kind of have to take one or the other here.


Again, I throw the 14459 in as a spoiler here. The 14459 has 85 sq-in of media and the 14610 has 105 sq-in. They are both PureOnes, and one is not rated at higher capacity than the other. Theoretically, the 14459 should have worse flow performance than the 14610 because it has less media area and it is rated at 20 microns filtration. I'm betting the flow difference isn't put a PSI or two between them, which doesn't make any difference to an engine anyway.

The reason that the 144610 is rated at 40 microns has no real reason to back it up (many here have tried to figure out why but nothing holds water), and I can't imagine that Purolator would use different media on just four our of their spin-on filters that have the 40 micron rating. It's not holding capacity or flow, because if those two things were linked to the efficiency of the media, then the 14459 would be rated at 40 microns too, but it's rated at 20 microns so the whole logic falls apart.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd

99% efficient at 25 microns compared with 99.9% efficient at 20 microns on PureONE.
27 grams holding capacity on PSL30001 compared with 13 grams on PL30001.

Classic case of efficiency vs. capacity. There's no free lunch.


You are comparing apples to oranges. A full synthetic media traps debris differently that the non-synthetic media. The synthetic media has more "3-D" media volume. If you compare just the surface area of the full synthetic to the non-synthetic media in the same filter model, you'll see that the full synthetic will have way less surface area ... yet it has way more holding capacity due to the "3-D" variable of the much thicker media.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Jim Allen

The statement,"5-15" um particles cause the most wear," is based on testing done as noted above... very high concentrations of test dust added artificially over a short period. I don't think that statement or that test methodology is all that applicable to most of us or the real world (more so for HD engines in construction, farming, mining, etc.) but it makes a great marketing tool to sell enhanced filtration in the light duty world. To mind mind those tests are most useful for we light duty schlubs for showing which contamination LEVELS deliver the most or least wear.


Obviously the wear vs particle size study wasn't meant to simulate real world environment/usage of an engine. It was purely designed to correlate what sized particles cause the most engine wear. Accelerating the test doesn't invalidate the conclusions IMO.

To me, the bottom line message from the study is that a more efficient oil filter will catch more particles that could do engine damage, regardless if there are 100 of those particles in the oil or 1 billion of them. In either case, catching more of them as they go through the oil filter is a benefit.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Jim Allen

As to being able to determine the effectiveness of filtration via UOA, that is debunked by Fleetguard's white paper, "Differentiating Filter Performance by Oil Analysis Reports" (you can find it HERE ). The conclusion states:

"OIl sampling analysis may not be an acceptable means of differentiating fitlers for several reasons:

*Engine Wear rates may not be identical- There are too many variables that affect this, filters being just one of them. This could be due to driver differences and vehicle duty cycle.

*The particle size distributions for the engine wear particles may not be the same for all engines- Particle size distribution would effect the number of particles passing under the cut point of the filter, thus causing variations in the oil samples.

*Oil analysis tests such as ICP typically are unable to detect particles larger than 3 micron - The results of the oil analysis test show a limited view of the actual condition of the oil. This is especially true when engine failure is imminent and wear particles would be large enough to be caught by a filter."


I think the downfall of that whole test was the fact they were only measuring particles 3 microns or less in size. With particles that small, non of those filters used regardless of their efficiency made any difference in catching particles of that size.

If they could have measured particles up to say 30 microns I think you would have seen a noticeable difference in the UOA in terms of the amount of particles floating around in the oil all the time.

 

[vinu_neuro]

Jim, with regards to Honda. Just a decade ago (before OLM's), for normal service they were recommending oil filters be changed only every two oil changes at a 15,000 mile interval for normal service. However, for severe service (short trips, muddy/dusty/de-iced roads) the oil and filter interval was 3,750 miles. 3,750 mi vs. 15,000 mile difference is big gap, and they can't have made such recommendations without having plenty of test data to back them up. The usage difference points to the fact that with regards to the filter, it's external contaminants and pentane insolubles that are critical rather than ferrous contamination.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: IT_Architect
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: IT_Architect
It's very likely that the reason for the 40 micron rating is inadequate filter size to support the required flow at 20 microns.

Disagree with that logic, because as I said earlier the 14459 has less media area than the 14610 (85 vs 105 sq-in. Have cut both open and measured the media area, as have other members here), but the 14459 is rated at 20 microns. So it doesn't make sense that the 40 micron rating on the 14610 is "to obtain better flow". If anything, the filters with the least media should have the worse filtering performance based on that logic, and it's not true.

I, and others on this thread are not equating filter size with micron size. There are filters the size of a thimble can filter down to 1 micron. However, it is not physically possible to do so with the same oil, at the same gpm, and maintain the same pressure drop. If there is more filter area in the PL14610, the pressure differential would drop, not go up. If it filters to a finer micron level, the pressure differential would go up. With the PL14610, there is MORE filter area, along with a 2 1/2 fold INCREASE in pressure differential. That leaves only two possibilities. Either the PL14610 uses radically inferior filtering material, or it is effectively filtering at a finer micron level.


You say the 14610 has "more filter area" ... compared to what filter, the Honda? If so, what's the media area of the Honda filter for comparison?

About the comment in red above - I see no reason why Purolator would use different, less efficient media on the PL14610 than any of the other PureOne filters. The @40 micron efficiency rating has always been a mystery around here. I even emailed Purolator Tech Dept asking why the 14610 was rated at 40 microns instead of 20 like all the other spin-on. Never got a response back. It very well could be it's actually filtering closer to 20 microns instead of 40 microns.

Originally Posted By: IT_Architect
The reason for testing at 40 microns is in all likelihood because that is what the standard testing criteria is for this filter type. If we tested the efficiency of the PL14610 and OEM filters at 20 microns instead of 40 microns, it is likely we would find a massive difference in efficiency.


For "this type of filter" ... what's different about the 14610 than any other spin-on that Purolator makes? You make it sound like it has some special spec or use requirement. I see no reason why.

Originally Posted By: IT_Architect
However, I'm already having second thoughts that I should have gone with the Bosch DistancePlus, which has the additional filtering area, plus demonstrably superior filtering material. With engines that use this filter, we have no idea when the filter is in bypass.


The Distance Plus is a full synthetic media, so changes are the media area is actually LESS. The full synthetic media uses the DEPTH of the media to capture debris and add to it's holding capacity. You can't directly compare cellulose to full synthetic media area ... they work differently.

Originally Posted By: IT_Architect
Some applications put the pressure relief in the engine, and are able to detect when a filter is in pressure relief.


How is that? Without a delta-P gauge across the oil filter you'd never know when it goes into bypass unless you were at redline and the pump was in pressure relief (which you don't really know either) and then compare oil pressure at redline. And doing it that way it doesn't matter if the filter bypass valve is in the filter or in the engine block.

Originally Posted By: IT_Architect
There is only one likely explanation to have this filter model, filter to a particulate size twice the size of the industry standard, and that is because it is used in applications that require too many gpm for standard filter media to filter to 20 microns, because of its small filter area.


The flow vs. PSID thread from SuperBusa that sayjac linked above shows that PureOne PL14006 filter flowing 12 GPM of hot oil and only having a 5 PSI delta across the media. The PL14006 is rated at 20 microns and probably doesn't have but 30 more square inches of media than the 14610.

I think you are worrying too much about PSID in the real world, and the 14610 can surely handle any oil flow that any normal street car can put out.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
I have about 1500 more miles before I can test this on the DP setup in my F150. I will test and datalog the DP on a variety of filter brands and types (all FL820S equivalents on the same oil viscosity and oil temps.

By way of a near final report, the P1 with about 15K on it, has been holding at 4-5 psi DP @ 2000 rpm with 10W30 oil at ~185F EOT for the past 7K miles since the test apparatus was installed. Have seen no significant changes. recently experienced a longish run @ 200F EOT and DP dropped to around 3-4.


Your test bed is good real world data collection. What would be interesting is to know what kind of oil pump volume output that truck has vs. engine RPM. Wondering if the service manual or any tech source has that information, as it would be hard to measure that variable.

Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Wonder how much lower it will go with the 5W20 I intend to install. There was a significant increase in oil pressure with the 10W30 (installed as an experiment) vs the OEM rated 5W20.


It will definitely go down ... probably see more like 2-3 PSID with the thinner oil at 200 deg F is my estimate.

 

[Jim Allen]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix


Accelerating the test doesn't invalidate the conclusions IMO.




Completely invalidate? No, but it reduces its weight in an argument to feather status IMO. There may be some useful conclusions to be gleaned but my point that that within the 20-40 micron range of filters available, the benefits of going from the high end to the low end are indeterminate or indeterminable. I don't disagree that less contamination is "better" but does the amount of "better" equate to a substantial decrease in wear that pays back for the high cost of a super premium filer at double the cost??? Maybe not. That doesn't mean as a good shopper you can't find a more viable alternative, though to give you more efficiency at a better price.

More to the point here, though, the low efficiency OE Honda filter (~99% @ 40 um) costs as much or more than an aftermarket filter at the high efficiency end of the 20-40 range. In that case... no brainer for me... go for the best efficency for the money!!!