Mobil 1 question

[Wilhelm_D]

Originally Posted By: Le_bow_ski
A tear provides a very low resistance path for oil flow in comparison to flow through the filter media, and so will pass a significant amount of unfiltered oil.

Consider the volume going through the filter. Then look at the "tears" reported with pictures.

There is absolutely no way that "a significant amount of unfiltered oil" can pass through two to four 1/4 inch slits in comparison to what goes through the filter during engine operation. The grunge on the filter media in each picture supports that.

The bypass permits a lot more oil than that to go through in normal operation, and you're not reading an outcry that bypass valves be eliminated.

In the real world a certain amount of unfiltered oil goes through a filter which is perfectly manufactured. If we add a couple of small slits to the medium, which increase that amount by some tiny margin, nothing particularly worth noting occurs during operation.

It is interesting that these slits don't show any signs of spreading or increasing, nor do they become larger holes rather than tiny slits or imperfections. I would hypothesize, then, that this is not a problem with the filter media, although it might be.

Obviously tears in the media are not desirable, and Purolator no doubt is aware of the reports and is looking into it. However, the near hysteria appears to be unwarranted.

 

[Le_bow_ski]

You are incorrect about both the inability of small perforations being unable to pass significant flows in comparison to filter media, and about hysteria (your characterization) over the substandard performance of purolator filters. In the case of the former it's a relatively simple fluid mechanics problem; in the latter, in an open market with many choices there's simply no compelling reason to purchase a filter with repeated instances of serious flaws.

 

[Wilhelm_D]

Originally Posted By: Le_bow_ski
You are incorrect about both the inability of small perforations being unable to pass significant flows in comparison to filter media, and about hysteria (your characterization) over the substandard performance of purolator filters.

Get a grip, son.

 

[Le_bow_ski]

Originally Posted By: Wilhelm_D
Originally Posted By: Le_bow_ski
You are incorrect about both the inability of small perforations being unable to pass significant flows in comparison to filter media, and about hysteria (your characterization) over the substandard performance of purolator filters.

Get a grip, son.



How interesting to get an emotional response to a non-emotional expression of opinion. Weren't you the one who recently criticized others in another thread about just this thing. Let's confine our discussion to oil and filters if you don't mind.

 

[Wilhelm_D]

Originally Posted By: Le_bow_ski
How interesting to get an emotional response to a non-emotional expression of opinion.

One does tire of the unsupported assertions.

 

[Le_bow_ski]

There is more than enough physical evidence to suggest Purolator has a problem with their filters. You may choose to ignore the available evidence, or be unsatisfied that there is a sufficiently large statistical sampling to meet your requirements for an unequivocal condemnation of the brand, but many reasonable folks will go to the filter section of their favorite auto parts store and choose an alternative filter. I doubt their rejection of Purolator will have any negative ramifications to anyone but Purolator.

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted By: FetchFar
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
What OCI do you plan on?
If you're doing the 5-6K runs typical of most of us, then you don't need either a D+ or an M1 oil filter.
These have the constuction quality and holding capacity for extended drains.
They aren't any more efficient than many cheaper oil filters.
Of course, if you run either for two drains, you'd then be getting your money's worth out of them.
You probably aren't gaining anything using M1 oil either.
If you intend to run 8-10K drains, then your oil and filter choice makes sense.
Now, if you got both at a real steal, then I'd be entirely in agreement with your choice.
JMHO


The evidence out there is that the Mobil1 filters, Fram ToughGard and Ultra, and NAPA Gold ARE better than plain-paper oil filters, more efficient. The ISO 4548-12 results show those filters get far more junk particles out that can interfere with oil film performance, the stuff below 20 microns. Oil films run from zero to 50 microns thick.


It's probably more important that a filter trap the larger particles and even the lower tier aftermarket filters show good filtering efficiency at 20 micron and above particle sizes.
Not sure that smaller particles interfere with "oil film performance" in any measurable way, since oils are designed to suspend these particles until they finally get filtered out, since multi-pass efficiency is always greater than single-pass efficiency, or they're drained out with the oil.
You just want to ensure that larger particles, too large to pass harmlessly through the bearings and journals, are filtered out. With short drains, the oil's dispersants will prevent the agglomeration that leads to larger particles anyway.
Finally, if efficiency is all that important, than how come so many OEM oil filters have rock catcher efficiency?
Don't think that's so?
Check out the specs for any OEM Japanese make oil filter.

 

[Merkava_4]

Originally Posted By: Le_bow_ski
You are incorrect about both the inability of small perforations being unable to pass significant flows in comparison to filter media, and about hysteria (your characterization) over the substandard performance of purolator filters. In the case of the former it's a relatively simple fluid mechanics problem; in the latter, in an open market with many choices there's simply no compelling reason to purchase a filter with repeated instances of serious flaws.


Some guys will fight tooth an nail to defend Purolator's reputation when there's at least a dozen other filters to choose from.

 

[FetchFar]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
You just want to ensure that larger particles, too large to pass harmlessly through the bearings and journals, are filtered out. With short drains, the oil's dispersants will prevent the agglomeration that leads to larger particles anyway.


Several engineering studies have noted the sharp rise in wear with particle sizes below 20 microns in greater numbers. Cheap paper-only filters don't do that well at 20, letting through something like 30 times as much junk in that size area. Common sense tells us that the hardness of the sub-20-micron boulders (i.e, silica vs. carbon soot) plays a major role.

However, its totally unsubstantiated to say that the paper+glass fiber blended medias, which get to 99% ISO 4548-12 performance levels, is not really worth anything. However, if one changes their oil every 3 months or 3000 miles, I agree filter performance is less important. With the objective of longer OCIs like most of us want, better oil filters are worth it

 

[fdcg27]

Could you provide some links to the several engineering studies you cite?
Certainly we've seen nothing here to indicate that oil filter or even oil choice has much bearing on wear.
That would still leave the problem of the Japanese OEMs using low efficiency oil filters.
Could it be that they're ignorant of the studies you cite, or is it more likely that they find them inconclusive in the context of the operation of an engine over the four or five thousand of hours of its typical life?
I write this from the viewpoint of one who's had several 200K+ mile engines and who has never made any effort to select anything over mid-tier oil filters, except when I've gotten a high-tier filter on some sort of deal.

 

[FetchFar]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Could you provide some links to the several engineering studies you cite?
Certainly we've seen nothing here to indicate that oil filter or even oil choice has much bearing on wear.
That would still leave the problem of the Japanese OEMs using low efficiency oil filters.
Could it be that they're ignorant of the studies you cite, or is it more likely that they find them inconclusive in the context of the operation of an engine over the four or five thousand of hours of its typical life?
I write this from the viewpoint of one who's had several 200K+ mile engines and who has never made any effort to select anything over mid-tier oil filters, except when I've gotten a high-tier filter on some sort of deal.


Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) studies have shown engine wear reductions of 50% when filtering crankcase oil to 30 microns, and 70% when filtering to 15 microns, as compared with filtering to 40 microns. (Whitefield, 1999) and http://papers.sae.org/881825/

 

[FetchFar]

Certainly from an intuitive standpoint we know that particle sizes (hard stuff) inside the oil films, which can vary from near zero to 50 microns thickness in different parts of the engine, can scrape at the metal bearing surfaces.

If you change your oil a lot, or aren't getting much hard silica in your oil, you should be OK. For me, I like longer OCIs, so a filter that can hang in there better, hold more dirt, is best for pushing beyond 3000 miles. Cheap insurance. I don't want to argue about spending $10 for a 99% ISO 4548-12 vs. $5 for a cheap paper-only oil filter that doesn't stop as many 20+ micron particles. Oil and filters are cheap, cars are expensive, so why not go with the best here?

 

[Wilhelm_D]

Originally Posted By: FetchFar
However, its totally unsubstantiated to say that the paper+glass fiber blended medias, which get to 99% ISO 4548-12 performance levels, is not really worth anything. However, if one changes their oil every 3 months or 3000 miles, I agree filter performance is less important. With the objective of longer OCIs like most of us want, better oil filters are worth it

A cellulose filter media can achieve the same efficiency as synthetic media for a given particle size. What it can't do is achieve the capacity of the synthetic media, so the more efficient, the sooner it will fill and bypass. The manufacturer has to make some choices, then, as to how to put the tail on the filter cat.

If a cellulose media oil filter is of the same efficiency as a synthetic media filter, and you change it frequently (e.g., 3,000 - 4,500 miles), it will do everything important to filtration that the synthetic media filter will.

 

[fdcg27]

Okay, but I spoke of particles in the twenty micron range, at which size even lower tier filters are very efficient.
Your claim was that engineering studies showed a sharp increase in wear when particles below twenty microns weren't filtered out.
Which is it?

 

[FetchFar]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Okay, but I spoke of particles in the twenty micron range, at which size even lower tier filters are very efficient.
Your claim was that engineering studies showed a sharp increase in wear when particles below twenty microns weren't filtered out.
Which is it?


Particles less than 20 microns are where the ISO 4548-12 efficiencies are usually stated. Paper filters typically are 70% below 20 microns, and Fram ToughGuard and Mobil1 oil filters I have are 99% below 20 microns. The SAE paper looked at down to 15 microns, where there was a clear benefit, and also looked at the benefit of being better at getting rid of 40 micron particles and slightly higher. The difference between paper filters and the glass fiber blends are 29% below 20 microns. Since the research paper also looked at around 40 microns, all-paper filters that let more of those thru also affects wear.

So 15-20-40 microns, the difference between the cheap filters and the better ones appears.

 

[FetchFar]

A good discussion about the benefits of getting more and more particles out of the oil is at http://www.microgreenfilter.com/testing-and-validation

 

[FetchFar]

Originally Posted By: Wilhelm_D
A cellulose filter media can achieve the same efficiency as synthetic media for a given particle size. What it can't do is achieve the capacity of the synthetic media, so the more efficient, the sooner it will fill and bypass. The manufacturer has to make some choices, then, as to how to put the tail on the filter cat.

If a cellulose media oil filter is of the same efficiency as a synthetic media filter, and you change it frequently (e.g., 3,000 - 4,500 miles), it will do everything important to filtration that the synthetic media filter will.


Back when I did my research on this, I found that the cheap paper-only filters were never as efficient at getting particles out as the glass fiber blends, or all-synthetic types. Never. If you found a paper cellulose-only filter that is as efficient in the ISO 4548-12, then please point to it.

 

[CHARLIEBRONSON21]

Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Originally Posted By: Le_bow_ski
You are incorrect about both the inability of small perforations being unable to pass significant flows in comparison to filter media, and about hysteria (your characterization) over the substandard performance of purolator filters. In the case of the former it's a relatively simple fluid mechanics problem; in the latter, in an open market with many choices there's simply no compelling reason to purchase a filter with repeated instances of serious flaws.


Some guys will fight tooth an nail to defend Purolator's reputation when there's at least a dozen other filters to choose from.

Seems to be that way. I don't have anything again at purolator. Used them for years. But with the ones I'm seeing torn, I get nervous using one. I'm sure I'm gonna be fine but it's a comfort thing. If I could cut open then put back together I would be set. And I'd market that ability to everyone on here as well. Lol

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: CHARLIEBRONSON21
And I'd market that ability to everyone on here as well. Lol

And you'd probably get very wealthy!

 

[Wilhelm_D]

Originally Posted By: FetchFar
Back when I did my research on this, I found that the cheap paper-only filters were never as efficient at getting particles out as the glass fiber blends, or all-synthetic types. Never.

I have not done a survey of the entire market of filters.

Filter media itself is made by a number of companies which make a variety of other products, which may include diapers, sanitary napkins, optical cleaning material, a wide variety of filtration media, and so on. They can make cellulose sit up and do higher math.

There is no inherent reason why cellulose filter media can't be made as efficient as synthetic media for a given particle size.

What can't be accomplished with cellulose media - at least not inexpensively - is to achieve the kind of capacity that synthetic media achieves.

This article by Wes Cash at Noria explains why:

Dirt Holding Capacity

I would also be cautious about relying on the Beta rating to evaluate oil filters. A more meaningful rating might be the absolute rating, which gives the size of the largest particle that will pass through the filter. Although there is no standardized test method for absolute ratings, in many cases they better represent the effectiveness of a filter in actual use.

Beta ratios do not take into account actual operating conditions such as flow surges and changes in temperature, nor do they give any indication of dirt-holding capacity - the total amount of contaminant that can be trapped by the filter throughout its life - nor account for its stability or performance over time.