Mobil 1 question

Status
Not open for further replies.
Willhelm_D, exactly my point, in that a paper-only filter can't get to the high efficiency levels as glass fiber reinforced ones or all synthetic ones while still having adequate dirt holding capacity and pressure drop characteristics for someone going, say, 10,000 miles in a Toyota. Physically, cellulose strands are larger than glass fiber strands, so they block flow at those high efficiency levels and would clog too soon.

Therefore, must get glass fiber blends or synthetic to get those sought-after ISO 4548-12 99% efficiencies (<20 microns). Paper will not get you there with adequate dirt holding reserves.
 
Originally Posted By: 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.


Actually, efficiency at 20 micorns is the commonly accepted measure of merit typically stated by filter manufacturers.
You do know that these are multi-pass efficiencies as tested following the ISO protocol you cited?
You won't find much difference between low end and high end filters at that particle size and none of the more costly filters beat the filtering efficiency of the mid-tier P1.
What you will find are differences in construction and holding capacity in the more costly filters that make them suitable to longer drain intervals.
It isn't that cellulose media can't filter as efficiently as a more costly media, it's that the cellulose media is essentially only surface active and thus will load more quickly and offer less holding capacity than will a more costly media.
Once again, though, we have the problem of the rock catcher OEM filters recommended for Japanese four cylinder engine designs noted for their long life.
Either the engineers who developed the oil filter specs were ignorant of the SAE paper, or they have discounted it.
You originally posted that there were "several" papers out there supporting your argument that filtration of particles smaller than 20 microns had significant impact on engine wear.
You supplied a reference to only one, and it's fifteen years old.
Anything more, or of more modern vintage?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top