what filter for a 10k+ OCI?
- Thread starter rancur3p1c
- Start date
- Status
Too bad fram ultra and some of the others does not have their Flow rate listed also. that is the most important thing to know about oil filters because dirty oil lubricates engines much better than no oil at all.
Originally Posted By: crazyoildude
Too bad fram ultra and some of the others does not have their Flow rate listed also. that is the most important thing to know about oil filters because dirty oil lubricates engines much better than no oil at all.
Read this thread from this post and beyond. You will see that the Ultra flows very well ... better than the PureOne which we have data from Purolator.
Read this thread from here for Ultra flow info
Too bad fram ultra and some of the others does not have their Flow rate listed also. that is the most important thing to know about oil filters because dirty oil lubricates engines much better than no oil at all.
Read this thread from this post and beyond. You will see that the Ultra flows very well ... better than the PureOne which we have data from Purolator.
Read this thread from here for Ultra flow info
pure one is not a great flowing filter either in my professional opinion.
Originally Posted By: crazyoildude
pure one is not a great flowing filter either in my professional opinion.
Well, the real measured test data says it does flow well.
Can't really argue with real data
pure one is not a great flowing filter either in my professional opinion.
Well, the real measured test data says it does flow well.
Can't really argue with real data
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: crazyoildude
pure one is not a great flowing filter either in my professional opinion.
Well, the real measured test data says it does flow well.
Can't really argue with real data
Sure he can have his opinion ... But it depends upon what his "professional opinion" is based upon. What criteria has he objectively measured and documented? What credible sources has he discovered and established as trustworthy? What definition is "great flowing", which would leave him a conclusion that the PureOne did not meet that definition?
I'll take your reference to good old fashioned data as paramount to a good decision. If a PureOne is "too restrictive", and yet flows that well, then I can rest assured that ANY motor using ANY reasonable filter will NEVER have a flow issue. If one bothers to plot that data, it is a fairly linear (slightly parabolic) curve response. Taking the specific example of your data for your Corvette filter, there is ample evidence that dP is minimal at any expected flow rate. It would only be 1/2 way to the BP set-point at redline! How can a filter be deemed "too restrictive" when it's not even close to approaching the BP lift point?
Taking that a step further, for a "normal" car running "normal" rpms, it might be reasonable to estimate that the engine would flow perhaps 3-5gpm between 1500-3000 rpm? So the dP across the media would be around a few psi? Hardly what I'd call "restrictive". And this is the PureOne data. Lessor restrictive (less efficient) filters would have even less dP.
Why cannot people see the forest through the trees?
Originally Posted By: crazyoildude
pure one is not a great flowing filter either in my professional opinion.
Well, the real measured test data says it does flow well.
Can't really argue with real data
Sure he can have his opinion ... But it depends upon what his "professional opinion" is based upon. What criteria has he objectively measured and documented? What credible sources has he discovered and established as trustworthy? What definition is "great flowing", which would leave him a conclusion that the PureOne did not meet that definition?
I'll take your reference to good old fashioned data as paramount to a good decision. If a PureOne is "too restrictive", and yet flows that well, then I can rest assured that ANY motor using ANY reasonable filter will NEVER have a flow issue. If one bothers to plot that data, it is a fairly linear (slightly parabolic) curve response. Taking the specific example of your data for your Corvette filter, there is ample evidence that dP is minimal at any expected flow rate. It would only be 1/2 way to the BP set-point at redline! How can a filter be deemed "too restrictive" when it's not even close to approaching the BP lift point?
Taking that a step further, for a "normal" car running "normal" rpms, it might be reasonable to estimate that the engine would flow perhaps 3-5gpm between 1500-3000 rpm? So the dP across the media would be around a few psi? Hardly what I'd call "restrictive". And this is the PureOne data. Lessor restrictive (less efficient) filters would have even less dP.
Why cannot people see the forest through the trees?
Last edited:
Yup it sure does say that just like slick 50 had all those claims a few years back.. Remember all that data? Don't feel bad i fell for that stuff also in a matter of fact a rep came to an engine seminar years back and everyone got a free sample bottle and even a couple of the best engine guys used it and loved it for many oil changes until the truth came out.
Years back it was S.T.P. which as i recall was the best thing since oil was invented. Who knows on that one My brother still uses that in a high mileage tow truck he had before he sold his transmission shop.
By the way ZeeOSix i like your posts!
Years back it was S.T.P. which as i recall was the best thing since oil was invented. Who knows on that one My brother still uses that in a high mileage tow truck he had before he sold his transmission shop.
By the way ZeeOSix i like your posts!
Originally Posted By: rancur3p1c
which has superior smaller-particle filtration? Purolator is 99.9% of 10-micron
HAHA, you mean 25 micron... No full flow filter has anywhere near 99.9% at 10 micron, that is bypass filter territory. Not to mention it would get saturated before you know what happened.
which has superior smaller-particle filtration? Purolator is 99.9% of 10-micron
HAHA, you mean 25 micron... No full flow filter has anywhere near 99.9% at 10 micron, that is bypass filter territory. Not to mention it would get saturated before you know what happened.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
^^^ Quality has been a changin'.
can you explain that more? getting worse you say?
^^^ Quality has been a changin'.
can you explain that more? getting worse you say?
- Status
