Oreilly's Promotion: $3 off K&N and Wix XP
- Thread starter MrGiggles
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
I read on one of the bulletins Beta ratio to percent is found by subtracting one from the number, then diving by the original number. so Beta ratio of 2 means 2-1=1, 1 divided by 2 is 1/2 or 50%. At a certain micron level, whatever is given. Sorry for the high math. B 10 is 10-1=9, 9/10 or 90%.
Handy table.
Yeah seen that table a number of times on here, I find it easier though to use the formula, subtract one, divide by the original number. Don't need to find the table. You probably have quoted this to others but this bulletin explains a lot about the oil filter testing.
http://www.aftermarketsuppliers.org/Councils/Filter-Manufacturers-Council/TSBs-2/English/04-2R1.pdf
This statement in that bulletin may explain why some might say an efficiency number isn't the end all it seems to be. There are still plenty of particles in the oil, so how many does it take to make a scratch on a bearing, one particle I believe will do it. Plus the fact an engine is likely not adding so much dirt to the oil as the test, so if oil is filtered many times per minute, as in driving, the efficiency may be much higher than thought for say a 50% filter.
"Example: ß4(c) = 200 signifies that there are 200 times as many particles that are 4 average micron size (4μm) and larger upstream as downstream. This is 99.5% efficiency."
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
I read on one of the bulletins Beta ratio to percent is found by subtracting one from the number, then diving by the original number. so Beta ratio of 2 means 2-1=1, 1 divided by 2 is 1/2 or 50%. At a certain micron level, whatever is given. Sorry for the high math. B 10 is 10-1=9, 9/10 or 90%.
Handy table.
Yeah seen that table a number of times on here, I find it easier though to use the formula, subtract one, divide by the original number. Don't need to find the table. You probably have quoted this to others but this bulletin explains a lot about the oil filter testing.
http://www.aftermarketsuppliers.org/Councils/Filter-Manufacturers-Council/TSBs-2/English/04-2R1.pdf
This statement in that bulletin may explain why some might say an efficiency number isn't the end all it seems to be. There are still plenty of particles in the oil, so how many does it take to make a scratch on a bearing, one particle I believe will do it. Plus the fact an engine is likely not adding so much dirt to the oil as the test, so if oil is filtered many times per minute, as in driving, the efficiency may be much higher than thought for say a 50% filter.
"Example: ß4(c) = 200 signifies that there are 200 times as many particles that are 4 average micron size (4μm) and larger upstream as downstream. This is 99.5% efficiency."
Originally Posted By: jhellwig
Why does everything become a fram argument?
This is BITOG, if you don't drink the Kool-Aid being sold by those who know best in their minds you are going to have problems. I use the Ultra on some cars, XP on others and German black Mann on another yet if its anything other than a Fram Ultra to some people they claim you are not running the most efficient filter and recommend to others against using using it as seen in this thread
How many people on this board have reported not needing to a mechanical valve adjustment on some engines at over 100K because the clearance was in spec? Quite a few.
This means one the most highly stressed areas and the last in line to see oil at startup isn't shedding any significant metal.
I have had a properly maintained since new engine apart at 250K for a cam chain and all parts measured to new values (except the chain) with precision starrett measuring equipment.
Engines of course do shed metal particles but its very minimal unless something is wrong, there is almost always some piston skirt polishing or scuffing going on but this takes many tens of thousands of miles.
The bigger issue is dirt ingestion from loose air filter connections, leaking air boxes or just overly dirty air filters or leaking PCV system issues.
No one has shown a 99% claimed efficiency will reduce the wear or even a greater amount of particle streaking on the main and rod bearings over a claimed 50% efficiency filter in a properly maintained engine.
It has been claimed in this thread that particles under 20 micron do the most damage yet the Frams efficiency is rated at 20 microns so it is also allowing less than 20 micron damaging particles through.
If one filter hypothetically lets 10 particles through and the other 8 how much actual wear difference is there?
Does the XP become more efficient with use? What happens to the flow of these filters with use, does the more efficient filter become more restricted and allow more bypass time? If it does there goes the more efficient part of the argument right out the window.
Diesel engines are another story, they deal with soot and usually use some sort of secondary filtration in addition to the full flow.
This is from a pdf, i post the main part of it for those who dont have the speed.
Quote:
Oil Filtration Requirements
Engine oil filters are challenged with three main requirements:
• To remove the size of contaminant determined to be the most detrimental to the engine, which
is
efficiency
• To have the
capacity
to hold that contaminant for the recommended service interval
• To have the ability to allow the oil to continue to flow through the filter and be cleaned even as
the restriction in the filter increases. This is
cold flow ability.
Efficiency is the measure of filtration performance.
For example, a filter with 50% efficiency
removes half
the contaminants in oil at a given particle size. The efficiency of filters should
always be made using the same contaminant and standard tests.
Micron rating is a rating given to a filter char
acterizing efficiency of particle removal at a given
size and test method (i.e. 10 m at 95.0% efficiency per ISO 4548-12). Without all three
components a micron rating cannot be directly compared to another rating.
Cold flow represents any condition that causes restriction to the oil through the filter. Cold
temperatures or oil that has become thick due to high soot and sludge levels can cause this
restriction.
The filter can also cause this restriction due to too high an efficiency. The result of too high a
restriction is the opening of the by-pass valve, allowing unfiltered oil to circulate in the engine.
While this condition is necessary to ensure lubrication and cooling to prevent engine failure, it
does increase wear and shorten engine life. Hence a high performing oil filter requires having
the right balance of efficiency, capacity and cold flow ability.
Efficiency, capacity and cold flow ability requirements are critical, and necessary to ensure
optimum engine life and performance. The optimal balance of these three requirements can
only be accurately determined through real world testing that imitates the conditions found in a
real world operating environment.
https://www.cumminsfiltration.com/pdfs/product_lit/americas_brochures/MB10046.pdf
Check this thread out..
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3203648/Are_high_efficiency_filters_re
Why does everything become a fram argument?
This is BITOG, if you don't drink the Kool-Aid being sold by those who know best in their minds you are going to have problems. I use the Ultra on some cars, XP on others and German black Mann on another yet if its anything other than a Fram Ultra to some people they claim you are not running the most efficient filter and recommend to others against using using it as seen in this thread
How many people on this board have reported not needing to a mechanical valve adjustment on some engines at over 100K because the clearance was in spec? Quite a few.
This means one the most highly stressed areas and the last in line to see oil at startup isn't shedding any significant metal.
I have had a properly maintained since new engine apart at 250K for a cam chain and all parts measured to new values (except the chain) with precision starrett measuring equipment.
Engines of course do shed metal particles but its very minimal unless something is wrong, there is almost always some piston skirt polishing or scuffing going on but this takes many tens of thousands of miles.
The bigger issue is dirt ingestion from loose air filter connections, leaking air boxes or just overly dirty air filters or leaking PCV system issues.
No one has shown a 99% claimed efficiency will reduce the wear or even a greater amount of particle streaking on the main and rod bearings over a claimed 50% efficiency filter in a properly maintained engine.
It has been claimed in this thread that particles under 20 micron do the most damage yet the Frams efficiency is rated at 20 microns so it is also allowing less than 20 micron damaging particles through.
If one filter hypothetically lets 10 particles through and the other 8 how much actual wear difference is there?
Does the XP become more efficient with use? What happens to the flow of these filters with use, does the more efficient filter become more restricted and allow more bypass time? If it does there goes the more efficient part of the argument right out the window.
Diesel engines are another story, they deal with soot and usually use some sort of secondary filtration in addition to the full flow.
This is from a pdf, i post the main part of it for those who dont have the speed.
Quote:
Oil Filtration Requirements
Engine oil filters are challenged with three main requirements:
• To remove the size of contaminant determined to be the most detrimental to the engine, which
is
efficiency
• To have the
capacity
to hold that contaminant for the recommended service interval
• To have the ability to allow the oil to continue to flow through the filter and be cleaned even as
the restriction in the filter increases. This is
cold flow ability.
Efficiency is the measure of filtration performance.
For example, a filter with 50% efficiency
removes half
the contaminants in oil at a given particle size. The efficiency of filters should
always be made using the same contaminant and standard tests.
Micron rating is a rating given to a filter char
acterizing efficiency of particle removal at a given
size and test method (i.e. 10 m at 95.0% efficiency per ISO 4548-12). Without all three
components a micron rating cannot be directly compared to another rating.
Cold flow represents any condition that causes restriction to the oil through the filter. Cold
temperatures or oil that has become thick due to high soot and sludge levels can cause this
restriction.
The filter can also cause this restriction due to too high an efficiency. The result of too high a
restriction is the opening of the by-pass valve, allowing unfiltered oil to circulate in the engine.
While this condition is necessary to ensure lubrication and cooling to prevent engine failure, it
does increase wear and shorten engine life. Hence a high performing oil filter requires having
the right balance of efficiency, capacity and cold flow ability.
Efficiency, capacity and cold flow ability requirements are critical, and necessary to ensure
optimum engine life and performance. The optimal balance of these three requirements can
only be accurately determined through real world testing that imitates the conditions found in a
real world operating environment.
https://www.cumminsfiltration.com/pdfs/product_lit/americas_brochures/MB10046.pdf
Check this thread out..
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3203648/Are_high_efficiency_filters_re
^^^^I would like to see a reference to how much dirt, particles etc are being added to the oil vs time. People keep saying that a filter has multiple chances to remove a particle but only if another one isn't added in its place. So far never seen the data posted yet. And since a UOA will not measure all particles like for instance carbon I think only particle analysis would suffice.
Originally Posted By: Trav
It has been claimed in this thread that particles under 20 micron do the most damage yet the Frams efficiency is rated at 20 microns so it is also allowing less than 20 micron damaging particles through.
The part you missed is that if an oil filter is 99% efficient @ 20 microns, then it is also more efficient at 5 microns compared to a filter that is rated at 50% @ 20 microns. It means it is better at trapping more and smaller particles if they exist in the oil than the filter that is rated at 50% efficiency @ 20 microns.
Originally Posted By: Trav
Does the XP become more efficient with use?
All filters become somewhat more efficient with use.
Originally Posted By: Trav
What happens to the flow of these filters with use, does the more efficient filter become more restricted and allow more bypass time? If it does there goes the more efficient part of the argument right out the window.
That's why you would want to run a full synthetic filter that is high efficiency and has also has a large holding capacity, because they can hold a lot of debris before they start plugging up and becoming restrictive.
A smart user will know what interval to run the oil filter based on the construction and rating of the filter, regardless if it's full synthetic, a blend or just plain cellulose media.
It has been claimed in this thread that particles under 20 micron do the most damage yet the Frams efficiency is rated at 20 microns so it is also allowing less than 20 micron damaging particles through.
The part you missed is that if an oil filter is 99% efficient @ 20 microns, then it is also more efficient at 5 microns compared to a filter that is rated at 50% @ 20 microns. It means it is better at trapping more and smaller particles if they exist in the oil than the filter that is rated at 50% efficiency @ 20 microns.
Originally Posted By: Trav
Does the XP become more efficient with use?
All filters become somewhat more efficient with use.
Originally Posted By: Trav
What happens to the flow of these filters with use, does the more efficient filter become more restricted and allow more bypass time? If it does there goes the more efficient part of the argument right out the window.
That's why you would want to run a full synthetic filter that is high efficiency and has also has a large holding capacity, because they can hold a lot of debris before they start plugging up and becoming restrictive.
A smart user will know what interval to run the oil filter based on the construction and rating of the filter, regardless if it's full synthetic, a blend or just plain cellulose media.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
This statement in that bulletin may explain why some might say an efficiency number isn't the end all it seems to be. There are still plenty of particles in the oil, so how many does it take to make a scratch on a bearing, one particle I believe will do it. Plus the fact an engine is likely not adding so much dirt to the oil as the test, so if oil is filtered many times per minute, as in driving, the efficiency may be much higher than thought for say a 50% filter.
"Example: ß4(c) = 200 signifies that there are 200 times as many particles that are 4 average micron size (4μm) and larger upstream as downstream. This is 99.5% efficiency."
For my likes, higher efficiency is better than lower efficiency. Since there is a choice, I go with higher - which for me is any oil filter that is at least 95% @ 20 microns, which gives me a lot of choices to choose from on the shelves.
This statement in that bulletin may explain why some might say an efficiency number isn't the end all it seems to be. There are still plenty of particles in the oil, so how many does it take to make a scratch on a bearing, one particle I believe will do it. Plus the fact an engine is likely not adding so much dirt to the oil as the test, so if oil is filtered many times per minute, as in driving, the efficiency may be much higher than thought for say a 50% filter.
"Example: ß4(c) = 200 signifies that there are 200 times as many particles that are 4 average micron size (4μm) and larger upstream as downstream. This is 99.5% efficiency."
For my likes, higher efficiency is better than lower efficiency. Since there is a choice, I go with higher - which for me is any oil filter that is at least 95% @ 20 microns, which gives me a lot of choices to choose from on the shelves.
Originally Posted By: Trav
Nothing wrong with using a more efficient filter I never said it was.
Trav, I'm one who "likes" better efficiency, but won't chase it. There is literature out there about how efficiency can add to an engine's lifespan. So can more frequent OCIs, bypass filtration, or whatever method one uses to neutralize the issue. However, the average person and vehicle will never be affected by this. When running a diesel truck for millions of kilometers, it would be something for me to think about. For a daily driver, I wouldn't worry. Even with respect to the taxis, other things were more problematic than wear than may have been reduced by better filtration. The insurer neither cares nor compensates you for using a high efficiency filter when the taxi is sitting on a flatbed after being totaled in a collision.
This is where I'd worry: A Wix XP is way too expensive in Canada (close to $30 versus $5 to $10 for regular Wix, depending upon the part number). And a Fram Ultra can be expensive, depending upon part numbers you're comparing. A Fram Ultra is an decent choice for the G37 based upon cost. For the F-150, it's triple the price of a standard Wix.
I'm not buying either a $30 Wix XP or a $15 Fram Ultra for a thirty year old truck, and I don't think I have much to worry about from particle damage in a G37 that's running a high HTHS oil in the first place that I need to highest efficiency possible.
Nothing wrong with using a more efficient filter I never said it was.
Trav, I'm one who "likes" better efficiency, but won't chase it. There is literature out there about how efficiency can add to an engine's lifespan. So can more frequent OCIs, bypass filtration, or whatever method one uses to neutralize the issue. However, the average person and vehicle will never be affected by this. When running a diesel truck for millions of kilometers, it would be something for me to think about. For a daily driver, I wouldn't worry. Even with respect to the taxis, other things were more problematic than wear than may have been reduced by better filtration. The insurer neither cares nor compensates you for using a high efficiency filter when the taxi is sitting on a flatbed after being totaled in a collision.
This is where I'd worry: A Wix XP is way too expensive in Canada (close to $30 versus $5 to $10 for regular Wix, depending upon the part number). And a Fram Ultra can be expensive, depending upon part numbers you're comparing. A Fram Ultra is an decent choice for the G37 based upon cost. For the F-150, it's triple the price of a standard Wix.
I'm not buying either a $30 Wix XP or a $15 Fram Ultra for a thirty year old truck, and I don't think I have much to worry about from particle damage in a G37 that's running a high HTHS oil in the first place that I need to highest efficiency possible.
No one can dispute that keeping the dirt out in the first place saves a lot of grief.
I bought the XP on sale for $8 ea so its cheaper than the Ultra, Mobil 1 and most of the other good names. OTOH when they include the Ultra or Mobil 1 in a package deal with 5qts of oil its a good deal and i use them but I wouldn't pay a dollar or more extra for one.
The only filter i wouldn't use even for free is anything Purolator. Tears and the possibility of filter media going into the oil galley is more risk than I am willing to take, that would be many times worse than a 20 micron particle going through.
The only filter i wouldn't use even for free is anything Purolator. Tears and the possibility of filter media going into the oil galley is more risk than I am willing to take, that would be many times worse than a 20 micron particle going through.
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2015
- Messages
- 1,462
Originally Posted By: bbhero
Overall well stated KingCake. An ounce of prevention beats a pound of cure. Question is... Who makes the better air filter?? Another debate on this for sure.
Good question. I wish this site gave as much research into air filters as it does oil filters.
Overall well stated KingCake. An ounce of prevention beats a pound of cure. Question is... Who makes the better air filter?? Another debate on this for sure.
Good question. I wish this site gave as much research into air filters as it does oil filters.
Well, $8 is pretty good. Maybe they'll come down here, but I'll have to see. The regular Wix for my F-150 is like $4.99 and the one for the G37 is under $10, so that's enough. Fram Ultras and M1s go for a regular price of around $15, down to say $11 on special, but I don't like chasing filter sales any more than I like chasing oil sales.
- Status
Similar threads
