Oil Filter Efficiency Study

[Gary Allan]

Well, I read it, FWIW, and still can't agree with your conclusions. I really would have to see your Beta number to index your micron numbers ...since I'm VERY SURE that any performance of either the Purone or Wix at 15um column ..but it has to be somewhere in the Beta2 or there abouts. Same with the WIX. Neither the Wix or the PureOne have anywhere near a Beta15=75 level of filtration, yet you still insist that by your data driven format, they're both superior in this regard.

Now, again, I'm undisciplined and text challenged, but what I see is results of a study on hieroglyphics. You go to great lengths to tell us how you came to your conclusions. Went to the pyramids ...diggings ...seminars ...consulted experts ...but can't show use due to some gag order handed down from Tutankhamen's descendants since we're not Masons. So, the paper is a masterpiece of non-information and mostly conclusions.

Am I reading it wrong here?

 

[Pablo]

Gary - basically you are not holding your head right. At this point in time, the stuff in the <> 15μm columns are rewards for having the data. I don't believe their is any reward for accuracy, nor even the values in, and of, themselves.

 

[Gary Allan]

Yes, that much I see. So, what does one glean from the study? I see that the highest rated filters have the most coincidental access to data. This is the criteria for achievement.

So, buy a PureOne if you like their technical dept. Buy a Wix since they post the multipass data on the web site.

Buy an Amsoil because they don't tell you
in that order.

Did I miss something?

Now if the study was titled:

Filter manufacturer's freedom of information and personal observations WHITE PAPER, then I can see the point.

 

[boxcartommie22]

lol

 

[GeorgeCLS]

And, again, even those filters that do have numbers are for a constant flow particle count test methodology. Since our oil engine oil systems are continuously varying flow rate and pressures, those published beta ratio numbers are really not relevant/meaningful, as I indicated in a previous post.

That will be quite a day when oil filter manufacturers start publishing beta ratios using the new varying flow rate/pressure test methods... That will be some relative, comparative data but doubt that it will take place in my lifetime..
George Morrison, STLE CLS

 

[Steve S]

Originally Posted By: boxcartommie22
iam not suprized at all of the poor ratings of these paper filters!!! we are being fooled! that is why i have converted all my filters to the stainless steel mesh cloth that has a absolute 30u rating..and flows 57 gpm with 90 wt oil at 1psid restriction!!!the above filter companies do not list the lager particles that get pass paper up to 300u!!! paper swelling happens in the presents of moisture which is a by product of combustion..we are waisting our money on the above filters..i know we at bitog are perfectionists and using the very best. stainless steel mesh is the way to go..think about it trying to push oil through paper!! just doesn't make any sense.and think about the extra drag on your engine!
If so what does the bypass valve do if the pressure differential is so great that there is drag on the engine?

 

[GeorgeCLS]

So, again, the better filters are of either a microglass/cellulose blend or microglass. The pure microglass elements do not swell up with moisture and by-products of cumbustion.
I replace/upgrade industrial stinless "filters?" every week with microglass elements and *significantly* increase system filtration capabilities. As in 900% reduction in particulates below 50 microns, down to as low as 1 micron..

Stainless filtration if fine where one has to use it in extremely difficult, caustic situations and even then a micro-fuzz stainless is used, not a simple stainless screen. Screens keep out bricks and birds, as the 30 micron level indicates. Heck we can SEE a 30 micron particle! We need to filter effectively down to the 10 micron level which microglass can accomplish easily.
George Morrison, STLE CLS

 

[Rockford Fosgate Fan]

And the Pure One wins.

 

[harry j]

Originally Posted By: GeorgeCLS
And, again, even those filters that do have numbers are for a constant flow particle count test methodology. Since our oil engine oil systems are continuously varying flow rate and pressures, those published beta ratio numbers are really not relevant/meaningful, as I indicated in a previous post.

That will be quite a day when oil filter manufacturers start publishing beta ratios using the new varying flow rate/pressure test methods... That will be some relative, comparative data but doubt that it will take place in my lifetime..
George Morrison, STLE CLS



George,
Do you have the capability of testing say an Eao under varying pressure conditions?

Harry

 

[Gary Allan]

The thing is that you're using data of that nature in a comparative manner.

It's like all the unpublished (typically) filter data. Stuff like PSID @ Xgpm of flow with a given visc fluid. It DOES give you an indication of relative "resistance" of a given filter. What the data does in a vacuum is give you the impression of "faster flowing" or "higher flow" filters ...when the fundamental of a fixed volume positive displacement pump is ignored. In this statistical data's case, everyone can't see that if they ever reached the published PSID ..their oil pressure would have to be somewhere in excess of 100 PSI to produce the required PSID that's published. Hence another "mis-concept" is born and everyone goes on through life in total command of misinformation due to faulty views.

Let's take two filters:

Filter A:

8PSID @ 10gpm w/ ISO 150 fluid

Filter B:

10 PSID @ 10 gpm w/ ISO 150 fluid

Everyone forgets that they are probably dealing with a 5gpm PEAK flow through their engine. At 10gpm of flow ..they can double their peak oil pressure ...which means that they're in relief and are probably more subject to the bypass valve setting than anything else.

"Pulsing" is a common test that filter mans subject their filters to ..and it surely degrades the efficiency of the filter. They'll pulse the filter at very high frequencies.

What does this data gain you in comparatives over comparatives of STANDARD ISO protocols?

 

[FZ1]

No offense intended, but I think I will continue to consider that Mobil and Amsoil make the two best filters and oils. Just my .02.

 

[GeorgeCLS]

Yes, I did test the EaO oil filter under varying pressure conditions: on my Toyota Sequoia used oil analysis/particle count which I published the results on this thread some months ago. The EaO turned in "real world" filtration performance (not laboratory constant flow) to a level of cleanliness cleaner than the Mobil 1 coming out of the bottle!!

And I would also agree that the Amsoil EaO, Mobil 1 and Pure One are superb filters with the EaO superior in every performance aspect simply due to its 100% microglass medium construction vs. the glass/cellulose blend used in the Mobil 1 and Pure 1 filters.
George Morrison, STLE CLS

 

[jmsbntz]

Originally Posted By: GeorgeCLS
Yes, I did test the EaO oil filter under varying pressure conditions: on my Toyota Sequoia used oil analysis/particle count which I published the results on this thread some months ago. The EaO turned in "real world" filtration performance (not laboratory constant flow) to a level of cleanliness cleaner than the Mobil 1 coming out of the bottle!!

George Morrison, STLE CLS


I had the same results in my FRAM vs. AMSOIL comparison.