Oil Filter Efficiency Study

[Yary]

Originally Posted By: Brian Barnhart
At best, the study offers a level comparison between filtration ratings of three filters. Since the “study” doesn’t add anything new in terms of construction or price, the “data” on the other 22 filters is of very little value.

Perhaps the value of the study could be increased somewhat if filters lacking the proper specified filtration data from the manufacturer were identified. As it is, there is no way to distinguish filters that have what the author classifies as “poor” filtration from filters for which he has no proper data. This suggests that filters whose filtration is considered poor by the author's rating method are just as good as those for which he has no proper data.



You said it.

 

[63Avanti]

Originally Posted By: Brian Barnhart
As it is, there is no way to distinguish filters that have what the author classifies as “poor” filtration from filters for which he has no proper data. This suggests that filters whose filtration is considered poor by the author's rating method are just as good as those for which he has no proper data.


Ok, I guess a mild defense is appropriate here. to paraphrase my explanation
1. "poor filters" get one green
2. filters whose manufacturers refused to provide data get no green
I do not think that anything I have written supports your assertion.

 

[63Avanti]

Originally Posted By: Brian Barnhart
Perhaps the value of the study could be increased somewhat if filters lacking the proper specified filtration data from the manufacturer were identified.


I am at a loss here. I put "filters lacking the proper specified filtration data from the manufacturer" as all black. What else do you need????

 

[Brian Barnhart]

I see it why I missed it. The statement was buried in the footnotes. Sorry to be so negative, but it seems like a lot of effort just to "rate" three filters with the other twenty-two tied for last. Kinda reminds me of last year's NASCAR championship chase.

 

[63Avanti]

I have already expressed my dismay over how companies can spend millions in advertising, and not be willing to back it up with the data which they already have. I was expecting a lot more green, with a clustering near the upper end. (my model is not very tough).

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: 63Avanti
Originally Posted By: Brian Barnhart
Perhaps the value of the study could be increased somewhat if filters lacking the proper specified filtration data from the manufacturer were identified.


I am at a loss here. I put "filters lacking the proper specified filtration data from the manufacturer" as all black. What else do you need????


..but I recall you verifying, to me in another post, that you acknowledged that Amsoil publishes absolute @ the 15um level ...yet you report NO data at the >15um.

..and before you rhetorically retort, no, I didn't read the entire document. I'm text challenged and the world NEEDS a Cliff Notes version of everything.

 

[63Avanti]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
..but I recall you verifying, to me in another post, that you acknowledged that Amsoil publishes absolute @ the 15um level ...yet you report NO data at the >15um.


You recall correctly.
There were two problems with "absolute @ Xum",
1)it means different things to different people. I have seen it meaning anything from 20 Beta to 10000 Beta.
2) Amsoil declined to clarify and to identify which ISO standard that they were using to make the claim.

I thought that I had hit GOLD on that one piece of data. I suspect, but cannot report in a data-driven study, that Amsoil and 3 other filters (not Wix) would compete handily with PureOne for the top position. (As I have stated many times, Wix is very good, and as far as I can tell so far, totally appropriate for my use and wallet. However, if more data ever comes in, I would expect it to drop in the rankings to anchor either the bottom of the 1st quadrille, or the top of the 2nd quadrille.)

"data-driven" is a harsh mistress

 

[DmanWho]

Would there be a large difference in your chart, using the filter data you have attained, but are unable to legally post? If so, I would like to see a revised chart, reflective of that data. If anyone wants the specifics, or references, they could PM you for them...

 

[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!

 

[Pablo]

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!


I for one don't see how you could draw this conclusion from this white paper.

 

[63Avanti]

ALL DATA I got, regardless of source, as long as I could verify that it was ISO compliant is represented.

 

[63Avanti]

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!

I cannot support or refute the above with anything in what I have "published." But I am skeptical....

 

[boxcartommie22]

this my opinion and what i have learned from the experts and when you anyalized paper filters then i feel it is common sense how a thick oil can go through a paper..i feel we can do alot better for our engines...stainless steel filters is not a new concept..i know its much better then paper will ever be and attempt of manufactures to cheaply make for the masses..its your choice..i choose mine..i just wanted all of us to have the experience that iam having with the results..we are the perfectionists here at bitog...

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
1)it means different things to different people. I have seen it meaning anything from 20 Beta to 10000 Beta.


Well, in any convention that I've had the privilege of visiting, it means Beta 75.

Quote:
2) Amsoil declined to clarify and to identify which ISO standard that they were using to make the claim.


This is a direct link to their web site on line store. Would you care to tell me what they declined to tell you??

on line store

 

[Pablo]

The only thing Amsoil has not provided are the numbers under 15 microns. They are not answering my e-mails. Not sure why.

 

[Gary Allan]

That shouldn't matter too much. If you take the WIX data at Beta 20 (95%) and it's greater than 15um (which just about all are) then it's simply NOT AS GOOD at filtering as an EaO. I'd like to see the rationale~ that supports any other conclusion.

 

[Gary Allan]

Okay ...now maybe ..since I'm "text challenged" and prefer Cliff Notes with back up rhetorical long versions ...perhaps I'm just not reading things the way I'm used to.

What would the green dots look like if one posted it with

90%
95%
97.5%
etc. ??

That is, assuming we used available data ..and the sensible assumption that any filter that does Beta15=75 would be superior to ANY filter that did Beta25=20 in just about any other %/beta level, how would the green show.

I normally don't nitpick to this extent ..but I just can't get the dimensional data to flush in my head. By dimensional, I mean "from a price standpoint - from a filtration standpoint - from a composite score standpoint". I just can't see the X by Y by Z axis being established here ...not that it appears to intend to. Again, I can't possibly read the entire document in the way it's written.

 

[GeorgeCLS]

My comments are relative to the ISO 4548 multi pass test procedures and their relevance to automotive application. ISO 4548 is multi pass oil flow testbut the test uses a constant flow rate during the test. Unfortunately, no automotive/truck engine oil flows at a constant rate. It would seem to be "so what's the big deal?"

I have tested name brand industrial microglass filters which yielded a 3 micron beta 200 under ISO 4548 constant flow testing. Yes the same filter tested with the new variable flow rate test method yielded a 50 micron beta 200 rating. (!)
An incredible reduction took place in filtration efficiency when the filter was exposed to a more "real world" situation with varying oil flow rate.

Thus I have trouble accepting the published XBeta Ratios as absolute and even being relevant to automotive varying flow application..

Ideally, real world oil analysis results using particle counts would provide bottom line data that *would* be real and relative for comparison.. That also means lots of time/money and would take years to complete..

George Morrison, STLE CLS

 

[63Avanti]

I give up, You guys are wearing me out.
over 90% of the commenters clearly have not read the paper, but just cherry pick their favorite visual and then asked questions and/or complained.

out of 49 postings, only 5 point out stuff that I missed, and 2 offered up something I could further research in the hopes of making the paper better.

I have reposted the updated paper incorporating all 5 suggestion and 1 of the new items that I could verify. I will work on the 2nd "new item." If you are interested, I have reposted in the web location. However, I will not be answering questions when the issue is not the paper, but people not reading the paper before complaining.

Big Grouch here.....

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
Big Grouch here.....

No problem. Big whiner here

No, really, I'll make one more attempt to read the entire paper. I'm sure it's fine for someone who dwells in that realm of text based detail. I am text challenged in that regard. I seek the meat and can't see it due to all the trimmings. I'm much better at a conversational format ..which is what, I really believe, all text should be based on. No one would "tell" someone the contents of this paper in a verbal manner in the way it is written. You would have someone asleep before you told them anything useful.

Yes, the problem is mine.