Winston, if their nominal holes size is less than 1/2 of 35 microns, then their marketing propaganda would have to be written by complete incompetents. Otherwise they would have said that and given some actual filtration test results for particles down to at least as small at 10 micron.
lifetime oil filter
- Thread starter lewk
- Start date
- Status
I looked into flow rates for couple of types of stainless filtration material. The material in the links at the top of this thread have an unusually high flow rate which indicates that they are a Plain Dutch Weave, or similar regular weave. A weave that had a high percentage of it's passages smaller then 35 micron would have more flow resistance than is claimed by the filter companies in at the top of this thread.
http://www.wovenwire.com/twilldutch.htm
One of the chracteristics of Plain Dutch Weave is that the nominal and absolute filtration numbers are very close together.
http://www.wovenwire.com/twilldutch.htm
One of the chracteristics of Plain Dutch Weave is that the nominal and absolute filtration numbers are very close together.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Yes, I've either seen this or a study like it before. It's just near impossible to integrate that into a life expectancy. Even if you manage to say that there's a double wear rate at a certain micro level ..what are we talking
I guess all we can conclude is that less wear, via finer filtration, increases the likelihood of reaching a higher unknown ceiling.
quote:
Originally posted by Gary Allan:
Yes, I've either seen this or a study like it before. It's just near impossible to integrate that into a life expectancy. Even if you manage to say that there's a double wear rate at a certain micro level ..what are we talking..the difference betwee 250k and 400k? ..or is it the difference between 150k and 500k
I guess all we can conclude is that less wear, via finer filtration, increases the likelihood of reaching a higher unknown ceiling.If it was the type of test I think it was, the wear levels weren't oil analysis micro level type tests. They tear down the engine afterwards and carefully measure and weigh parts to see how much metal has been lost off the parts. They know how far the parts can wear before they are done, so it's meaningful comparison.
unless we get a SAE J1858 test(or something similar) to compare these different types of filters this is all just speculation basically. this theoretical input reminds me of the belief I have in santa claus. I can believe he exist but I dont trust him to bring me anything on x-mas.
6 yr old
6 yr old
OK then, all the more reason we need to be careful about using comparable terminology. Also, again, it would be interesting to see what sort of PCs such a filter generates. Of course, such comparisons would have to be made with similar, if not identical, engines and operating conditions. Not easy to pick through. . .
That's not correct. Perhaps I should have been more specific than I was in my last. Here is a link to my last posted UOA (with particle counts). This generates an ISO cleanliness code of 15/12, quite clean by these standards. I certainly don't like the idea of a filter that can only pick up particles at or above 35 microns. As you can see from my data, my K&N is doing substantially better than that. If it were just a numbers comparison, you might think, "so what"? On the other hand, when you factor in the already noted fact that the closest clearances in an automotive piston engine are down in the single-digit micron levels, a filter as crude as the one you're discussing disturbs me. IMO, disposable filters, even the expensive ones, aren't nearly costly enough to mess with a re-usable filter, especially one that demonstrates notably poorer filtration performance. Personally, I'm convinced (thanks but no thanks), but I suppose we should really wait and see what sort of particle counts and ISO code results from comparable use of this filter.
on the titan forum a guy tested the ultrafilter with a 10,000 mile uoa using mobil 1 ep...his uoa looked outstanding....i cant say these wire mesh are better but by his outstanding uoa i would say there at least comparable. he has uoa's testing regular paper filters with mobil 1 ep and then the ultra filter using mobil 1 ep with nearly identical results over a 10,000 mile oci. in the real world it appears the ultra filter is at least comparable imo after seeing his uoa's. no im not an engineer but i thought his results has to speak for something?
Did he do particle counts with his UOA? The typical low cost UOA is not going to reveal the stuff that the particles are made of.
Hmmm, maybe because the manufacturer recommends it?
"HOW DO I CLEAN THE FILTER?
Wash the stainless steel filter element in clean XK5 SUPER BLUE SOLVENT that was supplied with your new filter. Clean any remaining metal particles from the media element. If inspection of trapped debris is desired, flush the particles into a clean container. Once clean, lightly blow air through the filter from the inside out to remove any small particles or cleaning agent from the screen. Clean the inside of the filter housing using the same type of cleaner as used on the filter element."
I bet that there's some verbage in their lifetime warranty saying that you have to use their solvent to clean it as well.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
quote:
Originally posted by XS650:
quote:
Originally posted by Gary Allan:
Yes, I've either seen this or a study like it before. It's just near impossible to integrate that into a life expectancy. Even if you manage to say that there's a double wear rate at a certain micro level ..what are we talking..the difference betwee 250k and 400k? ..or is it the difference between 150k and 500k
I guess all we can conclude is that less wear, via finer filtration, increases the likelihood of reaching a higher unknown ceiling.If it was the type of test I think it was, the wear levels weren't oil analysis micro level type tests. They tear down the engine afterwards and carefully measure and weigh parts to see how much metal has been lost off the parts. They know how far the parts can wear before they are done, so it's meaningful comparison.This is surely so. I would imagine that there is an expotential wear factor above a certain micron rating. In fact it may be expotential, as opposed to something resembling inversely proportional, for any micron rating in terms of how abrasives effect wear. At some point, on the small end, you probably run out of practical fatigue times on other component. I would imagine that in such a study, at some point, there would be no way to determine whether wear (or missing material) was from abrasive interaction ..or normal decay. That is, one being the result of abrasion ..while the other being the source of abrasives.
LGF
the results u achieved with the falcon is good reading. this link http://www.gulfcoastfilters.com/scott_paper_co.htm shows promise with regard to the approach you are considering. sure its hydraulic fluid but I'd expect similar results with oil products with filters that had similar constitutions. full-flow/bypass regardless of the type media employed.
the results u achieved with the falcon is good reading. this link http://www.gulfcoastfilters.com/scott_paper_co.htm shows promise with regard to the approach you are considering. sure its hydraulic fluid but I'd expect similar results with oil products with filters that had similar constitutions. full-flow/bypass regardless of the type media employed.
What if I don't have that product? Maybe I have a different filter. Soap and water works great, and there are many different cleanable filters out there. Which cleaning product do you use?
We used to sell a wire mesh filters made by Mecca and Oberg. Wire mesh filters are a bad idea. They do not filter small particles as well as paper filters, it is difficult to clean them, they are a source of leaks, AND it is normal when cleaning the filter to put contaminates on the outlet side of the screen where they go right back into the engine. The last point is the real bugger. In my opinion the only reason for these mesh filters is to act as a prefilter to a standard paper filter so that racers can easily examine "trash" in their filters. Please take note that the careful racers do not clean the mesh, they replace it. Once again, it is very difficult to clean these filters without pushing some contaminates to the wrong side of the meash, putting contaminates back into the engine.
So far I don't see any test or lab data on cleanable oil filters. And there are so many different one's it hard to imagine they are all the same. There are some being tested by members right now, but I think it's going to be a while before resultes are publiched.
Interesting thread
What Gary Allan was saying holds a lot of water... at what point are you really increasing the life of the engine by eliminating the abrasive content size? I live in Michigan, and really it's a rather moot discussion on cars. Ever seen a Michigan car? Body rust and other things are going to do more damage to the car than the oil in it. You're engine may be top shape in 350,000 miles, but you wouldn't dare run it around the block for fear of some rusted part flinging off!!
Winston: what you said about pore size in filters should be clarified. When one speaks of pore size, you are generally referring to filters of absolute values. Oil filters are not, except of the screen mesh ones. Reason is that oil filters rely on depth media to trap the particle. If it flows too much, or surges just at the wrong time, the particle trapped now becomes part of the stream until it comes around again. I'm in the wine industry, not oil, but we work with filtration all the time. I've seen pictures of electron microscope pics of absolute filters. Reminds you of a hard surface with little holes randomly in the surface.. kind of like a Chinese Checkerboard with marbles. Marbles fit, but don't go through the hole. Great for medicine, but you REALLY know when they are plugged as there is no flow.
The filters, more commonly used/found in wine industry (and oil filters
) are depth filters. Look at your filter on your furnace sometime. Take a close look. That is the filter you would see on an oil filter magnified many times. Not absolute, just like a bunch of cross weave fabric or sticks in a beaver dam. Flows just right it holds, but it is ALWAYS capable of letting go of particle if some pressures become extreme. Sorry.. I hate to break the news, but depths filters are notorious at letting go particles. They can be rated for certain micron size ie 5 to 10 µ but you can lay even money that the 5 µ particles will pass through if conditions are right, and so will some of the 10 µ particles.
You want flow. Go with a decent filter that has good affinity for capturing material at least 98% and above on multi pass. Best bet is a bypass system with just your average spin on filter that you change every few years.
These are just my thoughts and opinions and are totally non scientific, except that I have to know something about filter media in the work I do.
If your vehilce has great oil pressure and engine life at 400,000 miles, you might want a new car??
Vern
Winston: what you said about pore size in filters should be clarified. When one speaks of pore size, you are generally referring to filters of absolute values. Oil filters are not, except of the screen mesh ones. Reason is that oil filters rely on depth media to trap the particle. If it flows too much, or surges just at the wrong time, the particle trapped now becomes part of the stream until it comes around again. I'm in the wine industry, not oil, but we work with filtration all the time. I've seen pictures of electron microscope pics of absolute filters. Reminds you of a hard surface with little holes randomly in the surface.. kind of like a Chinese Checkerboard with marbles. Marbles fit, but don't go through the hole. Great for medicine, but you REALLY know when they are plugged as there is no flow.
The filters, more commonly used/found in wine industry (and oil filters
You want flow. Go with a decent filter that has good affinity for capturing material at least 98% and above on multi pass. Best bet is a bypass system with just your average spin on filter that you change every few years.
If your vehilce has great oil pressure and engine life at 400,000 miles, you might want a new car??
Vern
Vern, Nebraskan from Michigan
RE: "ALWAYS capable of letting go of particle if some pressures become extreme" Oil filter media never sees higher pressure than the bypass valve setting. If you have 80 psi on the pump side of the filter and 75 psi on the engine side---the filter media only "sees" 5psi, and in this case that is the restriction caused by the filter media. Now if the bypass valve has a 10psi setting, that is the most pressure the media will ever see because above that 10 psi differential the valve opens and maintains 10 psi difference. Any time your bypass valve opens, your engine receives a mixture of filtered and unfiltered oil. If the difference in pressure on either side of the media is less than 10psi, than the bypass remains closed and all oil passes through the media.
- Status
