Hastings filter for my truck, LF613, has an efficiency of 98.7 at 40 microns. According to a simple proportion, that would be 49.35% at 20 microns. Is that correct? These ratings might not be proportionate. So here's the question: If a filter is 98.7 at 40, what would it be at 20?
Efficiency Calculation
- Thread starter CapitalTruck
- Start date
- Status
There's more to then meets the eye. I've looked at industrial Donaldson filters where they specify efficiency ("Beta") often at 2 points. When you plot the numbers on a graph comparing filters and actual media, you wind up with a sloped line, the angle of slope can vary a lot, some shallow, others steep.
In theory when you know the slope of the graphed line you could predict efficiency for any other particle size. The rub is that actual test data via particle counters, etc, show the line is not always straight. So the prediction you're looking for is not so straight forward.
One thing that help get visibly cleaner oil longer is using 2 FilterMags on opposite sides of the spin-on filter housing! Check the diameter of your filter and pick one that matches the diameter. I've been using mine for 2 years now. See what it catches:
In theory when you know the slope of the graphed line you could predict efficiency for any other particle size. The rub is that actual test data via particle counters, etc, show the line is not always straight. So the prediction you're looking for is not so straight forward.
One thing that help get visibly cleaner oil longer is using 2 FilterMags on opposite sides of the spin-on filter housing! Check the diameter of your filter and pick one that matches the diameter. I've been using mine for 2 years now. See what it catches:
Originally Posted By: CapitalTruck
Hastings filter for my truck, LF613, has an efficiency of 98.7 at 40 microns. According to a simple proportion, that would be 49.35% at 20 microns. Is that correct? These ratings might not be proportionate. So here's the question: If a filter is 98.7 at 40, what would it be at 20?
Is the Hastings really that bad? See the chart at http://www.amsoil.com/lit/databulletins/g2192.pdf and also Fram Ultra's 99% at 20 microns at http://www.fram.com/oil-filters/fram-ultra-synthetic-oil-filter.aspx#1
I think your reasoning is reasonable. Probably depends on whether its a depth filter (Fram Ultra) or a thinner paper filter (Hastings) the way it behaves for smaller and smaller particles. Likely not linear exactly.
Hastings filter for my truck, LF613, has an efficiency of 98.7 at 40 microns. According to a simple proportion, that would be 49.35% at 20 microns. Is that correct? These ratings might not be proportionate. So here's the question: If a filter is 98.7 at 40, what would it be at 20?
Is the Hastings really that bad? See the chart at http://www.amsoil.com/lit/databulletins/g2192.pdf and also Fram Ultra's 99% at 20 microns at http://www.fram.com/oil-filters/fram-ultra-synthetic-oil-filter.aspx#1
I think your reasoning is reasonable. Probably depends on whether its a depth filter (Fram Ultra) or a thinner paper filter (Hastings) the way it behaves for smaller and smaller particles. Likely not linear exactly.
Pretty much all decent cellulose filters hit 80% @ 20 microns without much trouble.
Originally Posted By: CapitalTruck
So here's the question: If a filter is 98.7 at 40, what would it be at 20?
Hard to say.
A screen door resting flat between two saw horses is 100% efficient at filtering out Daisy BB's, but 0% efficient at filtering out table salt.
It'll depend on the pore size in the filter media.
So here's the question: If a filter is 98.7 at 40, what would it be at 20?
Hard to say.
A screen door resting flat between two saw horses is 100% efficient at filtering out Daisy BB's, but 0% efficient at filtering out table salt.
It'll depend on the pore size in the filter media.
So there actually is a distinct possibility that the LF613 does have a 20 micron efficiency rating in the 50's. The OEM Service ACDelco filter does significantly better than that at 94%. I guess for now I'll stick with that! My understanding is that the OEM Toyota service filter also has low efficiency ratings. I continue to use those on my mom's Highlander just due to my proclivity towards OEM filters, however, maybe this isn't the best choice...
Last edited:
Wear particles generated in a normal engine are so small they pass thru oil filters and
are free to cause more long term wear. ( .1 micron to 5 microns)
I've always driven cars to 300K or more and that's were you see it the most,
low compression, bad smog tests, lower fuel economy, etc.
Filters that catch 20 and 40 micron particles are 'rock catchers' at best.
40 Micron is .001" !! This's pretty big!
Manufacturers are fooling the public with great filter claims knowing their
filters catch particles that are nearly never present in an engine unless
it's ready to blow.
A possible exception is a 'rock catcher filter' in a tired old 1960's Chrysler
Slant 6 engine that pukes blowby and crud by the bucket! LOL
On any modern engine in good shape, 20 and 40 Micron filters are just
picking your pocket!
are free to cause more long term wear. ( .1 micron to 5 microns)
I've always driven cars to 300K or more and that's were you see it the most,
low compression, bad smog tests, lower fuel economy, etc.
Filters that catch 20 and 40 micron particles are 'rock catchers' at best.
40 Micron is .001" !! This's pretty big!
Manufacturers are fooling the public with great filter claims knowing their
filters catch particles that are nearly never present in an engine unless
it's ready to blow.
A possible exception is a 'rock catcher filter' in a tired old 1960's Chrysler
Slant 6 engine that pukes blowby and crud by the bucket! LOL
On any modern engine in good shape, 20 and 40 Micron filters are just
picking your pocket!
Originally Posted By: i_hate_autofraud
Wear particles generated in a normal engine are so small they pass thru oil filters and
are free to cause more long term wear. ( .1 micron to 5 microns)
I've always driven cars to 300K or more and that's were you see it the most,
low compression, bad smog tests, lower fuel economy, etc.
Filters that catch 20 and 40 micron particles are 'rock catchers' at best.
40 Micron is .001" !! This's pretty big!
Manufacturers are fooling the public with great filter claims knowing their
filters catch particles that are nearly never present in an engine unless
it's ready to blow.
A possible exception is a 'rock catcher filter' in a tired old 1960's Chrysler
Slant 6 engine that pukes blowby and crud by the bucket! LOL
On any modern engine in good shape, 20 and 40 Micron filters are just
picking your pocket!
Of course there's no proof of that, and my limited experience would show otherwise. All my vehicles have used "rock catcher" OEM filters, and the Asian vehicles since new. None have excessive consumption, nor do they have low compression and all pass the emissions testing here in southeastern Wisconsin. I have well over 300,000 miles on my Sienna.
Filtering efficiencies are not absolute, they are probabilities. And all filters will capture small particles at some efficiency so it isn't as if a particle that passes through a filter once will continue to do so indefinitely. In fact it will not.
You also state "Manufacturers are fooling the public with great filter claims", where have you seen these claims? I've never seen any claims made by the OEMs for their oil filters, neither good nor bad. Everyone seems to have seen these claims besides me.
ZeeOSix will be along shortly to point out that a filter with high efficiency is necessarily better in that capturing more particles is always better than capturing less. I don't disagree with that assessment. But to say it translates into a difference in engine longevity is not something that anyone has ever shown, or at least I've never seen it.
Also, to buy into the conspiracy theory that OEMs specify low efficiency filters to deliberately sabotage the longevity of their vehicles is completely inconsistent with everything else the do, at least for the vehicles I own. I've never seen any deliberately deficient OEM fluids, parts or designs that contribute to poor longevity, why would they do it for oil filters?
Wear particles generated in a normal engine are so small they pass thru oil filters and
are free to cause more long term wear. ( .1 micron to 5 microns)
I've always driven cars to 300K or more and that's were you see it the most,
low compression, bad smog tests, lower fuel economy, etc.
Filters that catch 20 and 40 micron particles are 'rock catchers' at best.
40 Micron is .001" !! This's pretty big!
Manufacturers are fooling the public with great filter claims knowing their
filters catch particles that are nearly never present in an engine unless
it's ready to blow.
A possible exception is a 'rock catcher filter' in a tired old 1960's Chrysler
Slant 6 engine that pukes blowby and crud by the bucket! LOL
On any modern engine in good shape, 20 and 40 Micron filters are just
picking your pocket!
Of course there's no proof of that, and my limited experience would show otherwise. All my vehicles have used "rock catcher" OEM filters, and the Asian vehicles since new. None have excessive consumption, nor do they have low compression and all pass the emissions testing here in southeastern Wisconsin. I have well over 300,000 miles on my Sienna.
Filtering efficiencies are not absolute, they are probabilities. And all filters will capture small particles at some efficiency so it isn't as if a particle that passes through a filter once will continue to do so indefinitely. In fact it will not.
You also state "Manufacturers are fooling the public with great filter claims", where have you seen these claims? I've never seen any claims made by the OEMs for their oil filters, neither good nor bad. Everyone seems to have seen these claims besides me.
ZeeOSix will be along shortly to point out that a filter with high efficiency is necessarily better in that capturing more particles is always better than capturing less. I don't disagree with that assessment. But to say it translates into a difference in engine longevity is not something that anyone has ever shown, or at least I've never seen it.
Also, to buy into the conspiracy theory that OEMs specify low efficiency filters to deliberately sabotage the longevity of their vehicles is completely inconsistent with everything else the do, at least for the vehicles I own. I've never seen any deliberately deficient OEM fluids, parts or designs that contribute to poor longevity, why would they do it for oil filters?
Autos by nature are quite lightly loaded machines, compared to their hard working half ton trucks, boats , or motorhome, work vans, that regularly see relevant high loads for notable durations.
Low output per CI/CC, mellow auto engines can live a long time with very little love on a steady diet of standard OEM stuff.
Guys feeding working pickups in my circles with this diet lose them at 10 years with regularity.
for high load, high performance, machine and difficult environments every little thing you do matters to some extent in the long run.
If one is to believe Filtermags claim of a minimum of one and as many as 3 iso code drops, this would be a significant reduction in wear according to Noria.
UD
Low output per CI/CC, mellow auto engines can live a long time with very little love on a steady diet of standard OEM stuff.
Guys feeding working pickups in my circles with this diet lose them at 10 years with regularity.
for high load, high performance, machine and difficult environments every little thing you do matters to some extent in the long run.
If one is to believe Filtermags claim of a minimum of one and as many as 3 iso code drops, this would be a significant reduction in wear according to Noria.
UD
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: i_hate_autofraud
Filters that catch 20 and 40 micron particles are 'rock catchers' at best.
Of course there's no proof of that, and my limited experience would show otherwise.
I'm definitely with kschachn with this one. If an oil filter can get 99.9% of everything over 20 micron (multipass, of course), you are doing pretty darn good!
.
Remember....
VW beetles ran around with these things!! (the true German "Rock Catcher"). I drove an ol' 1500cc single-port Beetle for almost 30 years with nothing but a "dome of window screen" in the oil sump.
Originally Posted By: i_hate_autofraud
Filters that catch 20 and 40 micron particles are 'rock catchers' at best.
Of course there's no proof of that, and my limited experience would show otherwise.
I'm definitely with kschachn with this one. If an oil filter can get 99.9% of everything over 20 micron (multipass, of course), you are doing pretty darn good!
.
Remember....
VW beetles ran around with these things!! (the true German "Rock Catcher"). I drove an ol' 1500cc single-port Beetle for almost 30 years with nothing but a "dome of window screen" in the oil sump.
Last edited:
Oh, I had stuff like VW's and small blocks that RAN for hundreds of K.
That doesn't mean they werent gross polluting oil burners that were way past their prime.
Good thing for us those rigs never needed an emissions test of any kind.
Mexico city still has thousands of these gen 1 bugs running around and being there is like sleeping in a tail pipe.
UD
That doesn't mean they werent gross polluting oil burners that were way past their prime.
Good thing for us those rigs never needed an emissions test of any kind.
Mexico city still has thousands of these gen 1 bugs running around and being there is like sleeping in a tail pipe.
UD
On the other hand though, there's a huge difference between that oil screen and any OEM oil filter. We throw around the term "rock catcher", but that thing really is a rock catcher. That's more like the screen on my Sienna's transmission.
Those old Bug engines are often run without all the stock air hoses in place, allowing dirty air to enter the engine. I doubt it's much better down in Mexico.
Those old Bug engines are often run without all the stock air hoses in place, allowing dirty air to enter the engine. I doubt it's much better down in Mexico.
Can you explain the connection between engine loading and oil filter efficiency?
Also, wouldn't the air filter be more important in the dusty/dirty environment as opposed to the oil filter? Any dirt that gets into the engine past the air filter is going to have a chance to damage the engine prior to being captured by the oil filter, regardless of the efficiency.
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Autos by nature are quite lightly loaded machines, compared to their hard working half ton trucks, boats , or motorhome, work vans, that regularly see relevant high loads for notable durations.
Low output per CI/CC, mellow auto engines can live a long time with very little love on a steady diet of standard OEM stuff.
Guys feeding working pickups in my circles with this diet lose them at 10 years with regularity.
for high load, high performance, machine and difficult environments every little thing you do matters to some extent in the long run.
If one is to believe Filtermags claim of a minimum of one and as many as 3 iso code drops, this would be a significant reduction in wear according to Noria.
Also, wouldn't the air filter be more important in the dusty/dirty environment as opposed to the oil filter? Any dirt that gets into the engine past the air filter is going to have a chance to damage the engine prior to being captured by the oil filter, regardless of the efficiency.
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Autos by nature are quite lightly loaded machines, compared to their hard working half ton trucks, boats , or motorhome, work vans, that regularly see relevant high loads for notable durations.
Low output per CI/CC, mellow auto engines can live a long time with very little love on a steady diet of standard OEM stuff.
Guys feeding working pickups in my circles with this diet lose them at 10 years with regularity.
for high load, high performance, machine and difficult environments every little thing you do matters to some extent in the long run.
If one is to believe Filtermags claim of a minimum of one and as many as 3 iso code drops, this would be a significant reduction in wear according to Noria.
Originally Posted By: kschachn
On the other hand though, there's a huge difference between that oil screen and any OEM oil filter. We throw around the term "rock catcher", but that thing really is a rock catcher. That's more like the screen on my Sienna's transmission.
Those old Bug engines are often run without all the stock air hoses in place, allowing dirty air to enter the engine. I doubt it's much better down in Mexico.
Agreed. The old VW "filters" were really rock catchers, and provided nothing more than gross filtering of large particles.
Lots of bad practice everywhere.
UD
On the other hand though, there's a huge difference between that oil screen and any OEM oil filter. We throw around the term "rock catcher", but that thing really is a rock catcher. That's more like the screen on my Sienna's transmission.
Those old Bug engines are often run without all the stock air hoses in place, allowing dirty air to enter the engine. I doubt it's much better down in Mexico.
Agreed. The old VW "filters" were really rock catchers, and provided nothing more than gross filtering of large particles.
Lots of bad practice everywhere.
UD
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Can you explain the connection between engine loading and oil filter efficiency?
Also, wouldn't the air filter be more important in the dusty/dirty environment as opposed to the oil filter? Any dirt that gets into the engine past the air filter is going to have a chance to damage the engine prior to being captured by the oil filter, regardless of the efficiency.
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Autos by nature are quite lightly loaded machines, compared to their hard working half ton trucks, boats , or motorhome, work vans, that regularly see relevant high loads for notable durations.
Low output per CI/CC, mellow auto engines can live a long time with very little love on a steady diet of standard OEM stuff.
Guys feeding working pickups in my circles with this diet lose them at 10 years with regularity.
for high load, high performance, machine and difficult environments every little thing you do matters to some extent in the long run.
If one is to believe Filtermags claim of a minimum of one and as many as 3 iso code drops, this would be a significant reduction in wear according to Noria.
The connection is that heavily loaded vehicles do more actual work than lightly loaded ones and as a byproduct - put out more small and large particles than do lightly loaded ones.
I agree with Noria corps and others ISO contamination tables that show decreased wear with better filtering.
Are you saying you don't believe better oil filtering leads to decreased wear?
Or that it doesn't matter?
The air filter is supremely important even engines with no oil filter still have air filters, but I didnt think we were discussing air filters.
UD
Can you explain the connection between engine loading and oil filter efficiency?
Also, wouldn't the air filter be more important in the dusty/dirty environment as opposed to the oil filter? Any dirt that gets into the engine past the air filter is going to have a chance to damage the engine prior to being captured by the oil filter, regardless of the efficiency.
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Autos by nature are quite lightly loaded machines, compared to their hard working half ton trucks, boats , or motorhome, work vans, that regularly see relevant high loads for notable durations.
Low output per CI/CC, mellow auto engines can live a long time with very little love on a steady diet of standard OEM stuff.
Guys feeding working pickups in my circles with this diet lose them at 10 years with regularity.
for high load, high performance, machine and difficult environments every little thing you do matters to some extent in the long run.
If one is to believe Filtermags claim of a minimum of one and as many as 3 iso code drops, this would be a significant reduction in wear according to Noria.
The connection is that heavily loaded vehicles do more actual work than lightly loaded ones and as a byproduct - put out more small and large particles than do lightly loaded ones.
I agree with Noria corps and others ISO contamination tables that show decreased wear with better filtering.
Are you saying you don't believe better oil filtering leads to decreased wear?
Or that it doesn't matter?
The air filter is supremely important even engines with no oil filter still have air filters, but I didnt think we were discussing air filters.
UD
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: i_hate_autofraud
Filters that catch 20 and 40 micron particles are 'rock catchers' at best.
I wouldn't say a filter that catches 99+% of particles 20 microns or larger is a 'rock catcher'. If a filter is catching 99+% @ 20 microns then it's also catching 60~80% @ 5 microns.
Originally Posted By: i_hate_autofraud
Manufacturers are fooling the public with great filter claims knowing their
filters catch particles that are nearly never present in an engine unless
it's ready to blow.
If you've ever cut open filters of your own, or looked closely at the filters cut open and posted here, you would see there can be quite a bit of normal combustion crud caught inside the filter. Lots of that debris is pretty big. All the tiny stuff that is in the 5 to 20 micron range won't be visible to the eye upon media inspection.
Filters that catch 20 and 40 micron particles are 'rock catchers' at best.
I wouldn't say a filter that catches 99+% of particles 20 microns or larger is a 'rock catcher'. If a filter is catching 99+% @ 20 microns then it's also catching 60~80% @ 5 microns.
Originally Posted By: i_hate_autofraud
Manufacturers are fooling the public with great filter claims knowing their
filters catch particles that are nearly never present in an engine unless
it's ready to blow.
If you've ever cut open filters of your own, or looked closely at the filters cut open and posted here, you would see there can be quite a bit of normal combustion crud caught inside the filter. Lots of that debris is pretty big. All the tiny stuff that is in the 5 to 20 micron range won't be visible to the eye upon media inspection.
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
I agree with Noria corps and others ISO contamination tables that show decreased wear with better filtering.
Every engine wear vs oil cleanliness study ends up concluding that better oil filtering decreases engine wear.
Lots of people in this forum 'claims' it doesn't matter what oil filter you use, but the fact is they are just going by the fact that the engine still runs. That would be like saying a human is still in fine shape as long as his heart is still pumping, regardless of what his real condition is in.
I agree with Noria corps and others ISO contamination tables that show decreased wear with better filtering.
Every engine wear vs oil cleanliness study ends up concluding that better oil filtering decreases engine wear.
Lots of people in this forum 'claims' it doesn't matter what oil filter you use, but the fact is they are just going by the fact that the engine still runs. That would be like saying a human is still in fine shape as long as his heart is still pumping, regardless of what his real condition is in.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
I agree with Noria corps and others ISO contamination tables that show decreased wear with better filtering.
Every engine wear vs oil cleanliness study ends up concluding that better oil filtering decreases engine wear.
Lots of people in this forum 'claims' it doesn't matter what oil filter you use, but the fact is they are just going by the fact that the engine still runs. That would be like saying a human is still in fine shape as long as his heart is still pumping, regardless of what his real condition is in.
Well said I concur
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
I agree with Noria corps and others ISO contamination tables that show decreased wear with better filtering.
Every engine wear vs oil cleanliness study ends up concluding that better oil filtering decreases engine wear.
Lots of people in this forum 'claims' it doesn't matter what oil filter you use, but the fact is they are just going by the fact that the engine still runs. That would be like saying a human is still in fine shape as long as his heart is still pumping, regardless of what his real condition is in.
Well said I concur
- Status
