Lowest efficiency?

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Amsoil still has Chevrolet oil filter listed. It gives great pause as to the validity of that table. It makes it look like they made it all up. It's now out of date anyway, besides questionable, meaningless. So sad.


You should email Amsoil and tell them you think the data in that graph is false and a total lie, and that you're going to file a lawsuit against them for showing false test information and making Toyota filters look inefficient compared to others they had tested. I'd like to hear what they say about that. Amsoil or any other big name brand company isn't going to show false information without some traceable records of how they came to that conclusion. They wouldn't be in business very long in today's world.

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
All the talk of 94% vs 99% is nonsense IMO.


Assuming those efficiencies are at the same micron level, then yeah perhaps it's splitting hairs. But IMO there's a drastic difference between say a filter that 50% @ 20u vs one at 99% @ 20u. The Bus Study graphs I showed earlier in this thread clearly shows the difference in oil cleanliness vs filter efficiency. Cleaner oil is better than not.

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
I am entitled to my opinion, and there it is, and it's based on quite a bit of reading about filters on here. Time to move on to life other than oil filters.

Yes you certainly do have a right to an opinion, but seems a lot of the stuff you post is never backed up with supporting data ... just your theories. Nothing wrong with that, except being a broken record with nothing to back it up doesn't fly for very long around here.


Trying to discredit what I said by saying it's just theories no data is wrong. The data on the Ultra to No Name filter is strong, as is the not so clean ISO results of an Ultra in actual use. Yet you eagerly believe data with no references. Someone puts an unreferenced table or graph up, or tells you something on the phone, and you write it in stone as true if the results suit.
It's also not theory to say the 4 hour multi pass test is not a 250 hour real use test. Putting a scant one gram per thousand miles of test dust through a filter, hundreds of circulations, is the test we need to see real world efficiency.

 

[Triple_Se7en]

ZeeOSix
Who's to say that data is correct? Are you saying we aren't to question data? Who knows for sure if the data is truthful?

Who's also to say that the cleanest oil is better for the vehicle and our wallet, than-that of high flow? Where's the proof my Proline filter from Pep Boys won't reach the same accumulated miles on my odometer, as your vehicle using Fram Ultra?

Why must I send my 18 year old badly rusted vehicle to the junkyard with a clean engine and clear dipstick?..... like I've done multiple times before.

One last thing ZeeOSix....
Why does my GM engine idle stutter at cold idle using a Fram Ulta and not a $1.67 basic Premium Guard?
Why does that same 3.5 Colorado engine clatter on cold startup using Fram Ultras and not basic $1.67 Premium Guard?

There are times when that el-cheapo oil filter is better for your engine, than-that of the highly rated and darn-near most expensive filter. It all depends on various circumstances ...... isolated to our own personal vehicles.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Triple_Se7en
ZeeOSix
Who's to say that data is correct? Are you saying we aren't to question data? Who knows for sure if the data is truthful?


In the absence of data, anecdote is not sufficient. In the presence of data, questioning it because it doesn't align with your world view isn't sufficient either. Presenting credible contrary data however and debating the difference certainly is.

In this context, we have no reason to discredit the test data AMSOIL provided, which was performed using the standard ISO protocol. You can certainly claim that this may, in the useful life of your equipment, have no discernible impact, if that life is determined via failure of other systems. That's perfectly valid.

Originally Posted By: Triple_Se7en
Who's also to say that the cleanest oil is better for the vehicle and our wallet, than-that of high flow?


Why must those things be mutually exclusive? The primary advantages of glass-type media is their ability to both flow better and filter better. This is due to their depth filtration nature, something that a typical paper-style filter cannot do.

If $10 bucks extra an oil change breaks the bank, then sure. The odds of you actually observing the benefit of the better media over the typical life of a vehicle are extremely low, but that doesn't mean those benefits don't exist.

Originally Posted By: Triple_Se7en
Where's the proof my Proline filter from Pep Boys won't reach the same accumulated miles on my odometer, as your vehicle using Fram Ultra?


That's going to depend more on miles driven per year and the assumption that other parts of the vehicle failing don't put it in the wreckers first. If you guys were both running Airport Limo's, then the difference in wear over a potentially million mile lifespan may actually be significant and realized through better fuel economy and closer to factory power output. But I doubt that's the case and I'm in agreement here on this point.

Originally Posted By: Triple_Se7en
Why must I send my 18 year old badly rusted vehicle to the junkyard with a clean engine and clear dipstick?..... like I've done multiple times before.


I don't think anybody is claiming you need to? But that doesn't mean that the advantages don't exist.

Originally Posted By: Triple_Se7en
One last thing ZeeOSix....
Why does my GM engine idle stutter at cold idle using a Fram Ulta and not a $1.67 basic Premium Guard?
Why does that same 3.5 Colorado engine clatter on cold startup using Fram Ultras and not basic $1.67 Premium Guard?


Likely due to ADBV operation. It has a horizontally mounted oil filter, correct? Have you tried an AMSOIL EaO?

Originally Posted By: Triple_Se7en
There are times when that el-cheapo oil filter is better for your engine, than-that of the highly rated and darn-near most expensive filter. It all depends on various circumstances ...... isolated to our own personal vehicles.


You've provided no proof of that. Better for your wallet perhaps? Certainly. Less contaminants in circulation will lead to lower wear. Whether the life of the equipment is impacted by that at a level that could be construed as significant? That's what's really up for debate here. For most vehicles on the road, the answer to that is no.

An engine that might, using the El Cheapo filter, get to 500,000 miles in a given duty cycle and 700,000 miles in that same cycle using a synthetic glass media filter is of no consequence if the vehicle is wreckers-bound at 200,000 miles when the tranny grenades or the body is beyond salvageable.

 

[gfh77665]

El-Cheapos may flow better and faster.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Trying to discredit what I said by saying it's just theories no data is wrong. The data on the Ultra to No Name filter is strong, as is the not so clean ISO results of an Ultra in actual use. Yet you eagerly believe data with no references. Someone puts an unreferenced table or graph up, or tells you something on the phone, and you write it in stone as true if the results suit.
It's also not theory to say the 4 hour multi pass test is not a 250 hour real use test. Putting a scant one gram per thousand miles of test dust through a filter, hundreds of circulations, is the test we need to see real world efficiency.


You don't backup any of your claims with data that supports your claims. You keep claiming the ISO 4548-12 test doesn't accurately rate the efficiency of filters and doesn't reflect how they would rate in real use. I gave data from an SAE study that shows a direct correlation between lab efficiency ranking and in field performance ranking of different efficiency oil filters. Post up the data from a very controlled and committee approved SAE type test that shows that particle count cleanliness of oil doesn't follow the efficiency of the oil filter being used. Show some backup data and I'll maybe believe your theory/claim.

All you seem to have is one somewhat uncontrolled UOA that could have easily been flawed for some reason, and then cling on to it like it's gospel and repeat the spiel in every efficiency thread. And speaking of believing things, you've said many times that you believed Microgreen's efficiency claims on their micro disc, yet they had absolutely zero test reference number or data to back up their claim, but you still believed them. One way glasses? ...

 

[kschachn]

Everything you cite is the very definition of a troll poster. I've been reading his nonsense posts too and they are just silly.

Hey, at least I came over to your side. I have FU on three of my four cars instead of OEM

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
You don't backup any of your claims with data that supports your claims. You keep claiming the ISO 4548-12 test doesn't accurately rate the efficiency of filters and doesn't reflect how they would rate in real use. I gave data from an SAE study that shows a direct correlation between lab efficiency ranking and in field performance ranking of different efficiency oil filters. Post up the data from a very controlled and committee approved SAE type test that shows that particle count cleanliness of oil doesn't follow the efficiency of the oil filter being used. Show some backup data and I'll maybe believe your theory/claim.

All you seem to have is one somewhat uncontrolled UOA that could have easily been flawed for some reason, and then cling on to it like it's gospel and repeat the spiel in every efficiency thread. And speaking of believing things, you've said many times that you believed Microgreen's efficiency claims on their micro disc, yet they had absolutely zero test reference number or data to back up their claim, but you still believed them. One way glasses? ...

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: gfh77665
El-Cheapos may flow better and faster.


I don't get the noisy and rough running engine when using an Ultra that Triple_Se7en has described. Most vehicles should have a positive displacement oil pump, which would not be susceptible to a filter with slight flow restriction. Some of newer vehicles have a variable flow oil pump, and that could throw a wrinkle into the mix if the pump puts out very little flow at low engine RPM.

With a good positive displacement oil pump there really shouldn't be a lack of flow, especially at start-up when engine RPM is low. No such thing exists as "flows better and faster" with a good PD oil pump at low engine RPM. Only at near redline when the oil pump flow volume is maxed out is when a more restrictive oil filter might cause a slight decrease in oil flow because it would cause the oil pump pressure relief to kick in a bit sooner.

If the start-up rattle goes away shortly after start-up it means the oiling system is draining down somehow. If the engine is making rattling noises after running for an hour after start-up, the only way a filter could cause that is if it was basically totally clogged and only flowing through an undersized bypass valve.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Triple_Se7en
ZeeOSix
Who's to say that data is correct? Are you saying we aren't to question data? Who knows for sure if the data is truthful?


Call Amsoil and ask. I'm just saying a big company like that isn't going to risk legal action by showing information that can't be backed up. What do you think Toyota would do if they saw that data and it wasn't accurate? Even Amsoil isn't that lame brained.

Originally Posted By: Triple_Se7en
Who's also to say that the cleanest oil is better for the vehicle and our wallet, than-that of high flow? Where's the proof my Proline filter from Pep Boys won't reach the same accumulated miles on my odometer, as your vehicle using Fram Ultra?


There are many engine wear vs oil cleanliness studies that always conclude that cleaner oil results in less engine wear. Being "better for your wallet" is a personal choice thing - no real data to prove that beside your own.

Originally Posted By: Triple_Se7en
Why must I send my 18 year old badly rusted vehicle to the junkyard with a clean engine and clear dipstick?..... like I've done multiple times before.


Stop taking care of the engine so it will match the rest of the vehicle at end of life ... might feel better to send a smoked engine to the graveyard, and might be better for the wallet too.

Originally Posted By: Triple_Se7en
One last thing ZeeOSix....
Why does my GM engine idle stutter at cold idle using a Fram Ulta and not a $1.67 basic Premium Guard?
Why does that same 3.5 Colorado engine clatter on cold startup using Fram Ultras and not basic $1.67 Premium Guard?


As I said above, if the start-up noise goes away after a minute of running then that's a sure sign that the oiling system is draining down somehow. Same would go with the cold shuttering ... if it smooths out in a minute or two, then maybe some part of the oiling system has drained down over night. If the engine is running bad even after fully warmed up, I highly doubt it's the oil filter unless it's 100% clogged and in bypass through an undersized bypass valve.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: gfh77665
El-Cheapos may flow better and faster.


A few snippets from Donaldson, who makes both conventional and synthetic glass media filters:

In regards to their Synteq glass media:
Originally Posted By: Donaldson
DT high-performance hydraulic cartridges provide 73% higher dirt-holding capacity and 47% lower initial pressure drop than traditional filters – with micron ratings down to 2 μm.


Originally Posted By: Donaldson

Synteq™ Synthetic Media: This media's uniform synthetic fiber structure delivers higher filtration efficiency and longer filter life. Synteq filter media technology is ideal for synthetic fluids, water glycols, water/oil emulsions, HWCF (high water content fluids) and petroleum -based fluids. The smooth rounded fibers provide low resistance to fluid flow.

Cellulose Media: This media often has lower beta ratings, providing effective filtration for a wide variety of petroleum-based fluids. The smaller pores result in greater flow resistance, in turn causing higher pressure drop.


Originally Posted By: Donaldson
They provide the optimal balance of efficiency, capacity and restriction, and remove more than 90% of contaminants that are 10 microns or larger, compared to 50% or less for typical cellulose filters. At the same time, they deliver nearly double the contaminant carrying capacity of standard cellulose filters. Fully synthetic Synteq media also delivers lower restriction to provide maximum oil flow. Donaldson Blue lube filters are designed specifically to provide longer filter life – a critical component of any extended filter maintenance program.


But this may help more:


As you can see, the glass media can provide the same flow at a much finer level of filtration. In the case of this media selection, that's 99% @ 16 microns for the glass media versus 99% at 23 microns for the cellulose.

So a synthetic glass media filter like the XG that is 99% efficient at 20 microns can provide BETTER flow than the lower-tier FRAM offerings like the Tough Guard, and even less efficient filters from competing brands. The same goes for other glass media filters like the AMSOIL EaO, Royal Purple, Purolator synthetic...etc.

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: gfh77665
El-Cheapos may flow better and faster.


A few snippets from Donaldson, who makes both conventional and synthetic glass media filters:

In regards to their Synteq glass media:
Originally Posted By: Donaldson
DT high-performance hydraulic cartridges provide 73% higher dirt-holding capacity and 47% lower initial pressure drop than traditional filters – with micron ratings down to 2 μm.


Originally Posted By: Donaldson

Synteq™ Synthetic Media: This media's uniform synthetic fiber structure delivers higher filtration efficiency and longer filter life. Synteq filter media technology is ideal for synthetic fluids, water glycols, water/oil emulsions, HWCF (high water content fluids) and petroleum -based fluids. The smooth rounded fibers provide low resistance to fluid flow.

Cellulose Media: This media often has lower beta ratings, providing effective filtration for a wide variety of petroleum-based fluids. The smaller pores result in greater flow resistance, in turn causing higher pressure drop.


Originally Posted By: Donaldson
They provide the optimal balance of efficiency, capacity and restriction, and remove more than 90% of contaminants that are 10 microns or larger, compared to 50% or less for typical cellulose filters. At the same time, they deliver nearly double the contaminant carrying capacity of standard cellulose filters. Fully synthetic Synteq media also delivers lower restriction to provide maximum oil flow. Donaldson Blue lube filters are designed specifically to provide longer filter life – a critical component of any extended filter maintenance program.


But this may help more:


As you can see, the glass media can provide the same flow at a much finer level of filtration. In the case of this media selection, that's 99% @ 16 microns for the glass media versus 99% at 23 microns for the cellulose.

So a synthetic glass media filter like the XG that is 99% efficient at 20 microns can provide BETTER flow than the lower-tier FRAM offerings like the Tough Guard, and even less efficient filters from competing brands. The same goes for other glass media filters like the AMSOIL EaO, Royal Purple, Purolator synthetic...etc.


"The smaller pores", referring to cellulose. Thanks Donaldson. That's why I believe a blend is superior in real life use. Synthetic fibers depend on criss crossing the fibers to make holes for the oil, the fiber itself is impermeable.

Don't look at just the 4 hour test dust fully loaded efficiency number. Not real life conditions.

On and on talking, but when it came to making a racing filter, Fram went to cellulose blend, not the Ultra media.

When I said how could the other member be sure, it referred to Toyota suing Amsoil if the table is wrong. Apparently Chevrolet doesn't care any more than Toyota. BTW yes having Chevrolet in the Amsoil table makes the whole thing very iffy. Also they reference nothing. They just say it.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Don't look at just the 4 hour test dust fully loaded efficiency number. Not real life conditions.


The SAE bus study shows the correlation between a high efficiency in the lab verse how clean the particle count was in oil samples in the field using those lab tested filters. I'd call that real life conditions. What real life conditions & data can you show that proves the correlation otherwise?

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
When I said how could the other member be sure, it referred to Toyota suing Amsoil if the table is wrong. Apparently Chevrolet doesn't care any more than Toyota. BTW yes having Chevrolet in the Amsoil table makes the whole thing very iffy. Also they reference nothing. They just say it.


Amsoil referenced ISO 4548-12, which means the test was conducted by someone that has the equipment to do that test. Probably the SWRI unless Amsoil has the ability to do ISO 4548-12 testing themselves. If the data for the other maker's filters was wrong, that chart would have disappeared many years ago.

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Everything you cite is the very definition of a troll poster. I've been reading his nonsense posts too and they are just silly.

Hey, at least I came over to your side. I have FU on three of my four cars instead of OEM

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
You don't backup any of your claims with data that supports your claims. You keep claiming the ISO 4548-12 test doesn't accurately rate the efficiency of filters and doesn't reflect how they would rate in real use. I gave data from an SAE study that shows a direct correlation between lab efficiency ranking and in field performance ranking of different efficiency oil filters. Post up the data from a very controlled and committee approved SAE type test that shows that particle count cleanliness of oil doesn't follow the efficiency of the oil filter being used. Show some backup data and I'll maybe believe your theory/claim.

All you seem to have is one somewhat uncontrolled UOA that could have easily been flawed for some reason, and then cling on to it like it's gospel and repeat the spiel in every efficiency thread. And speaking of believing things, you've said many times that you believed Microgreen's efficiency claims on their micro disc, yet they had absolutely zero test reference number or data to back up their claim, but you still believed them. One way glasses? ...

Disparaging people is

The MG disk was rated at x microns, so what else is there to know. If my tire says it is 16 inch, I don't need to measure it. I could say it isn't 16 inch and they lie, but who does that. The UOA comparison of an Ultra to a No Name was done by Blackstone and the data shown on their letterhead. That's very strong first hand data. Another guy showed OK, but not so clean ISO numbers. Strong data from a source.

 

[bbhero]

True indeed. The iso codes for the particulate test was 23 for the first number and he had 12 for the second number. The 23 correlates with there being a lot of "something" in his oil sample.

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Don't look at just the 4 hour test dust fully loaded efficiency number. Not real life conditions.


The SAE bus study shows the correlation between a high efficiency in the lab verse how clean the particle count was in oil samples in the field using those lab tested filters. I'd call that real life conditions. What real life conditions & data can you show that proves the correlation otherwise?

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
When I said how could the other member be sure, it referred to Toyota suing Amsoil if the table is wrong. Apparently Chevrolet doesn't care any more than Toyota. BTW yes having Chevrolet in the Amsoil table makes the whole thing very iffy. Also they reference nothing. They just say it.


Amsoil referenced ISO 4548-12, which means the test was conducted by someone that has the equipment to do that test. Probably the SWRI unless Amsoil has the ability to do ISO 4548-12 testing themselves. If the data for the other maker's filters was wrong, that chart would have disappeared many years ago.


No it wouldn't have disappeared by now. You are saying there would be a lawsuit but you have no knowledge of that. Go watch People's Court or something. The Amsoil info is second hand, they are saying someone else said something. They don't even say who. All the other ones I see they go to great lengths to show they are truthful and give the lab and the actual lab data. Like the No Name vs Ultra test results. I am not talking about the MG disk, that is a specification, like a 1/16 inch screen.
Link the bus test again so I can give you a hard time about that one too, or again, who remembers.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: bbhero
True indeed. The iso codes for the particulate test was 23 for the first number and he had 12 for the second number. The 23 correlates with there being a lot of "something" in his oil sample.


A particle count will always have a higher number of smaller particles. Just the natural distribition due to the level of filtration.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
All the other ones I see they go to great lengths to show they are truthful and give the lab and the actual lab data.


All the other ones, like who? You don't believe anyone who gives ISO 4548-12 info. You don't believe SAE papers or any other official commitee approved technical report. But you believe every Blackstone lab report on samples collected by guys in their garages, yeah makes sense. And then think a sample of one means it must certainly always be be true. Ok ...

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
All the other ones I see they go to great lengths to show they are truthful and give the lab and the actual lab data.


All the other ones, like who? You don't believe anyone who gives ISO 4548-12 info. You don't believe SAE papers or any other official commitee approved technical report. But you believe every Blackstone lab report on samples collected by guys in their garages, yeah makes sense. And then think a sample of one means it must certainly always be be true. Ok ...

I believe all the filter makers efficiency test ratings. But Amsoil is a marketer of goods, and it is not in their sales interest to show other competitors in a good light. It's interesting they pick Ford Toyota Honda and of course Chevrolet oil filters as those are huge sales areas to target. You don't believe the Ultra came in second, or last, in a particle count test because it doesn't agree with the massive structure you have built praising the Fram Ultra. Too bad, it did. You side step every Ultra deficiency. As sure as the sun rises in the morning.

I stand by what I say as correct.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes


"The smaller pores", referring to cellulose. Thanks Donaldson. That's why I believe a blend is superior in real life use. Synthetic fibers depend on criss crossing the fibers to make holes for the oil, the fiber itself is impermeable.


The fibers are woven in a fashion that gives the product depth filtration. This results in more surface area for a given square inch of media when compared to a 2-dimensional "flat" media like cellulose. The surfaces around the pores in cellulose are equally as impermeable as the woven glass strands.

If Donaldson believed a blend was better in real life they would produce one. They don't to my knowledge and all of their top-tier filters use the glass media exclusively. A blend is a way to combine some of the advantages (finer, fixed size fibers) of glass media with the cost savings of cellulose. You don't need the wire backing to support the media, and you need significantly less of it. You also compromise on the two primary advantages offered: depth and flow.

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Don't look at just the 4 hour test dust fully loaded efficiency number. Not real life conditions.


You have yet to explain as to why you completely discount an accelerated test as being sufficient for testing filtration ability. This is the industry standard test, if it wasn't sufficient, they would have developed a better one. So your position here is at odds with those who actually manufacture and test filters but with zero scientific basis. It's like the bloody flat earth society!

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
On and on talking, but when it came to making a racing filter, Fram went to cellulose blend, not the Ultra media.


Many racing filters are stainless mesh (which Donaldson also makes). I know when I'm rebuilding my engine from once a season to after every pass (depending on venue) that I need the absolute best filtration!!!

Good grief. The world's most expensive mining and excavating equipment, where long life is an absolute must, is the focus of much of the higher tier offerings from companies like Donaldson where only the very best filtration is acceptable. The same goes with their focus on OTR trucks, generating equipment, sea-going marine diesels...etc.

When long life is the intended goal, going with the best filtration available is a worthwhile endeavour. That's why you seem bypass filtration and centrifuges on some of this gear that you don't see on Bobby's 350 4-bolt that gets rebuilt twice a season.

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
When I said how could the other member be sure, it referred to Toyota suing Amsoil if the table is wrong. Apparently Chevrolet doesn't care any more than Toyota. BTW yes having Chevrolet in the Amsoil table makes the whole thing very iffy. Also they reference nothing. They just say it.


So getting the brand name wrong is, in your mind, an equivalency to posting falsified data? Give your head a shake. GM wouldn't give two hoots if it said GM, Buick or any other GM brand as long as the data represented was correct. On the other hand, if the mediocre level of filtration performance was an issue, that's a whole other kettle of fish and is certainly courting legal intervention by misrepresenting a product.

They reference ISO 4548-12, which is as standard test. What other reference would you be looking for?


My impression here is that you just want to keep dismissing the facts presented because they don't align with your world view. I don't know who you think you are convincing, but it sure isn't the rest of us

Nobody is forcing you to use the glass media filters, you are free to run an empty canister for all I care or used filters from behind Jiffy Lube.

 

[goodtimes]

Disparea
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: goodtimes


"The smaller pores", referring to cellulose. Thanks Donaldson. That's why I believe a blend is superior in real life use. Synthetic fibers depend on criss crossing the fibers to make holes for the oil, the fiber itself is impermeable.


The fibers are woven in a fashion that gives the product depth filtration. This results in more surface area for a given square inch of media when compared to a 2-dimensional "flat" media like cellulose. The surfaces around the pores in cellulose are equally as impermeable as the woven glass strands.

If Donaldson believed a blend was better in real life they would produce one. They don't to my knowledge and all of their top-tier filters use the glass media exclusively. A blend is a way to combine some of the advantages (finer, fixed size fibers) of glass media with the cost savings of cellulose. You don't need the wire backing to support the media, and you need significantly less of it. You also compromise on the two primary advantages offered: depth and flow.

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Don't look at just the 4 hour test dust fully loaded efficiency number. Not real life conditions.


You have yet to explain as to why you completely discount an accelerated test as being sufficient for testing filtration ability. This is the industry standard test, if it wasn't sufficient, they would have developed a better one. So your position here is at odds with those who actually manufacture and test filters but with zero scientific basis. It's like the bloody flat earth society!

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
On and on talking, but when it came to making a racing filter, Fram went to cellulose blend, not the Ultra media.


Many racing filters are stainless mesh (which Donaldson also makes). I know when I'm rebuilding my engine from once a season to after every pass (depending on venue) that I need the absolute best filtration!!!

Good grief. The world's most expensive mining and excavating equipment, where long life is an absolute must, is the focus of much of the higher tier offerings from companies like Donaldson where only the very best filtration is acceptable. The same goes with their focus on OTR trucks, generating equipment, sea-going marine diesels...etc.

When long life is the intended goal, going with the best filtration available is a worthwhile endeavour. That's why you seem bypass filtration and centrifuges on some of this gear that you don't see on Bobby's 350 4-bolt that gets rebuilt twice a season.

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
When I said how could the other member be sure, it referred to Toyota suing Amsoil if the table is wrong. Apparently Chevrolet doesn't care any more than Toyota. BTW yes having Chevrolet in the Amsoil table makes the whole thing very iffy. Also they reference nothing. They just say it.


So getting the brand name wrong is, in your mind, an equivalency to posting falsified data? Give your head a shake. GM wouldn't give two hoots if it said GM, Buick or any other GM brand as long as the data represented was correct. On the other hand, if the mediocre level of filtration performance was an issue, that's a whole other kettle of fish and is certainly courting legal intervention by misrepresenting a product.

They reference ISO 4548-12, which is as standard test. What other reference would you be looking for?


My impression here is that you just want to keep dismissing the facts presented because they don't align with your world view. I don't know who you think you are convincing, but it sure isn't the rest of us

Nobody is forcing you to use the glass media filters, you are free to run an empty canister for all I care or used filters from behind Jiffy Lube.


All filter medias have depth. None are 2 dimensional. Go to a TP Frantz filter and there is several inches of depth.

What I say I believe is correct and haven't seen any proof otherwise.

I have explained why I believe the 4 hour test is fine, for 4 hours testing. Not going to repeat over and over why. You won't read it anymore than the first time. I don't think they have the money or equipment to do a 200-250 hour multi pass test on every filter. The amounts are so small to measure it may not even be possible.


Donaldson says cellulose fibers filter finer, which seems right as a synthetic fiber itself doesn't filter at all.

Putting people down with imogees is the new way of being right, but

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
All filter medias have depth. None are 2 dimensional.


Cellulose media is more akin to 2 dimensional when compared to a glass media filter due to its makeup. Most of the "blocking" happens on the surface in locations with small gaps, while other spots are open wide and dirt goes straight through, this is why they have significantly less capacity than a glass media filter.

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Go to a TP Frantz filter and there is several inches of depth.


Yes, a TP filter, given its significant number of layers is indeed a depth filtration medium, but it doesn't flow very well either. The same for the stacked disc filtration media found in the bottom of a Stratapore.

If you layered cellulose you would get a similar effect, but the flow would be extremely low.

This old Royal Purple pic posted here a while back shows it:

You can clearly see the depth difference in this one:


Originally Posted By: goodtimes
What I say I believe is correct and haven't seen any proof otherwise.


Yet you've provided no scientific proof that is of the same nature as the ISO test that contradicts it.

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
I have explained why I believe the 4 hour test is fine, for 4 hours testing. Not going to repeat over and over why. You won't read it anymore than the first time. I don't think they have the money or equipment to do a 200-250 hour multi pass test on every filter. The amounts are so small to measure it may not even be possible.


If you have a baseline for the media you can, with a great degree of confidence, extrapolate both up and down relative to the result for a given surface area.

I don't see any sort of compelling reason to test individual filters when you have data and flow rate for the media itself, which you could do with an extended length test if there was benefit. However, a 4-hour accelerated test is the industry standard, and for comparable results, the standard is what is used.

I'm sure Donaldson is more than equipped to test individual filters if there was a reason to do so.


Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Donaldson says cellulose fibers filter finer, which seems right as a synthetic fiber itself doesn't filter at all.


That's not what they state at all. They say:

Originally Posted By: Donaldson
synthetic fiber structure delivers higher filtration efficiency and longer filter life. The smooth rounded fibers provide low resistance to fluid flow.


Originally Posted By: Donaldson
Cellulose Media: This media often has lower beta ratings, providing effective filtration for a wide variety of petroleum-based fluids. The smaller pores result in greater flow resistance, in turn causing higher pressure drop.


The synthetic depth structure provides a higher beta rating (more efficient) while also allowing for better flow. That is evidenced in and supported by the graphs and table data I provided earlier.

Because most of the filtering with cellulose happens on the surface, the smaller pores create more resistance, resulting in lower flow.

Beta rating table:



Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Putting people down with imogees is the new way of being right, but

And saying companies are flat out falsifying information because it doesn't align with your position is now the new moral high ground? Come on.