Originally Posted by Trav
When you loose pressure you loose flow from what I see. If that were not true why are different bypass settings specified.
All flow from the PD pump goes through the filter and engine as long as the pump is not in pressure relief, even if Filter A is more restrictive than Filter B - I don't think you get that key part.
Oil filters have different bypass valve settings because of many factors, mostly related to how the filter media flows and what the max expected oil flow volume would be in use, which ultimately equates to a max expected delta-p. The bypass valve in an oil filter is primarily there to keep the oil filter from damage if the delta-p becomes too high for the media to take.
The only time your house's water system parallels an engine oiling system operation is when the PD pump on an engine is in pressure relief, which very rarely happens. So that's why there seems to be is a big disconnect in your understanding of the engine's oiling system. Forget the water system and look at how an engine oiling system actually works.
Originally Posted by Trav
The problem with these test is they use controlled particle sizes and amounts in labs which may be more or less than encountered in the real world on an engine.
Been over this many times before in this forum. The ISO 4548-12 test has been used for 20 years by the filter industry. It does an apples-to-apples test to compare filer efficiency. Tests don't have to reflect 'real world' use conditions to be a valid comparison of filtering performance. It's also been shown that filters that have a higher ISO efficiency rating also keep oil in real world use cleaner as shown by UOA particle count test data. There is a direct correlation which also proves the ISO efficiency test is a good way to compare filtering performance between filters in actual use. It's pretty funny when people look at long time used industry tests and claim they have no merit, mostly when they don't really understand the details and procedures used in the test.
Originally Posted by Trav
Some filters claim outrageous change intervals and based on the lab test should work but how many times do we see sludge filters on older engines that are plugged in a few thousand miles, many.
Par of the ISO 4548-12 test is to determine the holding capacity of the filter. The recommended filter change interval is based on that testing. If a filter is "plugged in a few thousand miles"
then there is some very major problems going on with that engine. Companies don't give a recommended filter change interval based on an engine completely full of sludge that would plug up any oil filter in a few thousand miles.
Originally Posted by Trav
A filter that has higher efficiency will without a doubt go into bypass sooner when subjected to the same amount of contamination. It probably will not happen in a well maintained and relatively clean engine but the older the engine gets with lower maintenance standards like extended OCI the likyhood increases.
You must not really read the oil filter forum very much, as this has been discussed many times. Many high efficiency oil filters also have a very high holding capacity. Therefore, if one of those full synthetic filters was subjected to the same amount of contamination as say a cheap cellulose filter, the full synthetic filter would blow the cellulose filter into the weeds and would have much less delta-p across the media as a result of capturing that same level of contamination.
Originally Posted by Trav
Lets be clear I am not some cackling moron that by your comments about me not understanding you think I am and on the other side of that coin you are far from the genius you think you are. This is my last post on this with you, we go through this all the time and it really is tiresome.
But you really come across as not fully understanding what we've been discussing. I've tried to explain it in a few different ways, but I've learned that when someone has a deep rooted misconception (like a 'flat Earth believer'), it's pretty much impossible to change their mind even when things are explain over and over. It would probably behoove you to dig up information on engine oiling systems and try to unravel your misconceptions.
Originally Posted by Trav
Let me leave you with this comment from an article.
Quote
However, the multi-pass test is carried out in a laboratory under steady-state conditions and does not represent strenuous operational conditions. It is a preselection requirement that provides the user and specifier of filter standards with more consistent information.
A filter's ability to remove contaminant must ultimately be judged on the level of fluid cleanliness it maintains in the operating system, and this requires regular monitoring. The more critical the system, the stronger the filter element and the more frequent the monitoring required.
https://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/217/iso-contamination
Cherry picking, but the part I've highlighted in red can be determined if you look at used oil ISO particle count data from engines in the field. PCs typically come back cleaner with the use of higher efficiency filters.
What about this from the article, talking about filter efficiency (beta ratio).
"What value is most appropriate? Selection should be based on the filter's ability to remove critically sized damaging particles. Therefore, the highest Beta ratio that can be reliably measured should be selected."
Just like any source like "
Machinery Lubrication", they always come to the conclusion that higher efficiency filters result in cleaner oil. I'm still waiting for someone to post articles that shows that's not true.
