FRAM XG 7317 (1)
- 24/23/16 @ 7634 miles
- 24/23/15 @ 12,045 miles
- 23/23/14 @ 6230 miles
- 24/21/16 @ 219 miles
Particle counts:
- Thread starter DuckRyder
- Start date
It would be nice to see a Mobil 1 and other top end filters particle counts too. Nice to see multiple actual figures, thanks.
Does anyone have any links saved were someone did different branded top teir filter particall counts from years past?
.
Does anyone have any links saved were someone did different branded top teir filter particall counts from years past?
.
I forget where I picked this one up, probably was here at BITOG.
You might note that even though the best results were by far from the Mobil1 filter under the UOA column dated 12/09/08 (that particle count was four times lower than the highest, and twice as low as several others), the wear metals picked up by the UOAs themselves hardly varied at all, in terms of ppm/000 miles.
You might note that even though the best results were by far from the Mobil1 filter under the UOA column dated 12/09/08 (that particle count was four times lower than the highest, and twice as low as several others), the wear metals picked up by the UOAs themselves hardly varied at all, in terms of ppm/000 miles.
HAMP H1540-PFB-525 (ROKI USA)
- 24/23/15 @ 12,251 miles
O.K. I'm lost.
This looks like good information and an interesting thread, but I have NO idea what you all are discussing and why it's important? Please enlighten me?
Ed
This looks like good information and an interesting thread, but I have NO idea what you all are discussing and why it's important? Please enlighten me?
Ed
O.K. I'm lost.
This looks like good information and an interesting thread, but I have NO idea what you all are discussing and why it's important? Please enlighten me?
Ed
They are ISO Cleanliness codes:
Particle Count Test | Blackstone Laboratories
www.blackstone-labs.com
They are ISO Cleanliness codes:
Particle Count Test | Blackstone Laboratories
Thank you!
Ed
In that one the ISO codes are really quite close, so despite small differences in actual counts the wear numbers are likely noise or related to other variables.
Am I missing something here, like a kidney loop hiding somewhere ON this engine? The counts are far from the above on filters that are great ........but not that great???
I'm going to go out on a limb and say he's wondering why the particle counts on that that report seem to be quite a bit better than we see here.
My hypothesis is that it is quite a bit easier to create a lower particle count with sampling method vs high, assuming normal standards of sampling cleanliness are followed. Particularly if I'm planning to request a PC, I pull the sample basically as fast as I can get around the front of the car and open the hood to do it. My theory is that as soon as the engine stops the particles begin to fall out of suspension. How long I guess is the question so if i pull it from the drain stream vs a sample pump and it takes 30 minutes to pull the under tray is that PC comparable to one that was pulled from a sample pump within a minute. I postulate that it is not. However relative performance within one persons given sample method should be valid.
You are right, I find the difference to be drastic, not just "quite a bit better" as you say. We know automobile engines particle counts are high and can run higher, without long term damage. But going from a 24/23/15 to a 16/15/13 is drastic. I see the Fram Ultra at the 24/23/15 and then we have the Amsoil and Mobil1 filters getting 17 to 16 on their first numeral, something seems to off here. While those to latter filters are great filters, I don't see them as pulling 17 and 16's when the Fram Ultra is pulling 24's on it first numeral. I agree with DuckRyder , there has to be some settle time/sample draw issues here.
I sample our rotary screw air compressors at work and I have a group of three Atlas Copco's that would KILL OEM PAO $550 for 5 gallon oil in 1,000 hours and create a ton of varnish because of Atlas Copco's hot spotting rotors with KILL the oil. I would be in the 24/X/X area of PC. When I went to a group 5 oil, I would get my PC oil into the 19/X/X area which is normal but still mid/mid semi high counts for the industry. I want/love to be in the 16/X/X area on our compressors and it would take a different main filter (Donaldson's an example ) to get it there, but I cant risk any reduced flow since they are not my personal compressors. I don't have the backing of management to do pressure testing $$$ to back up safe pressures up and down stream of a different brand filter then OEM. A kidney loop system is even out of the picture $$$ wise.
The junk PAO OEM oil has a 8,000 limit that it can't even make it to 1,000 hours without creating a varnish storm mess. The Summit Industrial Products group 5 has a 12,000 hour limit and it can make it with almost zero varnish, but I dump it at 8,000 hours, to keep it as clean as I can without wasting oil. This group 5 oil is $300 for 5 gallons.
They seem to be all the same given all the variables. Quality of manufacturing would be the biggest difference like the Hamp, it just looks quality. It also is a statement on changing oil, which gets rid of most of the particles. Changing it hot and ASAP also helps. So maybe everyone I know who goes to a shop for a quick oil change on time or before, which is literally everyone, are actually doing the right thing.
Here is my favorite particle count of all time. Our own DrDave took an amsoil EA filter through 42,000 miles, and several particle counts. He also did UOAs each time as well: https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...-miles-with-uoas-and-pcs.255163/#post-4132078
Last edited:
The HAMP is a nice filter. I ran that one because the OEMs for Japanese cars seem to trend toward lower efficiency. That one was a “shorty” which is about the same size and similar design to a Toyota filter which has been tested around 50% efficiency. There should have been a significant difference in the particle counts it the filters efficiency is a controling factor.
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...-miles-with-uoas-and-pcs.255163/#post-4132078
The data in this link is interesting for many reasons.
1. It refutes one of the few efficiency over time filter charts that circulates here that shows efficiency decreasing over time, till just before bypass sets in.
2. It swings the table in favor of multiple OCI's per FCI vs 1-1 from an efficiency standpoint.
3. It puts to bed smallish filters capacity for a 20K run. If a tacoma can spew 42K miles into a filter that size without going into bypass, it suggest other premium offerings rated for 20 would be a walk in the park and be well under the bypass threshold.
The data in this link is interesting for many reasons.
1. It refutes one of the few efficiency over time filter charts that circulates here that shows efficiency decreasing over time, till just before bypass sets in.
2. It swings the table in favor of multiple OCI's per FCI vs 1-1 from an efficiency standpoint.
3. It puts to bed smallish filters capacity for a 20K run. If a tacoma can spew 42K miles into a filter that size without going into bypass, it suggest other premium offerings rated for 20 would be a walk in the park and be well under the bypass threshold.
That's the graph from Mann+Hummel/Purolator. I think it depends a lot on the media design, as some media is better at holding and retaining trapped particles as the delta-p increases. Fram way back in 1965 even saw the "hockey stick" shaped efficiency curve as the filter loads up. The M+H/Purolator info is much more recent. I don't think I'd run any oil filter for 42K miles.
Hit the "Preview Document" button on RH margin area.
Filter Life versus Engine Wear
Filter evaluation methods using radioactive tracers have been developed which are capable of measuring the ability of new and used full flow lubricating oil filters to protect automobile engines from bearing wear. These methods determined that a large increase in wear rate is allowed by several type
Last edited:
Similar threads
