Recent Topics
2003 Civic EX with 225,000 miles Burning Oil
by Andya26
05/22/18 08:38 AM
Smallest Personal Jet Air Plane
by Shannow
05/22/18 08:06 AM
Convair 990A - fastest airliner
by Shannow
05/22/18 08:05 AM
Update: 2013 MB ML350 with misfire
by DriveHard
05/22/18 07:52 AM
Stupid Kinking Twisted Knotted Power Washer Hose
by Gebo
05/22/18 07:49 AM
Please tell us your DA polisher tips
by ZZman
05/22/18 07:27 AM
Fear of a BITOG Nation
by LoneRanger
05/22/18 06:27 AM
Get ready for E15. The push is real...
by wemay
05/22/18 06:04 AM
PlayStation power inverter issues.
by Hemispheres
05/22/18 04:27 AM
Toyota OEM WS ATF
by toyota62
05/22/18 04:15 AM
Variable speed on MTD self-propel mowers
by DejaVue
05/22/18 01:55 AM
A rotary engine is a beautiful thing.
by OneEyeJack
05/22/18 01:32 AM
Some Basic Brake Fluid Questions...
by Onug
05/21/18 09:18 PM
Alternate 4Runner Oil
by 28gauge
05/21/18 08:54 PM
Any San Antonio Locals?
by JustinH
05/21/18 08:26 PM
the strangest sonata ping resolution.
by JustinH
05/21/18 08:20 PM
Castrol and Pennzoil 0w40 question
by Duntov283Cam
05/21/18 07:28 PM
new heater core while dash is out?
by motor_oil_madman
05/21/18 06:51 PM
Purolator One seal problem?
by RyanY
05/21/18 06:48 PM
Coyo oil filter failure
by WobblyElvis
05/21/18 06:10 PM
Newest Members
32cls6speedmt, elike, APOilGuy, PGProduct, dg500
65057 Registered Users
Who's Online
90 registered (1JZ_E46, 28gauge, ammolab, 2004tdigls, A310, Andrei, 8 invisible), 1587 Guests and 47 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
65057 Members
67 Forums
283993 Topics
4739734 Posts

Max Online: 3590 @ 01/24/17 08:07 PM
Donate to BITOG
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
#3007383 - 05/20/13 08:04 AM Frantz Filter Efficiency
Jim Allen Online   content


Registered: 08/12/05
Posts: 4547
Loc: NW Ohio
The recent upswing of posts on this vintage bypass system has got me curious as to efficiency ratings. Have any of you collect anything like that from the past or present? Go ahead and pass along anything you might have seen but I would like to know if any industry-standard type efficiency tests have been done. Even if they are old tests, it's OK. I've really found very little other than unsubstantiated claims ranging from the just about impossible to the ho-hum. I want to build up my data files on this filter.
_________________________
Jim Allen
Keepin' the Good Old Days of Four Wheeling Alive

Top
#3007448 - 05/20/13 09:47 AM Re: Frantz Filter Efficiency [Re: Jim Allen]
Powerhaze Offline


Registered: 01/31/13
Posts: 9
Loc: California
If I could get a unit I would get it tested. I know an oil filter guy at a filter company.
_________________________
Power Haze - 2011 Ram 6.7 - Racor Bypass Oil Cleaner

Top
#3007558 - 05/20/13 11:29 AM Re: Frantz Filter Efficiency [Re: Jim Allen]
OneEyeJack Offline


Registered: 09/14/10
Posts: 7451
Loc: S California
I have 2 brand new in the box out in my garage, somewhere.

With the installation kit included.


Edited by OneEyeJack (05/20/13 11:30 AM)

Top
#3080470 - 07/30/13 05:29 AM Re: Frantz Filter Efficiency [Re: Jim Allen]
wally6934 Offline


Registered: 02/18/12
Posts: 318
Loc: Wi
Here you go Jim. This is the best info i have found yet. A pic of a lab report for particle size with Frantz filter.

Look about 60% down this page

http://www.dieselbombers.com/general-die...ass-filter.html


Top
#3083535 - 08/02/13 07:37 AM Re: Frantz Filter Efficiency [Re: Jim Allen]
Jim Allen Online   content


Registered: 08/12/05
Posts: 4547
Loc: NW Ohio
Missed this earlier and and thanks for posting it! ( : < ) It's great to finally see SOMETHING but I'm gonna tear at it a little because there are still a lot of unanswered questions.

It looks as if this was a pore blockage contamination analysis not an actual optical particle count. There is a BIG difference between the two types of tests! It looks exactly like the printout I get from Blackstone pore blockage tests, and I have had many done there. Since he also presents a Blackstone analysis with it, I am going to make a pretty certain assumption that's it's pore blockage.

I have found that pore blockage is "optimistic" compared to optical counts to the tune of about 30%. This is because the bore blockage tests are extrapolated by computer based on the flow restriction sensed when dirty oil is fed thru a filter screen (Blackstone commonly uses 10 or 15 um screens... 15 more often.) Optical counts are just that... each particle is actually, physically counted and the rig I have access to actually produces pictures of a representative sample of the particles. Here is example of the difference between the two methods:

Recently, 2010FX4 and I collaborated with some oil samples whereby we divvied up the oil from a particular bottle of virgin Mobile 5000. He sent samples to Blackstone for Pore Blockage and I sent samples to Parker Filtration for Optical testing Here are the results:

Code:
Mobil 5000 Super 5W20 SN (virgin)
Pore Blockage	Optical

ISO 14/13/12	ISO 20/18/14

> 2um- 232	> 4um- 6076
> 5um- 86	> 6um- 1983
> 10um- 24	> 14um- 138
> 15um- 9
> 25um- 2
> 50um- 0
> 100um- 0


Big difference, huh? And this is only one of several samples that showed similar results. If we take the above TP bypass sample and add 30 percent to bring it roughly in line with an optical count, it becomes, something pretty close to the example I posted above.

So if the TP bypass sample is around20/18/14, that's at the clean end of the virgin oil particle counts I have, so we can say that at 6K miles the TP filter is keeping the oil to a level as clean as the virgin oil (though we don't know exactly what his oil is and where it started). 6K miles is really not a severe test but it's a snapshot and more info than I had before.

Going back to the differences between the tests, when comparing "particle counts," one need to know the test method or you simply can't compare them. Any particle count is most useful if you have before and after tests... all done on the same equipment.

That's what I have been doing with my truck. I took a sample of the virgin oil. Then I took a sample of the used oil at 5K with no bypass, then a sample at 10K after 5K with bypass and soon I will be taking a sample at 15K to see the end result. All sample will be tested on the same particle counter.


Edited by Jim Allen (08/02/13 07:41 AM)
_________________________
Jim Allen
Keepin' the Good Old Days of Four Wheeling Alive

Top
#3084994 - 08/03/13 10:38 PM Re: Frantz Filter Efficiency [Re: Jim Allen]
wally6934 Offline


Registered: 02/18/12
Posts: 318
Loc: Wi
Wow, the difference between the pore blockage and optical tests for particle count are astounding, a whopping 23X difference between 5 and 6um. How can the blockage test even be legitimately offered.

I feel good about your assessment. If i ran the Frantz system and it cleaned the oil to factory spec i would be happy.

Top
#3085374 - 08/04/13 11:40 AM Re: Frantz Filter Efficiency [Re: Jim Allen]
Jim Allen Online   content


Registered: 08/12/05
Posts: 4547
Loc: NW Ohio
Yeah, keeping the oil to it's virgin cleanliness isn't a bad thing.

Pore Blockage is useful for comparison, to get a percentage of improvement. It's useful for that and for quick-n-dirty contamination analysis and if the oil is very dark, pore blockage is the only viable method because a normal PC simply can't see it well (optical labs have some tricks but often diesel oil is too dark with soot). The important thing is that you understand it may be significantly different than an optical test, so don't go comparing them.

In another set of tests on a 10W30 oil I am testing, one lab (not Blackstone) showed 16/15/12 for the virgin oil with Pore Blockage and Parker showed 20/19/16 on the optical, That's more a 20 percent difference.
_________________________
Jim Allen
Keepin' the Good Old Days of Four Wheeling Alive

Top
#3085591 - 08/04/13 03:12 PM Re: Frantz Filter Efficiency [Re: Jim Allen]
alexeft Offline


Registered: 02/06/10
Posts: 100
Loc: Greece
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen


Code:
Mobil 5000 Super 5W20 SN (virgin)
Pore Blockage	Optical

ISO 14/13/12	ISO 20/18/14

> 2um- 232	> 4um- 6076
> 5um- 86	> 6um- 1983
> 10um- 24	> 14um- 138
> 15um- 9
> 25um- 2
> 50um- 0
> 100um- 0





sick That's an astonishing difference!!!!!!


Edited by alexeft (08/04/13 03:13 PM)

Top
#3086265 - 08/05/13 08:28 AM Re: Frantz Filter Efficiency [Re: Jim Allen]
dnewton3 Offline



Registered: 05/14/07
Posts: 7387
Loc: Indianapolis, IN
That contrast between Pore and Optical is very telling.

And I'll comment on this as well ... virgin oil is not clean by any means, at least not down low in size; I've known that for some time. However, that also goes to show how silly some of these filter arguments are. We see engines go hundreds of thousands of miles on "normal" oil and filters. Once a particle gets below a certain threshold in size, it's not really a risk to the engine. And so the particualte loading right out of the bottle must not be as horrid to the lifecycle as many would profess. And that's why I also say that as long as a filter is properly designed (beta threshold satisfactory to the OEM intent) then the rest of that little stuff really does little harm.

Would it be nice to get all that junk out? Sure, but at what cost? Adding bypass filters and running 7-10k mile OCIs just cannot pay for itself, especially when the wear rates really are not statistically shifted by getting <7um stuff out.
_________________________
The act of preventative maintenance, in and of itself, is FAR MORE important than brand/grade/base choices among lubes and filters.
- under maintaining something is akin to abuse/neglect; that can kill equipment by shortening the lifespan
- over maintaining something has never been proven to be anything but a waste of time and money

Top
#3086407 - 08/05/13 11:00 AM Re: Frantz Filter Efficiency [Re: Jim Allen]
Jim Allen Online   content


Registered: 08/12/05
Posts: 4547
Loc: NW Ohio
I would like to learn more to see if it's just Blackstone and a few others, or if it's very widespread. You'd think that if it's based on computer algorithms, they could develop the corrections to make it a little closer.
_________________________
Jim Allen
Keepin' the Good Old Days of Four Wheeling Alive

Top
#3226677 - 12/24/13 05:40 PM Re: Frantz Filter Efficiency [Re: Jim Allen]
Dufus2 Offline


Registered: 12/12/13
Posts: 275
Loc: Virginia
I have a Frantz filter on a Mercedes to clean the engine oil after it was intentionally contaminated with a very fine particulate compound believed to be mica like is used in paint. The oil felt gritty like a polishing compound. The same stuff ruined my Tahoe engine in only 1K miles. The crank looked like it was polished with 80 grit sandpaper.

The Mercedes particle count was 20/20/17 with new oil and filter right after start up. Two oil flush treatments later, the PC was reduced to 18/17/14 and 16/15/13 after 3-4 hours of run time (two oil changes between each test). After driving the car, the PC went to 17/16/14 and was making lead at 500 miles. The Frantz was installed due to continued dirty UOA reports. Waiting to see what the numbers are on the next test, it only has 20 hours on it right now.

Not running toilet paper in the Frantz, It's filled with a roll of Scotts blue Shop Towels because they are porous to hold the contaminants.
_________________________
ASE Certified in Med/Heavy Truck Service including A9
Heavy Equipment Repair, Fleet Maintenance
Real Cars Rattle and Smoke a Little

Top
#3241291 - 01/07/14 11:34 PM Re: Frantz Filter Efficiency [Re: Jim Allen]
OVERKILL Online   content


Registered: 04/28/08
Posts: 36206
Loc: Ontario, Canada
How is the oil getting contaminated?
_________________________
2016 Durango Limited
2016 Grand Cherokee SRT

Top
#3241781 - 01/08/14 12:13 PM Re: Frantz Filter Efficiency [Re: Dufus2]
Jim Allen Online   content


Registered: 08/12/05
Posts: 4547
Loc: NW Ohio
Originally Posted By: Dufus2
I have a Frantz filter on a Mercedes to clean the engine oil after it was intentionally contaminated with a very fine particulate compound believed to be mica like is used in paint. The oil felt gritty like a polishing compound. The same stuff ruined my Tahoe engine in only 1K miles. The crank looked like it was polished with 80 grit sandpaper.

The Mercedes particle count was 20/20/17 with new oil and filter right after start up. Two oil flush treatments later, the PC was reduced to 18/17/14 and 16/15/13 after 3-4 hours of run time (two oil changes between each test). After driving the car, the PC went to 17/16/14 and was making lead at 500 miles. The Frantz was installed due to continued dirty UOA reports. Waiting to see what the numbers are on the next test, it only has 20 hours on it right now.

Not running toilet paper in the Frantz, It's filled with a roll of Scotts blue Shop Towels because they are porous to hold the contaminants.


Sounds like you have a "buddy." Guy I worked with in the '80s put sandblasting sand in my engine. Killed it in less that 10 miles.

20/20/17 is pretty nasty for a fresh OC (was it an optical count or pore blockage... pore will show a little better generally). The rest of the reports aren't encouraging either but hopefully you can get it cleaned up. I think you likely have faced the possibility of some engine damage but let's hop it's minimal. Update us, please?
_________________________
Jim Allen
Keepin' the Good Old Days of Four Wheeling Alive

Top
#4755700 - 05/13/18 09:23 AM Re: Frantz Filter Efficiency [Re: Jim Allen]
Linctex Offline


Registered: 12/31/16
Posts: 5950
Loc: Waco, TX
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
I took a sample of the virgin oil. Then I took a sample of the used oil at 5K with no bypass, then a sample at 10K after 5K with bypass and soon I will be taking a sample at 15K to see the end result. All sample will be tested on the same particle counter.


Did you ever actually do this?

I run a bypass hoping it will help with sludge and varnish particulates.
I'm not too worried about "wear-size particles"
_________________________
"The evidence demands a verdict".
(Re:VOA)"it's nearly impossible to actually know the particular additives that are in there at what concentrations."

Top
#4757032 - 05/14/18 02:22 PM Re: Frantz Filter Efficiency [Re: Linctex]
Jim Allen Online   content


Registered: 08/12/05
Posts: 4547
Loc: NW Ohio
Originally Posted By: Linctex
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
I took a sample of the virgin oil. Then I took a sample of the used oil at 5K with no bypass, then a sample at 10K after 5K with bypass and soon I will be taking a sample at 15K to see the end result. All sample will be tested on the same particle counter.


Did you ever actually do this?

I run a bypass hoping it will help with sludge and varnish particulates.
I'm not too worried about "wear-size particles"


I didn't do the 15K. Or did I? I don't remember. Sold the truck and gave the guy all the paperwork. I think I posted some of it way back when. Those particle analyses were eye-opening in terms of seeing how "dirty" new oil actually is. The oil was actually cleaner at 5K than the new oil!

I have the same bypass system on some of my farm equipment. Nothing but anecdotal stuff to report. It certainly keeps the soot down. I am running 3um filters, but the Racor Absolute Series filters are designed to catch oxidation residue.
_________________________
Jim Allen
Keepin' the Good Old Days of Four Wheeling Alive

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >