Fram Ultra flow restrictive?

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: ZraHamilton
I am wondering if the extreme efficiency of the fram ultra (99% @ 20, 94% @ 10, and I even heard someone say 80% @ 5 microns) would create a large pressure differential and cause it to bypass often. The bypass valve is extremely flimsy and easy to push because of the weak spring and plastic valve. This seems like the biggest weakness of the ultra. If it bypasses often, that 99%+ becomes 0% lol.

Also, wouldn't the Wix XP have the lowest pressure differential of nearly any filter? (with fiberglass media and 50% @ 20 micron efficiency). If so, you get the filtering efficiency of many OEM filters, but with excellent flow, and the toughest construction.



1) oil filters RARELY go into bypass; read Jim Allen's trials please
2) oil filters flow well more than the oil pumps put out; show me any data to prove otherwise
3) the Wix/NG and Wix XP are rated at same flow volumes for equivalent applications; go check their website
4) what makes you think the BP valve is "extremely flimsy and easy to push because of the weak spring and plastic valve" (As opposed to the bazillions of others just like it in other brands?) What makes the plastic "flimsy" and the spring "weak"?


This thread is just a new version of the old (unfounded) complaint regarding the PureOne filters being "too restrictive"; a totally uneducated view that if it's efficient, it must also be too restrictive because one's brain cannot conceive that the product can be both efficient and flow well

Where do some of you get these ridiculous ideas, anyway?

It's not a ridiculous notion at all that small hole area restricts more than larger. A water faucet has such controls. The manufacturer has to be trusted. Fram shows testing, Mann puts flow data in their brochure. What's ridiculous is to assume someone says "is the Ultra too restrictive?" and say "don't say it is too restrictive." They are asking a question, not saying it isn't true. The title of the thread is a question, not a statement.

Again - more of an argument not well reasoned ...

Knowing the size of the holes is only HALF the equation. Did it ever occur to anyone that a larger quantity of smaller holes will assure the same net flow result? You know, several smaller 1/2" pipes can flow just as much volume as a larger 1" pipe. And several smaller faucets can flow as much as a large hydrant.


The "question" inferred by the OP in the thread title is that of the FU being "too restrictive". Ummmmmm ... not it's not. Now, if he asked if it was slightly more restrictive than some other choices, and then he had flow data to back up his assertion/question, I'd have to say he did some homework at least. But that wasn't the case. He's not reasoning; he guessing. As are you. And it's no more clear than your comment about the size of the holes; that does not speak to the flow, but only an area of a singular hole, not total holes for total flow.

Fram does not publish their flow data unless asked, but Wix puts up the data for all to see, and he asked about those too. And clearly, despite the large variation in efficiency, the flow ratings are the same between Wix and Wix XP.

THE POINT TO GRASP IS THAT THE FLOW RATINGS WE SEE, AND EVEN THOSE WE DON'T, EXIST IN PRODUCTS DESIGNED TO BE MORE THAN SUFFICIENT AT WORST CASE.

Seriously, is it really someone's assertion that a top-tier product is actually "too restrictive", even though that product is now rated for up to 20k miles?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Knowing the size of the holes is only HALF the equation. Did it ever occur to anyone that a larger quantity of smaller holes will assure the same net flow result? You know, several smaller 1/2" pipes can flow just as much volume as a larger 1" pipe. And several smaller faucets can flow as much as a large hydrant.

Yep, the reason full synthetic media flows better is because there is more open area comprised of way more smaller "holes" (as shown with the side-by-side comparison photo posted by oil_film_movies on page 1) throughout it's increased media depth, which also becomes a finer "screen" through it's total depth to increase the capturing efficiency and holding capacity.

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Fram does not publish their flow data unless asked, but Wix puts up the data for all to see, and he asked about those too. And clearly, despite the large variation in efficiency, the flow ratings are the same between Wix and Wix XP.

I've tried many times to find out what WIX or any other filter makers "flow spec" of 'Max Flow Rate = 9 GPM' really means. They can't say the max flow is '9 GPM' without saying what the corresponding oil viscosity and delta-p is associated with that flow rate.

I just spent 10 min looking at WIX's website, and very few of their filters even show the 'Max Flow Rate' number anymore.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Knowing the size of the holes is only HALF the equation. Did it ever occur to anyone that a larger quantity of smaller holes will assure the same net flow result? You know, several smaller 1/2" pipes can flow just as much volume as a larger 1" pipe. And several smaller faucets can flow as much as a large hydrant.

Yep, the reason full synthetic media flows better is because there is more open area comprised of way more smaller "holes" (as shown with the side-by-side comparison photo posted by oil_film_movies on page 1) throughout it's increased media depth, which also becomes a finer "screen" through it's total depth to increase the capturing efficiency and holding capacity.

Funny thing is, not one person on here has made the statement or implication that EaO filters are "too restrictive", yet they use the same concept of glass media depth filtering. As does products like Donaldson Blue. And the BOSS. Etc ... But nary a complaint about those being "too restrictive". Or what of the TG at 99%? If 99% with syn depth media is too restrictive, why not bash the TGs with blended media (glass and cellulose), because they have less capacity and will likely clog up immediately, right? I mean, it's rated to 10k miles, but why not bench race the TG along with the FU? If we're going to presume that 99% is too restrictive, we should really lambast ALL filters at 99%, right? The Mobil 1 filters are 99% at 30um; yep, that's thirty and not 20. But if we only look at the efficiency, we should be able to condemn just about any product, because knowing half the story is always better than knowing all of the story, right?

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Fram does not publish their flow data unless asked, but Wix puts up the data for all to see, and he asked about those too. And clearly, despite the large variation in efficiency, the flow ratings are the same between Wix and Wix XP.

I've tried many times to find out what WIX or any other filter makers "flow spec" of 'Max Flow Rate = 9 GPM' really means. They can't say the max flow is '9 GPM' without saying what the corresponding oil viscosity and delta-p is associated with that flow rate.

I just spent 10 min looking at WIX's website, and very few of their filters even show the 'Max Flow Rate' number anymore.

Now look, Zee, if you're going to use logic and sound engineering principles to debate a topic, I don't know how we can include you in our reindeer games.

Clearly, Wix most certainly can say "max flow is 9 gpm" without corresponding vis and dP values, because that's exactly what they do. I agree with you; they are giving incomplete info. But that's not stopping them, and more importantly, it's not stopping folks from drinking their Koolaid. The distinction I illuminate is that you realize, as do some others, the info which they provide is incomplete information to make a conclusion of real application discernment. But Wix does not care; they're not worried about sales to you, the singular knowledgeable consumer. They market to the masses, and put out limited info because the VAST majority of consumers are not only less-than-fully-informed, but either unable or unwilling to conceptualize the entire topic of volumetric flow principles.



I tire of this topic.

Let's have another "bigger filters are better" thread; it's been at least a month since we've gone down that road ...





.

 

[bbhero]

Very, very good posts in this thread Dnewton3 and Zee0six.

You guys really give out a lot of education on here.

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: ZraHamilton
I am wondering if the extreme efficiency of the fram ultra (99% @ 20, 94% @ 10, and I even heard someone say 80% @ 5 microns) would create a large pressure differential and cause it to bypass often. The bypass valve is extremely flimsy and easy to push because of the weak spring and plastic valve. This seems like the biggest weakness of the ultra. If it bypasses often, that 99%+ becomes 0% lol.

Also, wouldn't the Wix XP have the lowest pressure differential of nearly any filter? (with fiberglass media and 50% @ 20 micron efficiency). If so, you get the filtering efficiency of many OEM filters, but with excellent flow, and the toughest construction.



1) oil filters RARELY go into bypass; read Jim Allen's trials please
2) oil filters flow well more than the oil pumps put out; show me any data to prove otherwise
3) the Wix/NG and Wix XP are rated at same flow volumes for equivalent applications; go check their website
4) what makes you think the BP valve is "extremely flimsy and easy to push because of the weak spring and plastic valve" (As opposed to the bazillions of others just like it in other brands?) What makes the plastic "flimsy" and the spring "weak"?


This thread is just a new version of the old (unfounded) complaint regarding the PureOne filters being "too restrictive"; a totally uneducated view that if it's efficient, it must also be too restrictive because one's brain cannot conceive that the product can be both efficient and flow well

Where do some of you get these ridiculous ideas, anyway?

It's not a ridiculous notion at all that small hole area restricts more than larger. A water faucet has such controls. The manufacturer has to be trusted. Fram shows testing, Mann puts flow data in their brochure. What's ridiculous is to assume someone says "is the Ultra too restrictive?" and say "don't say it is too restrictive." They are asking a question, not saying it isn't true. The title of the thread is a question, not a statement.

Again - more of an argument not well reasoned ...

Knowing the size of the holes is only HALF the equation. Did it ever occur to anyone that a larger quantity of smaller holes will assure the same net flow result? You know, several smaller 1/2" pipes can flow just as much volume as a larger 1" pipe. And several smaller faucets can flow as much as a large hydrant.


The "question" inferred by the OP in the thread title is that of the FU being "too restrictive". Ummmmmm ... not it's not. Now, if he asked if it was slightly more restrictive than some other choices, and then he had flow data to back up his assertion/question, I'd have to say he did some homework at least. But that wasn't the case. He's not reasoning; he guessing. As are you. And it's no more clear than your comment about the size of the holes; that does not speak to the flow, but only an area of a singular hole, not total holes for total flow.

Fram does not publish their flow data unless asked, but Wix puts up the data for all to see, and he asked about those too. And clearly, despite the large variation in efficiency, the flow ratings are the same between Wix and Wix XP.

THE POINT TO GRASP IS THAT THE FLOW RATINGS WE SEE, AND EVEN THOSE WE DON'T, EXIST IN PRODUCTS DESIGNED TO BE MORE THAN SUFFICIENT AT WORST CASE.

Seriously, is it really someone's assertion that a top-tier product is actually "too restrictive", even though that product is now rated for up to 20k miles?


" Did it ever occur to anyone that a larger quantity of smaller holes will assure the same net flow result? You know, several smaller 1/2" pipes can flow just as much volume as a larger 1" pipe. And several smaller faucets can flow as much as a large hydrant. "

Obviously it occurs to everyone. It's not several 1/2 pipes versus a 1 pipe, it is just a 1 pipe. A filter has a fixed size for flow based on the dimensions. You can't put 1/2 pipes inside a 1 pipe and get more flow. Did it ever occur to some people a faucet turned open all the way has one big hole in the opening, yet if they turn the handle down, the same opening gets smaller because there is a solid part now in the hole? Without filter mesh will be less restrictive than with mesh. Bigger holes mean less restriction per total area with equal fiber diameters. Finer holes means more material blocks the path, equal fibers. That's why people ask if a finer filter restricts more, an honest question. Not ridiculous at all.
Does it occur to some people a question mark doesn't mean the words are stating their conclusion, but it means someone an honest question? Questions are allowed in learning, even if someone thinks they are smarter than the question. It's a good thing teachers don't tell children their ideas are ridiculous.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Knowing the size of the holes is only HALF the equation. Did it ever occur to anyone that a larger quantity of smaller holes will assure the same net flow result? You know, several smaller 1/2" pipes can flow just as much volume as a larger 1" pipe. And several smaller faucets can flow as much as a large hydrant.
It is similar to the discussions that we had years back about the size of the FRAM Ultra baseplate holes versus other filters. I was driving a 2010 Ford FX4 at the time and had used both Motorcraft and FRAM filters and took the liberty to check. Even with the smaller inlet holes on the Ultra, it still flows approximately 121% of the outflow pipe diameter (measured on the truck):

 

[goodtimes]

Comparing two filter medias of the same area and same fiber diameters and type, the finer filter will be more restrictive to flow. Fram does design, test, and approve the Ultra for full flow use, with application charts, which is enough for me. They went to a second layer it appears to meet the needs. Synthetic filters can be made too fine for full flow use, and they have more but smaller holes. I think that was his question.

 

[ZeeOSix]

What some people are missing in understanding the difference between full synthetic and cellulose/paper filters is that full synthetic media is much deeper in the Z-axis. That's what contributes to the "depth filtering" aspect of the media. Full synthetic media is somewhat "fluffy" looking and much thicker compared to cellulose media.

That's why full synthetic can have more open flow area in the X-Y plane and be less restrictive and filter better than cellulose. This is on the assumption that you are comparing two media types with the same flow area. When you start changing total flow area then the comparison can get skewed and not be apples-to-apples anymore.

In other words, if a cellulose media has the same high efficiency as a full synthetic, the total flow area on the cellulose will be much larger in order to keep the delta-p down on the cellulose filter. That's basically how the PureOne filter was able to be high efficiency and still be a good flowing filter (as shown by the graph I posted earlier in this thread).

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
What some people are missing in understanding the difference between full synthetic and cellulose/paper filters is that full synthetic media is much deeper in the Z-axis.

That depends upon how you orient your coordinate system.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[4WD]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
What some people are missing in understanding the difference between full synthetic and cellulose/paper filters is that full synthetic media is much deeper in the Z-axis.

That depends upon how you orient your coordinate system.

Sorry, couldn't resist.


Come on Garak … please be more empathetic towards, uh, “people kind” ...

 

[WellOiled]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
What some people are missing in understanding the difference between full synthetic and cellulose/paper filters is that full synthetic media is much deeper in the Z-axis.

That depends upon how you orient your coordinate system.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Definitely good. No way I could beat that.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: 4WD
Come on Garak … please be more empathetic towards, uh, “people kind” ...

He he, well, wouldn't it be more fun to orient say, the x-axis, at about 30 degrees off kilter from the centre tube. At least I didn't say that all media is depth media if you look deep enough.

I remember one physicist was showing a problem that could be simplified by using only one axis and treating it as simple displacement. So, he had the axis turn by 90 degrees at one point. He said, "Don't ever show this to a mathematician."

 

[dnewton3]

Depth media filters operate slightly differently from surface media filters. The point which Zee makes is valid, but it affects one aspect of filtration more than another. It affects capacity but not capability. Let's agree on some terms here for this post I make:
"Capacity" is the ability to hold "XX" grams of particulate
"Capability" is the efficiency of capturing particulate at some preset size ... "YY% efficient at ZZum".


Surface filters are constrained in that they have to use pore size to deal with capability and capacity before blinding off. They essentially use surface area as the "capacity" contributor. Area is two dimensional; height and width.

Depth media filters can use smaller pores to control capability, but then use depth (Z axis) to add "capacity". They work in a three dimensional sense; height, width and depth.


Don't get me wrong; there's nothing wrong with surface loading and it works great. One advantage is that as the surface loads, the media (and it's resulting effect) improves because the particulate actually helps close down the resulting pore size effect. Only if you blind off the media does the filter go into perpetual bypass. This is rare; don't panic and curse your way to Walmart to return your filters. It works perfectly fine in a bazillion cars/trucks/tractors/generators/etc all around the world every day of the year.

The point to understand is that if the desire it to GREATLY increase "capacity" (without requiring more surface area, which means a larger filter canister), you can "add" capacity by "adding" depth in the third dimension. Hence a FU filter (or other brand equivalent) can hold "more" contamination for a longer FCI, and still fit in the same package constraints.

Just as is typical of syn lubes over dino lubes, a depth media filter, such as the FU, really does not filter "better" than other 99% filters, but it can do the job LONGER and still stay in service. The FU would be no "better" in protection against a TG; they are both 99% at 20um. But at some point (far beyond where a typical BITOGer would ever fear tread), the TG would load up and the FU would have some life left in service.

Unless you intend to run OFCIs out to 15k or 20k miles, you really will never see any benefit from using a FU over a TG, or similar example. You're not gaining any efficiency; you're only gaining duration via capacity. And if you don't utilize that capacity, it's a huge waste to buy that more expensive product when lessor cost ones will filter with the same efficiency. Same goes for a Wix and Wix XP; the syn media in an XP will gain you a lot of duration of use. But, at least given the info we have to date, that comes at the expense of losing efficiency.

My fav filters are the TG and Wix/NG. They are 99% and 95% generally, and are a blend of cellulose and glass, for a nice effect of efficiency and capacity for up to 15k miles. I realize they are not "rated" that far, but I've run plenty of them out that far and every single time I dissected one it was totally fine. I don't "need" more of something I won't use. I don't "need" a FU or XP, when that capacity would go unused.

THAT is the distinction of depth versus surface filtration.

Thus endeth the lesson.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Obviously there is a lot of science in the design in oil filter media - that is where the rubber meets the road and most likely where the trade secrets reside. That's why we see such a huge efficiency spectrum across different brands and models of filters. One can't just say all full synthetic filters are higher efficiency than cellulose for instance, and one can't even say that all full synthetic filters are high efficiency. The materials used, how it's all woven together and the surface area all have a bearing on the media's efficiency and holding capacity performance.

 

[bbhero]

Great, great post Dnewton3.

That's why I don't buy the Fram Ultra anymore. I am just not going utilize it to it's true potential. Really not worth the extra cost to run it the way I am going to run it.
I like the Fram orange can, Fram TG, Wix black filter, Napa Gold if I ever decide to get a filter from Napa, Champion oil filter 7317 and the small 6607 STP XL oil filter. I am not running them forever and ever. But if I choose to run 12-15k miles the Wix black filter, Napa Gold and Champion oil filter would definitely be up to it.

 

[MrQuackers]

The wire backing gives some Iron Maiden piece of mind.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
" Did it ever occur to anyone that a larger quantity of smaller holes will assure the same net flow result? You know, several smaller 1/2" pipes can flow just as much volume as a larger 1" pipe. And several smaller faucets can flow as much as a large hydrant. "


Obviously it occurs to everyone. It's not several 1/2 pipes versus a 1 pipe, it is just a 1 pipe. A filter has a fixed size for flow based on the dimensions. You can't put 1/2 pipes inside a 1 pipe and get more flow. Did it ever occur to some people a faucet turned open all the way has one big hole in the opening, yet if they turn the handle down, the same opening gets smaller because there is a solid part now in the hole? Without filter mesh will be less restrictive than with mesh. Bigger holes mean less restriction per total area with equal fiber diameters. Finer holes means more material blocks the path, equal fibers. That's why people ask if a finer filter restricts more, an honest question. Not ridiculous at all.
Does it occur to some people a question mark doesn't mean the words are stating their conclusion, but it means someone an honest question? Questions are allowed in learning, even if someone thinks they are smarter than the question. It's a good thing teachers don't tell children their ideas are ridiculous.

You still don't understand ...
I was not talking about putting 1/2" pipes inside a 1" pipe. I am talking about total flow based upon area. In a traditional filter, don't confuse the topics of total are inside the can, with the topic of surface area the media, versus pore area. Three different things there.

What I am referring to is the area of pore size, relative to how much volume it will flow.

See these two images; they are based on a surface filter concept (not depth media)





In the images, the black lines represent filter fibers, the white area is the "pore". The width of the black line is representing the fiber size; cellulose media has thicker fibers; syn media has thinner fibers. Because syn media has thinner fibers, it can also provide more holes, for any given total available surface area.


In the first image, the "hole" (pore) shall represent 4 squares (inches, cm, mm, etc; pick a Unit of Measure you like).
There are 56 "holes", each with "4" square units; hence 224 sqr units of open flow space.


In the second image, the "hole" (pore) shall represent 1.15 squares (choose your UoM).
There are 195 of them, multiples by 1.15; the total is also 224 sqr units for open flow space.


By having thinner fibers, but also more holes, synthetic media can reduce the pore size for a finer resolution in particulate capture ratio (efficiency), and yet have the same flow rating. There are certainly things that also play into this; you get into laminar flow criteria, surface tension, boundary layers, etc. But the concept is clean and valid. That is the point I make.

The only time a filter would be "more restrictive" is if the fiber size was held constant, and the pore size closed down. THEN AND ONLY THEN, would a filter loose flow capacity. But that's not the topic here; we're talking about comparing a cellulose filter with 99% (TG example) to a syn media with depth filtration at 99% (FU example). And the Wix filters are not even rated at the same efficiency, and so any comparison is essentially invalid because the starting point isn't the same; contrasting 95% to 50%.

Your extended example of my pipe example is flawed; you're only looking at it from the perspective of the pore size. I'm looking at it from the perspective of available surface area relative to fiber width AND pore size. More holes, even though smaller, will flow the same volume. People that don't get this, don't get basic geometry.


Also, in surface loading, as I said earlier, as pores load up, they help efficiency by restricting size entrants, but not necessaryily harming flow.
An example would be holding a soft-ball against a chain-link fence. Although the "pore" is smaller than the soft-ball, fluid can still pass around that ball through the "hole" despite the presence of the ball (the ball representing a particle and the hole a "pore" in media). Different sized particles will be caught; some will barely fit into the hole, others will tightly fit. Depending upon the disparity of particle to pore size, that pore can still flow "clean" oil around the edges of the particle. And, because the resulting area is "smaller", the filter becomes more efficient at particulate capture size. Surface media filters works great, and can last a long time. It's just not able to last as long as depth-media filtering. Depth media filtering uses this same concept in a three-dimensional manner.

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
" Did it ever occur to anyone that a larger quantity of smaller holes will assure the same net flow result? You know, several smaller 1/2" pipes can flow just as much volume as a larger 1" pipe. And several smaller faucets can flow as much as a large hydrant. "


Obviously it occurs to everyone. It's not several 1/2 pipes versus a 1 pipe, it is just a 1 pipe. A filter has a fixed size for flow based on the dimensions. You can't put 1/2 pipes inside a 1 pipe and get more flow. Did it ever occur to some people a faucet turned open all the way has one big hole in the opening, yet if they turn the handle down, the same opening gets smaller because there is a solid part now in the hole? Without filter mesh will be less restrictive than with mesh. Bigger holes mean less restriction per total area with equal fiber diameters. Finer holes means more material blocks the path, equal fibers. That's why people ask if a finer filter restricts more, an honest question. Not ridiculous at all.
Does it occur to some people a question mark doesn't mean the words are stating their conclusion, but it means someone an honest question? Questions are allowed in learning, even if someone thinks they are smarter than the question. It's a good thing teachers don't tell children their ideas are ridiculous.

You still don't understand ...
I was not talking about putting 1/2" pipes inside a 1" pipe. I am talking about total flow based upon area. In a traditional filter, don't confuse the topics of total are inside the can, with the topic of surface area the media, versus pore area. Three different things there.

What I am referring to is the area of pore size, relative to how much volume it will flow.

See these two images; they are based on a surface filter concept (not depth media)





In the images, the black lines represent filter fibers, the white area is the "pore". The width of the black line is representing the fiber size; cellulose media has thicker fibers; syn media has thinner fibers. Because syn media has thinner fibers, it can also provide more holes, for any given total available surface area.


In the first image, the "hole" (pore) shall represent 4 squares (inches, cm, mm, etc; pick a Unit of Measure you like).
There are 56 "holes", each with "4" square units; hence 224 sqr units of open flow space.


In the second image, the "hole" (pore) shall represent 1.15 squares (choose your UoM).
There are 195 of them, multiples by 1.15; the total is also 224 sqr units for open flow space.


By having thinner fibers, but also more holes, synthetic media can reduce the pore size for a finer resolution in particulate capture ratio (efficiency), and yet have the same flow rating. There are certainly things that also play into this; you get into laminar flow criteria, surface tension, boundary layers, etc. But the concept is clean and valid. That is the point I make.

The only time a filter would be "more restrictive" is if the fiber size was held constant, and the pore size closed down. THEN AND ONLY THEN, would a filter loose flow capacity. But that's not the topic here; we're talking about comparing a cellulose filter with 99% (TG example) to a syn media with depth filtration at 99% (FU example). And the Wix filters are not even rated at the same efficiency, and so any comparison is essentially invalid because the starting point isn't the same; contrasting 95% to 50%.

Your extended example of my pipe example is flawed; you're only looking at it from the perspective of the pore size. I'm looking at it from the perspective of available surface area relative to fiber width AND pore size. More holes, even though smaller, will flow the same volume. People that don't get this, don't get basic geometry.


Also, in surface loading, as I said earlier, as pores load up, they help efficiency by restricting size entrants, but not necessaryily harming flow.
An example would be holding a soft-ball against a chain-link fence. Although the "pore" is smaller than the soft-ball, fluid can still pass around that ball through the "hole" despite the presence of the ball (the ball representing a particle and the hole a "pore" in media). Different sized particles will be caught; some will barely fit into the hole, others will tightly fit. Depending upon the disparity of particle to pore size, that pore can still flow "clean" oil around the edges of the particle. And, because the resulting area is "smaller", the filter becomes more efficient at particulate capture size. Surface media filters works great, and can last a long time. It's just not able to last as long as depth-media filtering. Depth media filtering uses this same concept in a three-dimensional manner.



There it is again, the personal quips. Not the subject. I said equal diameter fibers, and what I said was 100% right. There is only one filter surface area in the can for the discussion, not three things going on.
All media is depth filtering. Infinite cylinders of varying "mesh." There is no infinitely thin media.
Obviously making the fibers larger restricts the flow, as does more fibers of the same size. That's why I wrote same size. The person's question was if the Ultra flows well enough given the fine filtration. Good question, have to rely on Fram saying it does. it is possible for synthetic filters to not be full flow capable. There was a question mark in the topic, no wonder the person said "*don't allow questions"

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
The person's question was if the Ultra flows well enough given the fine filtration.


Answer was yes, and data given to back it up. Even the old yellow PureOne flowed very well (despite years of internet false claims it was "restrictive") and Purolator claimed it was 99.9% @ 20 microns per ISO 4548-12.

 

[WhizkidTN]

Originally Posted By: bbhero
Great, great post Dnewton3.

That's why I don't buy the Fram Ultra anymore. I am just not going utilize it to it's true potential. Really not worth the extra cost to run it the way I am going to run it.
I like the Fram orange can, Fram TG, Wix black filter, Napa Gold if I ever decide to get a filter from Napa, Champion oil filter 7317 and the small 6607 STP XL oil filter. I am not running them forever and ever. But if I choose to run 12-15k miles the Wix black filter, Napa Gold and Champion oil filter would definitely be up to it.


Extra cost?? The FRAM Ultra can be had for less than $10 at Wal-Mart. My OCI is ~4K miles due to OEM recommendations for my Optima SX. I'm very cool with that price!