Interesting read regarding the efficiency of cellulose vs synthetic/glad media

Status
Not open for further replies.
That article is wrong. It says cellulose captures more dirt before clogging than synthetic fibers. Notice it was written by a representative of cellulose oil filter makers. No surprise. Just look at 4548-12 performance of the Fram Ultra or maybe look at Royal Purple & Amsoil EaO.
 
Originally Posted by oil_film_movies
That article is wrong. It says cellulose captures more dirt before clogging than synthetic fibers. Notice it was written by a representative of cellulose oil filter makers. No surprise. Just look at 4548-12 performance of the Fram Ultra or maybe look at Royal Purple & Amsoil EaO.


Yep ... Donaldson has some very good write-up on the differences between full synthetic, synthetic blend and cellulose filter media.
 
Originally Posted by oil_film_movies
That article is wrong. It says cellulose captures more dirt before clogging than synthetic fibers. Notice it was written by a representative of cellulose oil filter makers. No surprise. Just look at 4548-12 performance of the Fram Ultra or maybe look at Royal Purple & Amsoil EaO.


Yeah that part dosent seem to add up. But is it more efficient in early use? And is there a lot to be said for the blended medias? I sorta think so.
Also to whatever degree it might be useful a cellulose media will remove moisture. I don't know how well or how much.
 
Good article. It's what someone has been saying here for some years, cellulose fibers themselves can absorb particles, very fine ones, while slick synthetics can't. That's why if the sentence is read in context, cellulose fibers can extract more dirt from the oil while the surrounding pores remain open than synthetic fibers. Synthetic fibers are something like fishing line, they don't absorb and are smooth and slippery so dirt doesn't stick. The filtering is done solely by the holes made from crisscrossing of the fibers. Synthetic filters often have listed higher capacity for other reasons like they have more depth I believe. But down on the micro scale a cellulose fiber catches more just because of what it is.
 
Per the Cummins/Fleetguard training pitch, full synthetic media ("microglass") is still better in every way, expect it's more expensive to make. Cellulose media absorbing water is actually detrimental to it's performance, not just something that makes the pleats wavy.
 
Originally Posted by goodtimes
Good article. It's what someone has been saying here for some years, cellulose fibers themselves can absorb particles, very fine ones, while slick synthetics can't. That's why if the sentence is read in context, cellulose fibers can extract more dirt from the oil while the surrounding pores remain open than synthetic fibers. Synthetic fibers are something like fishing line, they don't absorb and are smooth and slippery so dirt doesn't stick. The filtering is done solely by the holes made from crisscrossing of the fibers. Synthetic filters often have listed higher capacity for other reasons like they have more depth I believe. But down on the micro scale a cellulose fiber catches more just because of what it is.

Nice interpretation thanks. It makes more sense.
 
So a hybrid cellulose outside media and synthetic inner media would be the best bet?
smile.gif
 
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
So a hybrid cellulose outside media and synthetic inner media would be the best bet?
smile.gif


That's s novel idea.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top