Low micron filters and flow
- Thread starter Spitter
- Start date
- Status
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Synthetic media indeed flows better than paper.
You can start with reading this recent thread:
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/5023915/1
You can start with reading this recent thread:
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/5023915/1
Yes, synthetic media will offer less resistance to flow when compared to paper. The DP across the synthetic media will be less than for the paper media.
Data to validate the above guesses? I know about positive displacement oil pumps but, media can be bypassed. ED
Last edited:
I'm not gonna argue this. I'll be wise and agree with OBERKILL and his facts
Originally Posted by Eddie
Data to validate the above guesses? I know about positive displacement oil pumps but, media can be bypassed. ED
If you were possibly using God awful 20w50 or thick as molasses oil then I'd wager that's a possibility
Data to validate the above guesses? I know about positive displacement oil pumps but, media can be bypassed. ED
If you were possibly using God awful 20w50 or thick as molasses oil then I'd wager that's a possibility
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by Eddie
Data to validate the above guesses? I know about positive displacement oil pumps but, media can be bypassed. ED
What are guesses? in the thread I linked there are quotes from Cummins Filtration (Fleetguard) stating so.
And yes, media will be bypass if the differential created by the media exceeds the bypass pressure. A higher flowing media will create less of a differential resulting in fewer bypass events and potentially could result in no bypass events occurring.
Data to validate the above guesses? I know about positive displacement oil pumps but, media can be bypassed. ED
What are guesses? in the thread I linked there are quotes from Cummins Filtration (Fleetguard) stating so.
And yes, media will be bypass if the differential created by the media exceeds the bypass pressure. A higher flowing media will create less of a differential resulting in fewer bypass events and potentially could result in no bypass events occurring.
Originally Posted by Eddie
Data to validate the above guesses? I know about positive displacement oil pumps but, media can be bypassed. ED
Bypassing can result even if media is more free flowing ... it all depends on many other factors/conditions too. Filter bypassing will happen more often with more restrictive filters given all the other same conditions.
Data to validate the above guesses? I know about positive displacement oil pumps but, media can be bypassed. ED
Bypassing can result even if media is more free flowing ... it all depends on many other factors/conditions too. Filter bypassing will happen more often with more restrictive filters given all the other same conditions.
Originally Posted by Spitter
How do low micron filters such as a fram ultra or a wix or amsoil flow compared to a cheaper filter like ac delco or microguard? Would synthetic media really flow better than paper?
When I asked the Jay (The Fram guy) about the Ultra for my PentaStar he said that it flows double the gallons per minute that Chrysler requires, it is also rated at 32k KM (20K miles). Good enough for me and they claim slightly better efficiency than the Amsoil filters which I was using previously. The Ultra is 1/2 the cost for me so I'm sticking with those.
How do low micron filters such as a fram ultra or a wix or amsoil flow compared to a cheaper filter like ac delco or microguard? Would synthetic media really flow better than paper?
When I asked the Jay (The Fram guy) about the Ultra for my PentaStar he said that it flows double the gallons per minute that Chrysler requires, it is also rated at 32k KM (20K miles). Good enough for me and they claim slightly better efficiency than the Amsoil filters which I was using previously. The Ultra is 1/2 the cost for me so I'm sticking with those.
Last edited:
dnewton3
Staff member
I would agree that syn media may flow a tad bit more for any given loading and duration of use. A tad bit, not a lot.
There is one underlying questions here ....
Does the filter(s) of choice flow enough for your application and intended FCI??
I'd have to say that any filter, regardless of media, is going to flow WAY more than the pump is going to put out. You may get a slightly lower flow rate (I mean really low difference), perhaps due to a slightly higher dP (minimal difference, again), contrasting the cellulose to syn media choices. But those delta values are essentially worthless to anyone other than the anan-retentive BITOGer who cares more about spec sheet data than how the product actually works in his/her application. Most any filter will flow perhaps 2x the required volume for any given rpm, as a generalization. So if filter A will flow 4.1 gpm with syn media and filter B flows 4.0 gpm at some stated rpm, at temp 200F, but your engine is only putting out 2.3 gpm under those conditions, then why does it freakin' matter? Either filter is way more capable than the pump.
Too many of you go into battle with only half the information that it takes to make an intelligent decision.
You not only need to know what the filter is capable of doing, but also what the pump is capable of supplying.
Shame be upon you all; you should know better!
I've not seen any data that ever suggests the oil filters are anywhere near the restriction many want to believe. The syn vs cellulose media debate is no different than the syn vs. dino oil debate. People love to bench race what's in the box or bottle, and pay no attention to what the actual conditions present and how the results tell the tale of what success or failure looks like.
It is distinctly possible that a cellulose filter would eventually load up to near it's limit and see the dP escalate before syn media filter would do so. I would agree with that. But considering I've run OFCIs on "normal" filters out to 15k miles, and the subsequent UOAs, PCs and filter autopsy all show nothing at all was wrong, I've convinced myself the heretical attitude against normal products is way overblown. Normal products (cellulose filters and conventional oils) have WAY, WAY more capacity to perform than most folks think. I routinely run my OFCIs out to 2x and 3x of the OEM stated limits, and yet all the data shows no issues whatsoever.
Will a syn media filter flow a tad more? Yes.
Will it make a difference in your wear control for a "normal" application? No way in Hades.
There is one underlying questions here ....
Does the filter(s) of choice flow enough for your application and intended FCI??
I'd have to say that any filter, regardless of media, is going to flow WAY more than the pump is going to put out. You may get a slightly lower flow rate (I mean really low difference), perhaps due to a slightly higher dP (minimal difference, again), contrasting the cellulose to syn media choices. But those delta values are essentially worthless to anyone other than the anan-retentive BITOGer who cares more about spec sheet data than how the product actually works in his/her application. Most any filter will flow perhaps 2x the required volume for any given rpm, as a generalization. So if filter A will flow 4.1 gpm with syn media and filter B flows 4.0 gpm at some stated rpm, at temp 200F, but your engine is only putting out 2.3 gpm under those conditions, then why does it freakin' matter? Either filter is way more capable than the pump.
Too many of you go into battle with only half the information that it takes to make an intelligent decision.
You not only need to know what the filter is capable of doing, but also what the pump is capable of supplying.
Shame be upon you all; you should know better!
I've not seen any data that ever suggests the oil filters are anywhere near the restriction many want to believe. The syn vs cellulose media debate is no different than the syn vs. dino oil debate. People love to bench race what's in the box or bottle, and pay no attention to what the actual conditions present and how the results tell the tale of what success or failure looks like.
It is distinctly possible that a cellulose filter would eventually load up to near it's limit and see the dP escalate before syn media filter would do so. I would agree with that. But considering I've run OFCIs on "normal" filters out to 15k miles, and the subsequent UOAs, PCs and filter autopsy all show nothing at all was wrong, I've convinced myself the heretical attitude against normal products is way overblown. Normal products (cellulose filters and conventional oils) have WAY, WAY more capacity to perform than most folks think. I routinely run my OFCIs out to 2x and 3x of the OEM stated limits, and yet all the data shows no issues whatsoever.
Will a syn media filter flow a tad more? Yes.
Will it make a difference in your wear control for a "normal" application? No way in Hades.
Originally Posted by dnewton3
Too many of you go into battle with only half the information that it takes to make an intelligent decision.
Sounds like a good signature line - lol.
Originally Posted by dnewton3
I've not seen any data that ever suggests the oil filters are anywhere near the restriction many want to believe.
I'm sure many here have seen this graph a few times. This is a Purolator PureOne which everyone thought was "too restrictive" because it was very efficient. This is with hot oil of course, and we all know the curve will be shifted up quite a bit with cold thick oil. This is a pretty good flowing filter ... only 4 PSI of delta-p at 10 GPM. Not many stock street cars can pump that much oil - most will be more like in the 6-7 GPM max realm. Most oil filters will flow not too far from what this curve shows (see 2nd plot). So yeah, when the oil is hot almost any filter is going to have a pretty low delta-p at max pump output.
Too many of you go into battle with only half the information that it takes to make an intelligent decision.
Sounds like a good signature line - lol.
Originally Posted by dnewton3
I've not seen any data that ever suggests the oil filters are anywhere near the restriction many want to believe.
I'm sure many here have seen this graph a few times. This is a Purolator PureOne which everyone thought was "too restrictive" because it was very efficient. This is with hot oil of course, and we all know the curve will be shifted up quite a bit with cold thick oil. This is a pretty good flowing filter ... only 4 PSI of delta-p at 10 GPM. Not many stock street cars can pump that much oil - most will be more like in the 6-7 GPM max realm. Most oil filters will flow not too far from what this curve shows (see 2nd plot). So yeah, when the oil is hot almost any filter is going to have a pretty low delta-p at max pump output.
Originally Posted by dnewton3
... I've not seen any data that ever suggests the oil filters are anywhere near the restriction many want to believe. ... People love to bench race what's in the box or bottle, and pay no attention to what the actual conditions present and how the results tell the tale of what success or failure looks like.
... I routinely run my OFCIs out to 2x and 3x of the OEM stated limits, and yet all the data shows no issues whatsoever.
Likewise, and thanks for regularly (as well as in this thread) reminding folks of the obvious.
... I've not seen any data that ever suggests the oil filters are anywhere near the restriction many want to believe. ... People love to bench race what's in the box or bottle, and pay no attention to what the actual conditions present and how the results tell the tale of what success or failure looks like.
... I routinely run my OFCIs out to 2x and 3x of the OEM stated limits, and yet all the data shows no issues whatsoever.
Likewise, and thanks for regularly (as well as in this thread) reminding folks of the obvious.
dnewton3
Staff member
As always, Zee, you at least come to the table with data and facts to bolster the discussion. Although we don't always agree on an end result, I respect the effort you put into the discussion; always a quality effort and very often a convincing POV. Kudos to you!
I do get irritated at folks whom want to bench race oils and filters, but have ZERO idea of what the operational conditions are of their (insert equipment/machine here) and what the requirements are of the lube/filter to sustain the safe, effective life-cycle of that equipment. Having a debate regarding some feature or characteristic of a product (insert oil or filter here) has to be taken IN CONTEXT. No SANE person should care about which filter or media flows "more", when any decent filter on the market will FAR outflow what the pump puts out anyway. The debate is a moot point; neither cellulose or syn media would ever be restrictive in a "normal" application to a degree that would affect the engine safe operation.
In this thread, what does the OP mean when he states "low micron" filters? What is the criteria of good versus unacceptable flow? What is the expected life-cycle duration? Etc ... His assumption is that flow and filter efficiency are co-dependent. But that's not true. Whereas there is some likely relationship for a single product line, there are so many products on the market that it's too hard to say with a one sentence answer. It's entirely possible for a filter to be very efficient, and also made of glass-enhanced cellulose, and flow well. (Wix filter for the 6.7L PSD for one excellent example).
Hey - is the .30-'06 "better" than a .308win? I mean, they both have their pluses and minuses, right? One hits harder, the other flies flatter. But what length barrel are we talking about? Wind conditions? Bullet weight?
How about we ask this: What are you using it for?
Squirrel hunting ....
Then go get a .22LR
My point is that until we know the typical expected operational conditions of the situation we'll be in, having a debate about the products is stupid when the bounds have not been set.
Friday rant over; bring on the weekend. Let's see .... which beer is best?
I do get irritated at folks whom want to bench race oils and filters, but have ZERO idea of what the operational conditions are of their (insert equipment/machine here) and what the requirements are of the lube/filter to sustain the safe, effective life-cycle of that equipment. Having a debate regarding some feature or characteristic of a product (insert oil or filter here) has to be taken IN CONTEXT. No SANE person should care about which filter or media flows "more", when any decent filter on the market will FAR outflow what the pump puts out anyway. The debate is a moot point; neither cellulose or syn media would ever be restrictive in a "normal" application to a degree that would affect the engine safe operation.
In this thread, what does the OP mean when he states "low micron" filters? What is the criteria of good versus unacceptable flow? What is the expected life-cycle duration? Etc ... His assumption is that flow and filter efficiency are co-dependent. But that's not true. Whereas there is some likely relationship for a single product line, there are so many products on the market that it's too hard to say with a one sentence answer. It's entirely possible for a filter to be very efficient, and also made of glass-enhanced cellulose, and flow well. (Wix filter for the 6.7L PSD for one excellent example).
Hey - is the .30-'06 "better" than a .308win? I mean, they both have their pluses and minuses, right? One hits harder, the other flies flatter. But what length barrel are we talking about? Wind conditions? Bullet weight?
How about we ask this: What are you using it for?
Squirrel hunting ....
Then go get a .22LR
My point is that until we know the typical expected operational conditions of the situation we'll be in, having a debate about the products is stupid when the bounds have not been set.
Friday rant over; bring on the weekend. Let's see .... which beer is best?
Last edited:
I'm looking at this same situation. I can get Wix XP filters (51042xp) for about $2.50 cheaper than the Fram Ultra XG3506 filters.
Oil filters all flow the same low or high micron unless the oil pump relief valve opens or the pump has wear. If talking restriction, differential pressure, using a synthetic with uniform fibers that are smooth and slippery should lower it.
DP goes up when the owner allows a filter to get dirty. So if you like lowest restriction, change the filter of choice before it starts to restrict more. Seems like an obvious statement. Oil filters aren't changing the flow they are like any other restriction in the oil circuit.
See the leaders graphs and explanations, that's where I learned.
DP goes up when the owner allows a filter to get dirty. So if you like lowest restriction, change the filter of choice before it starts to restrict more. Seems like an obvious statement. Oil filters aren't changing the flow they are like any other restriction in the oil circuit.
See the leaders graphs and explanations, that's where I learned.
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Mentioning the obvious is even better when actual test data supports the obvious.
My point was to thank dnewton3 for having the patience to repeatedly explain facts we all should've comprehended long ago. Good test data always supports sound logic.
Mentioning the obvious is even better when actual test data supports the obvious.
My point was to thank dnewton3 for having the patience to repeatedly explain facts we all should've comprehended long ago. Good test data always supports sound logic.
Resistance to flow is futile.
All oil filters will pass oil and the filter bypass valve is insurance. The oil pump will go up to it's pump bypass and ramp down or seals will blow. But low micron filters are a good thing, just the flow issue is over stressed.
All oil filters will pass oil and the filter bypass valve is insurance. The oil pump will go up to it's pump bypass and ramp down or seals will blow. But low micron filters are a good thing, just the flow issue is over stressed.
- Status
Similar threads
