Recent Topics
Do wheel bearings go bad from static loads?
by Deontologist. 07/22/19 03:06 AM
Any upgrades worth it or USB dock suggestion
by bowlofturtle. 07/21/19 11:00 PM
Tesla 3 Wheels -- Interesting Case
by Y_K. 07/21/19 10:56 PM
Dewalt Glock or Cat? Maybe OSHA colored?
by Marco620. 07/21/19 10:39 PM
Good petroleum free tire dressing ?
by JDMiller. 07/21/19 07:52 PM
2008 Infiniti G37 P0011 and P0524
by The Critic. 07/21/19 07:23 PM
Zamboni
by Snagglefoot. 07/21/19 07:18 PM
air filter for rav4 hybrid
by NH73. 07/21/19 07:16 PM
MB C250 driver seat bottom cover replacement
by The Critic. 07/21/19 06:56 PM
Centric PQ Pro Brake Pads
by The Critic. 07/21/19 06:43 PM
Latency on fiber connectivity to Internet
by Donald. 07/21/19 05:41 PM
102K on Plugs - '13 Chevy Cruze LS
by 99Saturn. 07/21/19 03:38 PM
Shop light LED conversion bone head move.
by JTK. 07/21/19 02:27 PM
The Hunt Begins...
by MCompact. 07/21/19 02:10 PM
Cambodia Forest, River and Beach.
by Voleak. 07/21/19 02:01 PM
Foxwoods Resorts Casino 301 at NHMS
by bdcardinal. 07/21/19 01:29 PM
2017 Ram 1500 rear brake lines
by LAGA. 07/21/19 01:27 PM
yacco oils, better than motul (xcess)?
by pep808. 07/21/19 01:22 PM
Scotty K. has finally let me down
by Lolvoguy. 07/21/19 01:03 PM
Exxon/Mobil Synergy Supreme +
by incognito_2u. 07/21/19 12:51 PM
Newest Members
samrter, Smarter6, VintageOilGuy, Kcpaz, Albush1
68730 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
18 registered members (4WD, CJWinWA, Deontologist, bmod305, cjolson140, Bailes1992, 1 invisible), 634 guests, and 19 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums67
Topics292,214
Posts5,019,040
Members68,730
Most Online2,967
Mar 10th, 2019
Donate to BITOG
Hop To
Page 1 of 2 1 2
90915-YZZD3 particle count - ISO code 24/23/15 #5144137
06/25/19 10:12 PM
06/25/19 10:12 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 949
Colorado
newtoncd8 Offline OP
newtoncd8  Offline OP

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 949
Colorado
After seeing DuckRyders ISO code 24/23/15 for both the Fram Ultra and the HAMP filter, I sent in for a UOA from our RX330 -- I got back the same ISO code.

Oil had 5,659 miles, RX330 has 245,000+, Oil was PPHM 5W30, Filter was (oversized) 90915-YZZD3.

Intend to get a TG and try it at some point.

For those interested, full UOA posted to the UOA section.

[Linked Image]




12 Jeep GC, 04 Lexus RX330, 77 MG-B
11 Audi A4, 01 Audi A4
99 Lexus ES300, 98 Isuzu Trooper
94 & 91 Acura Integra, 88 Toyota Camry,
84 Honda Accord, 70 Pontiac LeMans,
62 Ford Galaxy 500
Re: 90915-YZZD3 particle count - ISO code 24/23/15 [Re: newtoncd8] #5144141
06/25/19 10:15 PM
06/25/19 10:15 PM
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 21,343
PNW
ZeeOSix Offline
ZeeOSix  Offline

Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 21,343
PNW
Blackstone's PC test machine seems to be broken, lol.

Re: 90915-YZZD3 particle count - ISO code 24/23/15 [Re: newtoncd8] #5144152
06/25/19 10:33 PM
06/25/19 10:33 PM
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 916
Western Canada
geeman789 Offline
geeman789  Offline

Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 916
Western Canada
Remarkably consistent ... or not.

The small particle ranges are pretty wide though. 24 equals 80 000 to 160 000 , 23 equals 40 000 to 80 000 ...

So MAYBE they are accurate ?


2011 SUBARU Impreza 5-door manual / 2016 HONDA Pilot / 2011 MAZDA 2 auto
Re: 90915-YZZD3 particle count - ISO code 24/23/15 [Re: ZeeOSix] #5144865
06/26/19 04:27 PM
06/26/19 04:27 PM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,158
Atlanta
DuckRyder Offline
DuckRyder  Offline

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,158
Atlanta
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Blackstone's PC test machine seems to be broken, lol.


Or might it be that things don’t work the way we suspect they do... ?


Robert
  • 2019 Volkswagen Jetta R-Line
  • 2005 Honda Civic Sedan
  • 1972 F100 Ranger XLT (390/C6/9” 3.50 Truetrac)
  • 2002 Ford Ranger XLT 4D Supercab 3.0L
Re: 90915-YZZD3 particle count - ISO code 24/23/15 [Re: DuckRyder] #5145136
06/26/19 09:27 PM
06/26/19 09:27 PM
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 21,343
PNW
ZeeOSix Offline
ZeeOSix  Offline

Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 21,343
PNW
Originally Posted by DuckRyder
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Blackstone's PC test machine seems to be broken, lol.

Or might it be that things don’t work the way we suspect they do... ?


It's a bit perplexing, because some of the PCs posted by members here seem to follow the rated ISO filter efficiency pretty well as you've seen by some of my plots of that data. To me, that doesn't seem to just be a coincidence. Something is going on, but hard to know what at this point.

Re: 90915-YZZD3 particle count - ISO code 24/23/15 [Re: DuckRyder] #5145196
06/26/19 11:17 PM
06/26/19 11:17 PM
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 6,457
Virginia
bbhero Offline
bbhero  Offline

Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 6,457
Virginia
Originally Posted by DuckRyder
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Blackstone's PC test machine seems to be broken, lol.


Or might it be that things don’t work the way we suspect they do... ?



I suspect that you may well be correct here...


Nissan Altima 3.5 Coupe
Carquest High mileage full synthetic 5w30
CQ blue 84356 Oil filter
"Treat your family like your friends and treat your friends like your family."
Re: 90915-YZZD3 particle count - ISO code 24/23/15 [Re: bbhero] #5145203
06/26/19 11:44 PM
06/26/19 11:44 PM
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 21,343
PNW
ZeeOSix Offline
ZeeOSix  Offline

Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 21,343
PNW
Originally Posted by bbhero
Originally Posted by DuckRyder
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Blackstone's PC test machine seems to be broken, lol.

Or might it be that things don’t work the way we suspect they do... ?

I suspect that you may well be correct here...


There's no reason beyond somw anomaly that a PC shouldn't be better with a more efficient filter. All the SAE papers that study filtration show a very good correlation between PC oil cleanliness and filter efficiency.

Some of the PC data off this site that I've plotted shows that expected correlation - even the Microguard showed better PC below the 15μ point like you'd expect. When filters rated at 50% @ 20μ or 99% @ 40μ have the same PC as filters rated at 99% @ 20μ then something is skewing the correlation. Maybe something is amiss at Blackstone. How is that test equipment calibrated, and how often?

Re: 90915-YZZD3 particle count - ISO code 24/23/15 [Re: ZeeOSix] #5145323
06/27/19 07:12 AM
06/27/19 07:12 AM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,158
Atlanta
DuckRyder Offline
DuckRyder  Offline

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,158
Atlanta
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by bbhero
Originally Posted by DuckRyder
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Blackstone's PC test machine seems to be broken, lol.

Or might it be that things don’t work the way we suspect they do... ?

I suspect that you may well be correct here...


There's no reason beyond somw anomaly that a PC shouldn't be better with a more efficient filter. All the SAE papers that study filtration show a very good correlation between PC oil cleanliness and filter efficiency.

Some of the PC data off this site that I've plotted shows that expected correlation - even the Microguard showed better PC below the 15μ point like you'd expect. When filters rated at 50% @ 20μ or 99% @ 40μ have the same PC as filters rated at 99% @ 20μ then something is skewing the correlation. Maybe something is amiss at Blackstone. How is that test equipment calibrated, and how often?


Call them or e-mail them and ask they will tell you.

I don’t think Blackstone is what is askew... I agree that something might be askew and if so it would be interesting to figure out what it is. It also could be that a lab created correlation does not necessarily translate into a real world correlation.


Robert
  • 2019 Volkswagen Jetta R-Line
  • 2005 Honda Civic Sedan
  • 1972 F100 Ranger XLT (390/C6/9” 3.50 Truetrac)
  • 2002 Ford Ranger XLT 4D Supercab 3.0L
Re: 90915-YZZD3 particle count - ISO code 24/23/15 [Re: DuckRyder] #5145658
06/27/19 03:02 PM
06/27/19 03:02 PM
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 21,343
PNW
ZeeOSix Offline
ZeeOSix  Offline

Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 21,343
PNW
Originally Posted by DuckRyder
I don’t think Blackstone is what is askew... I agree that something might be askew and if so it would be interesting to figure out what it is. It also could be that a lab created correlation does not necessarily translate into a real world correlation.


I see no reason why it wouldn't. It doesn't make sense that two filters on opposite ends of the filtering efficiency spectrum would give the same oil PC/cleanliness measurement. You've seen the SAE study plots in controlled tests I've posted before, and the oil PC data followed the filter rated efficiency very well. We may never know what the real reason is.

Re: 90915-YZZD3 particle count - ISO code 24/23/15 [Re: newtoncd8] #5145879
06/27/19 07:32 PM
06/27/19 07:32 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 949
Colorado
newtoncd8 Offline OP
newtoncd8  Offline OP

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 949
Colorado
I am new to this PC and don't see very much to compare the results to, but what are the chances that the 2011 Amsoil filter test is not accurate (or no longer accurate) and the Toyota OEM filter is better than most people report? Or am I not tracking correctly on the ISO code I got?

Last edited by newtoncd8; 06/27/19 07:40 PM.

12 Jeep GC, 04 Lexus RX330, 77 MG-B
11 Audi A4, 01 Audi A4
99 Lexus ES300, 98 Isuzu Trooper
94 & 91 Acura Integra, 88 Toyota Camry,
84 Honda Accord, 70 Pontiac LeMans,
62 Ford Galaxy 500
Re: 90915-YZZD3 particle count - ISO code 24/23/15 [Re: newtoncd8] #5145905
06/27/19 08:02 PM
06/27/19 08:02 PM
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 569
Fort Worth
Pinoak Offline
Pinoak  Offline

Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 569
Fort Worth

I've seen plenty of pc that show filters rated highly effective bay SAE not look better than a typical cellulose filter. It's probably got to do with multiple passes.
I no longer believe there is much benefit to spending extra on so called highly efficient filters.
High capacity filters can, ofcourse, be worth the extra cost but only if they are used for extended hours or miles. If I buy a M1 oil filter rated for 20k miles and I keep it in use for 20k mile or the equivalent in hours then that's money well spent. If a guy has an application that doesn't allow him to safely go the full distance or he just don't want to then to then it was a bad purchase and benefits him nothing.

Re: 90915-YZZD3 particle count - ISO code 24/23/15 [Re: newtoncd8] #5145943
06/27/19 08:56 PM
06/27/19 08:56 PM
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 21,343
PNW
ZeeOSix Offline
ZeeOSix  Offline

Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 21,343
PNW
Originally Posted by newtoncd8
I am new to this PC and don't see very much to compare the results to, but what are the chances that the 2011 Amsoil filter test is not accurate (or no longer accurate) and the Toyota OEM filter is better than most people report? Or am I not tracking correctly on the ISO code I got?


It's possible the Toyota Denso filter is better than 51% @ 20u per the independent ISO 4548-12 testing Amsoil published back in 2011.

But here is some PC data I posted from the UOA forum on BITOG, and this is how I'd expect the data to plot out showing a good correlation between the ISO 4548-12 rated efficiency and the PC data.

My theory on why some filters show a bad PC (DuckRyder's XG7317) vs their efficiency rating is because they are probably leaking somewhere past the media due to manufacturing issues (not design), or the methodology of the oil collection and/or test accuracy and repeatability is bad - that's the only things that makes sense. Other Ultras and similar high efficiency filters have shown good PC correlation with their rated efficiency. Open the uploaded PDF file for a better view of the plots.

Oil Filter ISO Particle Count Data Plots-3.JPG
Attached PDF document
Re: 90915-YZZD3 particle count - ISO code 24/23/15 [Re: newtoncd8] #5145948
06/27/19 09:14 PM
06/27/19 09:14 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 949
Colorado
newtoncd8 Offline OP
newtoncd8  Offline OP

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 949
Colorado
If I were to take a sample from the current YZZD3 filter I have on our RX330 at 2,500 miles, swap to a Tough Guard and run it for 2,500 miles, send in a sample and get a PC on each, that should be a good apples-to-apples comparison?

The other option is to remove the current filter (it only has about 500 miles on it), install a TG and run it for about 5,000 miles (to make an apples-to-apples for the test I posted above) and then get a PC.

Trying to decide which to implement.



12 Jeep GC, 04 Lexus RX330, 77 MG-B
11 Audi A4, 01 Audi A4
99 Lexus ES300, 98 Isuzu Trooper
94 & 91 Acura Integra, 88 Toyota Camry,
84 Honda Accord, 70 Pontiac LeMans,
62 Ford Galaxy 500
Re: 90915-YZZD3 particle count - ISO code 24/23/15 [Re: newtoncd8] #5145972
06/27/19 09:52 PM
06/27/19 09:52 PM
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 21,343
PNW
ZeeOSix Offline
ZeeOSix  Offline

Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 21,343
PNW
Originally Posted by newtoncd8
If I were to take a sample from the current YZZD3 filter I have on our RX330 at 2,500 miles, swap to a Tough Guard and run it for 2,500 miles, send in a sample and get a PC on each, that should be a good apples-to-apples comparison?

The other option is to remove the current filter (it only has about 500 miles on it), install a TG and run it for about 5,000 miles (to make an apples-to-apples for the test I posted above) and then get a PC.

Trying to decide which to implement.


I would think running the TG for the whole 5000 miles on the same engine would be a better comparison. Swapping to a TG now with only 500 miles on the oil and running it to 5000 miles shouldn't skew the results.

How are you taking the UOA samples?

Re: 90915-YZZD3 particle count - ISO code 24/23/15 [Re: newtoncd8] #5146138
06/28/19 05:53 AM
06/28/19 05:53 AM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,158
Atlanta
DuckRyder Offline
DuckRyder  Offline

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,158
Atlanta
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by newtoncd8
I am new to this PC and don't see very much to compare the results to, but what are the chances that the 2011 Amsoil filter test is not accurate (or no longer accurate) and the Toyota OEM filter is better than most people report? Or am I not tracking correctly on the ISO code I got?


It's possible the Toyota Denso filter is better than 51% @ 20u per the independent ISO 4548-12 testing Amsoil published back in 2011.


Unless the filter design has changed since the test I sort of doubt it.

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
But here is some PC data I posted from the UOA forum on BITOG, and this is how I'd expect the data to plot out showing a good correlation between the ISO 4548-12 rated efficiency and the PC data.


My problem with this (which you well know) is that if you only plot the data that supports your hypothesis the data will always support your hypothesis.

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
My theory on why some filters show a bad PC (DuckRyder's XG7317) vs their efficiency rating is because they are probably leaking somewhere past the media due to manufacturing issues (not design), or the methodology of the oil collection and/or test accuracy and repeatability is bad - that's the only things that makes sense. Other Ultras and similar high efficiency filters have shown good PC correlation with their rated efficiency. Open the uploaded PDF file for a better view of the plots.


We’ve been over all this as well. There were no signs of defects in the filter. No one mentioned seeing any either when it was posted. I believe it would be MUCH more likely that sampling methodology would create a low PC vs high. I did confirming follow up PC on both the Ultra and Hamp. My data is clean, it is at least as good as any other data here. Still, it is only 2 filters on one car, so it only tells us how those particular filters performed on that car.

In order to prove or disprove any correlation we would need much more data collected using a consistent procedure.


Originally Posted by newtoncd8
If I were to take a sample from the current YZZD3 filter I have on our RX330 at 2,500 miles, swap to a Tough Guard and run it for 2,500 miles, send in a sample and get a PC on each, that should be a good apples-to-apples comparison?

The other option is to remove the current filter (it only has about 500 miles on it), install a TG and run it for about 5,000 miles (to make an apples-to-apples for the test I posted above) and then get a PC.

Trying to decide which to implement.



When I originally embarked on the PC counts part of what I wanted to try to figure out was if filters really do get more efficient as miles pass, which seems to be a common belief. You could actually do both, run your Toyota filter for 2500 miles take a sample, change the filter to a TG and sample it at 2500 then again at 5000. The oil should have no problem going 7500.



After going back and looking at your UOA, I notice the Lexus has high mileage, as does the Civic. This is another thing thats been in the back of my head,,, The filter can’t catch what the engine doesn’t produce. It may be that PC counts from newer engines are going to be inherently lower than those from higher mileage engines... All variable that need to be considered.


Robert
  • 2019 Volkswagen Jetta R-Line
  • 2005 Honda Civic Sedan
  • 1972 F100 Ranger XLT (390/C6/9” 3.50 Truetrac)
  • 2002 Ford Ranger XLT 4D Supercab 3.0L
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Previous Thread
Index
Next Thread

BOB IS THE OIL GUY® Powered by UBB.threads™